Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

WAT WE SHOULD KNOW ABOUT HINDU RELIGION

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    WAT WE SHOULD KNOW ABOUT HINDU RELIGION

    Regarding the religion referred to as `Hinduism', JAWAHARLAL NEHRU said in his "THE DISCOVERY OF INDIA" (Page 37):

    "HINDUISM as a faith is vague, amorphous, many sided, all things to all men. It is hardly possible to define it, or indeed to say definitely whether it is a religion or not, in the usual sense of the word. In its present form, and even in the past, it embraces many beliefs and practices, from the highest to the lowest, often opposed to or contradicting each other."

    In his autobiography, Dr. Charles, an American scholar says that it is very simple to define a Hindu. He says a Hindu means "one who believes anything and everything if said in the name of God and shall never question its authenticity".

    From ancient days Indian
    culture had been secular. Our first and most important books, the Vedas,
    gave no basis to the caste system which is posing a serious danger to our
    present-day society. It is false propaganda that Aryans were Hindus. In the
    Vedas we do not find the word 'Hindu'.

    Hinduism as a religion never existed in Aryan society, and was recognised
    as a religion much later. This land gave birth to Buddhism and Jainism of
    which we can really feel proud. They taught us non-violence and peace. With
    the concept of equality and honesty, Islam was welcomed in India. Later in
    the 16th century we notice strong religious movements like the Bhakti
    movement, 'Sufism' and 'Sikhism' with the message of love and tolerance.
    How can we forget the teachings of these religions and movements which made
    us tolerant and live proudly with the unity-in-diversity philosophy?
    (By Ram Vilas Paswan)
    Hindustan Times, Thursday, February 25, 1999, New Delhi

    Hinduism did not exist before 1830. It was created by the English colonialsts in the 1830s. This remarkable circumstance is evidenced by the fact that none of the travellers who visited India before English rule used the word `Hindu' or `Sanatana'. This is amply borne out by the Encyclopedia Britannica, which states :
    " The term Hinduism ... [ was ] introduced in about 1830 by British writers. "
    -- [ EB 20 `Hinduism ' 519 ]

    In other words, the founding father of `Hinduism' is an Englishman !
    Nowhere in the Vedas, Puranas or any other religious text prior to 1830 AD are the terms `Hindu' or `Sanatana Dharma' used. Not a single inscription contains the terms `Hindu' or `Sanatana' prior to the Muslim era. The myth that Hinduism or Sanatana Dharma existed prior to this has been discarded in many theological circles, and the fantasy that Santana Dharma is `One Religion' has been abandoned -

    " The term "Hindusthan" was first used by a 12th century AD Afghan dynasty of Muhammad Ghori who dubbed his new subjects "Hindus". Prior to this era, no one in any region of South Asia had ever used these terms to define themselves."
    There is no mention of either of these terms in "ancient Brahmanical books (the oldest of which do not predate the 11th century; also the oldest "Brahmanical" temples are all post Buddhist, after 8-9th century A.D.). Ironically, two of the three core concepts of the Poorbia Brahmanist imperialistic program of "Hindu and Hindusthan" are borrowed from post-12th century Muslim (Afghan and Mogul) regimes."
    - [ Khals ]

    In recent years has arisen the movement for a revival of Dravidian religion. Two of the main proponents of this movement have exploded the fallacy of the `Sanatana Dharma' concept invented by a European-Smarta-Brahmin conspiracy as follows -
    " We are cognizant of the fact that the term 'Hindu religion' can not be found before the arrival of the Europeans in India. We are also aware of the fact that it was the Europeans who coined the term 'Hindu religion' to denote the Indian religions that were originated in India and followed by the Indians.

    Since the term 'Hindu religion' denotes all the religions of India together, it cannot refer to any particular religion. And since the term 'Hindu religion' consists of many religions which have different doctrines and are contrary to each other, there will be leaders for each religion and there cannot be a common leader for all the religions since they are controversial to each other.
    For instance, how can there be a common leader for both Buddhism and Saivism, which are contrary to each other

    Indeed, the Aryan race of Brahmins were never the leaders of any of the religions of Dravidian religion, Kolarian religion, Buddhism or Jainism. They were only the leaders of the 6 orthodox schools of Brahmanism, which includes Vedism and Vaishnavism -
    " History reveals that the Europeans coined the term Hindu religion and saw nothing wrong in doing so. "
    -- [ Dev ]
    Hinduism is hence an invention of the Europeans, nothing more and nothing less.

    It should more properly be subdivided into the religions of Brahmanism and Shaivism, Shaktism, Tantrism and Saurism.

    According to Jawaharlal Nehru, the earliest reference to the word 'Hindu' can be traced to a Tantrik book of the eighth century C.E., where the word means a people, and not the followers of a particular religion. The use of the word 'Hindu' in connection with a particular religion is of a very late occurrence [ Nehru, p.74-75 ].
    The English census-compilers were assigned the daunting task of conducting the Indian head-count by the British government. These people were not theologians, and coined the term `Hindu' as a blanket term to encompass several religions. Thus a `Hindu' was defined in the Census as anybody who was not Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, or Jain. It was thus an exclusivist term: Hinduism was defined by what it was not, and not by what it was.

    Indeed, the concept of Hinduism was invented by the English with the ulterior motive of making their loyal servents, the Aryan Brahmins, the rulers of India.
    " The Europeans who came to India in 1498 A.D. for the purpose of establishing trade became the rulers of India. History reveals that the Aryan Brahmins were the supporters and assistants for the Europeans to capture the political power of India and enslave the Indians . It is a political strategy to befriend the traitors within a country in order to get its secrets and capture its political power. "
    -- [ Dev ]
    All the invasions of India by foreigners were engineered by the Brahmins. They actively collaborated with the Portuguese, helping them to conquer large parts of India. The offices of the Mughal empire were full of Brahmin conspirators. A full one-third of the British Bengal army was Brahmin.
    If the history of India is analyzed, it is revealed that the Aryan Brahmins have acted as the traitors through the ages. They also betrayed India to the Europeans. The term Aryans denote the group of people who came to India in different periods without any religion, "
    -- [ Dev ]
    India obtained Independance from Anglo-Brahmin and Brahmin-Portuguese rule in 1947. However, the new state that arose was merely a neo-Brahminist casteocracy. One of the main `threats' to the integrity of the new Aryan Brahmin-ruled republic was the spectre of Dravidian Nationalism. The Sudroids (Dravidoids and Kolarians) represent the original inhabitants of India, who were later subjugated by the Aryan invaders. They form the overwhelming majority in Southern India, and strong demands existed for a separate Dravidian nation. Ambedkar and many others fought for recognition of the Dravidian Religion as separate from the Hindu religion, but M.K.Gandhi foiled these attempts, and succeeded in temporarily subverting the Dravidians in Hinduism. The British were reluctant to recognise the Dravidian religion, since it would have antagonised their Brahmin collaborators. This is one of the prime motives behind the invention of Hinduism- The creation of Hinduism suited the missionaries who did not have to deal with any Indian theological system. Christianity historically made the greatest inroads in `pagan' (ie. religions lacking a developed sustem of theology) regions, while failing in areas where `devoloped' religions like Islam, Confucianism, etc. By creating Hinduism and submerging thereby Vaishnavism, Jainism, Buddhism, Saurism, etc. into `One Great Pagan Religion' they had to deal with `merely another pagan cult'. Hence, `Hinduism' served the interests of the Christian missionaries.

    English colonial rule was justified by the rule of `Whites' over `non-Whites'. Accepting the existence of `Aryans' in India would have meant a nullification of this justification, since a sizeable fraction of India's population would be `white' and would not require `white' Anglo-Saxon rule. The submergence of Indo-Aryans as `Hindus' served to suppress this menace to British rule. The early Arya Samajists realised this attempt to subvert the identitiy of Aryans. and staunchly opposed the use of the word `Hindu'; a move equally opposed by the British. By denying `white' status to Indo-Aryans (a fact since proven by genetics). the English justified rule over `non-whites'. The Rajputs are descendants of the Scythians, Greeks, and other immigrants who entered India just prior to the rise of the Indo-Islamic Caliphate of Delhi. Throughout their history they followed their Solar religions (`saura' cults), independant of any Aryan Vaishnavite Brahmans. Yet the invention of Hinduism served to subvert Saura religion as well.
    Noted Sikh author G.S.Khalsa has amply pointed out the manner in which Hinduism was invented :
    " The Brahmanists came to power on the Congress elephant by deviously converting the pre-independence political debate and struggle into a communal Hindu-Muslim religious struggle. This was made possible by the master stroke of Mahatama Gandhi - the Hindu nationalist cum holy sadhu who made "Hindus" a 55% majority on paper in the 1920s upon getting the Dalits or "untouchables" (20%) dubbed as "Hindus" by the British. This coup moved the "Hindus" from 35% to a 55% majority in British India. In pre-independence India, Muslims were 25%, Sikhs/Christians/Buddhists/tribals/etc. formed the remaining 20%. This action, along with recognition of Congress as the sole political representative of all Indians in national matters, was a payoff by the British colonial authorities to the Brahmanist lead Congress and Gandhi for loyal services rendered to Queen and empire in supporting their WWI war effort; recruiting the "martial" communities (e.g. Sikhs, Jats, Rajputs, Gujars of Saka-origin) of the northwest and Muslims to go fight for the British Empire in Europe/middle east; subduing, opposing, infiltrating and sabotaging other non-Congress/non-Brahmanist lead political parties and independence movements organized at home (who saw British weakness during the war as an ideal opportunity). The 55% fraudulent "Hindu pile" was little more than a political game of Brahmanist politicians and political parties in Delhi while caste Hindus would not eat/touch/marry/socialize or even worship with their "polluted" Dalits (20% untouchables) in the 1920s. After this "victory on paper", Brahmanist politicians, political parties, and organizations totally communalized pre-independence politics along "Hindu/Muslim" religious lines of "nationhood" to get on the road to empire and Delhi. "
    -- [ Khals ]

    Indeed, Encyclopedia Britannica accepts that `Hinduism' is a blanket term covering several religions and does not refer to a single religion :
    " Hinduism is both a civilization and a congregation of religions ; it has neither a beginning nor a founder, nor a central authority, hierarchy or organization. Every attempt at a specific definition of Hinduism has prvoed unsatisfactory in one way or antoher."
    -- [ EB.20 `Hinduism' 519-520 ]


    CONCEPT OF VEGETARIANISM

    The concepts of vegetarianism and non-violence were invented by the Brahmins when they usurped absolute domination over India. These twin ideologies were designed to eat away at the very foundations of the non-Brahmin Aryan and Sudric peoples by denying these labouring peoples access to vital protein. As a consequence, significant democide occurred amongst the races subject to forced labour under the Brahmin yoke. The Brahmins, who did not partake of any menial jobs, did not suffer from vegetarianism.
    Whether widows can remarry is another point of wide disagreement. Widows can remarry freely in the Dravidian Religion, while Orthodox Aryan Vaishnavites deny even the basic human rights to widows, often enforcing the horrific rite of sati. Sati was introduced into India by the barbaric Aryan ivaders who destroyed India in ca. 1500 BC [ Sita ]. It was later on enforced by the bigoted Brahmins on the natives in order to destroy non-Brahmin womanhood by annihilating all abrahmana widows. Sati was never followed by the peace-loving Harappans or their descendants the Dravidians.

    SATTI

    Whether widows can remarry is another point of wide disagreement. Widows can remarry freely in the Dravidian Religion, while Orthodox Aryan Vaishnavites deny even the basic human rights to widows, often enforcing the horrific rite of sati. Sati was introduced into India by the barbaric Aryan ivaders who destroyed India in ca. 1500 BC [ Sita ]. It was later on enforced by the bigoted Brahmins on the natives in order to destroy non-Brahmin womanhood by annihilating all abrahmana widows. Sati was never followed by the peace-loving Harappans or their descendants the Dravidians.

    The Tantras condemn sati, while the 6 astika Brahmanist schools, including Orthodox Aryan Vaishnavites, enforce it with all its ferocity. Sati is the custom of burning widows at the funeral pyres of their husbands [ Sita ]. The number of women killed during Aryan Brahmanic-Vaishnavite rule exceeds the total number of war casualties in the 20th century and in fact is greater than the number of killed during the Sudra Holocaust
    ISKCON is a sect of Krishnaite Aryan Vaishnavism that recognises conversions of Europeans to Vaishnavism. However, these same devotees, supposed converts to Hinduism, and referred to as `neo-Hindus', are not allowed inside Vaishnavite temples ! The Jagannath temple at Puri, as of 1998, still refuses to allow these supposed `converts' to enter. Yet Jagannath is considered to be identical to Krishna, the very same sect-god of the ISKCON ! Even the most devout Hare Rama Hare Krishna people not allowed to enter the `sacred' Jagannath mandir at Puri [ Asian Age 12.10.98 p.11, front page of Utkal Age ]


    Reincarnation

    As per one definition of Hinduism, "the two main ideas that unite Hindu religous thought are reincarnation and the principle of caste" .This concept forms the basis of some definitions of Hinduism, but is equally flawed. The "belief in reincarnation is not found in the Vedic hymns" [ Man.106 ]. Hence, as per this definition, Vaidikas are not Hindus ! Carvaka or Lokayata (materialistic atheism) is nastik (atheist), rejects Shrutis, deities and even the idea of reincarnation. They are thus as equally non-Hindu as Vedism. This reincarnation doctrine is expressly rejected by the Sudric Shaivites, since it essentially justifies the apartheid varna (`color' or caste) system. It hence follows that the only consistent definition of Brahmanism is that any system which accepts the Vedas and follows the caste system is Brahminist. Reincarnation is not central to this.
    Temple Rituals
    Temple rituals are also radically different, further confirming the existence of several distinct religions rather than one monolithic one. Thus, some Indian religions forbid animal sacrifice, while others (Dravidian Shaivism) allow it.
    Conversion

    Conversion is another point of difference. While conversion is extremely difficult to the `astika' sects of Brahmanism on account of the Manu-Smrti and the Vedic apartheid laws (`chaturvarna'), it is not so in the case of Shaivism:
    " [ T ]here is no room for proselytization in the Brahmanical Hindu order. But the Lingayat religion provides for religious conversion."
    -- [ Ling.120 ]

    DIVISION OF RELIGIONS

    [I DID NOT BOTHER ARRANGING THEM ANYONE WANTSM THE CLASSIFICATION MAIL ME]
    There are several distinct religions that are wrongly confounded under the name Hinduism (a more detailed list follows below) -
    Brahmanism (6 schools considered `astik')
    Vedanta
    Vaishnavism
    Smarta Pantheism
    Samkhya
    Yoga
    Mimamsa
    Vaiseshika
    Nyaya
    Sudra Shaivism
    Dravidian Shaivism
    Chandalla (Dalit & Adivasi) Shaivism
    Kolarian Shaivism
    Sramanic Religions
    Buddhism
    Jainism
    Carvaks
    Rajput Solar Religion
    Tibetic Tantric Religions


    The following is an accurate list of Indian religions often wrongly confounded under the term `Hinduism'. The colloquial English term is first in bold letters, with the technically correct English term in round brackets, followed by the colloquial Sanskrit terminology in italics in triangular brackets, and the technically correst Sanskrit term in square brackets at the end.
    Brahmanism ( Brahmanism, `Hinduism' ) < Brahmana Dharma > [ astika brahmana dharma , sanatana dharma ]
    Vedanta
    Sri-Vaishnavism < "Sri-Vaishnava sampradaaya" > [ Vishisht Advaita Vedanta ]
    Tengalai (Southern; Tamil)
    Vengalai (Northern; Sanskrit)
    Madhva Vaishnavism < "Maadhva sampradaaya" > [ Dvaita Vedanta ]
    Bengali Vaishnavism < "Gaudiya-Vaishnava sampradaaya" > [ Bheda-bheda Vedanta ]
    Mahapurushiya Sect Assam
    ISKCON (International Society for Krishan Consciousness)
    West Indian or Gujarati Vaishnavism < "Vallabha sampradaaya" > [ Shuddh Advaita ]
    Smartism ( Smarta Pantheism ) < Smaarta sampradaaya > [ Advaita Vedanta ]
    Yoga
    Mimamsa ( Vedist Ritualism )
    Samkhya ( Brahmanic Analytical Atheism )
    Nyaya ( Logical Theism )
    Vaisheshika ( Atomic Naturalism )
    Sudra Religion ( Shaivism ) < Shaiva Dharma > [ Shaiva Dharma ]
    Dravidian Shaivism Proper
    Old Dravidian Shaivism ( Adishaivism ) [ adisaivar ]
    Tamil Shaivism < Shaiva Siddhanta > [ saiva siddhanta dharma ]
    Kannada Shaivism < Lingayat Shaivism > [ virasaiva dharma ]
    Chandalla Shaivism (Dalits & Adivasis)
    Gond Religion
    Bhil Religion
    Kol Shaivism ( Kolarian Religions ) < kol shaivar >
    Munda Religion
    Santal Religion
    Kaul Shaktism
    Others
    Sramanism ( Sramanic Heterodoxies ) < nastika sramana dharam >
    Buddhism [ bauddhas ]
    Jainism [ jainas ]
    Carvaks or Materialists [ carvakas ]
    Shaktism [ shaktas ]
    Right-Handed ( "Daskhinachari")
    Left-Handed (" Bamachari" )
    Kowls or Extreme Shaktas : cf. Kolarian Religion
    Rajput Religion ( Rajput Solar Religion ) < Saura Dharma >
    Tantrism ( Tibetic Tantric Religions ) < Tantra >
    Bon or Old Tibetan Religion
    Kashmir Shaivism
    Lamaism

    The Different Indian Races

    Sometimes definitions are put forward hypothesising that `Hindu' is a racial term, and that there supposedly exists `A Hindu Race'. This is a completely false guess, and this chapter explodes this myth of `One Hindu Race'. Indeed, there are a whole multitude of completely different races confouned under this hypothetical `Hindu' race :

    Sudroids are Africoid - Anthropological investigations have revealed that the Sudras consist of several Black races, some akin to Australoids (the Kolarians or Austric speakers) and some akin to the Africans (the Dravidoids). Recent genetic analyses have confirmed this view, and much evidence from archaeology, physical anthropology, etc. prove this fact [ Sud ]. The view that the Sudras represent a differentiate of the Aryan race is wholly false, as it cannot explain differences in physical anthropology such as the flat Sudric nose (plattyrhinism) and thick lips.

    Indo-Aryans - The Indo-Aryans are of Caucasoid stock, quite unrelated to the black-skinned aboriginal Negroid-Australoids. Linguistically, physiognomically and genetically the Indo-Aryans are closely related to Europoids.

    Rajputs are Scythian - The Rajputs are descendants of Scythic (East Iranic) immigrants who entered India much after the Aryans. Although false genealogies were invented by the Aryan Brahmins in order to subvert the Rajput religion of Solarism (`Saura') and convert them to the 6 astika schools of Brahmanism, a detailed analysis shows that the Rajputs are Scythics.

    The Indo-Islamic (Mughalloid) Race - The Muslims of South Asia are overwhelmingly descendants of `Foreign Mussulman Immigrants', ie. Arabic, Iranic and Turkic races. Even in Bangladesh, more than half of the Muslims are of `Aristocratic Foreign' (`ashraf') descent [ Ris ]. They are hence not Aryan converts.

    Mongoloids - Pure Mongoloids inhabit the Himalayas, and the extreme north-east. Genetic analyses have shown them to be more closely related to Chinese and Japanese peoples, a fact which is also borne out by their physiognomy and languages.

    Indo-Mon-Khmer Race - The majority of East Indics (Assamics, Vangics, Odrics etc.), except the Aryan upper castes and the Kolarian lower castes, are of Indic Mon-Khmer (a branch of Mongoloids or East Asiatics) stock. Sir Risley has amply demonstrated this stratification in East India [ Ris ].
    Thus, there is no such thing as a `Hindu Race'

    Religion is a "man to God" relationship and not a "man to man" relationship. To reach God, treating fellow human beings with love, justice and equal rights is a duty upon the believer. Most religions preach these ideals. Unfortunately Hinduism, which originated from the Brahmins, preaches that to reach your God you should not treat them with justice or give them equal rights.
    On the other hand Hinduism teaches a man how to cheat and enslave people in the name of "Religion".
    With this technique, 5% (Brahmins) of India's population have control over 95% of its people.

    The MANU SMRITI (BIBLE OF HINDUISM) says:
    (a) A Brahmin is born to fulfill Dharma. Whatever exists in the world is the property of the Brahmin. On account of the excellence of his origin, he is entitled to all. All mortals subsist through the benevolence of the Brahmin.
    (b) Ignorant or learned, a Brahmin is still a great deity.

    Dr Ambedkar says the cardinal principles of Brahminism are six:
    Graded inequality between the different classes.
    The complete disarmament of the Shudras and Untouchables.
    The complete prohibition of education to the Shudras and Untouchables.
    Ban on the Shudras and the Untouchables in occupying places of power and authority.
    Ban on the Shudras and the Untouchables in acquiring property.
    The complete subjugation and suppression of women.

    According to Manu (A Hindu Holy Book) it says:
    The Shudras belong to the same category as crows, frogs, ducks, moles, dogs or transport animals and have the same disabilities as members of their category.
    It is permissible for a member of the high caste to expropriate the wealth of a Shudra by deceit.
    The different castes shall pay interest at different rates, the lowest will pay the highest rate.

    A Shudra's witness is not normally to be accepted when there is no witness of a "twice-born" person.

    The tongue of a Shudra, who spoke evil about a BRAHMIN should be cut off A Shudra who dared to assume a position of equality with the first three castes was to be flogged. (Apastambha Dharma Sutra III, 10-26)

    In accordance with this philosophy of systematic apartheid, MANU 167-272 says:
    " If a Shudra arrogantly teaches Brahmins Dharma, the king shall cause hot oil to be poured into his mouth and ears. "

    Again MANU 167-272 says:
    " Let the king never slay even a Brahmin though he may have committed all possible crimes. "

    In South India the 5 % white Brahmins rule over the 95 % Black Dravidian population. In North India the 5 % white Brahmins rule over the other 95 % Saka Rajputs, Aryan Baniyas, Black Dalits, Muslim Mughals and Muslim Dalits. In South Africa 15 % Whites rule over the 85 % Black race. Does India then have any right to point an accusing finger at the apartheid policy of South Africa when the worst kinds of discrimination are being practised in India ?

    We talk "democracy" and "equality before the law" but keep a third of India's 800 million people as Untouchables, unseeables and unapproachables!

    According to a recent survey their share of the media is approximately 81 %. The following are the well known Newspapers that are all owned by the Brahmins, not to mention so many others which are financed by the Brahmins who secretly pull the strings behind the scenes, as depicted in the Arthasastra.
    The Indian Express - 93 % employees are Brahmins
    The Hindu - 97 % employees are Brahmins
    The Times of India - 73 % employees are Brahmins

    THE WEALTHY BRAHMINS
    Hindiuism is essentially an institutionalised form of wealth-making for Brahmins. Thus, MANU VII, 133 says that:
    "Brahmins should not be taxed and should be maintained by the State."

    ABOUT LOW CASTE
    The thick-skinned Vedas-reciting Brahmin terrorists from Kannauj never forget to quote from the Manusmirti. This cowardly race stil continues to terrorize Sudras in India. The following quotation from the MANU XMRITI X, 129 is a testimonial to this fact :
    " That no collection of wealth was to be made by a Shudra, even though he may be capable, for a Shudra who has acquired wealth would pain a Brahmin, and that Brahmins may appropriate by force the property of the Shudra. "
    In another open display of racial bigotry, PANCHVANISH BRAHMIN 3-1/1 I says:
    " Even if a Shudra acquired wealth, he must always remain a slave. His main job is to wash the feet of the higher caste."


    "The smrithi orders that shudras must be prohibited from hearing, studying and understanding the Vedas." (Brahma-Sutras 1.3.9.38)

    IS HINDUISM COMPATIBLE WITH THE AGE OF SCIENCE?
    Is there any historically documentated evidence to prove that Rama ruled India? Can any of the so-called Brahmin scholars quote any Western historian to support them? For example where is Hanuman's bridge today? Is the moon on top of the Himalayas? Can immorality be identified with religion?
    The Puranas and Vedas state that a true Brahmin should not cross the sea and that is the reason behind Rama asking Hanuman to build a bridge to Sri Lanka. But today Brahmins not only cross the sea but they are working as airline pilots etc. The Achariyas (Brahmin priests) have now passed a resolution saying that the egg is a vegetable food and therefore may be eaten by Hindus. Bengali Brahmins are already eating fish claiming that it is a water flower.
    Brahmin women are not only remarrying, but they are also marrying men from other castes. Thanks to reformist like Dr. Ambedkar, E.V.'R. Preriar, Lord Pending and Dr. Ramdas, many low-caste Hindus have now become administers, scientists and even priests.
    To know more about Hinduism, please read the Vedas and Puranas with an unbiased mind. Before long, you will see a big difference in the way that you view the Hindu religion.

    EVRYTHING ABOVE TAKEN FROM HINDU AUTHORS.URLS NOT PROVIDED.ANYBODY IS WELCOME TO RESEARCH ON HIS OWN TIME.


    ARTICLE WAS COMPILED FOR KNOWLEDGE OF KNOWING WHOM WE R DEALING WITH.


    #2
    Finally, something about Hinduism that is not from a hate site (Though I don't agree with many of the comments here).

    Breath of fresh air, among people who are brainwashed to think within the box.

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by kumarakn:
      [B
      brainwashed to think within the box.[/B]
      you assume 26 % of world's population is brain washed??? because people who come here represent muslim population...pretty much thats how all muslims will response to the kinda question you ask...

      Comment


        #4
        " The term Hinduism ... [ was ] introduced in about 1830 by British writers. "
        -- [ EB 20 `Hinduism ' 519 ]


        that make sense

        Britian's policy of "divide and rule" is the one which created these divisions and planted haterd among muslims and hindus of Indaia ...
        which we are still suffering from

        and thast why war betwwen indians and pakistanis is often been called "haterd of brothers".

        Comment


          #5
          yes secret_obsession very correct.makes many things clear concerning international politics.plus in light of the above we should probably not bother explaining anything to our hindu brothers,afterall even their own so called religion doesnt make sense to them so how wud an alien and hated religion like islam make any sense with them.
          i think these religious fault findings on the forum shud end.

          besides usa is losing on its own home ground.even if india nukes us we r evrywhere whereas hindus r mostly in india.my apologies to my[ descendents of noah ]brothers.

          the day each and evry indian gets hold of its religious books they wud probably want an upgrade in terms of religion dont b surprised if there is a mass conversion.

          u know its a fact that that there is tremendous similarity between the hindu scriptures and quran [wen we filter out the myth from revealation]...........but that is another subject and will be dealt on later.

          Comment


            #6
            [QUOTE]Originally posted by doctornaveeed:
            [B]yes secret_obsession very correct.makes many things clear concerning international politics.plus in light of the above we should probably not bother explaining anything to our hindu brothers,afterall even their own so called religion doesnt make sense to them so how wud an alien and hated religion like islam make any sense with them.
            i think these religious fault findings on the forum shud end.

            yeaha, I agree you these fourms or religious disscussions which are usually not in friendly manner increase haterd, they do give some knowldge but still its not worth it.

            Comment


              #7
              secret obcession do you have relationship with china on the basis of religen.
              do you ask them what they believe or not believe before establishing relationship?
              india is not a religious entity not depends on what pakistani like you dewcribe and you have the choice not recognise it as country.
              if you cant even live muslim bangaldesh how
              you can live with india?

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by rvikz:
                secret obcession do you have relationship with china on the basis of religen.
                do you ask them what they believe or not believe before establishing relationship?
                india is not a religious entity not depends on what pakistani like you dewcribe and you have the choice not recognise it as country.
                if you cant even live muslim bangaldesh how
                you can live with india?

                or you on something???? what are you talking about???
                going completely off topic....
                you are the one who has started it

                and before argueing others better look at yourself.

                we have friendly relationships with all our neighbors (china, afgainstan, iran e.tc)

                while India has conflict with china, conflict with nepal, conflict with bangladaish....and about inner situation Hindus burning Qurans, Hindus burning churches, hindus destroying mosques, hindus killing kashmiris, hindus hating sikhs ( i had sikh friends who prefered to call themselves "punjabi" instead of Indians). This is your secularism and democracy..... First you better worry about civil conflicts of your own country...


                and whats the point of going completely off topic...


                [This message has been edited by secret_obsession (edited April 02, 2002).]

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by doctornaveeed:
                  .....even if india nukes us we r evrywhere whereas hindus r mostly in india......
                  that is really funny, where did you get that joke from?

                  ------------------
                  May Allah SWT guide us all towards right and help us follow the right

                  Comment


                    #10
                    lol
                    a golden bird told me

                    Comment


                      #11
                      same golden bird gave me three magic beans, i would rather not reveal their secret.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        it seems my goldenbird is holding out on me.shes got lots of explaining to do

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X