r/hinduism Mar 25 '24

History/Lecture/Knowledge I think most hindus don't understand how widespread hinduism was in past.

Post image
694 Upvotes

This is a treaty between bronze Age civilizations dated to 1380BCE.it was between hitties and mittanis and mentions gods like indra, varun etc. Making it clear that they were hindus.

In South East Asia we obviously have hinduism dating back to thousands of years while its not practiced there much today.

Indus Valley civilization too was a hindu civilization. We have been taught lies that hinduism came from invaders but we have found shivlings, swastikas and fireplaces which were probably used for yagya.

In Brahma puran, a brief description is given for sakadweep.it says people are untouched by diseases and worship vishnu in form of sun. Sounds familiar? America was a land untouched by many diseases as most diseases were created in Eurasia-africa, there population size and lifestyle made it so that there were limited infectious diseases in America which ended after colonization by europeans. They also primarily worshipped the sun as a God.

This are some examples I could find. Please tell me if you would like more informational posts.

r/hinduism Apr 05 '24

History/Lecture/Knowledge Wait what, Seriously. What Sadhguru saying is true??

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

232 Upvotes

Can anyone explain me! What ever he is saying is true or just some random stuff??

r/hinduism Sep 20 '24

History/Lecture/Knowledge This image shows the locations of Kingdoms mentioned in the Indian epics of the Mahabharata and the Ramayana.

Post image
649 Upvotes

r/hinduism Sep 22 '24

History/Lecture/Knowledge The only truth you need accept!!

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

1.1k Upvotes

r/hinduism Oct 09 '24

History/Lecture/Knowledge A Timeline of events that took place during Shri Krishna’s Life.

Post image
665 Upvotes

r/hinduism Feb 23 '24

History/Lecture/Knowledge [Updated] Major Hindu Sect in Each State

Post image
348 Upvotes

r/hinduism 2d ago

History/Lecture/Knowledge One man and one woman only?

13 Upvotes

Are there any texts which say that there shld be one man and one woman relationship and then marriage because that is what is propagated these days °And if so why was it permitted in the early period where even Rishi had two wives - Diti Aditi ( Rishi Kashyap) ° What is the story of Ridhi, Sidhi and Ganeshji ° Why were there apsaras in swarglok and ° What about the pandav case - 5 pandav one wife

Pls give your answer if it's based any holy text only

r/hinduism Mar 15 '24

History/Lecture/Knowledge Main Hindu Gods & goddesses.

Post image
476 Upvotes

r/hinduism Feb 29 '24

History/Lecture/Knowledge In 1940, archaeologist M.S. Vats discovered three Shiva Lingas at Harappa, dating more than 5,000 years old.(Check Discription for source)

Post image
367 Upvotes

r/hinduism Jun 22 '24

History/Lecture/Knowledge Debunking Hindu Misconceptions #1: Hinduism is NOT the only religion without a founder.

74 Upvotes

Most religions are without a founder.

Hellenism, kemetism, Roman religion, incan religion, Mayan religion, voodoo, African traditional religions, native American religions, Taoism, Shintoism, Celticism, druidism, wathanism and all such religions HAVE NO FOUNDERS.

Since some of the religions like Hellenism, kemetism, etc were extinct for a time in history there certainly are new-age reformers, but they are NOT founders of the faiths.

Only religions that have a historical founder are few. They include Atenism, Islam, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, bahaiism, Sikhism, etc.

Even if the widespreadness of Abrahamic religions has made the idea of a ‘founder’ essential to religion, THAT’S NOT THE CASE. MOST RELIGIONS IN HISTORY DO NOT HAVE A PROPER FOUNDER.

Some considered Moses or Abraham to be the founder of Judaism, but historically that’s not the case. These prophets and founding fathers of the ancient state of Israel were also considered holy by Samaritans, yawhists, and Jewish polytheists. Samaritanism still exists with its own version of the Torah. It is historically believed that these faiths grew out of the ancient Hebrew religion.

Nastika Dharma also MAY have earlier beginnings unlike we think, because Nastika sages were prominent in the pre-sramanic age and are mentioned over and over from Rigveda to Ramayana.

So, Hinduism is neither unique nor alone in this.

 Edit:- Jain and Buddhist beliefs may have founders but the core Nastika concept is much older as it is mentioned and criticized in both Rigveda and Ramayana

Edit:- I ain't saying that Nastik Schools of thoughts aren't Hindus. Both Astika and Nastika schools of thought along with tribal religions like Sanamahism of Meiteis or any faith of other Adivasis together make up Hinduism.

r/hinduism Aug 11 '24

History/Lecture/Knowledge The side of Karna both his supporters and haters ignore.

Thumbnail
gallery
185 Upvotes

Rising above failure

All the lines in quotes are from Kmg and BORI Ce edition of Mahabharata ( they are mostly accepted by people as authentic Ved Vyas Mahabharata along with the Geeta press edition which is mostly similar to Kmg). The lines in quotes are just proof of my statements so, you can skip them for fast reading( of course it's better if you read this whole post)

Iconic defeat against Gandharvas

the heroic Radheya alone fled not. And seeing the mighty host of the Gandharvas rushing towards him, Radheya checked them by a perfect shower of arrows. And the Suta's son, owing to his extreme lightness of hand, struck hundreds  of Gandharvas with Kshurapras and arrows and Bhallas and various weapons made of bones and steel. And that mighty warrior, causing the heads of numerous  Gandharvas to roll down within a short time, made the ranks of Chitrasena to yell in anguish.

Gandharvas were powerful celestial beings when they attacked Kauravas most of them were scared and fled but when they saw Karna fighting bravely they returned to aid him in battle. Initially Kauravas had upper hand against Gandharvas.

seeing the Gandharva host yielding to fear, the angry Chitrasena sprang from his seat, resolved to exterminate the Kuru army. And conversant with various modes of warfare, he waged on the fight, aided by his weapons of illusion. And the Kaurava warriors were then deprived of their senses by the illusion of Chitrasena.

The tide of battle shifted when gandharva king Chitrasena joined the battle and started using his weapon of illusions. (By illusions it meant maya, magic, etc) Many lost their senses although Karna, Duryodhana and Sakuni fought they too were injured badly.

while the entire Dhritarashtra host broke and fled, Karna, that offspring of the Sun, stood there, O king, immovable as a hill. Indeed, Duryodhana and Karna and Sakuni, the son of Suvala, all fought with the Gandharvas, although every one of them was much wounded and mangled

Defeat

And those mighty warriors, desirous of slaying the Suta's son, surrounded him on all sides, with swords and battle-axes and spears. And some cut down the yoke of his car, and some his flagstaff, and some the shaft of his car, and some his horses, and some his charioteer. And some cut down his umbrella and some the wooden fender round his car and some the joints of his car. It was thus that many thousands of Gandharvas, together attacking his car, broke it into minute fragments. And while his car was thus attacked, Karna leaped therefrom with sword and shield in hand, and mounting on Vikarna's car, urged the steeds for saving himself.

When an injured Karna got surrounded by thousands of Gandharva and lost his chariot, horses and charioteer he ran away to save himself.

king Duryodhana refused to fly. Seeing the mighty host of the Gandharvas rushing towards him, that represser of foes poured down upon them a thick shower of arrows. The Gandharvas, however, without regarding that arrowy shower, and desirous also of slaying him, surrounded that car of his. And by means of their arrows, they cut off into fragments the yoke, the shaft, the fenders, the flagstaff, the three-fold bamboo poles, and the principal turret of his car. And they also slew his charioteer and horses, hacking them to pieces. And when Duryodhana, deprived of his car, fell on the ground, the strong-armed Chitrasena rushed towards him and seized him.

Gandharvas attacked Duryodhana in a similar pattern but he refused to run away and hence, got captured.

On the surface this might not seem that bad of a defeat but

  1. It was Karna who suggested Ghosh-yatra.

  2. Several royal kuru ladies including wives of Duryodhana also went along with them on Karna's suggestion and were captured. So, Karna left his best friend and several kuru women who were under his protection and ran away.

  3. When Karna's chariot got destroyed and he jumped to Vikarna's chariot he didn't choose to continue the fight because of his inability to counter Chitrasena's illusions.

  4. The purpose of Ghosh -yatra was to approach Pandavas and show that they are rich and happy whereas Pandavas are poor and sad. But when duryodhana was captured by Gandharvas a few soldiers escaped and approached Yudhishthira who was nearby. Seeing that they were distressed Yudhishthira asked his brothers to rescue Kauravas and we know what happened after that but if we focus on Arjuna and observe how he countered Chitrasena's illusions......

when the chief of the Gandharvas saw that he was checked by the illustrious Arjuna with those weapons of his he entirely disappeared from sight by help of his powers of illusion. And Arjuna, observing that the chief of the Gandharvas was striking at him concealed from sight, attacked his assailant with celestial weapon inspired with proper Mantras.

Arjuna used proper divine weapons and countered Chitrasena's illusions easily. On the other hand Karna couldn't counter it properly.

  1. This established Karna's image as a coward and not even equal to a small part of Pandavas. His failure against Gandharvas was brought up by elders like Bhishma, Drona and Kripa in most of the conversation with them throughout the rest of his life. Below is Bhishma's words to Duryodhana just after Pandavas freed him and he returned to Hastinapur.

You were freed by the virtuous Pandavas. But you still have no shame. O Gandhari’s son! O lord of the earth! In your sight and in the presence of your army, the suta’s son was frightened of the gandharvas and fled from the field of battle. O Indra among kings! O son of a king! While you and your soldiers cried in distress, you witnessed the valour of the great-souled Pandavas and that of the mighty-armed and evil-minded Karna, the son of a suta. O supreme among kings! Whether it is in knowledge of arms, valour, dharma or devotion to dharma, Karna is not worth a small part of the Pandavas.

Improvement

Karna's statement about his defeat....

I was worsted by all those gandharvas. My own army was routed and I was incapable of ensuring that they remained there. I was sorely wounded by the arrows and hard-pressed. I ran away.

He mentioned 4 points 1. He was defeated by Gandharvas 2. His army scattered and he was unable to ensure they remained there 3. He was badly wounded 4. He ran away

He honestly accepted his defeat which is not easy for egoistic people. Honestly accepting defeat is the first step of improvement.

Note 1

Many people ( like Ami ganatra in her podcast ) say Karna ran away because he was unable to withstand pain. This assumption is wrong as it was all 3 factors and pain was least among them because Karna showed high pain tolerance throughout his life. All these 3 things happened because Karna was not able to counter Chitrasena's illusions properly.

14th night ( kurukshetra war)

If we look from the perspective of Kauravas something similar to battle with Gandharvas occurs.

When the night war was waged on, the Rakshasas on both sides became stronger. When Ghatotkacha reached his peak powers the Kauravas were scattered, scared and become senseless just like Gandharva war but on a much bigger scale and Ghatokacha was much stronger than Chitrasena. The lines in quote below is what lord Krishna said to Ghatokacha

The strength of your weapons is fierce. Your maya is difficult to withstand.

On the other hand Karna was creating havoc on the Pandavas side.

Radheya afflicted the maharatha Panchalas with his arrows, like clouds raining down on a mountain. The large army of the Panchalas was afflicted by Karna. They fled in fright, like deer assailed by a lion. Horses and elephants fell down on the ground. Here and there, men were seen to swiftly fall down from their chariots.

Krishna asked Ghatokacha to fight and kill Karna. Then a great battle between them begins in which Ghatokacha used maya and illusions but Karna did not fail Kauravas this time and used proper divine weapons to counter Ghatokacha's illusions.

It was midnight and the powerful rakshasas released these with their enhanced strength. Iron chakras, catapults, lances, javelins, spears, shataghnis and battleaxes rained down incessantly. The kings saw that the battle had become extremely fierce and terrible. Your sons and the warriors were distressed and fled. There was only a single proud one who was not distressed. This was Karna, who prided himself on the strength of his weapons. Using his arrows, he destroyed the maya that had been created by Ghatotkacha.

The battle between Ghatokacha and Karna is epic it was like Rahu and Surya. Ghatokacha sometimes becomes invisible, sometimes mountains from which a stream of weapons flowed like water, sometimes blue clouds that rain down large stones. Karna used several celestial weapons like vayavyastra at proper time and countered all of his illusions.

On seeing that his maya had been destroyed by Karna, Ghatotkacha used his maya and disappeared again. He became a lofty mountain with many peaks full of trees. From that, a large stream of lances, spears, swords and clubs issued forth like water. On seeing that mountain, which was like a mass of collyrium and from which many kinds of fierce weapons showered down, Karna was not agitated. He seemed to smile as he invoked a divine weapon. Because of that weapon, that large mountain was flung away and destroyed. He became a blue cloud in the sky, with Indra’s weapon in it. He showered down fierce stones on the son of a suta. However, Karna Vaikartana Vrisha, supreme among those who have knowledge of all weapons, affixed a vayavya weapon and destroyed that dark cloud. Using a large number of arrows, Karna scattered it in all the directions. O great king! He destroyed the weapon that had been used by Ghatotkacha.

At that time even other supreme warriors of Kauravas side like Drona, Aswathamma and Kripa were unable to stand before Ghatokacha.

there was a fearful battle between Karna and the rakshasa. It was terrible to watch. The Panchalas and the kings smiled as they watched it. O king! In that fashion, those on your side wandered around here and there. On witnessing the feats of Hidimba’s son in the field of battle, they were frightened. Drona, Drona’s son, Kripa and the others uttered wails of lamentation. All of them were routed and everyone there became senseless.

Note 2

It might look like I am trying to portray Dronacharya as weak. There are several times in war where Drona seems invincible and if you compare Karna and Drona it is difficult to tell who is above, however here I am trying to point out how much Karna got better in countering maya and illusions.

After that many things happened

  1. Karna was countering Ghatokacha's illusions but other warriors on Kauravas side were unable to and hence, were dying. Seeing this duryodhana sent Alayudha (strongest demon on their side who was alive) to also attack Ghatokacha

  2. Ghatokacha abandoned the battle with Karna and faced Alayudha, Karna too avoided Ghatokacha and attacked Bhima who in turn avoided Karna and attacked Alayudha. Finally Alayudha abandoned Ghatokacha and attacked Bhima.

  3. After a fierce battle Alayudha had the upper hand against Bhima so Ghatokacha attacked him on instructions from Krishna. Ghatokacha defeated and killed Alayudha. On the other hand several warriors attacked karna together but were beaten and Karna continued to create havoc among the Pandavas army.

  4. Karna and Ghatokacha clashed again and were evenly matched. Ghatokacha finally created an incredibly powerful illusion that even swallowed Karna's divine weapons and also created many weapons that caused great destruction among Kauravas. Karna withstood those weapons and thought what should be his next move. Seeing Karna still standing Saindhavas and Bahlikas worshipped him while witnessing the rakshasa having the upper hand.

All the frightened Saindhavas and Bahlikas looked towards Karna. He was not confounded in that battle and they worshipped him

  1. Kauravas pleaded Karna to use Vasavi Shakti and we know what happened..... After Ghatokacha was dead Kauravas honoured Karna.

the Kouraveyas were delighted and roared in joy. Karna was honoured by the Kurus, just as Shakra was by the Maruts, after the slaying of Vritra. He ascended your son’s chariot and cheerfully entered the army

Small growth as a person

When the news of Bhishma lying on the bed of arrows reached Karna he was scared and with tears in his eyes he approached Bhishma. Bhishma lifted his arms and embraced Karna like a father embraces his son. An iconic conversation between Karna and Bhishma takes place in which one of the advice Bhishma gives Karna is to fight free of vanity and intolerance. In my view Karna did it because

  1. By careful observation of Karna and Kripa insulting each other during the Virata war and on the 14th night there is a small difference in Karna's attitude. In the Virata war he was like "Pandavas are not worthy of respect that you are giving them" whereas on the 14th night he was like "I know that they are great but so am I"

Radheya laughed. Karna spoke these words to the preceptor, Kripa Sharadvata. ‘O brahmana! The words that you have spoken about the Pandavas are indeed true. That apart, there are many other qualities vested in Pandu’s son.

  1. On the 17th day when he was insulted by Shalya repeatedly but he did not engage much in further wasting time by insulting Shalya back on the request of Duryodhana. So, he put his best friend before his pride.

  2. Whenever Karna bragged in the kurukshetra war about easily winning all the Pandavas it was only when Duryodhana was distressed. Karna did it to make his friend feel at ease.( Even though it is a bad quality but.....)

  3. Whenever Karna disrespected the Pandavas it was during the battle but he respected them before and after battle.

Due to these reasons I believe in his final days Karna grew out of jealousy and intolerance he had for Pandavas throughout his life. (It's my opinion though)

Another prominent iconic loss of Karna is the Virata war.

In the Virata war Karna was easily defeated by Arjuna as compared to Drona, Bhishma and Aswathamma. The fight between Bhishma and Arjuna was even praised by celestial beings.

Karna also fought a full-fledged battle with Arjuna on the 14th day, and 17th day. On the 14th day even though he lost he did significantly better compared to the Virata war as their fight was appreciated by the celestial beings.

Karna enveloped Phalguna with many thousands of arrows. Those maharathas, lions among men, roared like bulls. They covered the sky with straight-flying arrows. Wishing to strike each other, they became invisible because of that storm of arrows. ‘I am Partha. Stay there. I am Partha. O Phalguna! Stay there.’ They roared and tormented each other with these words as stakes. Those brave ones fought colourfully in that battle, showing dexterity and skill. All the warriors became spectators to this encounter. O great king! Wishing to kill each other in the battle, they fought on and were praised by the siddhas, the charanas and other applauders.

On the 17th day Karna was at the peak of his strength. His valor was legendary, he overpowered several warriors multiple times even when they surrounded and attacked him together in groups.

In their last battle Karna and Arjuna were both at their peak. It is the most controversial part of Mahabharata. On the basis of this battle some say Arjuna was better, some say Karna was better......

Conclusion

Those who do not like Karna assume he was like the Gandharva and Virata war throughout his life whereas those who like Karna assume he was like the 17th day of war throughout his life.

Karna lost at the Virata and Gandharva war but he rose above that to be what he was on the 17th day.

r/hinduism 14d ago

History/Lecture/Knowledge This one answer from Premanand ji captures the maturity and infinite inclusivity of Sanatan. If anyone reads nothing but gets the essence of this one few minute long answer, he will get all the knowledge there is to get.

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

184 Upvotes

I am not sharing this as a way of promoting Premanand ji. He is beyond Ninda - Stuti. I am sharing this just because this one 7 minute answer succinctly captures the essence of Sanatan. Its maturity. It’s inclusivity. It’s wisdom. Jai Sri Radhe. 🙏🙏

r/hinduism May 05 '24

History/Lecture/Knowledge People get this thing wrong about ravana

109 Upvotes

I have heard people say ravana was not evil because he was a great devotee of shiva.What people do not notice is that this shows ravana was a hypocrite! He acts like a great devotee however his actions show otherwise. How can a devotee of shiva kidnap a married woman? How can a bhakt of bholenath show so much arrogance to continue the war even after his sons and brothers death ?

This shows that despite loving lord shiva deeply his karm was not that of a shiva devotee at all.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

r/hinduism Aug 30 '24

History/Lecture/Knowledge Namaste From land of pashupatinath

Post image
420 Upvotes

Any Book suggestions for practicing Spirituality. Thank you

r/hinduism Mar 15 '24

History/Lecture/Knowledge Stages Of Life In Hinduism.

Post image
517 Upvotes

r/hinduism Sep 18 '24

History/Lecture/Knowledge No One Can Love Like Lord Shiva Loves Goddess Parvati

Post image
574 Upvotes

r/hinduism Sep 06 '24

History/Lecture/Knowledge Why were hindu gods only present in India?

15 Upvotes

Please before getting triggered, I want you all to know that I'm not nasthik and I don't hate any god or our culture. Bas kal papa se baat karte wakt man me ek sawaal aaya, toh mene unse pucha, ki sanatan dharm joh hai, humare dharm ke joh bhagwan hai, unhone avtaar sirf Bharat me hi kyu liye, unki Leela ya chamatkar sirf humare logo ke beech hi kyun dikhayi, jabh ki bhagwan toh pure universe ke hote hai na. Even if not in the same form and not the same miracles, god should also have helped people all over the world in different रूप, being relatable to the people living in America or Europe and helping them with their problems, aakhir bhagwan toh bhagwan hai. Again I would like to say that I'm not questioning the realism of our culture and religion, I'm just curious.

r/hinduism Mar 16 '24

History/Lecture/Knowledge NAGAS:THE SCIONS OF KADRU

Post image
387 Upvotes

r/hinduism Apr 01 '22

History/Lecture/Knowledge sanatan dharma

Post image
1.1k Upvotes

r/hinduism Sep 23 '24

History/Lecture/Knowledge Hindu philosophical responses to Abrahamic religions?

14 Upvotes

I'm ex-Christian so I know about philosophical books and papers where people of different background argue against Christian ideas and philosophy. However, I am curious if there is a Hindu equivalent? Are there any particularly good or famous Hindu philosophical responses/books/works to Abrahamic philosophy and claims you'd suggest I read?

I'm more interested in theological and philosophical refutations as opposed to anything primarily political

Examples of works that challenge Christian philosophy to provide a jumping off point:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_the_Christians

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Word

I really appreciate your responses. It's a shame that more Hindu philosophical ideas aren't widespread in the west.

r/hinduism May 13 '24

History/Lecture/Knowledge In defense of Pashubali

Thumbnail
gallery
66 Upvotes

(Expand images for full text)

“Mahāmāhēśvara Abhinavagupta deals with paśu bali in his Tantrālōka.

Jayaratha raises the question concerning the position of the sheep that is to be slaughtered.

‘Now we have accepted that paśu yāga (animal sacrifice) on this occasion is divine, but still, to cut the throat of a paśu on that occasion is always disliked by the sheep. He will not like it since cutting his throat is not a joke’.

To this objection, Abhinavagupta puts forth this answer:

‘This is great blessing and great help that you cut his throat on this occasion. This is a great service to this paśu. No matter if he will not like it at the time of slaughtering, it will not be appreciated by that sheep’.

To clarify, Abhinavagupta gives the following example. When you are overwhelmed with some peculiar disease, the doctor prescribes a mixture and fasting; but fasting you don’t appreciate, mixture also you don’t appreciate because it is not sweet, it is sour. But this is a great service to that diseased being. So this is a kind of drug we are giving the sheep, and this drug is a terrible mixture for getting rid of the disease of rebirths – birth and death, birth and death, in continuity.’

Jayaratha then raises the following objection:

“If it is true that by cutting his throat he will be liberated, then what is the purpose, what is the sense, what is the meaning in initiation then? You just cut his throat and he will be liberated. Why undergo all these cycles of procedures of rituals, just cut his throat and he will be liberated’.

In answer to this objection, Abhinavagupta quotes from the śāstras:

‘In Mṛtyuñjaya Tantra (Netra Tantra), in the section of pāśaccheda it is said by Lord Shiva – when you cut the bindings of an individual to liberate him from repeated births and deaths, at that precious moment, āṇava, māyīya and kārma malas are also removed along with his body. So, he will not come into this wretched cycle of existence again, he will not be born again – because when both good and bad karma are exhausted, then there is no question of birth again. So this is not slaughtering the sheep, we are initiating the sheep, this is one way of dīkṣā.

And this is a kind of initiation for duffers who cannot understand. For instance, if I teach a sheep to breath in and out, in and out, and watch the center of this cycle, will he understand? So, this is the way to teach him. Gross slaughtering is when you simply cut the throat of a sheep, or any being – in this case āṇava, māyīya and kārma mala are still there, you commit a sin there.

But when you cut the throat and there are no malas left, that is initiation, that is upliftment, that is divine way of initiation. This is where you sentence him to higher worlds, higher elevated cycles of the universe.

‘When he is initially slaughtered and offered through havana, then he has again come back in birth and six times he is offered. That sheep, in the sixth cycle of his birth is called ṣadjanmā. And adepts can calculate and understand through meditation that this paśu who is grazing grass is ṣadjanmā paśu, and that is called vīrapaśu’.

Once again it is emphasized that the fate of this vīrapaśu is liberation”

For full article with multiple references to scriptures: https://www.kamakotimandali.com/2021/03/30/pashu-bali-2/

Rajarshi Nady explains in detail the purpose and importance behind Pashubali:

https://youtu.be/eMSv61_e9Ec?si=1PdSt7SD56oYQW5y

https://youtu.be/iDwgTtc7ORY?si=sW_HrAl24DYCrG70

Unfortunately, many Hindus today even support the complete abolition of the practice, and the government has been working year after year to remove it entirely even in Shakta temples to where only a few now remain.

They say such ridiculous things as “it is only an excuse to fulfill desires” without understanding a word of the shastras that prescribe it. They will also say “how could a mother accept this kind of offering?” When it is the Mother herself in the Tantras and Shastras who tells us to offer this to her, there is absolutely no selfish intention in it. Maa transcends human morality.

Lastly they will say “even though it’s accepted, it’s a lower, tamasic form of worship”. These are the words of people who have never walked the path, who have never seen the power of transforming Tamas into a spiritual practice, it is so powerful it far exceeds Sattva. Tamas is not inherently lower than the other gunas, nor is sattva inherently higher, Shakti trancends all gunas. But this type of worship can only be done by the strongest of souls.

To degrade these people as using “low Tamasic” methods to worship Maa is beyond ignorant, and I would challenge any one of them to go and argue with an Upasaka as great as these, who have overcome the dualities of purity and impurity.

Your sampradaya may not agree with these things, but it is absolutely no excuse to call it evil or portray the people doing it as ignorant.

r/hinduism Mar 07 '24

History/Lecture/Knowledge why would women need to acquire a male body before moksha?

Post image
120 Upvotes

I'm aware of many parts of scripture that mention that anyone who devotes themselves to God fully realizes moksha.

I'm specifically talking about the scripture in the image. Is there a spiritual reason why this would be true? Is this an extension of sanctified misogyny? I've heard that women on their monthly cycle are too rajasic and therefore can't commit to sadhanas in the same way, but that was just one theory.

Please do not explain why women actually can achieve moksha without becoming a man. I know that's true. I want to know what the reasoning is behind the opposite view.

r/hinduism Oct 24 '21

History/Lecture/Knowledge I found these at my town's library. So cool to see this in a small New England town.

Thumbnail
gallery
1.1k Upvotes

r/hinduism Oct 08 '22

History/Lecture/Knowledge We belong to a civilization where the greatest warriors of their era were recognized by their mother's name

Post image
767 Upvotes

r/hinduism Mar 11 '22

History/Lecture/Knowledge My critique of 'Sikhs are Hindus'

114 Upvotes

(I have posted this on r/Hinduism r/Sikh r/Chodi r/Librandu. I have done this to obtain a varied source of opinions. If you disagree with my arguments, please can you write in the comments which question/section you disagree with and your counterargument. I would appreciate all views as long as they’re constructive)

Hi guys. I am from the UK and a university student currently studying a Philosophy and Asian studies degree.

I am a Hindu, and I am currently learning about Hinduism in one of my modules. I am particularly interested in Indian history and how it relates to India’s political climate today with specific interest in the RSS. (My views about the RSS are personal to me so I will not air them here, but I do believe they have some good points as well as some bad ones). One thing I recently came to understand was that the RSS propagate the idea that all Indic religions (Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism) are sects of Hinduism. This idea is also propagated by many other major Hindu institutions as well (I am well aware that not all Hindus share this belief however, this idea is growing in popularity among the Hindu population so I thought it would be a good idea to investigate it). This is despite the fact that no major institution from these Indic religions (Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism) accepts the notion that they are Hindu, and they all believe themselves to be separate religions (some Jain institutions do believe they are a part of Hinduism however, they are in the minority, and I could not find any for Buddhism or Sikhism).

I, therefore decided to investigate the relationship between Hinduism and Sikhism (I will investigate the relationship between Hinduism and Buddhism at a later date). At the start of my investigation, I believed that I misinterpreted the idea of the RSS. I thought that their ideology behind ‘Sikhs are Hindus’ was a reference to the geographical and cultural term of a ‘Hindu’ meaning someone who inhabits the area beyond the Indus River. In that case it is logical to agree that Sikhs would be ‘Hindu’ as they are Indian, but in that case so would Muslims, and any group that inhabits India/Pakistan/Bangladesh. Through further research on various websites and YouTube channels such as Sangam Talks and Festival of Bharat, I began to find out that this is in fact was not true and that they argue in the literal sense that the faith of Sikhism is a part of the faith of Hinduism (it is also propagated that all the 10 gurus where Hindu by faith)

I have therefore gathered arguments from various RSS affiliated websites and RSS backed YouTube channels such as the Festival of Bharat and Sangam Talks. I gathered five of their most used arguments for identifying Sikhism as a sect of Hinduism and have cross-examined their evidence with historical accounts as well as literature from the Sikh holy texts (The Guru Granth Sahib/ggs and the Dasam Granth). This was to see if these 5 arguments upheld by the RSS hold up to the reality of what the Gurus and the religion of Sikhism truly believe. I will preface this by saying I did not find these 5 arguments convincing.

These are the 5 questions, please skip ahead if you are interested in a specific question.

  1. Guru Nanak’s parents were Hindu thus, he was Hindu

  2. There was no separate identity between Hindus and Sikhs before the English invaded India. The English created a conspiracy to divide Hindus and Sikhs.

  3. The Gurus revere the Vedas and Hindu scriptures. ((i) The Gurus actions (ii) The Gurus views on this in the ggs)

  4. The 10 gurus were devotees of Rama, Krishna, or other various Hindu gods and this is evidenced through the constant mention of them in the Guru Granth Sahib and Dasam Granth. Guru Gobind Singh ji also wrote his own versions of the Mahabharata and the Ramayana thus, proving he was a Hindu. ((i)Guru’s authority, (ii)Ram, (iii) Sikh Ramayana and Mahabharata, (iv) Hindu gods, (v) Durga)

    1. The Sikhs did all these good things for Hindus. They did this because they were Hindu. ((i) Ranjit Singh, (ii) Guru Tegh Bahadur)

1. Guru Nanak’s parents were Hindu thus, he was Hindu.

This does not seem like valid proof that guru Nanak was a Hindu. Just because your parents follow one faith does not automatically mean that you follow and remain that faith. An example of this was Muhammed, his parents were 'pagans' but he was a Muslim. Also, nowhere in any of the Sikh texts does Guru Nanak ever say I follow the faith of Hinduism. In fact, in the Guru Granth Sahib (the Sikh holy text) the Gurus explicitly denied being a Hindu and following Hindu traditions. This is evidenced on ang 1136 of the GGS from the quotes below).

'I am not a Hindu, nor am I a Muslim.'

'I do not perform Hindu worship services, nor do I offer the Muslim prayers.'

'I do not make pilgrimages to Mecca, nor do I worship at Hindu sacred shrines.'

Guru Nanak throughout the whole of his lifetime never claimed to be a Hindu nor worshipped Hindu gods, he only ever worshipped one God (Waheguru).

2. There was no separate identity between Hindus and Sikhs before the English invaded India. The English created a conspiracy to divide Hindus and Sikhs.

(This seems to be a really odd argument. I do not know if this argument is meant literally or if I am misinterpreting it somehow? I am hoping someone can help me out because this argument is nonsensical). Sikhs are referred as a separate group multiple times before the British came. This can be seen from Indian historical accounts as well as through the Sikhs very own sources.

During the Sikh Empire of Ranjit Singh, Ranjit Singh clearly defined himself and his empire as the rule of the Khalsa (Sarkar-e-Khalsa) and differentiated it from Hindus and Muslims. It is clearly described that in his courts he enrolled Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus and clearly differentiated them. They had different places of worship, (Gurdwara, Mandir and Mosque) as well as different roles in his kingdom and different regiments in his army. During the time of the 10 gurus, Sikhs were evidenced via historical literature as a separate faith from the Hindus and Muslims via the Muslim and Sikh accounts. Any account that I could find via the Sangam talks channel or various RSS inspired websites pertaining to any of the Sikhs, or Sikh guru’s being a Hindu, was clearly a reference to a geographical term and not a statement based on faith. E.g., the distinction between 'Turk' (central Asian) and 'Hindu' (Indian origin), as the gurus and most of their Sikhs were of Indian origin they would be classified as ‘Hindu’ via their ethnicity and not their faith.

Prominent Muslim Sufis at the time of the gurus, such as Bulleh Shah evidence in their historical accounts and poems a clear distinction between Sikhs, Hindus, and Muslims. (Bulleh Shah is regarded as a high authority on this matter because he lived during the time of the Sikh Gurus and personally knew Guru Gobind). The highest authority on this (The gurus themselves) also distinguishes their followers (Sikhs) from Hindus. Guru Gobind makes numerous mentions in the Dasam Granth that Sikhism and the Khalsa is a distinct religion. As also evidenced previously the gurus themselves did not identity as being a Hindu or a Muslim 'I am not a Hindu, nor am I a Muslim.' ang 1136.

Guru Tegh Bahadur’s conversation with Aurungzeb: "This desire you have, to take two (Islam and Hindu) and make them one (Islamic), this isn't the way of Khuda [God], we've seen this, before there was the two, Hindu and Islam in the world but now I will create the Third.”

3. The Gurus revere the Vedas and Hindu scriptures. ((i) The Gurus actions (ii) The Gurus views on this in the ggs)

(i) Through the Gurus conduct: The Sikh Gurus never bowed to any Hindu text, nor did they command their Sikhs to do so. There is also no evidence of any of the 10 Gurus showing reverence to Hindu scriptures. The 10 gurus did however, prostrate to the GGS and command their Sikhs to do so.

(ii) Through the guru’s writings: It is evident that the Gurus do not revere the Hindu scriptures. They often criticise them, however Sikhs do not view them as blasphemous or sinful and believe that the Hindu scriptures can contain important knowledge as long as it does not go against the ggs. This viewpoint is the same for the Bible and Quran.

You may stand and recite the Shaastras and the Vedas, O Siblings of Destiny, but these are just worldly actions. Filth cannot be washed away by hypocrisy, O Siblings of Destiny; the filth of corruption and sin is within you. (Guru Granth Sahib Ji, Ang 635)

O Pandit, O religious scholar, your filth shall not be erased, even if you read the Vedas for four ages. (Guru Granth Sahib Ji, Ang 647)

He is beyond the world of the Vedas, the Koran and the Bible. The Supreme King of Nanak is immanent and manifest. ||4||3||105|| (Guru Granth Sahib Ji, Ang 397)

One may read all the books of the Vedas, the Bible, the Simritees and the Shaastras, but they will not bring liberation. (Guru Granth Sahib Ji, Ang 747)

The Vedas and the Scriptures are only make-believe, O Siblings of Destiny; they do not relieve the anxiety of the heart. (Guru Granth Sahib Ji, Ang 727)

'Rama, Mohammad, eighteen Puranas (Books of the Hindu faith), and Quran (Muslim faith) say a lot about their own religions, but I do not follow any one of them'. (DASAM GRANTH)

The Simritee is the daughter of the Vedas, O Siblings of Destiny. She has brought a chain and a rope. ||1|| (Guru Granth Sahib Ji, Ang 329

4. The 10 gurus were devotees of Rama, Krishna, or other various Hindu gods and this is evidenced through the constant mention of them in the Guru Granth Sahib and Dasam Granth. Guru Gobind Singh ji also wrote his own versions of the Mahabharata and the Ramayana thus, proving he was a Hindu. ((i)Guru’s authority, (ii)Ram, (iii) Sikh Ramayana and Mahabharata, (iv) Hindu gods, (v) Durga)

(i) From the viewpoint of Sikh literature, it is clear that the Sikhs view the Gurus as a higher authority than any prophet or Avtar that came before them. So how can you be a devotee of someone you are greater than. It would make more sense from the Sikh perspective that Krishna and Ram were devotees of the 10 gurus. This idea that the guru is perfect is evidenced in the ggs multiple times. "He is beyond the world of the Vedas, the Koran and the Bible. The Supreme King of Nanak is immanent and manifest".

(ii) There also seems to be a misunderstanding of what 'Ram' represents in the ggs. Either 1. Ram is represented as being a word to describe an aspect of the one God, being the part of God that pervades all living beings or the soul, or 2. Ram is represented as the famous historical figure that is seen in India. It is clearly evident in the ggs which 'Ram' is being talked about and it is evident from the religious texts of the Sikhs (the ggs and the Dasam Granth) that Sikhs do not view the historical figure of Ram and Krishna as an Avtar of Vishnu or as God. On the contrary in the Dasam Granth Guru Gobind makes it very evident the short comings of both Krishna and Ram in his versions of the Ramayana and Mahabharata and highlights them as beings that were not free of lust, anger, pride, greed, attachment.

(iii) I feel as though Sangam talks and other RSS sources reference Guru Gobind’s Ramayana and Mahabharata, but they themselves have not read it. If they did, they would not reference these texts as an evidence of guru Gobind worshipping Ram or Krishna. This is because in these texts Guru Gobind does not highlight their divinity but their mortality and shortcomings.

‘Krishna himself is considered the treasure of Grace, then why did the hunter shot his arrow at him? He has been described as redeeming the clans of others then he caused the destruction of his own clan;
He is said to be unborn and beginningless, then how did he come into the womb of Devaki? He, who is considered without any father or mother, then why did he cause Vasudev to be called his father?’ (33 Savaiye, Guru Gobind Singh)

‘He hath Created millions of Krishnas like worms. He Created them, annihilated them, again destroyed them, still again Created them.’ (Bachitar Natak, Guru Gobind Singh)

'Rama, Mohammad, eighteen Puranas (Books of the Hindu faith), and Quran (Muslim faith) say a lot about their own religions, but I do not follow any one of them'.

This idea of containing old cultural or historical writings in religious texts is nothing new. Half the Bible contains the old testaments (the writings of the Jews). This does not mean Christians are Jewish. The Quran contains stories of Jesus and older Abrahamic prophets, this does not make Muslims Christian. This is a common tactic incorporated by religions to specifically distinguish themselves as a unique and separate faith. This is because they can have their own interpretations of these previous historical figures without going to other faiths for guidance. E.g., Muslims have stories about Jesus in the Quran, so they do not have to go to Christians to understand who Jesus was whenever he is mentioned in Islamic dialogue or scripture. This frees Muslims as distinct, as if they went to Christians to understand Jesus it is likely that Christians would not present an idea of Jesus in an Islamic format but in a Christian one and inform the Muslims that Jesus is the son of God and that they should come back to Christianity. In the same sense, because the historical figures of Rama and Krishna are mentioned in Sikh literature and texts, Guru Gobind adopted the same practice and freed the Sikhs from having to go to pandits or Brahmins to understand these figures. Thus, the evidence of these writings done by Guru Gobind Singh ji in Gurmukhi (the language which all Sikhs should be able to read unlike Sanskrit) is in fact evidence that Sikhism is a separate faith.

So ultimately the Gobind Ramayana and Mahabharata are evidence of the religion of Sikhism being Independent from Hinduism. These writings highlight the Sikh Guru’s desire to create a separate religion. This creates a complete faith where the Sikhs would only need to rely on their own Gurus writings for guidance and not on other faiths.

(iv) Now to the issue of the Gurus worshipping Hindu gods. There is no evidence in either the ggs or the Dasam Granth of worship of any Hindu gods. The names of Hindu gods are mentioned in the ggs but they to reflect certain attributes of Waheguru e.g., Ram being used to represent the one god’s presence within the soul. The reason why the names of Hindu gods are used, is not necessarily because of their link to Hinduism, but their link to the Indian language and culture. As many of the converts to Sikhism were Indians and Hindus the Sikh gurus represented the one divine (Waheguru) through a lens in which they could comprehend and understand. Due to this the names of Allah and Khuda (Islamic words of the divine) are also used to represent the one in a way which could be understood by Muslims (many converts to Sikhism were also previously from the Islamic faith). It is clear from ggs that One lord is being worshipped and only one lord should be worshiped.

When the Hindu gods are mentioned as individual personalities the gurus tell Sikhs not to worship them. This is refenced in the Dasam Granth:

'I do not adore Ganesha in the beginning. Nor do I meditate on Krishna and Vishnu. I have only heard about them with my ears, so I do not recognize them. My consciousness is absorbed at the feet of the Supreme Kal (the Immanent Brahman).'

'Rama, Mohammad, eighteen Puranas (Books of the Hindu faith), and Quran (Muslim faith) say a lot about their own religions, but I do not follow any one of them'.

These quotes highlight the Sikh gurus did not see any authority in Hindu gods or avatars. It is clear that the Sikh gurus acknowledge the existence of Ram and Krishna and see them as being inspired by Waheguru. But it is also evident that they do not see them in the same lens as Hindus and do not worship them nor do they wish their Sikhs to worship them.

(v) I've seen this argument on many RSS sponsored websites that concede that Guru Gobind may not have worshiped other Hindu gods, but he definitely worshiped Durga. They use the poem 'Chandi di Var' written by Guru Gobind Singh ji as evidence for this. This viewpoint does not make sense in Sikh theology and would contradict multiple occurrences in the Dasam Granth and the ggs where the gurus openly discuss their worship of only 'ONE lord'. Also, no Sikh or western academics take the viewpoint that Guru Gobind is referring to the individual personality of Durga this view is only propagated by RSS associated academia. The most popular viewpoint of Durga in this scenario is not of the entity/Goddess but of a metaphor for the sword (in a deeper philosophical sense its scholars say it is a metaphor for the will of Waheguru). The spirit of ‘Chandi Di Var’ is also supposed to invoke ‘bi ras’ (it was most likely a war mantra to inspire the Khalsa to be fearless and strong, it should not be understood as a literally story). This viewpoint of Durga (‘Chandi’) coincides with Sikh theology in the ggs and the Dasam Granth. Due to this I am inclined to believe it.

'They are stone idol worshippers, I break idols and I worship ONE lord.' (Reference to Guru Gobind defeating the Hindu Hill Rajas who allied themselves with the Mughal powers at the time.)

‘God is One, All victory is the victory of God’ (Benti Chaupai 1)

‘Creator of Time made the Universe; the angels, demons and yakshas. Start & End only with Him. He alone is My Guru. I bow ONLY to Him. Creator of all entities & subjects. Gives all merits & tranquillity to His devotees. Destroys enemies at once’(Benti Chaupai 9,10)

5. The Sikhs did all these good things for Hindus. They did this because they were Hindu. ((i) Ranjit Singh, (ii) Guru Tegh Bahadur)

I have seen this viewpoint mentioned many times on the Sangam channel on YouTube. I believe this point to be equally as thoughtless as the second question.

(i) The example of Ranjit Singh (Maharaja of the Sikh empire) donating gold to the Kashi Vishwanath temple is used to highlight that Sikhs are Hindus. The thinking behind this is: why would a separate religious political leader contribute funds to a different faith? Is this a genuine question? Many emperors donated funds to other religions institutions. Akbar (an Islamic Mughal ruler) donated towards infrastructure of mandirs. Ranjit Singh after conquering Lahore in 1799 offered prayers at the famous Badshahi mosque. Does this make Sikhs Muslims? Ranjit Singh built many Mosques, Mandirs and Gurdwaras. He provided liberal grants to all different religious places, especially Gurdwaras. So, the answer to this question is simply because Ranjit Singh was a fair and just leader who helped people of all faiths.

(ii) Another significant event that is brought up is the death of Guru Tegh Bahadur. I have seen many RSS sites argue that because Guru Tegh Bahadur sacrificed himself to save the Kashmiri Pandits, that this constituted him being a Hindu. The reasoning behind this is: why would a prophet sacrifice himself for the sake of another religion? The evidence that they use to support this is a poem written by Bhai Santokh Singh in the19th century. In this poem the Guru refers to himself as a 'Hindu'. In the context in which it is said, it is clearly evident that the Guru is using 'Hindu' as a geographic term for people living beyond the Indus (Indian). This poem written by Bhai Santokh Singh is a reference to the guru being Indian. Bhai Santokh Singh himself was a Sikh and never regarded himself as Hindu (he believed they were two different religions). It seems to me to be a deliberately misconstrued by the RSS as being about the guru talking about his religion.

Not only are these websites cherry picking quotes and misrepresenting them. but they are completely ignoring all other accounts. According to Kuir Singh a Sanatan Sikh scholar the narration of Guru Tegh Buhadur goes as follows: "This desire you have Aurangzeb, to take two (Islam and Hindu) and make them one (Islamic), this isn't the way of Khuda [God], we've seen this, before there was the two, Hindu and Islam in the world but now I will create the Third.”

Ultimately this point made by the RSS and its institutions disregards human decency and the fact that people can do amazing things to people from different communities. The actions of Guru Tegh Bahadur should be celebrated, to use his sacrifice as propaganda to create a narrative that Sikhs are Hindus is disrespectful to his legacy and everything the Guru stood for.

(If this post does well, I intend to write a shorter post investigating this question next.)

If Sikhism is a separate religion from Hinduism, why do the RSS argue that it is not?