God in Vedas and Upanishads

Unfortunately, the self-evident truth, that, the idea of perpetual re-incarnation of life needs no god nor there is a need for a creator, nor there is room for evolution, was not discovered by me. It was discovered by another prince, the Prince of Kupilavastu, called Buddah. Buddah envisioned a world with no begining and no end, where life is recycled from one form to another till eternity and beyond, and only thing that is relavent in a certain life is the pain and suffering and corresponding love nd compassion of the human beings. So Buddah created the worlds first atheist religion where there is no god or dieties, no creator, no sustainer and no destroyer.

But interestingly, enough it is the very followers of Buddah who are still in search of meaning and purpose of life in their caves and monastries. And ironically, enough it is them who have turned Buddah into a pseudo-diety himself. Which only means that the purpose of life goes way beyongd the suffering and compassion. The eternal quest of man to find his Creator thus have continued.

Thinking about the fate of Dinosaurs, it does not take much of imagination to think that a single malignant virus can very well wipe the human race or all life from this planet from good. Thus breaking Buddah`s eternal cycle of life.

Hinduism is like a Buffet. Your can pick and choose what you want. There are different GODs and you can take you pick. Pray to one or to all or non. There are some savory dishes like spiritualism and bhagti and some nasty dishes like caste system.

Islam is like a sit down dinner. The only problem is that once you have eaten there, you can not go eate anywhere else even if you hate the dish. Your have to eat what is offered to you, even if it kills you. Also you have to be in a manner of speaking dress for it. Like Beard and Hijab etc. You can not bad mouth the dinner or the chef, because if you do your fellow dinner are required to kill you.

Re: # 37

``And actually I don`t give a damn. No more posts from me on this topic``

I agree with swarrier. Same from here. BYE!


p.s
I agree with Kamath also...the author has a made a mess here...using convoluted language....

``Example of HIndu friends is like who is ashmaed of their heritage, that is the reaon they try to hide their present form of scriptures``
``you have to have non-contradictory ideas, dont you?``


Think about the irony here! then you are whining you are being ``hated by Muslims``. Obviously, TRUE MUSLIMS have a belief (``NON-CONTRADICTORY``) that Mohamed is the final Prophet, either you should accept this and be a true Muslim or call yourself something else. I find your religion MOST-CONTRADICTORY. I am aware of your explanations about your Messiah, pls don`t go there. Despite all the negative things said about Islam, it is not difficult to sympathize with the TRUE MUSLIMS why they are upset with you.


You not only have bigoted opinions, and look at Hinduism from the vantage point of the religion you were born into.....you are not interested in understanding.


No one ``hides`` any scriptures....unlike religions based on one book a Hindu has the freedom of choosing what book he believes in .....if he doesn`t like any of them ...does not believe in any of these theories.........that`s fine.

If you think the transmigration theory is stupid ....perfect...you are entitled to your opinion. ALL THEORIES ARE OK. HOW DO YOU KNOW FOR SURE ONLY YOUR THEORY IS THE TRUTH?


The only underlying theme is we are all manifestations of the divine intelligence ..whatever you call it .....and you are free to interpret....life, world, the Universe......................

Urstruly
Philosophically, why should there be a God referred to as a ``he``?

Why should the theory of reincarnation be antagonistic to the theory of evolution?

Long before western thought came into the picture Indic religions did try to get God out of the equation?

If there is a God why has so much evil been perpetuated by religions? You`d that God chap would get it right the first time, eh? Instead of making mistakes like us poor humans?

Rizwan
Why does Islam have more depth and originality? Because you were born into it?

Start with the premise that there is no God, you are just an animal like any other and think.

There is no original founder of Hinduism. It`s a set of evolving philosophies (evolving when people were concerned about God).

Hinduism is not absolute. It promotes various shades of thought.

Does the article say anything about Mukti or salvation? Does it say anything about Karma?

Deeper philosophy comes with contradictory ideas? Can you prove or disprove the existence of a God? Please think.

Can you or Urstruly provide one iota of proof that your theistic God exists? That he is nothing but a creation of your minds , living on rewards for good deeds, revenge for the bad ones, made in your image , not the other way around?

Do you understand this sentence ? `` Thus Brahman in Upanishads is both immanent in the world and transcendent of it. ``

Please think. Deeper philosophy does not come by claiming that everything that needs to be known is in one book. Other religions have claimed that too. They have sacked and destroyed libraries / invaluable sources of knowledge because of that .

One more thing, Hinduism claims no creator , read again in the article the translation of the Rig-Veda. The Universe came out of nothingness.
That is why we don`t have to debate on whether the earth was formed before the sun and moon , how the fourth day is the first day because the sun was created then etc etc etc ....

I know of no religion that is not full of contradictions. That is the spice of life.

My feeling is we will always talk at cross purposes because I reject the idea of an all knowing creator and you welcome it.

You are programmed by your belief in your religion to think in a certain fashion. My religion does not demand that I think on any lines. I can be an agnostic and a Hindu.

Any religion that says it is the only and one and true religion is in my opinion guilty of gross miscalculation.

And actually I don`t give a damn. No more posts from me on this topic.

Mr. Bhatnagar:

You make a mess in your explanation and articulation about Hinduism. ( Perhaps you might do the same thing had you been a member of some other faith too perhaps). Also there is good deal of trying to show off in using esoteric words. Why don`t you read and summarize comments by other knowledgeable and eminent writers of Hinduism?

To start with, please please go to a nearest public library and pick and read up a good book authored by a good academic before you write..

You would be better off sticking to differential and integral equations rather than making a fool of yourself here.

Kamath

I have been asked why I presented so much material on Incarnation and Karma, where as the article is about concept of God in vedas and upnashids.

Is Incarnation and Karma seperate from God, as depicted in Vedas? or not they related.

Correct me if I am wrong, is this article saying that God has no bearing/relation with ``Mukti`` or salvation and God as presetned by current form of Vedas has no capability associated with Karma?

Please think. Deeper philosophy does not come just by claiming it, you have to have non-contradictory ideas, dont you?

I am being an Ahmadi Muslim, being hated by most so called Muslims. One of them is being called names without any reason.

I have to admitt that Islam has most substance and original thougth, it contains more philosophical depth; due to the reason that it solves age old quandry of humans about their understanding of their creator. Islam guides a human being towards clear recognization of God as much as that at the highest form one can be absorbed in God.

Ustruly have presented some very genuine questions, which need serious input from Our Hindu friends, if they can present one. Instead of calling him by names it would be worthwhile if someone can present some rational argument about ``if there was ever a unified concept of God after the original founder of Hinudism left this world``. Or if Hinduism in its present form is capable of explaining ``purpose of life`` and how to recongnize the ture God.

What is the ``tasaraf`` hold/purpose of religion on a person?

Example of HIndu friends is like who is ashmaed of their heritage, that is the reaon they try to hide their present form of scriptures. Either they present it in a language which is obsolete and no one ( 99.99999%) can not understand that dead language or they present selective chery picked quotes from upnashids which are derivatives from holy scriptures. They claim that God can express himself only in that language, and that also only in India, and that also some thousands year ago. As if God is now dumb and can not speak, can not speak anyother language except sansakrat, as if that imaginative God of thiers is not able to communicate in another language.

The modern twister and spinners come forward and try to insert in their Holy literature ideas and concepts which are not present them. To do so they employ subterfuge and heavy sounding words and ambigious pharases.

Is anbody have any idea what is the concept of God as presented by this article? as presented by Vedas or upnashids? an idea which is not self contradictory. Please share with us.

From philosophical point of view an ideology that promotes the concept of eternal perpetuation of life, absolutely eliminates the need for a God/Creator altogether. Technically, it must eliminate the concept of evolution totally as well. In other words this ideology thus fails to provide the answers to two basic questions that human beings from across the planet have strived to answer through millinia. These two basic questions are:

1. Who we are and where did we come from? and

2. Where are we going i.e. what is purpose of our existence.

So if an ideology promotes that the purpose of life is to get recycled into different phases of material existence till eternity and beyond ,,,such as,,,birth of man turns into the death of man, and man turns into another life form like an animal or a bug or then recycled into a plant form back into human form till eternity then in principle we do not need a god to operate this perpetual motion machine. The need for a mutiplicity of gods is even further out of question. The question for evolution of man -physically and mentally- also becomes absurd. This idea does not satisfy our genetic urges to find the answer to the original questions that we explored in my earlier post:

i.e.

1. Our genes kick us to connect to One Creator and

2. The same genes kick us to rise above animals and start establishing rights and wrongs.

Even more depressing is the godless idelogy that promotes that that there is nothing more to life than our chemical structure. As it disintegrates it disintegrates completely. So in other words a wierd combination of chemicals can be called as life but in disintegrated form the same chemicals have no meaning. Interestingly enough for the past 3 or 4 centuries every western philosopher has struggled to get God out of the equation of good and bad. The works of Russel, Hume, Locke, Kant, Nietszce have been to find the answer to this question: ``Can we be good without God``. Yes, humanists claim that they can and they are good without God? but even a cursory look would tell that all the good that they claim as theirs, has been given to us by God.

It seems one Jehadi from Korangi Idiot factory has been truly excited by the article.

Shall we talk about pedophilia, child rape, having sexual fantasy and marrying your son`s
wife, etc?

Hindu theologians may have some crappy opinions on transmigration, karma, yada, yada.....most people give a damn.....and difference of opinions is entirely ok........unlike the products of Korangi Idiot Factory ...``no change in slash .or ..dot ..absolutism.. God`s word`` crap..................

.........if we don`t like these ideas...we can trash them...we are fine.............


........most importantly none of these beliefs makes any one blowing onself up to kill innocent people or fly planes into buildings...........

WHAT HYPOCRISY IS GOING ON HERE?


CASTEISM Among Muslims in India

Taken from ``Social Stratification Among Muslims in India`` by Zarina Bhatty in Caste: Its Twentieth Century Avatar, edited by M. N. Srinivas, Viking, New Delhi, 1996.

Muslims in India are sharply divided into two categories, Ashrafs and non-Ashrafs. The former have a superior status derived from their foreign ancestry.


{{{{The Ashrafs, or those who claim a foreign descent, are further divided into four castes, Sayyads, Shiekhs, Mughals and Pathans, in that order of rank}}}}


{{{{The non-Ashrafs are alleged to be converts from Hinduism, and are therefore drawn from the indigenous population. They, in turn, are divided into a number of occupational castes.}}}}

In Kasauli the term `zat` (Jaat) equivalent to `jati` in the Hindu caste system, is used to refer to caste, and the Ashrafs and non-Ashrafs are collectively referred to as `oonchi zat` (high caste) and `neechi zat` (low caste) respectively. Interactions between the oonchi zat and neechi zat are regulated by established patron-client relationships of the jajmani system. The patrons, who belong to the oonchi zat, are referred to as the jajmans, and the clients, comprising the various occupational castes of the neechi zat, as kamin. The kamins, who are attached to the dominant Ashraf lineage in a hereditary relationship, provide specialized services to its members for customary payments in cash or kind. The kamins are provided house sites by their jajmans and can also get land on lease from the jajmans for cultivation.

Like the Ashraf castes, which are ranked hierachically, the non-Ashraf castes also relate to each other in a hierarchical manner. In their case the superiority or inferiority of a caste is determined by the relatively pure or impure nature of the occupation associated with each. The dominant lineage of the Kidwais enjoys a uniformly superior status to all the non-Ashraf castes. The Kidwais claim to be Sayyads but the other Ashraf castes of Kasauli doubt the authenticity of their claim, and believe that Kidwais are a sub-caste of Sheikhs. The Kidwais` claim to Sayyad ancestry is however not openly challenged because of their economic superiority. The non-Ashraf castes exhibit a duality in their status, as each caste is superior or inferior to other non-Ashraf castes but always inferior to Ashraf castes.

Among Kasauli Muslims, the first and foremost criterion for grading non-Ashraf castes was the degree of impurity or pollution implicit in the nature of their occupation. In addition, there was another related criterion, viz. physical proximity of a non-Ashraf caste to Ashraf castes while performing services for them. Mirasis (singers) were thus higher than Nais (barbers), and both higher than Dhobi (laundrymen). Mirasis were higher than Nais because Mirasi women sat among Ashraf ladies to sing and singing had no polluting connotation. Women of the Nai caste who massaged Ashraf women and Nai men who cut hair performed services in physical proximity to the Ashraf caste but were rated lower than Mirasis because both services were regarded as impure. On the other hand, the Dhobi not only washed dirty clothes, which was a polluting occupation, their services did not require physical proximity to the Ashrafs and hence they were still lower in the caste hierarchy.

Things are not only impure or pure, but some things are more impure than others. In the course of practising their traditional occupation, castes which habitually handle very impure things are lower in status than those which handle things which are not so impure. These ideas hold good for the non-Ashraf castes in Kasauli. Human secretions (particularly nightsoil), dead animals and animals eating filth (pigs), are regarded as the most polluting, and occupations associated with them occupy the lowest rungs in the caste hierarchy. These castes are also regarded as unclean. In their case, group pollution also attaches to individual members of the caste.

Consequently, physical contact with individuals of these castes is avoided not only by Ashrafs but also by non-Ashrafs. Among the Muslims, if a person accidentally touches an individual of an unclean caste, the former must purify himself by a simple bath, particularly prior to performing a religious function like saying `namaz`, reading the Koran or entering a mosque. There is a difference here between Muslims and Hindus, and it lies in the fact that, unlike among Hindus, no elaborate rituals are prescribed for Muslims for purifying themselves in the event of physical contact with an individual from an unclean caste.

A person can be polluted not only by touching an individual of an unclean caste but also by coming in contact with an impure substance. Among Muslims all human secretions are `naiis` or oollutine. Thus a woman during her periods is `najis` irrespective of her caste and must abstain from saying `namaz`, ritual fasting, entering a holy place or partaking food on which the `fateha` (Koranic verses) have been recited. A man and woman are both `najis` after sexual intercourse. If a child wets a person he (or she) becomes `najis`. Here again `nijasaf, the state of being `najis`, is removed by having a bath. A distinction is made here between personal pollution caused by contact with human secretions and group pollution related to an occupation which involves direct physical contact with human emissions and waste, as in the case of Dhobis or Bhangis. Personal pollutioin is not transferred to another person whereas a person belonging to an unclean caste like the Dhobi or Bhangi can pollute others by touch.

Frederick Barth approximates the Swat `Quoms` (social groups) to Hindu castes. He considers a `Quom` to be too rigidly separated to be described as class. He also asserts that Swat Muslims practise a ritual-based system of social stratification, for Swat Quoms who deal with human emissions are ranked the lowest (Barth 1969). Bhattacharya in his study of Bengal (India) Muslims also claims that the concepts of purity and impurity exist among them and are applicable in inter-group relationships, as the notions of hygiene and cleanliness in a person are related to the person`s social position and not to his/her economic status (Bhattacharya 1978).

Status differentiation implicit in the caste system finds expression in restrictions on marriage and eating together. In Kasauli caste endogamy is strictly adhered to, both among Ashrafs and non- Ashrafs. The four Ashraf castes are divided into two endogamous groups. Sayyads and Sheikhs inter-marry with a tendency towards hypergamy and so do Mughals and Pathans. Marriage alliances between Ashrafs and non-Ashrafs are still inconceivable and not a single instance of this is known to have occurred in living memory in Kasauli. In another predominantly Muslim village in the same district, a marriage did occur once between a non-Ashraf man and an Ashraf girl. But social disapproval was so persistent and intense that the couple was forced finally to migrate to Pakistan. In another district married a Muslim woman as a second wife. She was alleged to have belonged to the Dhobi caste. She was treated well by the husband who, in terms of clothes, jewellery, etc., provided for her equally (according to Koranic instructions as he understood them), but she was never socially accepted by the Ashrafs. On ceremonial occasions she had to retire to her quarters before mealtime, as Ashraf ladies would not eat with her. It was also understood that children born of her would not get Ashraf spouses, and as a matter of fact, they did not.

Ashrafs and non-Ashrafs do not eat together in Kasauli. Between the two endogamous subdivisions of Ashrafs there is no restriction on eating together, but their interaction is so limited that, in practice, it rarely occurs.

Caste in Kasauli represents a cluster of statuses social, political, economic and ritual. The last, in conjunction with social and economic status, has been dealt with in some detail on account of the controversy that centres around it. The political aspect of caste finds expression through the institution of the caste panchayat (a committee of elders) and a well-entrenched concept of biradari (literally, brotherhood).

Each non-Ashraf caste in Kasauli has a caste panchayat which regulates both intra-caste and inter-caste (among the non-Ashrafs) interactions and personal conduct. Caste panchayats have the right to settle disputes relating to property or personal matters, such as petty theft, boundary encroachments on individually owned land, divorce, disputes over dowry and the custody of children. Caste panchayats are also empowered to punish, the punishments ranging from fines to expulsion from the biradari. The latter, which is an extreme punishment, is referred to as stopping hukka-pani, which amounts to barring the offender from sitting and eating with fellow caste members, and further includes a severe economic sanction which prevents the offender from following the caste occupation.

The concept of biradari and caste panchayat are almost inseparable as the economic and political solidarity of a caste is expressed through the biradari and is regulated through the panchayat. Thus there is, for instance, a Julaha (weavers) biradari or a Kasai (butchers) biradari, neither of whom admit into their fold weavers or butchers who may professionally perform their functions but do not belong to the Julaha or Kasai castes. Such persons or families continue to belong to the biradari of their origin a fact that stresses the strict caste basis of biradari.

Hamza Alavi (1976), in his study of villages in the Punjab province of Pakistan, refers to biradari as having apolitical dimension because one can be expelled from it. But he attributes greater significance to the expression of kinship solidarity through the biradaris because of the inclusion in biradaris of both maternal and paternal kin who are engaged in the same occupation. In Kasauli too, each caste being endogamous, biradaris, by virtue of caste endogamy, are composed of both maternal and paternal kin. But, besides safeguarding caste solidarity, biradari panchayats also play a well-defined political role in regulating personal conduct with the help of established biradari norms, and in dealing with inter-biradari matters.

In Kasauli, Ashrafs too have biradaris the Sayyad biradari or the Sheikh biradari, for instance but these exist mainly to define the boundaries of their caste, for there are no panchayats. Biradari solidarity, however, is expressed on ceremonial occasions, when all members of the biradari are invited. Keeping the honour of the biradari is as important as it is among the non-Ashrafs. In the absence of a panchayat, an Ashraf biradari does not have an organ for expressing collective disapproval let alone punishing those committing offences against the caste code. Nor are disputes resolved by the biradari, with the result that they are taken to the law courts.

Thus it was found that Kasauli Muslims functioned on a caste basis, each group or sub-caste being endogamous, and membership of the group being determined by birth. Further, all groups were hierarchically arranged, the hierarchy being determined by ancestry and by the nature of the occupation associated with each group. Conformity to the system was ensured by exerting economic and political pressure through caste panchayats, and caste solidarity was maintained through biradari sentiments. Relations and interactions between the two major segments of the society Ashrafs and non-Ashrafs were governed by the jajmani system.

Re: # 29

Oh , and of course, I coud be completely wrong. -)

Re: # 28
Rizwan
You can look at it metaphorically. The flute passes on Krishna`s breath as he told Radha in one story. You can say that is a message. People may interpret it as such.
However we are talking about the concept of God in the Vedas and Upanishads not symbols and metaphors that came later.
In any case for me being Hindu, I can equally accept that there were no divine revelations , even further that there is no God in our image , in fact that as the Upanishads say there can never be a personification of the absolute truth.

In reply to Swarrier.

I think you assumed that, flute of Kirshna is an idea stolen from Western universities.

At this point in time, we humans who lives in this era, we based our observation of past based on Historical accounts, evidance which has travelled through time. It is another subject and surely related how this historical account reached to us, what is its accuracy etc. But it is from this written form what we deduce bout past personalities.

Surely it is written in Hindu Scripture that Kisrhan said `` Would you use the old village pond(to bring water) if you know that there is a new fresh stream of water gushing forth outside the village``. Now this is an evidance of Kirshan using allegorical way of teaching to his desciples, and it is evidance from the same Hindu scripture. There are other examples. See this is a continuous mechanism, if there is one supereme God then he continouly freshens the water for humans. One can drink it by purifying the heart, this is essense of the message from evey one, be Kirshan or Budhha or Jesus.

We Muslims beleive that God perfects his creation and perfects his message gradually, and we points to the evidance based on common observation. If you read the article in my posting, this is what was discussed related to concept of Karma and its shortcomings. So in short this flute has been coming down to earth in different forms, depending upon the nature and culture of particular people.

As God says in Quran ``He is Who who makes the earth alive after its death`` and ``It is He Who send waters from the sky``. Now it is our observation that water comes from the sky and vegetation grows, similarly spirtual water comes from the heavens which enlightens a person. Now water is just for explanation purpoe, off course if you understand, it can be examplified by flute. It is a matter of different semantics but essense of the core message is the same, and all the great one has delivered the same message, water of spirtual life comes from the heavens.

Re: # 26
Rizwan
Lets get to your last letter first. You are wrong. It is easy to come across a poorly written article. There are tons of them on chowk itself. Is it because there are two divergent currents you have a problem understanding things or that you have not understood the title?

Now who is to say there are divinely inspired religions. I say all religions are products of human fantasy. Show me proof to deny that.

Lastly interpretation of other religions by using the basis of other faiths is not very sensible. Your example of Krishna being the flute player and therefore a messenger using the flute as a symbol is nothing but a copycat version of western universities trying to use symbolism, which started with Freud . I`m telling you the flute was just something Krishna used to amuse himself. Maybe charm girls and cows. Show me that I am wrong.

Stop cutting and pasting from alislam.org which uses one book as its basis. Just because the article quotes Verman`s book the Vedas doesn`t mean it has anything to do with it. I am not aware of any Vedic mention of Krishna.

I posted all the previous responces, as It is rare to come across a poorly written article.

What is in this article, two divergent currents, what are they?. One current, which is at one point in the article independant from other, where as at another point in the article both currents are not mutually exclusive. What is this?