<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Indian Culture- Part I ( http://www.esamskriti.com/html/new_...id=196&sid=34 ) <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Vedas do not talk about idol worship. In fact, till about 2000 years ago Hindus never worshipped idols. Idol worship was started by the followers of Lord Buddha. There is a logic to idol worship.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> What is this eternal dhimmitude that even well-meaning Hindus suffer from?
Didn't Rukmini, Krishna's wife and incarnation of Lakshmi, worship Parvati's vigraham in the temple? Didn't Rama build a Mahalingam and perform puja to Shankara in the very south of India - the site of Rameshwaram today - before crossing to Lanka and beginning his enterprise against Ravana? What would the author of the piece 'Indian Culture Part I' call Rama's puja to the Lingam?
It's a vigraham, not an idol. Ask the christoislamics what idol and idol worship means to them and you'll discover it has a different meaning to what vigraham and puja means to us. That means we are not talking about the same thing. It does not explain why my Jain friend keeps Vigneshwara and Lakshmi vigrahas in their puja-room. Nor does it describe my waking up every morning to look at the various images of Gods near my bed.
And why do we feel we need to be apologetic about 'idol worship' (itself a derogatory phrase that the terrorist religions have given to us)? Need to stop defining ourselves with the terms they've given. That's what leads to dhimmitude.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Hinduism speaks of one God that is the supreme self in man ie Atman or soul. Different Gods and Goddesses are manifestations of the powers and functions of the one supreme God.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Besides being seen as an expression of a single aspect of Paramatma, each Hindu God can be considered a full manifestation of Parabrahmam too (Shiva, Uma, Lakshmi, Mahavishnu, Kartikeya, Ganapathi, ...). Many great Hindus in the past have made Ishtadevas out of one of these and have attained Moksha.
Mind-boggling for narrowminded christoislamics, no doubt, who can only understand the world in terms of monotheists and polytheists, dar-ul-harb and dar-ul-islam, saved and unsaved, kafir and faithful.
Hindu beliefs cannot be explained by the narrow terms of polytheism or monotheism. So why do we need to pretend that monotheism is the ideal? It does not even properly approach the meaning of Parabrahmam. Monotheism, in the sense that the Christo west has understood it, is a belief in One True Gawd, because the christoislamics do believe in many gods - although, except for their chosen deity, the other ones are 'false gods' (or even demons). We don't have false gods. Gods are either God or not. (The demiurge of christoislam is entirely manufactured, hence non-existent. Islam has stolen the name of Allah and appropriated it for their invented deity.)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Aryan gods were Indra, Agni, Varuna, Soma, Surya or Vishnu, Ushas and Dravidian Gods were Shiva, Ma or Parvati, Murugan.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Not again. When will this end? Why do we believe and accept Christos from Europe splitting our pantheon into IE (Oryan) Gods and non-IE Gods?
Where's the proof of
(1) Oryans having existed at all
(2) Oryans having come to India (invaded, migrated, influxed, getting lost...)
(3) Their pantheon - that is, if we don't have evidence of Oryans having existed at all, how do we know they had deities, and who their deities were/what they were like
(4) That the Oryans wrote the Vedas
(5) That the Oryans therefore brought Indra and the other Gods (which the appropriators want to call Oryan) from lalaland (Urheimat)
(6) That there were Dravidians,
(7) Etc., etc., etc.
Before we ever heard of the fabulous fable of the ultramen - I speak of course of the Oryans - did we think Indra and the rest were of a different origin from Shiva, Muruga and the others? That's a no, by the way.
We Hindus live in eternal Dhimmitude, we accept it so easily.
Others tell us monotheism is super and that we are but pathetic little polytheists. So we want to be monotheists without knowing the real meaning. (Old Korean religion was also classified as monotheist by the missionary psychos, even though there were many Korean deities like in Shintoism. But the enforced classification made conversion easier for the christoterrorists.)
Others tell us idol-worship is something bad. We want to keep it, but need to be apologetic about it, all the while misunderstanding what they mean with idol-worship. (It doesn't apply to us or any other non-christoislamics I know.)
Others tell us there were Oryans, that they invaded India and that the Hindu deities we knew since the beginning of Hindu memory can be arbitrarily divided into Oryan and unOryan deities. And we believe it and then write articles on Hinduism parroting the same without any critical reflection.
We're happy to swallow everything others tell us about our religion - even though we and our parents, grandparents and ancestors do in fact know better. We're quite willing to accept all their labels. And we're pleased to view our religion from their perspective, making it 'Hinduism and Indian Culture as told by christoislamic colonial imperialism'. No wonder some people are so confused they are converting to terrorist religions. That that's the intention of christoislamism is no suprise, but I don't know why Hindus are so glad to oblige them.
<b>EDIT:</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Did Christianity ever believe in rebirth ?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Christianity believed in everything that was doing the rounds in the ancient world (made it easier to gain converts). It stole everything from the former beliefs of the regions.
In time, especially in 4th to 5th centuries, the Christos decided to vote on what beliefs and gospels were to be orthodox. Then they threw out stuff they didn't think belonged in Christoism. That lead to the Christoism of subsequent centuries and today. What can one expect from a made-up religion? It has never known what it wants to be. Besides intolerance, I can't think of a single constant, well-defined teaching in christosm.
Reincarnation hardly needs the endorsement of christoism to be considered acceptable.
Didn't Rukmini, Krishna's wife and incarnation of Lakshmi, worship Parvati's vigraham in the temple? Didn't Rama build a Mahalingam and perform puja to Shankara in the very south of India - the site of Rameshwaram today - before crossing to Lanka and beginning his enterprise against Ravana? What would the author of the piece 'Indian Culture Part I' call Rama's puja to the Lingam?
It's a vigraham, not an idol. Ask the christoislamics what idol and idol worship means to them and you'll discover it has a different meaning to what vigraham and puja means to us. That means we are not talking about the same thing. It does not explain why my Jain friend keeps Vigneshwara and Lakshmi vigrahas in their puja-room. Nor does it describe my waking up every morning to look at the various images of Gods near my bed.
And why do we feel we need to be apologetic about 'idol worship' (itself a derogatory phrase that the terrorist religions have given to us)? Need to stop defining ourselves with the terms they've given. That's what leads to dhimmitude.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Hinduism speaks of one God that is the supreme self in man ie Atman or soul. Different Gods and Goddesses are manifestations of the powers and functions of the one supreme God.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Besides being seen as an expression of a single aspect of Paramatma, each Hindu God can be considered a full manifestation of Parabrahmam too (Shiva, Uma, Lakshmi, Mahavishnu, Kartikeya, Ganapathi, ...). Many great Hindus in the past have made Ishtadevas out of one of these and have attained Moksha.
Mind-boggling for narrowminded christoislamics, no doubt, who can only understand the world in terms of monotheists and polytheists, dar-ul-harb and dar-ul-islam, saved and unsaved, kafir and faithful.
Hindu beliefs cannot be explained by the narrow terms of polytheism or monotheism. So why do we need to pretend that monotheism is the ideal? It does not even properly approach the meaning of Parabrahmam. Monotheism, in the sense that the Christo west has understood it, is a belief in One True Gawd, because the christoislamics do believe in many gods - although, except for their chosen deity, the other ones are 'false gods' (or even demons). We don't have false gods. Gods are either God or not. (The demiurge of christoislam is entirely manufactured, hence non-existent. Islam has stolen the name of Allah and appropriated it for their invented deity.)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Aryan gods were Indra, Agni, Varuna, Soma, Surya or Vishnu, Ushas and Dravidian Gods were Shiva, Ma or Parvati, Murugan.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Not again. When will this end? Why do we believe and accept Christos from Europe splitting our pantheon into IE (Oryan) Gods and non-IE Gods?
Where's the proof of
(1) Oryans having existed at all
(2) Oryans having come to India (invaded, migrated, influxed, getting lost...)
(3) Their pantheon - that is, if we don't have evidence of Oryans having existed at all, how do we know they had deities, and who their deities were/what they were like
(4) That the Oryans wrote the Vedas
(5) That the Oryans therefore brought Indra and the other Gods (which the appropriators want to call Oryan) from lalaland (Urheimat)
(6) That there were Dravidians,
(7) Etc., etc., etc.
Before we ever heard of the fabulous fable of the ultramen - I speak of course of the Oryans - did we think Indra and the rest were of a different origin from Shiva, Muruga and the others? That's a no, by the way.
We Hindus live in eternal Dhimmitude, we accept it so easily.
Others tell us monotheism is super and that we are but pathetic little polytheists. So we want to be monotheists without knowing the real meaning. (Old Korean religion was also classified as monotheist by the missionary psychos, even though there were many Korean deities like in Shintoism. But the enforced classification made conversion easier for the christoterrorists.)
Others tell us idol-worship is something bad. We want to keep it, but need to be apologetic about it, all the while misunderstanding what they mean with idol-worship. (It doesn't apply to us or any other non-christoislamics I know.)
Others tell us there were Oryans, that they invaded India and that the Hindu deities we knew since the beginning of Hindu memory can be arbitrarily divided into Oryan and unOryan deities. And we believe it and then write articles on Hinduism parroting the same without any critical reflection.
We're happy to swallow everything others tell us about our religion - even though we and our parents, grandparents and ancestors do in fact know better. We're quite willing to accept all their labels. And we're pleased to view our religion from their perspective, making it 'Hinduism and Indian Culture as told by christoislamic colonial imperialism'. No wonder some people are so confused they are converting to terrorist religions. That that's the intention of christoislamism is no suprise, but I don't know why Hindus are so glad to oblige them.
<b>EDIT:</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Did Christianity ever believe in rebirth ?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Christianity believed in everything that was doing the rounds in the ancient world (made it easier to gain converts). It stole everything from the former beliefs of the regions.
In time, especially in 4th to 5th centuries, the Christos decided to vote on what beliefs and gospels were to be orthodox. Then they threw out stuff they didn't think belonged in Christoism. That lead to the Christoism of subsequent centuries and today. What can one expect from a made-up religion? It has never known what it wants to be. Besides intolerance, I can't think of a single constant, well-defined teaching in christosm.
Reincarnation hardly needs the endorsement of christoism to be considered acceptable.