It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The vedic civilization and evolution of society in India

page: 9
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 05:13 AM
Tell me about Prajapathi. Who is he if not the one who Christians worship?

posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 05:27 AM
Heh..Hindu here. Only reason we're called this is because of the Persians though.

Thanks OP for clearing up a few misconceptions that people (e.g. dowry and women). That was never written in there...What I'd also like to add (from my own thread here is the difference between literature)...those written much later bring into the inequality by women etc..but that is an influence by the twisted minds of humans, which is in the Smriti literature...not the Shruti being Vedas..

Yes, there have been a lot of criticism to e.g. the caste system, the status of women which is definitely narrow minded. This is all found in the Smriti literature which doesn’t have the same status as the Vedas and is written by humans....this all came as a by-product of them and their political and social circumstances. These books do not have to be necessarily accepted as final authority on any issue...unlike the Vedas they are not eternal or fallible. There is no caste system in the Vedas nor discrimination between man and women...and I could go on.

posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 05:57 AM
reply to post by 547000

'praja' is actually humans. 'pati' means who provide sustenance.

'prajapati' is 'who provides sustenance to humans', or God.

posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 06:08 AM
reply to post by BlackPoison94

I appreciate your comment. Please let me know if you would like me to explain view of Veda on any specific topic.

The 'Hindu' word is due to Arabs. People who came to India before Arabs (Babylonians, Assyrians, Persians, even Egyptians) did not use it. The word stuck, as there was no other 'unified' name for various sects in Bharat. Vedic religion had declined by 500BC.

Persia saw a heavy influx of central asians like north-west India for many centuries which destroyed its original Persian culture. The current Persians are hardly the original people who followed Zorastrian religion.

posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 06:14 AM
The vedic religion is just called 'dharm' in all Vedic books.

There is no person-name or race-name attached to it.

The person who follows 'dharm' is called an 'Arya'.

'Arya' means a person of good character, and a citizen.

posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 06:30 AM
Sweet fragrant rice - Vedic recipe

You need

a. One cup white rice
b. 1/4 cup sugar
c. A pinch of saffron (crush it if possible on a flat dish with a rolling pin)
d. A pinch of crushed cardamom seeds
e. 1/4 cup of melted cow ghee
e. 2.5 cups of water

1. Wash the rice and soak for an hour, drain
2. Pour water in a sauce pan, bring to a boil
3. Put the rice in the sauce pan. Add sugar, saffron, and crushed cardamom seeds. Stir well
4. Cook on low heat, first uncovered until rice becomes tender (3-5 minutes), and most of the water is absorbed, and then covered for 2-3 minutes more until rice is fully cooked.
5. Switch off the heat. Pour ghee on top of the rice. Mix well with a fork so that rice does not break. The best way to do this is first let the rice cool somewhat, and then pour ghee.

Enjoy a nice dessert, hot or cold.

Sweet fragrant rice is made for many Vedic ceremonies including marriage.

posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 08:18 AM

Originally posted by 547000
Tell me about Prajapathi. Who is he if not the one who Christians worship?

For what it is worth, I am not Christian. I don't really "worship" any God. I DO, however, give reverence to our Creator, and accept the life that has been given me by Him.

The "God" Christians worship is a thread worthy unto itself (and there are many).

posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 08:19 AM

Originally posted by vedatruth
reply to post by 547000

'praja' is actually humans. 'pati' means who provide sustenance.

'prajapati' is 'who provides sustenance to humans', or God.

I've heard that the vedic scriptures talk of an individual by that name, and it gives attributes to him that matches Jesus.

posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 08:31 AM
reply to post by 547000

No. Vedas have nothing to do with Christianity. Sorry.

posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 08:34 AM
reply to post by vedatruth

I think he may be talking about Krishna bagwaan being always "compared" to Jesus.
edit on 8-10-2011 by BlackPoison94 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 09:44 AM
reply to post by BlackPoison94

It is difficult to compare two people who have been born a long time back.

I have seen the comparisons on Internet though.

Bhagwan Krishna was born 5300 years ago in a Vedic culture.

Jesus Christ was born 2011 years back in a Judaic/Roman culture.

Jesus Christ was a reformer. Bhagwan Krishna was a King and a Statesman.

I think Jesus Christ should be compared to Vyaas Muni, if such a comparison is required. Vyaas Muni is the person who wrote Mahabharat (which contains Gita).

posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 09:51 AM
This is just one of the pages on him I found. I even read of the five wounds of this figure.
edit on 8-10-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 09:56 AM
There are some very good things in Christianity, and I am certain that Jesus taught a gospel of spiritual progress. Many people believe he travelled to India before he started preaching, which is possible. Taxshila university in Gandhaar (now in Pakistan) was a big center of learning in Jesus's time. This University was a center of Buddhist philosophy. It is quite likely that Jesus was influenced by Buddhist thought.

There was heavy trade between West Asia and India in Jesus's time. Caravans regularly arrived from West Asia to India.

posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 10:02 AM
But I thought the vedas was written many years before He walked the earth. Now I'm not saying he is definitely Jesus, it could be lies, but even the Jews say that their scriptures did not predict Him, but His coming was hidden in many different texts.

posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 10:05 AM
reply to post by 547000

Your linked website does not look good. I am not sure of the message on this website.

I shall refrain from comparing Bhagwan Krishna to Jesus Christ.

Well 'Bhagwan' does not mean God. 'Bhagwan' in Sanskrit is an adjective for a great learned and respectable person. Veda does not allow to consider any human son/daughter of God, or God. Veda is against ancestor worship, and we consider Bhagwan Krishna an ancestor.

I am a keen reader of Gita, just as many other Indians. Gita's message is very important to Vedic people.

posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 10:10 AM
reply to post by 547000

Veda is very very old. Veda existed in Rama's time 18 millions years ago.

I doubt Jesus studied Veda. He was likely influenced by Buddhist thought. Buddhism was a popular religion in the time of Jesus.

posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 07:59 PM
Veda and Music

Vedic culture DID NOT have dance. Dance is against basic precepts of Veda.

Many dances of India have origins in storytelling (like Kathak) where the singing and music is set to mythological tales. All dance forms of India have originated in the post-vedic period (post 500BC).

Vedic culture did have instrumental music and singing of verses of Samveda. The primary instruments used are Veena and Flute. The 'taal' instrument are 'tabla' and 'mutki'. Geeta is also set to instrumental music with the same instruments.

Singing of SamaVeda verses with music is an integral part of 'Yagna', and ceremonies like marriage.

Some musical instruments were used in war like 'shankh', 'nagara', and 'turhi', to annouce the start of warfare.

The 'raaga' or style of singing has origins in Vedic culture, from singing of SamaVeda. Raaga are very very old just like Veda, and the knowledge of Raaga has been reconfirmed by Yogis time and again as celestial music.

posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 08:57 PM
Dance is against Dharm

a. Lust is to be completely removed from men and women. Dance often results in lust.

b. Participating in, or watching dance are NOT the activities an Arya should engage in. It is a waste of time, time better used for productive work, or study of Veda.

c. Women are asked to be properly dressed with covered head (face is not covered) in public, so dance of women is not possible.

d. Some people circumvented the above rule by impersonating man as woman in dance. This practice is against Veda as well.

e. Dance of men is also against Veda. Vedic rules apply to men and women equally. Some people are confused as Vedic language is gender-neutral - each commandment is for man and woman both. But some people have falsely interpreted it as just for man.

f. Manu Bhagwan has written the rules for society in 'Manu Smriti' which contains rules for men and women, and their responsibilities etc. Unfortunately Pundits have added a lot of false material to this book to mislead people. Reconstructed 'ManuSmriti' is now available from Arya Sahitya Prachar Trust, Delhi which should be used.

posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 09:11 PM
Rasa Leela

Rasa leela (enactment of incidents from life of Krishna) is against Veda.

The stories are learned from the mouth of a Learned person (A Learned person is one who is expert of at least one Veda). Hearing stories from other people is prohibited.

Why stories are to be told only by a Learned person - because an expert of Veda is always truthful. So the public always gets the correct version of the story.

The stories of Gopis in an amorous liasion with Krishna are all false.

Krishna was taught in a Gurukul, just like every other warrior in Mahabharat. The life in Gurukul segregates men and women strictly.

Rasa Leela is an affront to Vedic Dharm, and is false and misleading.

Prostitution was a major reason of fall of Yadava clan. The Yadava clan has not learnt till today, and people of Mathura have continued to engage in anti-Dharm practices.

posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 09:51 PM
Avatar - Are Bhagwan Rama and Bhagwan Krishna same soul


There is no avatar in Vedic Dharm. Though a soul takes birth repeatedly, until "Moksha" is attained, a soul is by no means free to take birth as it pleases.

A 'mukta atma' (librated soul, a soul who has attained Moksha) can take birth on its own accord. But even a free soul is bound to God's laws. God always protects followers of Dharm, and same is true of liberated souls. Krishna can take birth to help people who follow Dharm, only if there are people who follow Dharm. If almost all people are 'adharmi' (against Dharm), is is not possible for Krishna to take birth.

People are confused about Dharm. Dharm is not separate from soul. Dharm is for soul, like food for body. A body becomes weak and incapable in absence of food, or bad quality of food. Similarly a soul becomes weak and incapable in absence of Dharm.

But food exists and is useful only if a body exists. Dharm requires men to exist.

Only a Learned man, and a Sanyaasi can preach 'adharmi', as there is no way we can expect a librated soul like Rama and Krishna to help us.

edit on 8-10-2011 by vedatruth because: (no reason given)

top topics

<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in