It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Hindi the mother of all modern religions

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 11:48 AM
link   
I have read and heard people say the Hinduism is the mother of all modern day religions I would like to know if anyone else has heard of this and is it True?




posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 05:28 AM
link   
yes , its absolutely correct

by the way its HINDU and not Hindi....Hindu is the third largest religion in the world with 1 billion followers and Hindi is the 2 most popular language in the world .

[edit on 18-11-2004 by rahul_sharma]



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by rahul_sharma
yes , its absolutely correct

by the way its HINDU and not Hindi....Hindu is the third largest religion in the world with 1 billion followers and Hindi is the 2 most popular language in the world .

[edit on 18-11-2004 by rahul_sharma]


Oh my bad dude I got mixed up with the language and the religion.......I thought it was English 2nd ,Spanish 3rd then Hindi 4th. Do you have any links or proof that Hinduism is the mother of all relegions.If not could you explain your answer to me.



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 11:37 AM
link   
By the way I am Indian from Trinidad and Tobago so I am not that intouched with the mother land. I am beggining to be curious about my ancestors and I am working on a self project to know ones self and background.



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 12:10 PM
link   
you can join this forum...

www.christianforums.com...


there are many Hindu related and interfaith disscussions on this forum .

i am rahul_sharma on that forum.

do send me a personal message when you join . If you want i will send you some good sites of Hinduism - mother of all religions


bye

May Lord KRISHNA bless you



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 12:49 PM
link   
few good sites to learn basics of Hinduism...


www.hinduism.co.za...

www.atributetohinduism.com...

www.bhagavad-gita.org...

thanks

[edit on 21-11-2004 by rahul_sharma]



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Thanks allot I will check all of these links out and join the forum you suggested.



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Sorry kids, Hindu has NOT been proven to be the mother o' all religions.

I'm a Philosophy of Religion major, specializing in eastern religions and Hindu, while exceptionally importaint, is not the mother religion of the world.

Utilizing Syncratism trees, it's possible to conjecture, and just to conjecture about the parent influences of most religions, and Hindu simply did not influence the entire world.

The big three Western Religions, Judiasm, Christianity and Islam are (especially Christianity) mosaics of many native religions, most notably native European and Middle Eastern Paganism, as well as mixtures of eachother.

Notably absent in the west is the influence of larger eastern religions, be they Hindu, Buddhism or many of the Shamanistic practices of Southeast Asia, en masse until after the 18th century.

It's not possible to currently prove, beyond anything more than an educated guess, where every aspect of a given religion arises from, but it appears that most of the major religions generated locally, at least at first.

Also, it's nearly impossible for one religion, even more so for one as complex as Hindu, to be the parent of all religion. This would imply that the religion was at some point common to all peoples, and the only time that could have taken place is durring the generation of the species in Africa. Otherwise the primative humans would have been to far flung throughout the planet to have one unified religion.

One major point of most every religion is that worship is utilitarian. People will adopt a religion that best suits their lives, and their experiences. Therefore, if we were to guess what religion that early humans would have believed in, we should look for a society close to what we believe the early humans would have lived in.

Currently the people of the Afircan Savanna are as close as I can think of to what I have heard early man to be. They have a polytheistic shaman based ritual religion, closer to that of Native Americans, Hatians and Hmong than to anything else. Not to Hindu, not even close.

I think for questions such as this it is better to look upon empirical evidence through diciplines like Philosophy, Theology and Anthropology rather than what one practitioner believes.

Blessed Be
~Astral



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 11:39 PM
link   
Astral City,

Actually all of today's major religions are from Hinduism. Some of the so-called pagan shamanistic rituals which existed in celtic and gaellic nations can root their origins to the Rig Veda.

The cycle goes something like this

Islam -> Christianity (catholic, protestants)-> Ancient Christianity (orthodox, cathars, gnostics)-> Jewry -> Ancient Jewry -> Zoroastrianism -> Vedic Hinduism

I deliberately omit Shamans, Pagans, Mithraic, Pharoaic religions since they are offshoots of Zoroastrianism and converted by the intepretations by the natives who adopted it as their de-facto faith.



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 11:54 PM
link   
Any anthropological or theological proof to this at all?

~Astral



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Also, it's nearly impossible for one religion, even more so for one as complex as Hindu, to be the parent of all religion. This would imply that the religion was at some point common to all peoples, and the only time that could have taken place is durring the generation of the species in Africa. Otherwise the primative humans would have been to far flung throughout the planet to have one unified religion.



Oh, that's were you are wrong. Scientist are still finding new 'species' related to us. Who is to know where humankind first started? It is very debatable to say the least that all leads to a "Eve" skeleton found in Ethiopia.

Secondly, you need to think of the 'cradle of civilisation'; not where the first human was found. Since with civilization comes the understanding of the existence of a supreme being(s).

Western anthropologists love to say that was Mesopotamia/Sumeria. I say there was an ancient civilisation predating that of mesopotamia or sumeria, but a great cataclysmic event, such as the flood, which was in fact detailed by all major cultures of the time, including the Mayan people. We can find sunken underwater cities all over the globe suggesting such an event that did take place. And who is to say someday we can find a more factual archeological link to their origins and religion. It could be that it did, in fact seperate these one people into several nations, races and tribes, which then started the disintegration of their root religion.

Till then, we will have to make do with bits and traces of proof propping up here and there as it shows here:

Ancient Sanskrit Pictograph near Sedona, Arizona?

"Deny ignorance", I say.





[edit on 22-11-2004 by aryaputhra]



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 02:54 AM
link   
Again your theory is just conjecture.

Yes there have been instances of new species related to humans found, notably the Hobbit, but they were evolutionary offshoots of humans not seperate and parallel species. The only possibly parallel species known is the Neanderthal and they were only found in certain areas.

Next you are basing your reasoning for a flood off of circumstancial evidence of underwater caverns and lore of local peoples. This is the kind of thing that most credable archeologists try to avoid.

Besides there is geological evidence supporting a much easier explanation for the "great flood" at the end of the last major ice age, all the glaciers melted and sea levels rose world wide, there's your flood.

Then you get into wishful thinking that someday we'll find some perfect relic of religion, sorry that hasn't happened.

Next, you mention the little link there, which is pretty damn flimsy evidence. If you turn it 90-degrees and kinda blur your eyes it looks like Om, ah hah. Sorry man, I doubt that the ancient Native Americans were much into magic-eye. Besides, it's just one symbol, you cannot base and entire anthropological theory off of one symbol. Also since when is ViewZone.com a creditable source for anthropological and theological report?

Look, the bottom line is that you are doing something that many many religions have tried: looking for ancient clues to legitimize your religion. It's fairly common practice among many religions to get into a pissing contest over who's older, and in the end it really doesn't matter. You'll see what you want to see in the "evidence" you come across. The sad part is that with a religion as great, full of lore and mythos as Hindu that you still stoop to this old argument.

Instead I would focus on some of the more legitamately amazing things about Hindu, like the remarkable accuracy of the timetables in telling the relative ages of celestial bodies and how you can become closer to enlightenment. So come on, spend your mental energy trying to break free of the horrid real world, like Krishna said.

After all who cares about some unprovable theory? All of existance is just the godhead playing solitare anyways.

May You Find New Levels Of Being
~Astral



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 02:59 AM
link   
I've also read that a lot of pagan celtic beliefs, practices and symbology can be linked albeit speculativley to indo-european and early indian religious beliefs, there's certainly a connection with language and cultural practices so it's possible that religion followed too.



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 04:23 AM
link   

Again your theory is just conjecture.

That is what makes it THEORY. A theory when supported with factual evidence, is no longer a 'theory'; it becomes - A FACT.


Yes there have been instances of new species related to humans found, notably the Hobbit, but they were evolutionary offshoots of humans not seperate and parallel species. The only possibly parallel species known is the Neanderthal and they were only found in certain areas.


Allow me to tell you where you're wrong, - Initially, anthropologists remarked that the Neanderthal was pre-dated species to modern day Homosapiens, then evidence came out that the Neanderthal could have lived as a parrellel species. Who is to say that the homo florensis were not the same?Only time will tell.


You are basing your reasoning for a flood off of circumstancial evidence of underwater caverns and lore of local peoples. This is the kind of thing that most credable archeologists try to avoid.


I am using the evidence of various cultures that have documented the event that occured. Now we cannot prove it since we cannot go back in time. But we certainly can 'say' the Mayans mentioned about it, there are biblical accounts of it, we know Plato mentions of it, and indeed there are evidence of man-made structures sunken under the sea, all the way from the Americas to Australia, we know the Sahara was once covered in water to form the sand residue.


Besides there is geological evidence supporting a much easier explanation for the "great flood" at the end of the last major ice age, all the glaciers melted and sea levels rose world wide, there's your flood.


Now, hold on, the geological evidence of underwater cities should be reason enough to challenge you that the glaciers melted were not of those that melted in the ice age. Unless of course, your logic is that these cities were built in the ice age?


Then you get into wishful thinking that someday we'll find some perfect relic of religion, sorry that hasn't happened.


No, I never said we will be to find the perfect relic of religion. Again these are sensitive subjects to culture as it denotes their society's roots, so one can only postulate based on what one "assumes" as could have been the truth.

It is true Zoroastrians have heavily borrowed their Gods from Vedic Hinduism, we know at some point the two groups fell apart and the God of Zoroastrians, Ahura became a demon (Asura) in the terminology of the Aryans, while the devas of the Aryans became "powers of evil " (daeva) to the Zoroastrians. Similarly, it is also true that Judaism borrowed heavily from Zoroastrianism and the subsequent major faiths borrowed from ancient Jewry.


Next, you mention the little link there, which is pretty damn flimsy evidence. If you turn it 90-degrees and kinda blur your eyes it looks like Om, ah hah. Sorry man, I doubt that the ancient Native Americans were much into magic-eye. Besides, it's just one symbol, you cannot base and entire anthropological theory off of one symbol. Also since when is ViewZone.com a creditable source for anthropological and theological report?


OK, perhaps the link might not be creditable. But there are factual evidences sprouting here and there, however minor they are they are there. That is what I am trying to say!

For example, the findings of the temple ruins of Great Zimbabwe, pointing to evidence of a Dravidian (early inhabitants of India) culture that existed in the midst of Shona inhabited Africa! How do you explain that?

There are also lot factors that are in common with most of these world religions. For example, what is of particular significance is that all major ancient religions depended heavily on astrological calculations. What was the significance of this? You see a modern day archeologist wouldn't care about this? All he/she would be looking for would be similarities in linguistic, cultural and racial basis to classify them as eminating from one origin.

Almost all ancient religions were heavily based on the stars with prayers and sacrifices for the next expected rain, or suitable harvest season. This agrarian-themed devotion was true to everyone - for the Mayans, Incans, Aryans, Pharoahs, Sumerians even the Harappans (whom archeologists mistakenly believe preceded the Aryan civilisation in the Indus valley), - of course that's not to say all these civilisations occurred in the same timeline, but nevertheless the theology was the same.


Look, the bottom line is that you are doing something that many many religions have tried: looking for ancient clues to legitimize your religion.


My religion?? Sorry, I am not Hindu, I am of the Christian faith. But that doesn't mean my research has to be limited and blinded excusively by the teachings of my faith. I find ways to interpret what the bible should have really meant. Not what the vatican wants me to hear. I try to explore the Nag Hammadi gnostic gospels, for example, - heretic by vatican standards, to find out what exactly was written, was it the truth and why it was omitted from the Bible (The Nag Hammadi scriptures for example, point out to Zoroastrianism as the origins of the tale of Adam and Eve and the creation of world).

www.gnosis.org...

"This is the number of the angels: together they are 365." They all worked on it until, limb for limb, the natural and the material body was completed by them. Now there are other ones in charge over the remaining passions whom I did not mention to you. But if you wish to know them, it is written in the book of Zoroaster



I like to decide for myself what is actually the truth - not through the Vatican inspired doctrine. So I have found a balance research of my belief systems. And accepted to adopt the hindu way that all various paths lead to the same God.


It's fairly common practice among many religions to get into a pissing contest over who's older, and in the end it really doesn't matter. You'll see what you want to see in the "evidence" you come across. The sad part is that with a religion as great, full of lore and mythos as Hindu that you still stoop to this old argument.


I am not trying to be the joker of all clowns in this thread, I am merely challenging the limits on what is accepted as the norm, as perfectly documented in this forum - to deny ignorance. Why would you feel this as a pissing contest? I also don't care whether in the end it matters or not. Sadly it's people like you who wish to kill of argument just because you cannot agree. In fact I take offence to your comment.

I agree Hinduism is a great religion, but I doubt whether it is 'lore' and 'mythos' - there is a lot that strangely do depict modern technology like that of 'vimanas' or planes which we use commonly today were in fact documented in the battles of ancient Hindu texts. And it was not just myths. There is also a lot of scientifical facts which have yet to be explained - suggesting that they were well advanced in their time, perhaps even more than we are today. (as you can see from my x-post from another thread below)
...

I mean, if you look at what the ancient hindus wrote - almost everything was divided and classified as science, there was vedic maths which is quite profound once you realize they knew everything from calculation of pie/phi, concept of zero, to newton-gauss interpolation theory and the cose /sine principles.

They had sutras (formulae), everything was subclassified into sutras. even sex was a sutra (kamasutra kama = lust, passion; meaning "The formulae for lust/passion"),

They had ayurveda, (ayur = long life/eternity; meaning "The knowledge of Life") the medical knowledge of the hindus, its approach to the human body a whole when addressing ailments is something which I think the western medical fraternity need to learn from. our natural state is one of health, happiness and an inner sense of well-being. Ayurvedic health is defined as the body being clear of toxins, the mind is at peace, emotions are calm and happy, wastes are efficiently eliminated and organs are functioning normally.

They also invented Yoga, which only recently got popular in the west with its benefits.

Funny, how all these were well documented in their sacred texts but seems to be well and truely forgotten today. The average hindu of today is unaware of what his forefathers knew.
....


Instead I would focus on some of the more legitamately amazing things about Hindu, like the remarkable accuracy of the timetables in telling the relative ages of celestial bodies and how you can become closer to enlightenment. So come on, spend your mental energy trying to break free of the horrid real world, like Krishna said.


So now, who's pretending to be higher than thou?



After all who cares about some unprovable theory? All of existance is just the godhead playing solitare anyways.


I care. If everything was provable then there wouldn't be a conspiracy thread now, would there?


[edit on 22-11-2004 by aryaputhra]



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 08:58 AM
link   
An assumption many people make about religion is the exclusion of Paganism. Without a doubt, paganism (in it's generic form) is nature worship. Every culture, every people, every tribe has worshipped nature from it's origin. With time, the religion was reformed and evolved into the religions that the world has today.

Paganism still exists! Of course there are still little bands of "hippies" who venerate nature but true paganism still exists in places like the Baltic states. Lithuania, for example, is very proud of being the last peoples in Europe to accept Christianity. The people there still maintain their old pagan practices to this day!

Lithuanian, by the way, is the oldest, unadulterated language known to be in use today. It's roots are from Sanskrit and there has been some recent discussion by linguists that it may actually be an older language than Sanskrit.



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by aryaputhra
Islam -> Christianity (catholic, protestants)-> Ancient Christianity (orthodox, cathars, gnostics)-> Jewry -> Ancient Jewry -> Zoroastrianism -> Vedic Hinduism

I deliberately omit Shamans, Pagans, Mithraic, Pharoaic religions since they are offshoots of Zoroastrianism and converted by the intepretations by the natives who adopted it as their de-facto faith.

Whilst I don't know much about Zoroastrianism.. the aborigines were isolated for over 40 thousand years.. [that number may have drastically changed by now] ..their beliefs are similar to the Shamans but I do think they would have developed on the own without being a defacto faith.. they offer an objective example.



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 12:47 PM
link   
which religion influenced the world the most??

scientists have conclusively discovered that STUPIDITY, the worlds biggest religion; has influenced all other religions directly

also just in from the newsdesk;
scientists discover that Everyone seems to claim Their Religion is the central most important religion of all...
they must all be followers of Stupidity, the worlds largest religion



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
which religion influenced the world the most??

scientists have conclusively discovered that STUPIDITY, the worlds biggest religion; has influenced all other religions directly

also just in from the newsdesk;
scientists discover that Everyone seems to claim Their Religion is the central most important religion of all...
they must all be followers of Stupidity, the worlds largest religion



tsk tsk tsk... posting for no reason, I see?

Just claim everything as hogwash if ain't fitting your tunnel vision - yea that ought to work. wonderful post - shows *your* stupidity.

[edit on 23-11-2004 by aryaputhra]



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Lithuanian, by the way, is the oldest, unadulterated language known to be in use today. It's roots are from Sanskrit and there has been some recent discussion by linguists that it may actually be an older language than Sanskrit.


According to linguists the mother of all indo-european languages is an unidentified language generically named as Proto Indo European or PIE which predates Sanskrit by long margin. No archeological evidence of it is found and it is purely theoretical.

The closest evidence of oldest Indo-european 'language' was found in Anatolian turkey. I think Hittite?



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 12:38 AM
link   
Hi aryaputhra,

You're right in assuming Hittite as one of the oldest PIE(proto-Indo European) languages. Hittite seems to have played a prominent role in the Near Eastern history as well.-- i.e. the early horse culture.

It was in 1786, I think, Sir William Jones announced to the Asiatik Society in Kalkatta that Sanskrit had to be related to Greek and Latin, touching
off what would come to be known as the 'Neogrammarian" move from
philology (the comparison of texts) to what we now consider
"linguistics".

His analysis seems to have been correct. Since his time much research has gone into this subject. Today I believe Michael Witzle of Harvard one of the few remaining proponents of the AIT.

Best,








[edit on 23-11-2004 by Logician]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join