Gustav,
Shit?
Your prattle confirms my points.
Jan Ardena.
Shit?
Your prattle confirms my points.
Jan Ardena.
The Bhagavad-Gita and Ethics
- Thread starter Prince_James
- Start date
Gustav said:and not even a thank you
LOL!!!
Jan.
everneo,
Hold up!!
Where do you get such information?
"Vedanta" = end of knowledge (veda). The Supreme Personality of Godhead (Shree Krishna). Hinduism, even if you want to regard it as "vedas", is not the end of knowledge, according to BG. I do not wish to keep bringing this point up, but it is very obvious.
Hinduism is a designation, it is not a trancendental position. Religion is perfectly explained by Krishna, in BG. There are aspects of what is termed "Hinduism", as we know it, within those religions. Or to put it another way, upon reading it we will automatically think of Hinduism as opposed to any other current form of religion. This is obvious to anyone. But upon further study, the ultimate goal of veda, BG, religion, is Krishna. He is the essence of Gita, not karma, religion, or time. So to view BG as a religious scripture (hindu) is counter-productive in the long-term.
The root, the source, and the goal, of BG is Krishna. Is this not so?
I´m sorry, but this statement implies that BG, although a Hindu scripture, is kindly available to all. This, to me, is a false statement.
Jan Ardena.
Hold up!!
Where do you get such information?
"Vedanta" = end of knowledge (veda). The Supreme Personality of Godhead (Shree Krishna). Hinduism, even if you want to regard it as "vedas", is not the end of knowledge, according to BG. I do not wish to keep bringing this point up, but it is very obvious.
Hinduism is a designation, it is not a trancendental position. Religion is perfectly explained by Krishna, in BG. There are aspects of what is termed "Hinduism", as we know it, within those religions. Or to put it another way, upon reading it we will automatically think of Hinduism as opposed to any other current form of religion. This is obvious to anyone. But upon further study, the ultimate goal of veda, BG, religion, is Krishna. He is the essence of Gita, not karma, religion, or time. So to view BG as a religious scripture (hindu) is counter-productive in the long-term.
The root, the source, and the goal, of BG is Krishna. Is this not so?
I´m sorry, but this statement implies that BG, although a Hindu scripture, is kindly available to all. This, to me, is a false statement.
Jan Ardena.
UltiTruth said:
Why do you think I should hope, there is nothing to suggest that it is anymore than a BG, song of God.
Are you suggesting God is a Hindu? If yes, please provide some reasoning. Let us discuss. Don´t hide under the canvass.
Jan Ardena.
Where in the world did you get that idea? Religions attempt to define God. But I don't think God(s) has a religion himself!Jan Ardena said:
So all the reasoning that everybody has given has gone to dogs? Then what is the point reasoning to you? And you have conveniently brushed off most questions.
And can I request you for some reasoning other than that the word 'Hindu' hasn't been mentioned in the texts?
Thanks.
Last edited:
UltiTruth,
Quit wasting time with these questions when you have yet to give proper answers to my question and points, some of which are backed by BG itself.
Staller.
What reasoning?
Bhagavad Gita is Hindu?
At least point to some of the texts which clarify this, otherwise it is some kind of wishful thinking, pride, based on vague and distant similarity. Not based on the BG itself.
How is it possible to make a claim regarding this great discourse, without refering to the discourse itself? And who here has done that?
Your questions are irrelivant, they do nothing to give credibility to your claim, you offer them because of vague similarities. As Krishna is the Supreme Knower, please use something out of BG to support your claim.
The fact is, it isn´t. There is no mention of Hinduism in the BG so naturally that has to be the most obvious point. You claim words like, brahman, avatar, and karma are of hindu origin, then you give some simple, modern-day, dictionary definition of Hinduism, and expect me to accept your claim.
I show you that the BG was sung millions of years ago (before wikipeda), by Lord Krishna, and was only repeated again under certain conditions stipulated by Lord Krishna Himself. If you like we can deeeeeep into Gita (there´s nothing I would like more), to come to a proper conclusion. But I have a feeling you will decline my offer, so it seem we shall agree to disagree (i hope not ) on the matter.
Thanks
Jan Ardena.
Quit wasting time with these questions when you have yet to give proper answers to my question and points, some of which are backed by BG itself.
Staller.
What reasoning?
Bhagavad Gita is Hindu?
At least point to some of the texts which clarify this, otherwise it is some kind of wishful thinking, pride, based on vague and distant similarity. Not based on the BG itself.
How is it possible to make a claim regarding this great discourse, without refering to the discourse itself? And who here has done that?
Your questions are irrelivant, they do nothing to give credibility to your claim, you offer them because of vague similarities. As Krishna is the Supreme Knower, please use something out of BG to support your claim.
The fact is, it isn´t. There is no mention of Hinduism in the BG so naturally that has to be the most obvious point. You claim words like, brahman, avatar, and karma are of hindu origin, then you give some simple, modern-day, dictionary definition of Hinduism, and expect me to accept your claim.
I show you that the BG was sung millions of years ago (before wikipeda), by Lord Krishna, and was only repeated again under certain conditions stipulated by Lord Krishna Himself. If you like we can deeeeeep into Gita (there´s nothing I would like more), to come to a proper conclusion. But I have a feeling you will decline my offer, so it seem we shall agree to disagree (i hope not
) on the matter.Thanks
Jan Ardena.
Jan,
Thanks for your advice. But you seem too obstinate and all-knowing for any reason and logic. Never-the-less I would suggest you take a little time (not considering it a waste) to go back and read the posts in this thread again.
Can you tell me if it is true that Rama preceded Krishna in the avatars; and that Rama worshipped Siva, a Hindu God? Does this in the least ring a bell to you that Hinduism preceded BG?
Thanks.
Thanks for your advice. But you seem too obstinate and all-knowing for any reason and logic. Never-the-less I would suggest you take a little time (not considering it a waste) to go back and read the posts in this thread again.
Why texts? You need to apply some common sense.
Can you tell me if it is true that Rama preceded Krishna in the avatars; and that Rama worshipped Siva, a Hindu God? Does this in the least ring a bell to you that Hinduism preceded BG?
Aren't they? Another revelation!
Thanks.
UltiTruth,
Don't recall offering any.
This is just a tactical manouvre on your part, to get out of talking about thte subject matter.
Same as above.
Why texts? LOL!!!
Commons sense should give the answer to that question for you.
I understand that to be so.
Rama, Krishna, Shiva, are all the same person, the Supreme Personality being Krishna.
Attaching the label "Hindu" to "gods" does not mean they are actually Hindu gods, but they are percieved as such, because Hindus worship them more than any other group of people.
Hinduism is a modern term, coined by the british, there is no way it could have preceded BG which was recited millions of years ago. Unless you believe Vivashan (sun-god) to be Hindu?
Not as far as I can see.
But please feel free to enlighten me.
Jan Ardena.
Don't recall offering any.
This is just a tactical manouvre on your part, to get out of talking about thte subject matter.
Same as above.
Why texts? LOL!!!
Commons sense should give the answer to that question for you.
I understand that to be so.
Rama, Krishna, Shiva, are all the same person, the Supreme Personality being Krishna.
Attaching the label "Hindu" to "gods" does not mean they are actually Hindu gods, but they are percieved as such, because Hindus worship them more than any other group of people.
Hinduism is a modern term, coined by the british, there is no way it could have preceded BG which was recited millions of years ago. Unless you believe Vivashan (sun-god) to be Hindu?
Not as far as I can see.
But please feel free to enlighten me.
Jan Ardena.
Gustav said:
I'm not quite sure what it is you are asking, could you rephrase.
Jan Ardena.
hmm....
Lugh is the Celtic lord of every skill. He was patron of Lugodunum (Lyons) in Gaul. He and his nature goddess consort (Rosmerta) were worshipped during the 30 day Lugnasad midsummer feast in Ireland. Fertility magic during this festival ensured ripening of the crops and good harvest. He was called Lamfhada or 'of the long arm' in Gaelic because of his great spear and sling. His animal attributes were the raven and the lynx. Lugh mirrors Hindu Karttikeya, the spiritual warrior, and Roman Mercury, the swift messenger. His exploits are recounted in the "Tain Bo Cuailnge", the Cattle-raid of Cooley.
can lugh be universally worshipped?
or as a hindu, should i worship his counterpart, Karttikeya?
is the distinction valid?
Lugh is the Celtic lord of every skill. He was patron of Lugodunum (Lyons) in Gaul. He and his nature goddess consort (Rosmerta) were worshipped during the 30 day Lugnasad midsummer feast in Ireland. Fertility magic during this festival ensured ripening of the crops and good harvest. He was called Lamfhada or 'of the long arm' in Gaelic because of his great spear and sling. His animal attributes were the raven and the lynx. Lugh mirrors Hindu Karttikeya, the spiritual warrior, and Roman Mercury, the swift messenger. His exploits are recounted in the "Tain Bo Cuailnge", the Cattle-raid of Cooley.
can lugh be universally worshipped?
or as a hindu, should i worship his counterpart, Karttikeya?
is the distinction valid?
Now... don't run away.Jan Ardena said:
Glad I made you laugh.Why texts? LOL!!!
Commons sense should give the answer to that question for you.
Pardon me, but I can't help calling this a dumb-ass argument, despite my best effort.
Same as above.
You need to grow up from words, like I said before.
There is this saying in Hindu texts that says it is easier to extract spilt oil from desert sand than enlightening a ... So also another that says you can wake a sleeping man but not one who is pretending sleep.
Thanks.
Interestingly, Nietzsche reached the same conclusions as the Bhagavad-Gita:
http://www.publicappeal.org/library/nietzsche/Nietzsche_various/on_truth_and_lies.htm
http://www.publicappeal.org/library/nietzsche/Nietzsche_various/on_truth_and_lies.htm
Gustav said:
Should an englishman be patriotic to Germany, forsaking his own kin, or vice versa?
Should a black woman love a white man or vice versa?
The answer can either be yes or no depending on the person(s) involved. But the truth is a different matter.
Jan Ardena.