111 replies to this topic

[The_Spartan]

Arbitran, on 09 April 2012 - 04:22 AM, said:

In Christianity, "Heaven" is a religious term. "Heavens" refers to the sky, or the realm in which the sun, planets, and stars exist.
There is no "Heaven" in Hinduism--any argument to the contrary is a thorough misunderstanding of Hindu culture. Whether the translator chooses to say "heavens", "the universe", or "outer space", the meaning of the word intended in the Sanskrit is undeniable.

Do you want to eat your words?? surely???

Do you??

I have in the past given a detailed explanation of the Heavens in  Hindu religion and didnt you read it??

According to traditional Hinduism (not your fringe psuedo Hinduism) the universe is divided into three lokas or three worlds - Heaven, Earth and Hell.

Heaven and earth are lumped together in the upper seven worlds known as vyahrtis and hell is the lower seven worlds collectively known as Patala.

The seven vyahrtis are bhu, bhuvas, svar, mahas, janas, tapas and satya.

The seven worlds of Patala are Atala, Vitala, Sutala, Talatala, rasatala, Mahatala and Patala

Each loka has a counterpart in the Tala.

satya loka's corresponding tala is Atala.

Tapas Loka's corresponding tala is Vitala.

Jana Loka's corresponding tala is Sutala and like wise.


detailed description of all these worlds can be found at Chakras - Lokas and Talas.


Arbitran, in Sanskrit and languages that derive from it, in all languages in India, except for urdu (which originates from persian), these words are the same.

maybe your sage/Swami friend of your uncle can disprove?

[The_Spartan]

Arbitran, on 09 April 2012 - 04:28 AM, said:

My uncle's colleague is an expert on ancient languages, and specializes in Sanskrit. From what I know, he learned it in India, from indigenous tradition-holders and sages. I asked him a similar question when we first started speaking about it: I asked how he knew that it was "outer space" being discussed, and not "Heaven", in the sense used in the Western world. He replied that he had wondered the same thing: until his tutor explained that it was an expanding void, in which the stars, and planets when about in their orbits, by the force of gravity. It became quite clear then that the devas, described as beings coming in flying machines from other planets, orbiting other stars, were extraterrestrial beings--and not merely religious imaginings.

Your "uncle"'s friend might have learnt Sanskrit.
have you?

[hetrodoxly]

If using monotheism to represent the worship of one god the options are many used in it's truer sense the belief in the existence of one God narrows it down tremendously, those who try to make an argument using the trinity as an example are really clutching at straws, Allah has 99 names.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Some may argue that you can't be both father and son without some convoluted time travel shennaningans involved. Thus God and Jesus in the Trinity are distinct entities making Catholocism at the very least polythesitic.

[hetrodoxly]

Wearer of Hats, on 09 April 2012 - 09:10 AM, said:

Some may argue that you can't be both father and son without some convoluted time travel shennaningans involved. Thus God and Jesus in the Trinity are distinct entities making Catholocism at the very least polythesitic.

Come on we're talking about an omnipresent God, how can there not be "convoluted time travel shenanigans involved"

[badeskov]

hetrodoxly, on 09 April 2012 - 10:03 AM, said:

Come on we're talking about an omnipresent God, how can there not be "convoluted time travel shenanigans involved"

Cheers,
Badeskov

[badeskov]

The_Spartan, on 09 April 2012 - 06:29 AM, said:

Do you want to eat your words?? surely???

Do you??

I have in the past given a detailed explanation of the Heavens in  Hindu religion and didnt you read it??

According to traditional Hinduism (not your fringe psuedo Hinduism) the universe is divided into three lokas or three worlds - Heaven, Earth and Hell.

Heaven and earth are lumped together in the upper seven worlds known as vyahrtis and hell is the lower seven worlds collectively known as Patala.

The seven vyahrtis are bhu, bhuvas, svar, mahas, janas, tapas and satya.

The seven worlds of Patala are Atala, Vitala, Sutala, Talatala, rasatala, Mahatala and Patala

Each loka has a counterpart in the Tala.

satya loka's corresponding tala is Atala.

Tapas Loka's corresponding tala is Vitala.

Jana Loka's corresponding tala is Sutala and like wise.


detailed description of all these worlds can be found at Chakras - Lokas and Talas.


Arbitran, in Sanskrit and languages that derive from it, in all languages in India, except for urdu (which originates from persian), these words are the same.

maybe your sage/Swami friend of your uncle can disprove?

Great post, The_Spartan - thanks for the clarifications

Cheers,
Badeskov

[DieChecker]

Arbitran, on 09 April 2012 - 04:44 AM, said:

The notion that elohim can be singular was invented to allow there to be a single god in the text, instead of many. The word in non-negotiable: it means what it means.
As for the Trinitarian doctrine, I am of course keenly aware that Christians claim that there are three aspects of a single god. This is merely to compensate for the impossibility of claiming there to be one God when you also wish to accord Jesus and the Holy Spirit divine status.

So you are going to try to School people about Hinduism, even Hindus, and then poo-poo the beliefs of Christians?

I still know you are wrong, nearly every source on the internet can't be wrong, and yet you are right. Everyone that claims that on these forums is repeatedly told they are wrong by everyone. If it is your individual belief, fine. But, that is Opinion, not a Fact.

[Arbitran]

DieChecker, on 10 April 2012 - 03:18 AM, said:

So you are going to try to School people about Hinduism, even Hindus, and then poo-poo the beliefs of Christians?

I still know you are wrong, nearly every source on the internet can't be wrong, and yet you are right. Everyone that claims that on these forums is repeatedly told they are wrong by everyone. If it is your individual belief, fine. But, that is Opinion, not a Fact.

I don't believe in facts: not in history anyway. Until we have a time machine, none of us will know. I simply have a different thesis than the rest of you.
And my thesis is based, I think, on much the same evidence as yours. They are equally-valid propositions.

I was formerly a Christian, and have a firm grasp of their beliefs--which I regard as farce.
As for Hinduism, I am a Hindu, and have many Hindu friends--The_Spartan is distinctly unique among all of the Hindus I've met (is he actually a Hindu, or simply from India?). Not every Hindu I know has agreed with the interpretations I postulate in my thesis--but the majority of them do. Those that don't are of rather unorthodox Hindu denominations, in any case. They don't believe the texts in the same way I and others do.

I propose that The_Spartan is either one of these, not a Hindu, or is perhaps mistaken based on semantical differences between us. There are other possibilities, but these are the first three most probable I've thought of.

[ZaraKitty]

When Akhenaten cut out all the other Gods and proclaimed that Amun was the only true God. But it never stuck after he died.

[Arbitran]

ZaraKitty, on 10 April 2012 - 04:39 AM, said:

When Akhenaten cut out all the other Gods and proclaimed that Amun was the only true God. But it never stuck after he died.

It was Aten, actually. As a note.

[The_Spartan]

Arbitran, on 10 April 2012 - 04:06 AM, said:

I don't believe in facts: not in history anyway. Until we have a time machine, none of us will know. I simply have a different thesis than the rest of you.
And my thesis is based, I think, on much the same evidence as yours. They are equally-valid propositions.

I was formerly a Christian, and have a firm grasp of their beliefs--which I regard as farce.
As for Hinduism, I am a Hindu, and have many Hindu friends--The_Spartan is distinctly unique among all of the Hindus I've met (is he actually a Hindu, or simply from India?). Not every Hindu I know has agreed with the interpretations I postulate in my thesis--but the majority of them do. Those that don't are of rather unorthodox Hindu denominations, in any case. They don't believe the texts in the same way I and others do.

I propose that The_Spartan is either one of these, not a Hindu, or is perhaps mistaken based on semantical differences between us. There are other possibilities, but these are the first three most probable I've thought of.

I am an Indian. I am not a psuedo- indophile like Arbitran.
I am a skeptic. I am open to all religions. whereas, arbitran professes to be a Hindu, but doesn't know the core essence of Hinduism, its religious texts and mythology. Whatever he knows, he misinterprets to suit his theories/theses. I can guarantee that those hindus who agree with your posutlations are typical hindu nationalists  not rational Hindus.

My major past time/hobby is learning more about my country , its ancient history, religions, mythology etc.
and I know how to give references, citations, how to link to references.

See, how arbitran, moves around in a fringe manner, cautiously avoiding answering the valid questions put to him? typical fringe way.
Why does he fear answering questions or fear to provide references? huh?

You profess to reading Sanskrit and i gave you a shloka to translate to any language you know. still arbitran hasn't provided a translation. i wonder why?

[kmt_sesh]

The_Spartan, on 10 April 2012 - 03:27 PM, said:

...

You profess to reading Sanskrit and i gave you a shloka to translate to any language you know. still arbitran hasn't provided a translation. i wonder why?

LOL I tried that line in Google Translate. It didn't work.

[The_Spartan]

kmt_sesh, on 10 April 2012 - 04:18 PM, said:

LOL I tried that line in Google Translate. It didn't work.

Quote

ॐ भूर्भुवः स्वः तत्सवितुर्वरेण्यम्    भर्गो देवस्य धीमहि धियो यो नः प्रचोदयात् || ||

The above quoted shloka is the Gayatri Mantra, one of the most predominant of Mantras prayed regularly by Hindus all over the world.

ॐ  - OM - This is the Omkara or pranava  Mantra.
भूर्भुवः - Bhur Bhuva - relating to earth (Bhur loka) and everything on and above earth (Bhuvar loka)

स्वः - svaha -  relating to light, heaven, particularly to svar loka

तत्सवितुर्वरेण्यं - tat savitur vareniyam - relating to the creator in the form of the SUN (savitr - Sun God)

भर्गो - bhargo - relating to Shining/glory/splendor etc

देवस्य - devasya - relating to divine/ divinity

धीमहि - dimahi - relating to Meditate or attain through meditation/contemplation

धियो -dhiyo - relating to brain or intellect/knowledge

यो - yo - relating to he/Who

नः - nah - relating to Us/we

प्रचोदयात् - prachodyath - relating to stimulate

In essence, the meaning of the Gayatri Mantra is

May we attain that excellent glory of Savitar the god:
"So may he stimulate our prayers."

Arbitran claims to be an Hindu, claims he can read Sanskrit, but cannot read the most famous Mantra in hinduism?? huh??

[questionmark]

The_Spartan, on 10 April 2012 - 05:23 PM, said:

Arbitran claims to be an Hindu, claims he can read Sanskrit, but cannot read the most famous Mantra in hinduism?? huh??

Well, he also seez he read Plato in "original", which is surprising as no "original" is left as far as we know and his knowledge of Greek are either lacking or non-existent...