Upanishad Ganga Appreciation Thread: A MUST-WATCH!

First Previous

Page

Next Last

Frequent Posters

Cherry

@chirpy_life19

Inactive

+ 2

Posted: 12 years ago

#111

Originally posted by: shubsmayur
@ cherry- Thanks a lot for sharing 😊, well i didn't know about it and not watched the soordas episode yet, and who says it that the male child is only needed to do all the karmkand, few days back i was hearing Shri Shri Ravishankar ji he also said "our Upanishads are not biased, those people who thinks that women have no right to do the last rituals of their parents is also wrong, they have all the rights" and people think that if they have son than only they will get the moksha, is also the wrong interpretation, any one will get liberated only because of his own pious karmas not because if they have son(IN Bhagwat Mahapuran their was a katha of Evil Son Dhundkari,which tolds the story of a Man who have desire for son but when his son grownup, he becomes the evil and also misbehave with his parents and becoz of his behaviour that man got hurt and went to the saint, and then the saint suggest him to do the Bhakti of Lord than only he will get peace and attain Moksha) our society is driven by people with there male centric ego, all this contamination comes after the vedic age only, the differentiation on the basis of casteism is another one of the example of it.

Absolute!Thanx for sharing the outline of Dhunkari's story from bhagavatha.Will go through it.

Edited by Cool-n-Fresh - 12 years ago

Quote

Cherry

@chirpy_life19

Inactive

+ 2

Posted: 12 years ago

#112

Originally posted by: shubsmayur
Lord Krishna to Arjuna- "Na toh Aisa hi hai ki kabhi kisi kal maine nahi tha ya tum nahi the yaa yeh Yudh ki aasha main khade log nahi the Yeh Atma na kabhi marta hai na kabhi janam leta hai, yeh nitya avinashi hai",

So here Lord Krishna saying about the the Immortal soul, the time(actually its timeless Anadi) from where the supreme exist so does every soul exist, each soul comes and goes to experience something, which is lacked in their previous experience, until it reached to the Blissful state. And if one ask is one has seen the Atman(Soul) than i can say yes one experienced it through Deep Meditation, through Bhakti 😊.

Thanks a lot for sharing this Bhagavad Gita Hymn Neha.😊I alaways love reading these hymns with meaning.And as Krishna said the blissful state is the real,rest all is unreal.Great souls are those who experienced this blissful state they are none other than god.

Edited by Cool-n-Fresh - 12 years ago

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

Cherry

@chirpy_life19

Inactive

+ 2

Posted: 12 years ago

#113

Want to share something...😊

In Hindu scriptures, we come across a word purusha used for a human soul irrespective of the gender (male or female). The word purusha means the awareness (nervous energy) that pervades all over the body as per the root meaning of the word purusha (puri dehe shete iti purushah). Therefore, the word purusha means any human being. Since, the word purusha is in masculine gender (pumlinga), the pronouns like he' (sah) were used, which are also in masculine gender. The gender of a word (linga) has nothing to do with the gender of the actual object (Vachaka) in Sanskrit grammar.

For example, the word Daraah means wife, which is in masculine gender and also in plural. If you attach this to the object, it means several men married by a man! But, this word in Sanskrit means a single lady married as wife! Hence, the sense of the word has no attachment to the sense of the object indicated by the word. This is a peculiar characteristic in Sanskrit grammar, which is not present in any regional language. In any regional language, the gender of the word indicates the gender of the object. The tradition of regional language was superimposed on the tradition of Sanskrit grammar by some middle age selfish scholars (since Sanskrit seized to be the mother tongue and regional languages developed as mother tongues and hence, the age of sages was over), who wanted to suppress women and brought a misinterpretation to avoid women in every aspect of life related to this world (Iham) and also the upper world (Param). These middle age scholars have spoiled the original sense of Hinduism that was established by our great ancient sages to such extent that other religions are mocking at Hinduism on this aspect of suppression of women. Therefore, there is no attachment of the sense of the gender of the word (linga) to the sense of the gender of the object indicated by the word (vachaka) in Sanskrit grammar.

This means that whenever a word in masculine gender like purushah, sah etc., comes, it means both man and woman. The misinterpretation of middle age - scholars has gone to such worst state by which, scholars have denied even the spiritual path to women. You can find this foolish interpretation in the first Brahma Sutra (Athaato Brahma jijnaasaa). This sutra says that a person having good qualities is eligible for spiritual path. The word used to mean the person in masculine gender does not mean men only as per the Sanskrit grammar. It means both men and women. Shankara wrote clearly that the person here is not restricted to any caste or gender. This means, any person belonging to any caste and any gender is eligible for spiritual path, provided that person has the required good qualities like Shama, Dama etc., (Shama and dama mean the control of external and internal senses). Here, in this context, the word Brahmana means the person having interest in God (Brahma nayati iti Brahamanah). The word Brahmana here does not indicate the caste. But, the selfish scholars misinterpreted this Sutra to mean that a man born in the caste of Brahmins is only eligible for spiritual path!

There is a misunderstanding that women were suppressed in Hinduism without independence. People quote Manusmruti in this context, which says that woman should not be independent (Na stree svatantryamarhati). But, the same Manu says that women should be worshipped to please God (Yatranaryastu pujyante ramante tatra devatah). Both these contradict each other.If you are not giving even basic independence to somebody, how can you worship him or her? Will you worship a person without independence put in prison? This means that the first statement of Manu is misinterpreted. The actual meaning of first statement is that women should not move independently without escort, because she is weak in physical constitution to fight against anyone attacking her. Moreover, women are always associated with golden ornaments and there is every probability of attack on her by thieves. Therefore, she needs protection and hence, Manu said that the women must be accompanied by her father in childhood, by her husband in youth and by her son in old age. Here, the independence means not move alone. It does not mean suppression of women leading to their slavery to men. In Hinduism, the misinterpretations are many because Indians are always over-intelligent. In the middle age, the selfish intellectuals were many with several misinterpretations. Apart from this, the sense of a word changes in course of time. In 16th century, Shakespeare wrote "life is a tale told by idiot".In that time the word idiot means a person with extraordinary intelligence. But, today the same word means a fool without even normal intelligence! If the word changed like this in 400 years, what would have been the change of a word after millions of years passed after Manu! Therefore, the word independence' (Nasvatantryam) meant not to go alone according to Manu and today the same word means not to have any freedom in any aspect of life. Some men in the middle age were egoistic and selfish to use such opportunity of change of sense of a word to misuse the ancient traditions of Vedic sages. The Vedic sages never misused any sense and were for the equal status of women and in fact gave higher status for women.

The women also need not feel that they were suppressed by not having the equal right in the paternal property. Veda clearly says that Manu has divided his property equally among his sons and daughters (Manuh putrebhyah...). The word Putra in Veda means both son and daughter according to the Ekasesha Sutra of Sanskrit grammar. The selfish males of middle age have misinterpreted this due to greediness for wealth.

All these misinterpretations and curved customs in the name of traditions were done by some middle age scholars of selfishness and ego. Unfortunately, these are attributed to the ancient sages and the original Hinduism is misunderstood and is blamed.

(Excerpts from a divine discourse)

Edited by Cool-n-Fresh - 12 years ago

Quote

shubsmayur

@shubsmayur

Explorer

Posted: 12 years ago

#114

Originally posted by: Cool-n-Fresh

Thanks a lot for sharing this Bhagavad Gita Hymn Neha.😊I alaways love reading these hymns with meaning.And as Krishna said the blissful state is the real,rest all is unreal.Great souls are those who experienced this blissful state they are none other than god.

Yaa true Cherry they are none other than the God, but who is God those about whom we have heard till now, the term God means the Divine qualities that many great soul posses, and every single soul in these world is born to get en lighted, liberated and its upto every single soul when it want to start its journey, when it is ready to give up all the outer covering, when it is ready for complete surrender to Lord. "Bade Bhag Manus Tan Pawa"- Tulsidaji said it, Human life is very precious according to all the scriptures,Human life's journey should be "Nar se Narayan Banene Ki Yatra", i know its not that easy but it is not impossible also, one can if one will 😊

Edited by shubsmayur - 12 years ago

Quote

shubsmayur

@shubsmayur

Explorer

Posted: 12 years ago

#115

Excellent Cherry 😃 Thanks for collecting this piece of info, really very good work do come up with such posts.

Very well said if Shakespeare's words are misinterpreted who was only 400 yrs ago, than we can imagine how old our Vedic knowledge is and how badly all the sources got contaminated by selfish scholars.

Edited by shubsmayur - 12 years ago

Quote

Cherry

@chirpy_life19

Inactive

+ 2

Posted: 12 years ago

#116

Originally posted by: shubsmayur
Excellent Cherry 😃 Thanks for collecting this piece of info, really very good work do come up with such posts.

Very well said if shekspere's words are misinterpreted who was only 400 yrs ago, than we can imagine how old our Vedic knowledge is and how badly all the sources got contaminated by selfish scholars.

Big thanx to his holiness who gave all this in detail.😃Hmm looks like I missed the link.I'll check for it and post later.😳

Ok plz read and comment on the post located at the top of this page.I'm leaving for now.Bye!😊

Quote

shubsmayur

@shubsmayur

Explorer

Posted: 12 years ago

#117

You know cherry, i was hearing some Geeta Upadesh by one of the Scholar and the Scholar also said that Here Shri Krishna using the word Purusha and narrating to Arjuna that doesn't means only for male its for total humankind, and if the same Geeta Upadesh is given by Radharani to Droupadi than she must have used the word sitri but if the characters got changed so the knowledge got changed?? the answer is no this knowledge for whole mankind.

Quote

Cherry

@chirpy_life19

Inactive

+ 2

Posted: 12 years ago

#118

Yah!Shri Krishna was addressing the entire mankind.(Here man refers Humans/Souls.😆)

Quote

_gReenheaRt_

@_gReenheaRt_

Explorer

Posted: 12 years ago

#119

Nice discussion guys!👏

Edited by SRUJAconscience - 12 years ago

Quote

shubsmayur

@shubsmayur

Explorer

Posted: 12 years ago

#120

Originally posted by: Cool-n-Fresh

Read the following...(Net Source)

X = Words representing properties : Words representing objects then we observe that
a) For most languages: Either X < 1 -OR- X = (approx.) 1 -OR- X (slightly) > 1
b) For Sanskrit: X is of the order of lakhs i.e. X~100000

There are two things one should keep in mind while reading Sanskrit.
1) Context: Words have different meanings in different situations. This true of every language, including Sanskrit. "The present (time) is bad." "Did you get me a present (gift)." "Let me present (show) the solution." Similarly, in Sanskrit, go' means sense organs, cow or rays of light or earth, depending on the context. But what makes Sanskrit different is the fact that in all the situations the property represented by the word go' is being satisfied. go' means something that wanders'. Sense organs keep wandering to different objects for enjoyment. Cows keep wandering to different places for grazing, rays of light keep travelling, earth keeps moving around the sun. So when the topic is astronomy, go' would not mean cow. When the topic being discussed is self-control, go' would not mean rays of light. Context is very important in any language and much more important in Sanskrit. I do not know the meaning of ashwamedh yajna because the exact meaning would depend on context and I have not read the exact text from vedas or ramayana or mahabharat that discuss the ashwamedha yajna. Those who want to defame Indian culture have tried very hard to translate slokas out of context. I do not believe them unless I myself have read the original text.
2) Accent: One more important characteristic one should look for is accent. Any vowel in Sanskrit has 3 types of pronounciations. udatta, anudatta and swarita. And the meanings of the words depend on the accent of vowels in it. For example, agniputra' could mean agni's son' or one whose son is agni' depending on the accent of the vowels. The significance of the accent is almost nil in today's languages and late classical Sanskrit, but in Vedic Sanskrit accent is very important as it could completely change the meaning. That is why you find accent markers in the text of Vedas. Vedic text without accent markers is incomplete.

Thanks for sharing 😊.

Very True cherry, every language has a different way to use its diction's,grammar every thing, and we could feel it how "arth ka anarth" is been made with wrong interpretation of Sanskrit Language.