MBBhat on the term Hindu

An open forum for all ex-BKs, BKs, PBKs, ex-PBKs, Vishnu Party and ALL other Splinter Groups to post their queries to, and debate with, any member of any group congenially.
User avatar
fluffy bunny
ex-BKWSU
Posts: 5365
Joined: 07 Apr 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: ex-BK. Interested in historical revisionism, failed predictions and abuse within the BK movement.

MBBhat on the term Hindu

Post by fluffy bunny » 30 Aug 2012

At it is 'off-topic' elsewhere, I will start this thread taken from the topic, here. It is paraphrased from the original text, here, and elsewhere.
mbbhat wrote:can Hindus explain how Hindu is a religion? Some Hindus do not believe it is a religion. some believe. why?
No, Hindu is certainly not one religion. There have been most if not all religions and philosophical schools, including rationalism, materialism and atheism, present in the geographic area of India for at least 2,000 years.

Baldev Singh, PhD wrote ...
Due to many centuries of subjugation and humiliation by foreigners, Hindus have lost self-respect, dignity and the will to face the truth and reality. Instead, they have become masters of deception, manipulation and hypocrisy. They cry hoarse, that foreign writers have
maligned their religion and culture and distorted their history. However, they don’t have any compunction against quoting foreign
historians if it suites their purpose

He goes on to say that although the usual explanation is that the word Hindu (or Hindoo) arose from foreign invaders 3,000 years ago, namely the Persians, who were mispronouncing the name of the river Sindhu this is a mistake. The Persians were perfectly capable of using 's' or 'sh' terms and, in fact, they already had a word Hindu.

Hindu is a foreign innovation. It is not used by any of the Sanskrit writers or revered Acharyas in their works for India (and you have the Ancient Greeks or Macedonians to thank for the word India too). The word Hindu is found in Persian and, according to Maharishi Shri Dayanand Sarswati meant slave or darkness. According to Islam, he wrote, all those who did not embrace Islam were considered slaves.

Initially, the term was also entirely secular, or geographic in its use. It did not refer to religious activities, merely to where the people's lived. It was only the British that started to use it in such a manner in the 19th C so as to separate off non-Christians or non-Islamic Indians. The English word India coming from the Greek Ἰνδία (Indía) via Latin India meaning the region beyond the Indus (Sindhu river) and Hindustan, for the North of India/Pakistan coming again from the Persians/Islam.

A Persian dictionary titled Lughet-e-Kishwari, published in Lucknow in 1964, gives the meaning of Hindu as ‘chore (thief), dakoo (dacoit), raahzan (waylayer), and ghulam (slave)’. Another, the Urdu-Feroze-ul-Laghat, gives the meaning of the word as looter, ghulam (slave), barda (obedient servant) or sia faam (black color) and kaalaa (black).

Singh argues the terms Hindu was originally a derogatory term given to the original Aryan race of the region by Muslim invaders to humiliate them.

Why?

“Blackness” is used with bad connotation in Indian languages. For example, kaala munh, kaali Jeebh, kaala chore, kaala dhandha, kaali bhaid (black sheep) and kaala chum (black skinned person). The inferiority complex of “blackness” is deeply imbedded in the psyche of Indians. It even arises as such within the Brahma Kumaris and their god's Murlis.

Most Indians, except the Dalits, consider themselves as the descendants of Caucasian tribes, who ruled over India before the onslaught of Muslims. So for Hindus to accept that “Hindu” means black would make them the descendants of native Indians, the dark skinned Dravidians.

It is a fact that most Indians of today are the products of thousands of years of miscegenation between Caucasian groups and native Indians and yet there is a tendency for Indians to despise dark or black skin color. The superiority of white or lighter skin is deeply imbedded in the Indian psyche because, he says, ever since the conquest of Indus Valley by Caucasians, India has been ruled by white people like Aryans, Persians, Macedonians, Scythians, Huns, Arabs, Turks, Afghanas, Mangols, Portugese, French and English. Dark skin has always been equate with low caste, poverty and ignorance etc.

This, he argues, is why Hindus insist that “Hindu” is the corrupted form of Sindhu.

What surprised me most about my research of this term was how much more of Indian civilization has roots in Persian/Zoroastrian, and even Greek civilization.

satyaprakash
Posts: 264
Joined: 12 Mar 2010
Affinity to the BKWSU: Friends or Family of
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: trying to know more

Re: MBBhat on the term Hindu

Post by satyaprakash » 30 Aug 2012

Krishna is black in colour.
Rama is dark skinned.
But they are the Gods of Hindus!
Satya.

User avatar
fluffy bunny
ex-BKWSU
Posts: 5365
Joined: 07 Apr 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: ex-BK. Interested in historical revisionism, failed predictions and abuse within the BK movement.

Re: MBBhat on the term Hindu

Post by fluffy bunny » 31 Aug 2012

The BKs are famous in India for avoiding and not engaging in scholarly discussions, especially in public. They target and exploit manly uneducated people and off then simple answers to plug their minds I think.

Well, sometimes black but more often blue. They say, the colour of a new rain cloud ... or because he slowed mud, or poison, or was born at midnight (there is no agreement) ... but mostly likely because blue symbolised Vishna and was used to indicate his incarnations. Blue was the colour of Vishnu. Or it could simply be to make him stand out from others in paintings.

One would have to ask why and what blue symbolises in art and understand the mystical meaning, not just accept it literally.

Most commentators say it is the colour of the infinite sky and points to god's infinite, omnipresent nature. It could, conceivably, refer to the Dravidian colour or to earlier Dravidian gods. However, that Krishna is a symbolic figure and much has been written about the symbolic nature of religious art, every colour has a specific use and meaning.

The BKs pose the question; Christians had Christ, Buddhists had Buddha, Islam had Muhammed ... who was the founder of the Hindu religion? But Hindu is not one religion, so what are they talking about?

Most "Hindus" do not know ... because they have studied nothing of anthropology, language, gene, ethnographics, religious history etc ... and so then the BK pounce on this and say, "Ah-ha ... therefore it is our god!!!"

But that strains the limits of belief. It is a false logic.

Studying genetics and the evolution of languages gives some clues to where the Indo-Aryan people, their cultures and their influences came from.

But, who are the real Indians? The Dravidians or the Caucasian invaders? It seems most of so called Hinduism and Hindu culture came from the North and West via what is now Iran. (BTW, it is also say that the tradition of making fine statues for deities was influenced by the Greek and Roman realism, and before that statues, like the ling were crude and symbolic).

Before Indo-Europeans
  • Sedentary agrarian society
    Fertility and nature worshiped
    Goddess gave birth to World, Agriculture
    Priests male and female
    Women’s status similar to men’s: Graves Equal
After Indo-Europeans
  • Herding introduced
    Warfare, war culture dominates: Fortifications built
    Male War Gods worshiped: Male dominated society, religion
    Goddess loses status
    Killed or raped by male god
    Becomes consort of male god
    Becomes goddess of war
    Women lose status in society
    Owned by fathers then husbands
    Graves unequal
Induscivilizationmap.jpg
indoeuropean language diffusion.gif
Indoeuropean language family tree.jpg

User avatar
fluffy bunny
ex-BKWSU
Posts: 5365
Joined: 07 Apr 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: ex-BK. Interested in historical revisionism, failed predictions and abuse within the BK movement.

Re: MBBhat on the term Hindu

Post by fluffy bunny » 31 Aug 2012

One key to remember is that, unlike what the BKs tell us ... taken from the myths and legends of Bharat ... India was not one nation. It was many nations each with its own histories and cultures which were melded together at later dates.

But who were the real Hindus and Hindu culture? The Dravidian dark skinned native people ... or the Aryan invaders from the North and West and Europe?

There are also more than one Krishnas, e.g. the sage Krishna of the Vedas and the hero of the Mahabharata are not the same. It is likely that Krishna the unscrupulous tribal chief and Krishna the religious teacher also come from two different traditions that were then glued together in an unsatisfactory manner. Krishna was a late invention and insert into scriptures after their original creation, more than likely less than 2,000 years ago. Indian cultures and religions were well established before his cult was established.

The same happened in the construction of Christ ... he two was pieced together from many different legends into one god.

It is also worth studying the history of the Krishna cult to understand how and where it developed.

satyaprakash
Posts: 264
Joined: 12 Mar 2010
Affinity to the BKWSU: Friends or Family of
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: trying to know more

Re: MBBhat on the term Hindu

Post by satyaprakash » 01 Sep 2012

Western concepts of Aryan invasion, Dravidian Aryan divide etc are all proved to be without basis by more recent historians.
Aryan invasion from the North etc is also not proved.
See references to Saraswati river which has dried up several thousand years ago.
Anyhow for the Humble Hindu Krishna is God. Tell what you want.
Satya.

User avatar
fluffy bunny
ex-BKWSU
Posts: 5365
Joined: 07 Apr 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: ex-BK. Interested in historical revisionism, failed predictions and abuse within the BK movement.

Re: MBBhat on the term Hindu

Post by fluffy bunny » 01 Sep 2012

satyaprakash wrote:Anyhow for the Humble Hindu Krishna is God. Tell what you want.
Even the Shaktas and Shaivites?

It is not what I think, it is what the learned authors discovered and a response the BK yukti of suggesting Hinduism is one and *needs* a founder.

In the ancient days, how could ideas spread from one place so quickly. I don't think they did. I think they arose in many places and when they met, had to adopt to include the other and new information.

"Ordinary" people in India ... I am not sure what you think the word "humble" means ... do not have the time, resource or reason to invest into studying history. But it is interesting for those of us who can and I am just highly junior in the field.

User avatar
fluffy bunny
ex-BKWSU
Posts: 5365
Joined: 07 Apr 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: ex-BK. Interested in historical revisionism, failed predictions and abuse within the BK movement.

Brahmanism and Mental Blocks of Hindus

Post by fluffy bunny » 03 Sep 2012

From: Brahmanism and Mental Blocks of Hindus by Dr. Prabhakar Kamath, a psychiatrist currently practicing in the U.S and author of Servants, Not Masters: A Guide for Consumer Activists in India.

I challenge the BKs that they have lost interested in the upliftment of humanity and are just interested in the upliftment of themselves from minor jatis to "top knot" Brahmins and they are exploiting many of the tools of the lokik Brahmins and the general frame of mind of Indians.

Especially in their love of authority, their social climbing and sucking up to the powerful and rich.

But ... I am not Indian, do not live in India and India is changing for the better so my opinions of this matter, in India, are second. However, I have seen many of the Dr's criticisms appearing in the way the BKs act in the West.

Perhaps the BKs just see these lack of ethics as "sensible" and the thing to do in India ... like bribing police and media to suppress bad press, or doing business deals on the side, e.g. local BKs making money off Western BKs. I don't know ... perhaps someone can enlighten me.
Fear of Authority is Rooted in India’s Feudal Past

During the past 3500 years Indians were ruled by despotic Rajas and Maharajas, Chieftains, Islamic Sultans, Islamic emperors, British, and assorted overlords assisted by a cadre of bureaucrats, most of them Brahmins. During the rule by Hindu kings, Brahmins were the real power behind the throne. During the rule of foreign kings, Brahmins acted as the parallel government, which ruled Hindus by means of Brahmanic doctrines as enunciated in the Brahmanic Gita: The doctrine of the Gunas of Prakriti and the Law of Karma. Regardless who ruled the country and collected taxes, Brahmanism was practically the Constitution of India during this entire period. Even under the worst Islamic rule, such as Aurangzeb’s, Brahmanism prevailed. As we read in the previous article, Brahmins protected and safely conveyed civilization from generations to generation.

The rule of the kings was largely dictatorial, with no room whatsoever for dissent. The authority of the king was asserted by means of severe physical punishment meted out by the police and bureaucrats. Often dissenters, even on mere suspicion, were flayed alive, and their bodies stuffed with straw were paraded as an example for other potential upstarts. The rulers and the ruled were separated by a bureaucratic frame­work that dealt with people somewhat arbitrarily, as it does even today.

In the name of the rulers the bureaucrats wielded vast powers. Their message to people was the same over the centu­ries: Hold your tongue in leash and don‘t do anything that might cost you a limb or your life. Parents discouraged their children from showing any initiative except perhaps in the non-controversial field of art and culture, and that too, only in the service of the aristocracy. "Don’t display any Adhikaprasangam (don’t be and upstart)" has been a motto which we have inherited from our ancestors, who, of course, had nothing but our welfare in mind.

Fear of authority, dinned into our heads for centuries, has been passed on from generation to genera­tion, and it has now become a deep-rooted, unconscious, mental block.

Today, however, even under a vastly different political climate, our deep-rooted fear of authority has survived in us, hindering us from taking any initiative in tackling genuinely relevant civic problems. Our conscious mind knows full well that we are no longer under feudal rule, and that we are today citizens of a democratic country, masters in our own country. Our behavior, however, reflects that unconsciously we still think we are living in a feudal society ruled by the nexus of Kshatriyas and Brahmins. Naturally, our masterful inaction reflects this archaic belief system.

This fear of authority tallies perfectly with the haughty and arbitrary behavior of our politicians and bureaucrats, who are nothing but modern day incarnations of Kshatriyas and Brahmins. Sixty-three years after independence, Indian bureaucracy continues to function exactly like it did under the rule of the Guptas 1500 years ago, or Vijayanagara kings 600 years ago.
Fear of Being Accused of Ahamkara

The question might arise, “Why did not people defy these doctrines?”

Indeed a large section of Brahmanic society revolted against the authority of Brahmins, abandoned it, and joined heterodox Dharmas such as Buddhism and Jainism in the post-Vedic period.

... the accusation of suffering from the delusion of Ahamkara became the ultimate weapon of Brahmanism. Since Brahmanism could not inflict physical punishment like the kings, they resorted to psychological deterrents. To this day, every Brahmanic Guru uses this weapon against critics of Brahmanism. In the Brahmanic society anyone who ever said, "I did this" or "I think like this" "I reject this" risked being accused of Ahamkara.

The message of Brahmanism to the lay public was loud and clear: “Your Ahamkara does not behoove you. Do your socially designated duty helplessly and faithfully and be a good citizen. Performing one’s own Dharma, however imperfectly, is better than performing another’s perfectly. If you see any evil in this system, remember all systems are attended with inherent evil. That is no reason rebel against it or abandon it. Do not be an upstart.”

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3230
Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Affinity to the BKWSU: BK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: I am a Bk and a writer. I have been benefited a lot by the knowledge given in BK institution. I also have materials written totally on logic without BK knowledge. Anyone can get them as attachments for free by email.

Re: MBBhat on the term Hindu

Post by mbbhat » 09 Sep 2012

fluffy bunny wrote:No, Hindu is certainly not one religion.
1)Some Hindus believe "Hindu is a religion". Some Hindus believe "Hindu is not a religion; it is a way of life" - why the difference in opinions ?

2)Then how many religions are there in Hindu religion? Who all are their respective religious fathers? List them sequentially with dates if possible. Did each of those religions had separate scripture?

3)When the Hindu religion started according to FB soul? How many non Hindus will agree with it? How many Hindus will agree with it?

4)Why name Hindu is not mentioned in any Hindu scripture?
During the past 3500 years Indians were ruled by despotic Rajas and Maharajas,
There is no proof (written history) for anything that is beyond 2000 to 2500 yrs before.

User avatar
fluffy bunny
ex-BKWSU
Posts: 5365
Joined: 07 Apr 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: ex-BK. Interested in historical revisionism, failed predictions and abuse within the BK movement.

Re: MBBhat on the term Hindu

Post by fluffy bunny » 09 Sep 2012

Are these questions sincere? Could you just not use a search engine to find out the answers, or read a few books?
mbbhat wrote:1)Some Hindus believe "Hindu is a religion". Some Hindus believe "Hindu is not a religion; it is a way of life" - why the difference in opinions?
Who are "some Hindus" and what qualifications do they have to make their opinions of any value? There is a saying in the West, "opinions are like *******, everyone has one". It means "opinions" are not worth very much.

As I wrote, experts in the matter consider the concept of 'Hindu' as a religion really only started from the British when it was used to differentiate them from Muslim, Christians, and so on. The Britishers accuracy varied according to time, so at some points even Jain, Parsee etc were lumped in with Hindu. Then we have cases like Buddhism and Sikh who once started as "Hindu" schools and due to culture or theological differences chose to separate themselves from Hindu, e.g. rejection of caste, experience of persecution etc.
2)Then how many religions are there in Hindu religion? Who all are their respective religious fathers? List them sequentially with dates if possible. Did each of those religions had separate scripture?
The idea that each "religion" must have its own "religious Father", and adhere to a scripture is a bit of a Brahma Kumarism ... it is an incomplete and unsatisfactory model which does not explain reality. PBKism is an attempt to take BKism futher and resolve many of its prolems but is still not complete.

At some point Lekhraj Kirpalani must have thought during his soul searching, "Christianity has Christ, Buddhism has Buddha, Islam has Muhammed, who was the founder of Hinduism?". His answer for 14 or more years was, "I am ... I am God Brahma, the Gita Sermoniser".

But, he started from a false premise ... the idea that Hinduism was a single religion. And, remember, Lekhraj Kirpalani was noted for his
  • • lack of general education
    • lack of religious education
    • child like, indulgent and egotistical mind
To understand how ignorant he was, he did not even know about Judaism in the beginning and never cared to mention Taoism, Shintoism, Confucianism, Zoroastrianism and many other religion which were the foundations of others, including Hinduism (much of "Hinduism" comes from Persia).

In his ignorance, and the ignorance of the Brahma Kumari leaders, he has no answer for who was the founder of all the other indigenous tribal religions all over the world, in Africa, in Asia, in North and South America. Even in Europe and Australasia. The whole world was covered in tribal cults or religions, mostly nature based, aligned with agriculture and fertility, or animistic. The cults of India have the same roots as them way back in human evolution 1,000s of years ago. They evolved naturally out of humanity's awareness of the environment around them.
3)When the Hindu religion started according to FB soul? How many non Hindus will agree with it? How many Hindus will agree with it?
Numbers mean nothing. The majority of individuals are completely ignorant and disinterested in such things.

"Hinduism" has become a political football to be kicked around the field. You might call refer back to Bharat and Adi Sanatam Dharma but those too are likely to be myths.
4)Why name Hindu is not mentioned in any Hindu scripture?
Because it did not exist before the foreign invaders and was of foreign invention.
During the past 3500 years Indians were ruled by despotic Rajas and Maharajas,
There is no proof (written history) for anything that is beyond 2000 to 2500 yrs before.
So you agree India was ruled by despotic Rajas and Maharajas (we know that) but just wish to quibble about the years?

The oldest evidence for largescale warfare is about 3500 B.C years old. Before the despotic Rajas and Maharajas, there were despotic tribal chief. It's all a question of scale but the patterns are the same.

You're suffering from "Bharat Mythomania", the illusion of an ideal India some time in the past which is rooted in Hinduism and exaggerated in Brahma Kumarism. Look at real history; the Magadha, Harsha, Chalukyas, Pallavas and so on, e.g. the earliest written references to armies in India and use of war elephants dates back to the (real) Iron Age about 1100–500 BC.

What were they doing with "war elephants" ... going on picnics in the Brahma Kumaris' Silver Age?

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3230
Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Affinity to the BKWSU: BK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: I am a Bk and a writer. I have been benefited a lot by the knowledge given in BK institution. I also have materials written totally on logic without BK knowledge. Anyone can get them as attachments for free by email.

Re: MBBhat on the term Hindu

Post by mbbhat » 10 Sep 2012

In Murlis, it is said- it is not possible to count each leaf of the tree. the main four religions are taken into consideration.

So- even if there are so many cults, tribes, etc- they are like information and not knowledge. there is no need to study them in detail. Main four religions are named. And even in them, still it is centered to Deity religion.
-----
Look at real history; the Magadha, Harsha, Chalukyas, Pallavas and so on, e.g. the earliest written references to armies in India and use of war elephants dates back to the (real) Iron Age about 1100–500 BC.
chaluky, Harsha, - history all were later. i have studied in my school days.

Pallava Dynasty - 9th century --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pallava_dynasty

Harsha --- 600 AD ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harsha

chalukya dynasty - after 6th century-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalukya_dynasty

The clear history begins from during around 300 BC - chandragupta mourya kingdom.

It is really surprising how did you come to the above conclusion-- 1100 BC?
-------------------
Christians know when christ came- Even everyone knows. even about Ibrahim and Buddha.

But, why not about hinduism? why there was so high richness in all sorts- wealth, cultural, etc had been there in India and how it degraded? - why no Hindu does not do this study?

Actually if my questions are put to Hindus, i think they do not agree with your answers.

Since I do not have much interest in debating or discussing this topic, I may not proceed here.

Good.
-----
Note:- I just tried from web pages and got from Wikipedia and posted here. but, even then they cannot be solid proof. And to what extent, the recordings were correct in those days- is also a big question.

So- when we write "real history" ...?

satyaprakash
Posts: 264
Joined: 12 Mar 2010
Affinity to the BKWSU: Friends or Family of
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: trying to know more

Re: MBBhat on the term Hindu

Post by satyaprakash » 10 Sep 2012

Very interesting -one ignorant 'soul' trying to beat another equally ignorant one.
fluffy bunny wrote:Could you just not use a search engine to find out the answers, or read a few books?
Problem is the above sources of 'knowledge'
One foreigner, who has read a lot on Hinduism trying to answer questions without understanding the basic thread of Hinduism (this name can be replaced by any other name to indicate the same) which is secure and well understood in spite of all Rajas- despotic or not.
Another, who has been sucked into the harangue of bk cult trying to prove his own bk theory of surgical division of four ages 1250 years precisely, not a day more or less.
fluffy bunny wrote:The cults of India have the same roots as them way back in human evolution 1,000s of years ago. They evolved naturally out of humanity's awareness of the environment around them.
This is a 'true' account of someone who has actually 'seen' it!
fluffy bunny wrote:PBKism is an attempt to take BKism futher and resolved many of its problems but is still not complete.
So pbk resolved many of the problems of bk? Discoveries galore!

Keep it up. When two blind men guide each other, they sure will find the truth very fast!
Satya

User avatar
fluffy bunny
ex-BKWSU
Posts: 5365
Joined: 07 Apr 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: ex-BK. Interested in historical revisionism, failed predictions and abuse within the BK movement.

Re: MBBhat on the term Hindu

Post by fluffy bunny » 10 Sep 2012

satyaprakash wrote:Very interesting -one ignorant 'soul' trying to beat another equally ignorant one.

... a 'true' account of someone who has actually 'seen' it!
I am not 3,000 years old, so I am limited in what I have "seen" ... but I have been to many museums and I am careful to use the opinions of Indian scholars. The study of history has become highly advanced these days, what with the benefits of science and global communications helping it.

At the most simple level, perhaps if Lekhraj Kirpalani had seen fossilised dinosaurs and ancient artefacts, it might have made reconsider his historic theory.

Please be humble then and tell us what is truth of history is as you understand it, rather than just insult us. If you consider these Indian experts to be wrong, tell us what you base your version upon.

Sorry, I made a grammatical mistake there (tense), it should read ... I am saying PBKs are trying to resolve BKism problems but saying they still have further to go.
PBKism is an attempt to take BKism futher and resolve many of its problems but is still not complete.
mbbhat wrote:In Murlis, it is said- it is not possible to count each leaf of The Tree. the main four religions are taken into consideration.
I would have said "leaf" were human souls and branches and twigs religion myself ... but it is a convenient and easy answer. We also know when Brahma Kumarism started, Shiva/Lekhraj Kirpalani did not even know or refer to Judaism but called it Islam. It destroys his credibility as an expert on religion.

What is "main"? Famous amongst uneducated people? Chinese/East Asia culture is based on Taoism/Confucianism and equates for approx 25%+ of the population whereas Judiasm only has 13 million followers, why is it "main" and Taoism/Confucianism not.

The root of Western monotheism is in Zoroastrianism (whilst the real Jews were polytheistic) and it had a profound influence on the forming of Abrahamic, of which were branches, and even Hindu religions. Why is it not "main"?

BK's have no interest in the real history of religions.
It is really surprising how did you come to the above conclusion-- 1100 BC?
A simple answer might be, when do you date the Bharata War or the Vedic period (usually stated as 1700 to 1100 BCE) , in the record of which mention them. (They are also mentioned in the record of the Shang Dynasty in China before 1000 BC).
Christians know when christ came- Even everyone knows. even about Ibrahim and Buddha.

But, why not about hinduism - why no Hindu does not do this study?

Actually if my questions are put to Hindus, i think they do not agree with your answers.
Some Indians do; archeologists, vedic historians, anthropologists etc. These answers are not mine, they are a record of the experts opinion.

"Most Hindus" are not historians. In fact, "most Christians" have an equally poor education of the development their own religion, and their leaders have historically stopped them from knowing the truth to control them too. "Most people" are too busy just surviving and lack access to resources to educate themselves, same too of "most BKs" ... they accept what they are told without thinking.

I am amazed at what the Brahma Kumaris leadership kept hidden from me, and yet all the time I was in Gyan the evidence was sitting there in British and Indian national libraries and so on. They kept us too busy to think.

BK Knowledge is not knowledge. It is designed to give an easy answer to plug your mind and stop you asking questions, and then they direct your time, energy and money to do what they want to achieve social climbing and acquiring land and property.

This is the reason BKs are against Virendra Dev Dixit and the PBKs ... because he makes them think and question. I understand that is why he was banished. Many others have been for the same reason too.

BK logic tries to argue that because Christianity has Christ, Hinduism must have its Father ... but it is false logic because it is based on the premise that Hinduism is one religion ... it is not. It is many which arose from prehistoric tribal expression. And here we have studied the roots and development of the term.

Why doesn't the BKWS "University" provide real education about such things? Instead it avoids scholarly discussion with other experts and tells followers not to read books.

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3230
Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Affinity to the BKWSU: BK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: I am a Bk and a writer. I have been benefited a lot by the knowledge given in BK institution. I also have materials written totally on logic without BK knowledge. Anyone can get them as attachments for free by email.

Re: MBBhat on the term Hindu

Post by mbbhat » 10 Sep 2012

Actually I would like to see here how Hindus who believe in their scriptures can explain them.

OK- you may generalize it. Take any religion. To what extent one can prove that the stories mentioned in their scriptures is correct historically?

OK- it would be difficult for anyone.

But, one can explain the morality or ethics in the stories explained in their scriptures. It would be easy for other religions to explain their scriptures. but for Hindus, it would be more difficult. this is what I had said in those topics.

Else- if someone (BKWSU) explains it better, then it would be wrong to say BKWSU steals hinduism words and concepts as FB soul had said.

So- if interested FB soul can try to prove both historically and moral point of views according to the belief of a Hindu (or Gita believer) as mentioned in my queries in the topic

Brahmakumaris and bhagavadgita before accusing BKWSU for such things.

http://bk-pbk.info/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2215
-------
but without understanding what i had meant, that soul just wrote its belief on Gita there.

User avatar
fluffy bunny
ex-BKWSU
Posts: 5365
Joined: 07 Apr 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: ex-BK. Interested in historical revisionism, failed predictions and abuse within the BK movement.

Re: MBBhat on the term Hindu

Post by fluffy bunny » 10 Sep 2012

Please consider reading some books to understand how archeologists, historians and anthropologists work; and what the 'state of art' of current research tools and methods is.

You might be surprised how advance they are now and how tools like satellites, computers and the numerous forms of dating are making such a difference.

There is no point me taking the time to explain to you because you are disinterested in knowing.

To accept BKism one has to will accept retarding human understanding to the state it was for the uneducated 1930s Bhaibund and Amils.

I wonder if they have ever taken Dadi Janki to see the dinosaur remains in the natural history museums and what she makes of them, or how they explain that the written history of China goes back to as early as the Shang Dynasty which was 1700–1046 BC ... in which there is no mention of a heavenly Silver Age.

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3230
Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Affinity to the BKWSU: BK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: I am a Bk and a writer. I have been benefited a lot by the knowledge given in BK institution. I also have materials written totally on logic without BK knowledge. Anyone can get them as attachments for free by email.

Re: MBBhat on the term Hindu

Post by mbbhat » 10 Sep 2012

fluffy bunny wrote:1)Please consider reading some books to understand how archeologists, historians and anthropologists work; and what the 'state of art' of current research tools and methods is.

You might be surprised how advance they are now and how tools like satellites, computers and the numerous forms of dating are making such a difference.

2)There is no point me taking the time to explain to you because you are disinterested in knowing
1)Do you know what is written in scriptures say first of all? scriptures believe it is god who created us. But science does not believe in god. then how can you tally them with computers and satellities?

OK- moreover- the terms braahmin, ancient Raja Yoga- are the in the circle of science or religion?

The age of Satyug, Tretayug, ...etc are different according to scriptures and can the history mentioned there be proved by what you mean by advanced?

If yes, you may try . Else- I felt your accusing (like when BKWSU explains the terms ancient Raja Yoga, etc as stealing) has no value .

2)You are writing as if you have capacity to explain these! Good if you can.
-------

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests