There are some misconceptions on the relationship between Brahmins Caste Vedas and Hinduism.
Vedas
The canards have been set by the British and later expanded and propagated vigorously by the Dravidian parties to such an extent that many do not know th facts.
1.The Brahmins wrote the Vedas.
The Vedas are called Sruthi , heard and transmitted and there is no authorship.
Those who follow him are Jains and the Religion is called Jainism.
Jainism is classified as a Nastika system of Indian Philosophy, along with Buddhism,Charvaka,Nyaya, Yoga,Vaisheshika,and Sankhya(some call it Astika), which do not believe in the authenticity of the Vedas.
Most of the Jainism Doctrines are the same as the Vedas or Sanatana Dharma.
The theory of Karma is more stringent and is not dependent on Ishvara or personal God as in Hinduism.
In Jainism Karma operates independently of Iswara.
Hinduism speaks of One Ultimate Reality,Non Dualism , Jainism speaks of Multiple Realities.
The Reality is not one.
The individual Soul is not dependent on the Universal Soul, there is no Universal Soul.
There are two entities, Jiva, with Consciousness and Ajiva without Consciousness.
The sentient are Jivas and the non-sentient are Ajivas.
The Jiva or Soul is blinkered to perceiving things in their own Nature,because of limitations.
Transcending these limitation is called the Kevala Jnana.
Jiva is the Spirit.
Ajiva, the non spirit is devoid of Consciousness.
It has three essential ingredients.
Pudgala(matter) , Time and Space.
Matter is composed of Atoms are perceived to be different things because of the various combinations .
There is no underlying principle as such , as in Hinduism.
Space and Time are perceived as modes which are Infinite.
As such the world has no beginning and no end.
Hinduism states that the world is eternal and Time is Cyclic.
For Jainism Change is Permanent , while for Hinduism Permanence alone is Real and the changes are apparent.
On the Theory of Knowledge or Epistemology, Jainism agrees with Hinduism in that it is Self Luminous.
While Hinduism states that it is the modification of the Self is the world of things, Jainism says the world is of Multiple Realities.
The removal of the obstruction brings forth Knowledge as Knowledge is apart from the Self.
Hinduism states that removal of Ignorance from the Self leads to reverting to Knowledge state.
Jainism believes is Perception or Pratyaksha.
It believes in Immediate Knowledge as in Hinduism.
Here the difference is that Jainsim believes in th particular Knowledge of a Thing in detail and nothing more.
This , as related to Jiva or Soul.
Hinduism takes into account all aspects of Immediate Knowledge without reservations , like Sabda, testimony of the Vedas.
Jainism accepts Inference and Tharka(logic).
Intuition is not accepted by Jainism as by Hinduism.
The Logical system of Jainism is the best and is far more advanced than the Logical Positivism.
This is called the Sabda Bhangi Naya.
Please read my post on this.
Fundamentals of Ethics.
Jainism encourages spiritual development through cultivation of personal wisdom and through reliance on self-control through vows.[59] Jains accept different levels of compliance for ascetics and lay followers.[59]Ascetics of this religion undertake five major vows:
Ahimsa: Ahimsa means non-violence. The first major vow taken by ascetics is to cause no harm to living beings. It involves minimizing intentional and unintentional harm to other living creatures.
Satya: Satya literally means “truth”. This vow is to always speak the truth. Given that non-violence has priority, other principles yield to it whenever they conflict: in a situation where speaking truth could lead to violence, silence is to be observed.[59]
Asteya: The third vow, asteya, is to not take anything that is not willingly offered.[59] Attempting to extort material wealth from others or to exploit the weak is considered theft.
Brahmacharya: The vow of brahmacharya requires the exercise of control over the senses by refraining from indulgence in sexual activity.
Aparigraha: Aparigraha means non-possessiveness. This vow is to observe detachment from people, places and material things.[59] Ascetics completely renounce property and social relations.(wiki)
It is debatable whether Jesus existed at all, considering the evidence available.
What we know from Archaeology is that there was a preacher who rebelled against the Roman Empire and united people against Roman occupation and he conveyed a message of Love and Peace.
More than that we are not even sure of his name,Jesus.
Jesus Christ.
The Bible was conceived 300 years after his death.
There is scant reference to his personal appearance in the Bible.
One can surmise that considering the place of his origin Jesus should have been an oriental, brownish in color.
Now there is fresh controversy stating that Jesus was White!
Read the discussion and the links from my earlier posts.
”
The myth of a white Jesus is one with deep roots throughout Christian history. As early as the Middle Ages and particularly during the Renaissance, popular Western artists depicted Jesus as a white man, often with blue eyes and blondish hair. Perhaps fueled by some Biblical verses correlating lightness with purity and righteousness and darkness with sin and evil, these images sought to craft a sterile Son of God.
The only problem was that the representations were historically inaccurate.
Modern Western Christians have carried these images over into their own depictions of Jesus. Pick up a one of those bright blue “Bible Story” books in a Sunday School classroom and you’ll find white Jesus waiting for you, rosy cheeks and all. Or you could survey the light-skinned Jesus in any number of modern TV or film portrayals, including History Channel’s hit series The Bible.
If the Bible is silent on the matter of Jesus’ skin color, does it really matter that Megyn Kelly says Jesus is white?
If the Bible is silent on the matter of Jesus’ skin color, does it really matter that Megyn Kelly says Jesus is white?
Yes, actually.
As some historians and theologians have posited, the silence of the Scriptures on the issue of Jesus’ skin color is critical to Christianity’s broad appeal with people of various ethnicities. In a world where race often divides communities and even churches, the Biblical depictions of God’s son positions him as one who can bridge those divides.
For this reason, one American Presbyterian minister in the 1880s warned his flock not to trust popular images of Christ:
If He were particularised and localised—if, for example, He were made a man with a pale face—then the man of the ebony face would feel that there was a greater distance between Christ and him than between Christ and his white brother.’ Instead, because the Bible refused to describe Jesus in terms of racial features, his gospel could appeal to all. Only in this way could the Church be a place where the ‘Caucasian and Mongolian and African sit together at the Lord’s table, and we all think alike of Jesus, and we all feel that He is alike our brother’.
In Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Advice for Living” column for Ebony in 1957, the civil-rights leader was asked, “Why did God make Jesus white, when the majority of peoples in the world are non-white?” King replied, “The color of Jesus’ skin is of little or no consequence” because what made Jesus exceptional “His willingness to surrender His will to God’s will.” His point, as historian Edward Blum has noted, is that Jesus transcends race.
You must be logged in to post a comment.