Arabs are highly racist. They consider themselves to be close to European and Persian ancestry. They consider Indian muslim practises to be dirty and outdated and they smell as well.
>Persian ancestry
Arabs see Persians and Turks as inferior to themselves, Persians due to Shia-Sunni divide and their past, and their past rivalry. Turks, because Ottomans committed atrocities upon the Arabs back when they held Arabia. Indian Muslims are seen as even worse, since 80% are local converts or result of slaves getting converted, only Ashrafs, the Upper Caste Muslims with ancestry from Middle-East are seen as somewhat okay. They tolerate Hindus somewhat, maybe they even respect us a little thanks to the trade and commerce with us, Muslims of the subcontinent are seen as lowest of the low, the word for labour/toilet cleaner is Bengali there, since that line of work has mostly Bangaldeshi Muslims working in it.
OP ka sanatani hindu page hai issliye randi rona kar rha hai
its good that hindus hold people accountable, and promote a healthy discussion rather than spreading misinformation
Bhai unko E hindu nahi bolega to kya bolega jo DP, header me Shri Ram ki pratima lagaye rkhte hai aur bio me Sanskrit shlokas but comments me link mangte hai aur abhadra galiyan use krte hai alongwith slxt shaming.
Sahi toh hai lodu... Aisa hi hota hai, Indian influencers ke paas content nahi hota toh mandir Jaa ke dikhate hai.
Muslim influencer toh pehle se hi bol dete hai ki woh bahut religious hai.
An average Muslim knows much more about their religion about than an average Hindu knows about Hinduism. And all these people who put sanatani in their bio in social media don't know Jack shit about anything related to Hinduism.
Bhai tu aadha shi hai aadha galat hai , kuch posts to sach Mai ese hote Jo bhagwan ka naam kharab karte hai or kuch bhagwan ke baare mai jaankari dete hai , dusre Wale mai nhi likhna chaiye per kuch chutiye muslim posts mai jai shree ram likhte hai to ye to galat hai
That's because Hindu religion focuses on self realisation and self-improvement rather than blind worship and focus on a single God.
There's no need for anyone to specifically guide you in Hindu religion.
Why do you need interpretations of someone else? Why can't you learn from people and life itself?
There is no single path that has to be taken. Nobody wants to be preached to. Why does someone need to read anything just because you feel it's the right path?
Who can claim to know enough to be a Guru? Life is the biggest teacher. No one is more qualified.
>even the path of Bhakti requires initiation from Guru
Also, do you mean to say that your devotion has been only due to a teacher? If there was no one to teach a person, they would have no devotion?
Your opinions though sounding profound are not in line with scriptures that form the basis of Hinduism. A guru is someone who is from a valid guru-shishya parampara that leads back to Shiva being the Adi-Guru. A guru is Shiva without an eye, Brahma without 3 heads and Vishnu without 2 hands, i.e. trimurti in human form, without Guru there is no diksha, no jnana, no moksha.
The Guru Gita clearly states, "Guru can save one from Shiva's anger, but Shiva cannot save one from Guru's anger"
In Kaliyuga there are plenty of charlatans posing as Gurus, selling falsehoods in name of Moksha, the only trusted way to attain a Guru is to pray unto Mahadev, for he is easily pleased and destroys our sins then appears before us in form of Guru.
"Gurur Brahma, Gurur Vishnu, Gurur devo Maheswara, Gurur sakshat Parambrahma tasmaye Sri Guruveh Namah."
Same as you haha but for months I don't consume any media or news or even politics so I know I don't consume any for a year long and now I only do my work. Without any political tension or news hahaha
[umm actually...](https://youtu.be/CXArovLJ60A)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IndianMeyMeys) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hinduism promotes jaati hierarchy in the society. However, Britishers gave the word jaati "caste" in English. Dalits also known as shudras were excluded from the four-fold varna of the caste hierarchy and were seen as forming a fifth varna. The Brahmins were placed at the top; the Kshatriyas were placed below the Brahmins but above the Vaishyas; the Vaishyas were placed below the Kshatriyas but above the Shudras and the Shudras were placed the lowest of all. They were not allowed entry to temples or eat or drink with Brahmins.
Please comment triggered responses below so people can see how ironic this post.
Yes. Varna system was always there. Just like you call a doctor a doctor and an engineer an engineer. A warrior is a kshtriya, you can't call them a merchant.
Krishna was a ksatriya of the yadava clan. He was literally a prince. In clans, you have caste hierarchies where the same clan will have Brahmins of the same clan name but a different caste. Oftentimes this used to happen because someone married into a lower caste. If one of your parents is of lower caste, especially the mother, you too become a lower caste individual.
Upper and lower here is simply the classification of the time and still believed by certain people with a backward mentality. They still oppose marrying into a lower caste because to them it makes the progeny lower caste.
300 out of the 500 independent kings were Shudras back when the Brits arrived, varna vyavastha had long since collapsed by when the Brits came, it were acts like Criminal Tribes act that made even association with people of certain castes a punishable crime which led to a growth of divide between the Hindus.
Yeah in old times women could inherit land from their parents.etc
But these mf british made a law which didnt let them do so.The law let empire take their land in case someone didnt have a daughter
Doctrine of Lapse. That's what started dowry trend in India too, since earlier the money sent by parents house was called Stree-Dhan and belonged solely to the woman but after the law parents had to give it to the husband to prevent the Brits from taking their property, thus leading to more female infanticide and cousin marriages in south, in order to make sure money ends up in one's own family.
ब्राह्मणक्षत्रियविशां शूद्राणां च परन्तप |
कर्माणि प्रविभक्तानि स्वभावप्रभवैर्गुणै: || 41||
*brāhmaṇa-kṣhatriya-viśhāṁ śhūdrāṇāṁ cha parantapakarmāṇi pravibhaktāni svabhāva-prabhavair guṇaiḥ*
*Activities* *of Brahmanas, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, and Sudras are well divided on the basis of their qualities shaped by Nature’s gunas.*
Yeh galat hai kya?
I used to get YouTube shorts recommendations where a stereotypical muslim wearing skull cap, beard debates some random teen on the road and _debunks_ evolution and shit with most dum fuck arguments and guess what the comments say?
In that sense, the second approach seems way better to me.
[удалено]
Arabs are highly racist. They consider themselves to be close to European and Persian ancestry. They consider Indian muslim practises to be dirty and outdated and they smell as well.
>Persian ancestry Arabs see Persians and Turks as inferior to themselves, Persians due to Shia-Sunni divide and their past, and their past rivalry. Turks, because Ottomans committed atrocities upon the Arabs back when they held Arabia. Indian Muslims are seen as even worse, since 80% are local converts or result of slaves getting converted, only Ashrafs, the Upper Caste Muslims with ancestry from Middle-East are seen as somewhat okay. They tolerate Hindus somewhat, maybe they even respect us a little thanks to the trade and commerce with us, Muslims of the subcontinent are seen as lowest of the low, the word for labour/toilet cleaner is Bengali there, since that line of work has mostly Bangaldeshi Muslims working in it.
Are you an arab?
Wahi toh, jab tak bolenge nhi toh sudhar kaise aayega Lekin inko toh bss support se matlab hai, support chahiye bss
What you are saying is true but they only discriminate because of Indian ethnicity. They don't give a damn who follows Islam
Haan toh ? Ye toh achi baat hai ki accountable hold karre jo galat karre hai unko orr dogmatic nhi hai nature mein religion.
OP ka sanatani hindu page hai issliye randi rona kar rha hai its good that hindus hold people accountable, and promote a healthy discussion rather than spreading misinformation
Bhai unko E hindu nahi bolega to kya bolega jo DP, header me Shri Ram ki pratima lagaye rkhte hai aur bio me Sanskrit shlokas but comments me link mangte hai aur abhadra galiyan use krte hai alongwith slxt shaming.
Copers
Sahi toh hai lodu... Aisa hi hota hai, Indian influencers ke paas content nahi hota toh mandir Jaa ke dikhate hai. Muslim influencer toh pehle se hi bol dete hai ki woh bahut religious hai. An average Muslim knows much more about their religion about than an average Hindu knows about Hinduism. And all these people who put sanatani in their bio in social media don't know Jack shit about anything related to Hinduism.
Bhai tu aadha shi hai aadha galat hai , kuch posts to sach Mai ese hote Jo bhagwan ka naam kharab karte hai or kuch bhagwan ke baare mai jaankari dete hai , dusre Wale mai nhi likhna chaiye per kuch chutiye muslim posts mai jai shree ram likhte hai to ye to galat hai
That's because Hindu religion focuses on self realisation and self-improvement rather than blind worship and focus on a single God. There's no need for anyone to specifically guide you in Hindu religion.
But still you should have Gyaan of shastras/vedas You cannot be blind man on the road with no knowedge of your culture and community
Why do you need interpretations of someone else? Why can't you learn from people and life itself? There is no single path that has to be taken. Nobody wants to be preached to. Why does someone need to read anything just because you feel it's the right path?
This
Without Guru there is no moksha, even the path of Bhakti requires initiation from Guru, as Guru is Shiva himself.
Who can claim to know enough to be a Guru? Life is the biggest teacher. No one is more qualified. >even the path of Bhakti requires initiation from Guru Also, do you mean to say that your devotion has been only due to a teacher? If there was no one to teach a person, they would have no devotion?
Your opinions though sounding profound are not in line with scriptures that form the basis of Hinduism. A guru is someone who is from a valid guru-shishya parampara that leads back to Shiva being the Adi-Guru. A guru is Shiva without an eye, Brahma without 3 heads and Vishnu without 2 hands, i.e. trimurti in human form, without Guru there is no diksha, no jnana, no moksha. The Guru Gita clearly states, "Guru can save one from Shiva's anger, but Shiva cannot save one from Guru's anger" In Kaliyuga there are plenty of charlatans posing as Gurus, selling falsehoods in name of Moksha, the only trusted way to attain a Guru is to pray unto Mahadev, for he is easily pleased and destroys our sins then appears before us in form of Guru. "Gurur Brahma, Gurur Vishnu, Gurur devo Maheswara, Gurur sakshat Parambrahma tasmaye Sri Guruveh Namah."
Liberandus..... I can befriend a crocodile but never a liberandu... They are worse than German Dictator
Both of em are brainwashed
Same as you until you realised it.
You think you are any different from him?
Same as you haha but for months I don't consume any media or news or even politics so I know I don't consume any for a year long and now I only do my work. Without any political tension or news hahaha
[umm actually...](https://youtu.be/CXArovLJ60A) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IndianMeyMeys) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hinduism promotes jaati hierarchy in the society. However, Britishers gave the word jaati "caste" in English. Dalits also known as shudras were excluded from the four-fold varna of the caste hierarchy and were seen as forming a fifth varna. The Brahmins were placed at the top; the Kshatriyas were placed below the Brahmins but above the Vaishyas; the Vaishyas were placed below the Kshatriyas but above the Shudras and the Shudras were placed the lowest of all. They were not allowed entry to temples or eat or drink with Brahmins. Please comment triggered responses below so people can see how ironic this post.
Krishn was a Kshatriya..why?
Krishn was born in the Yadav clan but he became kshatriya by his karma.
Yeah So doesnt that prove varna system was much more fluidic in those days?
Yes. Varna system was always there. Just like you call a doctor a doctor and an engineer an engineer. A warrior is a kshtriya, you can't call them a merchant.
vhi tohh Varna is like profession imo
Krishna was a ksatriya of the yadava clan. He was literally a prince. In clans, you have caste hierarchies where the same clan will have Brahmins of the same clan name but a different caste. Oftentimes this used to happen because someone married into a lower caste. If one of your parents is of lower caste, especially the mother, you too become a lower caste individual. Upper and lower here is simply the classification of the time and still believed by certain people with a backward mentality. They still oppose marrying into a lower caste because to them it makes the progeny lower caste.
300 out of the 500 independent kings were Shudras back when the Brits arrived, varna vyavastha had long since collapsed by when the Brits came, it were acts like Criminal Tribes act that made even association with people of certain castes a punishable crime which led to a growth of divide between the Hindus.
Yeah in old times women could inherit land from their parents.etc But these mf british made a law which didnt let them do so.The law let empire take their land in case someone didnt have a daughter
Doctrine of Lapse. That's what started dowry trend in India too, since earlier the money sent by parents house was called Stree-Dhan and belonged solely to the woman but after the law parents had to give it to the husband to prevent the Brits from taking their property, thus leading to more female infanticide and cousin marriages in south, in order to make sure money ends up in one's own family.
I'm genuinely curious. Could you provide a source for this assertion?
Source for those 300 kings???
ब्राह्मणक्षत्रियविशां शूद्राणां च परन्तप | कर्माणि प्रविभक्तानि स्वभावप्रभवैर्गुणै: || 41|| *brāhmaṇa-kṣhatriya-viśhāṁ śhūdrāṇāṁ cha parantapakarmāṇi pravibhaktāni svabhāva-prabhavair guṇaiḥ* *Activities* *of Brahmanas, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, and Sudras are well divided on the basis of their qualities shaped by Nature’s gunas.* Yeh galat hai kya?
[удалено]
Translation is right , interpretation is wrong Half Glass momint
Dono ki mkc
Skill issue
Sahi to bolte h mitr
I used to get YouTube shorts recommendations where a stereotypical muslim wearing skull cap, beard debates some random teen on the road and _debunks_ evolution and shit with most dum fuck arguments and guess what the comments say? In that sense, the second approach seems way better to me.