Question on the Sanathana dharma practice..

[vbrahmani]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

As per my knowledge, the sapta rishis comprehend the divine knowledge at the beginning of each yuga and pass it on.

As per information available prevalently, the Vedas were composed sometime within the past 6000 years (by oldest estimates)

Also, the above timeframe falls after Treta and Krita yuga. There were more divine beings, sages and commoners in tune with the divine way of life more so in those times.

My question is - with the Vedas which define the rituals and way of life of sanathana dharma/hinduism being in place relatively recently.. what did the sages / brahmins and others follow during the early yugas? The Indian subcontinent was predominantly following Sanathana dharma back then with the absence of other religions.. so what is it they were following then?

 

[renuka]

So that means in Sathya Yuga there was no Vedas?

Sathya Yuga was supposed to be the golden Yuga isn't it?

BTW why no Veda mentions about dinosaurs?

 

[sangom]

As per my knowledge, the sapta rishis comprehend the divine knowledge at the beginning of each yuga and pass it on.

As per information available prevalently, the Vedas were composed sometime within the past 6000 years (by oldest estimates)

Also, the above timeframe falls after Treta and Krita yuga. There were more divine beings, sages and commoners in tune with the divine way of life more so in those times.

My question is - with the Vedas which define the rituals and way of life of sanathana dharma/hinduism being in place relatively recently.. what did the sages / brahmins and others follow during the early yugas? The Indian subcontinent was predominantly following Sanathana dharma back then with the absence of other religions.. so what is it they were following then?

The statement that there "were more divine beings, sages and commoners in tune with the divine way of life more so in those times." is merely your opinion or simple imagination, imo.

Again, sanAtana Dharma and hinduism are not one and the same; these are different. We have absolutely no evidence of the scientific kind to support the view that the "Indian subcontinent was predominantly following Sanathana dharma back then with the absence of other religions". The possibility is that much like Africa and other parts of Asia Arabia, etc., nomadic primitive people might have been living in this sub-continent also. They might most probably have had their own primitive belief system, the main string running through it being the fear of uncontrollable natural forces like fire, lightning and thunder, heavy rains & floods, and so on. Much of these fears are reflected in the earliest veda, viz., the rigveda in which agni (fire), Indra (lightning), ApaH (water) etc., seem to have been raised to the level of dEvas.

In the next two vedas, sAma and yajus, the verses of the rigveda have been musicalized (sAma) and used as an essential component of the sacrificial offerings of various animals to the different deities in what are known as yAgas.

 

[mkrishna100]

The possibility is that much like Africa and other parts of Asia Arabia, etc., nomadic primitive people might have been living in this sub-continent also.

Do Tamilians belong to this Category also . I found many Tamils Scholars saying that the Tamils never followed the Vedic Culture and right from the beginning there had been friction between Tamilians ( they prefer to use the term Tamilians and not Dravidians ) and the Vedic Aryans and that friction still continues in Tamil Nadu .

 

[sangom]

Do Tamilians belong to this Category also . I found many Tamils Scholars saying that the Tamils never followed the Vedic Culture and right from the beginning there had been friction between Tamilians ( they prefer to use the term Tamilians and not Dravidians ) and the Vedic Aryans and that friction still continues in Tamil Nadu .

At some time in the very remote past, primitive tribes must surely have populated the Deccan Plateau and the southern parts. But whether Tamilians evolved out of these tribes or whether people from elsewhere colonized and later evolved into Tamilians, only researchers can say.

I think rAmAyaNa of vAlmIki itself is adequate evidence for the northern Aryans and the southern people (described as ape-like) being at loggerheads. In my limited understanding, the vedic people and the people of Tamil land are from two separate streams and the friction continues. The only persons incongruent in this are the upper caste hindus who owe allegience to the vedic/upanishadic stream of thought/philosophy, while living for generations in Tamil land!

 

[mkrishna100]

I think rAmAyaNa of vAlmIki itself is adequate evidence for the northern Aryans and the southern people (described as ape-like) being at loggerheads.

You mean the ape like people are Vanaras or Tamilians ? If it is Vanaras then Rama did take their help for his war against Ramana .

BTW I am confused about Ravana . Many Chavunistic Tamils feel Ravana was a Tamil King ( they say Brahmins insult Tamilians by labeling them as Asuras and Rakshasas ) and that the Rama - Ravana war was a war between Aryans and Tamilians but then Ravana is also clalled a Brahmin . How can a person be both a Tamilian as well as a Brahmin . The Tamil word for Brahmins is Anthanar but does it refer to the Vedic Brahmins ?

The only persons incongruent in this are the upper caste hindus who owe allegience to the vedic/upanishadic stream of thought/philosophy, while living for generations in Tamil land!

So the word Tamil Brahmin is itself a misnomer . So if Ravana was a TB then why is that the Brahims of Tamil Nadu hate him while the Chauvinistic Tamils of TN admire him . This is very confusing .

 

[prasad1]

Vānara refers to a group of people living in forests in the Hindu epic Ramayana and its various versions. In Ramayana, the Vanaras help Rama defeat Ravana. The Vanaras also appear in other texts, including Mahabharata.

Although the word Vanara has come to mean "monkey" over the years and the Vanaras are depicted as monkeys in the popular art, their exact identity is not clear. Unlike other exotic creatures such as the rakshasas, the Vanaras do not have a precursor in the Vedic literature.The Ramayana presents them as humans with reference to their speech, clothing, habitations, funerals, consecrations etc. It also describes their monkey-like characteristics such as their leaping, hair, fur and a tail.[SUP][/SUP]

According to one theory, the Vanaras are strictly mythological creatures. This is based on their supernatural abilities, as well as descriptions of Brahma commanding other deities to either bear Vanara offspring or incarnate as Vanaras to help Rama in his mission. The Jain re-tellings of Ramayana describe them as a clan of the supernatural beings called the Vidyadharas; the flag of this clan bears monkeys as emblems.[SUP][/SUP]

Another theory identifies the Vanaras with the tribal people, who dwelled in the forests and used monkey totems. G. Ramdas, based on Ravana's reference to the Vanaras' tail as an ornament, infers that the "tail" was actually an appendage in the dress worn by the men of the Savara tribe.[SUP][/SUP] (The female Vanaras are not described as having a tail.) According to this theory, the non-human characteristics of the Vanaras may be considered artistic imagination.[SUP][/SUP] In Sri Lanka, the word "Vanara" has been used to describe the Nittaewos mentioned in the Vedda legends.
According to the Ramayana, the Vanaras lived primarily in the region of Kishkindha (identified with parts of present-day Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh & Maharashtra). Rama first met them in Dandaka Forest, during his search for Sita.[SUP][/SUP] An army of Vanaras helped Rama in his search for Sita, and also in battle against Ravana, Sita's abductor. Nala and Nila built a bridge over the ocean so that Rama and the army could cross to Lanka. As described in the epic, the characteristics of the Vanara include being amusing, childish, mildly irritating, badgering, hyperactive, adventurous, bluntly honest, loyal, courageous, and kind.


Somewhere in the translations the Vanara became monkeys.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanara

 

[prasad1]

The Naga people are a conglomeration of several tribes inhabiting the North Eastern part of India and north-western Burma. The tribes have similar cultures and traditions, and form the majority ethnic group in Indian state of Nagaland, with significant presence in Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh and some small population in Assam.

The Naga speak various distinct Tibeto-Burman languages, including Poumai (Poula), Sumi, Lotha, Sangtam, Angami, Pochuri, Ao, Mao (Emela), Inpui, Rongmei (Ruangmei), Tangkhul, Thangal, Maram, and Zeme. In addition, they have developed Nagamese Creole, which they use between tribes and villages, which each have their own dialect of language.
As of 2012, the state of Nagaland state officially recognises 17 Naga tribes. In addition, some other Naga tribes occupy territory in the contiguous adjoining states of Manipur, Assam, and Arunachal Pradesh, India; and across the border in Burma. Prominent Naga tribes include the Poumai, Sumi, Angami, Ao, Chakhesang, Chang, Khiamniungan, Konyak, Liangmai, Lotha, Pochury, Rongmei, Zeme, Mao.

Naga also means serpents. So the naga people are not serpents.

 

[GNANA SUNYAM]

may I know where in hindu scriptures it is written that our religion is named/termed 'sanatana dharma'? I have only heard people saying or using the term but I have never found it scripted anywhere.

also, may I know where it is scripted that our religion is termed 'hinduism'?

I think we are only borrowing terms used by westerners to define us.

 

[sangom]

may I know where in hindu scriptures it is written that our religion is named/termed 'sanatana dharma'? I have only heard people saying or using the term but I have never found it scripted anywhere.

also, may I know where it is scripted that our religion is termed 'hinduism'?

I think we are only borrowing terms used by westerners to define us.

The phrase or sentence, एष धर्मः सनातनः (eṣa dharmaḥ sanātanaḥ = This [has been] the ancient dharma) occurs in the Mahabharata as also in the Ramayana. But simply because it has been named sanātana dharma, it was never static, so it appears. For example, in the M. Bh. there is an incident in which a mendicant brahmana comes to the ASrama of another brahmin and then holds the latter's wife's hands and both (the mendicant and the grihasta's wife) go away. The grihasta's son gets infuriated at this but the father says that women always had the freedom to go with any man of her liking and it was the sanātana dharma, at which the son proclaims a rule that thenceforth no woman should have such freedom and that becomes the dharma.

So, we have had a sanātana dharma.

'Hinduism' is a word coined by westerners, most probably the Portuguese because they came to know that the people living east of the Sindhu river were known as Hindoos, in the Persian/Arabic world. The word hinduism therefore refers to the "ism" of the Hindus.

 

[sangom]

You mean the ape like people are Vanaras or Tamilians ? If it is Vanaras then Rama did take their help for his war against Ramana .

Took help alright but Valmiki did not hide the contempt which the northerners had and so described them as ape-like.

BTW I am confused about Ravana . Many Chavunistic Tamils feel Ravana was a Tamil King ( they say Brahmins insult Tamilians by labeling them as Asuras and Rakshasas ) and that the Rama - Ravana war was a war between Aryans and Tamilians but then Ravana is also clalled a Brahmin . How can a person be both a Tamilian as well as a Brahmin . The Tamil word for Brahmins is Anthanar but does it refer to the Vedic Brahmins ?

Ravana could have been anything, say X. But once the Aryan hero (and later "avataar") Rama had to wage a full scale war with that fellow X (this could have been due to compulsions of a good adventure story, for Valmiki) in order to regain his kidnapped wife Sita, Ravana had to be portrayed as sufficiently superhuman, a brahmana and also rAkShasa at the same time, ruling over a heavenly country, etc., etc. Suppose Valmiki had sad that Ravana was yet another Vanara, a cousin twice removed from Sugriva living in another peak of the Dandaka/Kishkindha, don't you think Rama's status and share price would have nosedived? There would have been no reader even for Ramayana and "jacking up" Rama's status to that of an avataara subsequently would have been almost impossible!

So the word Tamil Brahmin is itself a misnomer . So if Ravana was a TB then why is that the Brahims of Tamil Nadu hate him while the Chauvinistic Tamils of TN admire him . This is very confusing .

Tamil brahmin is not a misnomer or oxymoron. It now is understood to represent people who have lived for generations in the Tamil country, speaking Tamil as their mother tongue, but tuned as far as their religious belief is concerned, to the (northern Aryan) brahminism. சோறு இங்கெ, கூறு அங்கெ!

 

[Iyyarooraan]

Good topic and discussion. "Vaanara" in Tamil discourses is explained as "nara" with "vaal". But nara is sanskrit and "vaal" is Tamil. So maybe it is a crude mix up. We do have tail bone but no nail. Does it mean "nara" living in "vanas" became vaanara.