Happy Janmashtami!

Comment by Tony Hogan on August 13, 2009 at 11:03pm

Jai Krishna Jai

Comment by Jaefar S.A.B.N.W. on August 17, 2009 at 12:55am

Is the 109 related to Janmashtami? I don't recall any reference to anything by this number, but knowing Hindu scripture and ceremony is like knowing AHadathana (as both include millions of references over the space of half a million or so pages).

Comment by Hierophage on August 17, 2009 at 8:02pm

Well, technically it's 108 mantric praises with the 1st being a form of seal. 108, of course being of extreme importance throughout Hinduism. While the true source of why 108 is used is still a mystery some of the better guesses that Hinduism itself has provided relate to the heavens. The 9 Navagrahas move through the 12 Rashis thus providing 108 different single Navagraha permutations.

Additionally, the 27 Lunar Nakshatras each are divided into 4 sections each resulting in (ta-daa) 108 divisions.

On the microcosmic level gurus of mantrayoga are fond of pointing out that the average daily human respiratory rate is 108 x 200. So, as they say, daily one mutters the mantra "Hamsa" ("swan" - the vehicle of Brahma; or "He Am I") or "So Ham" ("I am He") 21,600 times a day.

Thanks for the comment

Comment by Tony Hogan on August 17, 2009 at 8:35pm

Oh gosh, we have a ring in (do you know that expression) it is 108

Comment by Jaefar S.A.B.N.W. on August 18, 2009 at 12:54am

I thought Hinduism was an invention of the Brittish, just like Zoranstrianism is a made up idea that can't be found in the hsitorical references. I have yet to find reference to it before they invaded. Muslim authors like Jalaluddin Rumi and Kabir seem to not have heard of either of those as well.

Comment by Hierophage on August 18, 2009 at 3:43pm

What? Where on earth did you hear something so ... odd? Hinduism can arguably be dated back to at least 1500 BCE. Although many Hindus claim a far older origin. And Zoroastrianism to at least the middle of the fifth century BCE. Both can be historically dated to well before the establishment of the British Empire which began with Elizabeth I in 1583 CE.

Comment by Jaefar S.A.B.N.W. on August 19, 2009 at 5:15pm

I have read the Zend Avesta and indeed thousands of pages of material on Mazdayasnism (Worship of The God of Light & Knowledge) in the Kanun Zarathustrian (community of Prophet Zarthost). I have yet to come across the word Zarathustra or Zoroanstrianism in any of the texts; be they Cuneform, Avestan, Farsi, or Pahlavi. I heard there are some text in Tuetonic, but anything in that language is extremely difficult to aquire. About 4000 B.C.E. is the projected origin of some of these texts.

As for Hinduism, I have only read and listened to Rig Veda, Saama Veda, Yajur Veda, Atharva Veda, Bhagavad Gita, Yoga Sutra (Patanjali), hundreds of Stotram and Sloka, some of the Upanishads, and read translations only of a deal of other material from former Hindustan. I have yet to recall an encounter a religion called Hinduism. The references of Hindu or Hindi before the Brittish that I know of refer not to any religious grouping. The Arabs of the seventh century of the Common Era, called anyone who lived in the area Hindee or Hindoo. In the records of the Mooslims before the Mongul attacks, they called certain prophets Hindoo and the immigrants to India Hindee. The Persians of the B.C.E. period held this same distinction. They in there own texts seem ignorant of this idea of Hinduism. Racism and tribalism may have been in play but it never got into the title of a so-called religion.

Both of these examples are an attempt to over simplify. There are way to many systems operating in either of those regions to classify it into less then a dozen. Polythiesm, be it a monalarity or plurarity, can be grouped into bigger regions if this is the case. The Turks and Persians can be blended in to the Indian, and the Chinese into the Indian. This example of classification is even more arbitrary when one considers most groups could travel to any part of the world and find their religion practiced just fine, even the monotheists.

Comment by EL*CHI*MA on October 6, 2009 at 2:02am

I could be quite wrong but I was under the impression that the prophet Zarathustra was the first actual prophet. He was persian. His mothers name was Too'che and his fathers name was Lo'Ab. He was born about 9,000 years ago according to some records. He proclaimed the name of the all creator to be I'hura'Mazda.

Comment