The main question is “why do we have the freedom to question”; and the answer is that the ultimate responsibility for one’s actions rests only with oneself. In Hinduism, we can’t go “this guy did it so I did the same thing, so leave me from the consequence if he didn’t bear the consequence”. We are judged individually on our own actions separate from others. So the care has to be ours to take; the decision is ours to make. This also takes away from our hands the license to complain most of the time. Some people call this aspect of Hinduism fatalism; I prefer the term “personal responsibility”. It is not just that Hindus have the freedom to question and inquire; we have to do that, as part of a constant exercise of awareness and improvement. If we want to, that is. Not that even that is not without cost or consequence. It is very different from the relative mode of justice “he bore this consequence so I should bear the same consequence”, of Abrahamic thought. In Hindu thought, you are in the wrong if you are in the wrong, independent of others. You are in the right if you are in the right, also independent of others.
@@tejasdabhi6030 Those who convert are usually those who find it very difficult to make their own decisions and face up to its consequences. They are usually looking to be told “this is right; this is wrong” by someone else rather than consider the choices themselves. Responsibility is too much of a burden for some.
To ye convert hone walo ki glti or unke maa Papa kuch factor jo unhe hmare dhrm ke bare me nhi sikhaya.... Par hmari freedom achhi h ki Ham khud samjh skte h apne dhrm ko
यही होता है बिना गुरु का ज्ञान , जब कोई स्वयं ही ज्ञानी बन जाता है ,यह आज का नास्तिक सेकुलर हिंदू की बात कर रहा है, सत्य यह है कि जो वेद को मानते हैं सत्यनिष्ठा पूर्वक वही मात्र सनातनी वैदिक आर्य हिन्दू हैं
I am sorry to say that I am also being a Muslim .When we talk about the equality I don't think any Muslims feel that she and he are equal. And the most important thing is that if reform comes by his own Idea or someone who actually participates in this religion it will be far better than who actually doesn't participate in any religion who actually thinks that I will change for the best .
I am not against Hinduism but when we talk about the Hindus having something extra that is called argument or freedom of speech it is not full of truth. If it is possible then why the sati system is banned by a Britisher William benthic . And the second thing is why the widows don't have the rights to the aides of Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar to get remarried .
It's not like that, people are not aware what is written in their scriptures. In the Rig Veda, women have been asked to remarry. उदीर्ष नार्यभि जीवलोक गतासुमेतमुप शेष एहि। हस्तग्राभस्य दिधिषोस्तवेद पत्युर्जनित्वमभि सं बभूय ॥ The third and fourth padas have also been subject to the interpretation of a remarriage of the widow, as abhi sam babhutha can also be understood as “…you have entered”, and the referent “your husband” would refer to a new husband, the sukta does imply the transfer of husband’s legacy to widow. Rig Veda (10.18.8) is read by the dead man's brothers or other relatives, requesting the widow to give up her husband's body for cremation. The verse also commands the widow to return to the world of the living, to her home, to her children and grandchildren. "उठो, हे स्त्री, और जाओ, जीवित प्राणियों के लोक मे, आओ, जिस पुरुष के पास साथ तुम रहती थी, वह निर्जीव है, तुमने अपने पति की पत्नी होने का आनंद लिया है, जो तुम्हें अपने साथ विवाह कर ले गया था"। Athavaveda, 9.5.27 या पूर्वं पतिं वित्त्वाऽथान्यं विन्दतेऽपरम्। पञ्चौदनं च तावजं ददातो न वि योषतः ॥ अर्थ: जैसे विपत्तिकाल में स्त्री दूसरे पति को और पुरुष दूसरी स्त्री को प्राप्त होकर सुख पाते हैं (पति या पत्नी की मृत्यु के बाद), वैसे ही मनुष्य परमात्मा को पाकर दुःखों से छूटकर सुखी होते हैं। Narad Smriti mentions five conditions under which a woman can remarry in the event of her husband's death. नष्टे मृते प्रव्रजिते क्लीवे च पतिते पतौ। पञ्चस्वापत्सु नारीणां पतिरन्यो विधीयते ॥ 97 ।। निम्रोक्त पांच स्थितियों में स्त्री को वर्तमान पति का परित्याग तथा दूसरे पुरुष के वरण का अधिकार है- पति का सन्तानोत्पादन में असमर्थ होना, अर्थात् उसके शुक्र में सन्तान उत्पन्न करने वाले कीटाणुओं का न होना। पति का असमय में परलोक सिधारना। पति द्वारा गृहत्याग कर विरक्त संन्यासी बन जाना। सिद्ध होना, अर्थात् उसका यौन-भोग न करे पति का नपुंसक पाना अथवा पत्नी को तृप्त-सन्तुष्ट न कर पाना तथा निन्दित कर्मों के कारण समाज द्वारा अपनी जाति से बहिष्कृत हो जाना। Mahanirvana Tantra says..... तव स्वरूपा रमणी जगत्याच्छन्नविग्रहा । मोहाद्भर्त्तश्चितागेहाद्भवेन्नरकगामिनी ॥ ८० ॥ सब स्त्रियां तुम्हारा स्वरूप हैं, संसार में उनका शरीर आच्छन्न है, जो स्त्री मोहके मारे स्वामी की चितापर चढ़ती है, वह नरक को जाती है ॥ Manusmriti says.... यत्र नार्यस्तु पूज्यन्ते रमन्ते तत्र देवताः। यत्रैतास्तु न पूज्यन्ते सर्वास्तत्राफलाः क्रियाः ।। भावार्थ : जिस कुल में नारियों कि पूजा, अर्थात सत्कार होता हैं, उस कुल में दिव्यगुण, अर्थात् देवता का वश होता है और जिस कुल में स्त्रियों कि पूजा/ सम्मान नहीं होती, वहां उनकी सब क्रिया निष्फल हैं। यथैवात्मा तथा पुत्रः पुत्रेण दुहिता समा। तस्यामात्मनि तिष्ठन्त्यां कथमन्यो धनं हरेत् ॥ १३० ॥ (यथा+एव आत्मा तथा पुत्रः) जैसी अपनी आत्मा है वैसा ही पुत्र होता है अर्थात् पुत्र माता-पिता का अंग रूप होता है और (पुत्रेण दुहिता समा) पुत्र जैसी ही आत्मारूप पुत्री होती है (तस्याम्+आत्मनि तिष्ठन्त्याम्) उस आत्मारूप पुत्री के रहते हुये (अन्यः धनं कथं हरेत्) कोई दूसरा दाय धन को कैसे ले सकता है ? अर्थात नहीं ले सकता। This shlok of Manusmriti clears that boy and girl are equal. Matsya Purana says....... प्रेष्यासु चैव सर्वासु गृहप्रव्रजितासु च। योऽकामां दूषयेत् कन्यां स सद्यो वधमर्हति ॥ अर्थ: जो व्यक्ति किसी कुमारी कन्याके साथ बलात्कार करता है, वह तुरंत ही मर डालने योग्य है। Instead of remarriage there was another method called Niyoga, which was done when husband dies or he is impotent (नपुंसक), to get a child to maintain the lineage. It was like surrogacy, and it has very strict rules and it was legal process at that time. And Sati become more prevalent after the muslim invasions. If you see women sculptures of Ancient hindu temples, their heads are not covered, even women don't cover their breasts. They are not covering their like the present. They are carved as riding horses, using weapons etc. Even polyandry (marrying more than one man) is not considered a sin at that time. Kshatriya women were free to choose their husband in swayamvar. Hindus are the Godess worshipers. In South India the Tengalai sect of Srivaishnavas were great reformers in that they were among the first to forbid the shaving of widows or their wearing white or divesting themselves of their jewellery (mangala sutra/). Now, most of the people don't know what is written in their scriptures and just blindly follow What samaj is is doing to maintain their fake status.
Like the Narada Smriti, Parashara Smriti also mentioned 5 conditions for a woman to remarry. नष्टे मृते प्रव्रजिते क्लीबे च पटिते पटौ | पंचस्वपत्सु नारीणाँ पतिर्-अन्यो विधीयते Having disappeared, Dead, having gone forth to a mendicant life, having become impotent, having fallen from social status, in all these five cases remarriage is ordained for women. (Parasara Smṛti 4:30) Rigveda, 10.40.2 कुह स्वित् दोषा कुह वस्तोः अश्विना कुह अभिपित्वम् करतः कुह ऊषतुः कः वाम् शयुत्रा विधवाइव देवरम् मर्यम् न योषा कृणुते सधस्थे आ ॥ भावार्थ: गृहस्थ स्त्री-पुरुषों को सदा प्रेम के साथ रहना चाहिए। जैसे विवाहकाल में वर-वधू स्नेह करते थे, वह स्नेह बना रहे। कदाचित् मृत्यु आदि कारणवश दोनों का वियोग हो जाये, तो सन्तान की इच्छा होने पर नियोग से सन्तानलाभ की प्राप्ति कर सकते हैं ॥२॥
@@आर्यवर्तस्य_धर्मः_सनातन_धर्मः You are completely misunderstanding what I say because when you expect that our scriptures are mandatory to become equality it is not a question the question is that enlightenment period of India when we realise that our scriptures don't carry out something wrong ; scriptures on the ancient holy books of Bharat are carry something the best at the present and also the future . Our ancestors do for us the best but we don't carry it.
The main question is “why do we have the freedom to question”; and the answer is that the ultimate responsibility for one’s actions rests only with oneself. In Hinduism, we can’t go “this guy did it so I did the same thing, so leave me from the consequence if he didn’t bear the consequence”.
We are judged individually on our own actions separate from others. So the care has to be ours to take; the decision is ours to make. This also takes away from our hands the license to complain most of the time. Some people call this aspect of Hinduism fatalism; I prefer the term “personal responsibility”.
It is not just that Hindus have the freedom to question and inquire; we have to do that, as part of a constant exercise of awareness and improvement. If we want to, that is. Not that even that is not without cost or consequence.
It is very different from the relative mode of justice “he bore this consequence so I should bear the same consequence”, of Abrahamic thought.
In Hindu thought, you are in the wrong if you are in the wrong, independent of others. You are in the right if you are in the right, also independent of others.
thats why hindus evolve.. and change
And improve
An open society is like a castle with open gates and no guards
Too much Freedom
Being a Hindu needs depth. A person who just blindly believe without proof cannot understand.
Isi liye to log fayda uthakar convert karte hai
@@tejasdabhi6030 Those who convert are usually those who find it very difficult to make their own decisions and face up to its consequences. They are usually looking to be told “this is right; this is wrong” by someone else rather than consider the choices themselves. Responsibility is too much of a burden for some.
To ye convert hone walo ki glti or unke maa Papa kuch factor jo unhe hmare dhrm ke bare me nhi sikhaya.... Par hmari freedom achhi h ki Ham khud samjh skte h apne dhrm ko
यही होता है बिना गुरु का ज्ञान , जब कोई स्वयं ही ज्ञानी बन जाता है ,यह आज का नास्तिक सेकुलर हिंदू की बात कर रहा है, सत्य यह है कि जो वेद को मानते हैं सत्यनिष्ठा पूर्वक वही मात्र सनातनी वैदिक आर्य हिन्दू हैं
Par bhaichara bhi humi nibha rahe hai
I am sorry to say that I am also being a Muslim .When we talk about the equality I don't think any Muslims feel that she and he are equal.
And the most important thing is that if reform comes by his own Idea or someone who actually participates in this religion it will be far better than who actually doesn't participate in any religion who actually thinks that I will change for the best .
I am not against Hinduism but when we talk about the Hindus having something extra that is called argument or freedom of speech it is not full of truth. If it is possible then why the sati system is banned by a Britisher William benthic .
And the second thing is why the widows don't have the rights to the aides of Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar to get remarried .
It's not like that, people are not aware what is written in their scriptures.
In the Rig Veda, women have been asked to remarry.
उदीर्ष नार्यभि जीवलोक गतासुमेतमुप शेष एहि। हस्तग्राभस्य दिधिषोस्तवेद पत्युर्जनित्वमभि सं बभूय ॥
The third and fourth padas have also been subject to the interpretation of a remarriage of the widow, as abhi sam babhutha can also be understood as “…you have entered”, and the referent “your husband” would refer to a new husband, the sukta does imply the transfer of husband’s legacy to widow.
Rig Veda (10.18.8) is read by the dead man's brothers or other relatives, requesting the widow to give up her husband's body for cremation. The verse also commands the widow to return to the world of the living, to her home, to her children and grandchildren.
"उठो, हे स्त्री, और जाओ, जीवित प्राणियों के लोक मे, आओ, जिस पुरुष के पास साथ तुम रहती थी, वह निर्जीव है, तुमने अपने पति की पत्नी होने का आनंद लिया है, जो तुम्हें अपने साथ विवाह कर ले गया था"।
Athavaveda, 9.5.27
या पूर्वं पतिं वित्त्वाऽथान्यं विन्दतेऽपरम्। पञ्चौदनं च तावजं ददातो न वि योषतः ॥
अर्थ:
जैसे विपत्तिकाल में स्त्री दूसरे पति को और पुरुष दूसरी स्त्री को प्राप्त होकर सुख पाते हैं (पति या पत्नी की मृत्यु के बाद), वैसे ही मनुष्य परमात्मा को पाकर दुःखों से छूटकर सुखी होते हैं।
Narad Smriti mentions five conditions under which a woman can remarry in the event of her husband's death.
नष्टे मृते प्रव्रजिते क्लीवे च पतिते पतौ। पञ्चस्वापत्सु नारीणां पतिरन्यो विधीयते ॥ 97 ।।
निम्रोक्त पांच स्थितियों में स्त्री को वर्तमान पति का परित्याग तथा दूसरे पुरुष के वरण का अधिकार है-
पति का सन्तानोत्पादन में असमर्थ होना, अर्थात् उसके शुक्र में सन्तान उत्पन्न करने वाले कीटाणुओं का न होना।
पति का असमय में परलोक सिधारना।
पति द्वारा गृहत्याग कर विरक्त संन्यासी बन जाना।
सिद्ध होना, अर्थात् उसका यौन-भोग न करे
पति का नपुंसक पाना अथवा
पत्नी को तृप्त-सन्तुष्ट न कर पाना तथा
निन्दित कर्मों के कारण समाज द्वारा अपनी जाति से बहिष्कृत हो जाना।
Mahanirvana Tantra says.....
तव स्वरूपा रमणी जगत्याच्छन्नविग्रहा । मोहाद्भर्त्तश्चितागेहाद्भवेन्नरकगामिनी ॥ ८० ॥
सब स्त्रियां तुम्हारा स्वरूप हैं, संसार में उनका शरीर आच्छन्न है, जो स्त्री मोहके मारे स्वामी की चितापर चढ़ती है, वह नरक को जाती है ॥
Manusmriti says....
यत्र नार्यस्तु पूज्यन्ते रमन्ते तत्र देवताः।
यत्रैतास्तु न पूज्यन्ते सर्वास्तत्राफलाः क्रियाः ।।
भावार्थ :
जिस कुल में नारियों कि पूजा, अर्थात सत्कार होता हैं, उस कुल में दिव्यगुण, अर्थात् देवता का वश होता है और जिस कुल में स्त्रियों कि पूजा/ सम्मान नहीं होती, वहां उनकी सब क्रिया निष्फल हैं।
यथैवात्मा तथा पुत्रः पुत्रेण दुहिता समा।
तस्यामात्मनि तिष्ठन्त्यां कथमन्यो धनं हरेत् ॥ १३० ॥
(यथा+एव आत्मा तथा पुत्रः) जैसी अपनी आत्मा है वैसा ही पुत्र होता है अर्थात् पुत्र माता-पिता का अंग रूप होता है और (पुत्रेण दुहिता समा) पुत्र जैसी ही आत्मारूप पुत्री होती है (तस्याम्+आत्मनि तिष्ठन्त्याम्) उस आत्मारूप पुत्री के रहते हुये (अन्यः धनं कथं हरेत्) कोई दूसरा दाय धन को कैसे ले सकता है ? अर्थात नहीं ले सकता।
This shlok of Manusmriti clears that boy and girl are equal.
Matsya Purana says.......
प्रेष्यासु चैव सर्वासु गृहप्रव्रजितासु च। योऽकामां दूषयेत् कन्यां स सद्यो वधमर्हति ॥
अर्थ:
जो व्यक्ति किसी कुमारी कन्याके साथ बलात्कार करता है, वह तुरंत ही मर डालने योग्य है।
Instead of remarriage there was another method called Niyoga, which was done when husband dies or he is impotent (नपुंसक), to get a child to maintain the lineage.
It was like surrogacy, and it has very strict rules and it was legal process at that time.
And Sati become more prevalent after the muslim invasions.
If you see women sculptures of Ancient hindu temples, their heads are not covered, even women don't cover their breasts. They are not covering their like the present. They are carved as riding horses, using weapons etc.
Even polyandry (marrying more than one man) is not considered a sin at that time. Kshatriya women were free to choose their husband in swayamvar.
Hindus are the Godess worshipers.
In South India the Tengalai sect of Srivaishnavas were great reformers in that they were among the first to forbid the shaving of widows or their wearing white or divesting themselves of their jewellery (mangala sutra/).
Now, most of the people don't know what is written in their scriptures and just blindly follow What samaj is is doing to maintain their fake status.
@@आर्यवर्तस्य_धर्मः_सनातन_धर्मः
Very well explained
🪷🙏🏻🙏🏻🪷
Like the Narada Smriti, Parashara Smriti also mentioned 5 conditions for a woman to remarry.
नष्टे मृते प्रव्रजिते क्लीबे च पटिते पटौ | पंचस्वपत्सु नारीणाँ पतिर्-अन्यो विधीयते
Having disappeared, Dead, having gone forth to a mendicant life, having become impotent, having fallen from social status, in all these five cases remarriage is ordained for women.
(Parasara Smṛti 4:30)
Rigveda, 10.40.2
कुह स्वित् दोषा कुह वस्तोः अश्विना कुह अभिपित्वम् करतः कुह ऊषतुः कः वाम् शयुत्रा विधवाइव देवरम् मर्यम् न योषा कृणुते सधस्थे आ ॥
भावार्थ:
गृहस्थ स्त्री-पुरुषों को सदा प्रेम के साथ रहना चाहिए। जैसे विवाहकाल में वर-वधू स्नेह करते थे, वह स्नेह बना रहे। कदाचित् मृत्यु आदि कारणवश दोनों का वियोग हो जाये, तो सन्तान की इच्छा होने पर नियोग से सन्तानलाभ की प्राप्ति कर सकते हैं ॥२॥
@@आर्यवर्तस्य_धर्मः_सनातन_धर्मः
You are completely misunderstanding what I say because when you expect that our scriptures are mandatory to become equality it is not a question the question is that enlightenment period of India when we realise that our scriptures don't carry out something wrong ; scriptures on the ancient holy books of Bharat are carry something the best at the present and also the future .
Our ancestors do for us the best but we don't carry it.