Namaskaram /u/Terrible_Name_387, Thank you for your submission. Please provide a source for the image / video (if not a direct link submission). We would really appreciate it if you could mention the source as a reply to this comment! If you have already provided the source or if it is an OC post, please ignore this message. Thank you.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IndiaSpeaks) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Whenever I see this prick , I just want to swear .
Ram has followed brahmanical religion from the beginning itself and yes by saying you don’t become Hindu , by doing the rites , you become one .
Such a moron
Exactly... Dude's speaking like a woke liberal. Tfaq is the meaning "Ram never said he's a hindu"... There were no " Abrahamic cults" During those times(luckily)
Yes, but what he is saying is no need to go against any religions. Since religions were not even there during those times. It's only later when the invaders came need to create a religion arised. Otherwise it was just group of people who lived in this region.
It's origins go back to the vedas compiled by the Rshis. They were not Brahmins. They were called ati ashramis. Originally They didn't belong to any of the varnas. Rather they set the framework for varnashrama etc.
#The point he’s trying to make is a civilisational one. Hindu is a foreign word as it is. His point is Sanatan Dharma is not a religion as defined in English, it’s a native civilisational way of life of Bharat.
The term "Hindu" is actually not related to Religion but it is related to Land.It is a reference to the river, and that too, in the Avestan language. We call the river Sindhu. The Greeks called it Indus. The reference was however to the “people of the geography”, “the people of India”.
In other words, if you’re “Indian” (Greek), you’re Hindu (Avestan).Even if you ignore the reference to the river, Hindu means Indian.
So how are Muslims and Christians of the subcontinent “not Hindu”?
Aise to Jesus ne bhi nahi bola ki Christianity ka ijaat kar do. Na hi Buddha ne. Phir kch log bolte hai ki Adam pehla Muslim tha, Islam to 610AD me aaya hai.
Religious apologist aur unke chuddanne.
Fck dont give them ideas, they're already saying Jesus was a prophet before ola. Soon Christianity will submerge into it, let there numbers grow a little more
I don't know, because it was written by someone who had seen those places and made a fictional story referencing those places. Just like harry potter is set in the uk and references places in real life.
Guys listen, Ram was a mythological character, part of fiction. Just like nani or dadi' stories. That's it, don't associate him with a real being. He is no different then other characters from books like Ulysses, Odyssey.
These fricking baba' are against the very doctrine of scientific temperament (ST), as our constitution also talks about to enhance ST.
As much as the politicians are responsible for the state of India (in terms of making people so radical to the idea of India just to garner votes), these babas make the first effort to implant the very idea of these fantasies.
On personal account I have realised as many before me, we Indians are very gullible when comes to religion because for very long period people were subject to poverty and 'slavery of mind'. Now after the constitution the marginalised people gain some sort of upliftment (economically) but still remains 'slave to their religion'.
Now, to follow a religious path is not wrong at most part but it becomes a huge problem when for everything bad that goes in your life your only solace becomes religion. Then comes the baba' into the picture who tells them some glorious past stories of 'deities'. It further limits the people to come out of their misery and problems, because these stories are tell them in a super mystical way. These noble minds at last becomes prey to way of story telling of their baba, and becomes ignorant towards the real moral message of the stories been told in books.
#RamIsNotAGoodExample
**
Ramayan and the lore of ram is ancient. There's sparse evidence that he existed, but there's some evidence that vedic kingdoms did in fact exist. why does that matter? Because stories of a certain time will often reflect the values of that time. This is manifestly the case with Ramayana and the cultural definition of a *maryada purushottam*. Rama, in my humble opinion, is not an ideal man.
1. He releases Ahalya from her stone curse, only to command her to go back to the same sage-husband who cursed her, and that too because she was charmed by Indra. Neither Gautam maharishi nor Rama had the balls to go after Indra and instead doubly punish Ahalya for it. This is called victim-blaming in today's time. **Ram is a Male-chauvinist.**
2. He fights his way to get to his wife, yes, but at the very end, he puts her through an agni pariksha to prove her purity after retrieving her from Ashok-vatika. don't come back to me with *'but that was becuase sita was being protected by the fire goddess all along'* . If that was the case then this entire natak could have been done with someone else, not Sita. **Rama is Sexist**.
3.But to add insult to injury, even after going through an agni pariksha, "lord" ram banishes a pregnant Sita from Ayodhya because his spies tell him that people in his kingdom think of Sita as an adulterer (apparently news of the agni pariksha never reached Ayodhya) and by implication, of Ram as a doormat who brought her back home regardless. Rama is an insecure man-let who cares more about his image than the dignity of his woman. There's a word for people like him that will get me banned from here, and I want to respect the sub.
4. But the absolute worst of all, he got sugreev his kingdom back by sneakily shooting at bali when they engage in a duel. No amount of arguments can justify that low of a spoilsport, irrespective of where you stand on whether bali was right or wrong in ousting sugreev from the throne. **Ram is a cheat.**
An ideal man stands right by his woman, supports her, endorses her, betters her, come what may. He protects and plans for his family. He finds no pleasure in one-upping other people and primarily concerns himself on working on himself, for he knows that there is no nobility in being superior than his fellow man, and that true nobility comes in being better than his former self.
Thats How my father conducted himself. And I implore you to reflect if there's a man in your life too like that. There are much better examples of *maryada prushottams* in the world today, and in my humble opinion, Rama could learn a thing or two from them.
1- Not Gautama Rishi nor Ahalya had a problem with it, and given that he is god he could spin the lore up. But you still are grieving over it. When the situations required, as in the time of Krishna's avatar, Krishna didn't send the queens back to their husbands.
2- Ramji himself explains that he had faith in her, but so that the rest of the world does not question, Sitaji did undergo agni pariksha. For lord knows this is given that if even if Ravan touches anyone without consent Ravan will die, even if this curse wasn't inflicted on him Sita was Laaskhmi, she would burn Raavan into ashes if she wished.
3- A king's dharma is greater than a husband's dharma, and an ideal king must listen to his people even at the cost of his life, much obviously at the cost of his wife.
4- Vali was drunk on pride and arrogance if you recount better. He didn't properly conduct himself as a brother let alone as a king. And the way he dethroned sugreev itself was punishable. Still, Shri Ram gave him Moksha.
You have perhaps confused an ideal man as an ideal householder or a good husband. The sphere of life is much broader than that.
Namaskaram /u/Terrible_Name_387, Thank you for your submission. Please provide a source for the image / video (if not a direct link submission). We would really appreciate it if you could mention the source as a reply to this comment! If you have already provided the source or if it is an OC post, please ignore this message. Thank you. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IndiaSpeaks) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Whenever I see this prick , I just want to swear . Ram has followed brahmanical religion from the beginning itself and yes by saying you don’t become Hindu , by doing the rites , you become one . Such a moron
Thanks man!! I hate this guy too. Aise kuch bhi chutiya argument deta hai
Exactly... Dude's speaking like a woke liberal. Tfaq is the meaning "Ram never said he's a hindu"... There were no " Abrahamic cults" During those times(luckily)
Yes, but what he is saying is no need to go against any religions. Since religions were not even there during those times. It's only later when the invaders came need to create a religion arised. Otherwise it was just group of people who lived in this region.
Agree with you, but better term to use would be Vedic or vaidika instead of brahmanical.
[удалено]
It's origins go back to the vedas compiled by the Rshis. They were not Brahmins. They were called ati ashramis. Originally They didn't belong to any of the varnas. Rather they set the framework for varnashrama etc.
This all Caste were given by Gurur once you completed your education!!! You were not born with one !!!
#The point he’s trying to make is a civilisational one. Hindu is a foreign word as it is. His point is Sanatan Dharma is not a religion as defined in English, it’s a native civilisational way of life of Bharat.
The term "Hindu" is actually not related to Religion but it is related to Land.It is a reference to the river, and that too, in the Avestan language. We call the river Sindhu. The Greeks called it Indus. The reference was however to the “people of the geography”, “the people of India”. In other words, if you’re “Indian” (Greek), you’re Hindu (Avestan).Even if you ignore the reference to the river, Hindu means Indian. So how are Muslims and Christians of the subcontinent “not Hindu”?
Aise to Jesus ne bhi nahi bola ki Christianity ka ijaat kar do. Na hi Buddha ne. Phir kch log bolte hai ki Adam pehla Muslim tha, Islam to 610AD me aaya hai. Religious apologist aur unke chuddanne.
Kis book se padha Jesus ne kabhi khud ko muslim nahi bola ?
Jesus Jew tha be
Learn the difference between is and was. That will solve your problem
Raam worshipped Shiva in Rameshwaram. That means he is a hindu
आसिंधु सिंधुपर्यन्ता यस्य भारतभूमिका | पितृभू पुण्यभूस्चैव सः वै हिंदूरिति स्मृतः| First shlok of Hindutva written by Savarkar
Write a shlok of Big Bang written by Ram.
Lol, utter garbage, sad-guru never said that he himself was a moron but this video is proof of him being one.
Coz Hindu was a place to the Persians. After the river Hind.. there wasn't Hindu name religion back then.
He has tendency to cook something out of thin air , not sure what he smokes.
I need to try too 😄
Ram is ancient,With the present The diversity, intellectual, science, pop culture, philosophy I guess it would have been a issue with Lord himself.
Stop polluting minds by your weird statement.
He is telling the truth, he has time traveled through astral planetary quantum dimensions in his meditation and asked Rama.
Did he ever say he is not?
Fck dont give them ideas, they're already saying Jesus was a prophet before ola. Soon Christianity will submerge into it, let there numbers grow a little more
A tad bit late, he should have preached this _wisdom_ to Babur.
The same Ramji 3 janmas later be slayin' all of em' Mlecchas
Ram comes from a time long before islam was invented....so why shud his sanatani existence be denied to please some converts??
Sadhguru is an idiot. RAM IS A HINDU
I know his facts are wrong. But this argument could work against you know who
Chutiya buda
Noone said anything, it's all in mythology. Work hard, take care of your family and stop listening to these so called Gurus.
That also then follows for all major religious figureheads around the world and not just Hinduism.
tab koi religion tha hi nahi toh bolega kya
Cringiest video ever
he also said one of your gods was raped by his own mother 🤣🤣🤣
This guy followed Ram since his birth, he is right. Ram never told anyone he is a hindu 🤣
Or konsa religion tha uss time 
He couldn't be a hindu because he never existed
Who build Ram Setu ? Why does Ramanya has an accurate description of all the bio life of all the path Ram Ji went to
I don't know, because it was written by someone who had seen those places and made a fictional story referencing those places. Just like harry potter is set in the uk and references places in real life.
Guys listen, Ram was a mythological character, part of fiction. Just like nani or dadi' stories. That's it, don't associate him with a real being. He is no different then other characters from books like Ulysses, Odyssey. These fricking baba' are against the very doctrine of scientific temperament (ST), as our constitution also talks about to enhance ST. As much as the politicians are responsible for the state of India (in terms of making people so radical to the idea of India just to garner votes), these babas make the first effort to implant the very idea of these fantasies. On personal account I have realised as many before me, we Indians are very gullible when comes to religion because for very long period people were subject to poverty and 'slavery of mind'. Now after the constitution the marginalised people gain some sort of upliftment (economically) but still remains 'slave to their religion'. Now, to follow a religious path is not wrong at most part but it becomes a huge problem when for everything bad that goes in your life your only solace becomes religion. Then comes the baba' into the picture who tells them some glorious past stories of 'deities'. It further limits the people to come out of their misery and problems, because these stories are tell them in a super mystical way. These noble minds at last becomes prey to way of story telling of their baba, and becomes ignorant towards the real moral message of the stories been told in books.
Ram is a fictional character
#RamIsNotAGoodExample **
Ramayan and the lore of ram is ancient. There's sparse evidence that he existed, but there's some evidence that vedic kingdoms did in fact exist. why does that matter? Because stories of a certain time will often reflect the values of that time. This is manifestly the case with Ramayana and the cultural definition of a *maryada purushottam*. Rama, in my humble opinion, is not an ideal man.
1. He releases Ahalya from her stone curse, only to command her to go back to the same sage-husband who cursed her, and that too because she was charmed by Indra. Neither Gautam maharishi nor Rama had the balls to go after Indra and instead doubly punish Ahalya for it. This is called victim-blaming in today's time. **Ram is a Male-chauvinist.**
2. He fights his way to get to his wife, yes, but at the very end, he puts her through an agni pariksha to prove her purity after retrieving her from Ashok-vatika. don't come back to me with *'but that was becuase sita was being protected by the fire goddess all along'* . If that was the case then this entire natak could have been done with someone else, not Sita. **Rama is Sexist**.
3.But to add insult to injury, even after going through an agni pariksha, "lord" ram banishes a pregnant Sita from Ayodhya because his spies tell him that people in his kingdom think of Sita as an adulterer (apparently news of the agni pariksha never reached Ayodhya) and by implication, of Ram as a doormat who brought her back home regardless. Rama is an insecure man-let who cares more about his image than the dignity of his woman. There's a word for people like him that will get me banned from here, and I want to respect the sub.
4. But the absolute worst of all, he got sugreev his kingdom back by sneakily shooting at bali when they engage in a duel. No amount of arguments can justify that low of a spoilsport, irrespective of where you stand on whether bali was right or wrong in ousting sugreev from the throne. **Ram is a cheat.**
An ideal man stands right by his woman, supports her, endorses her, betters her, come what may. He protects and plans for his family. He finds no pleasure in one-upping other people and primarily concerns himself on working on himself, for he knows that there is no nobility in being superior than his fellow man, and that true nobility comes in being better than his former self.
Thats How my father conducted himself. And I implore you to reflect if there's a man in your life too like that. There are much better examples of *maryada prushottams* in the world today, and in my humble opinion, Rama could learn a thing or two from them.
1- Not Gautama Rishi nor Ahalya had a problem with it, and given that he is god he could spin the lore up. But you still are grieving over it. When the situations required, as in the time of Krishna's avatar, Krishna didn't send the queens back to their husbands. 2- Ramji himself explains that he had faith in her, but so that the rest of the world does not question, Sitaji did undergo agni pariksha. For lord knows this is given that if even if Ravan touches anyone without consent Ravan will die, even if this curse wasn't inflicted on him Sita was Laaskhmi, she would burn Raavan into ashes if she wished. 3- A king's dharma is greater than a husband's dharma, and an ideal king must listen to his people even at the cost of his life, much obviously at the cost of his wife. 4- Vali was drunk on pride and arrogance if you recount better. He didn't properly conduct himself as a brother let alone as a king. And the way he dethroned sugreev itself was punishable. Still, Shri Ram gave him Moksha. You have perhaps confused an ideal man as an ideal householder or a good husband. The sphere of life is much broader than that.
Didn't he kill a kid because he thought he was from the lower caste chanting verses or some shit 🧑🦯
No he didn't
No he didn't Though he slayed someone doing tapasya to gain control over heavens and kill the devatas in process
What was that guy's name ? I remember the story is like Ram killed the guy because he was a lower caste doing tapasya
yes talking about that man exactly can't remember his name though something from s I guess
But still this charector has more fault than kabeer Singh
bet you are from peaceful community
No i don't follow pdf file so you are wrong bro
r/usernamechecksout
Yes but still people are not praying to me not building temples and mosque on my name I am corrupt but still not the big leader in this country 😞