I think that nibbana is defined as the end of suffering -- which occurs with the end of craving (as defined by the noble truths).

The end of craving happens (permanently) when the various causes of craving up uprooted -- the causes of craving include e.g. anusaya and asava and so on.

This uprooting can be permanent in the same way that when a palm tree is cut then it won't grow again .

Conversely, Samsara is a cycle of existence -- the pratītyasamutpāda doctrine (i.e. the doctrine of the 12 nidanas ) says that cycle (including further birth) is conditioned by craving -- and so does this description : “Mendicants, transmigration has no known beginning.

No first point is found of sentient beings roaming and transmigrating, hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving.

Interesting question.

You assume a fundamental division but we are told (for instance by Rumi) '

the two worlds are one'.

My guess or conceptualisation would be that Samsara and Nirvana are co-dependent and reduce to Unity.

This would suggest that Samsara and Nirvana are dual-aspects thus inseperable.

Just pondering out loud.

This is beyond my pay-grade.

I'm not even sure this language is appropriate.

EDIT:

No wait.

This is not beyond my pay grade.

Samsara and Nirvana are said to have a dependent-existence and to not really exist.

Nagarjuna proves it.

The truth would be beyond intellection or conceptualisation and to entail the dissolution of all conceptual opposites including Samsara and Nirvana.

So the short answer would be 'no'.

It's not so much: is it possible to have Nibbana without Samsara?

That is just how it is.

Positive is accompanied by negative, yin and yang, pain/trouble and peace/bliss.

The goal is to be more towards Nibbana, and step out of the way of, or avoid being in Samsara.

Beings learn by falling into Samsara, and deciding not to go back there!

Buddhism doesn't define the extremes; Samsara's beginning and end is not apparent.

So, if it's not apparent you question is, according to Buddhism, wrong question.

Sure, that's what the path of the Noble One is all about.

While the question "is sustainability possible (and how)?

" is of no need.

It's the very nature of Unbond that it does not require any sustainability, entertainment, is free of "under holding", holding on, requirement of support.

For one who as fulfilled the task.

[Note: this is a gift of Dhamma , not thought for trade, stakes, exchanges or other gains subject toward decay and should be deleted if it's not giften to give in Dhammic conditions]

This kind of questions comes simply because, you have mixed your understanding about Buddhism with Science.

Science made by humans to solve day to day problems, but Buddhism isn't.

Believe or not dharma is the explanation for everything.

So don't let your mind to ask such questions about the Nibbana, see this thread also to get some brief idea about Nibbana.

Question: Is nothing but all-encompassing, absolute Nibbana without Samsara possible? If so, is sustainability possible (and how)?

Possibility of nothing but all-encompassing, absolute Nibbana without Samsara? If so, is sustainability possible (and how)?

It could be that Samsara and Nirvana are co-dependent and reduce to Unity. Samsara and Nirvana are said to have a dependent-existence and to not really exist.

Samsara and Nirvana are thought to have a dependent existence and to not really exist.

Samsara and Nirvana are said to have a dependent existence and to not really exist.


Focus on the clock, and you will find yourself getting distracted.

Do nothing.

Maintain a daily meditation practice.

Time will do the rest :)

Use a timer/alarm so you do not need to think about it.

If you still think about it bring back your mind to the object of meditation.

One's mind may be checking the time as you desire the session to end.

This can be due to: session is uncomfortable you desire to do something else

The above reaction can be very subtle.

Look at what your mind is doing and get a handle on it.

Don't despair if it is uncomfortable and desire doing other things while meditating.

buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/295/Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena

Notice that constantly thinking about the clock is stressful and that letting go of it can be much nicer and calmer.

Then you simply let go of it.

Do this with all thoughts and distractions.

Is it possible to be ok with the reality of this.

Can one become aware, of I am thinking about the clock, agitated figity.

Even thinking about, thinking about the clock?

It's ok, that may be a perfect meditation when you realize that it is this not that.

Even reading these words, this is the only reality, trying this advice later is not a reality.

The conflict of what is and what should be is very real difficulty in the world, that difficulty is here, and now.

So many people living in a rush, want to rush off to the next thing.

Take pictures to enjoy later and always miss out on the powerful presence of reality.

Whatever the reality is.

try what is in

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.020.soma.html you can also think about the past, future and the currently changing phenomena.

Experience changes as soon as it arises, like a monkey swinging from one branch to another, grabbing on to next one before letting go, so the expression of conditions coming into play is preceded by what has been and not of what is or will be.

Therefore the line of thinking; 'I am [feeling] bad because of this circumstance having to do with having sat for a long time is going to be changed eventually because the development i described counters both the perception of 'i am', establishes perception of inconstancy and changes how we think about time and

how we think and what we know about that which is 'thinking'.

think about the thinking itself and of that which you think about; feelings, thoughts & perceptions.

This could calm it and give a new perspective on things.

Count your breaths.

For example, if you breath once every 15 seconds, then you would count up to 120 for 30 minutes.

After decades of meditation, I still count my breaths.

This is actually how I know when to ring the bell at the end of meditation during zazenkai.

I'm going blind and can't see any clock or watch.

After practicing counting breaths, you may find that you can simply sit for 30 minutes without counting and know when to get up.

It is an aspect of mindfulness to gauge time.

That internal sense of time even works for sleeping:

And then the Buddha spread out his outer robe folded in four and laid down in the lion’s posture—on the right side, placing one foot on top of the other—mindful and aware, and focused on the time of getting up.

DN33 Practice your internal sense of time.

That is default behaviour of mind, don't think about "

I'm thinking about the clock " just focus on the meditating mind, if it still coming neglect that thought.

Don't fight it

just forget about the interfering thought.

Question: I normally meditate for 30 minutes but I cannot help but think about the time that the meditation is going to end and constantly thinking about the clock since normally you meditate to be in the present moment, but I am not in the present moment when I meditate. I appreciate any help.  Thank you :)

How can I stop thinking about the clock when meditating? I meditate for 30 minutes every day

You should not despair if it is uncomfortable and you desire doing other things while meditating. Notice that constantly thinking about the clock is stressful and that letting go of it can be much nicer and calmer. It may help to count your breaths. Make sure to keep up a daily meditation practice.

Continue to meditate on a daily basis and count your breaths. Maybe even use a timer or alarm to prevent relying on the clock. Don't despair if it feels uncomfortable or if you want to do other things while meditating. Accept that constantly thinking about the clock is stressful and that letting go of this would be much calmer. Look inside your mind and understand what it going on.

Use a timer or alarm to prevent relying on the clock.


It's not OK.

“It’s not easy to teach the Dhamma to others, Ānanda.

The Dhamma should be taught to others only when five qualities are established within the person teaching.

Which five?

“The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, ‘I will speak step-by-step.’

“The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, ‘I will speak explaining the sequence (of cause & effect).’

“The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, ‘I will speak out of compassion.’

“The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, ‘ I will speak not for the purpose of material reward. ’

“The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, ‘I will speak without hurting myself or others.’

( AN 5:159 ) . One should not make an effort everywhere, should not be another’s hireling, should not live dependent on another, should not go about as a trader in the Dhamma.

( Ud 6:2 )

The Buddha taught the Dhamma is a "gift".

A "gift" is something given free of charge.

The best of gifts is the gift of the teaching.

Etadaggaṃ, bhikkhave, dānānaṃ yadidaṃ dhammadānaṃ.

The best sort of kindly speech is to teach the Dhamma again and again to someone who is engaged and who lends an ear.

Etadaggaṃ, bhikkhave, peyyavajjānaṃ yadidaṃ atthikassa ohitasotassa punappunaṃ dhammaṃ deseti.

AN 9.5

Hm.

What exactly will this person be teaching you?

Buddhist philosophy?

Proper sitting posture?

Some special 'technique'?

Most buddhist things you can learn for free from other teachers, so in what way are this person's teachings special or unique, so that you'd be willing to fork out an hourly rate?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against the idea of charging money for certain kinds of training.

But it's a tricky issue.

It's one thing to attach a monetary value to your time as a teacher; that's almost a necessity in our debased commercial world, at least if you want to teach full-time.

But it's quite a different thing to attach a monetary value to Buddhism itself .

The practice is how we establish value in our lives, and so it can't really be reduced to other forms of value.

If someone is trying to sell h'er insights because s'he believes h'er insights are superior, well...

hm.

This reminds me of a joke I made up once: Olympic competitive meditation events.

Is that really where we want to go?

If you are teaching someone to pass an exam on Buddhism, it's ok to accept a payment.

Because the student is just trying to gain some qualification required for his or her career.

But if it is someone who is genuinely trying to attain enlightenment or someone seeking counselling for his or her misery, it's immoral to ask for a payment.

Donations can be accepted.

In simple terms, it's immoral to ask a payment from those who seek refuge in the Dhamma.

In my opinion, it is OK for a layperson to charge money as a teacher if the student prepares to pay for it.

I can't recall Buddha saying that his Dhamma should be taught free of charge.

However, Buddhist monks are not allowed to handle money according to the Vinaya.

It is great to see some people are prepared to pay money to learn Dhamma!

In Mahayana, Dharma is considered precious, as precious as gold and diamonds, to put it very mildly.

Because of this, it's not unheard of in Mahayana for a student to offer something valuable, or indeed expensive, to one's prospective teacher as a gesture of respect for the value of the teaching as well as a sign of one's serious intentions.

I myself teach Dhamma and never charge for that.

After class, students may leave a donation, which I share by half with the owner of the place where we sit.

That's a best solution, because I don't feel as selling something, but giving a gift.

And that makes me really happy.

On the other hand, students also practice generosity, which makes them happy.

That way, at the end of the class we all part happy.

If there would be some price set, maybe I would think the price is low for the effort invested and they would feel maybe the price is too high for what they got.

So we would all part unhappy.

Of course, this is all possible, since I am financially independent and teaching is not source of my income, but of my joy of sharing something really precious.

Other teachers are maybe in different situation

and I can understand that.

But, on the other hand, nobody force them to be teachers and they can find maybe some other, less morally conflicting source of income.

Besides, as mentioned, if it is about longer retreat, where place should be rented and food provided, of course some fee is a must.

But again, I think, only to cover the costs and not the paycheck for the teacher.

It is not uncommon to see a donation box in a Sri Lankan temple, It is not uncommon for a senior monk to ask tourists for a donation for work on the temple.

It is not uncommon to make a donation after a meditation event, especially if food and lodging is provide.

In Sri Lanka it is standard practice for a tutor to charge a fixed price to a student studying for a religion exam, the same as with any other exam.

This person would prefer to learn dharma from a person teaching for merit rather than cash.

It depends on intention.

“The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, ‘I will speak not for the purpose of material reward.’

Payment could cover costs of hiring a space, of travel or materials.

Asking for these doesn't mean it is taught without thought, the teacher may well not actually profit, financially, from it at all.

Question: Charging money for teaching time seems like it goes against the spirit of the dharma. I’m asking because I was looking for a teacher and came across one that did charge money.

Is it OK for a Buddhist teacher to charge their students an hourly rate for their time?

There is no consensus on accepting a fee to teach Buddhism. Some consider it OK if the student is studying to pass an exam. Others believe it is always immoral.

Some people claim that it is acceptable for a layperson to charge money as a teacher or for a fee to be charged for teaching services for a religious exam. Others believe that it is immoral to ask for a payment from those who seek refuge.

It seems to be acceptable for a layperson to charge money as a teacher or for a fee to be charged for teaching services for a religious exam.

It is immoral to ask for a payment from those who seek refuge.


If you analyse the Sutta, you will find those who became Arahants by just listening to discourse are people who have already perfected Sila and Samadhi.

For instance Buddhas first disciples, five ascetics.

There are several traditional takes on this.

According to some commentary the Dhamma declines gradually so that there is a steady decline and progressive lack of higher attainments in the world until there are no attainments left.

Based on this kind of reasoning some hold that there is a cap on what will be attained in our time, some hold that Sotapannaship is possible whereas other hold that as being impossible because they base it on a different calculation and values

ie 500 years for disappearance of this or that attainment instead of a 1000.

Another popular interpretation is that Dhamma can be revived so that even if there is nobody with attainments during a decline, it is still possible to get all or some of the attainments.

These are the basis for popular theravadin positions.

Samadhi(Concentration) should be developed, Sila(Morality) should be practiced and with the help of these 2, Paññā(Discernment) will be developed.

Only by having discernment can one understand the Buddhist teachings.

At the time of Buddha, as SarathW said, people who attained stages of awakening already perfected Sila and Samadhi therefore it was easy for them to understand the Buddha's teachings.

In the present if you want to achieve 'awakening' you should perfect Sila(Minimum 5 precepts) and Samadhi ( Samata Meditation) and move onto Insight (Vipassana) Meditation, with time you will awaken.

The reason today's laypeople and even Bhikkus do not achieve awakening is because they do not practice Buddha's teachings.

The teachings have turned to lip recital but not practice.

To share one's attainments is generally frowned upon as we do not have the buddha here to verify attainments.

However, in the vipassana tradition there are some lay people who have demonstrated extreme discipline for example:

Dipa Ma https://dipama.com/ May find peace and happiness, With Metta :)

How can a mind develop such a achieving within matter of hours.

Sorta like math prodigies being able to master calculus, differential equations, or number theory when still in middle school.

There's no difference, an inevitable result of many lives of cultivation and dedication to the discipline.

There are millions of devoted Buddhist in the world now

but I have not heard a single person achieving higher mental status.

Are there any other explanation this other than karma? Probably because the real deal who's truly achieved those higher attainments wouldn't go around and proclaim it to others.

Anyway, it's not necessarily true that modern men's intelligence or capacity are duller or dumber than their ancient counterparts, it's definitely true that the environment our ancestors once lived was vastly more conducive to the cultivation of the Dhamma.

Back then, there were no TVs, radios, internet chatrooms, facebook, snapchat, twitter, zoom, tik tok, and a gazillion of other modern day distractions.

Question: During the time of Buddha, it is said many people at one gathering attained enlightenment by listening to only one one of his sermons. How can a  mind develop such a achieving  within matter of hours.  There are millions of devoted Buddhist in the world now but I have not heard a single person achieving higher mental status. Are there any other explanation this other than karma?

Can lay people acheive enlighment (Arahanthship) in this life by adhering to Buddhist principles?

According to some commentary the Dhamma declines gradually so that there is a steady decline and progressive lack of higher attainments in the world until there are no attainments left. Are there any other explanation this other than karma?   Probably because the real deal who's truly achieved those higher attainments wouldn't go around and proclaim it to others.

Some people believe that  the Dhamma declines gradually so that there is a steady decline and progressive lack of higher attainments in the world until there are no attainments left. However, we may not know if anyone has achieved this, as such a person who has truly achieved those higher attainments would not proclaim it to others.

We may not know if anyone has achieved this, as such a person who has truly achieved those higher attainments would not proclaim it to others.


It's not about keeping it fair that even men should wear some form of accessory indicating they are married.

Wearing a mangal-sutra is a tradition similar to a sister tying a rakhee on her brother's wrist to remind him of his duty to protect her.

Even in that case, there is no equivalent of rakhee that a sister has to wear.

I hope that answers the question.

First a small clarification from Wikipedia entry Contrary to false impression generated in recent decades by Indian movies and TV soap opera, the practice does not exist in every part of India, nor is it an integral part of a marriage ceremony.

Apart from the mangala sutra, the toe rings (bichhua), kumkum, bangles, nalla pusalu (black pearls) and nose ring form six symbols that may indicate that a woman is married.

So when we say Mangal Sutra, we mean any of the above symbols that indicate marriage status.

Coming to the question, I think it has to do with prevalence of Polygyny .

A man could have many wives, but not otherwise.

So women would need an indication for their marital status, a "taken" tag if we may call it.

Where as men don't need any.

As I said this is just my guess, have no references.

Edit:

Mangala Sutra is integral part of Hindu Marriage.

This practice is an integral part of a marriage ceremony as prescribed by Manusmriti the traditional law governing Hindu marriage.

Polyandry also existed in Hinduism but it was less prevalent when compared to Polygyny.

Reference:

Polygamy:

A Cross-Cultural Analysis.

Berg Publishers.

p. 109.

The Mangal-sutra can be a symbol of monogamous human pair-binding.

Early Hindu society was a matriarchy where children were referred using their mother's name.

For example, son of Radhya was called Radheya, son of Krithika was called Karthikeya.

This was because, in many cases polygamy was prevalent and a women didn't really know who the father of the child was.

One could be sure who the mother was as she gave birth to the child.

When monogamous relationships evolved, the men had to take responsibility for the children they fathered.

This created a sense of ownership.

When men tie the mangal sutra, it instilled in them a sense of duty.

It also made it clear to other men that the woman is another man's wife and he shouldn't mate with her.

This answers why only woman wear a symbol signifying that they are married.

There is also a story that all girl children were considered the property of devas as soon as they were born and men had to symbolically win them and hence tie the mangal sutra.

This blog series on "Brief History of Hindu Marriage" explains many rituals surrounding marriage.

Things like 'Mangalsutra' and 'Sindoor', worn only by married women, must have started out as a way for women to feel safe (signifying that they are not 'available') and later became a mandatory ritual over time.

Then it makes some sense why such things never happened for men.

Also, like all parts of the world, indian society was (is partly even now)

acutely male dominated .

There are many rituals which were biased and unfair to women like 'Sati'.

This male dominance would have resulted in many simple rituals turning into torture for women.

Like in case of 'Mangalsutra' and 'Sindoor', stripping them off a woman while she's grieving for her husband's death.

Men too have some symbols but it varies according to customs.

In brahmins I have watched some sampradayas where brahmacharis wear dhoti without kacche and after marrying they wear dhotis with kacche.

I have also watched they start to wear two or more yajnopaveetas after marriage.

I think because married women have to always look good and as they liked to be well groomed for their husband they do wear these symbols.

In past Bindi (tilak) and earrings were mandatory for men too but as the civilisations developed women's eagerness to always look well groomed increased and in men it deceased.

Thats why women wear so many things: mangalsutra, sindoor, bindi, earrings, colourful bagles and toe rings etc.

and slowly made them a standard for a married women.

Mangal sutra is one of the seven symbols that indicate a woman is married, whereas married men have only one (a toe ring).

These symbols are stripped away when the husband dies

It is not mandatory for the bride to wear the mangal sutra either, only the kumkum on the forehead is.

Question: In Hinduism, brides wear Mangal Sutra to signify that they are married. Additionally, the use of sindoor, red kumkum powder also applied along the parting of the hair, is also worn by married women. These are all symbols that signify that a woman is married.  Why don't such symbols exist for men?

Why don't men wear the likes of Mangal-Sutra to signify they are married?

Mangal sutra is one of the seven symbols that indicate a woman is married, whereas married men have only one (a toe ring).  Brahmacharis wear dhoti without kacche and after marrying they wear dhotis with kacche.

It is thought that the absence of a common lack of symbol of marriage for men is due to the prevalence of polygyny. There are some symbols of marriage for men, however - dhotis with kacche, two or more yajnopaveetas or a toe ring, for example.

There are some symbols of marriage for men - dhotis with kacche, two or more yajnopaveetas or a toe ring.


In ancient society the social status of a man is depicted by his cloths covering the upper body.

Those who belonged to lower status never covered thier upper bodies.

So removal of such indicates the nessesity to discard one´s social status (Egoistic ideas)before entering a shrine to see the God.

The heart (Chakra) centre is the main electro magnetic resonator which connects the chakra system together to work as one unit (Ego).

Any cloths especilly metal body armour worn in the ancient times and other protecive covers blocked the chakra energies from getting exposed or connected to the energy fields of the temples.

I can think of two reasons.

Clothing habits of the locals due to the weather conditions.

Show of obedience.

In a society with class hierarchy, men are expected to show their obedience by not covering their torso.

Such obedience was warranted in temples, usually controlled by powerful classes.

There are two views I've come across so far.

They are contradictory, yet I find both of them reasonable given proper explanations.

Reason 1:

Quote from an answer on Quora

these temples are located strategically at a place where the positive energy is abundantly available from the magnetic and electric wave distributions of north/south pole thrust.

The main idol is placed in the core center of the temple, known as “ Garbhagriha ” or Moolasthanam .

In fact, the temple structure is built after the idol has been placed.

This Moolasthanam is where earth’s magnetic waves are found to be maximum.

We know that there are some copper plates, inscribed with Vedic scripts, buried beneath the Main Idol.

What are they really?

No, they are not God’s / priests’ flash cards when they forget the shlokas .

The copper plate absorbs earth’s magnetic waves and radiates it to the surroundings.

Thus a person regularly visiting a temple and walking clockwise around the Main Idol receives the beamed magnetic waves and his body absorbs it.

This is a very slow process and a regular visit will let him absorb more of this positive energy.

Scientifically, it is the positive energy that we all require to have a healthy life.

Reason 2:

Quote from a myth debunking website Nirmukta

This also explains why men are not allowed to wear shirts at a few temples and women are requested to wear more ornaments during temple visits.

Why?

Should only the men benefit and not the women?

Once again goes to show how all religions are misogynistic to the core.

In all probability the men are basically forced to be bare-chested so that they could identify who are all wearing the sacred thread and who are not.

Nothing but organized, divinely codified and sanctioned discrimination.

I'll leave it up to you to decide what you choose to believe!

You remove your shirt because your shirt has been stitched and one shouldn't wear stitched clothes in a temple.

In olden times, the women folks too did not wear stitched clothes and covered their upper body with cotton clothes tied around their upper body (mulla chakku).It has nothing to do with caste.

All that came in later.

Why traditional dress and men not allowed to wear shirts in temple?

these temples are located strategically at a place where the positive energy is abundantly available from the magnetic and electric wave distributions of north/south pole thrust.

The main idol is placed in the core center of the temple, known as “Garbhagriha” or Moolasthanam.

In fact, the temple structure is built after the idol has been placed.

This Moolasthanam is where earth’s magnetic waves are found to be maximum.

We know that there are some copper plates, inscribed with Vedic scripts, buried beneath the Main Idol.

What are they really?

No, they are not God’s / priests’ flash cards when they forget the shlokas.

The copper plate absorbs earth’s magnetic waves and radiates it to the surroundings.

Thus a person regularly visiting a temple and walking clockwise around the Main Idol receives the beamed magnetic waves and his body absorbs it.

This is a very slow process and a regular visit will let him absorb more of this positive energy.

Scientifically, it is the positive energy that we all require to have a healthy life.

Why only men and not ladies?

Energy flows from altar of diety to your chakra system.

For men, Aanahat chakra near to heart is the most significant, so they are suppose to receive the energy my chest.

while for woman its Adya chakra at the forehead and face to get tejus.

I had asked this question to one priest in Suchindram temple.

His answer was, energy flows from altar of diety to your chakra system.

For men, Aanahat chakra near to heart is the most significant while for woman its Adya chakra at the forehead.

Besides, this custom might have to do with preserving tradition and culture.

There should be an universal dress code to pan Indian temples.

Some allow any dresses, some allow kurtha pyjamas, some say bare chested.

Its really annoying for both the visitors and the temple officers to explain each other about dress code.

Also, everyone is not comfortable to walk bare chested in public, they have their reasons of dressing.

A clean and white Kurtha pyjamas should also be allowed along with bare chested macho men in the temples of India.

Baring shouldn't be a Barring from seeing the believe God.

Question: Some Hindu temples require men to remove their shirts before they enter. I don't remember the names of any temples off the top of my head, but I do believe that a few temples in and around Thanjavur had this policy, and I remember hearing that this is relatively common across Kerala and Tamil Nadu.   What is the basis (scriptural or otherwise) for this requirement?

Why do some temples require men not to wear shirts?

You remove your shirt because your shirt has been stitched and one shouldn't wear stitched clothes in a temple. For men, Aanahat chakra near to heart is the most significant, so they are suppose to receive the energy my chest.

It is believed that for men, the Aanahat chakra near to the heart is the most significant, so they are supposed to receive energy through the chest. Men also remove their shirts because their shirts have been stitched and one should not wear stitched clothes in a temple.


Temples are holy places.

Footwears have dirt on them which could make the temple floor dirty.

Hence, as a respect towards God's place, people leave their footwear outside.

Even people should be clean when entering a temple; for example, in some places, people gargle with water if they have eaten something a few hours before visiting the temple.

Also, this is not just applicable to temples, but this is also a common practice amonst people not wearing footwear in their homes.

Usually, Temple authorities display a board which says "Footwears are strictly prohibited" as our temples can be visited by people of other religions who may not be aware/care of this respect shown by Hindus.

To clarify some more things (rightly pointed out by Mr_Green), we CAN take footwear inside a temple.

The footwear allowed inside a temple is called Khadau .

It is purposely used by priests, and those who work inside the temple.

A Khadau is essentially the old style footwear.

It is made of wood.

Modern day footwear are not considered holy as these are.

We now make footwear with things mostly prohibited to take in use.

They also get dirty soon enough.

There is perhaps, more to this.

Wooden footwear keep the mind cool and are insulators of electricity and heat (wood used to make footwear doesn't catch fire!).

So, footwear is allowed in temples, but not "modern footwear" , due to the above stated reasons...

Since no answer gives any reference from any scriptures, i am adding my own.

The reason is scriptural injunction .

That is, scriptures ask us not to wear shoes where idols are placed.

There are 5 such places where one is prohibited to enter with shoes on.

They are: The room where the Vedic fire has been established.

A cowpen; Goshala or where the cows stay.

A place where a Deity is installed, like a temple or a Puja room and a room for the Brahmin.

A place for taking meals.

The room where one chants the Gayatri.

One should leave off his shoes [before entering] the house in which the Sacred Fire is deposited, a cow-pen and the presence of a Deity, or a Brahmana, [and before] taking his meals, or reciting [the Gayatri].

[If a person] putting on [his] sandals, goes, from his house, to the Five Rooms,* a pious king should cut off his two legs.

(62) Angiras Smriti 1.62,63.

However, these rules do not apply for the following special persons:

An Agnihotrin (i.e., who maintains the Sacred Fires), an ascetic, a S'rotriya, one who has completely-studied the Vedas ; these may go there with [their] sandals on ; others must be chastised with punishment.

(63) NOTE:

Angirasa Smriti is counted among the 18 major Smritis that we have.

Generally footwear is made up of leather.

In the Hindu religion they are considered to be an impure thing.

One more thing is that the temple is a holy place where everyone worship.

And footwear also consists of outer dirt as Mr_Green has mentioned in his answer .

So we can't take those dirty shoes inside that holy place.

In temples not only footwear needs to be removed.

The upper cloth, that is, your shirt and t-shirt also need to be removed as for worship with Dhoti.

Shoes are not clean since they go everywhere.

Since a temple is a clean place with pure energies, we leave unclean things outside.

Detailed Answer:

There are a few views offered on this subject.

Shoes go everywhere and can collect unwanted energies.

To keep them out of the temple shoes are left outside.

Second, generally temple practices encourage minimum amount of covering, subject to what would be considered decent in the respective social setting.

This may be related to the ability for energy interchange – the temple being a highly energized place.

In that context, among various parts of the body, the soles of the feet are considered points of significant interchange of energy.

This way when one walks in the temple bare foot, the interchange of energy gives the bliss and high of being in the temple.

While the two views noted above are the popular reasons for not wearing footwear inside the temple, there are some additional observations worth noting with regard to footwear use in temples.

There are certain temples in northern India that allow wooden Paadukas to be worn during winter months.

In fact, the temple itself provides the wooden Paadukas for a small fee, essentially ensuring that the footwear that goes everywhere outside the temple does not come into the temple.

In Udupi Krishna temple, the eight Acharyas only [not devotees] are allowed wooden Paadukas anywhere in the temple premises except in the shrine area itself.

Morden footwear is made out of leather mostly, leather comes from a cow!

Hindus & tamils are not allowed to eat beef.

We worship a cow as a mother because a cow gives us milk & its a holy animal.we are not allowed to eat pork because its the filthiest animal but most hindus/tamils still eat it, its not as bad as eating beef.

So you cannot wear anything leather in most temples or go close to anyone with trans wearing leather.

Shoes are forbidden because we not allowed to take the dirt into the temple.

According to books I have read ancient foot wares were made of animal skin and therefore killing of animals is not accepted by our religion .So

in order to ban these foot wares temple authorities implemented this rule,so from the ancient times the foot wares was prohibited in temple

and it is being followed till the present day

Footwear irrespective of it being made from leather/rubber etc has to be removed mainly because of dirt that comes along...

most temples even in Europe/

North America also have feet washing facilities at the temple entrance.

That said, Even Hindu temples in North america does not allow shoes inside inspite of cold weather,but you are allowed to wear socks P.S:

Most Indians (irrespective of religion) remove footwear before entering a house to keep their home clean.

Question: Why is it that people don't wear shoes and sandals when they visit a temple? Sometimes they remove them outside of temple premises and sometimes outside of the temple steps...  It's a common practice amongst Hindu people whenever they visit a dharmik sthal/temple, so what's the reason behind removing footwear outside?  And is there a rule to do so, or do people just follow a common norm?   Credits for the image:  double-barrelledtravel.com

Why do Hindus remove their footwear before entering temples?

Footwear irrespective of it being made from leather/rubber etc has to be removed mainly because of dirt that comes along. One should leave off his shoes [before entering] the house in which  the Sacred Fire is deposited, a cow-pen and the presence of a Deity,  or a Brahmana, [and before] taking his meals, or reciting [the  Gayatri].

Shoes are not permitted inside temples so as not to bring dirt into the temple. A temple is a clean place, with pure energies, so unclean things are left outside. Shoes go everywhere and can pick up unwanted energies.

The scriptures ask us not to wear shoes where idols are placed. People should remove their shoes before entering a place with a Sacred Fire, a cow-pen, a presence of a deity or a Brahmana, before taking meals or reciting the Gayathri. The scriptures ask us not to wear shoes where idols are placed. People should remove their shoes before entering a place with a Sacred Fire, a cow-pen, a presence of a deity or a Brahmana, before taking meals or reciting the Gayathri.


samudravasane devi parvatasthana mandale vishnupatni namastubhym padasparsam kshamasva me

O Goddess, who dwells in the Oceans,who's life-giving breasts are the mountains.

Salutations to the wife of Lord Vishnu,Forgive me for the sin of touching you with my feet.

- Bhoomi vandanam

Among traditional South Indian Brahmins, it is customary to recite this verse before rising from bed.

You touch the earth and seek forgiveness from Bhu Devi for stepping on her.

Not all hindus touch the Earth before starting thier day but few do that.

This is related to the belief that Earth is Prithvi (Hindu Goddess).

And touching the Earth means touching feet of goddess.

Earth is also considered as mother Earth in Hinduism.

This touching at the start of the day symbolizes thanking Earth for giving us everything for survival.

For the same reason we worship God every morning, and for the same reason people do Surya Namaskar etc.

In Hinduism, the mother Earth is considered a goddess.

This is just a kind of worship, similar to how you worship any other God/Goddess.

As for why we do that first, with hindsight, we can argue that mother Earth is what we encounter the first at the start of the day.

So we do that!

It is because Hinduism teaches us to respect every thing.

This planet earth is also like our mother.

She gives us food, she gives us shelter, she gives us different varieties of things for our existence.

So karmically it is important to express gratitude to her.

That is the reson behind that ritual.

Purusha Suktham and Sri Vishnu Sahasra namas say the earth His feet.

That is why we bow to the earth, as it amounts to touching the Lord.

Another reason is Bhoomi or Bhoomadevi is the consort

Sri Mahavishnu -

Both the Bhagavatha Purana and Sshasranama tells about this.

Mahavishnu is called Madhini pathi (husband of Bhooma devi).

It is like touching the feet of one's own mother.

For mother gets the top priority in the order of reverence (mathru devo bhava, next comes father Pirthu devo bhava, next comes the teacher Acharya devo Bhava and lastly the God.

Mother is the own who gave you the biological form, father leads by example, teacher shows the world and lastly God enables you to merge with Him.

Question: Before starting the day, or keeping feet on Earth, Hindus usually touch Earth by their hands. What could be the possible reasons behind this ritual?  Is this to show respect to Earth?

Why do Hindus touch Earth before starting the day?

This touching at the start of the day symbolizes thanking Earth for giving us everything for survival. This is just a kind of worship, similar to how you worship any other God/Goddess.   You touch the earth and seek forgiveness from Bhu Devi for stepping on her.

Touching the earth is a worship ritual, to thank the Earth for giving us everything. You touch the earth and seek forgiveness from Bhu Devi for stepping on her.


The story of how Ganesha broke his tusk is recounted in this excerpt from the Upodghata Pada of the Brahmanda Purana.

Parashurama, the axe-wielding incarnation of Vishnu, had sucessfully defeated his enemy Kartavirya Arjuna and the kings allied with him, and so he wanted to thank Shiva for giving him the power to fight these enemies.

Parashurama went to Mount Kailash to pay his obeisances to Shiva, but Ganesha stopped him, saying his father was sleeping along with his mother, and he didn't want Parashurama intruding on them in case they might be engaged in amorous pursuits.

Parashurama was enraged that he was being prevented from seeing Shiva, and so he started fighting Ganesha.

Ganesha was winning handily, but then Parashurama threw his axe at Ganesha and Ganesha didn't fight back against it, because the axe was a gift from Shiva: Perceiving that the axe had been given to him by his father, Ganesha became desirous of meaning it not to go in vain.

Hence he received it with his left tooth (tusk).

Chopped off by the axe, the tusk fell on the ground, covered with blood like a mountain that fell on the ground when struck by Indra's thunderbolt.

Note that there are other stories about Ganesha losing his tusk, most famously the story included in some manuscripts of the Mahabharata concerning Ganesha breaking his own tusk off to continue writing the Mahabharata as Vyasa was dictating it to him.

But this story is widely agreed by scholars to be a later interpolation, and it's not found in any critical editions of the Mahabharata, and you can see for yourself that it's not even included in this translation of chapter 1 of the Adi Parva.

So the most prominent story that's actually grounded in scripture is the one I gave above.

The broken tusk comes from Mahabharata.

It goes as follows: Maharshi Ved Vyas was instructed to write the epic by the Gods.

He wanted it to be written down by the most knowledgeable one in the universe.

Lord Brahma asked Maharshi to visit Lord Shiva and beg for his son SIDDHIDATA GANESHA to be allowed for the task.

Lord Ganesha had a clause:

While reciting the verses, if Ved Vyas stopped for a while, and Ganesha would have to stop because of the same; he would terminate his writing of the epic and Maharshi would have to search for another writer.

That is, Maharshi would have to recite the entire epic at one go, without pausing at all.

Maharshi Ved Vyas agreed to this.

However he himself put forth another condition: He told the Lord that he would have to understand every hymn, every verse before penning it down.

He put this condition with the idea that he would be reciting something very tough; and while Ganesha would be pondering upon its meaning, he would get a scope to take a few moments of rest

However that was not the case with Lord Ganesha.

He completed penning down the sacred hymns even before the sage had thought of the next.

In the mean time, the pen He used for writing down the verses, began to wear away.

Aware of His earlier condition, and not finding out any other alternative, the Lord pulled out his left tusk and used it to complete writng the great epic Mahabharata.

This is the story behind Lord Ganesha being EKADANTA.

It seems once Lord Parasurama went to Kailasa to see Lord Shiva.

Lord Shiva was at that time asleep.

Lord Ganapati, who was guarding the room of Lord Shiva, did not allow Parasurama inside.

A war ensued between Ganapati and Parasurama and in this war Ganapati lost one of his tusks because of the axe of Parasurama which had been gifted to him by Lord Shiva.

Source: hindupedia.com .

It's also said that Ganesha allowed Parasurama to attack on him by Axe because he can't disrespect the Axe which was given by his own father.

The same source says that there are three stories for the broken tusk.

One being same as @Shamayeta said.

Third being a little variation of Ganesha's curse story .

In this version, Ganesha before cursing moon throws his one tusk on him and breaking him in two pieces.

Every Hindu God's images represents some symbolic meanings.

Here, the symbolism of the broken tusk is that the wise person is beyond duality.

We tend to think that we end when our bodies end in the material world.

We are the first person.

All else is different.

This duality is created by the mind which creates the ego to help us survive in this world.

This 'me-other' duality is the screen keeping us from realising our real Self, which is beyond body and mind.

Once we transcend this duality, we see the entire Universe as a single whole and we become aware of our true Selves.

The single tusk of Ganesha symbolises this non-duality.

Wisdom allows us to see all as one and ourselves an integral part of the whole.

Quoting from : Kishore Asthana

(The symbolic meaning of lord Ganesha's picture).

Skanda Purana narrates different story for his broken tusk.

It says Lord Ganesha broke his own tusk for YOGADANDA.

Chapter 10

"Shiva Swallowing Poison" of Skanda Purana says He (Ganesha) pulled out his own huge tooth for sake of "Yogadanda" (the mystic wand of Yogic practice) and held it in his hand.

Question: In many idols of lord Ganesha, I saw that the left tusk is broken.   Credit:  http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/64.102  What is the story behind that broken tusk? Does it signify something?

What is the story behind lord Ganesha's broken tusk?

S13: Aware of His earlier condition, and not finding out any other alternative, the Lord pulled out his left tusk and used it to complete writng the great epic Mahabharata.  Here, the symbolism of the broken tusk is that the wise person is beyond duality.

Stories of Ganesh's broken tusk include that he  pulled out his left tusk and use it to finish writing the epic Mahabharata. He is also believed to have broken his own tusk for Yogadanda.  The symbolism of the broken tusk is that a wise person is beyond duality.

Ganesh is said to have pulled out his left tusk and use it to finish writing the epic Mahabharata.

It is said that Lord Ganesh broke his own tusk for YOGADANDA.


One of the primary reasons is the sin destroying effects the Lord's names .

The inspiration for doing this can be linked to the story of Ajamila as described in the Bhagavatam: Ajamila was a pious brahmana.

But once he saw a prostitute engaged with a man in the forest and since then he got infatuated.

He fell down from his religious activities and went so low as to marry the prostitute herself.

He abandoned spiritual activities and engaged in sinful ones.

In course of time he begot ten sons from his wife and he had named the youngest one who he loved very much as Narayana.

At the time of his death when the minions of Yama came, out of fear he repeatedly called his youngest son with his name Narayana.

As he took the name of the Lord, messengers of Vishnu came and realised him from the fetters of Yama.

Vishnu dootas discussed with the Yama dootas why he shouldn't be punished.

Hearing this conversation, Ajamila could know his mistakes and got back his life.

Then he spent rest of his life practising devotion to the Lord and finally went to Vishnu's abode after his death.

So even the holy name of the Lord is powerful enough to redeem people of their sins.

Hence, Yama said to his messengers the importance of chanting Lord's name as below:

Therefore it should be understood that one is easily relieved from all sinful reactions by chanting the holy name of the Lord and chanting of His qualities and activities.

This is the only process recommended for relief from sinful reactions.

Even if one chants the holy name of the Lord with improper pronunciation, he will achieve relief from material bondage if he chants without offenses.

Ajāmila, for example, was extremely sinful, but while dying he merely chanted the holy name, and although calling his son, he achieved complete liberation because he remembered the name of Nārāyaṇa.

[SB - 6.3.24]

My dear servants, please bring to me only those sinful persons who do not use their tongues to chant the holy name and qualities of Kṛṣṇa , whose hearts do not remember the lotus feet of Kṛṣṇa even once, and whose heads do not bow down even once before Lord Kṛṣṇa.

Send me those who do not perform their duties toward Viṣṇu, which are the only duties in human life.

Please bring me all such fools and rascals.

[SB - 6.3.29]

Due to this effect of God's name, people in India generally name their children such.

Reference: Shrimad Bhagavatam, Canto 6 , Chapters 1-3

I guess this practice was started mainly to take care of the following: To ensure that you utter the name of God through daily social communications in case you don't have time to go to temples and conduct formal worship to the God.

The names of Gods when uttered frequently in social life might have a long lasting cleansing and soothing effect on ones sub-conscious mind which in turn may play a pivotal role in the development of ones conscious mind (character), e.g. a person named Gopal may (in his sub-conscious) identify himself with the divine personality of God Krishna and hence refrain from any ill activities in his conscious life.

First of all, God doesn't have any names.

The one which is nameless that is the absolute reality.

People give various names to nameless, various forms to formless because it is difficult for them to worship the infinite.

When we start giving names to the infinite, he becomes finite and God cannot be finite.

Its just a process that at the highest stage brings us to that infinite, formless, nameless ever shining being that pervades each and everything.

It doesn't matter if you call him Shiva, Vishnu, Krishna, you can even call him your own username A_runningMind.

He is the one in every soul, he is the soul of your soul.

Call him with whatever name you want, he doesn't mind but have faith.

That is the most important thing.

The primary reason for naming people with names of God is to ensure that we always remember God.

People usually take an effort to think about God only when they have a dedicated time to pray, which is not numerous in Hindu culture.

So by naming people with names of Gods, everyone are forced to call out that name.

And this is considered to be equal to that of a prayer.

So this can also be understood that by calling out a Hindu God name of a person, even if you are not a Hindu, you are praying to that deity.

This is just people's thought that keeping God's name will make the person follow the righteous path and even let other thinks he/

she is a good person.

Nobody keeps the names which imprints bad on that person such as Ravana, Narakasura, kansa and the list goes on.

Many people's also think to keep some names which imprints good on them and they are not God names such as Sudheer, Suber, Susheel etc.

In my opinion, most people select a good name for their child from the good names they know which are mostly God names.

In Every Yuga God is considered as Some greater force or soul above Humans.

He lives with us at all times depending on our prayers and you can also be with him the same every time.

Since God is more a Omnipresent Strength of Righteousness, Truth, Dharma & Spiritual Power when it comes to Hinduism.

Hence when names of God are given to Humans it is generally to impart these values to us and this most of the times becomes true.

This is called Dwaita.

The Dwaita philosophy always is more practical than rest of the philosophies though they culminate to Adwaita Philosophy which most of the times is devoid of practicality in living a Human Life.

Hence Giving names of God to Humans is not something that is Impractical in life the only fact being the Giver of the Name should definitely know Our Hindu Religion, our Puranas, our Ithihasa and Our dogmas and rituals well before giving them.

Regards,G.Gagananand.

Question: Names of many Indians are derived from names of various Hindu Gods. Even here on Hinduism.SE, we have many users with such names, for example, Keshav Srinivasan, Krishna, Ram, Hari, Damodaran, Shiva, etc.  People belonging to other religions also give their God's name to people, but I assume this was started and widely used by Hindus before other religions.  So, why do Hindus name their people using Gods' names? Is there any specific reason behind this?

Why is God's name used for people?

S1: The names of Gods when uttered frequently in social life might have a long lasting cleansing and soothing effect on ones sub-conscious mind which in turn may play a pivotal role in the development of ones conscious mind (character), e.g. a person named Gopal may (in his  sub-conscious) identify himself with the divine personality of God Krishna and hence refrain from any ill activities in his conscious life.   The primary reason for naming people with names of God is to ensure that we always remember God.

It is believed that the names of the Hindu gods have a sin-destroying effect. Naming people after Hindu gods may also be a way to ensure that those gods are remembered and reflected upon in our daily lives.

Naming people after Hindu gods may also be a way to ensure that those gods are remembered and reflected upon in daily lives.


As per the scriptures, one who commits suicide becomes a ghost: udbandhanamṛtā ye

ca viṣaśastrahatāśca ye ātmopaghātino ye ca viṣūcyādihatāstathā [GP - 2.22.8] Meaning One who dies by hanging, also through poison and weapon, one who commits suicide and also dies by cholera etc. becomes a ghost.

The scriptures also prohibit to perform any funeral rites (shradha) for people who have died by committing suicide and the relatives do not become unclean by such deaths unlike other natural and legitimate deaths.

From Wikipedia : In Hinduism, suicide is spiritually unacceptable.

Generally, committing suicide is considered a violation of the code of ahimsa (non-violence) and therefore equally sinful as murdering another.

Some scriptures state that to die by suicide (and any type of violent death) results in becoming a ghost, wandering earth until the time one would have otherwise died, had one not committed suicide.

Hinduism accepts a man's right to end one's life through the non-violent practice of fasting to death, termed Prayopavesa.

But Prayopavesa is strictly restricted to old age yogis who have no desire or ambition left, and no responsibilities remaining in this life.

Similar view are present on hinduwebsite.com : Which also includes three methods of self sacrifice : Fire, starvation and suspending breath.

But it also says that it can only be done in the last phase of life.

I heard about "kapaala moksham" which means salvation of the skull.

There are some legends about really really advanced yoga practitioners, capable of letting their "life" come out of their body by perforating the skull - just through their will, while meditating.

Most of these legends also say that those yogis are well aware of the time when they should end their lives.

And when their time comes, they achieve this kapaala moksham.

Suicide is classified as a bad death in Hindu scriptures.

Bad Death

Sri Krishna said, 'O Garuda, hear, I shall tell you the great secret about the rite of death for those who dies through serpent ...; those who commit suicide or die by fall from a tree, ........ All these deaths are known as bad deaths where no rite of Aurdhvadehika or pinda-dana is performed.

If the same is done by mistake it is all destroyed in the air.

But desiring welfare of the deceased and out of fear of the people's reproach his sons or grandsons or sapindas

should perform Narayana Bali, O bird.

By that the relatives of the deceased are purified.

This is stated by yama.

There are no other means.

When Narayana Bali is performed they become fit for aurdhvadehika.'

Garuda Purana, Dharma Khanda, Chapter IV.

Suicide is not allowed because it interferes with a person's reasons for staying in the worldly plane.

He will have to come back again and again to the worldly plane to complete his education if he commits suicide.

Suicide is allowed for a person who has attained Moksha.

I am posting here a quote from Sri Ramakrishna on suicide: '

Suicide is a heinous sin, undoubtedly.

A man who kills himself must return again and again to this world and suffer its agony.

But I don't call it suicide if a person leaves his body after having the vision of God.

There is no harm in giving up one's body that way.

After attaining Knowledge some people give up their bodies.

After the gold image has been cast in the clay mould, you may either preserve the mould or break it.'

The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna,Chapter 7, The Master and Vijay Goswami, December 14, 1882

According to Sri-M darshan(Vol 7) In the Vedas, it is mentioned that for the Jnanis, the following ways of leaving body are accepted:

Jumping from above, fasting, diving in river, entering into fire or going to the hills : viraadvane va annshake vaa apaam praveshe agni-praveshe va mahaaprasthaane va.

Sri Totapuri, the vedanta-guru of Sri Ramakrishna, wanted to die by getting drowned in the ganges,but failed.

Another spiritually elevated boy Vishnu killed himself by cutting his throat by knief, as mentioned in Sri Sri Ramakrishna-Kathamrita.

He was not able to live in the world full of worldly people any more.

But for a normal individual, suicide is a grave sin and

his/her ghost suffers tremendously.

Reference: a)

Sri Sri Ramakrishna-Kathamrita, By Sri -M, b)

Sri M darshan, vol 7(quoted in Sri Sri Totapuri-Prasanga, published by the Lake Kalibari, ISBN 978-81-935349-1-5)

From the Parasara smriti: suicide in the form of hanging oneself leads to a punishment of 60000 years.

Question: What does Hinduism say in regards to suicide? Or maybe even assisted suicide? Not just out of depression or anger, but what if your just tired and want to retire?

What does Hinduism say about Suicide?

Generally,  committing suicide is considered a violation of the code of ahimsa  (non-violence) and therefore equally sinful as murdering another.  From the Parasara smriti: suicide in the form of hanging oneself leads to a punishment of 60000 years. However, Hinduism accepts a man's right to end one's life through the  non-violent practice of fasting to death, termed Prayopavesa. This practice is reserved for old yogis who have no esire or ambition left. Suicide is allowed for a person who has attained Moksha.

In Hinduism, suicide is considered to be a sin, a bad death, and spiritually unacceptable. Suicide is seen as a violation of the non-violent code of ahimsa. Scriptures say that death by suicide results in returning to the earth as a ghost. It interferes with a person's reasons for staying on the worldly plane. In some teachings, suicide by hanging results in a punishment of 60,000 years. Hinduism accepts a man's right to end one's life through the  non-violent practice of fasting to death, termed Prayopavesa. However, this is restricted to old-age yogis. Suicide is also allowed for a person who has attained Moksha.

Hinduism accepts a man's right to end one's life through the  non-violent practice of fasting to death, termed Prayopavesa. However, this is restricted to old-age yogis. Suicide is allowed for a person who has attained Moksha.


Regard less of true story of Moraya Gosavi, that doesn't make anysense to say "Ganpati Bappa Moraya"...

Actually splitting the word Moraya as "Mhora ya" means "come ahead and bless us" make sense here.

Thus "Ganapati Bappa Moraya" means

"Lord Ganesha Bless us"

(Here Bappa is used for Lord...)

If in case you're interested in reading one of the famous prayers with english translation, follow the link.

Ganpati Aarti (with Translation)

Morya Gosavi was a prominent saint and the greatest devotee of Lord Ganesha.

Morya is associated with the name of lord Ganapati as veneration to this great devotee.

Morya is changed verson of mor+ yaaWhich is again changed from samor+yaaSamor= in front of some one

And yaa

=come That means morya

=samor yaa= be in front ( of us)= guide us

Yes, Ganapathi is another name of Lord Ganesha which means the Lord/Owner of all Shiva Gana (The army of Lord Shiva).

Bappa means Father/Lord and Morya refers to the greatest devotee of Lord Ganesha.

To understand the meaning completely, "Ganapathi Bappa Morya" alone is not sufficient.

The entire stanza "Ganapathi Bappa Morya, Purchya Varshi Laukar ya" is needed, which means "O Lord/Father Ganesha, come again next year fast".

It is considered as a chant but have some Marathi meaning you need to consider.

Morya Mean1 Go ahead (for Visarjan ceremony happen.)2 It is

Marathi ward mohre ya mean pudhe Vha (for Visarjan ceremony happen.)3

It look like lolhapuri Language word mhore

ya(go ahead)ref:

Page on wordpress.com Quora Answer to Morya jodiif.wordpress.com http://www.karmayog.org/

yahoo QnA Another Yahoo QnA

Question: I heard this many times but don't know what it means.   Is Ganpati another name for Ganesha?   What is bappa and Morya?

What is the meaning of "Ganpati Bappa Morya"?

Ganapathi is another name of Lord Ganesha which means the Lord/Owner of all Shiva Gana (The army of Lord Shiva). The entire stanza "Ganapathi Bappa Morya, Purchya Varshi Laukar ya" is needed, which means "O Lord/Father Ganesha, come again next year fast".

This could mean "Lord Ganesha Bless us". Ganapathi is another name of Lord Ganesha which means the Lord/Owner of all Shiva Gana (The army of Lord Shiva). Bappa means Father/Lord and Morya refers to the greatest devotee of Lord Ganesha. "Ganapathi Bappa Morya, Purchya Varshi Laukar ya" means "O Lord/Father Ganesha, come again next year fast".


"Uttarayan", means the day on which sun moves towards "Uttar" means North direction.

We celebrate it only on 14 th , the next day 15

th is called "Vasee Uttarayan" means the following day of "Makar Sankranti" or "Stale Uttarayan".

It is considered that sun marching towards North takes souls to Heaven and heading towards south takes souls to hell.

In Mahabharata it is mention when Bhishma decided to leave body on the day of Uttarayan only on the advice of Lord Krishna.

Hindu calendar is based on moon, but this day is related with sun.

And as per Gregorian calendar this day is found that the sun enters the Capricorn (Sanskrit:

Makar) zodiac , so Makar Sankranti is celebrated on this day only as it is solar event only.

Hindu calendar is moon event based

calendar and Gregorian Calendar is strictly a solar calendar based on solar events of 365 days.

As Makar Sankranti is solar event it is followed by Gregorian Calendar.

No, it is not celebrated according to the English calendar.

From the point of view of Jyotisha , Makara Sankranti is celebrate when Surya (Sun) enters Makara Rashi (the zodiac named Capricorn).

As, Jyotisha follows a sidereal (moveable) zodiac, these dates can change i.e. Surya can enter Makara on a different date.

The question itself says that it can fall either on 14th or 15th.

The English calendar follows a tropical (fixed) zodiac, where they assume that Sun enters Capricorn on the same date every year which is not in sync with the facts (only an assumption).

This article can be referred to learn more.

Hope this helps! :)

A simple logic: Who gave English Calendar to Bhishma Pitamaha to leave his body on Makara Sankranti?

Bhishma Pitamaha left his body on the day of Makara Sankranti.

He wishfully remained alive up to the day of Makara Sankranti.

The Mahabharata, Book 13:

Anusasana Parva: Section CLXVII The Mighty Bhishma then, taking the strong hand of Yudhishthira, addressed him in a voice deep as that of the clouds.

That thorough master of words said, 'By good luck, O son of Kunti, thou hast come here with all thy counsellors, O Yudhishthira!

The thousand-rayed maker of day, the holy Surya has begun his northward course.

I have been lying on my bed here for eight and fifty nights.

Stretched on these sharp- pointed arrows I have felt this period to be as long as if it was a century.

O

Yudhishthira, the lunar month of Magha has come.

Thus, Makara Sankranti is not by English Calendar.

It falls when the Sun Enters the Capricorn (Makara) constellation.

It usually happens in January 14th/15th

but it doesn't mean that it is calculated by English Calendar.

It isn't always necessary that Makara Sankranti falls in January 14th/15th.

It doesn't necessarily comes on 14 th January, We have seen it almost falls on 14 January

many times it comes earlier or many times later.

Hinduism is the major festivals of Makar Sankranti.

This festival is celebrated all over India in some form.

Sun in Capricorn occurs on Poush Mass is celebrated on the solstice.

This festival is celebrated mostly on fourteen of January.

Sometimes the festival twelve, thirteen or fifteen may be, it depends on the fact that when the sun enters Sagittarius Capricorn left.

The day begins with the sun's solstice speed and for this reason it is also called Uttarayani.

We follow Moon Calendar as per that the Sankranti comes when Sun Enter Makar (Capricorn) which is also the start of Uttarayan.

The English Calendar based on Sun, therefore we find its always on 14th January.

But as per Moon Calendar it keeps varies....

The Calendar which we follow now a days is Gregorian Calendar, which is based on Sun so its always fixed to 14th Jan.

For Sun based Calendar, Moon based festival keeps varies and vice as versa.

The Hindi Sanskrit text above translates to the following: Hinduism is the major festivals of Makar Sankranti.

This festival is celebrated all over India in some form.

Sun in Capricorn occurs on Poush Mass is celebrated on the solstice.

This festival is celebrated mostly on fourteen of January.

Sometimes the festival twelve, thirteen or fifteen may be, it depends on the fact that when the sun enters Sagittarius Capricorn left.

The day begins with the sun's solstice speed and for this reason it is also called Uttarayani.

Question: Why does Makar Sankranti always happens to be on Jan 14 th  / 15 th , while all other Hindu festivals depend on size of moon like Chaturthi, Amavasya, Poornima etc.  Are there any more Hindu festivals which also follows English calendar?

Why does Makar Sankranti follow English calendar?

The Calendar which we follow now a days is Gregorian Calendar, which is based on Sun so its always fixed to 14th Jan.


Yes.

Lord Hanuman is Rudra avatar of Lord Shiva as per shiva puran.

Mother of Lord Hanuman Pleased Vayu devata and Lord Shiva to have son.

Vayu devata gave her boon of son and Lord Shiva was asked to give son who is exactly like him.

So Lord Shiva granted Anjanimata boon that his 11th Rudra will take birth as her son and Lord Hanuman born.

In hanuman chalisa Shankar suvan

kesri Nandan

Tej pratap maha jag vandan

Meaning

As a descendant of Lord Shankar, you are a comfort and pride of Shri Kesari.

With the lustre of your Vast Sway, you are propitiated all over the universe.

Reference Hanuman Chalisa

Yes.

Hanuman is avatar of Rudra or Shankara as mentioned in Chapter 20 Satarudriya Samhita of Shiva Purana.

एकस्मिन्समये शम्भुरद्भुतोतिकरः

प्रभुः।

ददर्श मोहिनीरूपं विष्णोः

स

हिवसद्गुणः॥ ३॥

The virtuous Siva, who is engaged in various types of sports, once witnessed the Mohinī form of Vishnu.

चक्रे

स्वं क्षुभितं शम्भुः कामबाणहतो यथा। स्वं

वीर्यमपातयामासरामकार्यार्थमीश्वरः॥ ४॥ तद्वीर्यं स्थापयामासुः पत्रे सप्तर्षयश्चते।

प्रेरिता

मनसा तेन रामकार्यार्थमादरात्॥ ५॥ तैर्गौतमसुतायांतद्वीर्यं

शम्भोर्महर्षिभिः।

कर्णद्वारा तथाञ्जन्यांरामकार्यार्थमाहितम्॥

६॥ Like a person suffering from lust, Siva at the instance,

the saptarsis, (the Seven sages) carried the semen of Siva, for the purpose of Šrī Rāma, with respect, over the tree leaf and inserted the same in the ear of Anjani the daughter of Gautama, through ear to her Womb.

ततश्च

समये तस्माद्धनूमानिति नामभाक्र। शम्भुर्जज्ञेकपितनुर्महाबलपराक्रमः॥७॥ Then after some time, Siva appeared in the form of a monkey by name of Hanuman who was quite valorous.

However, Chapter 8 Kedarakhanda-

Maheshwara Khanda of Skanda Mahapurana mentions Hanuman as avatar of Nandi .

But Nandi is again partial avatar of Shiva which indirectly makes hanuman as avatar of Shiva.

Nandi, the son of Silada, who was a favourite follower of Siva, incarnated as the great monkey Hanuman for rendering assistance toVisnu of unmeasured splendour.

The above difference could be due to Kalpa Bheda.

As far as Valmiki Ramayana is concerned Hanuman is son of Wind god.

There is absolutely no mention of Hanuman being Siva amsa or Avatara.

Even Uttara khanda of Valmiki indicates Hanuman as son of wind god only.

Infact Valmiki Ramayana reinforces that Hanuman is avatara of wind god only.

Shiva Purana does refer to Hanuman as avatara of Shiva.

The famous tamil Ramayana i.e. Kamba Ramayana of 9 th century A.D. says that Hanuman was son of Wind god (Vayu) who intially invested his energy in Hanuman.

Later, Siva also invested his energy in Hanuman.

No Hanuman is not an avatar of Lord Shiva.

Hanuman is an incarnation of Vayu .There are many references from the scriptures.

One such example: अतो रोचननामासौ मरुदंशः प्रकीर्तितः रामावतारे हनुमान्रामकार्यार्थसाधकः

। स एव भीमसेनस्तु जातो भूम्यां महाबलः ॥ Garuda Purana 3.16.68 ॥

When Lord Rama incarnated on Earth, Vayu was born as Hanuman for rendering assistance to Rama.

There is also a popular shloka on Hanuman which is : Manojavam marutulya vegam jitendriyam buddhimatam varishtham Vatatmajam vanar uth mukhram

Sri Ramdootam shirisa Namami.

Here vatatmajam =

vatatma[vayu]+jam[born].Vatatmajam means vayu was born (abhivyakth) as hanuman

Yes, Sri Hanuman is considered an incarnation of Lord Shiva or Rudra both in the Tantra and the Vaishnava tradition.

The mantra on the above yantra describes Hanuman as ' Rudraatmaka ' ie an Incarnation of Lord Rudra.

According to SriVaishnava-Matabja-bhaskara(82)

In the chaturdashi tithi of krishna paksha of the month of Kartika, Lord Shiva appeared as Kapisvara Hanuman .On

that day, the devotees should celebrate the birthday of Sri Hanuman with vows and festivals.

So the ShriVaishnavas also worship Sri Hanuman as incarnation of Lord Shiva.

He has powered by of both Vayu and Rudra and there is no contradiction in it.

Devi while killing Mahisaasura was powered by ALL the Devas.

Question: I grew up watching Ramayana and Mahabharata TV series which was telecasted on Dhoordharshan channel. I vaguely remember my grandma say that Hanuman is an avatar of Shiva to help Vishnu (Ram) to destroy the evil. Is this true? Is Lord Hanuman a form of Shiva ?

Is Hanuman an avatar of Lord Shiva?

Some people consider Lord Hanuman an avatar of Lord Shiva and others do not, they say he is the son of Vayu, the Wind God.

Hanuman is widely considered to be an avatar of Lord Shiva. However, some claim that this is not the case, and that Hanuman is the son of Wind God (Hayu).

Hanuman is widely considered to be an avatar of Shiva.

Hanuman is considered to be a son of Wind God (Hayu).


Swami Vivekananda meant that a strong body can help you have the frame of mind needed to understand things like the Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita, and thus ultimately attain Jnana.

Here's the quote in its original context: First of all, our young men must be strong.

Religion will come afterwards.

Be strong, my young friends; that is my advice to you.

You will be nearer to Heaven through football than through the study of the Gita.

These are bold words; but I have to say them, for I love you.

I know where the shoe pinches.

I have gained a little experience.

You will understand the Gita better with your biceps, your muscles, a little stronger.

You will understand the mighty genius and the mighty strength of Krishna better with a little of strong blood in you.

You will understand the Upanishads better and the glory of the Atman when your body stands firm upon your feet, and you feel yourselves as men.

Thus we have to apply these to our needs.

Now I'm not a follower of Vivekananda or an Advaitin, but I think this connects with the Advaita notion that certain physical and mental disciplines are a prerequisite for the pursuit of Jnana; that is how Adi Shankaracharya interprets the first Sutra of the Brahma Sutras.

This is in contrast to other schools, including Ramanujacharya's Sri Vaishnava sect, which interpret the prerequisite as the study of the Vedas through the methods of Mimamsa.

That quote from Vivekananda has a deeper meaning than the plain text.

The entire quote has already been posted.

The key to fully understanding the quote lies in the statement

First of all, our young men must be strong.

Religion will come afterwards.

The key point is 'Religion will come afterwards'.

Vivekananda felt that the people of India of his time did nothing because they were steeped in tamas.

He wanted people of India to graduate to rajas through strength and become active instead of doing nothing.

This is the reason why he wanted the young men to be strong.

The rest of the quote is to make the case that one can graduate to sattva, necessary for spiritual growth, from rajas through strength.

I think we have to understand the words of Swamiji with reference to the famous saying śarīramādyaṃ khalu dharmasādhanam

This body is surely the foremost instrument of doing [good]

deeds Even with a common sense, we can understand that without a body nobody can achieve anything, i.e. studying Gita, Upanishads, etc, pondering over whatever that was studied and finally practicing whatever studied .

Everyone in general, who is in his teens or even in early 30s of his age, will enjoy a fairly good health (I am not quoting exceptions here).

During that age, it does not matter much whether one does exercise to keep himself fit or not.

The body can sustain prolonged study and hard work.

However, in late 30s and even further, the effect of non-doing of exercise will tell upon one's prolonged study and hard work.

One will not be able to sustain for that type of hard work after 40's.

So in order to have a healthy body at old age for all persons in general and even at young age in respect of ill-health bodies, Swamiji adviced exercise.

As playing Football assures building up of strong body, which will sustain the prolonged study and hard work in spirituality

Thank you Arnav, you kindled our interest in Swamiji's most magical saying..

Its not easy to grasp the meaning of great spiritual person's sayings like Swamiji..

The ultimate aim of human life is to be one with God.

While persuing this aim we are fooled by Kaama(Lust), Krodha(Anger),Lobha(Materialistic temptations),Mada(Ego),Matsara(Hate).

What Swamiji wants to say that life is like a game of 'football' in which while acheiving the 'goal' of self realization we are attacked by these enemies Kaama,Krodha,Mada,Matsara but as with the strategies in the game of 'football'

we win the game

likewise we have to defeat these enemies with our intelligence or 'Viveka'.

Reading BhagvadGeeta will make you only a reader of it

what actually matters is

how much Geeta we live or apply in life.

Thus according to Vivekanandaji it is more useful to apply the tactics of football to acheive the aim of Self Realization than merely reading Geeta!

Swamiji was a naughty son of maa

'Sharda'

so it is difficult to decrypt his sayings without the grace of maa herself!

lol!

Swami Vivekananda meant that playing football needs full devotion towards the game.

While you are at it, you can't think of anything else or can't do anything else.

You have to stay focused, and use your skills to score .

He compares this devotion to that of reading a religious text, and he has a point.

Quoting from Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev's stories on Swami Vivekananda:

In a soccer game, you have to learn to use your feet like a surgeon’s

scalpel.

This is a game which particularly demands a certain level of involvement because the limbs with which you handle the ball and the limbs with which you transport yourself at full speed are the same, and you have to avoid the ten other people who are trying to do everything that they can do with you.

You have to dodge people, you have to take the ball, you have to be running at full speed; your feet must be as efficient as a surgeon

’s

scalpel because at that speed, at that activity, to direct the ball takes a phenomenal amount of skill.

It takes a certain level of involvement where you are almost mindless.

If you do something with total involvement, you will see, there is just action, the mind is somewhere else.

So in a soccer game, the players reach that kind of a state very often because it is all in one thing.

That is the reason why it grabs half the world when things are being played intensely.

There is a certain kind of transcendence – it is not really a spiritual transcendence,

but there is a certain going beyond one’s limitations which sets fire to everybody else.

Question: That famous line above was uttered by none other than Swami Vivekananda. I admit that I haven't gone through the complete speech yet, but I am curious to know what he meant by that.  Did he mean that being a karmayogi in the path of salvation is more suited to today than any other path or did he speak those lines in some other context?

'Playing football takes us nearer to heaven rather than reading Bhagavad Gita' but how and why?

Playing football helps to build a strong body, which will sustain prolonged spiritual study and hard work.  Playing football needs full devotion to the game. Swami Vivekananda meant that a strong body can help you have the frame of mind needed to understand things like the Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita, and thus ultimately attain Jnana.

Swami Vivekananda meant that playing football needs full devotion to the game.

Playing football helps to build a strong body, which will sustain prolonged spiritual study and hard work. Swami Vivekananda meant that a strong body can help you have the frame of mind needed to understand things like the Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita, and thus ultimately attain Jnana.


listening the shlokas with audio source is also very effective method to memorize shlokas (if possible).

We tend to quickly grasp or memorize what we hear and our mind repeats it, keeps it in memory.

By this method we also get familiar with the pace and exact pronunciation of words, shlokas.

As we all are familiar with our experience related to songs, we tend to memorize and repeat the songs we listen.

The same rule also applied to shlokas.

Also combining the methods stated above by all , Its more simpler to do the thing.

If you really wanted to memorize Hindu shlokas then you must follow habit daily basis according to my opinion.

Here, I want to share my personal experience.

I have memorized Adhyay 12 and 15 in shrimad Bhagavat Geeta in 2 months.

What I did for achieving this?

I woke up Early in the morning.

I have just read the first 10 shlokas of Adhyay-12 with my father.

He Knows correct pronunciation of every shlokas.

This process goes on continue 15 days

and I couldn't believe that I have memorized 10 shlokas of Adhyay-12.

Finally, This way I have memorized whole these two Adhyay

And still I don't forget both.

One most important thing is that you should not lose the consistency of every day of your reading shlokas.

Personal benefits for me:

I have little stammering in my childhood.

After doing memorize and mesmerize of shlokas, It was completely out of my mouth.

My memory power becomes more strong.

In addition of the all answers, Should memorize you have to clear

your mind/soul & physically The time is very very important to memorize between (5 AM to 6 AM) Don't carry a lot of Slokas/Mantras in overnight.

Split Mantras by Week days Monday ...

(God Sivan)

Tuesday ....

(God Murugan)

like etc all the days continue by this method.

If you really want to remember shlokas of Sanskrit language of Hindu holy books, then first of all you have to learn Sanskrit deeply.(It is required for all of us Hindus, because we are nearer to miss our valuable ideas that our Vedas and Upanishads provided to us.)

And then, start with a small book of Sanskrit shlokas, say "Shikshapatri" by Bhagwan Swaminarayan which is a very small book containing all Hindu ideas and niyams(rules that must be followed by each Human being to have a peaceful and a happy life).

One important thing to note is that clearly read a translation given below the shlokas to understand the meaning of the Sanskrit words.

And then go to some big books containing many shlokas in Sanskrit, say Shrimad Bhagwad Gita, a small part of Shrimad Bhagwad Purana.

You will definitely see your improvement in Sanskrit shlokas remembrance and understanding.

You don't have to know any meaning of any words.

You don't have to learn any Sanskrit.

Feel the devotion and recite.

The more you put in your mind with understanding, the ego grows and thoughts multiply.

The aim of this path is to be free from thoughts and not accumulate more.

I have learned many mantras without knowing what any of it means, but only my love and deep feeling of devotion.

More than your understanding, your feelings have to be there.

Recite each line multiple times until you can repeat without reading.

All the best to you!God's Grace.

Question: I recently got profound interest in learning Hindu slokas. But I am having very hard time memorizing them. How can I do this. The slokas I am trying are AdityaHridayam, Suryashtakam, BhagavadGita, Govinda Namalu, Hanuman Chalisa.

How can I memorize complex hindu slokas?

If you really want to remember shlokas of Sanskrit language of Hindu holy books, then first of all you have to learn Sanskrit deeply.(It is required for all of us Hindus, because we are nearer to miss our valuable ideas that our Vedas and Upanishads provided to us.). In addition, daily practice, audio recordings and reciting each line multiple times are recommended.

Using an audio source can be a  very effective may to memorize shlokas. Some people say that if you really want to memorize Hindu shlokas then you must make it a daily habit, and some even say that you should learn Sanskrit. However, some have a different approach and simply feel the devotion and recite. Each line should be recited until you can repeat without reading.

Using an audio source is  very effective may to memorize shlokas.

If you really want to memorize Hindu shlokas then you must make it a daily habit.

If you really want to remember the holy Hindu shlokas in Sanskrit, then  you first have to learn Sanskrit.

Feel the devotion and recite. Recite each line multiple times until you can repeat without reading.


The Ramakrishna Mission celebrates Christmas with a puja.

Ramakrishna Paramahamsa and Swami Vivekananda looked upon Jesus Christ as one of the incarnations of God.

Most of the centers have some type of puja or recognition of Christmas as the celebration of Jesus's birth.

See - http://media.belurmath.org/festival-calendar-of-belur-math-for-2016-17-634

I think that orthodox Hindus do not celebrate Christmas. ...

And that would mean that those Hindus who do celebrate Christmas are not orthodox Hindus.

orthodox -- conforming to what is generally or traditionally accepted as right or true; established and approved; strictly keeping to traditional doctrine and ritual

The Sri Sathya Sai Ashram celebrates Christmas every year in a grand manner.

The previous evening usually comprises a program by an International Music Orchestra, that plays Christmas Carols.

On Christmas Morning, (proper) Christians and other Hindu devotees from all over the world and India, go in a candle procession around the Ashram.

Christmas evening sometimes has a play or cultural program on the life and message of Jesus Christ, or a music program by an international artist.

The Ashram is decorated colorfully with stars, lights etc.

In the last few years, every year, a different country is given charge of the grand decoration activity.

Devotees from that country decorate the ashram with volunteers.

When Sri Sathya Sai Baba was alive, he gave a discourse on Christmas every year, mentioning the good qualities to be learnt from Christ's life and his relationship with God.

The celebrations every year, make hardly any distinction between Hindus residing Abroad/India and overseas citizens/

born christians, in terms of participation.

The activities often begin with a chant of Omkar and end with a chant of Samastha Loka Sukino Bhavanthu and Om Shanthi as on the other Hindu festival days.

http://www.srisathyasai.org.in/pages/ashraminfo/Christmas.htm http://media.radiosai.org/journals/vol_13/01DEC15/Christmas-Celebrations-at-Prasanthi-Nilayam-2015.htm

Actually, it's opinion based question.

Because you won't be able to accept any answer as correct.

However, the answers can be interesting.

Hence leaving upto community, if it should be closed or not.

I am from a very specialized section of Hinduism: Hindu

> Vaishnava

> Krishna > Pre-tennage version (Bal swaroop)

> ThAkorji / ShrinAthji

Though the family is very conservative, when it comes to Christmas, they are liberal.

It's celebrated something like this: Why .

No single reason.

Generally in India, I think English schooling has more to do with why people celebrate Christmas.

Moreover, culturally we were influenced by the British.

Many people believe Jesus as an incarnation of Vishnu as well & many don't.

Source: Is Jesus an avatar of Lord Vishnu?

I think Hinduism has a history of adopting foreign gods from a very early period.

There is nothing wrong with this.

The saguna brahman is inexhaustible and can therefore manifest in all sorts of ways.

That is why it is an entirely orthodox Hindu practice to consider Jesus a manifestation of the Godhead.

Most Hindus who do celebrate Christmas do not celebrate it like Christians do .

They use Hindu ritual idioms to do so.

If any Hindu Acharya can be considered an avatar by his pupils and their descendants, why not do the same with Jesus Christ?

After all, he is just another Bhakti Yoga teacher.

Shri Ramakrishna and Swami Vivekananda, for example, went quite far in the direction of integrating Jesus Christ into Hinduism (Hence the Christmas celebrations at Ramakrishna Maths)

Here are a few links: http://www.spiritualbee.com/posts/sri-ramakrishna-vision-of-jesus/ https://swamishivapadananda.typepad.com/swami_shivapadananda/2010/11/jesus-ramakrishna-and-avatars.html https://vedanta.org/what-is-vedanta/the-avatar-god-in-human-form/

Question: Why and how do (some) Hindus celebrate Christmas?  What have any modern Hindu Gurus commented on this practice?   EDIT  I don't think this is an opinion-based question. From  What types of questions should I avoid asking?  I think this fits into constructive subjective questions: "inspire answers that explain  why  and  how "

Why and how do Hindus celebrate Christmas?

S1: Ramakrishna Paramahamsa and Swami Vivekananda looked upon Jesus Christ as one of the incarnations of God. In general, India has been influenced by the British and has British schooling. Hinduism also has the tradition of adopting foreign gods from a very early time. Hindus who do celebrate Christmas so not do so in the same way as Christians.

Many centres celebrate Christmas with a puja or a recognition of Christmas as a celebration of Jesus' birth. Christmas Eve at the Ramakrishna Mission has a carol service and on Christmas morning, Christians and Hindus take part in a candle procession. There is sometimes a play on Christmas evening based on the life of Jesus or music. The Ashram is decorated with stars and lights, etc. When Sri Sathya Sai Baba was alive, he gave a discourse on Christmas every year, mentioning the good qualities to be learnt from Christ's life and his relationship with God. Festivities often begin with a chant of Omkar and end with a chant of Samastha Loka Sukino Bhavanthu and Om Shanthi, as on the other Hindu festival days.   Ramakrishna Paramahamsa and Swami Vivekananda looked upon Jesus Christ as one of the incarnations of God. They even went a log way towards integrating Jesus Christ into Hinduism (Hence the Christmas celebrations at Ramakrishna Maths). Generally in India, English schooling may have more to do with why people celebrate Christmas due to the cultural influence of the British, but most Hindus who do celebrate Christmas do not celebrate it  like Christians do.


Well, there are several hymns in Vedas which can mention rebirth.

However it depends upon interpretation .

I've found couple of verses from Rigveda Mandala 1 of which interpretation mention rebirth according to Swami Dayananda Sarasvati, the founder of Arya Samaj.

Though Ralph Griffith or Gayatri Pariwar's translation doesn't mention rebirth.

Quoting Rigveda Bhashya of Swami Dayananda Saraswati : English translation : PURPORT

In this Mantra, the doctrine of Re-birth is enunciated.

Whatever kind of actions performed by men, they got the same kind of birth and enjoyment in the next Rigveda Mandala 1, Sukta 24, Mantra 2: English Translation: PURPORT:

O men, we certainly believe in om

eternal, Immortal God who is dispense of fruit of good or bad actions done by us and according to Whose laws we get rebirth .

You must also know that one God to be giver of rebirth , non else can do this work.

It is he who gives birth to emancipated persons also through parents at the end of MahaKalpa.

RV mentions reincarnation in mandala X hymn 56, however the notion of reincarnation is different from as we know it today.

After a person dies his soul starts journey to some unknown world.

Then the Gods transfer his soul to their domain and unites the soul with body.

So the notion is similar to what ancient Egyptians had where after death soul unites with body and the person starts enjoying life again after being dead!

Yes.

Shukla Yajurveda Book III

We call the spirit hither with a hero-celebrating strain, Yea, withthe Fathers’ holy hymns (53)

The spirit comes to us again for wisdom,energy, and life, That we may long behold the Sun (54) The spirit here denotes Atma which comes to us (human beings) after being somewhere for sometimes.

Since it is clearly written that it comes again, it clearly denote reincarnation.

Atharva Veda IX.10 Back

, forward goes he, grasped by power inherent, immortal born thebrother of the mortal.

Ceaseless they move in opposite directions:

menmark the one and fail to mark the other (16)

The he mentioned here

is Atma which is immortal and the mortal here is body.

What this verse says is that there is no time frame for reincarnation.

It also says men will notice only one thing (mortal body) and fail to notice the other (Atman).

Rig

Veda X.16 Burn him not up, nor quite consume him, Agni: let not his body or hisskin be scattered.

O Jātavedas, when thou hast matured him, thensend him on his way unto the Fathers .

When thou hast made him ready, Jātavedas, then do thou give him overto the Fathers.

When he attains unto the life that waits him, he shallbecome the Deities' controller.

These verses pray to Agni to send the spirit of the dead person to forefathers once the body is perfectly burned up.

The Sun receive thine eye, the Wind

thy spirit; go, as thy merit is,to earth or heaven.

Go, if it be thy lot, unto the waters; go, makethine home in plants with all thy members.(3)

The merit mentioned here is Karma.

What this verse says is that based on the merit, the spirit of the dead person go to earth (to be born as human) or heaven or waters.

( I don't know what the waters here signify)

Again, O Agni, to the Fathers send him who, offered in thee, goes withour oblations.

Wearing new life let him increase his offspring: lethim rejoin a body , Jātavedas.

This verse asks Agni to send the dead person to forefathers(Pitrus) through the oblations or last rites done by some people.

Also the second sentence clearly says he may be reborn by joining a body and increase his offspring.

There is no explicit mention of reincarnation in the Vedic Samhitas.

However, some people think that some verses in the Vedic Samhitas can be interpreted to mean reincarnation.

I have heard the mention of two pathways, of birth and death, the ways of parents, the learned and the mortals.

On these two roads each moving creature travels.

Each soul leaves the present parents and assumes new ones.

Yajur Veda 19.47 translated by Devi Chand

There are no explicit mention

but there are mention of puranas in hymns of vedas and puranas in turn mention rebirth so- Verses, and songs,and magic hymns,purana,sacrificial text.all the celestial Gods whose home is heaven sprang from the residue.(Atharva Veda book 11,hymn 7 verse 24). Furthermore-

Lord vishnu's vamana avatar is mentioned in samhitas, the three gunas are mentioned in atharva veda- if there is mention of avatars in Vedas like vamana- sage narayana then it will support rebirth too.

The samhitas are part of upasana and devata kanda finding karma and rebirth in them is impossible.

Brahmanas are karma kanda

you won't find them mentioning rebirth or other such philosophy.

Each part of veda is for different reason.

Brahmanas is for rituals.

Question: Reincarnation is a concept of Hinduism mentioned in the Upanishads, Puranas, Bhagavad Gita, but I could not find its mention in the Veda Samhitas.  Is it mentioned in the four Vedas, that is in the Vedic Samhitas: Rig Veda, Yajur Veda, Sama Veda or the Atharva Veda?

Is reincarnation or rebirth mentioned in the Vedas (Samhitas)?

There are a couple of verses from Rigveda Mandala 1 of which interpretation mention rebirth according to Swami Dayananda Sarasvati, the founder of Arya Samaj and there is  Shukla Yajurveda Book III. However, There is no explicit mention of reincarnation in the Vedic Samhitas.

Some say there is no explicit mention of reincarnation in the Vedic Samhitas. However, some maintain that reincarnation is mentioned in Shukla Yajurveda Book III, Rigveda Mandala 1 as well as in several hymns in Vedas.

Reincarnation is said to be mentioned in Shukla Yajurveda Book III, Rigveda Mandala 1 as well as in several hymns in Vedas.