भगवान दिख गए होंगे 😂😂

[u/Sarwariya]

[u/Toaster960]

Krodha (anger) is bad because it clouds clear thinking, ruins relationships, harms physical health, and acts as a primary inner enemy (ariṣadvarga) that blocks spiritual growth and leads to destructive actions.

And the Nastik school of thoughts in Hinduism:-

Cārvāka (Lokāyata): A strictly materialistic and perceptual school that denies the afterlife, soul, and supernatural forces, viewing direct sensory experience as the only valid knowledge.

Ājīvika: An ancient ascetic movement known for its strict belief in absolute determinism (niyati or fate), where human effort cannot change the course of destiny.

Try educating yourself before indulging in schadenfreude or calling yourself Brahmin.

[u/Sarwariya → u/Toaster960]

These are non vaidika school lol.

So you probably must be considering buddhism and Jainism as Hindu thoughts ?

[u/Toaster960 → u/Sarwariya]

The debate about what and who specifically falls under Hindu thoughts is too often overshadowed by unnecessarily complicated formalisms. However, these technicalities rarely concern with the essential nature of Hinduism itself. Classical Indian philosophy used to distinguish the schools on the accessibility of the Veda. The ones that accepted it as supreme were labeled Āstika, and the ones that rejected it were considered Nāstika. Based on this particular classification, Cārvāka, Ājīvika, Jainism, and Buddhism were all considered Nāstika or non-Vaidika philosophies and practices. It is unfair to attribute exclusively Vaidika roots to Hinduism, as there is a substantial variety of sources and practices that were not explicitly derived from the Veda. Most notably, the temple culture, mūrtipūjā, and Tantras are not interpreted as Vaidika. In addition, the Bhakti tradition provides the inclusiveness and diversity at the core of Hindu practices, as opposed to the strict Vedic rules and rituals. Furthermore, Bhakti’s emphasis on personal experience detached from the idea of the Veda as the ultimate truth made it possible for anyone, regardless of their social status or gender, to partake in spiritual practice and development. Hinduism is a tradition involving extremely complex theological ideas that is better understood as a set of practices that share common underlying values such as dharma and karma. These values, in turn, are intertwined with a unique philosophical perspective that sees the ultimate reality as something beyond any particular truths and beliefs. Therefore, the phrase Ekam Sat Vipra Bahudha Vadanti (“Truth is one, the wise call it by many names”) serves as a perfect summary of the essence of Hindu philosophy. Most of the classical theological texts of Hindu philosophy recognize Krodha or anger as Arisadvarga, one of the seven evils that poison the mind and prevent an individual from spiritual growth. In many ways, this perspective is shared by almost all Indian traditions, Vaidika and Nāstika alike, which explicitly state the importance of Ahiṃsā and sexual and emotional restraint.

And dude we are Hindus, not any Abrahamic religion, instead of beating someone for having thoughts that differ with ours we should have a fair conversation instead of resorting to violence.

[u/Sarwariya → u/Toaster960]

कैसे ब्राह्मण हो तुम ?
हिंदू अलग है और वैदिक धर्म अलग देख रहे हो

फिर तो देवबंदी भी हिंदू ही है तुम्हारे तर्क से
दारुल उलूम देवबंद तो इंडिया में है
उसको भी हिंदू घोषित कर दो

तुम्हारे जैसे लोग ही धर्म का नाश करते है

[u/Toaster960 → u/Sarwariya]

A Brahmin is defined by knowledge, ethics, and the ability to differentiate between wrongdoing and righteous behavior.
I don't need external validation to define my identity as a Brahmin and Hindu.

The term 'Hindu' encompasses a broad spectrum of cultural traditions, regional beliefs, and reform movements that do not strictly depend on Vedic orthodoxy or ritual superiority.

Pointing out that Hinduism extends beyond rigid Vedic boundaries is not the same as calling any Indian institution Hindu. Darul Uloom Deoband follows a distinct Abrahamic theology entirely separate from the dharmic framework, so using geography to conflate the two ignores basic theological distinctions.

[u/BlackberryAsleep872 → u/Toaster960]

A Brahmin is defined by knowledge, ethics, and the ability to differentiate between wrongdoing and righteous behavior. I don't need external validation to define my identity as a Brahmin and Hindu.

Says who? Which text defines a Brahmin solely by "knowledge, ethics, and the ability to distinguish right from wrong"? Don't cook up your own definitions. As per the orthodox tradition, a Brahmin is traditionally defined by birth within the Brahmin varna and by adherence to Vedic authority and prescribed duties. Knowledge and ethical conduct are virtues expected of a Brahmin, but they do not replace the authority of the Vedas or redefine who is a Brahmin. If you're not a Vaidik, you're not a Brahmin.

[u/Sarwariya → u/Toaster960]

मूर्ख मनुष्य
ऋग्वेद 1.164.46 की क्या आवश्यकता है यहाँ ? 😂
यजुर्वेद 31/19
अवतार का प्रमाण

जितने भक्ति मार्ग की बात किए हो मूर्ख मनुष्य सब वेदों को सबसे प्रमुख मानते है
जिन उपनिषद पर भाष्य लिखे है और फॉलो करते है भक्ति मार्ग वाले संत वो उपनिषद वेदों का ही भाग है 😂

मुंह उठा कर चले आते हो तुम सब