Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sense?

[shiv]

shiv saar, that book extract is a revelation, it answers some of the whys of certain historical behaviours. Earlier had glossed over the phrase "divide and rule" and these kind of passages make the "reclamation" procedure daunting.
Could you also please mention the name of the book? Thanks.

"The Living Races of Mankind"

Earlier editions of the book can be downloaded/read from archive.org, but they don't seem to have the passage that my grandfather's book has - at least I have not found them because they are thick volumes.

Here is a different edition that says different things.

Maybe I will some day compare the old and the new to see how much they changed.

https://archive.org/stream/livingraceso ... 6/mode/2up

[A_Gupta]

Balu at ICHR (approximate transcript of some relevant remarks):

...the kind of history that is being taught especially in India today presupposes, for its truth, for its coherence, for its intelligibility a Protestant Christian understanding of human history. This is my thesis.

And I do claim that the Indian notion of Itihaasa is something completely different that simply translated as "history" ....

....when they {Europeans} looked at India, they described using their notions, their conceptions, their theories, their words, and they looked at the myths and the legends of the Puranas and the so-called Itihaasa literature as disguised history.

Of course they had this debate, the quarrel with the ancients, during the Enlightenment period, when they started looking at myths as some kind of disguised story, as history of some sort or the other, either embodying human virtues or fantastic poetical imagination. They looked at it and transformed these into our religious texts, Mahabharata, Puranas, and at the same time they are some kind of disguised history.

And there was another dimension which you also had in India, what you call religious-spiritual tendency, and they saw that as an expression of religiosity of the Hindu, the Indians.

In other words they looked at Itihaasa in two ways -- as some kind of religious text on the one side, and as incapability of the Indians to have a sense of history, because it is one of the constant criticisms, which some people are trying to disprove nowadays, that Indians have no sense of history. This is one of the most characteristic descriptions of India.

Now, why is this important to us? Because Itihaasa - just look at the word Itihaasa - forget etymologies, I am not going to go into etymology at the moment, it is not of great consequence to us, the word "Iti-haasa" is translated as "thus it happened", "thus it verily happened" and so on.

"Iti" is supposed to be "thus". Which is very true. But when you write, in India, Sanskrit language or even in vernacular languages, we used to, maybe we don't any more, we used to write letters to uncles and aunts, etcetra, ending with the word "iti".

"Iti". What does it mean?

It is a meta-linguistic sign, which refers back to what went before. Before what? Before the end, before you sign your name.

"Itihaasa" is referring back to something else that must be behind it before the story is told. That is Itihaasa, that is what "iti" means. Not "thus it happened" saying it is referring to a story that is going to come, it is referring back to something that has already been said. That is what "iti" means in our languages.

So how can "thus it verily happened" in a story, normal oral story telling, you say it and start telling a story. So one speaks as though "iti" refers to the story that has to come yet. No, it cannot. It can only refer back to something that has already been said, what has been said before Ramayana, what has been said before Mahabharata. What is the background text or message that Itihaasa is referring back to? I have a hypothesis, the only explanation that I can give. It refers back to Adhyatma.

Ramayana and Mahabharata are illustrations of Adhyatmic claims. That is why it is Itihaasa, thus it happened, going back to something about, not salvation because we are not Christians, not even Moksha because that is a vulgarized word anyway, but certain kind of happiness, certain kind of liberation of some type from earthly problems, that is what Adhyatma is all about. Ramayana, Mahabharata illustrate it. Using what? It is a story. What do stories do? Especially Ramayana, Mahabharata, what do they do?

They are disguised as descriptions of the world. They are not descriptions of the world. They talk of a Rama, they talk of a Ayodhya, they talk of a Bhima - maybe those guys existed, maybe they did not. If they did, they function as empirical reference points to understand the story. But they have no other function. Absolutely no other function.

So Ramayana, Mahabharata are Itihaasa tradition because they are deeply connected to Adhyatma. Split them apart, you will neither understand Itihaasa nor will you understand Adhyatma which is exactly what has happened to the Indian intellectuals today. They understand neither.

To us, adhyatmic gurus, god-men of India, basically fools, or maybe somebody like Sri Sri Ravishankar, who makes a lot of money; absolute contempt, because we don't understand it, absolute contempt also for Ramayana, Mahabharata for the simple reason either we try to historicize it, like the BJP people are doing, killing the Indian past that way, or the seculars are going, making fools of themselves, which they always do in any case.

But Itihaasa is neither one nor the other. It is not history in the sense of the notion of history has been used. So to understand Ramayana, Mahabharata, you need to understand Adhyatma. To understand Adhyatma you need illustrations and that is what the Ramayana, Mahabharata, Puranas do. It is a story disguised as a description of the world.

Why stories? you ask. I can't go into that now, but stories are the most excellent units of learning in a culture like India. Stories is how we learn. That is why we don't have ethical tracts, we don't have moral theories, which is what West has, from here to the moon and back, so many thick books and more on moral philosophy, we don't have. We don't have them because our morality is taught to us through stories and that is why there are no moral rules in India, or in Asia anywhere for that matter, which is why the West called us immoral people. Because they discovered no moral rules in Indian society, no ethical commandments.

[shiv]

Balu at ICHR (approximate transcript of some relevant remarks):

Why stories? you ask. I can't go into that now, but stories are the most excellent units of learning in a culture like India. Stories is how we learn. That is why we don't have ethical tracts, we don't have moral theories, which is what West has, from here to the moon and back, so many thick books and more on moral philosophy, we don't have. We don't have them because our morality is taught to us through stories and that is why there are no moral rules in India, or in Asia anywhere for that matter, which is why the West called us immoral people. Because they discovered no moral rules in Indian society, no ethical commandments.

I am pleased to see Balu validating two posts that I had made as tentative hypotheses

My personal viewpoint is that Indian epics and stories are all expositions of Hindu dharma. And these epics are histories, stories and legends based in a geographic area. In general the stories tend towards triumph of dharma and good over adharma and evil and the stories are based in a familiar Indian geographic setting so that in almost any corner of India there is a geographic feature that presents itself in some story involving Hindu dharma. My personal viewpoint is that Indian epics and stories are all expositions of Hindu dharma. And these epics are histories, stories and legends based in a geographic area. In general the stories tend towards triumph of dharma and good over adharma and evil and the stories are based in a familiar Indian geographic setting so that in almost any corner of India there is a geographic feature that presents itself in some story involving Hindu dharma.

What intrigues me is how dharma became so widespread over a huge area and a population that pretty much represented one in five humans at any time in history. I suspect it was because of the enormous body of literature and folklore - much of it as fascinating stories that were spread all across the subcontinent illustrating rule of behaviour that conform with the requirements of dharma.

[Comer]

shiv, in the book you linked to,you would have noticed that the division was done as Hindu, Dravidian, Tibet etc! To me this is the first time am seeing this kind of classification.
The rot is indeed deep

[shiv]

shiv, in the book you linked to,you would have noticed that the division was done as Hindu, Dravidian, Tibet etc! To me this is the first time am seeing this kind of classification.
The rot is indeed deep

To think that it would be 2013 before firm genetic evidence confirmed the nonsense peddled by such literature, eagerly studied by my grandparents', parents' and my own generation as "good students" acquiring an education from the revered Saraswati devi of British texts that we would do puja to on Ayudha pooja day.

[A_Gupta]

contd:

...Ramayana, Mahabharata live on as stories, because they teach us. And they don't teach us how to live in the world, but how to access Adhyatmic experience. That is what they are teaching us.

So Itihaasa, then, combines these two, is related to Adhyatma, and Europeans split it apart because in their culture such unity didn't exist.

Today, intellectuals and historians continue this division without even understanding it. I'm yet to come across a serious discussion by an Indian historian on what "Itihaasa" means and "iti" as a meta-linguistic word, which exists in Sanskrit, as ? marks do, what we call scare quotes.

When I say "London" is a six-letter word, I'm talking about the word "London", I indicate it by putting quotes...London is a big city - there are no quotes, I'm using the word London. This distinction which was made a hundred years ago in Western philosophy was made more than two and half thousand years ago in Sanskrit, we don't use disquotation marks, we use "iti", referring back to what has been said, introducing the distinction between use and mention. This is a fundamental idea of Itihaasa.

This is not the story of whether some king existed in Ayodhya, whether Rama lived in Ayodhya and so on, it is not a discussion about that. Maybe there did live a king called Rama, maybe there was a city called Ayodhya, maybe the same as we have today, maybe not. But the point is, that was not why Ramayana was written and that is not why Ramayana lives on. It is the only way we can access Adhyatmic truths.

This, if you like, this unity was broken because another culture from another part of the world, used a framework, used a set of concepts that were alien to us but natural to them. So the mistake we make today is to continue to think this division, which itself is derivative of certain philosophical assumptions, which in their turn rest on a Christian understanding of the world, is somehow scientific. Because it is not. You have no way of showing that. But you can show the opposite of that. You can show that it is not scientific.

So in that sense, today, the challenge to Indian historians is to begin to understand much more differently ...the role of texts, if you want to call them texts, Ramayana, Mahabharata, Puranas, not to do what Sangh Parivar is doing, that is to transform them into historical figures. If you do that, just think of it, we're already experiencing it. Suddenly the Dalits will stand up and say, Vaanaras were the name of a tribe, basically Dalits of those days and they were called Vaanaras because the Brahmins did not respect the Dalits. Rakshasas, they were the Dravidians....Krishna was some upstart in a place called Mathura.

When we start talking like this and the consciousness goes down to the people, two three generations from now there will be nobody who is a bhakta of Rama, bhakta of Hanumanta, and we won't talk of Rama-Lakshmana as brothers, who everybody should emulate; and we don't sit and weep because Ekalavya had to sacrifice his thumb to Drona. It will destroy Indian culture. That is what Sangh Parivar is doing.

Not that the seculars are any better, they are even worse. But caught between the two, only one person is paying the price, or one entity is paying the price, and that is Indian culture, and that entity will be your children and grandchildren who will lose your culture once and for all. That is where Indian historians are heading ....

[A_Gupta]

My (poor) attempt at a youtube.

[A_Gupta]

This, per Wiki, is from the Visnu Purana; I am adding emphasis:

The valiant Prthu traversed the universe, every where triumphant over his foes; yet he was blown away, like the light down of the Simal tree, before the blast of time. He who was Kartavirya subdued innumerable enemies, and conquered the seven zones of the earth; but now he is only the topic of a theme, a subject for affirmation and contradiction. Fie upon the empire of the sons of Raghu, who triumphed over Dasanana(Ravana), and extended their sway to the ends of the earth; for was it not consumed in an instant by the frown of the destroyer? Mandhatr, the emperor of the universe, is embodied only in a legend; and what pious man who hears it will ever be so unwise as to cherish the desire of possession in his soul? Bhagiratha, Sagara, Kakutstha, Dasanana, Rama, Lakshmana, Yudhishthira, and others, have been. Is it so? Have they ever really existed? Where are they now? we know not! The powerful kings who now are, or who will be, as I have related them to you, or any others who are unspecified, are all subject to the same fate, and the present and the future will perish and be forgotten, like their predecessors. Aware of this truth, a wise man will never be influenced by the principle of individual appropriation; and regarding them as only transient and temporal possessions, he will not consider children and posterity, lands and property, or whatever else is personal, to be his own.

PS: the above is clearly Adhyatmic; can you imagine a book of "history" expounding what is claimed to be factual but then concluding, "Have they ever really existed?.... we know not!".

[A_Gupta]

^^^ this version on books.google.com has the passage Shiv showed us:
http://books.google.com/books?id=U8MQAQAAMAAJ
though you can't see it in full.
(Search for "black heathendom" in the book.)

Here is the wiki page about the author:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Neville_Hutchinson

[Pulikeshi]

My (poor) attempt at a youtube.

A_Gupta,

Thanks for the link... it was interesting to hear...
Can you provide some context for the person who provided what I suspect was a rebuttal?
While I understood some points of his, it was hard to get what he found shallow?
Also what was the website where questions and answers would still be published?

[govardhanks]

Nowadays they hide the "picture" so that it is not easily visible. But if you push the priest they will show you! Yours is an interesting thesis but I have seen temples having these pictures/sculptures inside the main temple.

No one hides them peter! unless you have seen a specific incident, you are talking as if all statues can be covered, have you even visited a old temple?

When we are talking about statues... talk about statues not about pictures.. ..inside the main temple you will not see such statues .. you are misleading and you seem to running some propaganda of "Hinduism=sex=Hinduism". good luck with that!

Interesting thesis? ... this is what your consciousness says..evolve into higher forms don't see sex in everything and as if it is only thing that matters in the world practice some yoga, put naked statues in front your house or small ones in your working places it will ward off evil negative thoughts in your mind.

Peter sab have't you seen naked Greek/Roman/Whatever gods and goddess statues on the streets of European cities.?

There are no immediate reference quotes or statements made by gurus/priests about why such statues should be built outside temple. Peter sab you won't be able to answer pulikesh sab's question...

I was asking you a genuine question on where is the reference to what you said in works such as:
Shilpa Shastra, Vishwa Karma Prakasam, Vaastu Vidya, etc. do any of these books mention this...

Which is why I told it is an old tradition, long gone now a days no one follows it.. visit new temples built.. there is a clear demarcation or perhaps style of construction of temples unique for each empire and kings..

[peter]

Nowadays they hide the "picture" so that it is not easily visible. But if you push the priest they will show you! Yours is an interesting thesis but I have seen temples having these pictures/sculptures inside the main temple.

No one hides them peter! unless you have seen a specific incident, you are talking as if all statues can be covered, have you even visited a old temple?

When we are talking about statues... talk about statues not about pictures.. ..inside the main temple you will not see such statues .. you are misleading and you seem to running some propaganda of "Hinduism=sex=Hinduism". good luck with that!

Interesting thesis? ... this is what your consciousness says..evolve into higher forms don't see sex in everything and as if it is only thing that matters in the world practice some yoga, put naked statues in front your house or small ones in your working places it will ward off evil negative thoughts in your mind.

Peter sab have't you seen naked Greek/Roman/Whatever gods and goddess statues on the streets of European cities.?

There are no immediate reference quotes or statements made by gurus/priests about why such statues should be built outside temple. Peter sab you won't be able to answer pulikesh sab's question...

I was asking you a genuine question on where is the reference to what you said in works such as:
Shilpa Shastra, Vishwa Karma Prakasam, Vaastu Vidya, etc. do any of these books mention this...

Which is why I told it is an old tradition, long gone now a days no one follows it.. visit new temples built.. there is a clear demarcation or perhaps style of construction of temples unique for each empire and kings..

“The evil spirits will flee far away at mere sight of the yantra…
In the best temples dedicated to Sakti and to Rudra, this yantra must certainly be placed.
Then the monument will stand unmoved forever… this yantra is utterly secret, it should not be shown to everyone.
For this reason, a love-scene had to be carved on the lines of this yantra… the kamabandha is placed there to give delight to people”

Silpa Prakasa 2.535, 538-9

[peter]

Because Islam and Christianity are religions. There is an issue of oath of allegiance or oath of submission. One chooses a particular exclusive path of salvation, but more importantly one chooses a form of brotherhood, a group identity. One cannot have multiple allegiances.

One actually can. Please see this: Kafirs

Tribes of Kafir kindred, subdued and converted by the Mahometans in comparatively recent times are known as Nimcha, or " half-and-half." Many of these are on good terms with the Kafirs, and trade is carried on through their mediation. A most interesting account by Lieutenant-Colonel Tanner, of some tribes of this class, will be found in the Proc. Roy. Geog. Soc. quoted below.

You are speaking of transitions, and not settled-state equations.

Not really. This Nimcha state lasted for decades.

Similarly many christians follow hindu tenets all over the world. Take a visit to Vivekananda missions any where in the world just as an example.

What I read is:

आमेर का राजा जयसिंह उन हिंदूऔं में से था जो पूजा-पाठ को ही धर्म मानते थे तथा राष्ट्र-सेवा के धर्म को भूला कर विदेशी हमलावरों का साथ देने का घोर पाप-कर्म कर रहे थे।

Translation: King of Amber, Raja Jai Singh was one of those Hindus who believed in "Dharma of Puja-Paath" but having forgotten the "Dharma of service to Rāshtra", he committed the grave sin of allying with foreign invaders.

So what is Hinduism Religion here: the "Hindu Dharma of Puja-Paath" or the "Hindu Dharma of Rāshtra-service"? Or can it be that "Dharma ≠ Religion"?

I deliberately did not write anything on your hindi extract because every hindu king of medieval India पूजा-पाठ को ही धर्म मानते थे ! Please look at their palaces. If you ever visit Bundi in rajasthan and do see the Badal Mahal of Haras you will see beautiful paintings of Krishna and his life. Similar themes in many other palaces throught the area. You can also read about how elaborate the pooja paaths that these kings did in various documents that have survived.

Question was not whether "Hindu Kings" पूजा-पाठ को ही धर्म मानते थे! I am sure they all had their श्रद्धा-व्यवस्था (Śrad'dhā-Vyavasthā).

Question was when the talk is of "राष्ट्र-सेवा का धर्म", whether according to you that should be considered a different religion, for obviously it is spoken of as a different Dharma, in contrast to "पूजा-पाठ का धर्म"?

No. There was no rashtra in most peoples mind. Their principality which was a watan jagir from Mughals was the only rashtra people thought of.

[govardhanks]

“The evil spirits will flee far away at mere sight of the yantra…
In the best temples dedicated to Sakti and to Rudra, this yantra must certainly be placed.
Then the monument will stand unmoved forever… this yantra is utterly secret, it should not be shown to everyone.
For this reason, a love-scene had to be carved on the lines of this yantra… the kamabandha is placed there to give delight to people”

Silpa Prakasa 2.535, 538-9

Did you get a chance to see that yantra? nobody knows that it even exists! anyways
That will bring it to same thing which I said, to ward off evil eyes such statues are built ; then would you agree to what I said was not a theory I made but was actually old tradition, Thanks for link though, my grand's were right..
Shakthi and Rudra workships and rituals are very old Peter sab.. very means very old. I know many more such examples/rituals, which needs a strong spine to even to listen/read them. They are oldest of oldest culture of workship mainly pre -vedic. Vedic workship is different and post-vedic workship is different.

You brought the discussion into such a topic which will make us unique in the world, people who work ship god in their true form.

but..You seem to be struck some where in this phase of history and not actually looking at the big picture!!

Some quotes for you

The Vastu Purusha Mandala is an indispensable part of vastu shastra and constitutes the mathematical design. It is the metaphysical plan of a building that incorporates the coursly bodies and supernatural forces. Purusha refers to energy, soul or Universal Principle. Mandala is the generic name for any plan or chart which symbolically represents the cosmos.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vastu_shastra


When half knowledge westerner comes and tries to explain our temples and traditions this happens..
http://www.find.org.in/editions-archive ... arch-2014/

A ninth-twelfth century AD text called the Silpa Prakasa may well hold the key to the interpretation of this complex maithuna image. The Silpa Prakasa manual on Orissan temple architecture was discovered by Alice Boner and Sarma in the twentieth century. The manual signed by Ramachandra Kulacara identifies the author as a left-handed Tantric (44). The text refers to the construction and consecration of the temple. It refers to placing various yantras in the foundations, below various other parts of temples, beneath or behind sculpted images and statues since the Kamakala Yantra, concealed by a love scene, was compulsory on temples dedicated to Siva or Rudra. The manuscript also states that the jangha wall should be subdivided into a number of horizontal sections, one of which, known as the kama-bandha, should display love scenes (45).

Unlike western attitudes in the nineteenth century, we are closer today in understanding the purpose of the maithuna and mithuna’s own temples such as those in Khajuraho. We might grasp the significance of the sexual act as union, delight in the sensual or even understand the fear of the spirit world from which they sought protection. However, it is much more difficult to understand the intention of the complex sexo-yogic Tantric imagery from the great monuments in Orissa or Central India. Secrecy was perhaps the aim of the craftsmen. The concealment of meaning was essential to fulfill the purpose of experiential initiation. Perhaps the craftsmen chose to portray a sensual image which would both delight and dissemble thereby protecting the secret formula from the uninitiated.

The understanding of erotic sculpture involves not just the ability to read the relevant texts or the imagery but to directly experience and envision this inside oneself. Hinduism teaches the West not to turn our eyes to heaven to search for God, but to look and listen to our own bodies and inside the silent places of our minds. If this is possible, what the sculpture reveals would be sensed, the invisible seen, unity experienced. To understand the significance and meaning of the mithuna images requires in the Western audience an openness to double meaning and an acceptance of the juxtaposition of the obscene and the sublime. One must dissociate sin from sexuality and see rather that bhoga –enjoyment- is a form of yoga– union, or in other words: the dissolution of the boundaries between the phenomenal and the numinous in the experience of the bliss of sexual union. One needs to know the experience of a place beyond ordinary time, a place which is silent, clear, still and yet with a quality of vibration, a journey through breath, pulse, heat, intensity and the light of the inner union of energies.

[RajeshA]

What I read is:

आमेर का राजा जयसिंह उन हिंदूऔं में से था जो पूजा-पाठ को ही धर्म मानते थे तथा राष्ट्र-सेवा के धर्म को भूला कर विदेशी हमलावरों का साथ देने का घोर पाप-कर्म कर रहे थे।

Translation: King of Amber, Raja Jai Singh was one of those Hindus who believed in "Dharma of Puja-Paath" but having forgotten the "Dharma of service to Rāshtra", he committed the grave sin of allying with foreign invaders.

No. There was no rashtra in most peoples mind. Their principality which was a watan jagir from Mughals was the only rashtra people thought of.

So what is the talk of राष्ट्र-सेवा के धर्म? Why deny it?

[RajeshA]

When Rajiv Malhotra came out with "Being Different", I must say, I was totally bowled over. I bought two books and gifted one to my Pita ji. But as time went by I started noticing that the differences between "Dharmic Traditions" and "Abrahamic Religions" are far far deeper than anything Rajiv Malhotra put on paper. I started noticing that in fact the architecture of Dharmic Traditions that he presupposes, was leaving a lot out, and there were areas of "Abrahamic Traditions", Rajiv Malhotra was not even willing to touch, especially the fundamentally political nature of the doctrines. I tried writing to him about this, but there was too much of hand-waving, that comes from scholars who see themselves at the peak of a movement, where all explanations flow from them.

But essentially I still consider Rajiv Malhotra with a great deal of respect, especially because of his book "Breaking India" and I know his heart is more or less in the right place.

He has been scathing in questioning the arrogance of Christianity.

In my current focus and thinking, I see two further aspects which bother me about his thesis.

1. Mutual Respect
2. Historic Centrism

On a personal level, mutual respect is to be highly appreciated. But at an ideological level, mutual respect is really nonsense. Mutual Respect is valid for the realm of devotion Śrad'dhā. Respectful Debate is valid for philosophy Darśanam. But when it comes to ethics Dharma, it requires critical surveillance and intolerance for all transgressions if these are ideological or systemic, i.e. when Adharma happens. Rajiv Mallhotra makes no mention of this.

Secondly unbeknownst to him, he terms Abrahamic Traditions as History Centrist while he calls Dharmic Traditions to not be bound by History, and survivable without any crutch of History. By formulating it this way, he is basically saying Dharmic Traditions do not have a basis in History, and thus no History. We don't need to consider our Itihas as History.

To his defense, I would say, Rajiv Malhotra is doing exceptional work in supporting recognition for our past discoveries and our blooming civilization.

However his take on History related with the constructed Religion "Hinduism", like Puranas, Ramayana, Mahabharata, is still that the Historicity of the Events described in this body of scriptures is irrelevant for "Hinduism". Au contraire!

Now there are many ways to think of our Itihas, and there are indeed stories there which can only be understood as message or part of the web to weave everything together, but there is most definitely History in our Itihas.

If our Puranas make an effort to write the whole lineage of Raghuvansh before and after Sri Rama, or place Mahabharata's kings in the lineage of kings of Bharat running till when they were deposed by Islamic invaders, then it is not an exercise of ahistoric thinking.

Yes some Hindus interested in selfish Mokshik benefits of Sanatan Dharma may not be much interested in the Historicity of our scriptures, but there are others who see it as their Dharma to preserve this Itihas.

The History-Centrism of Abrahamic Religions has more to do with preserving the legitimacy of the right to be considered emissary, as prophethood was ordained to be hereditary. The History-Centrism of Dharmic Traditions has more to do with preserving the historicity of Dharma's victory over Adharma as embodied in the life of Avatars. As Dharmic Traditions believe in Satya, we don't see any need to question the historicity of stories and thus to require exact dates as long as we know that yes all this truly happened. This is important. If one were just to write a nice fiction story of how Harry Potter won against Voldemort and desire this to be considered part of Itihasik canon, then it wouldn't cut, because we know it is fiction, and a nice story about Dharma's victory over Adharma if not Satya is not more than entertainment.

Now we may not necessarily be able to map the story to some concrete person, matter or event in time-space, but we are assured that there is Satya in there.

So let's be cautious of those who question the historicity of our Itihas!

[shiv]

My (poor) attempt at a youtube.

Watch for exactly 2 minutes from the point linked in the url below. Balu himself describes the story of how he found an old 17th century French text and changed words like "Nobility" to Brahmin, "King" to kshatriya etc and gave it to Indologists who thought it was a beautiful paper on the "caste system of India'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... wRw#t=1013

[shiv]

Also what was the website where questions and answers would still be published?

You need to join this group
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/The ... dness/info

[peter]

“The evil spirits will flee far away at mere sight of the yantra…
In the best temples dedicated to Sakti and to Rudra, this yantra must certainly be placed.
Then the monument will stand unmoved forever… this yantra is utterly secret, it should not be shown to everyone.
For this reason, a love-scene had to be carved on the lines of this yantra… the kamabandha is placed there to give delight to people”

Silpa Prakasa 2.535, 538-9

Did you get a chance to see that yantra?

The text is quite clear that : "For this reason, a love-scene had to be carved on the lines of this yantra".

Furthermore Silpa Prakash is a 10 century text. It did not originate in vaccum. Temples prior to it also have love scene carved in them.

What is funny is that still the so called Hindu nationalists do not understand that it is their lack of knowledge about the mother ship why they are routinely hit for a six.

[peter]

What I read is:

आमेर का राजा जयसिंह उन हिंदूऔं में से था जो पूजा-पाठ को ही धर्म मानते थे तथा राष्ट्र-सेवा के धर्म को भूला कर विदेशी हमलावरों का साथ देने का घोर पाप-कर्म कर रहे थे।

Translation: King of Amber, Raja Jai Singh was one of those Hindus who believed in "Dharma of Puja-Paath" but having forgotten the "Dharma of service to Rāshtra", he committed the grave sin of allying with foreign invaders.

No. There was no rashtra in most peoples mind. Their principality which was a watan jagir from Mughals was the only rashtra people thought of.

So what is the talk of राष्ट्र-सेवा के धर्म? Why deny it?

Shivaji is hoping against all hope that the rajputs who were subservient to Mughals somehow kindle राष्ट्र-सेवा के धर्म in them. It did not help. So by and large there was no राष्ट्र-सेवा के धर्म.

[govardhanks]

The text is quite clear that : "For this reason, a love-scene had to be carved on the lines of this yantra".

Furthermore Silpa Prakash is a 10 century text. It did not originate in vaccum. Temples prior to it also have love scene carved in them.

Peter sab, but no one has seen it!
10th century..ok slipa prakash did not originate in vaccum, temples prior to 10th century, if temples prior to it had scenes carved in them, then why did statements seems to come from Silpa prakash which is quite older? nevermind there were not enough people to even write them..

What is funny is that still the so called Hindu nationalists do not understand that it is their lack of knowledge about the mother ship why they are routinely hit for a six.

Oh come on.. did't you read old posts.. there are no " Hindu nationalists" it is a notion used out side India to describe Indian tradition and cultures especially when someone wants to question them or harm them..
We are dharmic, united by dharma, following each one of his old traditions. Perhaps you will not understand it.

What is the mother ship you are describing in every posts? there is no central dogma in our traditions.. did you get it.. A muslim for example has to visit Mecca or madina once in his lifetime, has to prayer 5 times a day, there are no alternatives. Similar is the case with Christians.
Which do not exist in our case boss!! there is no mother ship.. we choose a path and go along with it, we may not choose and still go along with it!! no compulsion, many ways to reach the aim.
What you had seen as a yantra, is a part of culture of one sect of people, do not generalize to all..

The Silpa Prakasa of Odisha, authored by Ramacandra Bhattaraka Kaulacara sometime in ninth or tenth century CE, is another Sanskrit treatise on Temple Architecture.[29] Silpa Prakasa describes the geometric principles in every aspect of the temple and symbolism such as 16 emotions of human beings carved as 16 types of female figures. These styles were perfected in Hindu temples prevalent in eastern states of India. Other ancient texts found expand these architectural principles, suggesting that different parts of India developed, invented and added their own interpretations. For example, in Saurastra tradition of temple building found in western states of India, the feminine form, expressions and emotions are depicted in 32 types of Nataka-stri compared to 16 types described in Silpa Prakasa.[29] Silpa Prakasa provides brief introduction to 12 types of Hindu temples. Other texts, such as Pancaratra Prasada Prasadhana compiled by Daniel Smith[30] and Silpa Ratnakara compiled by Narmada Sankara[31] provide a more extensive list of Hindu temple types.

[RajeshA]

As I read the transcript of Professor S.N.Balagangadhara, what I see is the most vilest of agendas, something that makes me angry!

There were ridiculed, and rightly so, that there were followers of Sant Rampal in Haryana who use to use the milk in which he bathed to cook food. Well with Prof. Balu here is not much different.

One thing he is playing up here to completely disarm the uncritical Hindu audience. He is emphasizing the role of the Britishers and Europeans in general in screwing our sense of our own Sanskriti. That is all fine. But upon winning the trust of his audience, that he means well, he moves on to push rubbish in the name of how great Dharmic philosophy is! So using some tools,

• our anger at the Europeans,
• our pride in our Dharmic philosophy,
• the frustrating general confusion which currently exists in India,
• some criticism of seculars thrown in, and
• half-truths

he manages to thrust a lot more rubbish down our minds.

...the kind of history that is being taught especially in India today presupposes, for its truth, for its coherence, for its intelligibility a Protestant Christian understanding of human history. This is my thesis.

And I do claim that the Indian notion of Itihaasa is something completely different that simply translated as "history" ....

....when they {Europeans} looked at India, they described using their notions, their conceptions, their theories, their words, and they looked at the myths and the legends of the Puranas and the so-called Itihaasa literature as disguised history.

Of course they had this debate, the quarrel with the ancients, during the Enlightenment period, when they started looking at myths as some kind of disguised story, as history of some sort or the other, either embodying human virtues or fantastic poetical imagination. They looked at it and transformed these into our religious texts, Mahabharata, Puranas, and at the same time they are some kind of disguised history.

And there was another dimension which you also had in India, what you call religious-spiritual tendency, and they saw that as an expression of religiosity of the Hindu, the Indians.

In other words they looked at Itihaasa in two ways -- as some kind of religious text on the one side, and as incapability of the Indians to have a sense of history, because it is one of the constant criticisms, which some people are trying to disprove nowadays, that Indians have no sense of history. This is one of the most characteristic descriptions of India.

- So far Balu talks about the Europeans not correctly understanding the nature of our Itihas. We can all agree on that.

- Then he says how the Europeans considered our Itihas - 1. embodying human virtues or fantastic poetical imagination 2. disguised history 3. religious-spiritual work 4. Indians with no sense of history

- He does accept that Indians are nowadays trying to refute Europeans that we did have a sense of history

But from here he goes on a tangent!

Now, why is this important to us? Because Itihaasa - just look at the word Itihaasa - forget etymologies, I am not going to go into etymology at the moment, it is not of great consequence to us, the word "Iti-haasa" is translated as "thus it happened", "thus it verily happened" and so on.

"Iti" is supposed to be "thus". Which is very true. But when you write, in India, Sanskrit language or even in vernacular languages, we used to, maybe we don't any more, we used to write letters to uncles and aunts, etcetra, ending with the word "iti".

"Iti". What does it mean?

It is a meta-linguistic sign, which refers back to what went before. Before what? Before the end, before you sign your name.

"Itihaasa" is referring back to something else that must be behind it before the story is told. That is Itihaasa, that is what "iti" means. Not "thus it happened" saying it is referring to a story that is going to come, it is referring back to something that has already been said. That is what "iti" means in our languages.

So how can "thus it verily happened" in a story, normal oral story telling, you say it and start telling a story. So one speaks as though "iti" refers to the story that has to come yet. No, it cannot. It can only refer back to something that has already been said, what has been said before Ramayana, what has been said before Mahabharata. What is the background text or message that Itihaasa is referring back to? I have a hypothesis, the only explanation that I can give. It refers back to Adhyatma.

Ramayana and Mahabharata are illustrations of Adhyatmic claims. That is why it is Itihaasa, thus it happened, going back to something about, not salvation because we are not Christians, not even Moksha because that is a vulgarized word anyway, but certain kind of happiness, certain kind of liberation of some type from earthly problems, that is what Adhyatma is all about. Ramayana, Mahabharata illustrate it. Using what? It is a story. What do stories do? Especially Ramayana, Mahabharata, what do they do?

They are disguised as descriptions of the world. They are not descriptions of the world. They talk of a Rama, they talk of a Ayodhya, they talk of a Bhima - maybe those guys existed, maybe they did not. If they did, they function as empirical reference points to understand the story. But they have no other function. Absolutely no other function.

So this Balu can rewrite the meaning of "Iti" and say it refers not to "how it happened" but to some Adhyatma which is behind everything! Puranas which give the history of kings are not some British invention! It is part of our tradition! The archaeo-astronomical references in our texts, are not goat droppings just to make text sound interesting!

So Ramayana, Mahabharata are Itihaasa tradition because they are deeply connected to Adhyatma. Split them apart, you will neither understand Itihaasa nor will you understand Adhyatma which is exactly what has happened to the Indian intellectuals today. They understand neither.

To us, adhyatmic gurus, god-men of India, basically fools, or maybe somebody like Sri Sri Ravishankar, who makes a lot of money; absolute contempt, because we don't understand it, absolute contempt also for Ramayana, Mahabharata for the simple reason either we try to historicize it, like the BJP people are doing, killing the Indian past that way, or the seculars are going, making fools of themselves, which they always do in any case.

Yes delegitimize everybody else, to build one's own unquestionable repute!

"Like the BJP people are doing" - Hmmm!

Isn't it better to say BJP instead of RSS?! BJP is a bunch of politicians, and as such if one talks of "historizing", it sounds a lot less credible if one associate it with a political agenda from a political party! And yes, they "are killing the Indian past that way"! Hear, Hear! According to Balu, Ramayana and Mahabharata are not history, but just for the purpose of Adhyatmic Jñāna, and he is telling that others are "killing the past".

For Balu it seems, India was always a place of fantastically crazy rishis who used to smoke heavy stuff and used to pull out fabulous works of poetry out of their musharrafs, called it by name "Itihas", just to teach their students some Dharma, some Adhyatmic Jñāna. It had nothing to do with history. This is what Balu is trying to say!

But Itihaasa is neither one nor the other. It is not history in the sense of the notion of history has been used. So to understand Ramayana, Mahabharata, you need to understand Adhyatma. To understand Adhyatma you need illustrations and that is what the Ramayana, Mahabharata, Puranas do. It is a story disguised as a description of the world.

Why stories? you ask. I can't go into that now, but stories are the most excellent units of learning in a culture like India. Stories is how we learn. That is why we don't have ethical tracts, we don't have moral theories, which is what West has, from here to the moon and back, so many thick books and more on moral philosophy, we don't have. We don't have them because our morality is taught to us through stories and that is why there are no moral rules in India, or in Asia anywhere for that matter, which is why the West called us immoral people. Because they discovered no moral rules in Indian society, no ethical commandments.

And here is the half-truth. This part is completely true, but it is emphasizing one aspect in order to delegitimize the other - the historicity.

The way I see it, and it is becoming ever more clearer, this is part of the Hinduist Agenda, of creating a Hinduism, which is separate from Bharatiya Rāṣṭra, which sees it as ahistorical, where Itihas is only to give Adhyatmic Jñāna and not to underline the sacredness of the land and its history!

It was Prof Jakob who related a psychological expeiment conducted by Balu on his European colleagues.

He found an 18th century French paper that classified french people into "castes" ie aristocrats, rulers, workmen and serfs/slaves. He changed all the words like Aristocrat, ruler etc into "Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra" and gave that changed paper to his European colleagues who were all very impressed by the way teh 18th century French had such a good insight into Hinduism's terrible caste system.

A Professor Jakob from Belgium is now building up Prof. S.N.Balagangadhara's credentials as a fighter for "Hinduism" for he promises to cleanse "Hinduism" of its caste-association!

Yes indeed, they see Hindutva rising and they fear it terribly, and it looks like they are now shitting their pants red! So some University in Belgium sends three professors who can gladden the minds of "Hindu chauvinists" and promise them a cleansed "Hinduism" based on Dharma and everything, totally unlike how the West has painted "Hinduism" till date if onlee if onleee and pleeej pleeej, Hinduism lets go Bharatiya Rāṣṭra. Then everybody would become Hindu if Hindus wants so! Damn Christianity, We Europeans are willing to take Hinduism as our own, but for that Dharma has to leave this land full of "masses of black heathendom". We Europeans are hungry for some good old Dharma, and we will even take Ramayana and Mahabharata and all other goodies too with us, but we don't like the Church of all this "Hinduism" to lie in India. Look the British Prime Minister David Cameron is even busy launching the "Encyclopedia of Hinduism". May be London can become the seat of Archbishop of Glorious Church of Hinduism! But pleeej, don't historize such a beautiful thing as "Hinduism" or Dharma, whatever you want to call it!

I bet there would be a lot more Indians from the West coming to India, saying how West screwed up Hinduism and how Hinduism is a wonderful gift of the Divine for the whole of humanity and these nasty Hindu Nationalists are spoiling our whole meal, so how are we going to digest this Dharma?

Come on! How much more clear must this agenda become, for Hindus to understand!

[RajeshA]

So what is the talk of राष्ट्र-सेवा के धर्म? Why deny it?

Shivaji is hoping against all hope that the rajputs who were subservient to Mughals somehow kindle राष्ट्र-सेवा के धर्म in them. It did not help. So by and large there was no राष्ट्र-सेवा के धर्म.

Kind of thought you were coming from there!

So if it wasn't then, then probably it isn't even now, this राष्ट्र-सेवा का धर्म! No? It is not our Dharma to protect our land! Because according to you, Dharma is religion, and religion is just some पूजा-पाठ!

So this is what one gets - a whole lot of juvenile nonsense - when one starts pushing Āryatva Sanskriti into your tailor-cut "Hinduism" Religion! Whole concept of Dharma gets skewed!

[shiv]

As I read the transcript of Professor S.N.Balagangadhara, what I see is the most vilest of agendas, something that makes me angry!
<snip>
The way I see it, and it is becoming ever more clearer, this is part of the Hinduist Agenda, of creating a Hinduism, which is separate from Bharatiya Rāṣṭra, which sees it as ahistorical, where Itihas is only to give Adhyatmic Jñāna and not to underline the sacredness of the land and its history!

Rajesh that is an interesting take.

If you have the patience to listen to the same video (whose transcript you have quoted) from the point I have linked below - and it goes on for over 20 minutes, we have an Indian historian (who defends Romila Thapar) rip apart Balu's views in a completely different way and trashes them, saying that their way of viewing history is "scientific" and Balu's is rubbish.

Do you agree or disagree with him?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... wRw#t=2083

The key point of contention is that the (leftist?) historian says that the methods of history thr west and they use are scientific - so if they say something is not history, you have to believe them

Balu has said that this view is rubbish. Western sense of "history" has come from the way events of Christendom are recorded "scientifically" as history, and anything that does not follow this format is declared as "not history".

To that extent Balu's argument coincides with yours (I think) - in that western criticisms of Indian texts as not being history are false.

but balu says in his lecture that his link with adhyatma is his hypothesis. You have not listened to the lecture so to that extent you have been unfair in the same way that Salman Rushdie's book was banned. Banned without reading/cursed without listening. It is a hypothesis. He has not claimed "truth"

He says that for Indians the message need not be exact history as "in 1500 BC X went from Mithila to Ayodhya". The story need not be exact, but the meaning it carries to the people is important. You seem to have disagreed with this and feels that he is dissing Indian history.

The Belgian university has been set up by this man himself - he is the boss. European scholars hate him. Indian historian don't like him. You have had a rant too. I put it to you that you are misinformed. I have met him and while I don't agree with all his views I think you are wrong about his intentions and are scoring a massive self goal on flimsy and ill informed grounds without any real idea of what he is doing - basing your views on a few words he has said here and there. You are discarding the baby with the bathwater.

What is your exact angst?

[Comer]

RajeshA, thanks for quoting the above paragraphs. Actually I like what the Prof. is trying to say. He doesn't preclude them from existing at all. The point is it doesn't matter one bit. If we consider Rama and Krishna are a reference point and not actual people how much does it take it away from the system? If Dharma is a concept and not dogma, why there is a need to tie down to something concrete? The counter question is if everything is ethereal, what is there to fight for, except near and dear.
On a minor side note, the effect of certain substances to open up the reality/mind cannot be discounted or trivialised.
And why is there a need to tie down Hinduism to a geography?

[govardhanks]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... _India.jpg

Now got the exact picture of main gopuram of Hampi temple is seen , see the lower end of outwards, you might notice a obscene (well according to peter sab) women along with two more, doing something obscene...

Now please peter sab, pray tell me how can one cover that statue craved there??

How can priest come out and show you ??

Accept the truth and come out of false allegations.. do not run some propaganda ..

[RajeshA]

As I read the transcript of Professor S.N.Balagangadhara, what I see is the most vilest of agendas, something that makes me angry!
<snip>
The way I see it, and it is becoming ever more clearer, this is part of the Hinduist Agenda, of creating a Hinduism, which is separate from Bharatiya Rāṣṭra, which sees it as ahistorical, where Itihas is only to give Adhyatmic Jñāna and not to underline the sacredness of the land and its history!

Rajesh that is an interesting take.

If you have the patience to listen to the same video (whose transcript you have quoted) from the point I have linked below - and it goes on for over 20 minutes, we have an Indian historian (who defends Romila Thapar) rip apart Balu's views in a completely different way and trashes them, saying that their way of viewing history is "scientific" and Balu's is rubbish.

Do you agree or disagree with him?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... wRw#t=2083

shiv saar,

for a moment let's forget this case.

Let's look at another. There may be some differing views on this as well, but some postulate that it was the Britishers who put Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi as the Mahatma as the top leader of Congress and in a matter of speaking imposed on us a leader they flew down from somewhere (South Africa). Then there was a tussle between INC and ML, and the British midwifed the birth of Republic of India and Pakistan.

I guess many Hindus were impressed by this fixed match and liked Mahatma or even Nehru take on Jinnah, or they liked Gandhi and Nehru for going to prison to give India independence, they liked Gandhi standing up to the British and telling them how it is going to be, they liked Gandhi because he wore just a shawl and showed that he was one of us!

So this formula is not new, where outsiders determine who the contestants are going to be and we start rooting for a party, who gives enough signals that he is one of us and who is attacked by someone we absolutely detest! And so we start rooting for "our" man!

Gandhi was flown in to sideline the Garam-Dal, later he also helped sideline SC Bose!

Now obviously there are movements which are bringing forth a reawakening of the Hindu, and the question is how to give leadership to these ideas, to this movement, such these new leaders ensure that the movement does not roll over into a territory where it can prove dangerous to Western Universalism or to Western interests! They would want to keep some control.

They would want to use the old establishment to give legitimacy to the new desired leadership by "attacking" it. That is why Marxists, Romila Thapars and her acolytes, are seen attacking Balu.

Now listening to what this Marxist chap had to say and reading earlier what Balu has written, this is my working premise in this case. I can be wrong, but watching what is before me, that is what I feel to be the case.

The key point of contention is that the (leftist?) historian says that the methods of history thr west and they use are scientific - so if they say something is not history, you have to believe them

Balu has said that this view is rubbish. Western sense of "history" has come from the way events of Christendom are recorded "scientifically" as history, and anything that does not follow this format is declared as "not history".

Balu does acknowledge a point which is central to the current Hindutva upsurge and thinking, that the West has downplayed the veracity, rejected the legitimacy of our history. I mean, anybody who wants to have a piece of the cake of Hindu upsurge would have to admit this thing.

But Balu goes to make a totally different point then! He says:

1. British thought Indians were bad recorders of history, but even they thought there was some disguised history even there
2. "Truth" is that history recording was not our focus at all, it was Adhyatma
3. Even if we wrote down some history, that is totally irrelevant, because the function of doing even that was Adhyatma
4. Our whole Itihas is only a bunch of Adhyatma education texts, nothing there matters for its historicity

To that extent Balu's argument coincides with yours (I think) - in that western criticisms of Indian texts as not being history are false.

but balu says in his lecture that his link with adhyatma is his hypothesis. You have not listened to the lecture so to that extent you have been unfair in the same way that Salman Rushdie's book was banned. Banned without reading/cursed without listening. It is a hypothesis. He has not claimed "truth"

He says that for Indians the message need not be exact history as "in 1500 BC X went from Mithila to Ayodhya". The story need not be exact, but the meaning it carries to the people is important. You seem to have disagreed with this and feels that he is dissing Indian history.

Balu is glorifying the importance of one pillar of our Itihas - Dharmic message, and at the same time bringing the other to collapse - the embodied History!

It can be that at the time Ramayana and Mahabharata were written, there was certain type of time-keeping, and the events are described based on that, but when the Time-Keeping in Yugas was practically lost, then it becomes difficult to put a time on them. Nilesh Oak ji has been able to extract hundreds of time related references from these texts, and to put a date on them in reference to current calendar.

Just because dates are not presented in a format to the satisfaction of European historians, does not mean that time-keeping is absent in our Itihas. And yes to the those interested in Adhyatmic Jñāna, these dates are not important and that is okay.

But Balu is making an additional claim.

And that is the same as the Europeans made - that Indians had no sense of history and did no time-keeping, and they found it irrelevant!

I mean what kind of data do they want, according to Nilesh's estimations, Mahabharata War started on 16. October, 5561 BCE, and Sri Rama was born on Nov 29, 12240 BCE. These are ages ago, when the European women still used to have Neanderthal boyfriends.

The Belgian university has been set up by this man himself - he is the boss. European scholars hate him. Indian historian don't like him.

If Sonia were to appoint Priyanka today as INC President, I suppose, Rahul Baba too may not like to be sidelined! Just saying!

On the other hand, all this hate towards him can just be to bolster his credentials with "right-wing" Hindus.

You have had a rant too. I put it to you that you are misinformed. I have met him and while I don't agree with all his views I think you are wrong about his intentions and are scoring a massive self goal on flimsy and ill informed grounds without any real idea of what he is doing - basing your views on a few words he has said here and there. You are discarding the baby with the bathwater.

What is your exact angst?

I have already expressed my angst in previous post! Balu has not said anything which shows the land as sacred, which can only happen if what is said in Itihas is considered as Satya, and historical. Exact dates though I accept are not that important.

But it has to be History! What Balu says is

They talk of a Rama, they talk of a Ayodhya, they talk of a Bhima - maybe those guys existed, maybe they did not.

Balu is even questioning the meaning of "Iti" and saying it has nothing to do with the original meaning "thus it happened"!

What more do I need to understand, to know that that is crap and not good!

[A_Gupta]

My (poor) attempt at a youtube.

A_Gupta,

Thanks for the link... it was interesting to hear...
Can you provide some context for the person who provided what I suspect was a rebuttal?
While I understood some points of his, it was hard to get what he found shallow?
Also what was the website where questions and answers would still be published?

http://articles.economictimes.indiatime ... l-research

ICHR website.

[member_20317]

A Professor Jakob from Belgium is now building up Prof. S.N.Balagangadhara's credentials as a fighter for "Hinduism" for he promises to cleanse "Hinduism" of its caste-association!

I too had suspected a need for front-running the Indian understanding of dharma/Hinduism/Sanatan et al. And really, a field that is irrigated by the organic but informal concepts of dakshina and upkaaryas and kaar-sevas becomes difficult to impart from inside formal universities. You can learn agricultural sciences in universities but how do you make a large number of farmers in a university so the rest of the world can benefit. For this to be truly fruitful we will have to accept some losses in terms of interpretational dead ends too. At the same time the other side has to recognize that the farmer came before the agricultural department of the university and is not dependent on the university.

I am yet to read/watch the Prof. and because of that and even more importantly because Prof. is an ex-Indian and probably even a practicing Hindu, I believe we should try to make the effort to reconcile our own views with his. Probably there is a real need to demystify Dharma. Though how it is to be achieved, beats me. Things are easier for us because that is part and parcel of our existence but even the insiders have been sufficiently warned about falling for the disguised adharma, implying that an insiders life is also not exactly a bed of roses. To a man who is an outsider to the traditions there will remain some need to not feel threatened by Dharma et al. It makes sense to let people interpret our understandings whether from outside or inside. Just that we have to make up our minds based on our own journey devoid of any vicarious existence.

........................

Re. you your exchanges with peter ji, probably again you need to give concessions. Also the same for peter ji. After all peter ji did give exceptions and context to his stand. A lot of Indians kings and subjects in various times, have taken up this stand. This however does not mean that those who consider Deshseva as Dharm do not exist or did not exist. In fact the survival of India is on account of the people of the later kind and the people of the former kind still do exist.

I deliberately did not write anything on your hindi extract because every hindu king of medieval India पूजा-पाठ को ही धर्म मानते थे !

........................

Or did I speak too early

[RajeshA]

Actually I like what the Prof. is trying to say. He doesn't preclude them from existing at all.

Well that is definitely a concession over the Marxists!

The point is it doesn't matter one bit. If we consider Rama and Krishna are a reference point and not actual people how much does it take it away from the system? If Dharma is a concept and not dogma, why there is a need to tie down to something concrete?

This is revisionist thinking, especially by those who are invested in this only theoretically! In this thinking, one doesn't care about the mango tree, one just cares about eating mangoes.

Itihas - Ramayana, Mahabharata, the Puranas don't consider themselves fiction.

The counter question is if everything is ethereal, what is there to fight for, except near and dear.
On a minor side note, the effect of certain substances to open up the reality/mind cannot be discounted or trivialised.
And why is there a need to tie down Hinduism to a geography?

Our texts do not recognize "Hinduism"! Anybody can take it anywhere, if this bird really exists!

Aryatva Sanskriti is open for the whole world. In fact it is our Dharma to spread it: "Krivanto Vishwam Aryam"!

However "Hindu" term should remain with Hindutva!

[A_Gupta]

Here is the talk:
https://www.academia.edu/9462514/What_D ... s_I_and_II

[Abhibhushan]

In this thread many posters have tried to encapsulate their perceptions of being what we are. Such encapsulations have been attempted also in the past. I submit this beautiful attempt by Rabindranath Tagore for you. If some one could put the text in Devanagari, it cloud be appreciated by a larger audience

http://youtu.be/5uYYvTnDL_8

[A_Gupta]

“The evil spirits will flee far away at mere sight of the yantra…
In the best temples dedicated to Sakti and to Rudra, this yantra must certainly be placed.
Then the monument will stand unmoved forever… this yantra is utterly secret, it should not be shown to everyone.
For this reason, a love-scene had to be carved on the lines of this yantra… the kamabandha is placed there to give delight to people”

Silpa Prakasa 2.535, 538-9

Describes Tantric temples, not all temples.

[A_Gupta]

Now there are many ways to think of our Itihas, and there are indeed stories there which can only be understood as message or part of the web to weave everything together, but there is most definitely History in our Itihas.

If our Puranas make an effort to write the whole lineage of Raghuvansh before and after Sri Rama, or place Mahabharata's kings in the lineage of kings of Bharat running till when they were deposed by Islamic invaders, then it is not an exercise of ahistoric thinking.

Yes some Hindus interested in selfish Mokshik benefits of Sanatan Dharma may not be much interested in the Historicity of our scriptures, but there are others who see it as their Dharma to preserve this Itihas.

If history merely means some kind of story about the past, then there is no issue. But history is a discipline with a methodology and a purpose. What is the difference in philosophy and purpose between a Purana and say, the works of R.C. Majumdar? Do you understand that?

Yes, Dharma is to preserve Itihaasa, but there is no Dharma to preserve History -- or else you have to also assert that Hindus were quite incompetent at history, Hindus by and large have not put in the effort to preserve history.

Puranas are not myth (stories including stuff about the supernatural. In fact I would argue that natural and supernatural are not Hindu categories. http://arunsmusings.blogspot.com/2013/0 ... tural.html ).

Puranas are not legend (unauthenticated histories).

Puranas are not histories.

When you ask what Puranas are, along with the supposition that ancient Hindus were not superstitious idiots and were perfectly capable of preserving history if they wanted to, then Balu's answer is one of the few that makes sense.

PS: Puranas are not like the modern made-up stories of Superman and Batman.

PPS: Ultimately it is by understanding the root philosophy behind Itihaasa that one can answer the charge that Puranas are fabulous stories concocted by wily Brahmins to keep the public in thrall to them.

[RajeshA]

I see Bharatiyas as the preserver of the most ancient stories of mankind and "superhumans"!

These stories took place in an environment where people watched happenings through the prism of Dharma, and all those stories where Dharma vanquished Adharma over the short period or long period were preserved for posterity. So the way I understand is that Itihas is all that happened.

Now the story and the message are interwoven throughout and the interpretation of these stories may not be easy, nor one need exclude the use of exaggerations and embellishments, but what should be beyond doubt is that the story is based on a real happening, or what people at the time considered to be a real happening. That is the Satya aspect of it. Sometimes one doesn't know whether the references are to philosophical constants, real persons, tribes, astronomical happenings, mathematical equations, spiritual experience, or something else. However one knows, that whatever the interpretations, it happened.

Now I hear often that Indians did not know how to write history. Kalhana's Rajatarangini is definitely history as one would recognize it. And I am sure there is much more of same high quality. In fact Puranas themselves have Kings' Lists.

However Ramayana, Mahabharata and parts of Puranas are of a period lying very much in the far past, and at that time the Sakas we used later were not yet used. So I don't think we should be demanding of such ancient texts to fulfill the requirements of modern history writing.

Of course such expectations can be raised for later works and compilations.

[shiv]

• Even if we wrote down some history, that is totally irrelevant, because the function of doing even that was Adhyatma
• Our whole Itihas is only a bunch of Adhyatma education texts, nothing there matters for its historicity

<snip>
Balu is glorifying the importance of one pillar of our Itihas - Dharmic message, and at the same time bringing the other to collapse - the embodied History!

No. Actually you have misunderstood.

There are 4 possibilities here (using my words)

1. itihaas is pure and accurate account of history in the western sense - this is what balu alleges that some Hindutva people are saying
2. itihaas is adhyatma only, no real history at all - This is what you think that Balu is saying
3. itihaas is pure fiction - this is what western historians are saying
3. itihaas combines real events with adhyatma - this is what Balu is saying (if you listen to the talk). he says If you remove adhyatma from itihass you get GIGO and if you consider itihaas as pure fiction - that is also GIGO. Itihass is, according to Balu a combination of adhyatma and history telling. A story that happened is told with lessons to be learned. It may or may not be possible to verify every single detail, but dismissing the whole as false and fiction because some details cannot be verified (Like monkey God Hanuman sat on rolled up tail and it was higher than throne of Ravana) is also wrong.

That is what Balu is saying

You don't need to agree, but at least you can disagree with what he is really saying rather than what you imagine he is saying.

[johneeG]

RajeshA saar,
that post on Balu was excellent. I have been trying to point out that both Balu and his opponents views are taken from the west and both are essentially anti-Hindhu.

In this thread also, the same scenario is seen. The seemingly opposite views are both borrowed from west:
a) Aryan Invasion Theory: Peter seems to be using this as the basis of his arguments.
b) Bhaarath has no history, Hindhuism is not a religion ...etc: Balu seems to propound this view.

It seems that many times, many intellectuals and scholars are influenced very deeply by the west and are unable to shake off these influences. The problem arises at a very fundamental basic level. If the basic definitions provided by the west are accepted without protest, then further thought process will get corrupted by the western influences.

So, any process of intellectual pursuit has to first start at the basic level. Western definitions, interpretations, opinion, ...etc have to be ignored.

For example, it seems that even Rajiv Malhotra says that Hindhuism is not a religion. The problem again is that Rajiv Malhotra is starting off by accepting the western abrahamic definition of religion. Then, obviously, he'll come to conclusion that Hindhuism is not a religion.

Anyway, coming back to the topic of Balu and his opponents:

When the westerners came across Bhaarath, they were in awe of Bhaarath. But, once they conquered Bhaarath, they had to create a new narrative. From X-ist perspective, the new narrative was required to undermine Hindhuism.

So, the first reaction was to deny that Hindhuism was a religion, to deny that Bhaarath was a country, to deny that Bhaarath had history.

This reaction seems like a first reaction. The second reaction was to claim that Bhaarath had a history and that history begins with foreigners(European Aryans) invading Bhaarath.

So, there were two types of western narratives:
a) Those who deny Bhaarath's civilization, culture, history, religion, ...etc.
b) Those who pushed for Aryan Invasion theory. This is an attempt to digest the Bhaarath's civilization, culture, history, religion, ...etc.

Any fight between these two narratives is quite irrelevant from Hindhu and Bhaarath's point of view because both are anti-Hindhu and anti-Bhaarath.

[shiv]

Rajesh, what is your reaction to this statement from balu

is it totally false?

So in that sense, today, the challenge to Indian historians is to begin to understand much more differently ...the role of texts, if you want to call them texts, Ramayana, Mahabharata, Puranas, not to do what Sangh Parivar is doing, that is to transform them into historical figures. If you do that, just think of it, we're already experiencing it. Suddenly the Dalits will stand up and say, Vaanaras were the name of a tribe, basically Dalits of those days and they were called Vaanaras because the Brahmins did not respect the Dalits. Rakshasas, they were the Dravidians....Krishna was some upstart in a place called Mathura.

In Karnataka, Valmiki jayanti is now a restricted holiday in the state. Valmiki is now a real historic figure like historians of the west like it and some tribes trace their ancestry to him. Ramayana was written in 500 BC or later.
http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary. ... ki+Jayanti

Valmiki Jayanti
September-October; full moon day of the Hindu month of Asvina
This festival celebrates the birthday of the poet Valmiki, whom Hindus believe to be the author of the epic poem Ramayana . A contemporary of Rama, the hero of the Ramayana, Valmiki himself is represented as taking part in some of the scenes he relates. No one knows for certain when the poem was written; estimates range from 500 to 300 b.c.e., with portions added between 300 b.c.e. and 200 c.e.
On Valmiki's birthday, people make processions and carry his portrait through the main streets of towns and villages. Members of the disadvantaged Indian classes pay particular homage to Valmiki, from whom they claim they are descended.

Here is the entire story of Valmiki.
https://www.facebook.com/allindiavalmik ... 6292121238

Which tribe etc. It says Valimiki was a Dravidian and sage Narada was an Aryan, which is why Valmiki attacked Narada. So we now have history written exactly as "history" should be written Balu does not seem to like this. He does not believe that the caste, tribe and direct descendants and bloodline of people like Rama, Lakshman, Bharat, Valmiki etc can be pinned down like Western historians want. You seem unhappy with that view, and it is your view that is gaining ground because proud Hindus are writing history "scientifically" just like the western historians will like it, and just like Indians increasingly want as WU takes hold of us.

[RajeshA]

There are 4 possibilities here (using my words)

1. itihaas is pure and accurate account of history in the western sense - this is what balu alleges that some Hindutva people are saying

2. itihaas is adhyatma only, no real history at all - This is what you think that Balu is saying

3. itihaas is pure fiction - this is what western historians are saying

4. itihaas combines real events with adhyatma - this is what Balu is saying (if you listen to the talk). he says If you remove adhyatma from itihass you get GIGO and if you consider itihaas as pure fiction - that is also GIGO. Itihass is, according to Balu a combination of adhyatma and history telling. A story that happened is told with lessons to be learned. It may or may not be possible to verify every single detail, but dismissing the whole as false and fiction is also wrong.

That is what Balu is saying

You don't need to agree, but at least you can disagree with what he is really saying rather than what you imagine he is saying.

Actually Balu does not say 3. He admits that the Europeans saw "disguised history" in our Itihas, like they saw in their own mythology! Now how is it that what Balu is saying is different from them? After all even according to him, or so you claim, or so I think you claim, that history is disguised, as Adhyatma. And how is it that even what Hindutvavadis consider Itihas would be different from "disguised history"?

Also how is it that "If you remove adhyatma from itihass you get GIGO"? I know there are lessons to be learned there, but why is the rest GIGO? It is up to you or not if you want to learn any Adhyatma lessons from the text. But why does it make the text GIGO if you are not interested in learning any lessons from it?

It would be better, if Balu expresses himself differently if he wishes "not to be misunderstood", e.g. he could say, that people should be careful when reading our Itihas, for at places there can be artistic freedoms and embellishments or there may be concepts which cannot be clearly understood in this age, however going around and casting aspersions on the "Iti" of Itihas, and thus their historicity, or deliberately questioning the existence of Rama, and Ayodhya and Bhima is just asking for retorts.

[shiv]

b) Bhaarath has no history,: Balu seems to propound this view.

JohneeG ji - this is nonsense. He does not say that. You have not actually read any of his works or seen his videos. You don;t have to agree with him - but why look foolish by disagreeing with something that he does not say?

Why are people doing this? One guys says "read Rig veda again"

Seriously READ Rig veda?

And others say "Balu says this and that" with no clue or no effort to understand what he is saying.

It would be far more sensible to say " I cannot agree because I do not understand" . But here I see "I have not read. I don't care. I disagree"

There is zero difference between this and the belief system of Islam and Christianity