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

[ShauryaT]

ShauryaT ji, based on the write up you attach, would it be wrong to say that the non-religion spiritual Hinduism can get a lot of people to accept its premise worldwide
(exhibit - it got to proselytize even among the Egyptians in ancient times and a lot of the contemporary western world accepts the Hindu practices like Yoga oblivious of the fact that it is claimed under the religious Hinduism).
But then a bunch of determined Islamists can easily roll the party up.

Since Hindus have suffered under Brits and EJs too so I guess there should be no difficulty for them either, to wind up the spiritual Hinduism.

Now problem then becomes even more complex for me. Now I would need to understand why both Hindus and Abrahmics then claim that Hindus are a separate religion. I can understand your proposition getting applied to Hindus that they do not have a religion quotient and are only hoodwinked by western universalists into believing that they are a religion. But how can the Abrahmics and Seculars be convinced about this as a fact - that Hindus should not be hated/feared because they are not a religion. Should be presume that they do not understand this because they too are mislead into believing that. I hope we can use the word belief because if its merely a clash of opinions then any and all sides should be amenable to change of opinions. There being no point in losing lives for an opinion poll.

The point of the writeup was the constant attempt to define our society, in the image of how the west saw their society. They would ask questions like, Who are you? hmmmm Hindus? what is your religion....hmmmm Hinduism? Where is your one Bible? Bhagwad Gita? Who is your one God? Brahman/Narayan? What are your classes in society.....hmmme Varna/Jati.....too confusing...these are castes they said.

Imagine counter questions from a Hindu from the land and presuming the same way of life for other societies, as this Hindu is used to. Who is your Ishta Devtaa? What is your Jati? What is your Varna? What is your Gotra? Who is your Guru/Panth? What do you consider to be your Brahma lok, Dev lok, Patal lok or planes of existence? What are your Ashramas? so on and on and voila, we trying to force fit their society based on our way of life! As Shiv ji said, we are different.

How do you convince them. There is no magic wand. I think the best answer really is to become a practitioner first and as JEM observed gain confidence in your own methods and ways and over time, you will find answers on how to convince others around you. I can write half a dozen points on what needs to be done, IMO but this practice of Dharma and its tenets have to be internalized first and then contrasted and finally propagated.

Added: Also, do not fall for this religion/spirituality divide. Our entire way of life has a spiritual angle to it. One cannot divide these into parts. Similarly, one cannot say, this part of dharma is religious and this is not. This is what has led the religious/secular divide, which is again a western society solution thrusted on India. The biggest victim of this divide has been our way of life and a loss to the ethos of Sanatan Dharma. The very word religion is poison from our stand point for all it has done is divided our society and the world. It does not mean we are not "religious", au contraire, but we do not have a religion! How can religious people not have a religion? Welcome to Dharma!

[RajeshA]

Cross-posted from "The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition" Thread

Responding to

Hinduism – At a Loss for Words!

The number of times it is claimed that Hinduism does not have a name for something is nothing less than striking.

Let us begin with the claim that Hinduism does not have a word for itself. A. L. Basham writes:

There are probably over 300 million Hindus in the world, most of them in India, but also many in other parts of Asia, and in Africa and the West Indies. Though they form one of the largest and most important groups of the world, their faith is indefinable in a few words. It is possible to define the Christian or Muslim as the man who attempts to follow what he believes to be the teachings of Christ or Muhammad respectively, but Hinduism had no such single founder. Some modern sociologists have defined Christians and Muslims as those who consider themselves as such, but a similar definition cannot be applied to Hindus, for probably most of them have never even heard the word Hindu, and have no name for their religion. It was once said that anyone might be considered a Hindu who respected the Brāhman and his cow, and maintained the rules of caste, but his definition would exclude many of the most earnest of modern Hindus, as well as a number of unorthodox Hindu groups of earlier times. We can perhaps best briefly describe a Hindu as a man who chiefly bases his beliefs and way of life on the complex system of faith and practice which has grown up organically in the Indian sub-continent over a period of at least three millennia.

One is in vain search of a religion, but that is not the architecture of our system.

We have a word for our system: it is Āryatva. It is not a Religion. It is a Civilization (Āryatva Sabhyata). It is a Culture (Āryatva Sanskriti). It is a Geography (Āryāvarta).

This itself is not bound to our civilization-nation (Bhāratīya Rāṣṭra).

Then comes the claim that the Hindu does not have a word for religion:

In classical India – again if we exclude personal religion, or religiousness, there is no word for our concept. In the threefold trivarga of mundane life, the realm of human behavior is classified into those actions that one does for the sheer enjoyment of them (kāma), those that are means to some end (artha), and those that are duties (dharma). The last of these, dharma, ranging in its reference from propriety to public law, from temple ritual to caste obligations, and much more, has on occasion been proffered by moderns as a term signifying systematic religion for Hindus. It does include a good deal of what the modern Western student regards so, as normative ideals and as sociological pattern; though it includes also a certain amount of matter that falls outside such a concept.[ii]

Problem is not that one cannot find an appropriate word for religion in Indic language. Problem has always been that one has not been able to differentiate between own system and that proposed by the others. If one knows what Religion is, and this is my feature list for Religion, then it becomes easy to find some word for it.

So here is a proposal: Religion == Dēva-Dūta-Dāsatva (देव-दूत-दासत्व)

It is of course a different matter, that the Dēva may indeed not be one.

Next comes the claim that Hinduism does not have a word for caste:

The Hindus have not any name for the caste institution, which seems to them part of the order of nature. It is almost impossible for a Hindu to regard himself otherwise than as a member of some particular caste, or species of Hindu mankind. Everybody else who disregards Hindu dharma is an ‘outer barbarian’ (mlechchha) no matter how exalted his worldly rank or how vast his wealth may be. The proper Sanskrit and vernacular term for ‘a caste’ is jāti (jāt), ‘species’, although, as noted above, the members of a jāti are not necessarily descended from a common ancestor. Indeed, as a matter of fact, they are rarely, if ever, so descended. Their special caste rules make their community in effect a distinct species, whoever their ancestors may have been. [iii]

Perhaps one can agree that Caste or rather Casta is something sanctioned by the Catholic Church, especially through their Iberian Monarchies, which perhaps they too inherited from the Muslims in Spain.

It has nothing to do with India. So there is no need to go looking for something in India, that is not there.

Finally we learn that Hinduism does not have a word for ‘conversion.’

The diffusion of Vaiṣṇavite and Śaivite ideas outside India is enough to show that Hinduism, too, was a missionary religion; at a very early date a Hinduist movement took root in the Hellenistic world and penetrated as far as Egypt. The decline of Hinduism after the Moselm period must not be allowed to obscure this fact. The old lawgivers say that to be a Hindu, or, more exactly, to belong to one of the three Āryan classes, means to have been born in a certain area of Hindustan, the Āryāvarta (or homeland of a the Āryas); but this assertion need not be taken literally. Hinduism long ago advanced beyond the limits assigned to it by the laws of Manu, by means of conquest or peaceful absorption, by marriage, and by adoption. Hinduism has not a word to express the process of conversion so frequently referred to in Buddhist and Jaina apologetics, books written by the converted for those to be converted; but passages can be cited from the Mahabharata which show that people of low caste, enemies and foreigners who were received into the Hindu fold. Many people wanted to raise their status and to be admitted to the Ārya society; others fell away from it through marriage outside its ranks and by transgressions and misfortunes. A passage of Patañjali attests that the Śakas and the Yavanas could perform sacrifices and accept food from an Ārya without contaminating it. The fact is that Hinduism is a way of life, a mode of thought, that becomes second nature. It is not so much its practices that are important, for they can be dispensed with; not is it the Church, since it has no priesthood, or at least no sacerdotal hierarchy. The important thing is to accept certain fundamental conceptions, to acknowledge a certain ‘spirituality’, a term much abused in current parlance. For many Hindus it would be quite legitimate to take Jesus as iṣṭadevatā, without even regarding him as an avatāra, so long as Indian tradition were acknowledged.[iv]

If we couple this with the fact that those who take to Hinduism in the West do not to admit to doing so, we have the spectacle of countless unacknowledging people converting people anonymously though a nameless process, to a religion which does not even have a name.

The reason one doesn't find "conversion" in "Hinduism" as such is that because one is looking for an "conversion" which does not exist in a religion "Hinduism" which does not exist. "Conversion" means an oath of allegiance to the supposed representatives of the supposed emissary of a supposed God. There is no such thing to find. If "Hinduism" were a Religion, we probably would have had it, but we are not one, so we don't have it.

Indeed we have a different mission - not to sway others to pledge their allegiance to some system offered by us, but rather to go out and teach people how to be noble.

That mission is called "Krivanto Vishwam Aryam".

[RajeshA]

Sorry for me butting in!

would it be wrong to say that the non-religion spiritual Hinduism can get a lot of people to accept its premise worldwide
(exhibit - it got to proselytize even among the Egyptians in ancient times and a lot of the contemporary western world accepts the Hindu practices like Yoga oblivious of the fact that it is claimed under the religious Hinduism).

For a second, let's try to think outside the category of "Hinduism", "Hinduism is a Religion".

Even the use of 'Sanātana Dharma' can be misleading because it is often used instead of "Hinduism", but otherwise everything else is kept the same, i.e. one retains the architecture of Religion.

The main thing about our system is not the "religiosity", "piety", "ritualism" or "spirituality". The main thing is ethics. Whatever one has which one considers as part of 'Sanātana Dharma', be it the Vedas, Samhitas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas, Upanishadas, Puranas, Itihas, Dharmaśāstras, etc. all have only one purpose - the exposition of Dharma, the Ārya System of Meta-Ethics.

Every thing else is a by-product including spiritualism.

So when we expound "Krivanto Vishwam Aryam", our primary goal is to bring to others Dharma, but that requires a complete Sanskriti as syllabus.

But then a bunch of determined Islamists can easily roll the party up.

Since Hindus have suffered under Brits and EJs too so I guess there should be no difficulty for them either, to wind up the spiritual Hinduism.

Now problem then becomes even more complex for me. Now I would need to understand why both Hindus and Abrahmics then claim that Hindus are a separate religion. I can understand your proposition getting applied to Hindus that they do not have a religion quotient and are only hoodwinked by western universalists into believing that they are a religion. But how can the Abrahmics and Seculars be convinced about this as a fact - that Hindus should not be hated/feared because they are not a religion. Should be presume that they do not understand this because they too are mislead into believing that. I hope we can use the word belief because if its merely a clash of opinions then any and all sides should be amenable to change of opinions. There being no point in losing lives for an opinion poll.

Other Religion is not the main enemy of some Religion like Christianity or Islam, and in fact one sees them cooperating. Their main enemy is a different system of thinking which makes them redundant, unable to exert political sway over others, unable to herd their flock according to their whims.

That is what Dharma does. Anybody steeped in Dharma (and I don't mean by that either piety, religiosity, ritualism or spirituality) would just show them the middle-finger.

The issue is not to win their approval by rejecting the label "religion" for Hinduism, but rather to challenge them to a serious debate on Dharma vs Religion.

1) Hindus are merely colonized into believing that they are a religion. Because Abrahmics claimed Hindus constitute a religion and kicked us around on the basis of that belief and as a reaction we Hindus ended up taking up a defensive position and ended up as a religion too, probably losing our essential spiritualism in the process.

Basically correct, but spiritualism is all a distraction about what we represent as a Civilization. It is a major part but not the core.

2) Hinduism is essentially a spiritual experience implying that a political party should not claim to be representing the interests of Hindus as a religious group. Furthermore Hindus should not ideally be voting on the basis of such a proposition. Spiritual people should ideally take up resolution of their differences in formal mechanisms like courts, university departments and especially through ballot in favour of good candidates and not a suitable party. No place for any militarism except in the form of statutorily regulated facilities like NCC again ideally in mixed religious groups.

Hinduism is a useless misnomer, and we should get rid of it. The Hindu Identity is not a product of "Hinduism", but a product of spirited resistance to domination of foreign imperialist predatory ideologies and powers over Bharat, i.e. Hindutva.

One cannot get more political than calling oneself Hindu!

The Hindu should avail of each and every avenue to push back the Abrahamist takeover of India.

3) There are mechanisms in place to address the problems of Hindus if at all they are forced into a position where they have grievances that can be understood as having a religious dimension to it.

Biggest grievance of the Hindus is that Bharat is not ruled by Dharma anymore but has been severely compromised by Adharmic forces. Control and management of temples is a secondary issue and far lower down in importance.

4) The spiritualism of Hinduism gets vitiated by taking up a position that brings out Hinduism as a religion.

No. Spiritualism of "Hinduism" is in fact the only thing that gets endorsed, when one uses Hinduism as a Religion, because due to the lack of other organs which usually a Religion has to assert its hard power, "Hinduism" has none, and hence only spiritualism is left, and is the one thing that is often pushed by Westerners, Seculars and Hinduists.

5) Dharma and spiritualism are same and spiritualism is not religion hence Dharma cannot both be religion and spiritualism at the same time as that would amount to a contradiction.

Spiritualism one could refer to perhaps using the word Yoga, or rather a subset of it, consisting of Jnāna Yoga, Bhakti Yoga and Dhyāna Yoga. Yoga is the science of awakening the Ātman. Dharma is more like the ethics of an awakened Ātman.

[shiv]

1) Hindus are merely colonized into believing that they are a religion. Because Abrahmics claimed Hindus constitute a religion and kicked us around on the basis of that belief and as a reaction we Hindus ended up taking up a defensive position and ended up as a religion too, probably losing our essential spiritualism in the process.

I think Hindus (diverse as we are) accepted the name religion as an approximation without understanding the implications of the word. Ultimately, for the British, the codification of "Hindu-ism" as a religion was more concerned with slotting Hinduism into one box so that secular laws could be built around it for the governance of India. What the British did was to simply label some practices as "Hindoo religion" and either outlawed them or made them official, legal "Hindoo religious practices". Sati was therefore a Hindu religious practice. Caste was a Hindu religious practice. Caste itself has no meaning for Indians. It is a foreign word. Again we simply accepted the word.

I think this is where we as Indians have failed in understanding the nuances of "religion". Religion, even today is defined mostly around belief in a superhuman God and the relationship of members of a religion to that God. Now we must ask "Which God told Hindus to have the caste system"? and "Which God asked widows to commit sati?". If God did not mandate that how did caste and sati become "Hindu religious practices"? We have failed in asking these of ourselves as we accept the labels put on us.

For the Christian British the question "Which God did blabla" is itself a laughable characteristic of the Devil. They know only one God and anyone who follows multiple Gods may be a devil worshipper, with each God being a form of the devil. All these devil worshippers were classified under one religion "Hindu-ism", and Hinduism the religion was brought under secular British penal code/civil code.

2) Hinduism is essentially a spiritual experience implying that a political party should not claim to be representing the interests of Hindus as a religious group. Furthermore Hindus should not ideally be voting on the basis of such a proposition. Spiritual people should ideally take up resolution of their differences in formal mechanisms like courts, university departments and especially through ballot in favour of good candidates and not a suitable party. No place for any militarism except in the form of statutorily regulated facilities like NCC again ideally in mixed religious groups.

Despite our (Indian) tendency to view ourselves as "backward" and the west - esp the US as "forward", it helps to see Indians/Hindus as a very old example of freedom and libertarian values. Libertarian values are even more free than the US is. You cannot box in such a people and demand that they should do this or accept that except within the bounds of ethics and morality that those people themselves accept. If they wish to follow one group, that is their prerogative.

Hindus, for all the diversity, developed, a very long time ago, a tendency not to kill just because the other is different. Hindus have their social values and social strata. These were social, not "religious strata, dictated by God and his prophet". Democracy is well suited for this group because democracy allows the freedom of diverse groups to negotiate and exist together - a characteristic that Hindus had long before democracy was invented. This also means that democracy is not a necessary condition for freedom and diversity, but that is a separate issue.

3) There are mechanisms in place to address the problems of Hindus if at all they are forced into a position where they have grievances that can be understood as having a religious dimension to it.

Those "mechanisms" need to be looked at carefully and re assessed. Democracy seems the best way to do it.

4) The spiritualism of Hinduism gets vitiated by taking up a position that brings out Hinduism as a religion.

It does, in many ways. If you walk around in India, you find that Hindus see certain trees and certain natural formations like "snake mounds" (actually anthills where Cobras are thought to live) are worshiped as part of Hindu belief in the omnipresence of God in every atom/cubic micron of the universe. Many Hindus do this, Many don't. Some simply don't believe that the outward ritual is necessary.

The question is: "If a Hindu prays at a snake mound, has it become a place of worship and does the place of worship then come under secular laws that govern licences and freedoms of places of worship? Is such worship a communal act that may irritate a Muslm or Christian neighbour?"

Communal conflict can actually be provoked by placing Hindu spirituality on the plane of religion. Hindus do not have rigid rules that they must pray at every Peepul tree or snake mound. They would keep off if others felt troubled and are willing to negotiate without dogma. By forcing such acts into the box of religion, a communal conflict is being set up. If Hindus really wanted to claim "religious significance" of the land then every square millimeter of India belongs to the Hindu religion. You force Hindus into a religion mold and they can become just as rigid and dogmatic about such issues as other religions. As a people Hindus do not do that. They will if they find it necessary when they are boxed in by idiotic logic.

5) Dharma and spiritualism are same and spiritualism is not religion hence Dharma cannot both be religion and spiritualism at the same time as that would amount to a contradiction.

Dharma is dharma. Not spiritualism. Not religion. Philosophically (Greek/western) in spiritualism, spirit exists distinct from matter. What is the Hindu equivalent of spirit? Unless these things are defined clearly we cannot simply substitute one word for the other in the way we have used words like "religion", "history" "caste" etc loosely without insight.

[member_20317]

Shiv ji looks like towards the end you grew angry with me. But then from where I come disputing facts and arguments only result in personal differences and do not lay a seed of personal enmity. So here goes.

I think Hindus (diverse as we are) accepted the name religion as an approximation without understanding the implications of the word. Ultimately, for the British, the codification of "Hindu-ism" as a religion was more concerned with slotting Hinduism into one box so that secular laws could be built around it for the governance of India. What the British did was to simply label some practices as "Hindoo religion" and either outlawed them or made them official, legal "Hindoo religious practices". Sati was therefore a Hindu religious practice. Caste was a Hindu religious practice. Caste itself has no meaning for Indians. It is a foreign word. Again we simply accepted the word.

I think this is where we as Indians have failed in understanding the nuances of "religion". Religion, even today is defined mostly around belief in a superhuman God and the relationship of members of a religion to that God^1. Now we must ask "Which God told Hindus to have the caste system"? and "Which God asked widows to commit sati?". If God did not mandate that how did caste and sati become "Hindu religious practices"? We have failed in asking these of ourselves as we accept the labels put on us. ^2

Re. ^1 The understanding of religion as merely being a belief in a superhuman God is changing and Abrahmics are making efforts to claim a natural aspect of their religion too mostly by digesting Hindu concepts. It is thus more in line with Hindu traditions IOW they have started the process of digestion. Off course as is typical of them, they still are shifty about admitting to this process but that is only because they think this will give them an advantage. Which may or may not be the case.

But Religion as a concept is itself a product of a Aaskta mind (expectant mind) and to catch such a mind in its own web of lies should, IMO, be the goal for Hindus. Having said that Religion is deeply involved in the matters related to rights/laws. It is also so in India today and hence we should not remain unwilling to play the game. Rights/Laws got created to enable the Abrahmics to exploit/consume the natural resources and if we remain outside the game we will become the game. Exactly like the Red Indians.

Re. ^2 I would differ on ‘Now we must ask’. Why do we need to invoke the will of a separate norms establishing God, to understand why a women commits Sati. As a child, my first understanding of Death was through a women who had committed suicide, actuated by the loss of her husband in an unfortunate accident. There are other kinds of people who make similar choices in other contexts – country, kids, pure strangers, profession related, personal life related, failed crops/businesses etc.

The law off course says all these are wrong that such people should be prosecuted should they remain alive, but that still does not stop these people from doing what they are doing without invoking god. These people fully well know that they themselves are a part and parcel of the whole and they are not abandoned by the God, but they still cannot take up the life as it is meted out to them and they would rather change it in whatever manner they feel they can.

If somebody still feels obliged to respond to a question/accusation raised by those who intent to enslave us then my advise would be to reply that the question/accusation does not arise. I doubt if anybody needs to feel accused of wrongful acquiescence or even of self-contradiction.

Actually to characterize the acceptance of a fact as a ‘logical flaw’ or a Dharam Sankat, may end up amounting to a choice being made by those who allow themselves to take part in such a characterization.

If anything the Dharm-Sankat started much before such mournful situations arise and probably they were then ignored or could not be handled.

For an outsider, to this decision, (like you, me and Brits) the only vivek-poorn position is to investigate that it is not a case of crime. That crimes happen and must be guarded against, is well recognized in all systems.

People could perhaps still find a logical rationale to prove that such instances whenever they occur are wrong and against the wishes of a norms establishing God but then it is only for them to realize their objections are probably ignored. Probably because logic/law does not run lives it is the other way round where logic/law has to merely make efforts at understanding life and then life runs the logic/law.

Caste, you admit is a wrong translation of Jati/Varna, but should you insist then only Gunas can be invoked for varnas and gunas are not god while nobody knows about Jati but most likely these are also self-acclaimed distinctions or classifications. Again the question does not arise.

Please notice no Colonized mind is involved in explanations and only the known traditions and understanding are. Nor is there any forced equivalence involved and actually the western preoccupation is understood as rather mule-headed. Thus this objection cannot be brought to bear on the subject of Dharma’s capability to act as Religion.

For the Christian British the question "Which God did blabla" is itself a laughable characteristic of the Devil. They know only one God and anyone who follows multiple Gods may be a devil worshipper, with each God being a form of the devil. All these devil worshippers were classified under one religion "Hindu-ism", and Hinduism the religion was brought under secular British penal code/civil code.

Yes that is what happened but that is merely a statement of a claim It says nothing about the knowhow involved and thus we cannot use this information. They cussed at us. Ok so what is the standard response it will evoke and rightly so. I also believe they have a right to cuss us not because we deserve it but because they on account of their nature are driven towards doing that.

The context as I understand it is - "Which God did blabla" is our Hindu God and "The God did blabla" is Abrahmic God. Thus they allowed themselves the ability to create laws for us. It is actually the Abrahmic god that dictated laws and legalized forms of existence. All non-legalized and extra-legalized forms of existence are merely resources to be exploited. The invocation of God to do blabla is their requirement. Our requirement is to invoke Dharma and Gunas to do our blabla. Our God is universally available and thus does not need to do a blabla and hence our traditions are extra-legal or illegal because our traditions are not based on The will of The God.

And that state has already been achieved. Not just Hinduism but all of the non-Abrahmics have faced this and still do and will keep facing it in exactly that manner unless they take steps to protect themselves or negotiate for themselves etc. Precisely because of Religion there is need to hunt down all non-Abrahmic humans, like wildebeest. A matter of bravery to be then rewarded by urbanized facilitated living. All of the extra-human natural world is already consumed. Even humans too if they belong to the turd world are merely consumable resources e.g. goods and services can move but labour cannot. Actually the preferred labour is now used through various means, against other labour to keep the whole thing going.

Now you tell me if this requires the understanding of Dharm/spiritualism/Hinduism/Sanatan, on their part. The only requirement is to fit into Religion which used to be the go between amongst King and Subjects. Since then the Religion had merely metamorphosed into their ‘rationale’ with the Clerics being the equivalent of their Brahmins for assuring the continuity/philosophical framework for The Word/The Law. Latest is that Religion of the Law, has come to be accepted by Seculars as a valid form of life the world across including in India, mostly because Seculars are the material beneficiaries of the exploitation of the natural resources and of the indistinct humans (like the Hindus, animistic Africans etc.).

Yes Hindus can choose to not be a Religion. But that only disappears them from the scene which is then open for the legal forms of existence. OTOH Hindus can using the Shakti of Mahadev claim to also constitute a religion but only without giving up on their baggage. I am not advocating anything other than what the Hindus have always done. With each new challenge Hindus have merely added up a feature without compromising on the essential of Prakriti and Purush. In fact all new features were claimed on the bases of their essential rights from Purush and Prakriti.

In any case, followers of Religion already treat Hindus like a religion and because Hindus have not made up their mind so they are only going to give ex-parte judgements. Rest assured the judgement is gonna come regardless of what you do. My suggestion is that lets also be a religion in the time honored sense and then begin disputing them regardless of the judgement. Wherever Hindus and non-Hindus, have made up their minds the Religions of the Law have given way. Non-Hindus like Chinese were smarter in the sense that they took up the Religion of the Seculars (in both their Buddhist and Christian forms). Africans were unable to form a religion and hence they got Rawanda-Burundi despite many of them having converted themselves to Christianity. Religion gives a free pass into the court rooms. The real fight is outside but to control what is outside we have to bomb the headquarters or infiltrate it. But in all cases headquarters cannot be allowed to remain functional under the Religion of the Law.

Despite our (Indian) tendency to view ourselves as "backward" and the west - esp the US as "forward", it helps to see Indians/Hindus as a very old example of freedom and libertarian values. Libertarian values are even more free than the US is. You cannot box in such a people and demand that they should do this or accept that except within the bounds of ethics and morality that those people themselves accept. If they wish to follow one group, that is their prerogative.

Hindus, for all the diversity, developed, a very long time ago, a tendency not to kill just because the other is different. Hindus have their social values and social strata. These were social, not "religious strata, dictated by God and his prophet". Democracy is well suited for this group because democracy allows the freedom of diverse groups to negotiate and exist together - a characteristic that Hindus had long before democracy was invented. This also means that democracy is not a necessary condition for freedom and diversity, but that is a separate issue.

Shivji, I don’t demand anything except personal freedom. Others will have to defend themselves. Only in my case I refuse to let go of any of my identifiers and I am in all of them. I inherited them. I did not buy them off the open market or got gifted by those who think I am restricting them. So I will fight wherever my interest gets damaged. I do not seek inspiration from contemporaries. I already take it from our common ancestors. People should feel free to believe whatever they want about what worth their inheritance is. But only for themselves. If I have taken from my ancestors, I owe their inheritors something in return too. Only then would I be allowed to stand besides my ancestors, by them.

Freedom and libertarian values are different things even as per western standards. Freedom under their framework is usually freedom from political authority they do not like. We too can use it many different manner and people already do that. I am merely accepting facts.

From what we were taught, Libertarian values gave rise to Libertarian law which is again another one of their legal framework which seeks to exploit the tree without having to water it, only this time without even having to reply to their own administrative forms. It does not talk about any kind of dynamic balance except that of might is right. Libertarian Law was an idea to reduce laws so that the remaining laws could then be put to use in a more efficient manner. They have since abandoned it as an ideal and there is an ever increasing set of laws that they need. Libertarian law is still the same overall structure of Law which is different from Dharm-smritis.

Hindus have a different claim that of ‘right is might’. A more explanatory form of which is – those who wish to remain right must then gather the might required to have their way, which is how Dharm hits back when it is violated, may not be immediate but is certain. Religions of The Law have always given way to might and they would fold up in front of might that has conviction behind it. Might that got exercised within their own category intimidated them and still does. Might that got exercised by their outsiders was even more fearful for them. They do not have a framework where time is of any significance in legal practice, which is why their laws must remain frozen in time till they find time to amend it (crisis) and which is why such legal systems never take responsibility for the dilation of the due process of law that is inherent in it. You will never find a man who is both supportive of west and also critical of dilatory tactics in legal practice as it currently is. Time OTOH is absolutely necessary for the framework which claims Right is Might. That is why they do not want other religions to have any time and their sensibilities sought to be force fed to turd world people by various means.

Most Hindus know these things in a latent manner and that is why when they read about Religions of The Law they instinctively reach the conclusion that these Religions of the Law are actually an inverted form of Dharma or an irresponsible form of Apad-dharma and their success is because of this special distortion of Dharma which was normally meant for limited usage. It was Chanakya who first saw the need for apaddharma against outsiders when he suggested that Arth is the moolam of Dharm and so on. In the normal course it is Dharm which is the moolam of Arth which is why all Baniya/Vaishya traditions emphasized Shubh-Labh in same way as all Kshtriya traditions emphasized only Dharmic violence (whether directed towards self or towards others). But that does not mean people were unaware of Ashubh Labh of Adharmic violence. But then Chanakya’s context is his advisory role to his king. And he did that correctly by advising the usage of special case dharma so long as the threat remained. What you are suggesting is that regular trajectory dharm is going to be successful if the other side having digested dharm and its various forms/enabling features and is using special cases of it in the normal course. That to me seems impossible.

Regular course of dharm is meant for people who abide by it and have faith in it because the only way to achieve the standards of Dharm-smritis is by reposing faith in the respective professions and roles of the trustees. Law is complete opposite of Dharma-smriti because it emphasizes The Word and merely rationalizes the failure of delivering justice by putting out ever increasing list of Legal Maxims which can only come into use after the Written Word of the Word of God, which is also the Religion of the Law. These legal maxims are however good to feel smart about and hence people simply keep arguing about it in editorials, forums but always within the ambits of ‘The God Given Law’ and its progeny.

Those "mechanisms" need to be looked at carefully and re assessed. Democracy seems the best way to do it.

I wanted to understand about role of police, education system, grievance redressal, military in your framework. I am with you on Democracy.

It does, in many ways. If you walk around in India, you find that Hindus see certain trees and certain natural formations like "snake mounds" (actually anthills where Cobras are thought to live) are worshiped as part of Hindu belief in the omnipresence of God in every atom/cubic micron of the universe. Many Hindus do this, Many don't. Some simply don't believe that the outward ritual is necessary.

The question is: "If a Hindu prays at a snake mound, has it become a place of worship and does the place of worship then come under secular laws that govern licences and freedoms of places of worship? Is such worship a communal act that may irritate a Muslm or Christian neighbour?"

Communal conflict can actually be provoked by placing Hindu spirituality on the plane of religion. Hindus do not have rigid rules that they must pray at every Peepul tree or snake mound. They would keep off if others felt troubled and are willing to negotiate without dogma. By forcing such acts into the box of religion, a communal conflict is being set up. If Hindus really wanted to claim "religious significance" of the land then every square millimeter of India belongs to the Hindu religion. You force Hindus into a religion mold and they can become just as rigid and dogmatic about such issues as other religions. As a people Hindus do not do that. They will if they find it necessary when they are boxed in by idiotic logic.

The highlighted also does not mean that the Peepul trees or snake mounds not being prayed at are somehow intrinsically lesser than those that are prayed at, all other things being equal. Thus we can safely accept that all of the land/water/air/sky whether prayed to or not is at the same level. It is upto our individual selves us whether we take up responsibilities for these and with the responsibilities flow in the rights. Please notice this does not bind anybody to simply consume away what is under his control. It only means what is under Hindu control cannot be allowed to be taken over.

You may find the logic idiotic but that is what the people actually do. You are too intelligent and cannot be replied to without bringing the facts out. Actually even you try to base your arguments on facts when you say – “As a people Hindus do not do that”.

So here I would dispute your facts instead of your arguments. Traditionally it has been happening that if a person leaves his ancestral property then somebody from the extended family comes into the picture. Such an abandonment does no not require that every other person of the extended family should also abjure claim to the ancestral property. Somebody should tend to it. The person who abandons the property (alongwith it the attached rights and obligations) is the only one who is now allowed to go out of the family fold. Extending the same logic and in the same fashion, all of every square millimeter of India belongs to the indistinct peoples of this land (alongwith those who claim distinction on account of ancestral commonality). Coincidently those who claim a special status/distinction, are also the ones who have sympathies for groups/peoples outside India on account of their common distinctions. This eventually implies that the distinction claiming people then remain within Bharat only so long as they have exploitable resources at their command. And once they get to encash it to the best of their personal capacities, they leave the shores. The Indistinct people have not pushed them out and they never will. If anything the indistinct people are the ones being pushed out of their own lands all over the world including within India and yet they have maintained good working relationships with the distinct people, far far better than in the reverse cases. For the indistinct the baggage is not separate from the corporeal or incorporated existence (like you and your god owning property), since it is merely the valid fertile seed that is sought to be watered.

Re. Communal conflict – Communal conflict can actually be provoked by many different things eg. beef industry too. But people do tolerate that, don’t they. This is the place where the State has to play a role. Catch hold of those who inflict such a conflict and mete out punishment to them, be they Hindus or anybody else.

Dharma is dharma. Not spiritualism. Not religion. Philosophically (Greek/western) in spiritualism, spirit exists distinct from matter. What is the Hindu equivalent of spirit? Unless these things are defined clearly we cannot simply substitute one word for the other in the way we have used words like "religion", "history" "caste" etc loosely without insight.

Dharm is what is supported/protected by Satya. Dharma thus can work like spiritualism too. The outsiders have claimed that spiritualism is important for their existence and since it is there concept they should be free to define it. Furthermore they should not be actively deprived of Dharma and should be allowed to redefine their Dharma the way they want. Only and ideally they should not be allowed to dictate their definition of dharma to us. To achieve full benefits they should ideally come with folded hands. Dharma is mata ki rasoi and people may not take kindly to a disrespect of Dharma.

Words like "religion", "history" "caste" got used loosely because:
1) first interaction is always a blind play (thanks to mahadev) and it is normal for both sides to try to understand the other in terms of its own categories (otherwise the interaction would all become unintelligible). This should not act as a deterrent in letting the process start.
2) Secondly because english is a language that does not submit to definition being basically man-gadhant utterings learned through rote. That is why these people need so many languages to do different things. That is why mantras and sutras can never be found in English. If you think that these things can be defined then I am afraid the effort will tire you out because it keeps getting crazier as one begins to use this language.

When Sanskrit came into being it was structured to deal with all the communication of that time and most of the language got structured in a way that all of it seems to be leading into the same thing. Smart people. It is only because they remembered a copious amount and only because they based their remembrance on Sanskrit that we today can hope to use Dharma to beat our opponents with.

[member_20317]

Here are 3 views on/of Spiritualism.

This is an old and known problem. I never use the word. I advise others not to use it either. Others mean people outside BRF, so need to get worked up. But that only means an advise against a real use or mantric use of it. Nothing should be and nothing is actually stopping people from using it in various temporal ways. I regularly use it as a prop to help some smalltalk along, when I am with friends that I know I can have a mazak with. Already this does not affect the traditions so why the fear. What is instead needed is to understand only our own categories.

And actually that is why I personally respect Shiv ji, simply out of my own existential reasons. I find him most agreeable, in a traditional sense even though he can then begin to demand near impossible things (defining english categories) that actually cannot be defined because of the nature of the language.

Added: Also, do not fall for this religion/spirituality divide. Our entire way of life has a spiritual angle to it. One cannot divide these into parts. Similarly, one cannot say, this part of dharma is religious and this is not. This is what has led the religious/secular divide, which is again a western society solution thrusted on India. The biggest victim of this divide has been our way of life and a loss to the ethos of Sanatan Dharma. The very word religion is poison from our stand point for all it has done is divided our society and the world. It does not mean we are not "religious", au contraire, but we do not have a religion! How can religious people not have a religion? Welcome to Dharma!

&

No. Spiritualism of "Hinduism" is in fact the only thing that gets endorsed, when one uses Hinduism as a Religion, because due to the lack of other organs which usually a Religion has to assert its hard power, "Hinduism" has none, and hence only spiritualism is left, and is the one thing that is often pushed by Westerners, Seculars and Hinduists.

<snip>

Spiritualism one could refer to perhaps using the word Yoga, or rather a subset of it, consisting of Jnāna Yoga, Bhakti Yoga and Dhyāna Yoga. Yoga is the science of awakening the Ātman. Dharma is more like the ethics of an awakened Ātman.

&

Dharma is dharma. Not spiritualism. Not religion. Philosophically (Greek/western) in spiritualism, spirit exists distinct from matter. What is the Hindu equivalent of spirit? Unless these things are defined clearly we cannot simply substitute one word for the other in the way we have used words like "religion", "history" "caste" etc loosely without insight.

[shiv]

RaviG - nononononono!! No anger at all. Not in that post anyway. more after I have read all the posts.

[member_20317]

Shiv ji, mein aapki maar bhi apna saubhagya samaj kar le lunga.

Kehte hain apna marega to chanv mein chodega, doosra marega to dhoop mein chodega.

[shiv]

And that state has already been achieved. Not just Hinduism but all of the non-Abrahmics have faced this and still do and will keep facing it in exactly that manner unless they take steps to protect themselves or negotiate for themselves etc. Precisely because of Religion there is need to hunt down all non-Abrahmic humans, like wildebeest. A matter of bravery to be then rewarded by urbanized facilitated living. All of the extra-human natural world is already consumed. Even humans too if they belong to the turd world are merely consumable resources e.g. goods and services can move but labour cannot. Actually the preferred labour is now used through various means, against other labour to keep the whole thing going.

Now you tell me if this requires the understanding of Dharm/spiritualism/Hinduism/Sanatan, on their part. The only requirement is to fit into Religion which used to be the go between amongst King and Subjects. Since then the Religion had merely metamorphosed into their ‘rationale’ with the Clerics being the equivalent of their Brahmins for assuring the continuity/philosophical framework for The Word/The Law. Latest is that Religion of the Law, has come to be accepted by Seculars as a valid form of life the world across including in India, mostly because Seculars are the material beneficiaries of the exploitation of the natural resources and of the indistinct humans (like the Hindus, animistic Africans etc.).

Yes Hindus can choose to not be a Religion. But that only disappears them from the scene which is then open for the legal forms of existence. OTOH Hindus can using the Shakti of Mahadev claim to also constitute a religion but only without giving up on their baggage. I am not advocating anything other than what the Hindus have always done. With each new challenge Hindus have merely added up a feature without compromising on the essential of Prakriti and Purush. In fact all new features were claimed on the bases of their essential rights from Purush and Prakriti.

In any case, followers of Religion already treat Hindus like a religion and because Hindus have not made up their mind so they are only going to give ex-parte judgements. Rest assured the judgement is gonna come regardless of what you do. My suggestion is that lets also be a religion in the time honored sense and then begin disputing them regardless of the judgement.

Hmm looks like this discussion is moving off the main track of this thread - but let me see if I can "tie the cow to the coconut tree" and start talking about the thread subject with reference to your post.

First off you are right when you say:

The understanding of religion as merely being a belief in a superhuman God is changing and Abrahmics are making efforts to claim a natural aspect of their religion too mostly by digesting Hindu concepts. It is thus more in line with Hindu traditions IOW they have started the process of digestion.

You are also correct in saying that most people see Hindu-ism as a religion and that there may be no real issue if we simply accepted that and moved on because of the way the world is going. And this is where the subject jumps out of this thread into the "Western Universalism" discussion.

In general the terms of reference that people tend to use when they speak of which way the world is heading - they are speaking of what the west is doing and which way the world is being steered by actions led from the west. One could claim that Somalia or Gabon are not doing what the west dictates, but ultimately the west sets the terms and we, "non west" (usually Orient/east) accept the terms that the west sets and rationalize later on that this was a good thing and that it is OK to move with the times and accept the terms. We did that last time when we accepted Hindu-ism as a religion with religious laws that called for sati and caste, despite not having any such enforced "laws" in the Abhahamic sense of the word.

Now, it seems to me that you are saying ,"Well its OK we are a religion now. the west is now changing the definition of religion and we can gradually get them to see what we are all about"

But what is the west actually doing? The west is rejecting religion and is setting the trend to reject religion in other parts of the world.

if we drop the subject of whether Hindu-ism is a religion or not and look at the role of religion for the west, it was initially used for colonizing and dominating others. The church conquered and dominated Europe. Europe then conquered and dominated the world, putting the west where it is now. And the west is in the drivers seat.

Where does the west go next? Are they going to find spirituality? No. They are not. They are looking at continued domination of resources and material wealth. Religion is a hindrance to this. Why is religion a hindrance? Religion is a hindrance because even Abrahamic religions demand morality, temperance, reduction of temptation and sacrifice of ones own needs for social causes, empathy, compassion etc. In other words religion is now a competitor to the power of western corporates and governments. Since the 1960s, the west has successfully broken the back of religion within their home territories. They have aroused individual greed and selfish consumption to oil the wheels of wealth and economy. Individuals who are into "self expression" and "personal freedom" do not gang up in fascist religious groups and demand morality.

Now I come to a choice that every one of us has. You have the same choice as me and everyone else. As an individual, should I choose unrestricted personal wealth and freedom over duty to society and the health of my society as my Hindu culture instructs me, or should I say "Hinduism is just another religion. Religions are dying. No one needs religion any more. we need to move on". That is, after all the signal that is emerging from the west.

Conflicts like Gauhar Khan being slapped and opposition to Valentines day are symptoms of Indians reacting to the imposition of a western way in which morality is gradually being eroded. Morality for the west always came with religion. If Hinduism is a religion, then we can simply agree that our morality too is "religion based morality" and we can discard it.

People who oppose Valentines day are medieval monkeys. And what can you say about Muslims? Some Muslim mullah brain slaps a Muslim model for showing her meat. Does not matter to me.

So my questions can be framed in this manner

1. Hindus were anyway declared an immoral people because their religion had no code of morality. We have accepted that like we accepted all the other accusations about Hindus and Hindu-ism
2. Religions are being discarded anyway. The modern way is rule of law and individual freedom and "self expression". Religious morality is passé. Even Christianity is dying.
3. Hindu-ism too must go, like other religions and the Hindu fundamentalists who are medieval minded need to be silenced by us modernist "global citizens"

Should we then discard all morality? Do Hindus have any morality to discard? What is the Hindu model of morality. I put it to you that the Hindu model of ethics/morality is encoded in dharma.

So by a series of rationalizations and acceptance of the lead and direction that the west had set, we are set to accept Hinduism as a religion and will be ready to discard religious morality. Dharma will go for a six. Should we sit back and accept this?

Can it be stopped at all? If so, how?

[shiv]

One parting shot before I shut down for the night.

As I understand it, spirituality will guide a person towards the ethical rules of dharma
Following the ethical rules of dharma in turn will help a person gain spirituality

None of this will help gain or lose personal wealth. A perfectly spiritual person (in the Hindu sense) will also be a perfectly dharmic person, and material wealth will not matter.

[ShauryaT]

One parting shot before I shut down for the night.

As I understand it, spirituality will guide a person towards the ethical rules of dharma
Following the ethical rules of dharma in turn will help a person gain spirituality

None of this will help gain or lose personal wealth. A perfectly spiritual person (in the Hindu sense) will also be a perfectly dharmic person, and material wealth will not matter.

The way I use the word spiritual, it is the effort to gain awareness to the human (atman) and universal (Brahman) conscious. The "belief" is the Atman, which resides in the body, is this human conscious. Similarly the belief is there is a similar universal conscious that exists. One of the goals of Sanatan Dharma is to make one aware and know about the nature of your own self conscious. There are multiple pathways known in our traditions to realize this universal conscious. Without getting into the creation/creator debate, the process of gaining awareness to both this self conscious and the universe conscious is referred to as spirituality. So, it is distinct from matter, but not outside of it. At least my understanding of it.

Added: There is a certain disconnect that has emerged between the spiritual and temporal domains. Both are governed by Dharma, but increasingly I find that a good number of folks dedicated to Brahma gyaan or teachings about the spiritual process, do so without much regard to family and community Dharmas and sometimes even have mixed approaches to personal Dharmas. The lack of support for a Dharmic framework in law prohibits the workings of Dharma to take on full efficacy. I can cite, various examples in personal, social and family domains, where the disconnect between our ways and the law, creates issues. So, will a perfectly spiritual person be a perfectly dharmic person - as in someone who has/will fulfill all their dharmas, the answer is not very clear in today's age.

[harbans]

Spirituality in the Indic sense is that process which helps one evolve from Tamas to Sattva and ultimately beyond the Gunas. Gurus help in the process of "Self Evolvement". This Spiritual evolution is enhanced and encouraged by a Dharmic State whose rulers provide the necessary meta ethic framework. This "evolution" is in sharp contrast to "Absolutism" to confirm to Moral Standards in Abrahmic faiths. This is a very key concept to internalize. I have written about this a week or so ago.
This is not to say Sampradayic Gurus don't demand some degree of absolutism in behaviour. They do. That is why its stressed that only when one is fit (evolved) then seek out a Guru (some say when one is fit a Guru will come).

Towards that if one reads the MB/Ramayana some things are conspicuous by their absence: Lack of capital punishment, description of meals for example. The presence of all kinds of characters with mixed levels of Tamas/Rajsik/Sattvik motivations exist. Notice also the presence of Tamsic people supporting the Dharmic side and Sattvic supporting the Adharmic. That is not a contradiction, but completely in consonance with the innate desire in all beings to move/ evolve towards spirituality (as defined 1st sentence in the Indic sense). It also resonates that in an Adharmic set up even Sattvic people tend to devolve. The subtleties inherent in the apparent contradiction resonates with the concept that a Dharmic setup helps in evolving ones spirituality.

The Sampradayic sense of absolutism cannot and must not be allowed to interfere with the Dharmic Meta ethic tenets that encourage evolution. That is one reason many are appalled by some Sampradyic RW groups demanding absolutist injunctions the type which Islamic countries impose as mandatory in their nations. Hence the "==" equations of "hindu" Taliban float and muddy the Dharmic waters even more.

[shiv]

Some thoughts:

People will rush towards doing something they like on their own. They will not have to be goaded or forced. For example - joining Facebook. But joining Facebook is a benign, excusable act. Similarly, people in the past have rushed towards sex without responsibility, addictions (to alcohol or drugs) as well as shortcuts to material happiness by stealing, intimidation etc. It is because of the social conflicts that these issues cause that morality has evolved in human societies.

But people do not necessarily enjoy or like "being good", like not telling lies, being charitable, not drinking, remaining faithful to a partner, helping family and bringing up children not stealing etc. Getting people to do things that they don't like is a problem.

Two routes have been taken by human societies (and we have discussed this earlier) to make people behave in ways that go against normal "temptations". One route was the establishment of moral rules, inculcated from childhood so that children grow up into adults with a built in fear or feelings of guilt when they want to steal, cheat or indulge in "anti-social behavior". Moral rules are generally not enforced by punishment. People can and do break moral rules, and morality inculcated in childhood can only reduce the possibility but not eliminate it. Those who are immoral will not get punished unless there is a further layer of "laws" to punish them.

This is where Hinduism differs from Abrahamic religions. For Hindus, moral rules, duties and obligations are taught via stories and histories, epics and legends. People are asked to strive for moral idealism. There are no Hindu laws to punish those who do not conform. For Hindus, the act of making laws to protect morality and social order was left to the individual ruler, or the government. The best rulers were always those who where themselves followers of moral rules and ensured that their people were also given justice by protection of those moral rules, which we call Dharma. This always left open the possibility of a king/ruler who would not or could not protect society from social ills.

What Abrahamic religions did was to try and eliminate the possibility of a king who would not impose morality. This was done by appointing a "permanent King" - a God, whose moral rules were handed down via a Prophet or some such means. But there was no point in appointing such a "God" unles the moral rules could be imposed. That is how religious "laws" came into existence. That is how, in Abrahamic religions, there came to be absolute rules that would invariably invite punishment if they were not followed. It is obvious that anyone who does not like this situation will try and leave the reigion. That is why Christianity and Islam came up with the concept of a law that ensures punishment if you do not join and stay within the religion. These absolute laws that enforced morality/good behavior/conformity were borrowed for the basis of "laws" and "legal systems" of all nations nowadays where "goverment" replaces "God"

It should really be a no brainer to understand that you need absolute laws that force people to follow your rules only when you want to be an absolute dictator. Abrahamic single Gods are positioned exactly like absolute dictators, although no one calls them that. Calling those Gods "dictators" would automatically invite a death sentence. Hinduism is nothing like this

The reason why Hindus are accused of having no "laws" and the accusation that Hindus are "corrupt" is because "Hinduism" is not a religion that imposes absolute laws with punishments meted out by humans for not following those laws. Hindu Dharma calls for everyone to follow those laws, but leaves it up to a particular leader/ruler/government to create mechanisms for following those laws.

It is important to understand these differences because they reflect Indian society and how Indians were seen by Abrahamic societies. When we say "Hinduism is a religion" we have absolutely no idea what "religion" means and what religions set out to do. We all grow up in a Hindu environment in which we have our Hindu dharmic morality which is enforced by Indian laws or by laws of the nation we live in, and we think "hey we are same same with religion". We are not.

Hinduism does not lay down rigid religious laws. Rigid religious laws were necessary to force people to follow those laws. The One God was the king whose law was forced on people (by other people). This is so different from the Hindu set up that it is only deep ignorance that makes us see similarities. We end up doing equal equal between the One monotheistic dictator-God and our concept of "Brahman". That is मूर्खता (moorkhta) at its saddest and most tragic manifestation.

[niran]

^^ the most complete and compact explanation of Hinduism moi have read or heard. magnificent.

[ShauryaT]

Despite our (Indian) tendency to view ourselves as "backward" and the west - esp the US as "forward", it helps to see Indians/Hindus as a very old example of freedom and libertarian values. Libertarian values are even more free than the US is. You cannot box in such a people and demand that they should do this or accept that except within the bounds of ethics and morality that those people themselves accept. If they wish to follow one group, that is their prerogative.

Hindus, for all the diversity, developed, a very long time ago, a tendency not to kill just because the other is different. Hindus have their social values and social strata. These were social, not "religious strata, dictated by God and his prophet". Democracy is well suited for this group because democracy allows the freedom of diverse groups to negotiate and exist together - a characteristic that Hindus had long before democracy was invented. This also means that democracy is not a necessary condition for freedom and diversity, but that is a separate issue.

This is an important aspect that is missed by many and the most under discussed aspect of our society, amongst our thinkers.

We adopted democracy and again it is a liberating concept for the west, from the potential tyrannies of the organized church or the monarch in their lands. Democracy is sustained in India not due to the enlightened wisdom of the British or our western smitten elites, including many of our ancestors but due to the libertarian polity that existed in our lands for many a centuries. Individuals grew up with a strong moral framework along with emotional ties to their families with social obligations to the community. If some wrong was committed then the family would step in and because of strong reverence for elders most things would be arrested at this level. If not, the Jati or local community frameworks would step in and for other larger issues, would be settled at the gram level. Seldom did issues go up to the local monarch, who DID have a strong body of law evolved over a few 1000 years to guide proceedings and a judgement with the help of a council.

When we adopted our republic, we junked a large part of the above bottom-up framework. The model we adopted was the British model, built in their top-down society, with their peculiarities, which they struggled with over many 100's of years in their lands. The evolution of a parliament in England of two houses, the role of the monarch in their evolving polity, the executive - non segregated from the legislative, the unitary form that they built has been in process there with their own struggles of class, excesses of their sovereign and their so called reformation movements with their faith. None of this was our history or mapped to our lands, yet we adopted their institutional structures wholesale.

IMO, this was a great misfit. We adopted a unitary constitution (in essence), which is the direct opposite of a federated model, which is bottom up. Even after the 73/74th amendments, which sought to "recognize" a third tier of governance for the first time in 1993, still does not enjoy financial or executive powers. No wonder, we are still wondering, why are our streets not clean and the local cops are not doing their jobs, or the local judge is reporting on time. There is no accountability to the local population.

The mental divorce that our elites have been under and the tragedy we face is of monumental proportions. I have sought to ask the same question to experts, who agree with many of the above issues but real reform and a complete restructuring of our institutional frameworks is needed to unleash the maximum potential of our people.

Even on the issue of nationalism, the attempt has been to "thrust" down a nation-state structure, with new values of "secularism" - again foreign to us, instead of cultivating the underlying unity of values that exist, which I believe can be stronger than the current top-down institutional thrust. While some centralization is needed for the nation-state, it is imperative that the energies of the local people are allowed to be unleashed, without this constant top-down lecture and allow localized institutions to step up. I think our current PM understands this but have yet to see any articulation of fundamental changes by anyone.

[shiv]

Despite our (Indian) tendency to view ourselves as "backward" and the west - esp the US as "forward", it helps to see Indians/Hindus as a very old example of freedom and libertarian values. Libertarian values are even more free than the US is. You cannot box in such a people and demand that they should do this or accept that except within the bounds of ethics and morality that those people themselves accept. If they wish to follow one group, that is their prerogative.

Hindus, for all the diversity, developed, a very long time ago, a tendency not to kill just because the other is different. Hindus have their social values and social strata. These were social, not "religious strata, dictated by God and his prophet". Democracy is well suited for this group because democracy allows the freedom of diverse groups to negotiate and exist together - a characteristic that Hindus had long before democracy was invented. This also means that democracy is not a necessary condition for freedom and diversity, but that is a separate issue.

This is an important aspect that is missed by many and the most under discussed aspect of our society, amongst our thinkers.

We adopted democracy and again it is a liberating concept for the west, from the potential tyrannies of the organized church or the monarch in their lands. Democracy is sustained in India not due to the enlightened wisdom of the British or our western smitten elites, including many of our ancestors but due to the libertarian polity that existed in our lands for many a centuries. Individuals grew up with a strong moral framework along with emotional ties to their families with social obligations to the community. If some wrong was committed then the family would step in and because of strong reverence for elders most things would be arrested at this level. If not, the Jati or local community frameworks would step in and for other larger issues, would be settled at the gram level. Seldom did issues go up to the local monarch, who DID have a strong body of law evolved over a few 1000 years to guide proceedings and a judgement with the help of a council.

When we adopted our republic, we junked a large part of the above bottom-up framework. The model we adopted was the British model, built in their top-down society, with their peculiarities, which they struggled with over many 100's of years in their lands. The evolution of a parliament in England of two houses, the role of the monarch in their evolving polity, the executive - non segregated from the legislative, the unitary form that they built has been in process there with their own struggles of class, excesses of their sovereign and their so called reformation movements with their faith. None of this was our history or mapped to our lands, yet we adopted their institutional structures wholesale.

IMO, this was a great misfit. We adopted a unitary constitution (in essence), which is the direct opposite of a federated model, which is bottom up. Even after the 73/74th amendments, which sought to "recognize" a third tier of governance for the first time in 1993, still does not enjoy financial or executive powers. No wonder, we are still wondering, why are our streets not clean and the local cops are not doing their jobs, or the local judge is reporting on time. There is no accountability to the local population.

The mental divorce that our elites have been under and the tragedy we face is of monumental proportions. I have sought to ask the same question to experts, who agree with many of the above issues but real reform and a complete restructuring of our institutional frameworks is needed to unleash the maximum potential of our people.

Even on the issue of nationalism, the attempt has been to "thrust" down a nation-state structure, with new values of "secularism" - again foreign to us, instead of cultivating the underlying unity of values that exist, which I believe can be stronger than the current top-down institutional thrust. While some centralization is needed for the nation-state, it is imperative that the energies of the local people are allowed to be unleashed, without this constant top-down lecture and allow localized institutions to step up. I think our current PM understands this but have yet to see any articulation of fundamental changes by anyone.

An excellent post Shaurya, and I wil highlight just one sentence for comment

Despite our (Indian) tendency to view ourselves as "backward" and the west - esp the US as "forward", it helps to see Indians/Hindus as a very old example of freedom and libertarian values. This is an important aspect that is missed by many and the most under discussed aspect of our society, amongst our thinkers..

It is missed by our thinkers because we do not study the west as they studied us and continue to study us. Sujects like "Oriantalism", sociology, anthropology and psychology were designed for such studies.

We in India tend to imagin that by knwoing English and being exposed to teh west, we "know" the west. We know bugger all. How many times have I seen people saying that they know it all because they live in some western country or other. But they too know nothing Indians who live in teh west only end up seeing other Indians through deeper tinets western glasses than Indians, who are already looking at themselves through western glasses. Blind leading the blind

If you study concepts of how laws came into being from the Church and how thinkers came up with concepts of liberties and rights and then compare with ancient India to see if we had "religion" but no morals and no laws and that liberty is an unknown concept for Hindus because they are steeped in religion - you realize how stupid we have been. We are a blind people - self satisfied that we can compete with the west. We are not. We are colonized minds who don't know where we came from and have no clue where we are heading. Our biggest satisfaction comes from copying the west and getting validation from there and going back and saying "we were always like you or better"

We may have been better, but we were not "like you".

[member_22733]

If you study concepts of how laws came into being from the Church and how thinkers came up with concepts of liberties and rights and then compare with ancient India to see if we had "religion" but no morals and no laws and that liberty is an unknown concept for Hindus because they are steeped in religion - you realize how stupid we have been.

I have been thinking about this, just like the Hindus started calling themselves a "religion" as a part of a reaction, most of the "modern" western institutions were formed by reacting to tyranny and dogma.

Dogma gave rise to "rationality" and "scientific investigation". Emphasis on structure of the scriptures gave rise to "logic" and "rational philosophy" that consists of the following boxes : metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics (and optionally esthetics, if you believe that crazy woman: Ayn Rand). These subjects arose around renaissance as a reactionary response to the dogma of the church. Thus questioning the church, questioning dogma, questioning tyranny became the war cry of "modernism".

In India a need for such rigid structure of philosophy was absent. That does not mean that there were "no deep thinkers". There were, like Panini for ex, but they never had the need to venture into such areas. And the reason for that is precisely the absence of dogma and tyranny.

Western science is a product of tyranny and the necessity to combat it. They did win the war against tyranny (and only tyranny) but kept all the other expansionist-exclusivist ideas alive when they used their new found knowledge to "colonize" the world.

[shiv]

I ask enlightened Hindus not to be angry with such an article as the one I have linked at the bottom. Writing such an article shows deep ignorance, but getting angry reveals equally deep ignorance because angry Hindus cannot explain why a person like Pankaj Mishra ended up thinking like this. He canot understand Hindutva angst, and we cannot explain his slavery to a mindset that criticizes without analysis or an ability to analyse.

So we come up with names that do not explain. Pankaj Mishra himself shows in his article that he is angered by words like "sickular libtard" and "sepoy". Sickular Libtard means nothing. It just makes us happy to use a nice new cuss word.

Rajiv Malhotra coined sepoy for a particular mindset. Yes Pankaj Mishra is a sepoy, but there are sepoys among those whom he hates and he speaks of them in the article. We have secular sepoys like Mishra getting angry and cursing Hindutva-vadi sepoys who rail and rant against the Pankaj-Mishra and Sicklar Libtard brigade. It is the blind leading the blind. There are sepoys on both sides and no one wants to admit it because being called asepoy causes anger. Mishra won;t admit it. Hindutva vadis will not admit it.

The common denominator is the colonized mind that does not know why some Hindus react in one way and others in another way. I had referred to this in an earlier post:
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 0#p1759050

Hindus have come across as despicable heathens to the British and for all their politeness the literature that was written out of India has smeared Hindus as badly as any people can be smeared. Normally (in the past) this would be the first step towards elimination of the entire hated thought process and the people who follow it - Hindus, by conversion or other means. That is after all what was done to all pre-Christian Europeans and later the indigenous Americans.

But Hindus were not eliminated. We Hindus tend to be very proud of this, but that is a mistake. What has been done is to create a sense of self hate in us. Our secularists are a part of the self haters, but even Hindutvavadis are part of the problem. They are not self haters, but they are aggrieved and angry people who do not have the words and means to express why these accusations are wrong. And it is expressions of anger that cause them to be accused of being violence prone.

Hindutva vadis may not be self haters, but they are just as hurt and ashamed about what was said about our past. In order to climb out of this deep sense of shame Hindus desperately try to deny and fight against all the accusations made:

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/444 ... dogma.html
Return of retrograde nationalist dogma
Pankaj Mishra

Since Naipaul defined it, the apocalyptic Indian imagination has been enriched by the exploits of Hindu nationalists, such as the destruction in 1992 of the 16th century Babri Masjid mosque, and the nuclear tests of 1998. Celebrating the tests in speeches in the late 1990s, including one entitled “Ek Aur Mahabharata” (One More Mahabharata), the then head of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the parent outfit of Hindu nationalists, claimed that Hindus, a “heroic, intelligent race,” had so far lacked proper weapons but were sure to prevail in the forthcoming showdown with demonic anti-Hindus, a broad category that includes Americans (who apparently best exemplify the worldwide “rise of inhumanity”).

A Harvard-trained economist called Subramanian Swamy recently demanded a public bonfire of canonical books by Indian historians - liberal and secular intellectuals who belong to what the RSS chief in 2000 identified as that “class of ******** which tries to implant an alien culture in their land.” Denounced by the numerous Hindu supremacists in social media as “sickular libtards” and sepoys, these intellectuals apparently are Trojan horses of the West. They must be purged to realise Modi’s vision in which India, once known as the “golden bird,” will “rise again.”

Modi doesn’t seem to know that India’s reputation as a “golden bird” flourished during the long centuries when it was allegedly enslaved by Muslims. The psychic wounds Naipaul noticed among semi-Westernised upper-caste Hindus actually date to the Indian elite’s humiliating encounter with the geopolitical and cultural dominance first of Europe and then of America.
These wounds were caused, and are deepened, by failed attempts to match Western power through both mimicry and collaboration (though zealously anti-Western, Chinese nationalism has developed much more autonomously in comparison).

[shiv]

If you study concepts of how laws came into being from the Church and how thinkers came up with concepts of liberties and rights and then compare with ancient India to see if we had "religion" but no morals and no laws and that liberty is an unknown concept for Hindus because they are steeped in religion - you realize how stupid we have been.

I have been thinking about this, just like the Hindus started calling themselves a "religion" as a part of a reaction, most of the "modern" western institutions were formed by reacting to tyranny and dogma.

Dogma gave rise to "rationality" and "scientific investigation". Emphasis on structure of the scriptures gave rise to "logic" and "rational philosophy" that consists of the following boxes : metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics (and optionally esthetics, if you believe that crazy woman: Ayn Rand). These subjects arose around renaissance as a reactionary response to the dogma of the church. Thus questioning the church, questioning dogma, questioning tyranny became the war cry of "modernism".

In India a need for such rigid structure of philosophy was absent. That does not mean that there were "no deep thinkers". There were, like Panini for ex, but they never had the need to venture into such areas. And the reason for that is precisely the absence of dogma and tyranny.

Western science is a product of tyranny and the necessity to combat it. They did win the war against tyranny (and only tyranny) but kept all the other expansionist-exclusivist ideas alive when they used their new found knowledge to "colonize" the world.

LokeshC - when you have the time and opportunity I would recommend that you (download and) read Edward Said's "Orientalism". You of all people are likely to gain deep insights from that work because of your special insights

However I think rationality and western scientific thought have a basis Greek philosophy and skepticism, which was the first layer of opposition to Catholic dogma (by the Romans) in the early years of Christianity. But the Romans were defeated and dogma ruled until the same scepticism and rationality took rebirth along with the Protestant revolt against the Catholic church.

[johneeG]

On this thread, there is frequently an assertion that Hindhu God/Goddess is not a dictator like an Abrahamic conception of god.

I don't quite agree with this view. I think that there is nothing in other religions which has not been inherited from Hindhuism. That means even the dictatorial attitudes are inherited from Hindhuism directly or indirectly.

There is a saying that Vedhas talk about Dharma like King giving orders. The same Dharma is preached by smruthis like a friend(by giving reasons and all). The same Dharma is told by the poems like a beloved wife.

Hindhu conception of God/Goddess has been like Father, Mother and Ruler. Its a Mother and Father because it is supposed to create and sustain the worlds. Its the Ruler because its supposed to punish the wicked and protect the good.

'Who is good and who is bad' will be decided by the God/Goddess and punished appropriately in this world or in the next world according to Hindhuism.

How is this conception different from Abrahamic conceptions? It is exactly same.

The difference comes in the following aspect: eternal hell.

I like to rather look at it this way, as a God/Goddess sitting in judgment over oneself reminds me of the concept of "Judgment Day", something we may know from other "cultures"!

Those cultures talk of Single Judgement Day, as far as I understood. It is not god-judging-people that is a problem. The problem is god-judging-people only once(single judgement day) on only one criteria(belief in their dogma of a particular prophet or saviour), while ignoring all other criteria and giving eternal rewards(heaven) and eternal punishments(hell) . This is the problem.

Some views on Single Judgement day:

Implications of single judgement day or quayamat:

Judgement day is the day on which the god judges all the people for their actions on the earth and punish them or reward them accordingly.

A single judgement day means that all the people who are dead right now, have to wait till all of the creation comes to an end, until they are judged and their reward or punishment is pronounced. If someone died 5000 years ago, then he is still waiting for that judgement.

If someone were to be born in 10 AD, and accepted christ as a saviour. And died in 50 AD. But, he has no pleasure for all these years. He has been waiting for the last 2000 odd years for the judgement day when he would be awarded the coveted heaven. He has to wait until the creation ends. The same applies to a muslim who was born in 700 AD. He is waiting for more than 1000 years.

No one knows when this wait would end. There were several 'predictions' of end of the world. Perhaps, they were seeing what they wanted to see. Maybe those making these end of world predictions( or their audience) wanted the world to end. But, alas, the world did not end. New Testament asserts that Christ had declared that the end of the world is at hand. But the event has not occured for so long...after about 2000 years(assuming the Bible is not a fiction).

Based on the concept of single judgement day,those unbelievers who died long ago are lucky because they have been evading the hell for a long time.

Those believers who died long time ago are unlucky because they have been starved from their heaven for all this time. They have been waiting in their graves.

Those believers who die just before the end of the world are lucky because they would be immediately judged and sent to Heaven. The believers would be really joyous on that occassion. It is perhaps for this reason that successive generations of believers thought that world will end in their lifetime. Infact, making predictions for end of world is an industry of sorts.


Regardless, this is an unfair system, to say the least, to all those who are dead or would die in future. Why should a dead person wait till everyone else dies to get his share of reward or punishment. It is especially severe on the ancient believers. They have to endure a long wait for their share of rewards, while the later believers get to enjoy their rewards, relatively, early. It is no way to reward the piety of early believers! The system seems faulty.

Infact, the early believers should get to heaven early. Early bird must take the worm not the latecomers... But that doesn't seem to be the case in certain theologies which is what makes them absurd and ridiculous.

The single judgement day seems like an unnecessary and unreasonable concept. God can easily judge each person as he dies without waiting for one single day.

Anyway, lets focus on another implication of judgement day. A single judgement day means that there will not be any alteration in the judgement pronounced by the god on the judgement day. There is absolutely no chance of a review. Combined with eternal hell and eternal heaven concept, a single judgement day means that once a person is sent to heaven, he will remain in heaven forever or if he is sent to a hell, he will have to endure it forever.
(BTW, there is a contradiction here in theology. According to Christianity and Islam, Satan was an angel of heaven who was banished from heaven by the god. How can god banish anyone from eternal heaven? If an angel can be banished, then certainly normal believers can also be banished. So, the claim that believers will get eternal heaven must be wrong. There is another contradiction here. When did god judge Satan and pronounce the banishment? On judgement or quayamat day? Certainly not. Then, if god can judge on other occassions, then why is he not similarly judging other cases? The system is simply illogical and does not stand up to its own claims and exposes its inherent contradictions.)

So, one can either go to hell or heaven and not to both. Heaven is a place where you are rewarded for merits and hell is where you are tortured for your offences. If a person were to commit both merits and offences, what would happen? Will he go to heaven or hell? Ideally, he should go to both because he has committed a virtous act and an evil act. But that option is not available in a system that has single judgement day and eternal heaven/hell. That means, its a flawed system.

So, on what basis does god send someone to hell or heaven. Here, god seems to have no choice but to send every person to either hell or heaven. After judgement day, all the persons who were ever born on this earth will be found in either hell or heaven(and they can't be in both).

No common individual can be expected to commit only offences or merits. It would generally be a combination of both. This is especially true when viewed from a moral and theological angle. Then, natural justice would demand that the person must undergo as much punishment as his offences deserve and as many rewards as his merits earn. The cancellation of particular rewards itself maybe a punishment in certain cases.

But if someone were to declare that the punishment and the rewards would be eternal and judgement will be pronounced only once, then it produces problems. A single judgement day implies eternal punishment or eternal reward. It means the judgement cannot be revoked. If it were to be revoked, it is would not be eternal and would require another judgement day. So, a concept of eternal hell - eternal heaven and a single judgement day, leaves no space for revocation of the judgement(of god). Because the judgement itself is made only on one occasion and there is no other occasion when it can be altered.

The question would be why alter a judgement or revoke a punishment or reward?
The simple answer is: Because the person can/may change his mind/behaviour after the punishment.

For example, consider the scenario: If a person were to be damned to hell eternally by god after the judgement day. The person, while undergoing the punishment in hell, changes his mind and expresses his complete faith in the creed, prophet and their version of god. What happens to such a person? Would he continue to undergo eternal hell even though he now believes in the creed? Would'nt that go against the very basic tenets of the creed?(Basic tenet of the creed being: Anyone who believes in our prophet or founder will be in heaven and others will rot in hell).

Another scenario: A person who believes in the creed has been awarded eternal heaven on the judgement day. After he has experienced heaven for sometime, he changes his mind and stops believing in the creed. What happens to such a person? Would such a person continue to enjoy heaven inspite of his dis-belief in the creed? Wouldn't that go against the very basic tenets of the creed? (This second scenario is even more threatening to the central tenets of the theology. One can even allow a believer to go to hell, but one can never allow a dis-believer to enter heaven. That would completely make a joke out of the system. People can game the system).

In both the above scenarios, judgement needs to be altered. But if the judgement is altered, then the claim of eternal heaven or eternal hell becomes bogus. And the assertion that there will be single judgement day will also become non-sense. If the judgement is not altered, then the claim that the belief leads to heaven and dis-belief leads to hell is contradicted.

The theologian can try to be smart and argue, " god is omniscious and therefore knows the past, present and future and also read the hearts and minds of people. So, he will allow into heaven only those who will stick with the beliefs and others will have to go to hell. So, a single judgement day would be enough."

The above smart answer is contradicted by the theology itself. And again, not in a small manner by some side character. But, the character of villain, satan, contradicts this smart answer.

Satan is supposed to be an angel who was banished from heaven by the god. If Satan reached heaven, then he must have had belief in god, right?! Otherwise, an unbeliever reaching heaven would again contradict the theology. So, satan must have been a believer initially. God saw it fit to send satan to heaven as an angel, after due deliberation. If one were to say that god did not deliberate before sending satan to heaven, then god is being portrayed with human failure. Moreover, god's judgement is supposed to be infalliable. With or without deliberation, god cannot go wrong, can he? If he can go wrong, then what sort of god is he?

Later, satan changed and stopped believing in the theology. So, god banished him. Again, god took notice of the change in satan and pronounced the judgement. This is a second decision. The first decision was to send him to heaven. And the second decision was to banish him to hell. This second decision is in complete contradiction with the claim that heaven is eternal because if heaven is eternal, then how can anyone ,much less an angel, be banished from it? So, either the heaven cannot be eternal or Satan cannot be banished. Both cannot be simultaneously true. Thats the inherent contradiction. Moreover, god has pronounced two judgements on two seperate times. One judgement is diametrically opposed to the second. And there was time lapase where the behaviour of the heaven-dweller changed which required his relocation to hell.

If one takes this above point into consideration, then the same theme will have to repeat in many cases. Because many people are bound to their views even after the judgement day. Particularly, the unbelievers who are undergoing the punishments in hell would change their views. Similarly, once the heaven is achieved, then the believers who grow lax with their beliefs. And if there is no possibility of any revocation, then the believers can simply abandon their beliefs and start practising blasphemy in heaven itself. What will god do then? Will he punish such behaviour in heaven or not? Will he tolerate blasphemy in heaven? If not, will he convene second judgement day and revoke the heavenly passes given to the blasphemers?! But, if he revokes that would violate the principle of heaven being eternal! If he does not then god becomes joke and heaven becomes a bastion of blasphemy. More and more heaven-dwellers will practice blasphemy, if they know that they cannot be punished by god.

If we carefully analyse, the essential problem with the system of eternal hell/eternal heaven and a single judgement day, is that a person can either undgergo punishments or rewards but not both. The person may have committed innumerable offences and as many merits. But still the system is incapable of reacting to both. It can either reward him or punish him. It cannot do both. It is a flawed system.

Because the system can either reward or punish (and not both), it has developed a single criteria on the basis of which the punishment or the reward will be bestowed. The criteria, as is well known, is the belief in their dogma. So, a systemic flaw has now introduced new corruption and has made the system completely unbalanced and incapable of rational reaction.

So, the only criteria that forms the basis for rewards or punishments is belief in the dogma. If you have this belief in the central dogma of theology, then you will go to heaven. You may have committed most heinious crimes, you may have behaved in most inhuman manner through out your life, yet, you will land in heaven and enjoy its luxuries, forever.

Conversely, you may be the noblest and the best human being possible, you may have served the entire humanity, you may donate all your possessions to needy and worthy; yet, you will not escape the eternal hell. (And consider a situation where you did not convert to this creed because you never heard of it. In this case, you cannot even be blamed for refusing the creed because you simply never heard of it. You were not aware of any prophet or saviour and claims of their followers. Yet, even though it is not your fault in anyway, you are still damned to hell forever if the creed has its way).

This concept is absurd and unfair inherently. Even a believer would find this little too loaded in his favour. He would wonder how he can deserve to be in heaven, when he has performed such dastardly acts. To compensate for any such feeling among the believers, the concept of temporary hell is found. The temporary hell is for the believers where they get to suffer for their evils, and can enter heaven(the eternal one) with a clean conscience. It is interesting to note that there is no parallel temporary heaven concept for unbelievers. The unbelievers are offered no hope whatsoever. They are simply doomed to the eternal hell. It is divinely sanctioned sadism.

But, thats not enough. Not only is this concept absurd and unfair, it is also ridiculous and full of internal contradictions. Because of a single judgement day and no chance of revocation of that judgement. Even god has been rendered impotent before and after the judgement day. Until the judgement day, god has to watch impotently. And after the judgement day, god is again rendered impotent. It is only on the judgement day that god is powerful. Until the judgement day, the 'believers'(of the theology) can fear him. But, once that day is passed, they no longer need to fear him or even respect him. It is like a priest at a wedding. Once the priest has marries the couple, the couple do not need the priest anymore. Similarly, once the god has granted heaven to a 'believer', the 'believer' does not need god anymore.

The whole affair of finite actions begetting infinite punishments or infinite rewards seems silly. Perhaps, the desperation of propagating and perpetuating the dogma made these concepts attractive.

Such dogmas are supremely unkind to all humanity, both believers and unbelievers in the dogma.

It seems to me that these dogmas were constructed to coerce the non-believers into the 'religion' and to keep the religious flock from wavering. Perhaps there was considerable need to restraint the 'flock' from being tempted by other creeds. So, two instruments were used to keep the flock from deserting the creed. Carrot and Stick. Stick being the fear of eternal hell and the dangling was the carrrot of eternal heaven. It was a brain washing project.

The concept of punishment and reward is not essentially evil. It is an indispensable method to inspire 'right' conduct. This concept has been used from the time there was need to bring order into human existence.

Every religion and society has some concept of punishment and reward. It is an inevitable concept to keep the people from doing 'evil' and to encourage them to be 'good'. The definitions of 'good' and 'evil' may vary from religion to religion, society to society, country to country and time to time. But the concept itself in inevitabe and indispensable. So, it is natural that this concept can also be found in theology. So, the concept of a hell to punish 'bad' behaviour and a heaven to reward 'good' behaviour is understandable. It is just an after-life extension of the concept of reward for good samaritans by the society and punishments for criminals.

However, ETERNAL hell and ETERNAL heaven stretch this practical concept into the realms of illogical and brutal.

The original concept implies punishment for an offence and reward for a merit. Both the punishment and reward are expected to be in proportion to the offence and merit respectively. It is the definition of natural justice.

If a particular society or religion was keen to drive home a point (on a certain issue), then the punishment or reward was made dis-proportionate to a certain degree. But, dis-proportionate punishment or reward is not a norm, only an exception. Eternal punishment or eternal reward is simply unjust and unreasonable.

Anyway, there are some ethical challenges, apart from logical ones, in accepting this dogma.

a) What would be the fate of those who were born dead? or were dead as infants or in young age before they could proclaim their belief or lack of it?

b) What would be the fate of those who have never heard of this creed through out their life?

c) What would be the fate of those who were born before the time of 'saviour' or 'prophet' or 'messenger'or 'incarnation'?

If the answer were that these people will go to heaven, then the dogma would fall on its face. Since the dogma is absolutely insistent that no one can enter the heavenly gates without accepting their prophet, their god, their religion.

(As an example, according to the dogma of christianity, only those who believe the Jesus Christ to be their saviour will be eligible for heaven and the rest will be damned to hell, an eternal hell. Islam takes the same approach. The finer detail being, in Islam the stress in on the prophet as opposed to saviour. Rose by another name is still rose...)

However, if the answer were that these people will land in hell, eternally, then it raises ethical issues. How can god perpetuate such an injustice? It is clear that people had no choice in these cases and yet they land in hell, eternally, for no mistake of theirs. Such a god, if he exists, would no doubt, be brutual and barbaric.

Infact, this kind of definition of god is contradictory to what the god must be(or is expected to be by any healthy mind). Anyone, even an athiest, would hypothise that a god must be just, kind, and unbiased towards all the creatures. There must be a proper and fair method of judging people, if He/She/It must, and proportionate reaction to an action.

So, the concept of eternal hell and eternal heaven is illogical and unreasonable. The concept seeks to portray the god as illogical, barbaric, jealous, ruthless, sadist, impotent, stupid and irrational. This dogmatic portrayal of god does not fit with basic idea of god that people, in general, expect.

Only Solution:
The solution is to acknowledge that a finite action can only bear a finite result(good or bad, pleasurable or painful). All Actions are temporary, in terms of the time-period, factors, scale,...etc. So, results of those actions must also be temporary. Some actions can have longer results or bigger results. But, no action can have eternal result. Everything that has a begining must come to an end. An outcome of an action must also have some expiry date.

Thus, there must be only and only temporary hell and temporary heaven(if they exist at all). And many judgement days. Infact, there must be as many judgement days, as necessary. The number of judgement days is not important. What is important is whether the justice is being delivered or not.

Also, every offence must bear a punishment and every merit must be rewarded (if the god/goddess is fair and just). So, if a person commits both offences and merits then he must have to visit both the hell and heaven.

So, in a fair system(with a just god/goddess), a person is rewarded in proportion to his merits and punished in proportion to his mistakes. And Since, his mistakes or merits cannot be infinite, his rewards and punishments won't be infinite either.

New Problem:
But this raises another problem: what happens to a person when he has already completed his finite term(s) at heaven and/or hell earned by his merit and/or sin respectively?

What will happen to that person?
This raises a much deeper question actually: What is the default state of creatures?

A creature suffers as a punishment for his wrongdoings. A creature is rewarded pleasures for his meritorious work. But apart from all that, what is his default state? What if the person had neither committed any mistakes nor done any good? Or If the person had already suffered for all his sins and enjoyed all the fruits of good deeds? What is that person's default state?

Abrahamic religions are unable to answer it. They start from a silly notion that all creatures are inherently sinful and deserve eternal hell. This is completely negative ideology.

According to these creeds, god is creating beings who deserve to be in eternal hell and tortured every second for ever. What is the purpose of all this creation? Just to create beings and throw them in hell? What kind of perverse sadism is this?!

Actually, if we analyse concept of sin(as espoused by X-nity and Islam), it is even more ridiculous:
Sin is not an action or result of an action, in X-nity or Islam. It is rather an inherited curse. There many contradiction in that concept also.

Briefly, all the descendents of Adam inherit the curse(Sin). But, all humans are supposed to be descendents of Adam. So, Mary(the so-called mother of Jesus) was also a human. Similarly, both the parents of Mohammad are also human. And being humans, they must have inherited the curse. So, they must have passed this curse to their children to blood(and/or semen). This applies to all the prophets and saviors of Islam and X-nity. This is the inherent contradiction.

Jesus is supposed to be son of the god because his mother mary conceived after being impregnated by ghost(and not human). It is not a human semen, but a ghostly one. So, it is argued that Jesus is devoid of the sin. But, this silly argument forgets that Mary, Jesus's mother, is human and Jesus have shared her blood. BTW, Jesus blood is supposed to be sacred. He supposedly invites the people to drink his blood in last supper. Anyway, jesus is called a son of the man. If jesus is son of the man, he must have inherited the curse(sin) like as children of man.

Anyway, whether jesus is called son of the man or not, it is clear that he is supposed to be the son of mary who is descendent of Adam. So, how can he not inherit her sin?

If jesus and other prophets and saviours are also sinful like all humanity, then why are they chosen for special privileges by jehovah(or allah)? Nepotism?

Also a soul inherits 'sin', only after it enters the body(a human body). What is the state of soul before entering the body? What is the default state of soul, if there was no 'sin'?

When a new soul is created by god, is it good or bad or neutral? a) If it is good, then it deserves to go to heaven, instead of being sent into a human's body.
b) If a soul is bad at the time of its creation itself, then it cannot be bettered by any experience on the earth. If the soul was bad at the time of its creation itself, how can it become better merely by accepting someone as prophet or saviour? A bad soul must be directly sent to hell. Also, why would god create such bad souls? Is his creation flawed? Why can't he create good souls only? And if god has created bad souls, is it the mistake of bad souls that they are bad? or is it the mistake of god who made bad souls? Instead of creating bad souls and then sending them to hell, wouldn't it be better if god simply kept quiet?!
c) If the soul is neutral at the time of its creation, then god should not be sending a neutral soul into a sinful human body. Also, if the soul is neutral and only human body is sinful, then after the death(when the sinful human body dies), then the neutral soul would be free from sin, no?

In all the three cases,
Essentially, this is a shallow theology at its core. And riddled with internal contradictions apart from irrationalities.

Link to post

So, if the God/Goddess is a dictatorial ruler, then what is the basic difference between Hindhuism(and its derivatives) and Abrahamic creeds?

The difference is that the God/Goddess is portrayed as rewarding or punishing in arbitrary and unfair fashion in Abrahamic creeds. In Hindhuism, God/Goddess is fair because the rewards or punishments are supposed to be based on individual actions(i.e. Karma).

So, the concept of Karma is the main difference. Because the concept of Karma puts the onus on the individuals. But, the concept of Karma also leads to the concept of unending circle of life and death.

----
JEM saar,
Buddhism is supposed to be a revolution against the authority of Vedhas.

----
Peter saar,
I thought you were a supporter of Aryan Invasion Theory and were arguing on the basis of Aryan Invasion Theory or Aryan Migration Theory.

----
Shiv saar,
so you agree that Ithihaasa is Hindhu history?

Atleast, you agree that Hindhus have claimed Ithihaasa to be Hindhu history before the brits or other westerner came along with their theories?

[shiv]

On this thread, there is frequently an assertion that Hindhu God/Goddess is not a dictator like an Abrahamic conception of god.

I don't quite agree with this view. I think that there is nothing in other religions which has not been inherited from Hindhuism. That means even the dictatorial attitudes are inherited from Hindhuism directly or indirectly.

There is a saying that Vedhas talk about Dharma like King giving orders. The same Dharma is preached by smruthis like a friend(by giving reasons and all). The same Dharma is told by the poems like a beloved wife.


So, if the God/Goddess is a dictatorial ruler, then what is the basic difference between Hindhuism(and its derivatives) and Abrahamic creeds?

I am in total disagreement with this. This is YOUR personal thesis which you are welcome to believe.

You don't seem to understand that a King giving orders means nothing unless the King also punishes those who do not follow those orders. That is the definition of "law". The Vedas may be like a king giving orders, but not following those orders does not lead to punishment like in the Abrahamic religions. You are simply cooking up similarities.

You do not seem to know the difference between "law" and "code". One is a guide, the other is a coercive mechanism that punishes non compliance. You are claiming the wholly untenable thesis that Hindu dharma has a coercive punishment mechanism. Please quote sources other than your own previous posts in support of this claim. You have shown a consistent tendency to simply cook up your own meanings for words and then use them and claim that this should be the true meaning. You did that for "religion" and now you are doing the same thing for the word "law' and for the word "dictator".

The difference between an advisor/ethical code and a dictator is that the latter ensures punishment. The Vedas do no such dictatorial thing. A dictator lays down laws to instantly punish those who do not follow the rules or accept his dominance. That punishment starts here on earth in life. That is the meaning of "law".

There are no Hindu laws that dictate punishment here and now for those who do not follow the rules. People who are adharmic are simply reborn. They are not sent to hell. There is no rule book that says that adulterers shall be stoned to death or that blasphemers will be killed or excommunicated. Please don't cook up things that don't exist simply to claim that even crap appeared in the west because of Hindus.

[shiv]

so you agree that Ithihaasa is Hindhu history?

Atleast, you agree that Hindhus have claimed Ithihaasa to be Hindhu history before the brits or other westerner came along with their theories?

History, pre history and ethics are three different things.

Itihaasa has Hindu history in it, but it is more than history. It includes "pre-history" and ethics.The word history does not admit pre history or ethics and that is why the British were critical. They coined a word and then used it to bash Hindus. You are trying to use that word back at the Brits and say that Hindus had the same thing but the meaning was different. How could Hindus have had a word that was coined and defined by Protestant Christians? I suppose you will say "It all came from India originally" - which is your theory

If you simply want to call itihaasa as history you are wrong. You get no concession from me for trying to bend the meanings of words because you are not helping anyone but yourself by doing that.

[svenkat]

shivji,
thank you for your illuminating posts on history.Also,they threw a light my prejudices(mostly to do with my perceptions of other sampradayas).

[johneeG]

so you agree that Ithihaasa is Hindhu history?

Atleast, you agree that Hindhus have claimed Ithihaasa to be Hindhu history before the brits or other westerner came along with their theories?

History, pre history and ethics are three different things.

Itihaasa has Hindu history in it, but it is more than history. It includes "pre-history" and ethics.The word history does not admit pre history or ethics and that is why the British were critical. They coined a word and then used it to bash Hindus. You are trying to use that word back at the Brits and say that Hindus had the same thing but the meaning was different. How could Hindus have had a word that was coined and defined by Protestant Christians? I suppose you will say "It all came from India originally" - which is your theory

If you simply want to call itihaasa as history you are wrong. You get no concession from me for trying to bend the meanings of words because you are not helping anyone but yourself by doing that.

Why is history a protestant concept? Isn't the word 'history' having greek roots? How can anyone claim that the word 'history' is coined and defined by protestants?

Is it your claim that the definitions provided by the X-ists are most authoritative?

Wiki on etymology of 'history':

Ancient Greek ἱστορία[12] (historía) means "inquiry","knowledge from inquiry", or "judge". It was in that sense that Aristotle used the word in his Περὶ Τὰ Ζῷα Ἱστορίαι[13] (Perì Tà Zôa Ηistoríai "Inquiries about Animals"). The ancestor word ἵστωρ is attested early on in Homeric Hymns, Heraclitus, the Athenian ephebes' oath, and in Boiotic inscriptions (in a legal sense, either "judge" or "witness", or similar).

The word entered the English language in 1390 with the meaning of "relation of incidents, story". In Middle English, the meaning was "story" in general. The restriction to the meaning "record of past events" arose in the late 15th century. It was still in the Greek sense that Francis Bacon used the term in the late 16th century, when he wrote about "Natural History". For him, historia was "the knowledge of objects determined by space and time", that sort of knowledge provided by memory (while science was provided by reason, and poetry was provided by fantasy).

Wiki Link

Coming to the meaning of the word 'History':

History (from Greek ἱστορία, historia, meaning "inquiry, knowledge acquired by investigation")[2] is the study of the past, particularly how it relates to humans.[3][4] It is an umbrella term that relates to past events as well as the memory, discovery, collection, organization, presentation, and interpretation of information about these events. Scholars who write about history are called historians. Events occurring prior to written record are considered prehistory.

Link

If its about past and its written record, then its history. 'Pre-history' is supposedly about the time before the records could be written down. That means its about a time before the scripts were invented.

Is there such a time, according to Hindhuism? Is there a time when scripts were non-existent according to Hindhuism?

Pre-history is a western concept and has no validity in Hindhuism. Its a relatively new concept. 'History' is an ancient concept found in all regions, religions, and cultures. Claiming that its a X-ist concept seems strange to me.

I think the problem is that Prof. Balagangadhara seems to start off with a view that history was an objective study and recently, it has been corrupted. That seems to be his thesis. (This attitude seems to be based on Balangangadhara accepting the western narratives about history).

Many times, historians like to pretend that study of history is an objective science. But, it seems to me that history and its interpretations are subjective.

In fact, this is a classic illustration of how historical controversies start. Such controversies can start by two ways:
a) Misinformation:Unintentional, disorganized, caused by ignorance/inadvertent mistake.
b) Disinformation:Intentional, organized, definite motive.

Disinformation is, generally, more organized, planned and passionate. There may be a definite motive in spreading a disinfo. There may be a group of players who spread the disinfo with a definite agenda. So even if the contrary proof is shown, the disinfo campaign will persist. On the other hand, misinfo is mostly unintentional, disorganized, and is more open to correction when the mistakes are pointed out. It is generally, caused by ignorance or an inadvertent mistake. Disinfo campaigns target the ignorant or misinformed people. So, once these people are convinced, then the disinfo is spread via misinfo also. A disinfo campaign backed by powerful players can be very effective, far-reaching and long-lasting. It is nothing more than propaganda.

While, it may be possible to identify an unintentional mistake, it is far more difficult to identify an intentional fudging of the records. This difficulty rises exponentially as the time passes by. So, it becomes more and more difficult to spot an inaccurate information (misinfo or disinfo) in historical records. More the antiquity of records, more difficult it is to differentiate between accurate info from false info.

People in history are similar to the contemporary people. And their records are also similar to contemporary records. Some are honest, some are not. Some are well-informed, some are not. Some distort(or even lie) with a specific agenda, some are truthful. This is true today, it was true in the past(history) and it will will be true in future. This is the main reason, there are so many conflicting claims in Indian History( or for that matter any history with long timelines). Given the long timelines, many people/groups have indulged in disinformation(to further their agendas) in the past(just as some people/groups do in present and no doubt, some will continue to do in the future). And then, there are those who spread the false info mistaking it for the correct info(misinfo). Such people are also useful to those who are interested in spreading the disinfo. Disinfo campaigns, generally, target those who are less knowledgeable. Once these people are convinced(or duped) into believing the false info, they can then spread the false info believing it to be true.

Also, there may be multiple parties interested in spreading a certain false info (about past, present or future). All these parties can come together and work with each other to fulfill their common agenda/interests. It is not necessary that these parties be allies or friends. As long as, these parties have common interests/agenda in spreading the same false info, they can cooperate to that limited extent. This happens now, this must have happened in the past, and this will happen in the future.

Given, all these factors, it is very difficult for a historian to know which one is a fraudulent historical record and which is the authentic one.

One simple way is to assume that the oldest is most authentic. Another method is to assume that the data point that is accepted by most records must be closer to truth. Both of these are great assumptions not backed by practical experience. The above methods gives incentives to the forgeries(or propagandas) that have survived in time or have spread widely. If a particular propaganda or forgery has powerful backing, it could have (in its time or later) destroyed or suppressed the other records which expose its fallacies. In fact, the survival of this record may be directly attributed to its falsity rather than authenticity. Yet, the authentic records may also survive such periods due to many factors.

So, we are back to the problem: given, all these factors, how does the historian know which one is a fraudulent historical record and which is the authentic one?
The simple answer is: There is no way.

So, invariably, all records are clubbed together and given same treatment by the modern historian. That means, because the modern historian is unable to distinguish between the accurate source (i.e acceptable/reliable source) and inaccurate source (i.e. unacceptable/unreliable source), he resorts to treating all sources as more or less equally accurate/inaccurate. So, all the sources are considered equally reliable and equally suspect. That means, the historian thinks all records are equally correct and equally false.

But, what happens when the historical records differ on a particular data point? In fact, the whole reliable/unreliable thingy is redundant if all the records agree on all aspects, isn't it? The reliability/unreliability becomes an issue only when these records give differing picture of the same data point. So, what happens when the historical records differ on a particular data point? How does the historian know which record is giving the correct picture and which one is distorting(if not outright lying)? What does the modern historian do? The problem is not to be underestimated because the historian is unable to know the reliable sources and has clubbed all the sources into the same category of reliability.

Then, how does the historian construct a narrative of history from these differing sources(all of which have been classified as equally reliable/unreliable)?

What the historian does is that he gleans those data points from these divergent records, that he thinks must be true. For example, he reads three different portrayals of a same event from three different sources. Then, he constructs the narrative that he thinks is most plausible. For this, he chooses data points most suitable to his narrative from these three sources. He rejects all other data points as unreliable or irrelevant. It is almost like he thinks he has some kind of superhuman intuitive intellect that can differentiate the truth from untruth and bring the real events to light. Of course, what may seem plausible to one man may seem farfetched to another and vice versa. So, the same records can be used by different historians to produce different narratives.

This method is obviously faulty, even if we assume that the historian himself is unbiased, neutral, fair, and intelligent. Of course, historians are seldom unbiased or neutral.

History has a value only if it is related to present. And there is always politics in the present which will have an impact on how history will be read. This fault is inherent in historical records that speak of their past. That means, just as a modern historian can be biased in presenting the events of past, an ancient historian can also be biased. For example, a 100 yr old document talking about 200 yr old event can be biased or inaccurate just as a modern document talking about the history can be biased or inaccurate because of the bias or ignorance of the historian. Similarly, a 1000 yr old document talking about 1100 yr old event may be biased or inaccurate.

We know that any historian, who presents a narrative that runs contrary to the convenience/interests of those who are presently in power, is ignored or bullied socially and/or politically. This happened now, this must have happened in the past, this is likely to happen in the future as well. Yet, there can also be regimes (in past, present or future) that may have encouraged any honest investigation. There can also be regimes (in past, present or future) that may not care for any history and allow all kinds of narratives to survive and prosper. The point I am trying to make is that there is no formula by which any reader of history can simply come to correct understanding of history.

All this makes it very difficult for people to know history by consulting historical records unless one has some method by which authentic records can be differentiated from the frauds.

This is the only solution. Generally, traditions achieve this purpose. Traditions accept certain sources/records and base the narrative upon those records/sources. All other records/sources are ignored or considered irrelevant. In this regard, the traditions and the methods of modern historian may seem similar. But, there is a vital difference. The traditions accept a particular record(s)/source(s), while a historian accepts a particular data point from different sources. When a particular record(s) is accepted, everything within the record must be accepted. There is no escaping it. On the other hand, a historian gleans different data points from different sources constructing his own narrative. Some of the blanks in the narrative may be filled by his own imagination. The historian does not fully accept any source as reliable, because if he does he would have to simply accept the narrative presented by that source. At the same time, the modern historian does not fully reject all sources either, because if he does he has no other source to construct the narrative(except his vivid imagination). So, he picks and chooses what he thinks is plausible from different sources and rejects the other data points from those sources. In short, we have a customized history presented by the modern historian. In contrast, traditions present history which may be biased in its favour but not completely customized to suit every convenience/sensibility. Unlike, modern day historians, traditions don't pretend to be unbiased. They are unapologetically partisan. So, when we study a tradition we know exactly what their agenda is.

The colonial(EJ) and commie historians want to claim neutrality This feigned neutrality is used as a cloak to spin historical narratives that suit their preferred ideologies. They do this in most absurd manner by arbitrarily choosing what to believe, how much to believe and when to reject. Their convenience is the only criteria. Anything that doesn't fit their convenience gets rejected and anything that fits is accepted. The result of such arbitrariness is theories like 'Sheet Anchor'(or 'Anchor Sheet' or whatever). And this is, then, used as a basis for all other dates.

Needless to say that those dates are bound to be arbitrary. Even then those dates are further adjusted if a detail is inconvenient. This approach is nothing but intellectual dishonesty especially since they claim neutrality.

Instead, the age old method of going by one's traditions to accept or reject a historical record or detail is more honest(even if partisan).

Each group/community has their own traditions. And based on those traditions, every group/community accept or reject certain historical records. Each group/community believes in the primacy of its own traditions. It is natural.

But, all traditions need not be truthful. Some(if not many) traditions may be born around disinfo campaigns or propaganda.

So, traditions can also be authentic or flawed. Some traditions can be considered less authentic than others because their narrative is self-contradictory or patently irrational/false (again, this is a subjective view).

According to Hindu traditions, Puranas are the authentic account of the Indian history. Other sources are useful only to the extent that they clarify the Puranic account. If any historical record(say Buddhist or Jaina) is contradicting Puranas, then it is rejected as a misinformation or disinformation.

I welcome Kota Venkatachalem's work because it insists that we must go back to Puranas for proper Indian history instead of relying on Greek(or other foreign accounts which may be uninformed or propaganda).

I have no problem in accepting the Buddha's date given by Kota Venkatachalem. In fact, I am more than happy to accept it.

But, when I superficially glossed through his work, I checked the dates given by him for Adi Shankara and Kumarilla Bhatta. I find them dubious at best and fraudulent at worst.

Actually, there is no need to bring in the dates of Adi Shankara and Kumarilla Bhatta when you are working on Buddha's dates. I think they are irrelevant to each other.

I'll give an example of what I think Kota Venkatachalem has done by bringing in dates of Adi Shankara and Kumarilla Bhatta while trying to refute Buddha's dates(given by colonial historians):
Lets say, you propose that Sri Rama belonged to 14th century CE based on some bogus info(or interpretation of info). Now, I want to refute your proposal. So, I say that my uncle lived in 14th century and he told me he never met Sri Rama and that proves Sri Rama was older than 14th century. If someone points out that my uncle could not have belonged to 14th century while I belong to 21st century, it does not mean he is agreeing to the original proposal that Sri Rama belonged to 14th century. It only means that he is merely pointing out the mistake in my counter-argument.

Similarly, I do not agree with the dates given for Buddha by the colonial/commie historians. But, at the same time, the dates given by Kota Venkatachalem also seem to be bogus.

I repeat that I heartily welcome Kota Venkatachalem's work because it insists that we must go back to Puranas for proper Indian history. In fact, the Puranas preserve and present ancient oral traditions from guru(teacher) to shishya(disciple). Every Purana starts with a set of people(rishis) asking some questions to Suta pauranika. Suta pauranika then tells them that he heard this narrative from X who was told by Y who learnt it from Z, so on, dating back to the original event or God/Goddess Himself/Herself. These traditions are now preserved in the Puranas. So, there is continuous historical narrative extending to great timelines. This is a unique feature of Puranas unlike any other historical source.

So, we must go back to the Puranas and check what they are saying. That must be done, before anything else is done. Actually, anyone who wants to learn Indian history has no other recourse but the Puranas. Other historical records and archeological evidences can only supplement the Puranas. But, without Puranic account, the other historical records and archeological evidences are useless to construct any coherent narrative or timeline of Indian history. So, invariably, all the historians interested in Indian history must depend on the data presented by Puranas. It is just that these historians only pick the data but do not accept the timelines or narrative given by Puranas. They use the data to spin their own fables convenient to their worldview.

Link to post

[member_22733]

LokeshC - when you have the time and opportunity I would recommend that you (download and) read Edward Said's "Orientalism". You of all people are likely to gain deep insights from that work because of your special insights

However I think rationality and western scientific thought have a basis Greek philosophy and skepticism, which was the first layer of opposition to Catholic dogma (by the Romans) in the early years of Christianity. But the Romans were defeated and dogma ruled until the same scepticism and rationality took rebirth along with the Protestant revolt against the Catholic church.

Thanks! Will try to read it when things get a little less busy.

I did have it in the back of my mind that Greek philosophy is the philosophical basis for the west which is in conflict Roman Catholicism as religious basis. It exist to this day as a war between secular-liberals (greeks) and bible thumping conservatives (Roman catholics/EJs), in the west.

I guess what I wanted to tell was, Greek philosophy was among the many that were available (it was not unique), but it was chosen since it was a good weapon against the dogmatic philosophy that Abrahamism was back in the day. It was a "revolt" rather than renaissance. The hold of the church was so tight, that there was wide spread resentment which made it easy for the people who dont like tyranny to switch over to something more "liberal".

Such philosophical branches undoubtedly are present in India, but there was no need or necessity to take it up as an opposition to any other philosophy and that is due to the fact that there was no real tyrannical oppression from any other philosophy. Not until Islam and later on Brishits did Hindus ever come across tyranny and dogma.

Oirope was extremely lucky to be where it was, both in "history" and geography.

[member_27991]

a. If the data of Rama's birth can be 12,000 years ago or 1.2 million years ago - in terms of science that is an enormous difference.

Just FYI, paleontology-wise, humans were still in the stone age 12,000 years ago. Use of metals in the Indus Valley, archaeology-wise would be six thousand years in the future.

Paleontology-wise, 1.2 million years ago, the largest cranial capacity of the extant hominids was half that of modern humans.


b. Since Valmiki Ramayana came up, per my copy, the various medicinal herbs became "adrashya" (unseen) when they learned Hanuman had come to harvest them. Unable to find them, Hanuman became angry, and he roared, and his eyes became as red as fire, and he told the mountain, you decided not to serve Shri Raghunath; I will defeat you with my strength. Saying so he uprooted the mountain, scattering trees, elephants and the gold/metal ores the mountain had.[/quote]

I guess if we really believe in the existence of Shri Rama then we have to believe in the existence completely. It will not be possible to gauge the period of Shri Rama paletologically or scientifically because these are material science terms at a gross level. Ramayan is also at an adhyatmic level. To give a perpective when hunamana returned to claim Sita ji's bangle which he had left inside the kamandal of a great yogi he saw that there were many bangles inside there each exactly similar to the one he had left. In his confusion he asked the yogi which one was Sita ji's which he had dropped to which the yogi replied, I dont know you have to see which one is yours because in every Yuga a hanuman comes and drops it in there on his way to some work so you have to find out which one is yours or just leave it there. Hanumana just smiled and understood the vastness of Shri Rama and how really the Virat swaroop he is.
With all these things in mind it would be a wasted mental excercise to really guage in what period Shri Rama appeared on planet earth as he has been mentioned right from the begining of time to this day.

[johneeG]

If its about past and its written record, then its history.

Correction:
If its about past and its written record, then its history unless its a fiction.

Now, the question is:
is Hindhu Ithihaasa fictional or historical because it claims to be about the past?

----

We have discussed the subtle meanings of so many English words like History, Religion, Cult, Apocrypha, Bath etc

Let me introduce two more words that we all know.

1. Supernatural:

(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

We are scientific people and as Hindus we count ourselves among the best. We now know that "supernatural" relates to something "beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature".

2. Superstition:

excessively credulous belief in and reverence for the supernatural.

Please note that the definition of the word "superstition" includes the word "supernatural". And that which is supernatural cannot be explained by science. This means that if YOU believe something that cannot be explained by science, you believe a superstition. You are superstitious

Now please try and understand where I am coming from.

Hindu tradition and folklore and itihaasa has a lot of things that cannot be explained by science and are therefore supernatural. If you believe in the supernatural, you are superstitious. Therefore Hindus are superstitious.

If you look at Protestant Christian history that has been "written", all supernatural events and superstition have been removed. Protestants do not believe in miracles. Therefore there is no superstition in Protestant history.

Is it any wonder that Hindus have no claim on rationality until they weed out superstition from their beliefs? Think about it folks. You are all intelligent. Who is making an idiot of whom over here?

a) modern science is not the same as Hindhu science. Hindhus had their own version of science based on their own understanding of the world. Both sciences may agree on certain points while they may disagree on certain other points.

Further, there were many prevalent 'scientific' theories trying to explain the world. And there seems to have been freedom for people to debate and argue in support of their theory. For example, the Jaina theory seems to be that the world has two suns or two moons.

Similarly, there were many competing Hindhu and Buddhist 'scientific' theories. Depending on the socio-political factors, some theory would become popular.

b) When, one talks about 'laws of nature', perhaps one is talking about physical/chemical/biological laws of nature. But these 'laws' seem to become irrelevant at higher levels.

Hindhu 'science' and how it seems to justify the 'magical' aspects:

I think to understand the concept of Manthras, one has to think like the ancient Bhaarathiyas. After all, one is trying to understand their thinking. One cannot understand it unless one starts to think like them.

So, what is their understanding?

It seems the way they see it is that the whole universe was created from an entity which itself is without origin. And that entity is also without destruction. That entity is changeless and all-pervasive. It is energetic and infinite. It is knowledgeable and has the capacity to transfer knowledge. When the universe is destroyed, the energy of the universe goes back to the entity. That entity is impersonal and equi-balanced towards all objects of universe.

Since the entity is all pervasive and energetic, it can be accessed in every part of universe. Since, it is energetic, those who access it, will become more powerful/energetic.

For example, consider this: every physical object in the universe contains energy and knowledge. Every object without exception. They have a particular nature according to which they interact with other objects. So, there is knowledge of how to interact with the other objects hardwired into every object. For example, a sponge knows how to soak water. And water knows how to enter sponge. There energy and knowledge in this physical interaction. Every physical interaction is through transfer of energy. Either the energy is taken or given.

Another way of looking at it is: every physical object is a physical representation of a energy. Physical object is just a medium to carry energy. The real thing is energy.

If the energy is the real thing using physical object as a medium or representation, then the
a) energy must be represented by every physical object and
b) every physical object must carry particular energy and
c) same energy can be represented in various physical ways.
The above 3 are corollaries of the theory that physical object is just a representation of the energy.

Each of these corollaries leads to further thought process.

a) energy must be represented by every physical object
If every physical object has energy, then it must be representing that particular energy. This means that when two objects interact, it is actually two energies interacting. So, the predictions about interaction of the objects can be made if the nature of interactions of the energies is understood. If I know how water and fire interact with each other, then I can predict the interaction of hot iron and cold water. Hot iron takes the energy of the fire and behaves like fire.

b) every physical object must carry particular energy
This leads to the theory that every physical object must be carrying some energy. So, every place, object, time, circumstance, animal, ...etc carries energy. Any change in place, object, time, ...etc can also change energy, positively or negatively.

c) same energy can be represented in various physical ways.
This means that the same energy can be represented in various physical ways like image(for seeing or touching), food(for tasting), sound(for hearing), smell(or smelling)...etc. One can make a drawing to represent an energy. Or one can make a sound to represent the same energy. If one makes a drawing, it is called Yanthra. If one makes a sound, it is called Manthra. If one makes an image, it is called Murthi. But all of them are merely ways of representing the energy.

If we combine these three corollaries, one can understand the concept.
Every physical object will carry energy. Energy is divine. There is one single energetic entity which is the origin of all universe. Yet, after the creation of universe, there are multiple energies in the world. Every physical object will need atleast one type of energy to work properly. These energies can be represented in various ways physically.

Now, as a human being: we too have a physical self and a energy. I interact with rest of the universe. I can either increase my energy or decrease my energy based on my interaction with universe. Every action, word and thought can make a impact on whether the energy is gained or lost. The interaction will happen at physical level but the real thing is the transfer of energy.

The concept goes that there are ways to interact positively and increase the energy. Or at least, minimize the decrease of energy.

When we say increase energy and decrease energy and talk about interaction between energies, it automatically means that some objects have more energy than others. It also means than any object can acquire or lose energy. Energy held by all physical objects is temporary. All physical attributes are temporary. The energy is more long lasting, but strictly speaking, even it is temporary. The only thing that is everlasting is the entity which contains all energy and is all pervasive.

When some objects contain more energy than others, it means that those who contain less energy can acquire more energy by being in the vicinity of those having more energy than them. But, it also means that those who have more energy will lose energy if they interact with those who have less energy than them.

All physical objects have energy. Physical objects need physical objects to acquire or lose energy. Direct interact with energy is difficult or not possible.

This means that there has to be certain interface between physical object and energy. Basically, energy become gross and gross at certain levels. The subtlest level interacts with the next grosser level until finally it interacts with physical object. That means physical object is nothing more than a very gross form of energy.

So, there are several levels of energy from gross to subtle. The subtle energies are more powerful and difficult to detect. The all pervasive energy is of course the all powerful entity containing all energies. It is impossible to detect it.

This is the concept. And based on this concept the whole Santhana Dharma seems to work.

Link to post

Ulan Batori saar,
I haven't read some of your recent posts. So, I say sorry to you in advance if I am missing some point that you made in your recent posts. I'll read them later.

That is powerful (no pun intended). I have not got around to understanding how an electromagnetic or gravitational field can act across vacuum, so I am quite a long way (or time) from understanding energy.

a) It seems heat and light(of sun) can act across vacuum(if one assumes the space to be vacuum). So, maybe the energy will transform into heat or light while traveling through vacuum. The energy will not be destroyed, so it will transform into a form that it can survive in.

b) The theory that space is vacuum is advanced by modern science. I don't know whether the ancient bhaarathiyas believed in it. It seems to me that perhaps they did not believe in vacuum theory. Rather they seem to believe in 'ether' theory where Akaasha is some kind of an ether.

That energy and matter are the same, has now been accepted by humans.

I know that it is accepted by modern day humans. It seems it was believed by the ancient humans as well. But, the modern day scientists don't seem to realize the full implications of this theory. On the other hand, the ancients seem to have realized the wide implications of this theory.

What are the implications?
If all matter is merely energy
If all energy can transform from one form to another
then, theoretically, it should be possible to transform matter using energy. Since physical attributes of matter are merely temporal, then physical attributes of matter can be tweaked by using energy. Matter can be transformed using energy. This theory opens up all kinds of exciting possibilities.

Infact, it removes the physical boundaries completely.

For example, is it possible to make a woman virgin again using sound energy?
is it possible to make a person pregnant using light energy?
is it possible to make a person young or old using sound energy?
is it possible to make the skies rain or the plants flower using music?

All such things should be theoretically possible if the energies can be replicated.

The Manthras and rituals of Vedhas seem to represent exactly this thinking. It seems that the ancient people(and many modern people also) use these Manthras for their 'magical' properties.

The belief is that if these manthras are chanted, then it results in certain things. Ex: one can chant a Manthra and become rich. or One can chant a Manthra and cure a disease.

All these beliefs are based on the theory that the physical matter can be transformed using sound energy.

Similarly, going to temple and watching the image of God or praying to light is also considered auspicious. This is based on the theory that the physical matter can be transformed using light energy.

Similarly, visiting pilgrimages is considered powerful. This is based on the belief that some places are natural reservoirs of vast energy where people can go and increase their energy levels.

The whole construction of Temple is based on rituals and Manthras which are believed to be energizing the whole place and act as a reservoir of energy for the whole community.

Yanthras represent energy in drawing form.
Manthras represent energy in audio form.
Murthis represent energy in physical form.

When I say represent energy, I mean that they can replicate or reproduce the energy. For example, the belief is that the Fire Manthra can reproduce heat when it is heard or said in various objects.

Actually, I wanted to write a lot more on this, but its somehow not coming properly.

Link to post

Ulan Batori saar,
there are two points here when trying to understand Manthras, Yanthras, Murthis, ...etc.
a) encoding
b) energies.

Encoding would mean that allegories would be used.
Energies would mean that the energies are being represented.

For example, when Vedhas frequently talk about Horse, they seem to use the word 'Ashva'. Now, the etymological meaning of Ashva seems to be 'fast-moving one'. 'Aashu' means 'fast'. Shiva is called 'Aashu-thosh' because he is supposed to be quickly satisfied(with devotees). Similarly, there is a contest called 'Aashu-kavithas' i.e. weaving poems on the spot. Basically, 'Ashva' means 'fast moving one'.

Now, this appellation 'fast moving one' can apply to lot of other entities(other than a horse). For example, it can apply to light rays. Surya(i.e Sun) is said to ride on a chariot of 7 horses. If the horses are taken to be rays. Then, it would mean that Sun is said to ride on a vehicle of 7 rays.

Similarly, when looking at the images of Gods and Goddesses, there are two aspects:
a) encoding i.e. allegory
b) energies.

Coming to Ganesha.
Body of Ganesha represents the universe while the head(i.e. elephant head) seems to represent the Brahma. This is allegory i.e. philosophy/knowledge hidden through symbols.

The whole form of Ganesha seems to represent the energy of Om. This is energy thing.

The stories also seem to have these two aspects: Philosophy/knowledge being conveyed symbolically and energies being represented in symbolic manner.

Link to post

So, Vedhas and Puraanas are talking about Manthra, Thanthras, Yanthras, Devathas, and creation theories. The historical part which is found in Puraanas is considered to be very old and retold many times. So, its historical authenticity is not corroborated.

On the other hand, Ithihaasa is claiming that its historical authenticity is uncorrupted mostly.

A civilization which does not know about aeroplanes would find flying objects as non-scientific. Infact, the reference to Pushapaka vimana evoked precisely such reactions before the aeroplanes were invented.

Anyway, today, the western world and western universalism seems to be based on modern western science and its atheistic nature. If modern western science is used as the basic then certainly Hindhuism (and all other religions) will seem like superstitions.
----

Ambar saar,

you posted a post about Buddhism, martial arts and its connection to the dance. I had the same thoughts after I saw video which said that the movements in Kalari Payattu are remarkably similar to the movements of a dance form(I don't remember its name).

So, based on these observations, I suspected that the the movements of Bhaarathiyas martial arts and Bhaarathiya dance forms were one and the same. When the same movements were done in a more aggressive fashion, they would become martial arts. While doing the same movements in a mild manner, they would become dance forms.

It seems that dance forms have been preserved in the Bhaarath and therefore, it should possible to re-invigorate the martial arts also because movements would be same.

[member_20317]

Shivji,

I think we just need to agree to be different and propagate our respective views (I do not mind if you win). So you can take my replies in that sense. I don’t think anyone of us can change the other in any manner.

People who oppose Valentines day are medieval monkeys. And what can you say about Muslims? Some Muslim mullah brain slaps a Muslim model for showing her meat. Does not matter to me.

http://indianexpress.com/article/cities ... ce-report/

“Our study shows that 71.9 per cent of rape cases registered in the city are incidents of sexual relations with the promise of marriage. Further, in 12.5 per cent cases of rape, the accused are neighbours of the victim, while in 6.7 per cent cases, the accused are the father or the immediate sibling of victim. In 4.97 per cent cases, the accused are relatives of the victim,” Mumbai Police Commissioner Rakesh Maria said Wednesday. The study deals with cases filed from January to October.

Maria further said, “Only six per cent of the rape cases registered this year have been committed by people not known to victims

Shiv ji that underlined portion over there is Date Rape-Indian Style, described without mentioning it. All other case are defunct families watching too much Bollywood perhaps. Except the last highlighted 6% which is cannot be pinned to defunct families or difficult social conditions.

Now there was a gent here (~Chandra something) who was raising a hue and cry that Bajrang Dal ne jhapad maar diya. This should let him understand why people are upset.

Now you want to compare this with a Muslim beating up a women because she wore a shorter skirt then is required by some holly book.

Your choice. I will not allow it to stick to me.

So my questions can be framed in this manner

1. Hindus were anyway declared an immoral people because their religion had no code of morality. We have accepted that like we accepted all the other accusations about Hindus and Hindu-ism

If I don’t accept their declaration that Hindus are an immoral people (fornicating adultrous sobs) because we do not have a religion that defines morality - then how should I respond to a westerner.

2. Religions are being discarded anyway. The modern way is rule of law and individual freedom and "self expression". Religious morality is passé. Even Christianity is dying.

Religion is being discarded because it was artificial and only later did the people in the pulpit decided to adopt some of the Hindu concepts to make Religion more palatable. Till the time they could get away with it, they did. Besides discarding is by the followers only not by the superstructure. Religions of the Book are already enshrined in the Law all across the world. They have armies supporting it which do not even require their monies. They have already done their deed. From the Indian side, even if people should have refused to accept the translations, it today cannot be undone. But not being a religion will surely put Hindus outside the scope of all legal statuses available to Religions, which are already recognized in Indian constitution too. So much for the belief in Rule of Law. Religious morality is the basis of all extant law, manusmriti is hanging on by its fingernails.

If people really could have managed to play on an astro-turf of Law that is basically Religion (with only our Dharm-smritis to support them), then I suppose the concept of free travel for Bangla deshis should also be allowed because Dharma-smritis did not prohibit it.

3. Hindu-ism too must go, like other religions and the Hindu fundamentalists who are medieval minded need to be silenced by us modernist "global citizens"

The fate of Hinduism will be decided by non-Abrahmic of India.

If you are global citizen then I am an American citizen. your karma of 20000+ posts and multiple India centric threads on social conditions, will allow you to become only an imposter global citizen. That is karma.

Should we then discard all morality? Do Hindus have any morality to discard? What is the Hindu model of morality. I put it to you that the Hindu model of ethics/morality is encoded in dharma.

So by a series of rationalizations and acceptance of the lead and direction that the west had set, we are set to accept Hinduism as a religion and will be ready to discard religious morality. Dharma will go for a six. Should we sit back and accept this?

Can it be stopped at all? If so, how?

Since you use Dharma = Morality so we must maintain it. Religious morality (Fard/Covenants) we should dismiss (we never accepted it in the first place even though these are sought to be imposed on us, even today). Accepting to become a Religion does not imply letting go of Dharma. Had it been so there would not have been any Dharma to begin with and we would all have remained at Shaktiless Shiva state. There would have been no Pauranic kathas, no Upanishads, no dharma-smritis because srutis would be the only practice remaining. Your fear for Dharm is unfounded. Long periods of servitude and genocides could not move one bit of it and a new adaptation would not either.

I do not dismiss your approach your preferred methodology of logical analysis. Its just that I prefer my own methodology that requires political understanding.


…………………….

On this thread, there is frequently an assertion that Hindhu God/Goddess is not a dictator like an Abrahamic conception of god.

I don't quite agree with this view. I think that there is nothing in other religions which has not been inherited from Hindhuism. That means even the dictatorial attitudes are inherited from Hindhuism directly or indirectly.

There is a saying that Vedhas talk about Dharma like King giving orders. The same Dharma is preached by smruthis like a friend(by giving reasons and all). The same Dharma is told by the poems like a beloved wife.


So, if the God/Goddess is a dictatorial ruler, then what is the basic difference between Hindhuism(and its derivatives) and Abrahamic creeds?

I am in total disagreement with this. This is YOUR personal thesis which you are welcome to believe.

You don't seem to understand that a King giving orders means nothing unless the King also punishes those who do not follow those orders. That is the definition of "law". The Vedas may be like a king giving orders, but not following those orders does not lead to punishment like in the Abrahamic religions. You are simply cooking up similarities.

You do not seem to know the difference between "law" and "code". One is a guide, the other is a coercive mechanism that punishes non compliance. You are claiming the wholly untenable thesis that Hindu dharma has a coercive punishment mechanism. Please quote sources other than your own previous posts in support of this claim. You have shown a consistent tendency to simply cook up your own meanings for words and then use them and claim that this should be the true meaning. You did that for "religion" and now you are doing the same thing for the word "law' and for the word "dictator".

The difference between an advisor/ethical code and a dictator is that the latter ensures punishment. The Vedas do no such dictatorial thing. A dictator lays down laws to instantly punish those who do not follow the rules or accept his dominance. That punishment starts here on earth in life. That is the meaning of "law".

There are no Hindu laws that dictate punishment here and now for those who do not follow the rules. People who are adharmic are simply reborn. They are not sent to hell. There is no rule book that says that adulterers shall be stoned to death or that blasphemers will be killed or excommunicated. Please don't cook up things that don't exist simply to claim that even crap appeared in the west because of Hindus.

Vedas are the only thing (necessary and sufficient) upholding Smritis which are a tale of dharma in action through the capacity of the Adi purush. Smritis do enjoin coercive punishment and Dharma does entail coercive punishment. Because the capacity comes from a source that cannot be dictated/measured/apprehended hence the mechanism is uncontrollable. But the effect desirable/undesireable, Kroor/Soumya, is certain. Since the King becomes the representative of the Adi purush hence Maharishi Manu could only have advised and not ordered the King. Maharishi Manu was merely being pragmatic. When the Islamists used to challenge ancient Hindus on why does the Hindu God not come forth to help, it is this certainty that they challenged.

Mallechas contorted that because they were not interested in certain results and instead were interested in being able to force the God or the King. So they wrote gobbledygook themselves and appointed a Klingon Dictator over themselves. Thus there discharge mechanism is certain (in triplicate ) but their end result is uncertain. Because the end is uncertain hence those who think they can escape, try to escape. Mostly that implies colonialism/interventionism when viewed in the context of international law. That is why also Law is violated all across the world and enforcement costs are the only real contribution of the west to human civilization. Except for this we do not need the west at all.

West=Abrahmics=Colonialist because they all follow the later described methods. We are already in this method and some of us protest to whatever extent.

Shivji, when I began reading law, I also ended up feeling like johneeG ji. I have seen other people also voice similar sentiments. Like our own Dharma has been contorted. If you find this hard to believe, try learning about Sharia Finance as a businessman. This seems to be the latest development in law in India.

[nachiket]

We have discussed the subtle meanings of so many English words like History, Religion, Cult, Apocrypha, Bath etc

Let me introduce two more words that we all know.

1. Supernatural:

(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

We are scientific people and as Hindus we count ourselves among the best. We now know that "supernatural" relates to something "beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature".

2. Superstition:

excessively credulous belief in and reverence for the supernatural.

Please note that the definition of the word "superstition" includes the word "supernatural". And that which is supernatural cannot be explained by science. This means that if YOU believe something that cannot be explained by science, you believe a superstition. You are superstitious

Now please try and understand where I am coming from.

Hindu tradition and folklore and itihaasa has a lot of things that cannot be explained by science and are therefore supernatural. If you believe in the supernatural, you are superstitious. Therefore Hindus are superstitious.

If you look at Protestant Christian history that has been "written", all supernatural events and superstition have been removed. Protestants do not believe in miracles. Therefore there is no superstition in Protestant history.

Is it any wonder that Hindus have no claim on rationality until they weed out superstition from their beliefs? Think about it folks. You are all intelligent. Who is making an idiot of whom over here?

By that definition, the concept of God itself is superstition. And it is no more or less superstitious to believe in one God, 10 Gods or 33 crore Gods. Protestant Chritians may purport not to believe in Miracles, but they absolutely do believe in the divinity of Jesus, and that he rose from the dead. They believe the Bible to be completely true - which means they believe everything from the talking snake to Moses parting the sea to Noah's ark and Jesus walking on water. These are no less superstitious than Hanuman lifting the mountain or Ganapati having the head of an elephant.

Basically when you speak of "protestant History", you have to include the Bible (old and new testament) in it as well, because they believe it to be literally true. Then the claim of "no superstition" rings hollow.

[member_20317]

Basically when you speak of "protestant History", you have to include the Bible (old and new testament) in it as well, because they believe it to be literally true. Then the claim of "no superstition" rings hollow.

Exactly.

That is why when they base their categories (for sociology, politics, propaganda) on their history, it is all bhunkus.

And that is why when we base our categories in 'our history' or universal dharma then we are advised that we will make certain progress at a personal level even though we may or may not make any progress with the 'other'. Later kind of progress depends on the 'other' not on our insistence on taking the enlightenment of Dharma to them. They actually consider such invitations as an attack on their identity and hence there selves.

Moreover the traditional Hindu understanding is 'as you reflect so you eventually become'. Perhaps that was the reason Hindus did not read much of the sociology as propounded by outsiders. Probably they were too engrossed in their daily puja/dhyan which was their method for remaining in aware of Dharma et al.

[RajeshA]

a. If the data of Rama's birth can be 12,000 years ago or 1.2 million years ago - in terms of science that is an enormous difference.

Just FYI, paleontology-wise, humans were still in the stone age 12,000 years ago. Use of metals in the Indus Valley, archaeology-wise would be six thousand years in the future.

Paleontology-wise, 1.2 million years ago, the largest cranial capacity of the extant hominids was half that of modern humans.

rshinde ji,

I believe you are referring to a post that I made.

As far as paleontology, archaeology, geology, anthropology, etc. is concerned, I'll have a higher level of assurance if

1) these disciplines were pursued by Bharatiyas free of influence of Secularism, Chritianism, Western Universalism, Marxism, Macaulayism and Dhimmitude (SCWUMMD)

2) extensive research was done in the Indian Subcontinent

3) much more skeptical attitude was adopted to the veracity of all the findings till date, their archiving, and their explanations.

As things stand right now, there has been little contribution by those who are free from the above mentioned mental states.

For me it is still all an open question.

b. Since Valmiki Ramayana came up, per my copy, the various medicinal herbs became "adrashya" (unseen) when they learned Hanuman had come to harvest them. Unable to find them, Hanuman became angry, and he roared, and his eyes became as red as fire, and he told the mountain, you decided not to serve Shri Raghunath; I will defeat you with my strength. Saying so he uprooted the mountain, scattering trees, elephants and the gold/metal ores the mountain had.

I guess if we really believe in the existence of Shri Rama then we have to believe in the existence completely. It will not be possible to gauge the period of Shri Rama paletologically or scientifically because these are material science terms at a gross level. Ramayan is also at an adhyatmic level. To give a perpective when hunamana returned to claim Sita ji's bangle which he had left inside the kamandal of a great yogi he saw that there were many bangles inside there each exactly similar to the one he had left. In his confusion he asked the yogi which one was Sita ji's which he had dropped to which the yogi replied, I dont know you have to see which one is yours because in every Yuga a hanuman comes and drops it in there on his way to some work so you have to find out which one is yours or just leave it there. Hanumana just smiled and understood the vastness of Shri Rama and how really the Virat swaroop he is.

With all these things in mind it would be a wasted mental excercise to really guage in what period Shri Rama appeared on planet earth as he has been mentioned right from the begining of time to this day.

I think two attitudes towards Itihas can harm its intent

1) One is so full of reverence towards it, that one adopts the literalist view. Why do we deny the right to Valmiki and Ved Vyas to use abstraction, symbolism, embellishments, exaggerations, and other tools of poetry and prose to compose their Kavya?

2) Other is the attitude of complete irreverence, which the SCWUMMD may prescribe, that due to certain literalist readings of Ramayana and Mahabharata, everything sounds irrational and thus everything is historically false.

The story with the ring may simply mean that every era has its challenges and a valiant hero rises to meet them, and as such the story of Sri Rama is one where one can consider that it repeats itself. Of course it doesn't mean that Bharat has got caught up in some kind of temporal causality loop, but simply that there are patterns in history which repeat themselves. As they say, "history repeats itself". And as such the story of Sri Rama would always have its pertinence.

[shiv]

Vedas are the only thing (necessary and sufficient) upholding Smritis which are a tale of dharma in action through the capacity of the Adi purush. Smritis do enjoin coercive punishment and Dharma does entail coercive punishment. Because the capacity comes from a source that cannot be dictated/measured/apprehended hence the mechanism is uncontrollable. But the effect desirable/undesireable, Kroor/Soumya, is certain. Since the King becomes the representative of the Adi purush hence Maharishi Manu could only have advised and not ordered the King. Maharishi Manu was merely being pragmatic. When the Islamists used to challenge ancient Hindus on why does the Hindu God not come forth to help, it is this certainty that they challenged.
<snip>
Shivji, when I began reading law, I also ended up feeling like johneeG ji. I have seen other people also voice similar sentiments. Like our own Dharma has been contorted. If you find this hard to believe, try learning about Sharia Finance as a businessman. This seems to be the latest development in law in India.

Of course it is fine to disagree - we are all allowed to have our views.

Since you have read law, I want to point out something.

A "law" is simply a line of words spoken or written by someone. It means nothing unless there is an enforcement mechanism. Of course there should also be a system of justice that ensures that the law, when enforced is fair. But let me ignore that.

A law cannot be called a law unless enforced. A loosely enforced law cannot be law; it is just a collection of words that suggest some action in reaction to some event

What religions like Christianity and Islam did was to take the laws they were given and built an entire system of enforcement around it. The western meaning of "law" therefore became something that was 100% sure to happen the minute a law was transgressed. Christians set up a Church and Muslims set up a formal Caliph, army and judiciary to enforce and propagate Islamic law.

Hindus history and Hindu society have no such central/federal man made enforcement system for laws. As Any enforcement of what we Hindus called "laws" from the Vedas or whatever source was done or not done by a series of regimes. As Shaurya pointed out, villages had their own head men to establish their implementation and that had to be followed even by visitors to the village. Kings had their enforcement system. There was huge leeway in the way laws were interpreted or implemented. That is how Hindu "laws" appeared different to the British depending on whom they asked. There was no single rigid Hindu religious code enforcing sati, or caste, or in sentences for crime. It was a decentralized system with local autonomy.

One can argue that everyone has laws but some people don't enforce them rigidly. But a law that is not enforced is not a law. It becomes a guideline or a moral code or even a biased travesty. So yes the vedas may enshrine laws and shrutis may have suggested coercion, but implementation requires an enforcement system that did not have a standard specification.

Maybe I am wrong, but please point me to one Hindu law that exists unbroken and implemented rigidly in a system that has survived for the last few centuries? It's not that there were no laws. It was the enforcement system that was not specified. Enforcement became the duty of individuals and rulers

From BOTH the Christian viewpoint and the modern American/European viewpoint "Law" means 100% enforcement. No exceptions. And that enforcement needs people and a system to do that as per the way they see "law". We may see law differently, but like "religion" and "history" what is the definition of law? What is the equivalent word for "law" in an Indian language that means exactly the same thing that law means in say the USA or Britain.

[shiv]

Basically when you speak of "protestant History", you have to include the Bible (old and new testament) in it as well, because they believe it to be literally true. Then the claim of "no superstition" rings hollow.

What the protestants did was to break free from the Catholic version by eliminating all references to miracles except in relation to Christ. After Christ, no miracles. Holy men are a no no for Protestants. Protestants don't pray to saints, apparently

There are other differences that make Protestants like Wahhabis and Catholics like Sufis but that may be a bad analogy. "Miracles" seems to be a sensitive topic between Protestants and Catholics.

[A_Gupta]

You've probably seen this before - the 1813 debate that allowed unregulated Christian missionaries into India.

http://arunsmusings.blogspot.in/2013/06 ... ndoos.html

“Upon the whole, we cannot help recognizing in the people of Hindostan a race of men lamentably degenerate and base; retaining but a feeble sense of moral obligation; obstinate in the disregard of what they know to be right; governed by malevolent and licentious passions; strongly exemplifying the effects produced on society by great and general corruption of manners; sunk in misery by their vices, in a country peculiarly calculated by its natural advantages to promote the happiness of its inhabitants.”

[RajeshA]

On this thread, there is frequently an assertion that Hindhu God/Goddess is not a dictator like an Abrahamic conception of god.

I don't quite agree with this view. I think that there is nothing in other religions which has not been inherited from Hindhuism. That means even the dictatorial attitudes are inherited from Hindhuism directly or indirectly.

There is a saying that Vedhas talk about Dharma like King giving orders. The same Dharma is preached by smruthis like a friend(by giving reasons and all). The same Dharma is told by the poems like a beloved wife.


So, if the God/Goddess is a dictatorial ruler, then what is the basic difference between Hindhuism(and its derivatives) and Abrahamic creeds?

johneeG garu,

I have a diametrically different opinion on this issue.

Perhaps the issue is not clear enough. My view is

1) The Hindu deities do not stand above Dharma.

2) Hindu deity as such cannot make Laws which go beyond Dharma or contravene Dharma.

3) As such a Hindu Deity can only guide us in better understanding Dharma and suggest any concrete ethics which may be derived from it for the given scenario.

4) A Hindu Deity can Himself/Herself intervene at the level of deities (as part of some story) or in human society, so as to reinstate, establish, reestablish and reinvigorate Dharma.

Explaining Dharma or reestablishing Dharma may seem like the work of monarchs or for that matter even dictator, but the important difference to the Abrahamic Model is that Dharma is considered separate from the Will of an individual Hindu Deity and I would even postulate that the concept of Dharma is orthogonal to the Hindu "Pantheon".

In fact polytheism is an essential prerequisite for Dharma, because such an architecture can postulate Dharma as independent of any single deity, where one can show that even deities are bound by the principle, that they too answer to their Karma, which they earn during their interaction with other deities and rishis.

Monotheism is in fact retrogressive in this regard, because by putting God at the very apex, there is no room there for anything autonomous of God and as such Ethics and God fuse together and Ethics turns into the Will of God. Philosophy dies there and then, and a Theology is born instead.

True, one can look at it from the Supreme Godhead perspective, the Maha-Vishnu perspective where every deity is nothing but a manifestation of the Supreme, but at the Creation level, Maha-Vishnu does not, as far as I know, interact directly with the material world, thus does not give any Laws to mankind either.

[nachiket]

What the protestants did was to break free from the Catholic version by eliminating all references to miracles except in relation to Christ. After Christ, no miracles. Holy men are a no no for Protestants. Protestants don't pray to saints, apparently.

Protestants reject the canonization of saints and their veneration after their death and of saintly relics. They also reject intercession by the dead saints since that is something only God/Jesus can do acc. to them. I don't think they reject all miracles themselves. The dispute is more on who is responsible for the miracles - saints or God. I'm not very clear about this though. There are several different protestant denominations each of which has slightly different views.

In any case, since they firmly believe in all Biblical miracles, they most definitely believe in superstition as you defined it in your earlier post. Of course, for them, it isn't superstition because "it really happened" since they are convinced their God is "real". But the same can be said by a Hindu believer about Hanuman lifting the mountain since he is equally convinced that all Hindu Gods are real. Like I said before, believing in one God is no less superstitious than believing in 33 crore.

Any argument by Christians of any hue that Hindus are superstitious while Christians aren't can be easily debunked by pointing out that the virgin birth of Jesus and his resurrection are both superstitions. Now if they say that is more believable than an elephant headed God, it is like saying my fantasy is less fantastic than your fantasy. It is meaningless.

[RajeshA]

As far as history is concerned, I don't think Hindus need to compare themselves with Christianity, which is a bunkum religion, and many Europeans have already left. All that majority of nominal Christians believe today is that Jesus was a holy person who tried doing good for mankind and that there is some God somewhere.


Hindus should go ahead and challenge the Western Universalists on ethics, history, philosophy, politics, society, ... As more and more clarity dawns on Indians, especially regarding our own inheritance as well as the hyped up Western claims to history and philosophy, we will be making better arguments.

Till now Indians have mostly offered the West "spiritual harmony", and the West has accepted that and even tried to digest it.

But now it is time to think further, and to challenge Western assumptions and models on each and every issue and do it under the name of "Āryatva Sanskriti"!

[johneeG]

What the protestants did was to break free from the Catholic version by eliminating all references to miracles except in relation to Christ. After Christ, no miracles. Holy men are a no no for Protestants. Protestants don't pray to saints, apparently.

Protestants reject the canonization of saints and their veneration after their death and of saintly relics. They also reject intercession by the dead saints since that is something only God/Jesus can do acc. to them. I don't think they reject all miracles themselves. The dispute is more on who is responsible for the miracles - saints or God. I'm not very clear about this though. There are several different protestant denominations each of which has slightly different views.

In any case, since they firmly believe in all Biblical miracles, they most definitely believe in superstition as you defined it in your earlier post. Of course, for them, it isn't superstition because "it really happened" since they are convinced their God is "real". But the same can be said by a Hindu believer about Hanuman lifting the mountain since he is equally convinced that all Hindu Gods are real. Like I said before, believing in one God is no less superstitious than believing in 33 crore.

Any argument by Christians of any hue that Hindus are superstitious while Christians aren't can be easily debunked by pointing out that the virgin birth of Jesus and his resurrection are both superstitions. Now if they say that is more believable than an elephant headed God, it is like saying my fantasy is less fantastic than your fantasy. It is meaningless.

Martin Luther Quotations

Luther:The Deranged Theologian
compiled by Don Morgan

Martin Luther, German leader of the Protestant Revolution, founder of Lutheranism, Protestant theologian, was behind much of Protestant theology. An examination of some of his quotes makes it quite obvious that we are not looking at a rational man. Modern Protestants would do well to learn something about the heritage of their present theology.


God does not work salvation for fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin vigorously.... Do not for a moment imagine that this life is the abiding place of justice; sin must be committed.

Sin cannot tear you away from him [Christ], even though you commit adultery a hundred times a day and commit as many murders.

A large number of deaf, crippled and blind people are afflicted solely through the malice of the demon. And one must in no wise doubt that plagues, fevers and every sort of evil come from him.

An earthly kingdom cannot exist without inequality of persons. Some must be free, some serfs, some rulers, some subjects.

As for the demented, I hold it certain that all beings deprived of reason are thus afflicted only by the Devil.

As to the common people, ... one has to be hard with them and see that they do their work and that under the threat of the sword and the law they comply with the observance of piety, just as you chain up wild beasts.

At Poltersberg, there is a lake similarly cursed. If you throw a stone into it, a dreadful storm immediately arises, and the whole neighboring district quakes to its centre. 'Tis the devils kept prisoner there.

At Sussen, the Devil carried off, last Good Friday, three grooms who had devoted themselves to him.

Demons live in many lands, but particularly in Prussia.

How often have not the demons called 'Nix,' drawn women and girls into the water, and there had commerce with them, with fearful consequences.

I almost feel like throwing Jimmy into the stove, as the priest in Kulenberg did.

I feel much freer now that I am certain the pope is the Antichrist.

I maintain that some Jew wrote it [the Book of James] who probably heard about Christian people but never encountered any.

I myself saw and touched at Dessay, a child of this sort, which had no human parents, but had proceeded from the Devil. He was twelve years old, and, in outward form, exactly resembled ordinary children.

I should have no compassion on these witches; I should burn them all.

Idiots, the lame, the blind, the dumb, are men in whom the devils have established themselves: and all the physicians who heal these infirmities, as though they proceeded from natural causes, are ignorant blockheads....

In many countries there are particular places to which devils more especially resort. In Prussia there is an infinite number of evil spirits.

In Switzerland, on a high mountain, not far from Lucerne, there is a lake they call Pilate's Pond, which the Devil has fixed upon as one of the chief residences of his evil spirits....

Many demons are in woods, in waters, in wildernesses, and in dark poolly places ready to hurt...people.

Many sweat to reconcile St Paul and St James, but in vain. 'Faith justifies' and 'faith does not justify' contradict each other flatly. If any one can harmonize them I will give him my doctor's hood and let him call me a fool.

No gown worse becomes a than the desire to be wise.

Our bodies are always exposed to Satan. The maladies I suffer are not natural, but Devil's spells.

Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has: it never comes to the aid of spritual things, but--more frequently than not --struggles against the Divine Word....

Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and ... know nothing but the word of God.

Snakes and monkeys are subjected to the demon more than other animals. Satan lives in them and possesses them. He uses them to deceive men and to injure them.

Some [demons] are also in the thick black clouds, which cause hail, lightning and thunder, and poison the air, the pastures and grounds.

The best way to get rid of the Devil, if you cannot kill it with the words of Holy Scripture, is to rail at and mock him. Music, too, is very good; music is hateful to him, and drives him far away.

The damned whore Reason....

The Devil can so completely assume the human form, when he wants to deceive us, that we may well lie with what seems to be a woman, of real flesh and blood, and yet all the while 'tis only the Devil in the shape of a woman. 'Tis the same with women, who may think that a man is in bed with them, yet 'tis only the Devil; and...the result of this connection is oftentimes an imp of darkness, half mortal, half devil....

The Devil...clutched hold of the miserable young man...and flew off with him through the ceiling, since which time nothing has been heard of [him].

The Devil fears the word of God, He can't bite it; it breaks his teeth.

The Devil, it is true, is not exactly a doctor who has taken degrees, but he is very learned, very expert for all that. He has not been carrying on his business during thousands of years for nothing....

The Devil, too, sometimes steals human children; it is not infrequent for him to carry away infants within the first six weeks after birth, and to substitute in their place imps....

The fact that [the biblical book] Hebrews is not an epistle of St Paul, or of any other apostle, is proved by what it says in chapter two....

The winds are nothing else but good or bad spirits. Hark! how the Devil is puffing and blowing....

There is no rustic so rude but that, if he dreams or fancies anything, it must be the whisper of the Holy Ghost, and he himself a prophet.

This fool [Copernicus] wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth.

To be a Christian, you must pluck out the eye of reason.

...two devils rose from the water, and flew off through the air, crying, 'Oh, oh, oh!' and turning one over another, in sportive mockery....

We are at fault for not slaying them [the Jews].

We know, on the authority of Moses, that longer than six thousand years the world did not exist.

We may well lie with what seems to be a woman of flesh and blood, and yet all the time it is only a devil in the shape of a woman.

We need not invite the Devil to our table; he is too ready to come without being asked. The air all about us is filled with demons....

We should throw the Epistle of James out of this school [the University of Wittenberg]....

What shall we do with...the Jews?...I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings...are to be taken from them.

What shall we do with...the Jews?...I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews.

What shall we do with...the Jews? I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach on pain of loss of life and limb.

What shall we do with...the Jews?...set fire to their synagogues or schools and bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them.

What shall we do with...the Jews?...their homes also should be razed and destroyed.

When I was a child there were many witches, and they bewitched both cattle and men, especially children.

Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his reason.

Women ... have but small and narrow chests, and broad hips, to the end that they should remain at home, sit still, keep house, and bear and bring up children.

So tenaciously should we cling to the world revealed by the Gospel, that were I to see all the Angels of Heaven coming down to me to tell me something different, not only would I not be tempted to doubt a single syllable, but I would shut my eyes and stop my ears, for they would not deserve to be either seen or heard.

Link

(Each quotation is a gem! Really, one should read it to understand the mind of this 'reformer' better!)

Martin Luther insisted on 'scriptures'(as enumerated by him), not 'history'. This is important because the X-ist scriptures(like Gospels) are not considered historical documents today by many.

Martin Luther was revolting against the Pope's authority. And this revolt was carried out by insisting that the bible(as interpreted by Luther) was enough and the authority of Pope was not necessary. Pope insisted that his authority cannot be challenged and his interpretations are necessary for proper understanding of Bible. Further, certain books were considered as part of bible by the pope(and vatican) while the Martin Luther did not.

The basic disagreement was that Martin Luther was revolting against the Pope's authority and establishing a new order of church. It was essentially a political quarrel. And both factions were backed up by respective royalties and moneybags. In Pope's case, vatican itself was the moneybag.

Those opposed to the monopoly of the vatican seemed to have funded revolutions and revolts against the vatican to weaken it and seemed to have succeeded in weakening the vatican's hold. They supported renaissance, reformation and later science and even Vedhantha and finally atheism(or western universalism). All of them were tools to weaken the hold of the Vatican and X-ism.

Later, commie-ism was instrumental in weakening the hold of eastern X-ism in Roos.

Now, frequently people fall into the trap of:
If X is a bad guy and Y is fighting X, then Y must be the good guy.

This is not necessarily true.

Just because X is a bad guy, doesn't mean that his opponents are good guys.

Similarly, just because someone revolts against Watikan, doesn't mean they are good or rational.

----
It seems that it was finally the Vedhantha and Hindhu knowledge trickling through malsI initially and later directly which helped the Oiropeans in cleansing themselves of the influence of X-ism.

[svenkat]

You are saying that the Shrutis and smritis were separate and there was no link betwen Shrutis and smritis on the one hand and the puranas on the other hand.

shivji,
I am not saying that.Infact,I am saying we need to give more importance to shruthi in understanding itihaasa-s,smrithi-s etc

[svenkat]

imho,there are two views being articulated here cautioning about the strains developing in the claims of Hindu nationalism.One by Atriji that we are facing new pressures from population migration.Somewhat related to this is the view of ShauryaTji that the constitutional proclamations have little relation to reality.

The other view is HBjis view that we cannot rely on past to solve problems of today.Infact even shivji used to take a similar stand that 'Hinduism' arose in an agricultural society and we live in different times.