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

[shiv]

The problem we see in our country is most who claim to practice Hinduism simply think of few traditions they practice. Then they blame many bad practices on Hinduism.

williams, nice post.

But I would like to expand on the point you have made above because it is an important insight. But it goes far beyond what you have stated.

The cultural practices of Indian society were social practices. Not religious practices. There was no Hindu religion asking people to behave in this way. When Hindu priests demonstrated such social practices there was again no religious sanction - there was no "Hindu God" who said that this was the way to behave. There was no Hindu Bible that called for such behavior. There were no Vedic verses that demanded that Hindus should behave in such a manner. Of course Hindus had sacred texts - with the Vedas being orally transmitted but a lot after that being written down. Manu smriti does not get counted as a "Holy Hindu text" any more than the Arthashastra or the Kama Sutra.

The British of course could not tell what was sacred and what was not. They simply employed eleven random Brahmins to tell them and codified what those Brahmins told them as "Hindu religion". It is important to understands why they did this. 99% of educated Indian do not understand, know or care to know.

The British were imposing a penal code on British India. This was going to be based on the secular system of Britain which arose after the reformation. In the secular governance system, the state would not interfere with religion, wich was private. But it could govern what was not religion. Hindus had so many social practices that the British did not know which were religions (which they would not touch) and which were non religious - which secular law courts could deal with. So they got these 11 Brahmins to tell them and accepted whatever those Brahmins said as "Hindu religion" That is how caste got included as "Hindu religion". The British cursed caste, but did not touch it because it was "hindu religion". That of course is bullshit. There was no "religious sanction" for caste. If brahmin priests encouraged caste it had no more "religious sanction" than the same brahmin priest screwing his neighbour's daughter

I will deal with this ("castes") aspect of colonization of the mind in another thread - after we are done with this one.

[peter]

I asked a question.

I will ask it again.

How did "caste" and "untouchability" become part of the "Hindu religion"?

4 way caste brahmin, kshatriya, vaishya and shudra is enshrined in vedas. It was fluid in the beginning. Vishwamitra who was a kshatriya became a brahmrishi. Parashar who was a shudra became a vedic brahman and so on so forth. Many examples throught sanskrit works of our country.
Caste system at some point changed from being indentified by profession to that being known only from birth. I have my thesis on why this happened but no historian has delved much into this. Once caste became identified with birth then the explotiation of the brahmins at the hands of kshatriyas, vaishyas at the hands of brahmins and kshatriyas and shudras by all three started.

The poverty ushered in by the destruction of Indian way of life with the arrival of invaders caused a lot of social structures to rupture and the hardening of caste untouchability is one of the outcome.

I did not ask whether caste/untouchability occurs in other countries. I did not ask if cowdung was an antiseptic. I asked how the shit of a cow became sacred in the Hindu religion.

Everything associated with cow was sacred. Her urine was used and is still used as an antiseptic for plants, for crops and for other purposes. Heck even Ramdev sells it. Her milk, her dung were all useful. Govardhan puja during diwali time is a worship of her dung because it was a great source of energy when you did not have any firewood. I can go on and on.

Actually there is no basis for either of these in Hindu tradition. These were Indian social habits that were blamed on Hindus.

Are there "holy cows" in any other country besides India and Nepal? And are you seriously suggesting that it has got nothing to do with Hindu religion?

[shiv]

Every religion's followers practice "some kind of caste and untouchability". skin Color, lang etc. Human issue nothing to do with religion. If anyone tells you this is barbaric point out witches at the stake and the handling of slaves in US and Europe. Though it might interest all to read the views of Swami Vivkananda on untouchability in Kerala.
<snip>
Nope. Sati most often was an expression of extreme Viyog (hindi word) and overwhelming grief. Our worldview on Sati is colored by British writings about Bengal, and how they abloshed it etc. Pure crap. Please read some vernacular descriptions of Sati. An english source Sleeman a britisher has written about it some too.

Are you explaining to me that "caste" and "sati" are not part of the Hindu religion?

If you are, then we are in agreement

Now tell me, why does the Indian constitution include caste as part of "Hindu religion"?

Why does the entire world think that caste and sati are part of "the Hindu religion"?

[shiv]

I asked a question.

I will ask it again.

How did "caste" and "untouchability" become part of the "Hindu religion"?

4 way caste brahmin, kshatriya, vaishya and shudra is enshrined in vedas. It was fluid in the beginning. Vishwamitra who was a kshatriya became a brahmrishi. Parashar who was a shudra became a vedic brahman and so on so forth. Many examples throught sanskrit works of our country.
Caste system at some point changed from being indentified by profession to that being known only from birth. I have my thesis on why this happened but no historian has delved much into this. Once caste became identified with birth then the explotiation of the brahmins at the hands of kshatriyas, vaishyas at the hands of brahmins and kshatriyas and shudras by all three started.

I put it to you that you are simply making things up by saying "caste existed in the Vedas but at some point in history blah blah happened". What is this mysterious point in history that nobody has found out but everyone refers to as if it is true?

The vedas describe varna. Not caste. How does varna of the vedas become "caste". That is the nonsense I hear from too many people. Please explain

If varna is caste, what is jati?

[Comer]

^^ These were the "concrete" aspects that could be used to figure out what is Hinduism. Since the Hindus couldn't draw a boundary, maybe it was drawn for us.
IMHO with Hinduism, since the "religious" and "social/cultural" aren't well defined, it is difficult to separate the two. If Hinduism is not a religion per se, and the social aspects too are excluded from it, what does it leave with?
It seems as if, if someone self identifies as Hindu, then he is one. So are the group of people in different geographical locations. There is no central rule/authority to say what is the criteria. Then does the social practices of the self identified groups part of Hinduism or not? To me, it does.

[harbans]

Just a week/10 days back Christians in Kenya burnt a 'witch'. And this was not the first time this happened this year. When the Brits were logging Sati cases in India in the 17/18th century, there were more witch burning cases in Europe than Sati cases logged in India. But how much did we hear about Christians still burning witches? But 1987 Roop Kanwar happened in some remote offbeat village in Rajasthan, did you see world press? Which Hindu lived through 87 and didn't feel ashamed to be one? But there is silence about Kenya, pin drop silence. MEanwhile more articles would have appeared in the West still about Sati than the Christian inspired witch burnings of Kenya.

Can something in the Western concept of religion be pointed at and said no, this is not part of Dharma?

That is a very good question indeed, and if answered adequately will really help clarify a lot on the discussions here. I think there are two issues here: 1. Concepts within Western Religions like Islam/ Xtianity that are Adharmic. 2. As you asked what is Adharmic about their very concept of Religion.

As for the first, there are many practises in Islam/ Xtianity that can be classed as Adharmic as they would infringe on Dharmic tenets. Also within 'Hinduism' itself there are practises that can be deemed Adharmic. Like the Temple in Nepal where they slaughter cattle because some 18th century feudal had a dream. Yet during the enlightenment phase Europe insulated it's governance from domination by the Church to a large extent by invoking the Secularist meta ethic system. That made many officially imposed practises of the Church redundant as they no longer possessed the power to impose it. That change never happened in Islam.

ON the second, the Western concept of religion largely lies in the belief there is ONE god. That is by itself not Adharmic one bit. Further to state that if you don't worship that ONE God whose name is XYZ you go to hell, is against the very fundamentals that Indic religions acknowledge, that God is infinite and has infinite manifestations. The latter induces tolerance in society and many of the Dharmic tenets hold strongly uniting society that has much plurality in worship/ritual/orthodoxy. The former induces rage and intolerance (Krodha against the infidel/Kufr) which essentially keeps the society at war and peace is at a premium on who wins the Jihad or crusades. Another important aspect is our concept approaching our Panths are seeped in Sattvic practice. This is well explained in almost every scripture throughout. Adherents are encouraged to evolve from Tamas to Sattva. We have prayers, rituals of different types where we encourage individuals to evolve to higher Sattvic behaviour. This in part exists in the Western religious concepts but is not particularly dealt with.

[shiv]

^^ These were the "concrete" aspects that could be used to figure out what is Hinduism. Since the Hindus couldn't draw a boundary, maybe it was drawn for us.
IMHO with Hinduism, since the "religious" and "social/cultural" aren't well defined, it is difficult to separate the two. If Hinduism is not a religion per se, and the social aspects too are excluded from it, what does it leave with?
It seems as if, if someone self identifies as Hindu, then he is one. So are the group of people in different geographical locations. There is no central rule/authority to say what is the criteria. Then does the social practices of the self identified groups part of Hinduism or not?

How does "dharma" sound to you? It is Hindu dharma. Religions can exist within dharma, but dharma does not need religion. You can have a thousand religions (thousand Gods) with different social, cultural or religions practices. As long as dharma creates the conditions for all to co exist - you actually have a situation which has a western word for it: Libertarianism.

Religious conflict comes only when God is given (by humans) a specific identity and specific powers to harm everyone else.

Would it be problematic to describe Hinduism as a thousand religions united by Hindu dharma? Hinduism is only the dharma. Social, religious and cultural differences can exist within that.

Madhwa Brahmins would go apeshit and attack smartha brahmins whom they considered as a different false faith. When one sees the world as only one God ruling over everyone this behaviour is inexplicable. The only explanation is a thousand religions, one dharmic panth.

[shiv]

Everything associated with cow was sacred. Her urine was used and is still used as an antiseptic for plants, for crops and for other purposes. Heck even Ramdev sells it. Her milk, her dung were all useful. Govardhan puja during diwali time is a worship of her dung because it was a great source of energy when you did not have any firewood. I can go on and on.

Are people who do not worship cowdung non Hindus? Some Gurkhas eat beef. Non Hindus? I know Hindus who eat beef in South India. Do they need to be declared non Hindu?

I put it to you that "Hinduism" has nothing to do with cowdung worship. Individual creeds within the Hindu fold have differing habits. Dubbing "Hinduism" as a cowdung worshipping "religion" is nonsense like the 11 brahmins who "educated" the brits.

Ayurveda uses cowdung as fertilizer and dried dung as fuel for fire needed for fomentation. Not for unguents and application. Dried dung is a different beast from wet fresh dung.

I have read that Hindus used to eat a lot more meat until the faced competition from Buddhism and Jaina traditions and their vegetarianism and Hindus quickly changed.

[Comer]

shiv, am still grappling with the concept of Dharma. From whatever I could understand it seems like an individual pursuit. Any social aspect seems to be extraneous. Not sure how much of this understanding is right.
In that case, the only possible granularity of Dharma is one. The only scale at which it makes sense at the individual level.
To add, either it is one or it encompasses everything. It can't be in between. IMHO onlee

[A_Gupta]

Funny Balu. Buddha revolted against Hinduism. It is common knowledge. Any body to disregard that is pure looney bin space operation. Have you even thought why Buddha invented a new religion and not become a Rishi of Hinduism? There must be a reason no?

Buddha became an avataar

Anyway, please read chapter 4 (scroll down on this page for the link).
https://sites.google.com/site/colonialc ... sblindness
If you don't read chapter 4 completely, at least read from section 4.2.2.

Also see chapter 7. In fact chapter 7 may convince you more than chapter 4.

[peter]

I asked a question.

I will ask it again.

How did "caste" and "untouchability" become part of the "Hindu religion"?

4 way caste brahmin, kshatriya, vaishya and shudra is enshrined in vedas. It was fluid in the beginning. Vishwamitra who was a kshatriya became a brahmrishi. Parashar who was a shudra became a vedic brahman and so on so forth. Many examples throught sanskrit works of our country.
Caste system at some point changed from being indentified by profession to that being known only from birth. I have my thesis on why this happened but no historian has delved much into this. Once caste became identified with birth then the explotiation of the brahmins at the hands of kshatriyas, vaishyas at the hands of brahmins and kshatriyas and shudras by all three started.

I put it to you that you are simply making things up by saying "caste existed in the Vedas but at some point in history blah blah happened". What is this mysterious point in history that nobody has found out but everyone refers to as if it is true?

The vedas describe varna. Not caste. How does varna of the vedas become "caste". That is the nonsense I hear from too many people. Please explain

If varna is caste, what is jati?

It is all very simple. Ignore for a minute all the words: varna/jaati/kul/gotra/shakh/naak caste etc.

In the time of vedas aryan society was divided in four entities:
kshatriya: rulers/fighters
brahmins: teachers
vaishya: vaaniya business
shudra: serve others.

Total inter movement in these four divisions allowed. You got into any group based on your choice and what you learnt or not learnt. Each of these is further subdivided. Kshatriyas into Surya and Chandra vansh and so on so forth. With the passage of time these vansh further got subdivided based on an eponymous king. Thus kuru vansh, raghu vansh, panduputra etc.

A social system existed where one could be demoted from a group as I indicated in an earlier post about Pratap and his demoting other rajputs who had given daughters.

With the passage of time, demotions and hardening of "division" by birth, in the kshatriyas 36 royal lineages remained. Each of these 36 is part of the original suryavansh and somvansh. Your jaati colloquially could be demoted based on your deeds. Specifically in north india it was called "jaati giraana". In other words if you did something which did not adhere to the "accepted" limits of that social group you could become an outcaste or not part of the division / subdivision of your group.

Confusion arises because different people in different epochs have used the same term for different meanings and different terms with one meaning.

Jaati/caste system is actually very simple.

Now if you goto shudras they developed into many jaatis based on profession as in luhaar, kumhaar, etc.

So whatever hindus believe in is mostly rooted in vedas. You can call the caste with any name but its origin as a subdivision of aryan society goes back to Purush Sukta of Rg Ved.

[shiv]

shiv, am still grappling with the concept of Dharma. From whatever I could understand it seems like an individual pursuit. Any social aspect seems to be extraneous. Not sure how much of this understanding is right.
In that case, the only possible granularity of Dharma is one.
To add, either it is one or it encompasses everything. It can't be in between. IMHO onlee

I think that if someone did an honest social history of India one would likely find that Indians, like everyone else had questions about life, creation and death. But those questions were adequately addressed from Vedic times. That means that struggling with issues like what is good, What is bad, What is happiness, Why is sorrow, Where do we come from, Where do we go, were all adequately and rationally explained in Vedic and post Vedic times. These explanations came bundled with behaviour recommendations of how one must conduct oneself for the good of society and for ultimate personal salvation which was the ultimate goal in life. This was what dharma was all about. Of course worship was part and parcel of dharma, but there was a lot more apart from worship. And worship did not mean any particular deity or god.

So concepts of dharma have existed in Indian society for 5000 years along with any number of different gods. Because all the answers were available in a rational format, God did not have to be cited as the creator. Different jatis had different gods, but all simply accepted the same rules of dharma.

I do not buy the rigidization of varna within jati story as it is told.

[peter]

Everything associated with cow was sacred. Her urine was used and is still used as an antiseptic for plants, for crops and for other purposes. Heck even Ramdev sells it. Her milk, her dung were all useful. Govardhan puja during diwali time is a worship of her dung because it was a great source of energy when you did not have any firewood. I can go on and on.

Are people who do not worship cowdung non Hindus? Some Gurkhas eat beef. Non Hindus? I know Hindus who eat beef in South India. Do they need to be declared non Hindu?

I put it to you that "Hinduism" has nothing to do with cowdung worship. Individual creeds within the Hindu fold have differing habits. Dubbing "Hinduism" as a cowdung worshipping "religion" is nonsense like the 11 brahmins who "educated" the brits.

Hindus firmly believe in cow worship. If you believe western translators of vedas and some even our own then Vedic corpus has rishis eating cow. But if you believe the other group then there is no cow eating in vedas.

When Hindus were converted by Muslims they did primarily two things so that you could not never reconvert back to Hinduism:
a) Made you eat beef.
b) If you were a man did your bar mitzvah.

This is the reason why Hindu rajput kings never dined with mughals or ate their food. They brought their own chefs. This is also the reason why Hindu rajput women who were given to mughals were never allowed back in to their parents home because they would spoil the hindu household.

This is also the reason why Pratap refused to eat food with Man singh of Amber and the plate that Man singh touched was washed with ganga jal and cow dung and then buried deep in the ground, The ground he sat was pasted with cow dung to purify it.

Now in 21st century if you believe cow worship and hatred of cow eaters is not part of hindu religion then stalwarts of hindu faith from Rajasthan would be at odds with you.

[shiv]

It is all very simple. Ignore for a minute all the words: varna/jaati/kul/gotra/shakh/naak caste etc.

In the time of vedas aryan society was divided in four entities:
kshatriya: rulers/fighters
brahmins: teachers
vaishya: vaaniya business
shudra: serve others.

Total inter movement in these four divisions allowed. You got into any group based on your choice and what you learnt or not learnt. Each of these is further subdivided. Kshatriyas into Surya and Chandra vansh and so on so forth. With the passage of time these vansh further got subdivided based on an eponymous king. Thus kuru vansh, raghu vansh, panduputra etc.

A social system existed where one could be demoted from a group as I indicated in an earlier post about Pratap and his demoting other rajputs who had given daughters.

With the passage of time, demotions and hardening of "division" by birth, in the kshatriyas 36 royal lineages remained. Each of these 36 is part of the original suryavansh and somvansh. Your jaati colloquially could be demoted based on your deeds. Specifically in north india it was called "jaati giraana". In other words if you did something which did not adhere to the "accepted" limits of that social group you could become an outcaste or not part of the division / subdivision of your group.

Confusion arises because different people in different epochs have used the same term for different meanings and different terms with one meaning.

Jaati/caste system is actually very simple.

Now if you goto shudras they developed into many jaatis based on profession as in luhaar, kumhaar, etc.

So whatever hindus believe in is mostly rooted in vedas. You can call the caste with any name but its origin as a subdivision of aryan society goes back to Purush Sukta of Rg Ved.

Sorry what you have written has no meaning at all.

First you ask me to ignore "varna/jaati/kul/gotra/shakh/naak caste "

Then you use those very same words wherever you feel like it. The passage sounds like the cooked up rubbish I have been hearing from Indians for so many decades. This is the least convincing and most fake story I have heard in my life.

20 years ago the story you told me sounded unconvincing. Now I am certain that it is rubbish.

We have jatis. Yes. Varnas are named in Hindu texts yes. Some jatis were associated with some varnas yes. This rigidization-shidigization stuff is rubbish. And caste is a meaningless word and does not occur at all in Hindu history

[shiv]

Hindus firmly believe in cow worship.

You are repeating yourself.

I am asking you if a Hindu does not believe in cow worship, is he non Hindu?

[Comer]

shiv, I agree with your points, definitely worship was considered as aspect of the way of life, not even the central pillar.
My points are,
1. Dharma makes sense only from an individual point of view.
2. Not sure whether grouping people based on Dharma is possible. Each one is pursuing his own way, lot like brownian motion. Not sure even a construct like Hindu Nationalism makes sense now!

[peter]

It is all very simple. Ignore for a minute all the words: varna/jaati/kul/gotra/shakh/naak caste etc.

In the time of vedas aryan society was divided in four entities:
kshatriya: rulers/fighters
brahmins: teachers
vaishya: vaaniya business
shudra: serve others.

Total inter movement in these four divisions allowed. You got into any group based on your choice and what you learnt or not learnt. Each of these is further subdivided. Kshatriyas into Surya and Chandra vansh and so on so forth. With the passage of time these vansh further got subdivided based on an eponymous king. Thus kuru vansh, raghu vansh, panduputra etc.

A social system existed where one could be demoted from a group as I indicated in an earlier post about Pratap and his demoting other rajputs who had given daughters.

With the passage of time, demotions and hardening of "division" by birth, in the kshatriyas 36 royal lineages remained. Each of these 36 is part of the original suryavansh and somvansh. Your jaati colloquially could be demoted based on your deeds. Specifically in north india it was called "jaati giraana". In other words if you did something which did not adhere to the "accepted" limits of that social group you could become an outcaste or not part of the division / subdivision of your group.

Confusion arises because different people in different epochs have used the same term for different meanings and different terms with one meaning.

Jaati/caste system is actually very simple.

Now if you goto shudras they developed into many jaatis based on profession as in luhaar, kumhaar, etc.

So whatever hindus believe in is mostly rooted in vedas. You can call the caste with any name but its origin as a subdivision of aryan society goes back to Purush Sukta of Rg Ved.

Sorry what you have written has no meaning at all.

First you ask me to ignore "varna/jaati/kul/gotra/shakh/naak caste "

Then you use those very same words wherever you feel like it. The passage sounds like the cooked up rubbish I have been hearing from Indians for so many decades. This is the least convincing and most fake story I have heard in my life.

20 years ago the story you told me sounded unconvincing. Now I am certain that it is rubbish.

We have jatis. Yes. Varnas are named in Hindu texts yes. Some jatis were associated with some varnas yes. This rigidization-shidigization stuff is rubbish. And caste is a meaningless word and does not occur at all in Hindu history

prove it that it is rubbish. let us see what evidence you have to refute what I have written.

[peter]

Hindus firmly believe in cow worship.

You are repeating yourself.

I am asking you if a Hindu does not believe in cow worship, is he non Hindu?

If he eats a cow sure he is a non hindu. anyone may not worship gods/cows/cow dung/cow urine and still be a hindu.

[shiv]

1. Dharma makes sense only from an individual point of view.

Not sure why you see it that way. Dharma is all about preserving society and the individual conduct is supposed to hold society together.

2. Not sure whether grouping people based on Dharma is possible. Each one is pursuing his own way, lot like brownian motion. Not sure even a construct like Hindu Nationalism makes sense now!

Yes I do agree that if Dharma allows Brownian movement of groups of people what will hold them together?

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

I would suggest that the Hindus sense of nation is this geography of his literature and history. It is not allegiance to one religion

[RajeshA]

11. Political Mobilization (Inquisition, Crusades, Ummah's Solidarity, Jihad) flows from allegiance to God and political power of clergy, often resulting in politics under the pretext of spirituality.

Just to point out one amongst other fallacy in your argument:


Indian rulers routinely mobilized against Islam by writing letters to each other some of which are preserved. These letters were exchanged and coalitions formed to protect Hindu religion.

Political Mobilization happened everywhere. The question is on what basis?!

Dharma Yuddha cannot simply be translated as Religious War, nor is protection of Dharma, same as protection of "Hindu Religion"! Islam was waging a war to destroy all that enabled the people of India to pursue a Dharmic life - gurus, sants, mandirs, freedom. Secondly Islam was in all matters a manifestation of Adharma, and those pledged to Raj Dharma, were duty-bound to fight against Adharma. Dharma is simply the ethic according to which one is supposed to act.

It was a religious war. This is again a classic JNU / AMU argument that India had no religious wars. Hindus fought tooth and nail these religious wars with Jihadis. An illetrate rajput or maratha soldier did not understand all the nuances of path and dharm but he knew that he had to protect the durga temple, pr krishna temple, or shiva temple or vishnu temple in his backyard till he had one breath in his body.

Do you not get this fact?

You are again repeating yourself that "Dharma Yuddha == religious war"!

So if the Indian State protects the Durga Temple from an attack by Jihadis, then the secular Indian State is waging a "religious war"! Would that be what you are trying to tell me?

Just because a dolphin looks like a fish and swims like a fish, does not make it a fish! Right? But it can be difficult to explain it to an uneducated person, what is the difference between sea mammals and fish! Or why bats are not birds!

Nuances can be important!

If any Devas and Bhagwans were invoked, then it was simply to get their blessings.

. No. Your argument should not sound similar to JNU wallahs.

Sense is in the ears of the listener!

I am afraid your post suggests either you are knowingly ignoring facts or you do not know enough about Hinduism or history of India.

This narrow interpretation of Hinduism, in which only your definition is the right one, (when no one actually knows Dharm neither Bhishm knew nor Drona as an example), is the bane of Hinduism.

There is a difference in knowing what constitutes the concept of Dharma on the one hand and on the other knowing how to act according to Dharma in a given situation considering the influence of one's own upbringing and psychology and effects of rajasic and tamasic gunas.

My point is no one knows what is Dharma at any given time. Why are not understanding that when Mahapurush like Bhishm did not know what Dharm is do you believe that an ordinary mortal stands any chance?

If 80% of the people act according to the principles of Dharma, then there would be more Dharma in the world then if one says there is no point to understand Dharma because nobody can achieve perfect understanding of Dharma.

The point is to set up an ideal to which all strive for! There are many different types of ideals from various cultures: 72 virgins, Heaven, Freedom, Nirvana, Moksha, Dharma, ...

[shiv]

anyone may not worship gods/cows/cow dung/cow urine and still be a hindu.

What you are saying that cow worship is not a necessary condition for being Hindu. Cow worship is not essential for being Hindu.

There is a difference between saying "All Hindus worship cows" and then saying "It is not necessary to worship cows to be Hindu". A crude analogy would be "All people pass gas in public" versus "It is not necessary for all people to pass gas in public" Passing gas in public is not a law. Cow worship is not a Hindu law. It is an option that some people choose. Abrahamic religions do not have optional rules. Laws are laws and cannot be broken

If he eats a cow sure he is a non hindu.

If I say I am a Hindu and I eat beef (as I have done), how are you going to stop me from being Hindu? Excommunicate me like Christians? Chop off my head like Muslims?

[Comer]

1. Dharma makes sense only from an individual point of view.

Not sure why you see it that way. Dharma is all about preserving society and the individual conduct is supposed to hold society together.

Will come back after I think through this deeper. Before I complete the sentence the concepts elude me

[shiv]

prove it that it is rubbish. let us see what evidence you have to refute what I have written.

I will drop it for now. You have provided as much proof as I have. All you have done is simply say something that I have heard people say for decades without providing any proof. Just because you believe it does not mean it is true.

But I will get back to this subject in due course.

[A_Gupta]

In the Indian past, there has been debate on what qualities make a person into a Brahmin. There is lineage, of course, but there are others, including the truthfulness and other moral qualities, knowledge of the Vedas, etc., etc., and these have been debated. This debate is there in both the astika and the nastika traditions (Buddhism, Jainism have debates on who is a Brahmin).

Now, transfer this debate to Belgium. This debate is not intelligible to the Belgian man on the street. As Balu writes, to do this debate in Belgium is to commit a category error.

One commits a category mistake whenever terms and concepts, which are appropriate to some domain, are misapplied elsewhere. Decisions about appropriateness or otherwise of categories are the result of ontology (i.e. beliefs about what there is in the world), linguistic practices, and knowledge about the relevant domains. The category of ‘Brahmin’ has individuals constituted by the ‘caste’ sys- tem as its domain of application. The dispute about either its meaning or its use reflects a lack of unanimity about its application within a domain: which of the individual members within some given domain are Brahmins? Irrespective of the answers, to use this category elsewhere is to commit a category mistake. Belgian Catholics and the German Protestants do not belong to the domain of individuals to whom the category ‘Brahmin’ is applicable.

There are similar category mistakes that we swallow whole having become anglicized. It takes a very deliberate effort to uncover the category mistakes made in the modern understanding of India.

I'll give you another example. If "Fascism" has a definite meaning rather than just being a cuss-word like "bh*n-ch*d" or "b*st*rd", then there is no Fascist political movement in India. The closest India has come to fascism is during the Emergency under Mrs. Indira Gandhi, 1975-77. Whatever your political differences with BJP and Modi are, if you are using "Fascism" to mean something definite and not a smear word, applying this term to them is almost a category mistake. In fact, if you think BJP poses some kind of threat, and can find only "Fascism" as the word to describe it, all you really show is that you think politics and history are all describable in terms of European concepts; that for you at least, conceptually, a uniquely Indian threat with its own description cannot arise. How you would have described a BJP-type threat prior to the rise of Mussolini and Hitler in Europe is unknowable (i.e., before the word "fascism" existed). Presumably if BJP is objectionable now, it would have been objectionable a hundred years ago, too, and you would need to describe it in the lack of a European example. I dunno, maybe you'd be calling them "Jacobins" or something.

Of course, this example is a hypothetical one, because no one here considers the BJP to be anything more than yet-another-political-party

The point is that "fascism" represents some properties, and until you understand what "fascism" is, you don't know whether it is applicable or not to an Indian political party's ideology.

"Religion" is no different from "fascism". Only a few centuries of usage has made you assume by default you know what it means. But really you first have to know what "religion" is, before you know whether it is applicable or not to an Indian entity. Otherwise you might commit a category mistake.

Or, just like the Leftist habitually uses "fascism" for anything he disagrees with, likewise you can use "religion" to indicate anything you want; and in both cases, the word no longer has any meaning, it is merely a label attached to some arbitrary collection of things.

[harbans]

It was insisted in Indian society from time memorial that the ruler be steeped in Dharmic ethic. Then only the rule of Dharma could be established. In modern times people have lots of questions and society is more complex. So if we say there is a Dharmic meta ethic we also must constitutionally lay out its parameters. The qualities associated with Sattva and Dharma have been given, explained, storified simply in numerous scriptures, texts. If one really takes out the prominent key words from our ancient texts, Dharma will undoubtedly be No 1 right at the top. That is the term Ram/Krishna and so many texts exhorted both the State and individual to uphold. If ever we wanted to make a constitution based on Dharma, we needn't have just got 11 Brahmins and get some kind of consensus on Caste etc, we could get 500 Brahmins from different diverse regions and diverse Sampradayas in India and ask them what values/ qualities would constitute Dharma for a State/ Individual/ Ruler. You'd most likely get 499 if not 500 answering exactly the same thing. Yet that attempt was never made. We rallied under anything and everything but Dharma.

So if we know what values/qualities/ideals Dharma means for a ruler/individual it should not be difficult to make a constitution based on it. But again that attempt was never made. To get rid of nonsensical Caste system = Hindu = Cow Worship/Snake worship/ Rat Worship/ =Sati trappings and the inane arguments and counter arguments they engender, it may not be a bad idea to endorse a Dharmic based governing Meta ethic under which a multiplicity of Sampradayas exist. Individuals may chose one sampradaya, a mix, a combination, or none and simply lead a life that is in consonance with Dharma for that matter. Sampradayas may be Vaishnav, Shaivite, Dvaita, Advaita, Bhakti based, Gyaan marg based, pure Vedic based a combination based. So within the meta ethic it will hardly matter if a sampradaya want to drink cow urine, use cow dung and it won;t matter if an individual doesn't want to and disassociates with using them or wants to remain agnostic about them. Most people i know would presently classify themselves as Dharmic rather than belonging specifically to a Sampradaya. Many elderly people i know would like to associate with a guru/ specific sampradaya to guide them through a deeper understanding based either in Gyaan or Bhakti etc. In fact till date Art 25 2 b on the constitution guarantees Dharmics entry to the sacred places of each others sampradayas. This was done because it was seen that partitioning people as Sikh/Buddhist/Jain had it's limitations and many liked to pay respects to sampradayic affiliations they weren't born into. I have attempted to clarify on these here:

http://vicharprachar.wordpress.com/2013 ... o-society/

http://vicharprachar.wordpress.com/2013 ... c-rashtra/

[shiv]

One parting shot before I retire for the night:

Why am I harping so much about the meaning of religion for Christians and the definition of religion?

In Christianity, God is the head of government. What he says is law. L.A.W. Law means it is absolute and final. Religious laws are laws that are absolute and final.

This is not some trivial timepass. Western systems of law and justice have their origins in (their) religion. India has adopted that Western system in its laws. It is essential for Indians to try and understand.

For example if you say that Hindus can worship cows if they want and no need to worship if the don't want to, then it is not a law. It can never be religion, because religious rules are laws from the western sense. But forget cow worship, let us talk about that stupid imported word (like religion) that we don't understand: caste.

Is caste mandatory for Hindus? Of course the word caste has no meaning. So let me ask, is jati mandatory? That is a stupid question like asking "is family mandatory". Jati is extended family group. You are born into a jati. You cannot avoid it. Is jati religion? it is not.

Is varna mandatory? Not at all. No one says varna is mandatory.

is varna religion? If someone says it is mentioned in Hindu texts one may claim it is religion. But rules in religion as per the original definition are laws. Laws cannot be changed. If varna can be changed, your varna is not a law. That which is not law cannot be cited as a religious edict. Religions don't answer "yes" and "no" to the same question

What does this mean from the legal viewpoint?

Is cow worship a mandatory Hindu religious law? it is not. If it is not a religious law it can come under control of secular state laws. That is why the government can advise against using cowdung as an antiseptic on newborn babies without causing Hindus to start a riot.

Is caste a part of Hindu law? WTF is caste? Jati is the group you are born into. It is not religious. Varna is not absolute. It is changeable. So it is not a Hindu law. Then how does caste become a Hindu issue under the law?

[JE Menon]

>>Buddha revolted against Hinduism. It is common knowledge.

I'm curious about this actually. Where did he actually revolt against Hinduism (or Sanatana Dharma), and what did that revolt entail?

Siddhartha revolted by breaking away from Hinduism and suggesting a single path to Nirvana. Hinduism does not ever believe in a single path to Moksha.

Well, where is the revolt in this? It simply suggests that the Buddha advocated one more path and called it the only true path. Hinduism suggests many such single paths, or true paths. Only that one may be true for me, another for you... Did Mahavir Jain revolt against Hinduism too?

[shiv]

It was insisted in Indian society from time memorial that the ruler be steeped in Dharmic ethic. Then only the rule of Dharma could be established. In modern times people have lots of questions and society is more complex. So if we say there is a Dharmic meta ethic we also must constitutionally lay out its parameters. The qualities associated with Sattva and Dharma have been given, explained, storified simply in numerous scriptures, texts. If one really takes out the prominent key words from our ancient texts, Dharma will undoubtedly be No 1 right at the top. That is the term Ram/Krishna and so many texts exhorted both the State and individual to uphold. If ever we wanted to make a constitution based on Dharma, we needn't have just got 11 Brahmins and get some kind of consensus on Caste etc, we could get 500 Brahmins from different diverse regions and diverse Sampradayas in India and ask them what values/ qualities would constitute Dharma for a State/ Individual/ Ruler. You'd most likely get 499 if not 500 answering exactly the same thing. Yet that attempt was never made. We rallied under anything and everything but Dharma.

So if we know what values/qualities/ideals Dharma means for a ruler/individual it should not be difficult to make a constitution based on it. But again that attempt was never made. To get rid of nonsensical Caste system = Hindu = Cow Worship/Snake worship/ Rat Worship/ =Sati trappings and the inane arguments and counter arguments they engender, it may not be a bad idea to endorse a Dharmic based governing Meta ethic under which a multiplicity of Sampradayas exist. /

Great post Harbans. In India the concept of dharma has been spread by folklore and by recording the histories dharmic kings and kingdoms. Gods in folklore do not demand that a devotee worship him and him alone. But God demands dharma. Man is free to worship any God in these stories, but he is not free to be adharmic. Consequences are always incurred from adharma. Hindu law is dharma. Not worship of any one God. Humans in Hindu folklore worship individual Gods and acquire great power, but when that power is used for adharma that human is destroyed. Sometimes by Gods getting together to overcome power acquired by earlier worship of some God or other.

On the other hand if you ask 100 Indians - they will say 100 different things about worship and "religion". One will say you must worship cows. Another will say it is unnecessary. One says worship Shiva. Another says Vishnu. A third says I have no God. One says you can't eat animal flesh. Another says you can. One says a person's status is reduced allowing flesh or blood pass his lips. But Bhima, kshatriya son of the Wind god Vayu undergoes no such degradation by drinking the blood of Duryodhana who shamed his wife Draupadi.

Examples are innumerable and they come in our literature, folklore and traditions.

The idea that you can take 11 Brahmins's opinions and write book about the Hindu religion "A Code of Gentoo laws, or, Ordinations of the pundits " and then define the Hindu religion around that is itself offensive. But what is tragedy is that a billion Indians since then have begun to believe that what the British noted about Hindus from such egregious texts is the truth about "Hinduism". That is real colonization of the mind. Not jeans wearing. Anyone who reads books (or translations) by Kannada authors like Bhyrappa will know that brahmins were humans too and had/have lust and greed. Any brahmin is not the same as the ideal brahmin. You cannot just pick up 11 of them and ask them to expound "Hinduism" any more than any random Catholic priest can tell you all there is to know about Christianity.

In religion, you cannot have rules that allow you to do one thing one day and ignore it the next day. A law is a law is a law. Optional habits of Indian are not "religious rules". Dharma is the only thing that is not optional. It is mandatory. This is a uniform theme across the ages in India. Loyalty to nation has developed from the fact that this folklore and "our traditions" have been practiced across the same geography for thousands of years. I may hate the cow worshipper next door whose cow craps near my gate. But we both demand the right to visit Dwaraka or Kashi at will and will fight to retain that right for all Hindus. If this is not nationalism, what is?

[peter]

11. Political Mobilization (Inquisition, Crusades, Ummah's Solidarity, Jihad) flows from allegiance to God and political power of clergy, often resulting in politics under the pretext of spirituality.

Just to point out one amongst other fallacy in your argument:


Indian rulers routinely mobilized against Islam by writing letters to each other some of which are preserved. These letters were exchanged and coalitions formed to protect Hindu religion.

Political Mobilization happened everywhere. The question is on what basis?!

Dharma Yuddha cannot simply be translated as Religious War, nor is protection of Dharma, same as protection of "Hindu Religion"! Islam was waging a war to destroy all that enabled the people of India to pursue a Dharmic life - gurus, sants, mandirs, freedom. Secondly Islam was in all matters a manifestation of Adharma, and those pledged to Raj Dharma, were duty-bound to fight against Adharma. Dharma is simply the ethic according to which one is supposed to act.

It was a religious war. This is again a classic JNU / AMU argument that India had no religious wars. Hindus fought tooth and nail these religious wars with Jihadis. An illetrate rajput or maratha soldier did not understand all the nuances of path and dharm but he knew that he had to protect the durga temple, pr krishna temple, or shiva temple or vishnu temple in his backyard till he had one breath in his body.

Do you not get this fact?

You are again repeating yourself that "Dharma Yuddha == religious war"!

So if the Indian State protects the Durga Temple from an attack by Jihadis, then the secular Indian State is waging a "religious war"! Would that be what you are trying to tell me?

In Indian hindu kings realm this happened:
a) Muslim holy books were burnt, thrown in wells
b) Mosques were destroyed
c) Muslim men were killed based on their appearence and they could only save themselves by shaving their heads, and beards and wearning a janeu and tilak.
d) In 18th century panjab a rajput swordsmen who was fighting to avenge the death of Guru Gobind Singhs sons gave choice to muslims of towns/villages that he conquered that either they convert or they will perish.
e) He routinely had a rod put thru people who did not convert and had them roasted alive. All this while he ate his food.

If this is not a religious war what is?

And as I wrote earlier you are falling into the trap of Secularists that Hindus in medieveal India were under no religious war. Please do some research as it is imperative that at least Indians know what their past is. Your line of argumentation is uninformed.

I am afraid your post suggests either you are knowingly ignoring facts or you do not know enough about Hinduism or history of India.

This narrow interpretation of Hinduism, in which only your definition is the right one, (when no one actually knows Dharm neither Bhishm knew nor Drona as an example), is the bane of Hinduism.

There is a difference in knowing what constitutes the concept of Dharma on the one hand and on the other knowing how to act according to Dharma in a given situation considering the influence of one's own upbringing and psychology and effects of rajasic and tamasic gunas.

My point is no one knows what is Dharma at any given time. Why are not understanding that when Mahapurush like Bhishm did not know what Dharm is do you believe that an ordinary mortal stands any chance?

If 80% of the people act according to the principles of Dharma, then there would be more Dharma in the world then if one says there is no point to understand Dharma because nobody can achieve perfect understanding of Dharma.

The point is to set up an ideal to which all strive for! There are many different types of ideals from various cultures: 72 virgins, Heaven, Freedom, Nirvana, Moksha, Dharma, ...

You are skirting. When Bhishm, Drona did not know Dharma do you know it? Do you know others who know it? Do you think rajput kings and others I wrote about were following Dharma in how they treated muslims?

[peter]

anyone may not worship gods/cows/cow dung/cow urine and still be a hindu.

What you are saying that cow worship is not a necessary condition for being Hindu. Cow worship is not essential for being Hindu.

Yes.
a) But beef eating was considered a reason to not dine with mughals or eat food prepared in their kitchens by medieveal Hindu kings.
b) Beef eating also led to all the other reasons that I have written in earlier posts about not allowing girls given to mughals to return to their parental hindu homes etc.

What this tells you is that a large body of Kshatriyas who in their realm behaved a certain way vis a vis beef eating. In my humble opinion they do represent Dharm meant for Hindus on the topic of cow.

There is a difference between saying "All Hindus worship cows" and then saying "It is not necessary to worship cows to be Hindu".

There is a difference. One can decide to not worship a cow and still be a hindu. But if one kills a cow and eats it then according to the Dharm establish by medieval Hindu kings this is not acceptable.

If he eats a cow sure he is a non hindu.

If I say I am a Hindu and I eat beef (as I have done), how are you going to stop me from being Hindu? Excommunicate me like Christians? Chop off my head like Muslims?

None of the above because I am not interested in religion or what anyone eats or farts. This is an academic debate and not a personal one.

[shiv]

You are skirting. When Bhishm, Drona did not know Dharma do you know it? Do you know others who know it? Do you think rajput kings and others I wrote about were following Dharma in how they treated muslims?

How do you know about Hinduism when Bheeshma and Drona did not whisper a word about it? How can you claim to know that you are right?

Even mullahs are trained in good rhetoric. But it is not information. It is a self goal that reduces your credibility to post such rhetoric when every man and his uncle can do the same to you and fill the forum with rhetoric.

What I am doing is using inane rhetoric on you to counter your inane rhetoric. All you want to do is win an argument with rhetoric. I also want to win an argument the same way. Counter rhetoric will not allow you to win that argument. Using rhetoric and counter-rhetoric, neither you nor I will know whether yours is bigger or mine is bigger while other forum members will get bored until admins wake up

[peter]

prove it that it is rubbish. let us see what evidence you have to refute what I have written.

I will drop it for now. You have provided as much proof as I have. All you have done is simply say something that I have heard people say for decades without providing any proof. Just because you believe it does not mean it is true.

But I will get back to this subject in due course.

Please take your time. I can give you proofs from genealogies of Hindu kings which apparently go back to Rama of Ayodhya and Krishna of Dwarka. These are pooh pooed by our secular friends but I have no reason to doubt them.
These prove existence of Surya and Chandravansh.

Basic takeaway is that all these terms jaati/varna/shakha/naak caste just signify divisions and sub divisions. Nothing more. And they are attested to in Rg Ved and we are still using them.

I have heard people say Brahman jaati, Brahman shakhayen, Brahman Kshatriya Swarn varn, etc etc.

Please do not get hung up over it. It is a very simple concept.

Lastly genetics is also supporting that the aryan subdivision into four groups brahmin, kshatriya, vaishya and shudra have almost identical genes. Not sure if Virendra is still around but he can perhaps help dig out some papers which contain this data. What this implies is that aryas had a society divided into 4 groups and people could move from group to group. Our Sanskrit texts have ample evidence of it and is supported by modern science and genetics.

[shiv]

There is a difference. One can decide to not worship a cow and still be a hindu. But if one kills a cow and eats it then according to the Dharm establish by medieval Hindu kings this is not acceptable

How do you know Dharm when Bheeshma and drona do not know?

If I say I am a Hindu and I eat beef (as I have done), how are you going to stop me from being Hindu? Excommunicate me like Christians? Chop off my head like Muslims?

None of the above because I am not interested in religion or what anyone eats or farts. This is an academic debate and not a personal one.

Thank you. In an academic debate we should stick to facts. The fact is that "religion" does not give options like "you can do this one day but you can do exactly the opposite another day". Anything for which Hindus have an option cannot be called "religion"

The excommunication and head chopping examples were used deliberayetly by me. Those are laws. Excommunication and killing are laws mandated in Christianity and Islam for certain crimes that go against the tenets of religion.

Among Hindus there is no crime that goes against our religion. Eating beef may be adharmic, but it is not a crime against religion.

Stop calling Hinduism a religion unless you can come up with definite data to explain what a religion is and why Hindu-ism fits that explanation

[peter]

>>Buddha revolted against Hinduism. It is common knowledge.

I'm curious about this actually. Where did he actually revolt against Hinduism (or Sanatana Dharma), and what did that revolt entail?

Siddhartha revolted by breaking away from Hinduism and suggesting a single path to Nirvana. Hinduism does not ever believe in a single path to Moksha.

Well, where is the revolt in this? It simply suggests that the Buddha advocated one more path and called it the only true path. Hinduism suggests many such single paths, or true paths. Only that one may be true for me, another for you... Did Mahavir Jain revolt against Hinduism too?

Well Hinduism propounds many paths to God and all these paths are equally true. Buddhism on the other hand says only path is true and none other. This is what later Abhramic religions also say path of the book and nothing else.

So you see Hinduism and one path only religions are 180 degrees apart. My way is not highway in Hinduism.

Second Buddhism believed in conversion. The missionary zeal of Buddhism took it to Japan, central asia and south east asia and who knows where else.

Hinduism had no conversion. Again 180 degrees apart.

BTW what revolt did you expect? Buddha dissing Hindus? It is a doctrinal revolt.

[peter]

You are skirting. When Bhishm, Drona did not know Dharma do you know it? Do you know others who know it? Do you think rajput kings and others I wrote about were following Dharma in how they treated muslims?

How do you know about Hinduism when Bheeshma and Drona did not whisper a word about it? How can you claim to know that you are right?

Question was whether Bhishm and Dron knew Dharma during Draupadis disrobing. And the answer is according to Krishna they both did not and hence had to be slayed. What is the confusion?

[shiv]

Lastly genetics is also supporting that the aryan subdivision into four groups brahmin, kshatriya, vaishya and shudra have almost identical genes. Not sure if Virendra is still around but he can perhaps help dig out some papers which contain this data. What this implies is that aryas had a society divided into 4 groups and people could move from group to group. Our Sanskrit texts have ample evidence of it and is supported by modern science and genetics.

I have all the papers myself. Archived on my hard drive, and quoted on BRF several times

i asked you how varna was part of the Hindu "religion".

Religion means mandatory rules that everyone must follow. Religion does not make rules that you follow one day and break the next day. If people could change varna (as proved by the genetic record), then varna was not a mandatory rule that everyone had to follow - how does varna become "Hindu religion". It was only social stratification. Not religion. It was not a mandatory religious law. How did you make varna a part of Hindu religion as if it is religious law?

Jati is ancestry. You cannot change jati just like you cannot change your mother. Jati is not religion

The word caste has no meaning. Recall that even Bheeshma and Drona never used the word caste.

[peter]

There is a difference. One can decide to not worship a cow and still be a hindu. But if one kills a cow and eats it then according to the Dharm established by medieval Hindu kings this is not acceptable

How do you know Dharm when Bheeshma and drona do not know?

Have you been reading the examples of Rajput kings and beef eating from medieval India? Do you have some confusion on them?

[shiv]

Question was whether Bhishm and Dron knew Dharma during Draupadis disrobing. And the answer is according to Krishna they both did not and hence had to be slayed. What is the confusion?

They did not know dharma at that time. But they knew dharma at other times. What is your confusion?

[shiv]

Have you been reading the examples of Rajput kings and beef eating from medieval India? Do you have some confusion on them?

Rajput kings do not represent all Indians or all Hindus. Are you confused in that regard? If Bheeshma and Drona can forget Dharma at times why not Rajput kings?

[shiv]

Peterji you seem confused about Hinduism, religion and dharma

You have not said how Hinduism is a religion.

You speak of dharma. Is dharma the same as religion?