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

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11639
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby A_Gupta » 30 Nov 2014 01:02

A Western treatment of India's sacred geography:
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/j ... eck-review

Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10689
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby Vayutuvan » 30 Nov 2014 02:49

A_Gupta wrote:So Itihaas makes no truth-claims seems to be what you are saying. ( If Itihaas makes a truth-claim then the dating of Rama's birth has to be to Nov 29, 12240, or to 1.2 million years ago, or to something else, it cannot be all three. Similarly with the Hanuman story.)


I think there is an essential difference between th Rama's birth year/millennium and vajrAnga carrying sanjeevani "mountain". The latter is realitvizes through semantic interpretation, but the former does not. In other word, under proper semantic interpretation hanuman carrying the sanjeevani "mountain" is true. under the literal interpretation of the word "mountain" (did vAlmIki use the word parvata I don't know for sure but all telugu rAmAyaNas sanjeeva parvata) it would be impossible unless one ascribes superhuman powers to AnjanEya.

What mental model would one have if I say "the group of young recruits finished off a mountain of meat after their 4 hour long strenuous exrcises"? Almost nobody who understands english idiom well enough would interpret it literally.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5246
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby ShauryaT » 30 Nov 2014 04:34

^^Make no mistake, the composers of the itihaas and the Puraanas make a deliberate and clear use of "super human" powers and attribute them to the characters in the stories. Yes, a correct interpretation of the underlying metaphor needs to be done, however it is not through the idiom of language deconstruction, but through something I refer to as the "design intent".

It requires us to understand the context, history, purpose, traditions of the text in question and proceed to deconstruct its hidden meanings in light of the principles, values, objectives of Dharam.

For a modern example, see what Sri Aurobindo has done with the Rig or even a western born but a true Hindu in thought and deed, like David Frawley.

I am sorry, but this deconstruction of itihaas to "prove" the antiquity of Sri Rama really does not matter. I mean, trying to prove if it is 2000 BC or 12,000 - who cares, except for showing the finger to the west! We are really loosing the plot. A simple test, how many of our children know the details of the Ramayan or even recall its key lessons during Diwali. I mean, I have 5 days of Diwali celebrations provided by someone on all the things to do to celebrate, not a word was there on Rama. We are really loosing the plot, in trying to respond to questions, that may matter to the west, but does not to us, as far as Rama is concerned.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9866
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby Yagnasri » 30 Nov 2014 05:48

^While I agree with you the importance of learning more on Lord Rama etc, Abrahamic cults claim historical authenticity and claim we have none. Entire dating of Vedas etc intended to show that we do. In todays world this does matter. It is difficult for a child of Dharma to claim equality (to say the least) if all his/her Gods are myths and other cults god is real historical figure.

I feel that the battle has to be fought in many levels and areas considering that attacks are/will be in many fronts.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby shiv » 30 Nov 2014 06:28

A_Gupta wrote:Read the first twenty-thirty verses to see e.g., what Shiv Purana says about itself:
https://ia601401.us.archive.org/19/item ... 20Vol1.pdf

Some seriously entertaining stuff there - but archaic Christist metaphor.

There is the story of an entire village that was immoral and a man from there who had a young beautiful wife. The man took a concubine and later out of frustration the wife takes a lover - and so it goes on. The story of course deals with morality .
A much easier read of shiva purana here
http://www.scribd.com/doc/61506897/Shiv ... ish#page=1

Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10689
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby Vayutuvan » 30 Nov 2014 06:33

ShauryaT: My objection i only to equating dating Sri rAma with hanumanta carrying sanjeeva parvata. Dating of sri rAma is a lost cause especially through astroarchaeology - even using the best, most accurate, most recent NASA datasets. My "vague"[1] objections arise from my understanding of the irreversibility of time in the planetary movements. On the other hand this objection can be very effectively applied to take down any astro-archaelogical claims of any researcher.

We can only buttress such old datings only through the hard work field archealogy (if this is at all possible going bacl further than 7K BCE).

As for your deepavaLi objection, in the south during my childhood, almost all the kids were in the know of - nto sri rAma's connection to the festival but sri krishna's connection - naraka chaturthi, sataybhAma's bravery in getting krishna out of the battle field when he is injured and the deepAvaLi being the celebration of good over evil. sri rAma's story was of secondary importance.

[1] "vague" because I cannot make these objections concrete due to my own shortcomings in formalizing them.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5246
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby ShauryaT » 30 Nov 2014 07:00

Yagnasri: You win this debate by learning about Dharma, by practicing it and living it. Why claim equality, when you can claim superiority of truth and its ways. You have at least a dozen pathways to choose from, from Dharma's history. If you are not convinced of SD goals, objectives and ways then the world is full of alternative ideas. But, this debate of how old is Moses and my D... is bigger than yours is childish and we are well advised to ignore it for they are traps.

The issues we face are different from those faced by the west. Our reforms or rather renewal would have to take paths, which are rooted in our precepts but at the same time are transformational. Trying to keep on answering the questions of the west, will guarantee only one thing, one will degrade the answers to the level of the questions asked.

Sanatan Dharma is not pejorative in nature, au contraire it is the most accepting of all ways and does not even claim a geographical origin of its theology. How did Hindu Nationalism become pejorative in the republic is well documented. It is up to its practitioners to reclaim its true meaning and save it from those, who use it for narrow identity political purposes.

While dating and accuracy of history and its events are important, one would think, the ideas, messages, values and the way of life would be critical to preserve and renew.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11639
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby A_Gupta » 30 Nov 2014 07:14

matrimc wrote:
A_Gupta wrote:So Itihaas makes no truth-claims seems to be what you are saying. ( If Itihaas makes a truth-claim then the dating of Rama's birth has to be to Nov 29, 12240, or to 1.2 million years ago, or to something else, it cannot be all three. Similarly with the Hanuman story.)


I think there is an essential difference between th Rama's birth year/millennium and vajrAnga carrying sanjeevani "mountain". The latter is realitvizes through semantic interpretation, but the former does not. In other word, under proper semantic interpretation hanuman carrying the sanjeevani "mountain" is true. under the literal interpretation of the word "mountain" (did vAlmIki use the word parvata I don't know for sure but all telugu rAmAyaNas sanjeeva parvata) it would be impossible unless one ascribes superhuman powers to AnjanEya.

What mental model would one have if I say "the group of young recruits finished off a mountain of meat after their 4 hour long strenuous exrcises"? Almost nobody who understands english idiom well enough would interpret it literally.


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.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby shiv » 30 Nov 2014 09:49

Why must we recall the past? What do different cultures recall of the past?

Whatever I have read of Australian Aboriginals, American Indians and other ancient cultures informs me that none of these cultures had a written history, and all of them recalled their past in a particular way.

How did they recall their past? Again based upon my reading, their recollection of their past was of the origins of the earth and their people, and stories for them to live by. These cultures were never asked to prove if the figures from their past "really existed" and to give dates and archaeological references. Their past was their past and that past was a continuous thread that led up to the present.

This sort of view of the past is true for us, as Hindus as well. Our past illustrates how our ancestors recalled their origins and shows us how to live.

So far I have been talking about our past. Not history.

If we have dates for every event in history. if we have a name and address for every event in history, does it make it more credible? If yes, why does it become more credible? What is the proof that there is any truth in those dates and addresses and names?

Suppose we lay down some rules today and say "History should only record names and addresses and dates. And history should not record anything that is unbelievable" How would this help us? If you don't believe what your ancestors have said about their past, you are discarding the past on the excuse that it is "incredible". Your past is your past not because the events described what sounds credible to you today, but because it is what was remembered and what was done by your ancestors based on those memories that were handed down. That is your past. Not a series of dates and filtered information that seeks to maintain staid "credibility" based on modern day sensibilities of "what might have been possible in those days". if you don't believe your past based on some excuses, you are discarding your past.

Now why would anyone do that? Why would anyone discard memories of the past? Protestant Christianity did exactly that in order to wipe out the memories of all that went ahead saying that "Our history starts from today". And that "history" was names, addresses and dates along with "credible stories" which anyone could believe. In credible stories, a strong man may lift 100 kg. But not 10,000 kg. If your past has a story of a man lifting 10,000 kg, it must be discarded because it is not credible.

So when you are writing "history" as a credible chronicle of events -you are throwing away your past and keeping only the stuff that is credible, stuff that can be carbon dated, stuff for which "archaeological attestation" exists.

When we do carbon dating of the past, when we look for horses in IVC, when we look for credible life stories in the Rig Veda and claim that they are biographies, when we dig under Ayodhya and look for signs of Rama, we are falling for the trick that Protestant Christianity used to discredit Catholicism. It is very difficult to "prove" historic events, and when you fail, your history will be declared false. And why is Protestant history true, because for 2000 years they have recorded names and dates and have discarded that which is "not credible"

Do not fall for the trick of trying to "prove" the past. The past is past, it is not up for proof. We remember our past for a particular reason - and those reasons are not to simply meet the demands of Western scepticism where the only "true" history was the one they recorded.

Unfortunately, we say "They make Rolls Royce and F-16s and they have proof of their past. In order for us to match them not only must we make the equivalent of Rolls Royse and F-16, but we must also prove our past. By doing this we are revealing our ignorance that they discarded their remote past 2000 years ago and started with a new history which is claimed to be all "true and credible". Their "history" will always be more "credible" than your past.

You are the moron if you jump into this game without knowing what you are doing

johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby johneeG » 30 Nov 2014 09:59

Yep, one of the fundamental things is that Hindhu timelines are not compatible with the western/modern timelines and scientific theories(based on evolution theory).

For example,
johneeG wrote:
devesh wrote:Sri Rama is supposed to have been born in the 26th Mahayuga of the Vaivaswata Manvantara.

we are** in the 28th Mahayuga. Krishna and the Krishna-Dwaipayana Vyasa both belong to the current - 28th - Mahayuga.

**as per Bhagavatham.


Yep, Sri Rama was born in this Manvantara but different Mahayuga.

1 Mahayuga = 1 Krita(17,28,000) + 1 Treta(12,96,000) + 1 Dwapara(8,64,000) + 1 Kali(4,32,000) = 43,20,000 years.

Dwapara = 2*Kali; Treta = 3*Kali; Krita = 4*Kali;

1 Mahayuga = 1 Krita + 1 Treta + 1 Dwapara + 1 Kali;
=> 1 Mahayuga = 4*Kali + 3*Kali + 2*Kali + 1*Kali;
=> 1 Mahayuga = 10*Kali;
=> 1 Mahayuga = 10 * (4,32,000) = 43,20,000 yrs;

1 Manvantara = 71 Mahayugas.(There are also Sandhi periods).

1 Kalpa = 14 Manvantaras.

Every Manvantara has a Manu, Indra and a set of Saptarishis. Or in other words the positions of Manu, Indra and Saptarishis have a term(allocated time period) of 1 Manvantara. So, a single Kalpa has 14 Manus(& 14 sets of Saptarishis).

The list of 14 Manus are:
01)Svayambhuva Manu(The Dhruva/polestar episode happened in this Manvantara. Dhruva was a descendent of this Manu).
02)Svarocisha Manu
03)Uttama Manu
04)Tamasa Manu
05)Raivata Manu
06)Cakshusha Manu
07)Vaivasvata Manu (current Manu and Manvantara)
08)Savarni Manu
09)Daksha-savarni Manu
10)Brahma-savarni Manu
11)Dharma-savarni Manu
12)Rudra-savarni Manu
13)Deva-savarni Manu
14)Indra-savarni Manu
Wiki Link

1 Kalpa forms a daytime of Lord Brahma. There is an equivalent night time for Lord Brahma when there is no creation. He rests at this time. So 24 hr period of Lord Brahma is equal to 2 Kalpas.

1 Single Day of Lord Brahma = 2 Kalpas.
360 such days = 1 year for Lord Brahma.
Total lifetime of Lord Brahma is 100 such years.

A Vishnu day is equivalent to the whole life span of Brahma. The whole life span of Vishnu is equivalent to a day of 'Rudra'. The whole life span of Rudra is equivalent to a day of lord Shiva. In the whole life of lord Shiva five lakh and four thousand numbers of Rudras come and go.
A Shiva's day commences with the creation and before the end of the night the whole creation gets annihilated. Sadashiva is eternal.(According to Shiva Mahapuranam.Link ).

Presently, we live in 1st Kalpa(1st day) of 51st year of Lord Brahma(50 yrs of Lord Brahma are completed and 51st is running). The name of this Kalpa is Shwetavaraha(White Boar) Kalpa. The name comes from Varaha avatara(of Lord Vishnu) which appeared at the starting of this Kalpa. Lord Varaha slew Hiranya-aksha(uncle of Prahladdha) and saved Bhumata(Earth). Then, He settled down at Tirupati. Later(in the present Kali Yuga), Lord Venkateshwara leased Tirupati from Lord Varaha for a period of 1 Kali Yuga(present Kali Yuga).

Presently, we live in 7th Manvantara(6 Manvantaras are completed and 7th is running). The present Manu is Vaivasvata Manu(son of Vivasvan/sun->Kasyapa->Marichi->Brahma). Ikshvaku is the son of Vaivasvata Manu. The descendents of Ikshvaku established Surya Vamsha(into which Lord Rama was born) with Ayodhya as the seat. The famous Maandhata, Raghu, and Ambarisha were born in Surya Vamsha. Vaivasvata Manu had another progeny named Ila who married Buddha/Mercury(son of Chandra/Moon). They had a son named Purarava. His descendents established Chandra Vamsha(into which Pandavas and Lord Sri Krishna were born). The famous Bharata, Nahusha, Yayati, Kuru, Puru, Yadu were all born in Chandra Vamsha.

Presently, we live in 28th Mahayuga(27 are completed and 28th is running). We live in Kali Yuga which started in 3102 BCE. Krita, Treta, Dwapara of the present Mahayuga are completed.

Lord Sri Krishna appeared in the Dwapara Yuga of present 28th Mahayuga(i.e approx 5000yrs ago). Lord Sri Rama appeared in Treta Yuga of 24th Mahayuga.

So, the time lapse between Lord Sri Rama's appearance to now would be:
Dwapara Yuga(24th Mahayuga) + Kali Yuga(24th Mahayuga) + entire 25th Mahayuga + entire 26th Mahayuga + entire 27th Mahayuga + Krita Yuga(28th Mahayuga) + Treta Yuga(28th Mahayuga) + Dwapara Yuga(28th Mahayuga) + Present Kali Yuga(so far i.e. 3102BCE+2012CE=5112yrs);
=> 2*Kali + Kali + 10*Kali + 10*Kali + 10*Kali + 4*Kali + 3*Kali + 2*Kali + 5112;
=> 42*Kali + 5112;
=> 42*(4,32,000) + 5112;
=> 1,81,44,000 + 5112;
=> 1,81,49,112 yrs;

A minor Pralaya (annihilation/destruction) happens at the end of every yuga. The pralaya which happened around 3102 was Mahabharata War and dessication of river Saraswati. At the end of a Chaturyuga/Mahayuga (4 yuga cycle), there is a bigger pralaya. At the end of Kalpa, the creation ceases.

Each Mahayuga has its own Vyasa figure. Vyasa means editor/compiler. The job of Vyasa is to compile or edit the Vedas and Puranas so that they are intelligible and accessible to people of later Yugas(particularly Kali Yuga). Krishna Dwaipayana(son of Satyavati) is the Vyasa figure of the present Mahayuga. Other people have occupied that position before. For example, Krishna Dwaipayana's father Parashara was Vyasa figure for a certain Mahayuga. And Valmiki(who authored Srimadh Ramayana) was also a Vyasa figure for a certain Mahayuga.

- According to Vishnu Puranam(by Samavedam Shanmukha Sharma) and other sources.

-----
Pentiah garu, Edited it. :D

----
EDIT: Earlier I wrote Sri Rama was born in 26th Mahayuga(from memory). But, it seems, I was wrong. It is not 26th Mahayuga, but 24th Mahayuga. Accordingly, I am changing the calculations. Link


Link to post

So, Shri Raama was born 1,81,49,112 yrs ago according to traditional Hindhu timeline. Obviously, this is not supported by the modern/western science.

One of the big points of tussle between Hindhuism and Abrahamic creeds(along with western/modern science) is timelines. Abrahamic creeds and western/modern science theorize that human civilization has appeared recently in last 6000-10,000 years. In Hindhu timelines, human beings have been living for a long long time i.e. lakhs of years.

This cannot be reconciled. Either the Hindhu timelines are wrong or the Abrahamic ones are wrong.

Coming to Evolution:
johneeG wrote:
why we try to fit Puranic stories in linear time framework?. Aren't Puranic characters eternal and "Annadi", existing in human psyche (Chitta)?.


+1, Sushupti ji.

I think frequently people mix the western linear time concept and Indian circular time concept. And create new interpretations. The best thing is to keep the 2 things separate.

We shouldn't try to fit Vedas and Puranas into the linear time frame(or linear human development) model of West. It just doesn't fit. The same applies vice versa also.

The modern science(influenced by christian west) has a model. According to it, the human civilization started as barbaric(nude, living under the trees and hand to mouth). Then, from there, it slowly developed into a civilization. The epitome of this civilization is represented by the western countries. The human civilization will continue to develop in this manner, led by the west, until by some incident the human civilization becomes extinct. This is a linear time frame model and linear development model.

The ancient India had a diametrically opposite model. According to it, the first human beings were exceptionally civilized and perfect. As the time passed, the civilization eroded due to the spiritual degradation. This degradation will continue until it reaches a low point, when the whole system will be reset. It is a cyclical model. According this model, ancient India represents the epitome of the civilization.

As we can see, both the models just do not agree with each other. So, there is no point in trying to fit the narrative of one model into another. Because it gives rise to weird interpretations.

The choice is simply to accept the model or reject it.

Link

johneeG wrote:The basis of Bhestern Universalism is the idea of linear progression of human beings.


The idea is that the human beings started out from a primitive origin and are getting better and better. So, by this idea, the people of today are better than the people of yesterday. The kingdoms and empires of today are better than the kingdoms and empires of yesterday.

There is an interesting evolution to this idea. It seems that this idea is actually based on Malsi.

Mo claimed that he is better than all the previous prophets. He is a more advanced version and that his views become superior to the views and rules of all the previous prophets. Malsi claimed superiority on this basis.

X-ists were told that they were inferior because their prophet or godson had come too early. Mo was superior to their prophet and godson because Mo was more latest. So, the idea that the latest is best was first created by the Malsi.

This idea seems to be copied by the Bhest when it was grappling Malsi. Many Malsic ideas seem to have been copied and incorporated by the Bhest during this time.

These ideas were used by a section of society to counter the power of the church which had become too powerful. During crusades, it seems that some sections had become rich and powerful due to loot. This loot was used to finance(loans) the royalty to prop them up against the church. Renaissance may also have been funded by this group. Many ideas gained from Malsi were used during renaissance. Nudity was used in Renaissance. Malsi itself had learnt many of its ideas from Cheen, Bhaarath and Greece.

The science in bhest was developed when it spread from Malsi. Malsi learnt its science from Cheen, Bhaarath and Greece. So, Bhestern science adopted the ideas from Malsi into itself. This force was against X-ism. So, Bhestern science adopted the idea that the 'latest is best'.

In 1800s, it seems there was a curious phenomenon. The church was defeated. So, X-ism was co-opted into this system. Now, the X-ism and science would act as two opposing forces, but their elite supporters are same.

It was and is accepted that the human beings are the best. So, it was postulated that human beings are better because they are latest(in evolution). This is simply a corollary of the idea that 'latest is best'. If latest is best, then the best must be latest. Since, human beings are better than other animals, they must be the latest in evolution.

Another twist was that the Oirope managed to create a colonial model by inspiration from jihadhi model. Once, they managed to set up their own empires, they had more interest in claiming that their empires were better than the previous empires. Infact, they claimed that since they are the latest, this represents the heights of human existence. They claimed that they achieved something that no one has ever achieved.

Then, this same narrative is continued by Amirkhan and commies. Both claim that they are the best because they are the latest. Since, the latest is greatest, they are the best and greatest. All this is based on Malsi's ideas that the latest is best.

The idea of Santhana Dharma is that the oldest is best. Till Malsi, everyone believed that oldest is best. Everyone was claiming themselves to be the oldest. When you couldn't claim oldest, then you had to find some other way of establishing your credentials.

Now, generally one believes that arts, science and religion develops without caring for politics. But this seems to be a completely baseless idea. Infact, it seems that politics is at the very heart of the development of science, arts and religion. Politics selectively supports or suppresses the ideas and narratives based on whether it is convenient to them or inconvenient to them.

The the science that developed during colonial times was convenient to the powers of colonial times. It incorporated and supported the narratives that the colonials wanted to push.

Similarly, today's science incorporates and supports the narratives that the powerful of today's world want to push. The funding for research, popularizing a research, rewards and awards, ...etc are all controlled by the rich and powerful. The scientists are dependent on them for all these facilities. Basically, science is not rational or independent entity with its own mind. Science like religion or arts is controlled by the rich and powerful directly or indirectly.

Bhestern Universalim uses the science as its corner stone to push for its pet agendas.
X-ism and Malsi are presented as other competing ideologies. However, these two seem to be part of the same set-up.

Questioning the Bhestern science of today can be as jolting to most people as question X-ism would have been during the times of renaissance for the people of Oirope.

Link to post

The theory of evolution is contradictory to Abrahamic theories also. Because according to Abrahamic theory, 'God' made 'Adam' in his image. Not surprisingly, Hindhuism completely agrees with this depiction. Infact, it is quite possible that the Abrahamic depiction is a replica of Hindhuism.

The word 'Adam' seems to be close to 'Aadhim'. In Sanskruth, 'Aadhim' means 'earliest' or 'first'. So, who was the first creation according to Hindhuism? Ans: Swambhuva Manu.

The story of Adam's creation is very similar to the creation of Swayambhuva Manu. So, its quite possible that this particular story was inspired from Hindhuism.

But, the original sin thing doesn't seem to have any Hindhu equivalent. So, this seems to be a newly crafted story. I read somewhere that the Old Testaments do not support the 'Original sin' theory. It seems that originally neither Judaism nor Islam supported the the 'original sin' theory. So, 'original sin' seems to be based on reforms introduced by Constantine's regime.

Augustine of Hippo: The Man in the Shadows!

Born in 354, in Thagaste in North Africa, under the Roman Empire. The Empire had embraced Christianity as the official State Religion since Emperor Constantine consolidated his power base in the West in 311. This made each succeeding Emperor himself the head honcho of the Church. Nothing could be done without him or against him. He held the power of life and death over all the inhabitants in his Empire.

Underneath his reigning authority were the Bishops, who often opposed one another over systems of belief and Doctrine. Into this world of controversy and schisms Augustine was born and grew to manhood. It is very likely he was quite aware of the brutal persecutions against the Donatus by Emperor Constantine to silence their opposition of his Catholic Authority and knew very well that these factions still existed in the church. But Augustine was not a professing Christian in his youth, although his Mother was a member of the Catholic church, his father was pagan and had high expectations for his son in Roman Society.

Augustine’s parents used their connections to secure a University education for their son in Carthage.

As a student he engaged in much loose behavior and soon had a young son from one of his affairs. This lead to a life long obsession with lust that would impact his doctrinal beliefs greatly. While in the city he joined the Manicheans, a syncretistic Gnostic religion founded by a medium called Mani in third century Persia. As a youth, Mani had received revelations by a spirit being he called his “Twin”. Since its foundation, Manichaeism had spread like wildfire through the ancient world, finding many followers, some of them being influential people in Roman society. The Manicheans spoke of Jesus too, as a prophet, alongside Buddha and Zoroaster, but reserved the title of “Last Prophet” or “Seal of the Prophets” for Mani himself.

Where Did the Concept for Original Sin Come from?

The world view of Manichaeism was dualistic: one side was a world of light, inherently good and on the other the material world, inherently evil. Each world was presided over by a god. As everything material, the incarnate part of the human was evil by nature from the day of his conception and was drawn towards sin. Only the immaterial soul, belonging to the world of light, was pure and could not be defiled, not even by the grossest sins of the body. The worst sins in Manichean thinking were the sexual sins, because they resulted in more souls of light becoming imprisoned in evil bodies. According to Manichaeism, mankind was divided into three separate groups of people: the Sinners, the Hearers and the Elect. The Elect were obliged to refrain from all things that bound them to the material world: certain foods, sexual intercourse and manual labor. They were certain to obtain salvation once they died. The Hearers had to observe the same restrictions only on Sundays. They would have to go through more cycles of incarnations before they, too, would reach salvation. Augustine himself was a Hearer.

Manichaeism offered a world view that eliminated the fear of judgment by offering hope for salvation while still living in sin. It also gave an explanation for sin according to which nobody could be singled out as a sinner since all men were born sinners. It’s easy to see how attractive that must have been for Augustine, guilt-ridden as he was over the ongoing fornication in his life. The Manicheans called themselves Christians, which made it easier for someone raised Catholic to see himself as an adherent of something that was really Christianity. The Roman Manicheans were very well connected, so opportunities opened up for Augustine he otherwise wouldn’t have had. In 384, aged 30, he became professor of rhetoric at the imperial court in Milan. This was a very prestigious job that brought him close to the Emperor himself.

Given Augustine’s fame in the annals of Christianity, where he is considered the Greatest theologian of Christian Doctrine in all history, it is EASY to see where he derived the bases of his teachings. His background in the Pagan Philosophies of the day set the stage for what would become his understanding of Grace, Faith and Salvation. NO ONE Before Augustine taught that man was Born a Sinner or that his Free Will was in bondage to his flesh. Such Teaching came from the Gnostics!

You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created, Till iniquity was found in you. Ezk28:15


Truly, this only I have found: That God made man upright, But they have sought out many schemes.” Ecc7:29


The Following is a few Examples of what the early church fathers taught:

We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, and chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit of each man’s actions. Since if it be not so, but all things happen by fate, neither is anything at all in our own power. For if it be fated that this man, e.g., be good, and this other evil, neither is the former meritorious nor the latter to be blamed. And again, unless the human race have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions, of whatever kind they be. Justin Martyr, c. 160


We were not created to die, but we die by our own fault. Our free-will has destroyed us; we who were free have become slaves; we have been sold through sin. Nothing evil has been created by God; we ourselves have manifested wickedness; but we, who have manifested it, are able again to reject it. Tatian, c. 160

“Woe unto them!” he says, “for they have gone in the way of Cain.” For so also we lie under Adam’s sin through similarity of sin. Clement of Alexandria c. 195


“If thou wilt be perfect.” Consequently he was not yet perfect. For nothing is more perfect than what is perfect. And divinely the expression “if thou wilt” showed the self-determination of the soul holding converse with Him. For choice depended on the man as being free; but the gift on God as the Lord. And He gives to those who are willing and are exceedingly earnest, and ask, that so their salvation may become their own. For God compels not (for compulsion is repugnant to God), but supplies to those who seek, and bestows on those who ask, and opens to those who knock.

Clement of Alexandria c. 195


Regardless what you THINK the Bible says about Free Will and Original sin, you MUST ask yourself WHY these Disciples (Direct Descendants of the Apostles) Affirmed that man was born innocent with FULL Freedom of choice! WHO taught them these things?

It Certainly appears that their understanding of Scripture was Radically Different than what the Present day churches are teaching. Somebody has it Wrong. Will the Real Heretics please stand up!

In 381 the reigning Emperor started putting pressure on the Manicheans in order to put an end to their influence. Fearing for his life, Augustine turned to pagan Greek philosophy. He delved deep into philosophical thought, especially into Neoplatonist philosophy. Neoplatonism was the most religious branch of pagan Greek philosophy. It believed in one God and theorized about the qualities of this “ineffable and transcendent One”. An example of Neoplatonist reasoning would be: God is perfect and to someone who already has perfection change could only be to the worse - therefore God can´t change, he´s immutable. To them, God was beyond any human likeness. The main pursuit of the Neoplatonists - and this would remain Augustine´s pursuit through his entire life - was the pursuit of happiness. In this, a higher source of happiness had always to be preferred over a lesser, the best source being one that was immutable. An augmentation to finding an immutable source of happiness was only thinkable if the receiving of that happiness was not contingent upon the potentially changing will of the recipient.

Augustine’s conversion to Catholicism came shortly after this through listening to a the preaching of a man named Ambrose, who interrupted the Old Testament Scriptures in a way that Augustine found intriguing. His diversion to Christianity was especially the apparent image of a God who CHANGED His mind revealed in the Old Testament. Augustine’s Neoplantonist thinking could not abide with that. God was ‘immutable’ (He did not change!) Ambrose presented an alternate view that the Old Testament was allegorical not literal Thus the stories of God interacting with man and changing His Mind was not factual and did not truly represent the Divine Nature.

Again ANYONE can see that these beliefs are the bases of Present Day Christian Doctrine! If God is immutable or does not change His Mind, then Election and Predestination are Mandatory. Since man is Born into sin, according to these Pagan teachings, and morally incapable of making a Right Choice, its God who Decides who is saved and who is not saved. Man attributes Nothing to the Process of Salvation. In this is the fatalistic understanding that man is merely a pawn and nothing he does nor doesn’t do can make any difference toward the outcome of his salvation.

The Philosophers and scholars of the Roman Empire occupied many positions of power and were able to weld great influence over Roman Society. When the Emperor declared Christianity as the only legitimate national religion, many of them quickly changed their strips and joined up with the Catholic church. However they ALSO brought with them a variety of pagan teachings and blended them into the church, as we have shown. Among these supposed Converts Augustine would become the lead interrupter of Scripture that would dictate the future of Christian Doctrine to this VERY DAY!

Augustine was an avid writer in Latin (he could not read or understand Greek) and literally volumes of his works have been copied and re-copied throughout history and studied in all the leading Bible colleges in the world. The Westminster Confession of faith, framed by the reformers in 1600 England is ENTIRELY Augustinian. Nearly the entire ‘Christian’ world without exception firmly embraces section VI of this Confession that affirms the existence of Original Sin.

One may ask, ‘Can we Not hold to the Doctrine of Original Sin and STILL preach the Gospel of Grace?’

By No Means! The Doctrine itself renders the Gospel ineffective! By Necessity this Doctrine creates a System of lies to support it. Most devastating to the Process of Salvation it Destroys man’s Free Will and turns God into a Tyrant by making Him Demand something we are incapable of Doing! Therefore man’s will is in Vain, unless God’s Wills for him. Thus this necessitates a re-interruption of Scripture. So God CANNOT Render According to each man’s Deeds, Rom2:7, (and all the Prophets affirm!) BUT Chooses whom He wills to be saved and the others damned.

Again, this is Pure 100% Augustinian Hogwash! Blended into Christianity in Fourth Century Rome and handed down to us by the Reformers. Under this System man is Born as a Lump of Sin, morally inept and unable to choose the Right way. (YET all the early Fathers said the VERY opposite!) If he is to be Saved according to this teaching, its IN HIS SINS, NOT OUT of them! So Repentance is null and void, or a mere confession, or agreement with God that you are born a sinner. No Clearing, Zeal, Diligence, Conviction, godly sorrow for sin or Vindication!

God’s Will is then ‘Irresistible’ as His Nature is ‘Immutable’. No Matter what the Bible Shows! Only the Elect will be finally Saved and NOT according to anything they Do or Don’t do. Christ Died for the Elect, NOT the Entire World (as Scripture says!) and No One can question His Wisdom or ask Why.

Here’s a Brief Exert of Augustine’s teaching of Grace:
This however is certain: our will is in vain, if God doesn´t have mercy on us. But I don´t know how one could say: in vain God has mercy, if we aren´t willing. Because if God has mercy, we are willing. It´s part of God´s mercy that we are willing, for it is God who works in us to will and to do according to his good will. If we ask whether the good will is a gift of God or not, it would be surprising if somebody would dare to negate that. But because the good will doesn't precede the calling, but the calling the good will, therefore it is right to attribute our good will to God who calls us, but it can´t be attributed to us that we are called. The sentence : “it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who has mercy” is not to be interpreted as to mean that without God´s help we cannot achieve what we want, but rather that without his call we don´t have the will.


All men are – because, as the Apostle says: “in Adam all die”, from whom as the origin the offence of God spread to all humanity – one lump of sin who deserves to be punished by the highest divine justice. The punishment being executed or being remitted, both is no injustice.

But if anyone is troubled by the fact that nobody resists his will – because he helps whom he wills and he deserts whom he wills – and that the one whom he helps and the one whom he deserts belongs to the same lump of sin, and that, even though both deserve punishment, it´s executed on the one and remitted to the other – if anyone is troubled by that: “O man, who are you to talk back against God?”

How was Augustine, one man, able to pass this off as Christian teaching in his day when it directly contradicts the Bible and is so obviously influenced by Neoplatonist and Manichean thought? HOW is it possible that the Church would accept such statements as man is born as ‘a lump of sin’ or that his will is in Vain, when NOTHING of the sort had ever been taught by anyone before? WHY wasn’t he exposed as a false teacher with his cohorts and banished from the church, rather than adopted into the mainstream and foundation of subsequent doctrine developed in the years to come?

Could it be that the spirit of the age, (the spirit of error, 2Thess2:2-11) being at work in the hearts of men found the PERFECT Vessel in Augustine to introduce the Strong Delusion of error? The Stage had already been set in fourth Century Rome to fully corrupt the early church and get the focus off Repentance, Faith, Obedience and holiness. When Augustine stepped up to the plate Everything was neatly in place for him to spread his Gospel of Sin throughout the Empire. His opponents were few in number and easily eliminated over the preceding years. By the time the Roman Empire finally met its demise, the Heathen and Pagan hordes were setting up shop and craving out a new Empire of their own. The Greek Language fell into obscurity, as did many of the ancient teachings of the Church. But Augustine’s legacy remained intact and as the history entered into the Dark Age of religious superstition his Philosophies brought about brutal wars, persecutions, inquisitions and mass ignorance.

When the Great Reformation came along in the 1500’s, many broke away from the brutal tyranny of the Catholic church, but they DID NOT abandon Augustinian Doctrine! The System they founded was then laced with error and spoiled from the beginning. The Doctrine of Original Sin REMAINED the Foundation Block of Christian Dogma and Continued to Re-define the Message of Repentance and Faith. It has been handed Down to this Very Day and has Rendered the Gospel COMPLETELY Ineffective to Redeem anyone from the Corrupting influence of sin.

The Evidence against Augustine is Overwhelming. He is the VERY SOURCE of the False teaching Deceiving Millions today in the modern churches! If you are Still Compelled to embrace his teachings as Biblical truth, God help you at the Judgment! Coming Out will be of Great Cost to you personally, BUT a

refusal will incur the Greater Condemnation later. It’s your choice to make.

Augustine: ----> Bible:
Born a Lump of Sin ----> Born Innocent
No Free Will ----> Free & Independent Will

God Never Changes, Immutable. ----> God interacts with man, alters His course

Grace only to Elect, God Decides ----> Grace to Whosoever Will Come, Died for All

Just War, Persecution of heretics ----> Love your enemies, Pay no one evil for evil



Link

The above article explains the role played by Augustine of Hippo in crafting 'original sin' theory. But, it blames the 'pagan influence'. The truth may be that this 'original sin' theory was created by the influence of Emperor Constantine.

It seems to me that 'Original sin' is at the center of X-ism and is the major differentiator between Buddhism and X-ism. If the theory of 'original sin' is removed, then the X-ism become indistinguishable from Buddhism. As far as I know, there is no equivalent of 'original sin' theory in Buddhism.( I still don't know much about whether Buddhism has an original sin equivalent).

Starting from Constantine, Roman empire officially seems to have patronized this religion with its various sects and tried to make an official religion out of it by reconciling the various branches spread far and wide. It seems many Roman rulers played a very pro-active role in shaping the theology of Christianity. Some of the concepts were added or deleted from the Buddhism to create Christianity. But the most defining role seems to have been played by Constantine. For example, the concept of re-incarnation seems to have been dropped.
In June 325 there was a christian council which continued for two months, with Roman emperor Constantine himself attending. It seems that several important issues were finalized in this council. And it seems that reincarnation was dropped from the creed. Dropping a concept that is as important as reincarnation is very huge. One of the major differences between Buddhism and Christianity is ‘reincarnation’. So, present day Christianity was formed by deleting the concept of reincarnation from Buddhism. From then on, the same creed is still followed today by many churches, with some changes made at a later fourth century council. The Nicene Creed, as it came to be called, is very important in history of evolution of Christianity. It is remembered because it defines the ‘nature’ of ‘jesus’ as being separate from rest of humanity.
300 bishops attended this council. Only two bishops, along with Arius, refused to sign the creed. Roman emperor Constantine banished them from the empire, while the other bishops went on to celebrate their unity in a great feast at the imperial palace. So, it seems like the creed was signed under a threat from Constantine rather than their own will. It seems it was Emperor Constantine who was the driving force in many decisions taken at Nicean creed.
It seems that some of the bishops who attended the council were uncomfortable with the council's decisions. Its more likely that they had agreed to creed in council because of threat of banishment by Constantine. And after sometime, they found their voices. But the emperor Constantine was in no mood to accept such protests. Constantine, in a letter sent to the bishops who were not in attendance at Nicea, required that they accept "this truly Divine injunction." Constantine said that since the council's decision had been "determined in the holy assemblies of the bishops," the Church officials must regard it as "indicative of the Divine will." This is very ironic if one pauses to think. It should be the bishops who should be urging the emperor ‘to accept divine injunction’ instead one finds the reverse scenario. Such a thing is possible only if Constantine himself was keen on these injunctions i.e. changes which were brought in the creed in the council. The changes that were introduced in this council differentiate Buddhism from Christianity. If these changes had not happened, then there would have been no christianity, only Buddhism.
Constantine also took the opportunity to inaugurate the first systematic government persecution of dissident Christians. He issued an edict against "heretics," calling them "haters and enemies of truth and life, in league with destruction." Even though he had begun his reign with an edict of religious toleration, he now forbade the heretics (mostly Arians) to assemble in any public or private place, including private homes, and ordered that they be deprived of "every gathering point for [their] superstitious meetings," including "all the houses of prayer." These were to be given to the orthodox Church. There heretical teachers were forced to flee, and many of their students were coerced back into the orthodox fold. The emperor also ordered a search for their books, which were to be confiscated and destroyed. Hiding the works of Arius carried a severe penalty - the death sentence.
Nicea, nevertheless, marked the beginning of the end of the concepts of both preexistence, reincarnation, and salvation through union with God in Christian doctrine. It took another two hundred years for the ideas to be expunged.
But Constantine had given the Church the tools with which to do it when he molded Christianity in his own image and made Jesus the only Son of God. From now on, the Church would become representative of a capricious and autocratic God - a God who was not unlike Constantine and other Roman emperors.
Tertullian, a stanch anti-Origenian and a father of the Church, had this to say about those who believed in reincarnation and not the resurrection of the dead:
"What a panorama of spectacle on that day [the Resurrection]! What sight should I turn to first to laugh and applaud? ... Wise philosophers, blushing before their students as they burn together, the followers to whom they taught that the world is no concern of God's, whom they assured that either they had no souls at all or that what souls they had would never return to their former bodies? .... These are things of greater delight, I believe, than a circus, both kinds of theater, and any stadium." Tertullian was a great influence in having so-called "heretics" put to death.



The truth is that very few early Christian texts exist because the autographs, or originals, were destroyed after the Council of Nicea and the “retouching” of 506 CE under Emperor Anastasius, which included “revision” of the Church fathers’ works,l catastrophic acts that would be inconceivable if these “documents” were truly the precious testaments of the very Apostles themselves regarding the “Lord and Savior,” whose alleged advent was so significant that it sparked profound fanaticism and endless wars. Repeating what would appear to be utter blasphemy, in the 11th and 12th centuries the “infallible Word of God” was “corrected” again by a variety of church officials. In addition to these major “revisions” have been many others, including copying and translation mistakes and deliberate mutilation and obfuscation of meaning.
(The Christ Conspiracy – by DM Acharya)


At the Council of Nicea were not only Christian leaders from Alexandria, Antioch, Athens, Jerusalem and Rome but also the leaders of the many other cults, sects and religions, including those of Apollo, Demeter/Ceres, Dionysus/Bacchus/Iasios, Janus, Jupiter/Zeus, Oannes/Dagon, Osiris and Isis, and “Sol Invictus,” the Invincible Sun, the object of Constantine’s devotion. The purpose of this council was to unify the various competing cults under one universal or “catholic” church, which, of course, would be controlled by Constantine and Rome.

As noted, Rome claimed the ultimate authority because it purported to be founded upon the “rock of Peter.” Thus, the statue of Jupiter in Rome was converted into “St. Peter,” whose phony bones were subsequently installed in the Vatican. In a typical religion-making move, the gods of these other cults were subjugated under the new god and changed into “apostles” and “saints.”
(The Christ Conspiracy – by DM Acharya)


Re-incarnation or repeated births and deaths, is a very important concept in Buddhism. Again, like all Buddhist concepts, it is simply taken from Hindhuism(to be precise, it seems that earliest Buddhism was same as Hindhuism. Buddhism was just another branch of Hindhuism. It developed into a separate creed over time). Re-incarnation is a Hindhu concept. The fact that every concept of Buddhism is directly or indirectly traceable to Hindhuism, is a good proof that Buddhism started off as a branch of Hindhuism(incidentally, the same logic also shows that Christianity is just crypto-Buddhism because every part of New Testaments can be traced back to Buddhist scriptures).

Coming back to Re-incarnation, the idea of Hindhus and Buddhists is that death is like a sleep: one sleeps tonight and rises again the next day. Similarly, one suffers death in one body and rises again in another body. There is no end to repeated births and deaths. So, the goal of a life should be to escape this cycle of life and death. There is also a heaven and hell in Hindhuism and Buddhism. After every death, ‘soul’ spends some time in hell or heaven and then returns to earth in a new body. This is the theory.

Re-incarnation is based on the theory of Karma. One can ask, what is the importance of re-incarnation or karma? What is the loss if re-incarnation or karma is removed? And what is the connection between re-incarnation and karma?

‘Karma’ means ‘action’. The theory of ‘Karma’ says that every action has an appropriate consequence i.e. ‘as you sow, so you reap’. To understand what is the necessity of re-incarnation or karma, one has to delve into a little philosophy:

What happens when there is no re-incarnation or ‘karma’? Then, there is no coming back to earth. Obviously, there must be some kind of after-life, otherwise, there is no need for a religion or creed. So, there must be some after life, but not on earth(because if one comes back to earth, it will be called re-incarnation). So, it has to be either heaven or hell. In simple terms, heaven is a luxury house where a person gets to enjoy while a hell is a prison/torture house where a person has to suffer. So, heaven is a reward, while hell is a punishment. 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. It is just a carrot and stick policy.

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 in itself is inevitable 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. Heaven is the carrot while hell is the stick.

But, the question is ‘how to decide whom to punish and whom to reward’? 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.

According to ‘karma theory’, rewards or punishments are based on people’s actions. Karma and re-incarnation theories are closely related to each other. Since re-incarnation and karma were dropped, the rewards/punishments cannot be based on actions of the people. So, there is need to find some other parameter to judge people and reward/punish them in afterlife. So, it was decided that rewards and punishments would be based on creedal loyalty. All those who agree to the creed will be rewarded with heaven(and since there is no return to earth, the heaven will to have to be eternal) and all those who disagree with the creed will be punished in hell(and since there is no return to earth, the hell will have to be eternal).

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.

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.

This is a good cue to the root issue: On what basis does god decide whom to reward and whom to punish? Even on this very earth, one can find people enjoying and suffering. Many a times, people who are enjoying are lucky and people who are suffering are unlucky. ‘Birth’ plays a most important role in people’s life. Very few people are able to rise above the challenges posed by the ‘birth’. So, its not a question of only after-life. This is a question that is relevant even on this very earth: On what basis does god decide whom to reward and whom to punish? Why do some people enjoy while others suffer?

One can even see that piety is not necessarily connected to pleasures and pains in this world. Lot of people who are having a great time in their lives are not necessarily pious and lot of pious people may be having a horrid time. How to reconcile this issue?

In Buddhism, this issue is reconciled by theory of ‘karma’ i.e. ‘action’. As already mentioned, Buddhism is just repeating the Hindhu doctrine. The Hindhu doctrine of ‘karma’ says that God/Goddess punishes/rewards the people based on their previous actions. So, God/Goddess is not punishing/rewarding the people arbitrarily or randomly according to this theory. It is being done in a just and fair manner based on people’s past actions according to Hindhuism. Buddhism copies the same concept. In this scheme, God/Goddess is perfectly neutral without any bias or favor. God/Goddess does not love/hate anyone or God/Goddess loves everyone equally. Like a father/mother, all creatures are equally loved, yet there will be punishment/reward based on actions like a good ruler. So, according to ‘Karma’ doctrine, all present pleasures/pains are due to past merits/sins.

But, it means that all present actions will lead to future consequences. That means, one has to be present in future also and if one is present in future, one will have to perform actions in that time also and those actions will have further consequences and so on. So, that means there will re-incarnations. Not only re-incarnations but repeated re-incarnations…almost innumerable. This creates a vicious cycle of life-death-rebirth-life-death-...etc.

The same concept also determines who goes to hell/heaven. Since there is re-incarnation in Buddhism and Hindhuism, there is no eternal hell or heaven. One spends only some time in hell or heaven, then returns to earth(for a new brief life). It is a cycle of life-death-heaven/hell. This is reasonable because all experiences are based on people’s own actions whether on earth or afterlife.

This is the reason the doctrine of ‘karma’ and ‘reincarnation’ are connected. One has to either drop both of them or take up both of them. It seems nicean council dropped ‘reincarnation’ because it had to drop ‘karma’ theory.

Why?
Theory of ‘Karma’ says that a person’s future is based on his/her own actions because God/Goddess is a just and neutral dispenser of justice. So, according to the theory of Karma, criminal behaviour will be punished in this life, or in next life or in afterlife. Similarly, good behaviour will be rewarded in this life or in next life or in afterlife. Such a theory may not have been very pleasing to Emperor Constantine. Constantine seems to be a person of low character who had a great insecurity and therefore was prone to flattery. Almost all his actions seem to be guided by these considerations.

Constantine had become emperor on the back of army’s strength. He fought several civil wars to cement his position. Constantine’s civil wars had laid the foundation for the eventual weakening of Rome and taking over of it by the Germanic tribes. Constantine’s civil wars had weakened the Roman military completely and even emptied the treasuries. The only way to compensate the huge loss of manpower, which was taking a heavy toll, was by increasing recruitment of so-called barbarian detachments who were hired as mercenaries to fight Rome's wars for her. This had a combined effect of weakening the Roman army and dependence on other tribes which gave them bargaining powers. In a very short time after Constantine, Rome was constantly threatened and had to pay ransoms to various tribes. Even the city of Rome's decline started in Constantine's rule and Constatine abandoned the city and built a new capital city.

Constantine had directly or indirectly been responsible for murders of many including his own son and wife. Naturally, a person with such a nature would not like the doctrine of ‘karma’ or ‘re-incarnation’ because according to ‘karma’ or ‘re-incarnation’ doctrine, a person of Constantine’s character and track-record may have to suffer both in after life and next lives for the crimes/sins committed by him. Why would Constantine want to approve a creed that pronounces him as sinner who will suffer in next life or after life? Instead, Constantine would like some doctrine that will not only ignore his crimes, but may even defend them or justify them. The dogma of ‘original sin’ is one such concept. According to the dogma of ‘original sin’, all human beings are sinners just due to being born as human beings. Since, everyone is a sinner from the time of conception itself, there is no need to feel guilty or to be ashamed of any crimes/sins committed by a person. Naturally, criminals/sinners would find such a dogma very attractive because it absolves them by making a sinner out of everyone just like that. Infact, this doctrine of ‘original sin’ denies anyone the right to be a meritorious person. Everyone becomes a sinner according to this dogma. So, obviously, Constantine liked this concept which denies everybody else what he cannot have: sinlessness. So, this concept was added while the ‘karma’ or ‘re-incarnation’ was deleted in the council of Nicea.
But the concept of ‘original sin’ creates a new problem: if every human being is a sinner, then does Jesus become a sinner? To solve this problem, the nicean council had to come to the conclusion that Jesus is not a human being but was some special being. This leads to ‘only son of god’ dogma. These dogmas are riddled with self-contradictions and there seems to be some convolutions and sophistications to explain away the self-contradictions by the Nicean council.
As can be understood, these dogmas are very attractive to sinners/criminals. All they have to do is to profess faith in a particular creed, and they are immediately absolved of all their crimes/sins and granted eternal heaven. These people then became bishops with some following. One can imagine a society where criminals or other lowlives start becoming powerful religious leaders with some followers and royal support.
Interestingly, the famous story goes that Constantine delayed his baptism because he thought he would commit more crimes/sins. He wanted to be baptized just before death. It is no surprise that such a person would dislike ‘karma’ theory and would like to delete it.


----
Theory of Evolution is based on linear frame of time. It starts from a lowest and 'evolves' to the highest by itself without any design or intent because there is no God/Goddess.

This is a sort of derivative of the islamic view that the latest prophet is the best prophet. Western science came up with the derivative that if the latest is the best, then the best must be the latest. This logic becomes the basis for evolution theory.

Its assumed that human beings are the best, so its postulated that human beings must be the latest in the evolution.

But of course, the theory of evolution is against islam as well because like all other religions, islam also believes in creationism.

It seems that there is a vigorous opposition to evolution theory:
2- Evolution Has Collapsed in the Face of 350 Million Fossils

Darwinists also perpetrate fraud when it comes to fossils. They constantly pull the wool over the eyes of people with the false transitional forms they themselves fabricate, with bogus illustrations and fake models and reconstructions. They use these to spread their own conditioning techniques. But the fact is that not even one single evolutionist has ever been able to hold up a fossil and say, “we have brought one proof for evolution," up until today. Because that is not possible. NOT ONE SINGLE TRANSITIONAL FORM EXISTS.

This is a shocking fact for people who have been exposed to Darwinist indoctrination for many years because Darwinist publications always speak of transitional forms that corroborate evolution. But the fact is that not a single intermediate form has ever been found. This is just another one of the greatest lies fabricated by Darwinists.

More than 350 million fossils have been discovered to date. BUT NOT A SINGLE ONE IS A TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL. Every single one of the fossils that Darwinists have heralded as transitional forms in the headlines has been proven to be a fraud. A great many of those more than 350 million fossils are in fact examples dating back millions of years, of the life forms that still exist today. In other words, they are living fossils. What they actually show is that living things have remained unchanged for millions of years. Other fossils belong to life forms that existed once, but have since become extinct. Fossils have proved that these life forms possessed a wide-ranging and stunning complexity even hundreds of millions of years ago. This is the proof of the comprehensive and scientific collapse of evolution.

The way that fossils refute evolution is the second body blow dealt to Darwinism. Every branch of science confirms the collapse of evolution. Every scientific discovery refutes evolution with further evidence, on every single occasion. But since the two proofs we are concentrating on here – the collapse of evolution in the face of proteins and fossils – are enough to discredit evolution on their own, there is no particular need to consider other evidence refuting evolution. This huge body blow has been enough to defeat Darwinists. Then again, various fundamental issues will be mentioned in the pages that follow, mainly as a response to evolutionist claims.
LIVING FOSSILS REFUTE EVOLUTION

Speculation Regarding the Fictitious Evolution of Man Is a Major Component of Darwinist Fraud

The Darwinist dictatorship that has a worldwide domination as we have explained below in details, by means of the influential Darwinist media it monopolized, has been espousing the deception of "ape-man" for years. Almost every monkey fossil discovered has been used for the sake of that fraud. On every occasion, however, the fossil heralded as proof of evolution has been shown to belong to an ordinary monkey and has thus been quietly retracted. This is a well-known Darwinist deception. Moreover, in order to stress the similarity between humans and apes, Darwinists features an ape and make a great show of various forms of behavior and abilities such as the use of tools or the ability to learn. The aim is, in their own eyes, to create a conviction in people with little knowledge of the Darwinist deception that would make them regard the idea of human beings being descended from apes as legitimate..

It is true that apes and monkeys do have some characteristics that resemble those in humans. But this does not alter the fact that humans, apes and monkeys are completely different living beings. By the leave of Allah, apes and monkeys will never be anything other than apes and monkeys as long as they will continue to exist in this world. No matter how much they are trained they will never turn into humans with characteristics such as the ability to think, perceive, interpret, foresee, behave intelligently, make judgments, act in a planned and conscious manner or speak. No matter how much they repeat their efforts, apes and monkeys will never be able to design airplanes, build skyscrapers, write poems or study human beings in the laboratory. No matter how much training they receive, they will never be able to design a project, or produce a superior civilization through reflection and planning. This is because a primate is a living being with the anatomical features that make it so specially bestowed on it by Allah, but most importantly, bereft of the human consciousness, of mind and soul. The fact that it possesses a few abilities is definitely not a proof for the claim stating that it is the ancestor of man.


Link

It is normal to claim theories which oppose their pet theologies as 'pagan' or 'kufr'...etc.

In a way, the theory of evolution is claiming that 'nature' is some sort of God/Goddess by doing things by itself. This is supported by Hindhuism because in Hindhuism 'nature' or 'prakruthi' is a Goddess who is the real creator while the God is a passive spectator.

However, the difference of opinions comes when modern science postulates that the life evolved from lower to higher forms. Hindhuism doesn't agree with this view.

There are some Hindhu dharshanas like Vaisheshika which seem to support the idea that world is made up molecules and atoms. But, I don't know whether even they support the theory that life started off as single cell systems and evolved to complex systems.

Anyway, its quite clear that the Hindhu historical claims run contrary to beliefs of modern science and abrahamic genealogies/timelines.

Therefore, no wonder that the Hindhu histories become the target of these systems.

----
Shiv,
I am still unclear as to why you consider Ithihaasa as not a historical record.

Ithihaasa is a written chronicle of history and claimed by Hindhus as accurate. Additionally, unlike many other documents which claim to represent history, Ithihaasas were written at the time when those historical figures were supposedly living. So, Vaalmiki is supposed to be the contemporary of Shri Raama. Vyasa is supposed to be contemporary of Shri Krushna.

On the other hand, Ashvaghosha was not a contemporary of Buddha; Bhukhari was not a contemporary of Mohammad, new testaments were written in 2nd century while jesus is claimed to have live 200 years ago.

member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby member_20317 » 30 Nov 2014 10:36

matrimc wrote:ShauryaT: My objection i only to equating dating Sri rAma with hanumanta carrying sanjeeva parvata. Dating of sri rAma is a lost cause especially through astroarchaeology - even using the best, most accurate, most recent NASA datasets. My "vague"[1] objections arise from my understanding of the irreversibility of time in the planetary movements. On the other hand this objection can be very effectively applied to take down any astro-archaelogical claims of any researcher.

We can only buttress such old datings only through the hard work field archealogy (if this is at all possible going bacl further than 7K BCE).

As for your deepavaLi objection, in the south during my childhood, almost all the kids were in the know of - nto sri rAma's connection to the festival but sri krishna's connection - naraka chaturthi, sataybhAma's bravery in getting krishna out of the battle field when he is injured and the deepAvaLi being the celebration of good over evil. sri rAma's story was of secondary importance.

[1] "vague" because I cannot make these objections concrete due to my own shortcomings in formalizing them.


Archeology seems inappropriate for dealing with ancient Indian history.

Inability to post-dict the movement of near earth objects is certainly difficult. I have seen people raise the objection you raise here but I would doubt if the same be applicable in the context of something that is 80+ light years away, changes within the closed system in a rather linear fashion. Another maths trained person here had cited a US university film to show how it could be done -100000 ybp to +100000 yap. For a small 5000-6000 year gap the movement was not much to speak off. The angle involved did not seem much daunting either.

So while it is true that Smritikaars never put the historical content over the real content, still it is equally difficult to believe that a long long lineage of Smritikaars simply ignored all things historical and none ever had a thing for embellishing their work with anything other than what is today readily recognizable as false. Why only one kind of embellishment is accepted as being present and as having a design intent while the embellishment of another kind is to be disregarded both w.r.t. to design intent and w.r.t. being present. To claim that history is absent in Indian narratives, is to ascribe motive that cannot realistically be ascribed to Smritikaars. They could see principles, not the future. They cannot be said to be bothered, that in future some crazy hindutva vaadi red neck would actually begin to use it otherwise, while the design intent of their work was meant only to spread love and peace.

Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10689
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby Vayutuvan » 30 Nov 2014 11:33

A_Gupta wrote: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.


FYI :roll: I love that acronym WTM (whatever that means - in case people are wondering. "ground" boss always "ground", i.e. fix your terminology - otherwise even what you mean by a "truth claim" does not mean much).

OK, enough of word play :)

relative error (or in loose terms "in ... science ... enormous difference") is irrelevent when one talks about truth claims - either the "truth claim" (or more formally a proposition whether it is propostional logic or FOL or higher order logics) can be tautology or a contradiction.

What is the truth claim? Is it

p1. thereexists(x) ((x .leq. -12000 years) .and. (rama was born in the year x))
or
p2. ((rama was born in the year -12000) .or. (rama was born in the year -1.2 million))

if it the proposition is p1 and is proved to be "false", a fortiori p2 (i..e p2 is a stronger than p1) is also "false".

I put it to you that I think that p1 cannot be proved "true" (for the reasons mentioned above by yourself). So p2 is irrelevent and "enormous difference" is of no consequence.

A_Gupta wrote: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.


"adrushya" or even "adrshya" is what the "sanjeevani" have become. But he could still have lifted the whole box ("mountain") of the herbs and scattered the doctors ("diggaja") and ripped out the gold filigree and "metal" fasteners in the service of raghunAtha.

"adrushya" could mean that he (hanumantha) was unable to recognize those specific herb(s) that would help lakshmaNa come out of the coma he has fallen into.

I readily accept my crime if you were to accuse me of taking an unlimited poetic license. These are problems in creating an "itihAsa".

Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10689
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby Vayutuvan » 30 Nov 2014 12:05

ravi_g: That is exactly my point - don't retell the stories by to fit the current conditions. It is "dumbing down". I am prescribing even a far more diffcult route - teach the children classical samskritam (advanced material to only those who have the gift and are motivated) and when they are mature let them interpret and propagate in whatever mwhay they feel. Avoid getting spoon fed by Donigers and Witzels of the world.

Can a middle schooler (say 10-13 year old) kid be able to understand the loyalty to the clan and bravery of dadheechi? or the dharma sookshma of who/what is considered as property which is told as the story of nachikEta or draupadi's question to dharmarAja? rAma killing vAli? The dharma involved is not something that can be described in so many words as a simplistic biblical parable.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby shiv » 30 Nov 2014 12:10

johneeG wrote:
----
Shiv,
I am still unclear as to why you consider Ithihaasa as not a historical record.

Ithihaasa is a written chronicle of history and claimed by Hindhus as accurate. Additionally, unlike many other documents which claim to represent history, Ithihaasas were written at the time when those historical figures were supposedly living. So, Vaalmiki is supposed to be the contemporary of Shri Raama. Vyasa is supposed to be contemporary of Shri Krushna.

JohneeG - do you know the exact pre-existing meanings of the English words you are using or are you choosing to put your own meanings for them, insisting that we should give our own meanings to existing English words.

That is very important because my answer depends on which one of the two choices you make

What do you mean by saying that itihaasa is a "written chronicle"? What is a chronicle? What does "history" mean? Since itihaasa consists of information covering thousands of years there must have been many contemporary authors over these time periods to maintain the chronicle. What are their names? Was it always written? Where are the earliest written records kept?

You and I cannot have any meaningful discussion unless I am clear in my mind that you and I are talking about the same things. So far we have not been talking about the same things. You are using words invented by someone else to give meaning to what was followed by my and your ancestors and I have been saying all along that this is a fundamental problem. I say itihaasa is a record of our past as handed to us by our forebears. If you want to call it "history" and "chronicle" it is up to you to show that your meaning corresponds to the existing meanings attributed to "history" and "chronicle". I believe it does not and I cannot understand why you are so hung up on words like history, chronicle, cult, religion etc.

If we say things that end up causing confusion and conflict nothing can be solved and no agreement can be reached. i don't think your position and mine are very different but I simply do not accept your usage of English words with the claim that you want to use them the way you like and not the way that colonized minds and westerners think. You are simply continuing the conflict as it is without resolving anything and simply restating positions that are well known.

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1513
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby Pulikeshi » 30 Nov 2014 13:40

General comment - this thread shows how much India has lost over a thousand years or more. The modern social sciences are ill equipped to contain the eternal values of SD, but the modern mind seeks to, either due to imitation based on inferiority complex, or through competition based on a false ego of establishing the supremacy of the old. SD is neither old nor new, it is in the present with an eye to the future... The solutions and framework needed is not for a nation or a planet... a much longer vision is required for the future to come.

The purusha who has heads, eyes and feet beyond the counts of 10 (decimal numbers) is not confined to one people, geography, planet, embodiment... in this age, it is within the realm of this planet and predominantly in the country of Bharat, it is not bound by it...

Quick OT example: company A that I know well had about 80% market share in a certain space. A new upstart company B with less than 5% market share claimed a feature (a framework actually) and successfully marketed it as a 'can't live without' - here was the irony, the feature/framework was a poor imitation of the capabilities and strengths of company A. However, the insecure product managers at company A in their foolishness tried to imitate this feature/framework with disastrous consequences. Ultimately, they forgot the customer does not care for BS!

matrimc wrote:I am prescribing even a far more diffcult route - teach the children classical samskritam (advanced material to only those who have the gift and are motivated) and when they are mature let them interpret and propagate in whatever mwhay they feel.


Nothing wrong with your proposal, but what vocation will these children be pursuing? Are these kids merely an experimental mice? or is this route more well thought out?

matrimc wrote:... Or the dharma sookshma of who/what is considered as property which is told as the story of nachikEta or draupadi's question to dharmarAja? rAma killing vAli? The dharma involved is not something that can be described in so many words as a simplistic biblical parable.


<sarc on>
What dharma did the Shudra Valmiki or Vyasa know anyway? Dharma like (what they made) Sanskrit should be for the enlightened elite anyway? So Abhimanyu can learn in the womb, but ...
<sarc off>

matrimc wrote:Can a middle schooler (say 10-13 year old) kid be able to understand the loyalty to the clan and bravery of dadheechi?


Yes - I now many 10-13 who can! There are many around the world that carry a gun or worse at that age... you are telling me they are not smart enough to understand when thought?

I, like thousand of others, over thousands of years, (this is really what SD is...) have learnt Dharma on the laps of our grandmothers and the Itihasa they told us... the purana did not always all make sense, but we found new meaning as we grew older and changed ourselves... sometimes the puranas were retold in a new ways, on others new puranas got created... and they still do.

vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby vishvak » 30 Nov 2014 14:16

However, the insecure product managers at company A in their foolishness tried to imitate this feature/framework

Like Tuco's bubble bath is now romanticized as civilized. Even in India, Tuco's bubble bathtub has become kind of statement without even educated people noticing how bubble bathtub is a sign of European Dark Age where the whole family was to have a bath in one tub full of water only.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15999
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby RajeshA » 30 Nov 2014 14:28

A_Gupta wrote:So Itihaas makes no truth-claims seems to be what you are saying. ( If Itihaas makes a truth-claim then the dating of Rama's birth has to be to Nov 29, 12240, or to 1.2 million years ago, or to something else, it cannot be all three. Similarly with the Hanuman story.)

Have I misunderstood?


Itihas only makes the truth claim "as it indeed happened", or "thus it happened" or that it is Satya. It is Satya because that is one of the foundational principles of our civilization. We see it from two perspectives:

1) "Academic" Perspective: Itihas is by design intended to have multi-layered, multi-tiered semantics. Some meanings may have been deciphered or interpreted, while others may still lie inaccessible. Furthermore different interpreters may assign different semantics to the syntax, resulting in different readings of meaning, and even that may have been there by design itself. This multi-tiered semantics are designed to appeal to readers or listeners at various different levels of interest and competence.

As an example, there is the Krishna Stuthi

gopi bhagya madhuvrata
srngiso dadhi sandhiga
khala jivita khatava
gala hala rasandara


which is supposed to give the value of Pi if one uses the Katapayadi system on it. Katapayadi system is just one of the ciphers used. There may be many others. Are we sure there aren't others?

It may be difficult to discern what is the message and what is the transmission tool, or whether two or more messages are interwoven, and in the view of the composer/author the message would be Satya, while we may see only the tool used and consider it the primary message.

Moreover the nature of Yugas may indeed may have been lost, and as such there are various interpretations. Just because we cannot interpret a work correctly, doesn't mean that it doesn't embody Satya.

So the only truth-claim one can really make is that the "design-intent" of the composer/author was to transmit Satya, though not all of it may be accessible to us.

2) The second aspect is the most popular traditional view of message, and that too is a cultural heritage with an associated array of cultural elements. So that too is not dispensable for us, regardless of whether it really captures the true message of an Itihasic work or not.

So what Itihas does is that it opens up various layers of Satya to us if we are successful in unlocking them.

The problem I see is that we are being asked to state the worth of our Itihas and to make truth-claims about our history! It is like saying "either you dance with me now, or you can't dance"! But perhaps the music that is on, is not the one which can unlock the dancer in us! So let's just tell them we don't like the music!

So the perspective should be: "Let's research our texts for various layers of Satya, let's research our texts for all the hints it can give about our history".

What we can say is, "Certain readings (syntax-semantics) of our Itihas so and so, of a certain layer (context) purported to bear a message (thus being Satya, in contrast to a tool-layer), can be corroborated by scientific research based on certain theories" and not "These are our truth-claims: a, b, c, ..."

Truth-claims, to me at least, sound as if these are being made for religions, i.e. these are Theological Truth-Claims, whereas what we have is Philosophy, and thus we have Models. As far as history is concerned, by its very nature, it is a view of the historian, and similarly our Itihas too can be used to derive historical theories. As far as timekeeping is concerned, again there are assumptions that one always makes regarding the integrity of the claimant, correct reading of instruments, correct chronological positioning of the calendar used, and often very vague hints and theorizing.

JMTs
Last edited by RajeshA on 30 Nov 2014 17:17, edited 1 time in total.

member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby member_20317 » 30 Nov 2014 17:08

Pulikeshi wrote:Quick OT example: company A that I know well had about 80% market share in a certain space. A new upstart company B with less than 5% market share claimed a feature (a framework actually) and successfully marketed it as a 'can't live without' - here was the irony, the feature/framework was a poor imitation of the capabilities and strengths of company A. However, the insecure product managers at company A in their foolishness tried to imitate this feature/framework with disastrous consequences. Ultimately, they forgot the customer does not care for BS!


I am an accountant which is not the background of most people here. Now you have seen how people have claimed to trace sociological, astrological, ayurvedic, business management, diplomatic, astronomical, mathematical references in the smriti texts and quite a few of them have made fairly cogent arguments in support of their respective claims. Somebody just mentioned what I usually mention during small talk with friends about the continuity of old dramatics and musical patterns under the skin of popular culture. Somebody else saw continuing patterns in hand to hand combat and dance forms. It gets even more interesting because in cases like that of the reluctant Swami Bharati Krishna Tirtha, arguments were simply dispensed with and a new thought pattern was introduced, which the relevant person claimed was actually an old thought pattern. What if there are other kinds of professions like accountants, economists, bankers, designers and others, who would in future bring their own perspective to the smritis. What happens then. Should we simply ignore the possibility that so many people have already claimed. That Indian texts are supposed to be multilayered is an old stand and one of the layer could easily by history.

The sore point as I see it is that there is a presumption that if some people are looking for history in the itihaas then it must be only to impress the west. While most who are actually indulging in these pursuits, are doing it only out of their own shraddha. They are trying to look for what else our poorvaja have left for us and our vanshajas. Did Swami Bharati Krishna Tirtha care for the west. Do any of the later historians (right or wrong) like Vartak, Oak et al claim that they are doing their work to impress the west. Reality is anybody who figures anything tells simply as much as he feels he needs to and no more. Nobody is looking for any creditworthiness with the outsiders. Even the thought is abhorrent. Even the lay people when they come to know of these different perspectives tend to exclaim that the ancients were wiser set of people, completely ignoring the 'let us impress the west' possibility.
Last edited by member_20317 on 30 Nov 2014 17:20, edited 1 time in total.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15999
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby RajeshA » 30 Nov 2014 17:18

ravi_g wrote:The sore point as I see it is that there is a presumption that if some people are looking for history in the itihaas then it must be only to impress the west.


+1

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby shiv » 30 Nov 2014 19:07

A_Gupta wrote:Read the first twenty-thirty verses to see e.g., what Shiv Purana says about itself:
https://ia601401.us.archive.org/19/item ... 20Vol1.pdf

People. for you reading pleasure here is a passage from one Shastri's translaction of Shiv Purana. Note that there are 24,000 verses so this ain't much. My comments wil follow in a separate post
6. There is a seaside village "Baskala" 11 where uinful
people bereft of Vedic virtue reside.

7. They are wicked debauchees with deceptive means
of livelihood, atheists, farmers bearing weapons and adulterous
rogues.

8. They know not anything about true knowledge,
detachment or true virtue. They are brutish in their mental
make-up and take a great deal of interest in listening to evil
gossips and slander.

9. People of different castes are equally roguish never
paying attention to their duties. Always drawn to worldly
pleasures they are ever engrossed in one evil action or another.

10. All the women too are equally crooked, whorish and
sinful. Evil-tempered, loose in morals they are devoid of
good behaviour and disciplined life.

11. In the village "Baskala" peopled by wicked people,
there was a base brahmin called Binduga.

12. He was a wicked sinner traversing evil paths.
Although he had a beautiful wife he was enamoured of a
prostitute. His passion for her completely upset his mind.

13. He forsook his devoted wife Caftcula and indulged
in sexual dalliance with the prostitute overwhelmed by Cupid's
arrows.

14. Many years thus elapsed without any abatement
in his evil action. Afraid of violating her chastity Cancula,
though smitten by Cupid bore her distress (calmly for a short
while).

15. But later on as her youthful health and boisterous

14. BI$kala grama — Cf. SK III. 111.3a. 50. It has not been possible
to identify and locate this village.



The glory of Sivapurana



ii



virility increased, cupid's onslaught became extremely un-
bearable for her and she ceased from strictly adhering to her
virtuous conduct.

16. Unknown to her husband she began to indulge in
sexual intercourse with her sinful paramour at night. Fallen
thus from Sattvic virtues she went ahead along her evil ways.

17. O sage, once he saw his wife amorously indulging
in sexual intercourse with her paramour at night.

18. Seeing his wife thus denied by the paramour at
night he furiously rushed at them.

(r 19. When the roguish deceitful paramour knew that

the wicked Binduga had returned to the house he fled from the
scene immediately.

20. The wicked Binduga caught hold of his wife and
with threats and abuses fisted her again and again.

21. The whorish wicked woman Caficula thus beaten
by her husband became infuriated and spoke to her wicked
husband.

Cancula said : —

22. Foulminded that you are, you indulge in sexual
intercourse with the harlot every day. You have discarded
me your wife, ever ready to serve you with my youthful body.

23. I am a youthful maiden endowed with beauty and
mentally agitated by lust. Tell me what other course can I
take when I am denied the amorous sport with my husband.

24. I am very beautiful and agitated with flush of fresh
youth. Deprived of sexual intercourse with you I am ex-

^ tremely distressed. How can I bear the pangs of passion ?

Suta said : —

25. That base brahmin Binduga, when addressed thus
by his wife, foolish and averse to his own duties said to her.

Binduga said : —

26. True indeed is what you have said with your mind
agitated by passion. Please listen, my dear wife, I shall tell

?*" you something that will be of benefit to you. You need not

be afraid.

27. You go ahead with your sexual sports with any



livapurapd



number of paramours. No fear need enter your mind. Extract
as much of wealth as you can from them and give them enough
sexual pleasure.

28. You must hand over all the amount to me. You
know that I am enamoured of my concubine. Thus our mutual
interests will be assured.

Suta said : —

29. His wife Cancula on hearing these words of her
husband became extremely delighted and assented to his
vicious proposal.

30. Having thus entered into their nefarious mutual
contract the two wicked persons — the husband and the wife —
fearlessly went ahead with their evil actions.

31. A great deal of time was thus wasted by the foolish
couple indulging in their vicious activities.

32. The wicked Binduga, the brahmin with a Sudra
woman for his concubine, died after some years and fell into
Hell.

33. The foolish fellow endured distress and torture in
Hell for many days. He then became a ghost in the Vindhya
mountain range continuing to be terribly sinful.

34 — 35. After the death of her husband the wicked
Binduga, the woman Cancula continued to stay in her house
with her sons. The woman foolishly continued her amorous
dalliance with her paramours till she no longer retained her
youthful charms.

36. Due to divine intercession it chanced that on an
auspicious occasion she happened to go to the Gokarna 16
temple in the company of her kinsmen.

37. Casually moving about here and there with her
kinsmen she happened to take her bath in a holy pond as a
normal routine affair.

38. In a certain temple a scholar of divine wisdom was
conducting a discourse on the holy Sivapurana story some of
which she happened to hear.

39 — 40. The portion that fell on her ears was the context

15. Gokarna : lit. 'cow's ear'. It is a place of pilgrimage sacred to
Siva, on the west coast, near Mangalore. It has the temple of Mahadeva,
supposed to have been established by Havana.



The glory of Sivapur&m



13



in which it was said that the servants of Yama would introduce
a red hot iron into the vaginal passage of women who indulge
in sexual intercourse with their paramours. This narrative
made by the Pauranika to increase detachment, made the
woman tremble with fear.

41. At the end of the discourse when all the people
dispersed, the terrified woman approached the scholarly
brahmin and spoke to him in confidence.

Cancula said : —

42. O noble sir, please listen to the ignoble activities
which I performed without knowing my real duties. O lord,
on hearing the same you will please take pity on me and lift
me up.

43. O lord, with a mind utterly deluded I have com-
mitted very great sin. Blinded by lust I spent the whole of
my youth in incontinent prostitution.

44. Today on hearing your learned discourse abounding
in the sentiments of non-attachment I have become extremely
terrified and I tremble much.

45. Fie upon me, the foolish sinner of a woman deluded
by lust, censurable, clinging to worldly pleasures and averse
to my own duties.

46. Unknowingly a great sin that produces excessive
distress has been committed by me for a fleeting glimpse of
an evanescent pleasure, a criminal action.

47. Alas, I do not know which terrible goal this will
lead me to. My mind has always been turned to evil ways.
Which wise man will come to my succour there ?

48. At the time of death how shall I face the terrible
messengers of Yama ? How shall I feel when they tie nooses
forcibly round my neck ?

49. How shall I endure in Hell the mincing of my body
to pieces ? How shall I endure the special torture that is
excessively painful ?

50. I bewail my lot. How can I peacefully proceed
with the activity of my sense-organs during the day ? Agitat-
ed with misery how shall I get peaceful sleep during the night ?

.51. Alas ! I am undone ! I am burnt down ! My



14



Sivapurana



heart is torn to pieces ! I am doomed in every respect. I am
a sinner of all sorts. )

52. O adverse Fate ! it was you who directed my mind
along evil lines. With a hateful stubbornness you made me
commit great sins. I was led astray from the path of my duty
that would have bestowed all happiness.

53. O Brahmin, my present pain is millions of times
more than that of a man stuck to the stake or hurled from a
high mountain- top.

54. My sin is so great that it cannot be washed away
even if I take ablutions in the Ganga for a hundred years or
even if I perform a hundred sacrifices.

55. What shall I do ? Where shall I go ? Whom
shall I resort to ? I am falling into the ocean of Hell. Who
can save me in this world ?

56. O noble sir, thou art my preceptor. Thou art
my mother. Thou art my father. I seek refuge in Thee.
I am in a pitiable plight. Lift me; lift me.

Suta said : —

The intelligent Brahmin mercifully lifted up Caflcula
who had become disgusted (with worldly affairs) and had
fallen at his feet. That Brahmin then spoke (as follows ).

CHAPTER FOUR

Canada's Salvation

The Brahmin said : —

1 — 2. O Brahmin lady, fortunately you have realised
at the proper time on hearing the story of Sivapurana that is
conducive to non-attachment. Do not be afraid. Seek refuge
in Siva. All sins perish instantaneously by Siva's grace.

3. I shall explain to you that great object attached to
the glorification of Siva whereby your course hereafter will be
pleasant always.

4. It is by listening to the excellent story that your mind



The glory of Sivapurana



15



has now turned to the pure path of repentance and detach-
ment towards worldly pleasures.

5. Repentance is the only way of acquittance for all
sinners. Saintly men have extolled it as the only way of ex-
piation for all sins.

6. Purity can be realised by repentence alone. If the
sinner expiates in the manner advised by saintly men it re-
moves all sins.

7. After due expiation he becomes free from fear. By
repentance he attains salvation undoubtedly.

8. The mental purity that one derives on hearing the
story of Sivapurana cannot be gained by any other
means.

9. As a mirror becomes free from dirt on being wiped
with a cloth, so is the mind undoubtedly purified by listening
to this story.

10. Accompanied by Amba, Siva stays in the minds
of pure men. The sanctified soul thereupon attains the region
of Siva and Amba.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby shiv » 30 Nov 2014 19:21

The above is a moral story told as a history. There is no indication that the story is made up and the great part is that the people in the story act pretty much like normal people might in this day and age. I have seen stories like this in the papers.

is this a history?
Is it a document on ethics?
Is it a "religion" related story.

Fact is it is all three.

It is completely idiotic to simply club puranas as histories. They have multiple subjects.

Many of us, as std 4 or 5 kids had a single "maths" text in which we were taught the basics of arithmetic, algebra and geometry. We had a single "science" text that contained physics, chem and bio. We had a single "social" text which combines history, geography etc.

We could never ever pick up such a text and say "This is Arithmetic alone"

Why oh why are we trying to slot puranas in as "history"? Have Hindus stopped thinking after the Brits came and are we simply allowing colonizers ideas to freeze in our heads as the final truth?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby shiv » 30 Nov 2014 19:31

ravi_g wrote:The sore point as I see it is that there is a presumption that if some people are looking for history in the itihaas then it must be only to impress the west.

The problem with this statement as I see it is that, "history" is a limited subject that was defined by the west - particularly the protestants to make their past more credible than a Catholic past.

There was never ever any reason to search for "history" in itihaas until it was challenged by the west.

So technically anyone who specifically searches for history in itihaas is doing it only as a reaction to the motivated and deliberate ploy instituted by ancient protestants to render every other history inadequate to meet the standards they had set.

It is important to understand this before defending Indians who search for history in material that was not designed ab initio to be a history in a Christian Protestant sense. If we understand this, fine. if we don't we are buggered. I posit that 99% of history seekers in itihaas do not understand this.

Amitava
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 87
Joined: 03 Sep 2000 11:31
Location: New Jersey, USA.

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby Amitava » 30 Nov 2014 19:59

online Merriam Webster
Definition of DHARMA
1 Hinduism : an individual's duty fulfilled by observance of custom or law

2 Hinduism & Buddhism
a : the basic principles of cosmic or individual existence : divine law
b : conformity to one's duty and nature

— dhar·mic adjective


and notice it doesn't use the R word

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dharma

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11639
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby A_Gupta » 30 Nov 2014 20:08

We have gone from "Itihaas is history" much earlier in this thread to "let us seek clues to our history in Itihaas". This is a big improvement.

My objection is not "finding history is an attempt to impress the West", etc.. My objection is that reading Itihaas as history means reducing it to a historical core + a lot of "poetic exaggeration". The historical core has no emotional or psychic value, does nothing for the current civilization, no more than the lists of Egyptian dynasties has for anyone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_an ... _dynasties

The "poetic exaggeration" - once classified as such and increasingly accepted as such - will be devalued; and at that point Itihaas becomes a museum piece instead of a part of the daily cultural mix.

The connection to Hindu nationalism is exactly because too many of them insist (along with the secular left) that "Itihaas is history".

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby shiv » 30 Nov 2014 20:33

Amitava wrote:online Merriam Webster
Definition of DHARMA
1 Hinduism : an individual's duty fulfilled by observance of custom or law

2 Hinduism & Buddhism
a : the basic principles of cosmic or individual existence : divine law
b : conformity to one's duty and nature

— dhar·mic adjective


and notice it doesn't use the R word

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dharma


Why do we call it Hindu dharma if it is a religion?

i put it to you that the reason is the same reason why we say "history" for itihaas and "bath" for washing up/showering.

Faulty translations being applied and silly rationalizations to explain why faulty translations should be accepted and perpetuated forever.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15999
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby RajeshA » 30 Nov 2014 21:15

A_Gupta wrote:We have gone from "Itihaas is history" much earlier in this thread to "let us seek clues to our history in Itihaas". This is a big improvement.


If this refers to what I wrote earlier, then I don't see any change in stance.

Why would one look for clues to our history in Itihas if one wasn't of the view that Itihas is "history"?!

I don't think one questions that the personalities that one speaks of in Ramayana and Mahabharata did indeed exist nor that the events referred to in those Kavyas did indeed take place. As far as explanations of those events is concerned, where supposedly embellishments have been used, there is also the assurance that these embellishments still retain the Satya of the Itihas, though the meaning may not be apparent today. Today history has in fact far more falsehoods than any false embellishment can produce, considering that one says, that history is written by victors.

A_Gupta wrote:My objection is not "finding history is an attempt to impress the West", etc.. My objection is that reading Itihaas as history means reducing it to a historical core + a lot of "poetic exaggeration". The historical core has no emotional or psychic value, does nothing for the current civilization, no more than the lists of Egyptian dynasties has for anyone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_an ... _dynasties

The "poetic exaggeration" - once classified as such and increasingly accepted as such - will be devalued; and at that point Itihaas becomes a museum piece instead of a part of the daily cultural mix.

The connection to Hindu nationalism is exactly because too many of them insist (along with the secular left) that "Itihaas is history".


I don't see that as a danger in India, and the reason is precisely because of the Devic nature of our Itihas rather than the Asuric. The deeds of Rama and Krishna were not meant simply for self-aggrandizement, but were of establishing Dharma. One aspect of our Itihas strengthens the other. The "Ādhyātmik" nourishes the historical, and the historical nourishes the "Ādhyātmik". One does not need to relinquish any of the two.

It is the second part that Hinduists are willing to ignore. The fact that these personalities really existed and the events really took place in one shape or form simply strengthens the "Ādhyātmik" message.

The fear is that if these allegedly historical events cannot be proven, if that also lessens the "Ādhyātmik" message!

It does only if we accept the Western Universalist framework. Speaking pragmatically, it is simply a fact that this part of history is relative to the other ancient civilizations themselves as ancient history, and absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Moreover this area is more a function of how well Bharatiya-based historical academic research is able to counter the propaganda of West-based historical narrative. Problem is not with our narrative, our standpoint, it is not weak, but rather with being able to stand our ground in the academic circles and in the media. I mean as far as propaganda is concerned, even Islamists are sometimes able to talk down Hindus on matters of ideology and show theirs as superior! :shock:

member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby member_20317 » 30 Nov 2014 21:18

See if it was the case that somebody was 'misidentifying itihaas as history only' then it is certainly wrong. But if somebody was merely saying that 'itihaas is our history' then I am afraid, I see no wrong with that position.

When we say 'our history' it implies perforce that it is 'our history as we understand, maintain and transmit our history'. I use the word maintain with full conviction because even in the itihaas the ancient seers have tried to maintain some sort of chronology too. A chronology that they thought was worthy of maintaining, consisting of lineages of kings expressed in terms of time as they understood it (notable constitution of planetary bodies and seasons etc.). The lineages expressed not in the 'standard x was the son of y but killed by z another son of y to get the throne of sdalfjs', but nonetheless a lineage expressed as we Indians always understood it where Bharat the appointed king may (or may not) have been excluded and the transition from Dashratha to Tapasvi Raja Ram was recorded instead. And to this day the history-seekers :P are recognized by reasonable people, only if they follow the rules of the game ie. when at their core the argument is about the notable constitution of planetary bodies etc &/or maintaining the accepted law w.r.t. inheritance of kingdoms. Off course the standards cannot be maintained against unreasonable people. Ok, now I live in India and I have hardly seen any of the very large vote bank of Hindutva vaadis side claiming that 'itihaas is history only'. And if there are so few of them then why is one of us pulling while the other one pushes. I say you push. I will, as usual tag along without doing much.

Moving on, to claim that somehow following the established norm, becomes vitiated by following that norm still in the present or to advise the same thing for the future - difficult to accept baba!

Really, the principles discovered, would not be worth following, if they were so weak that they would begin to fall apart if they are to be read beyond the confines of the itihaas (living) and beyond the presently understood scope of the itihaas. And if we can pull in mimamsakas like KLPD ji, I am sure he too would endorse re-interpretation, re-re-interpretation of itihaas. Actually my personal position goes beyond this stage too but let us see if we can resolve till this point first.

History seekers are not history sheeter bhai. Most of them are simple people.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11639
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby A_Gupta » 30 Nov 2014 21:40

RajeshA wrote:The fear is that if these allegedly historical events cannot be proven, if that also lessens the "Ādhyātmik" message!


No, that is not the fear. As I wrote earlier, if you say "Itihaas = history" then the text reduces to a "historical core" + "poetic exaggerations". You may (or may not) find "proof" of the historical core, but in either case, the "poetic exaggerations" fall to the wayside as falsehoods.

Your statement that Rama may have been from 12,000 years ago or 1,200,000 years ago and you are OK with either, tells me that either you don't see these as historical claims (or else you don't understand what the academic discipline of history is). "Rama exists/existed" is then in the same category of statement as e.g., "Atma exists" or "Brahman exists".

You really have no idea of the time frame, but you insist on the geography, because you see the need to tie rashtra dharma to a particular geography. Basically, what your assertion amounts to is that if you stood on the part of Gondwanaland that became India, and waited there for hundreds of millions of years, at some point Rama Ikshvaku, son of Dasaratha, husband of Sita, etc., flashed in and out of existence on that land-mass. If that didn't happen, modern attempts to hold together the Indian civilization fall apart.

As I re-read my words above, I think the key misunderstanding lies around "what is history"? Please note that "history" cannot mean what we want it to be, it is as western as the Bible or the Constitution of the United States. In terms of the norms of history, the power of definition is not with us. That is why the question is happens if I try to make Itihaas fit the norms of history.

member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby member_20317 » 30 Nov 2014 22:14

Well thanks for bringing in the example of constitution because all day long what I see is a joke played upon the idea and in which I am also a participant. But not just the Indian constitution but against all others who happen to deal with us Indian. Sorry bhailog for being such an outlier, but could not fight my fate.

Anyhow you probably have a different idea of what history connotes. It connotes the same meaning as God. Just as they jumped about on matters like god/God/GOD they would learn to jump about on history/History also. Not very far off. That sir is the nature of english language and of anything that comes from it or other western thought. They should have ensured that the language they used was rigorous. If they think they can invent a language then they cannot then hold it down from getting re-invented at the hands of others, except by making increasingly difficult investments at increasingly poor returns per buck.

Like when we claim that Dharma is much more then a religion we also imply that Dharma can easily work as a religion also as and when we need to make it work so. Exactly the same is the case with history and itihaas too. The reason so much money is invested in history and in keeping it pristine from interference and so much effort is made to conduct the farce of conclaves/conferences is because a bunch of lone wolves can drive holes in it. Look no further than, Bji in the OIT threads. Bji was the real steppenwolf there.

There is perhaps a difference in the way both sides think a fight is thought to be fought by the other side. I can speak for myself. History as in western notion of it cannot be taken down by we asserting our history against theirs but by punching holes in their narration. You do that by making them run against Satya and its multifarious forms - In our context, bad Linguistics was taken down by good Archeology and bad archeology was downed by good genetics and bad religion was taken down by good geology. It happens all the time with people who have no internal set of checks and balances like say maths has developed for itself. Such disciplines will get taken down by internal contradictions and in the absence of it by new knowledge. They too know it hence the need for 'scientific or rational history'.

Simultaneously there is a difference in the way each side thinks how to strengthen our own claims. Till date we do not know when Raja Ram was born. That did not stop us from claiming the land as being Raja Ram's domain. Finding a date for Raja Ram is one more truth to punch a hole in their narrative. It is obvious nobody is going to find the date in Archeology. Most likely if its ever done then it will be done by a long and arduous and even hazardous process of logic and observation. The effort may or may not remain successful but it matters exactly as much as the dating of the Mahabharat war. This country was Bharat before the claim for MBH war came about and the claims have changed ever so often. But today the west will have to climb one more and perhaps the highest mountain because of that date. They can choose not to. But that would drown them in discredit. Their choice. The country is by the choices it makes not because of the dates. The choice is Ram but the date of Raja Ram would prove to be the new mountain for them to climb over. Besides in my view much more importantly, dates are the new ingredient in the development of the new teerath-sthals that would help keep the Hindus alive.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11639
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby A_Gupta » 30 Nov 2014 22:35

One reason I brought up the Shiv Purana is to ask questions about this; sorry to bring Wiki into this but I am short of time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakti_Peetha
The Shakti Peetha (Sanskrit: शक्ति पीठ, Śakti Pīṭha, seat of Shakti[1]) is a places of worship consecrated to the goddess Shakti or Sati, the female principal of Hinduism and the main deity of the Shakta sect. They are sprinkled throughout the Indian subcontinent.


Shakti Peethas are shrines or divine places of the Mother Goddess. These are places that are believed to have enshrined with the presence of Shakti due to the falling of body parts of the corpse of Sati Devi, when Lord Shiva carried it and wandered throughout Aryavartha in sorrow. There are 51 Shakti Peeth linking to the 51 alphabets in Sanskrit. Each temple has shrines for Shakti and Kalabhairava, and mostly Shakti and Kalabharava in different Shakti Peeth have different names.


Is the story of Shiva, Sati, Daksha a historical one? When did the events narrated in the Shiva Purana happen as per the Christian calendar? Does it need to be historical in order to establish Bharat as punya-bhoomi?

Why is Ramayana or Mahabharata privileged over the Shaiva story as being (somehow) historical?

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11639
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby A_Gupta » 30 Nov 2014 22:37

ravi_g, history is not any story about the past. History is a specific discipline just like physics or chemistry. But there are many more ways to talk about the past than history. That is why Balu's talk is are Indians in need of the past or in need of history?

PS: why do we laugh at Pakistan's djinn energy or at their introduction of Allah into the school physics textbook? If "physics" can mean anything that we want it to, then how is what they are doing ridiculous? It is the same with "history".
Last edited by A_Gupta on 30 Nov 2014 22:43, edited 1 time in total.

Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10689
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby Vayutuvan » 30 Nov 2014 22:40

I used the word apocrypha before and it was on purpose. The purpose is this. Today church is slowly but surely abandoning their entrenched positions one by one. The apocrypha will consume chrstianity till only the philosophical core, if any, would remain. Same is true with Islam in which relgion there is constant infighting, cults, factionism, and several Al Quaida number 3s.

As far as sanAtana dharma is concerned, these apocrypha bullets/shells might destroy the fluff but we know that there is a core. Once these bullets fired by both religions of the book meet the "as hard as diamond" inner core, the crest jewel of discrimination, these will richochet and destroy their own edifice which has been built on shaky foundations. Meanwhile it is essential to make sure the inner core of sanAtana dharma is not destroyed - these are the itihAsa. Oral itihAsa are the practice of chanting of the vEdA, bhajanas, keertana. It is easier to collate and preserve copies of the extant written material). Rrituals and samskAra - both the intangible and the tangible - are also important and need to be preserved. Hopefully the tearing apart of sanAtana dharma can be prevented through some simple steps while the others are self-consumed. Every sanAtana dharmi, whichever darshana she follows, vaguely knows that there is a hard core - the nucleus that consists of the six darshanas - that cannot further be dissected and forms an internally consistent stable structure for philosophy.

I would even go so far as to say that let these bullets destroy the fluff of our poetic exaggeration. Let They can be rebuilt and/or re-created. Let the new and yound religions spend all their time and resources attacking the non-essentials. This fluff is like so many cardboard tanks and fortifications among which real tanks and fortifications are hidden.

As for itihAsa, sanAtana dharma is as old as proto-samskritam (not some creative fraud called PIE) and has been continously evolving without break from as far as back language invention. The history is embodied in the languages of the subcontinent.

The abrahamic religions have internal contradictions which they would not be able to resolve. It is a strawman. Only two philosophies, there exists Atman and brahman and both are one and the same, and the opposite viepoint that the universe is a clockwork and life anywhere in the universe is an event of measure zero, will survive and continue to be unresolved.
Last edited by Vayutuvan on 01 Dec 2014 00:12, edited 1 time in total.

member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby member_20317 » 30 Nov 2014 23:04

A_Gupta ji think of it like this. Is Neta ji, with/without/despite all the knowledge we have about him, worthy of respect? Does the place or date of his death affect his worth for our respect?

There is only one thing that can damage his worth. Which is the unlikely scenario that he himself compromised on his principles. The dates or places do not matter for the purpose of deciding upon his worth. Only his own fidelity to his cause, does. In Neta ji's case the dates matter so we the people of India can achieve a 'closure' or a new start. The teerath. Which is how other dates would behave too - a new start which will confound our opponents even further esp. as Indian material wealth begins to rise again.

And history is not a specific discipline like physics or chemistry. That is a claim in certain quarters. My counter claim is that at best it can be likened to legal practice or advocacy and otherwise normally it is like philately or some other collections hobby.

Pinning dates onto problematic claims as is being attempted by some using the help of itihaas, is in fact much more rigorous than just some trivial history keeping. These sort of attempts have been made in the India's past by mathematicians. Whether they were right or wrong is besides the point.

But yes there are many more ways of talking about the past than history.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15999
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby RajeshA » 01 Dec 2014 02:08

A_Gupta wrote:ravi_g, history is not any story about the past. History is a specific discipline just like physics or chemistry. But there are many more ways to talk about the past than history. That is why Balu's talk is are Indians in need of the past or in need of history?

PS: why do we laugh at Pakistan's djinn energy or at their introduction of Allah into the school physics textbook? If "physics" can mean anything that we want it to, then how is what they are doing ridiculous? It is the same with "history".


A_Gupta ji,

it is not as if haven't had any tradition of history as one could compare with how it is understood in the West, though still retaining its emphasis on Dharma, Karma, Punya, Paap: Rājataraṃgiṇī of Kalhana, Nepalaraja Vamsavali, and others.

I have however a different view on history and probably far less respect for the quality standards of the history discipline than you. It is always a very subjective account of cause-effect of a certain period revolving around influential players in a certain region. The exact time-stamping of events one sees however looks more impressive in West, as we all now use the Gregorian Calendar and not our traditional calendars anymore and our Sakas have been all mixed up by them.

The issue is about Itihas, which however has a history going too far back, about a time for which West simply has no records, perhaps not even from archaeological findings.

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1513
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby Pulikeshi » 01 Dec 2014 02:17

Couple of points, apologize the quick notes version as this is work in progress:

  1. Is History Science or Art? The West claim that history is science and definitely not art because its aim is to provide not an aesthetic pleasure but rather an understanding. If all the papers in History department merely adhered to reporting facts, then this clam can perhaps be considered. However, the West also claims that the results of historical science, since they are reported in prose, obviously fall within the domain of art because prose is a type of art, but saying this makes history no different from any other scientific report. Here the claim weakens, now in prose a story is woven together, myth making begins, it is as much a value judgment of one or more authors as another, there is no way to scientifically evaluate the values interposed with facts. Finally, the West claims that sometime, rarely this is indeed the case that the prose tends to art, but one cannot use this exception to denounce all of history. I'd agree, but the fundamental issue is like p0rnography, who decides what it is? To some of us all of history is guilty of being judged thus to others much salivation, at the current protestant myth making effort, given the predisposition.
  2. Which cognitions are valid? SD argumentation is based on the fact that all cognition is valid unless proven otherwise. That is, any cognition can be overturned in one of two ways – one by another cognition that shows matters to be different or a defect can be identified in the circumstance or the sense organ that presented it. If you ever wonder why each version of the purana however incredulous is valid or every deity and idol of the 33 crore gods, it is not that one is more valid than the other. The fact is no one can show that one is invalid either due to defect in cognition or sense organs. Ipso facto all cognitions are valid, as we do not know onlee. This is a very positive approach to knowledge, whereas the West had to suffer burden of proof due to the dominance of dogmatic Christianity. That is science is a negative process, an act of building more and more valid knowledge while discarding others, whereas SD works more positive in its conception. If science is illuminating the dark sky of understanding with more and more knowledge, SD has taken the sky to be illuminated by the bright sun as a given and started to shade in gray or diminish those areas we know are of lesser consequence.

In summary: If you go by the tiny villages of India, many local puranas exist, most of these have never met ink to paper, they exist as ballads, local songs, folktales, what ever the modern bad terminology we can translate them to. For every purana there are upa - purana, for every rule there are exceptions and infinite regressions. Each of these versions brings out their own values and confounds the West and the Westernized. I even had a long conversation with one NRI group that wanted to bring out the correct version of all the puranas – do not know if one lauds them or cries for them.

Testimony (śabda) is acceptable source of knowledge (pramana) in SD.
Whereas the Śhruti is impersonal testimony (no author, etc.) the puranas, etc. are personal testimony. The SD scholars clearly understood that personal testimony is always going to value add normative claims based on the subjects cognition. This does not make them invalid, it merely is a acknowledgement of an epistemological fact. All personal testimony will be subject to reliability claims. History on the other hand, due to its compulsions of establishing dates and facts to prove a certain belief, has no such structural foundation. It pretends to be science when necessary and acts like arts at most times. It has no self-awareness of the reliability claims, instead it relies of scientific means to prove or disprove reliability claims. These are doomed to failure - the facts in history can be subject to scientific verification no doubt, but the value judgments and normative value additions based on the cognition of the subject are impossible to argue against. Therefore, they become tools in the hands of the materially wealthy and the victor as it were who write history!
Now as India and Indians become wealthy, herein lies the greatest danger.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11639
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby A_Gupta » 01 Dec 2014 06:38

^^^ Well, what will happen with History is - the Siva/Sati/Daksha took place in the Satya Yuga; so the next question would be - are any of the 51 shakti-peetams mentioned in the Treta Yuga Ramayana, or the Dwapara Yuga Mahabharata? Certainly the 51 shakti-peetams are attested to at present in the Kali Yuga. And so on.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby shiv » 01 Dec 2014 07:20

We have been having an intense debate about whether itihaasa is history, and if itihaasa is not history, are there parts of itihaasa that would qualify as history by the strict usage of the word history, accompanied by rigorous "evidence" that parts of itihaasa are really history.

I would like to point out that while we have history, we also have an entity called "pre-history". For example, dinosaurs are pre-historic. Indus-Saraswati civilization is "pre-historic". The definition of "pre-history" is simple. It is the time before written records.

History has a very specific definition and I think most people who use the word loosely don't even understand this
    1. It refers to the past
    2. What it accepts within its "boundaries" must have been written, preferably with dates
    3. That which was not written is not history
    4. Everything outside of history is false; in other words - if something qualifies for the above criteria, then only history is the truth. History makes a truth claim about itself, excluding everything else as false.

So when we look for history in itihaasa, we have these goals to meet, because the goals of history are so noble and so dharmic and so so much involved with "the truth". Surely intelligent minds cannot disagree. And Hindus are smart.

But what is pre-itihaasa? Where is pre-itihaasa recorded? If there is no pre-itihaasa, we have a situation where much of itihaasa qualifies as history, because we want it that way. But there is no equivalent pre-itihaasa. In other words there exists something that came before history and before itihaasa, and that is pre-itihaasa. When our ancestors recorded itihaasa, they failed to understand that there was something that came earlier. And that something could have been called pre-itihaasa or its equivalent. But that does not exist, but pre-history exists. So we now have an upper time limit for itihaasa. If anyone thinks my logic is incorrect, please take the trouble to point out where it is wrong

May I make a lot of people angry by pointing out that those who search for history in itihaasa are all simply falling for a charming logical trick that leads inevitably towards erasing the past and replacing it with something new.

Itihaasa (and ancient aboriginal histories) always dealt with origin, creations, ethics and morality. These memories existed from BEFORE writing was invented. Most people on here seem to have misunderstood that the line between history and pre-history was deliberately created by Protestant Christianity to say - "From now on we write everything and all that happened before this date is false".

People fall for this simple logic. It is NOT written, therefore it is false. Protestant christianty is happy to start its history from when written records can be found and even here sanitization has been done (I won't go into that here). People who search for "real, provable" (LOL wtf is that?), written history in itihaasa have Protestant Christian minds. In a secular country like India that is not a problem, but it is sure to render large parts of our past false, including our view of creation. Christianity has already discarded their views of creation - especially Protestants and many of us are doing an equal equal with them. People messing with our itihaasa are fu(king our past in deep ignorance of why we recall the past. They cannot, or will not see the difference between "itihaasa", a memory of the past, and "created history" - written deliberately from now on. This is a clear example of "The heathen in his blindness". This makes committed Hindus as dangerous as evangelists. Don't ever complain about evangelism again on BRF if you cannot understand this.

Open your eyes folks. The mess of colonization runs deep. Assume that your mind is colonized first. Don't imagine that it is not. If it gets you angry with me that is fine.

Satya_anveshi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3532
Joined: 08 Jan 2007 02:37

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby Satya_anveshi » 01 Dec 2014 08:16

I recall while watching the BR Chopra's TV serial MahaBharat, as 'Samay', the Time, narrates the story, it says that this is the story of the past, the present, and the future in that the characters, incidents, and the lessons are as much a part of past/history and are bound to be repeated and applicable in the present and future. That statement (of it being the story of the past, present, and the future) did ring a bell at that time.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby shiv » 01 Dec 2014 08:27

How do you "prove the past"? What is the need to prove your past?

Claims have been made on here that our itihaasa, (our history according to some) goes back maybe 12,000 years, or perhaps 12 million years. The actual figure does not matter. You could say 12 billion if you like. In these 12 thousand, million, or billion years how much effort have Hindus put into "proving" or "verifying" our past?

Why are Hindus doing it today? I have stated before, and I say again that Hindus are doing it because the record of their past has been challenged by someone who has a chip on his shoulder. He is making a "You farted" accusation by saying "Your history is false. My history is true".

Hindus have bought into this idea that the past can somehow be proven.

Why have Hindus bought into this idea that the past can be proven? That is because they have been told by the West (mainly Protestant Britons) that their own Protestant Christian past is all proven because they have it written down. And we believe that. We believe that what they have written is true and accurate and that we must now "match them" and show to them that our own itihaasa too is no less than their history.

Of course they know damn well that they started recording by writing selective stuff a mere 2000 years ago and claim that all that is "true". For you smart Hindus whose ego has been pricked, your requirement is to provide similar proof going back 12,000 or 12 million years. The Protestant west is making idiots out of you and you don't even know it. The more you try, the more you will be laughed at. And the more you "prove" the more you will be asked to discard what you have not proved.

Stop this please. You don't need to "prove" your past

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby shiv » 01 Dec 2014 09:15

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?


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: greatde, Prem Kumar and 60 guests