There was a thread about a topic: what is deracination?
Frankly, I thought deracination was speaking in english, wearing western clothes,...etc. i.e. trying to imitate the western culture in all ways(in speech, in thought and in actions).
But, now I realize that these imitations are only the symptoms of deracination or the result of the deracination. They are not deracination itself.
Then, what is deracination?
I could not put my finger on the answer to this question until this thread. Now, I can see what is deracination.
Deracination: denying or denigrating one's own identity
What does it actually mean in practical terms?
It means that Bhaarathiyas deny the existence of any country called Bhaarath before the brit rule.
It means that Hindhus deny the existence of any religion called Hindhuism before the brit rule.
Now , these lines are generally put out by the commies, colonialists, ...etc. But over the years, many Hindhus and Bhaarathiyas seem to have accepted this line and keep repeating it.
In fact, Harpal Bector saar was also repeating the same line. He was suggesting obtusely that Hindhuism is a combination of cults. Perhaps, he feared that if he said it directly more people would oppose his opinion. This line is a favourite line of all anti-Hindhus and anti-Bhaarathiyas.
Prof. S.N.Balagangadhara is wrong if he says that Hindhuism, Buddhism, and Jainism did not exist as religions before the arrival of brits or islamics.
If brits had wrong definitions of religion which are insufficient to cover Hindhuism, Buddhism and Jainism, then that means that the brits were the ones who had to change their definitions of religion. It does not mean that Hindhuism, Buddhism or Jainism stop being religion.
This total deracination is amazing. I am sorry but the little that I heard from Prof Balagangadhara fails to impress.
This is actually the first step towards the later stages of deracination when people start imitating the west. People imitate west or someone else after they have rejected their own. Rejection of their own is the first and critical step. If the own is not rejected, then it will not be deracination.
Why should colonialists or commies or others push the line that Hindhuism is not a religion or that Bhaarath is not a country?
The implication of that line is: you are not one group of people. You don't need to stand by each other. If we fight with one cult of Hindhuism, the other cults of Hindhuism should not mind because Hindhuism is not a religion. If undercut one caste of Hindhuism, then other castes of Hindhuism should cheer. If defeat one region of Bhaarath, then other regions of Bhaarath should celebrate. Because Hindhuism is a combination of competing cults. And Bhaarath is a combination of competing geographical cultures.
Pushing this line of thought is wholesale acceptance of what the brits and commies say.
So religions shows following characteristics:
- Exclusive Transcendental Entity (Creator God) which demands Obedience and is Law Giver.
- Laws and Obligations (Books, Ten Commandments) sanctioned by the Creator God.
- Representatives of Creator God (Emissaries, Prophets, Sons) and thus Law Givers allegedly chosen/determined by the latter.
- Organization or Network (Ulema, Clergy) which governs society and implements divine obligations deriving sanction from these Emissaries of God.
- Pious Society which shows uncritical obedience to such Clergy.
- Group Identity deriving from this religious system, which is used by the Clergy and their secular sponsors to sway society and politics.
I would here suggest that neither "Hinduism", nor Buddhism, nor Jainism and to a large extent nor Sikhism really fit into this schema, and thus they cannot be called religions.
Hinduism is not a religion!
This is similar to saying: Human beings can only have fair skin, blue eyes and yellow hair. If you don't have these features, then you are not a human being. Bhaarathiyas don't qualify as human beings because they don't have these features. Maybe Bhaarathiyas are unique beings in between human beings and monkeys.
harbans wrote:Rajesh ji, thanks. Adding further, one must realize than anything exotic, exceptional is added to the Hinduism banner. An example, a feudal businessman in Nepal sometime in the 18th century had a dream. He dreamt his business would grow if he slaughtered all the cattle in his farm. So he did it. He made it a ritual and constructed some shrine to the ritual. This now is termed a part of "Hinduism'. So Xtians/Muslims beat up Hindus who say cow is sacred by telling there are temples which slaughter cows. And yes, if one looks up wikipedia its there! All this is not helping the Dharmics and certainly not those who call themselves Hindu. I would prefer keeping things very simple:
1. We are Dharmics.
2. Dharmics follow Dharmic Tenets.
3. Dharmics try to live by Sattvic Gunas and eliminate Tamas and Rajas (Through evolving higher and not forced absolutism)
4. Dharmics also have the opportunity to rise above the Gunas.
5. Yoga is intrinsic part of navigating through the Gunas as well as rising above the Gunas
6. Many Moksha Marg orthodoxies are available to the Dharmics personal dispensation to choose from.
7. The Dharmic can even create his own Moksha Marg panth. There is no bar on this.
8. The process is evolutionary. The concept of Reincarnation is part of the evolution.
This was discussed before and it was pointed out that 'Dharma' is a generic term which can be claimed by everyone and anyone. Arrey, even yoga is being claimed by others. There are bastar-dized versions of Yoga(christian yoga, islamic yoga, ...etc). Do you think Dharma will not be bastar-dized? I think you are just not able to accept that you are wrong on this.
johneeG wrote:To distinguish two religions, one needs to know its core dogma and its derivatives. In Hindhuism, infallibility of Vedhas(including Upanishads) is the core dogma. In Buddhism, belief in Buddha is the core dogma. In x-ism and Mo-ism, belief in their respective prophets is the core dogma. (I was thinking: whats the core dogma of modern science: evolution?)
I don't think the core dogma you've outlined for Hinduism and Buddhism can be equated to the ones for Christianity & Islam. Belief in the respective prophets is also a prerequisite to salvation in the Abrahamic cults. On the other hand, belief in Vedas is not a prerequisite for Moksha nor is Belief in the Buddha a precondition for Nirvana.
Actually, its much more fundamental. Demand for belief is the second step. The first step is the definitions itself of what constitutes salvation, belief, ...etc are supposed to come from jesus directly or indirectly. Similarly, the very definitions of what is Moksha and how it is to be achieved are supposed to be outlined by Vedhas. Similarly, the very definitions of Nirvana and its features are supposed to be explained by Buddha.
And what I am saying is that right now many english educated guys seem to have accepted the definitions and attitudes peddled by the west. The next version is guys who are totally imitating and worshiping west. They speak in english all the time. They wear only western clothes. They eat pizzas and burgers. They try to become like west in everything. Unfortunately for them, they can never become a whiteman.