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

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 22 Nov 2014 22:49

"Revolt" against M.K. Gandhi (or M.K. Gandhi's "revolt" against Hindus):

Speech at the Antyaj Conference, Nagpur, Dec 25, 1920

I am a Hindu myself and I claim to be an orthodox one. It is my further claim that I am a sanatani Hindu. At present I am engaged in a great dispute with the Hindus in Gujarat. They, especially the Vaishnavas, reject my claim to be called a sanatani Hindu, but I cling to it and assert that I am one. This is one great evil in Hindu society. There are many others, but those you may eradicate, if not today, after a thousand years and the delay may be forgiven. This practice, however, of regarding the Antyajas as untouchables is intolerable to me. I cannot endure it.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 22 Nov 2014 22:54

M.K Gandhi, I think relevant to this thread:

Young India, 23-2-1922

M. Paul Richards presentation of my views about non-violence is really a caricature. I have no doubt that he understands me in the manner in which he has represented me. There is undoubtedly a sense in which the statement is true when I say that I hold my religion dearer than my country and that therefore I am a Hindu first and nationalist after. I do not become on that score a less nationalist than the best of them. I simply thereby imply that the interests of my country are identical with those of my religion. Similarly when I say that I prize my own salvation above everything else, above the salvation of India, it does not mean that my personal salvation requires a sacrifice of India's political or any other salvation. But it implies necessarily that the two go together. Just in the same sense I would decline to gain India's freedom at the cost of non-violence, meaning that India will never gain her freedom without non-violence or through violence. That I may be hopelessly wrong in holding the view is another matter, but such is my view and it is daily growing on me.

See how confusing it is when Gandhi uses "religion". Suppose you put "dharma" instead, example:

I simply thereby imply that the interests of my country are identical with those of my dharma.

Or even simpler, "My dharma is {to work for} the interests of my country".

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 22 Nov 2014 23:12

peter wrote: You did not understand. Any groups claims cannot be accepted as true merely because they are saying so.

Au contraire mon frere - there is no 'true' group to claim such for or against any such 'other' group.
Gotra is indeed used for the purpose, but everyone knows not to question the origins (sages & rivers)
The madness of purity and true forms or groups is the worst of all that maya offers!

peter wrote: Again confused! The point here is not about original aryavrat but many centuries later when Hinduism went beyond the shores of aryavrat the "new people" were mostly shudras. Initially in these new lands the kings and priests were from the mother ship.

Your arguments are stuck in medieval India or in a medieval mind transposed to the current age.
This same idiocy of a theory is what the esteemed Gearman ischolars (racists) and later Brishit ischolars (rascists) said about the Shudars of Bharat.
Read the Smritis (yes plural) and even the Artha Shastra - the Shudra are ARYA!
Being an ARYA Shudra is my disposition not my ethnicity or geographic location.

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 22 Nov 2014 23:24

peter wrote: Nah. Please do make an effort to research. No point in making silly statements.
Here is a start and obviously many more references:
Hindu temples

What are you Chinese? I don't need a silly book written on temples in English...
Have you been to temples all along the coast of Western India? Bangalore Kerala Temples

I was asking you a genuine question on where is the reference to what you said in works such as:
Shilpa Shastra, Vishwa Karma Prakasam, Vaastu Vidya, etc. do any of these books mention this...
On this I was trying to learn something, but you seem to give me trite irrelevant responses.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 23 Nov 2014 06:33

shiv wrote

Hindu history is more one of geography and culture. The geography is intrinsic to Hindu history. Expansion and the requirement of following one God are both not parts of Hindu history.

It is Hindu history that unites India within India's historic confines
It is Hindu history that keeps Indian in India without expanding and occupying other lands by forcing the "Hindu religion"

Hindu nationalism is the acknowledgement of Hindu history that defines the geographic region and culture even while avoiding expansile and coercive conflict outside this geographic region, or the imposition of one religion or one God on all people in India . How would this definition of Hindu nationalism be any different from Indian nationalism?

Why then should we have a situation where
1. Hindu history is dissed as non existent and worthless?
2. Those who speak of pride in Hindu history are dissed as violent chauvinists whose views need to be rejected?
3. Hindu nationalism is said to be an abhorrent monster?

Why is this situation? shiv ji, you give it in your post itself. Why do you feel you have to explain your "Hindu nationalism" to anyone? Why do you stress on and accept the demand for "avoiding expansile and coercive conflict" "outside this geographic region"?

The primary problem of Hindus start from the self-critical approach that is ever-eager to pacify, please, and appease the dissenter, abuser, invader - political, military or ideological. Hindus do not immediately bash down every aggressive critic of Hindus/hinduism. Instead they start doubting themselves, their history, their roots - or agree to look at themselves, history and roots - at least provisionally on the terms of the aggressor. This is often done under either attempt to deny claimed atrocities, or justify/rationalize, and often agreeing apologetically with the aggressor.

Why is it any non-Hindu's business if a hindu identity didnt exist before some arbitrarily fixed time point and a "Hindu identity" is constructed now? Every culture periodically sifts through its past, or perceptions of its past, and reconstructs, or redefines its identities - even the Christian and Islamic does so. They accept unavoidable references of conflict, internal feuds, sectariansim, violence, hierarchy, atrocity on own and others, and yet they steadfastly refuse to accept any and all of those as proof of non-existence of a "whole".

I had an intense tweeter debate recently where some one painted Tony Blair's conversion to Catholicism as mere "lateral" movement from "less intense" to "more intense" line within "Christianity". I had deliberately trapped him with this example, and additionally, then with examples of conflicts within Christianity - murderous/destructive/genocidal - to finally draw to the point that any evidence, of obviously much less intense internal contradictions/conflicts within what is called hinduism - does not negate the existence of the whole called "Hinduism". He didnt reply and pretended the question was never raised. He had tried all angles - even shiva-vishnu separability etc.

Same person also had earlier been riled up by my raising the violent genocidal conversion speeches attributed to early Church fathers like Augustine. He had tried to paint me as seeking to violently convert Muslims. I immediately used Augustine, and other church monsters - as well as Mathew 10:35 and Muhammad's known "dawa" speeches, to say that if these werent examples of intent to convert violently/or what he termed "coercive conversion", then my call or intent for non-Hindus in India to eventually come out of their faiths, or adopt Hinduism - cannot be taken as intent for violent conversion either.

He avoided answering this. Earlier he and others had raised "Dalit christian"/ Kanch Ilaiah's anecdotal "sleaze story" as basis for assault against "Hinduism". I explored Ilaiah's actual semi-autobiograhical case-studies, which he exposed himself as not having read - to show how it actually showed tolerance from the hated "Brahmin" side of so-called "Dalit-deities", and supposed "denigration" of Dalit deities turned out to be KI claimed non-worship/non-reverence formally of Dalit deities. When going into details, it turned out that one of the crimes of Brahmins was not endorsing/indulging in meat-eating. The difference claimed by ilaih stressed on "meat-eating" - but nowhere were the claimed horrendous caste repression in tangible form.

Whatever terms they use, must immediately be asked for clarification. Ask them to define their terms/jargon/concepts. Ask them to define their terms. thats the start of unravelling of their attack. Most of them are ill-prepared for this type of battle. They win simply because Hindus concede.

Stop feeling ashamed of having the wish to see expansion of Hinduism. Whenever people try to attack this, ask them, if they similarly decry when Muslims openly express their desire/target of completely Islamizing any region where they are in the minority as yet, or not 100%. Ask them the reverse question, why is it bad if Hindus expand? it will reduce to standard harangues on "caste system" etc. This will bring back the debate to those old issues - and bash them down on the caste issue.

I openly say, Hinduism must expand - territorially, in numbers, in reach. If the critics cannot show that Matthew 10:35 or Evanjehadi expansion drives or Muhammad's threatening "dawa" - are "coercive", then dont budge a single bit, like a solid iron/steel bar - and insist that our expansion drive is not coercive either.

If Hindus/hindu assertion is coercive demonic, then Islamic and Christian assertion/aspiration is demonic and coercive too- and we must force them to acknowledge the same. They wont - as they are primarily affiliated to one of the two, or sympathetic, and they will absolutely be the proverbial stubborn donkey on the point.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Nov 2014 06:59

govardhan wrote:Shiv sir, How/What and who speaks of "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sense? is also important.

It is very easy for we(H nationalists) have a tendency in ourselves to keep the minorities on our head, so where ever they put the torch we go in that direction.
"When there is a open statement given to slaughter Hindus nothing was done(that fellow is a member of parliament/assembly), what will they do if we speak anything we wish"
In other words non-active, immobile, un-united Hindus, what will they do? nothing take it for granted.

Whom are we appeasing, whom are we pleading, all futile cycles, imbibed in our brains from childhood to be susceptible. When they become united, then plan B divide them, based on their history and atrocities committed against each other some where at some point.

No. I am trying not to approach this in an us versus them way because I am firmly convinced that in Hindu tradition there was no dogmatic law that the worship of any particular God had to be suppressed and eliminated. There were differences between worshippers of different Gods, but the commonality was the need to uphold dharma which was pretty much "taken for granted". Dharma ended up being the sheet anchor of social rules and social interaction in victory and in defeat. It is more likely that dharma demands opposition to that which is seen as adharma rather than "We stick together because we have the same God to fight against the other God"

What intrigues me is how dharma became so widespread over a huge area and a population that pretty much represented one in five humans at any time in history. I suspect it was because of the enormous body of literature and folklore - much of it as fascinating stories that were spread all across the subcontinent illustrating rule of behaviour that conform with the requirements of dharma. That apart, when you look at some of the social rules of dharma - they are simple, almost "no brainers" that are common to a whole lot of societies including Islamic societies. It was probably not difficult to live by them - like look after you children, teach them, look after elders, donate to the poor etc. But the rules for Hindus never demanded that any particular God be worshipped in favour of any other.

So when someone else demands that Hindus be eliminated because they do not worship the correct Gods, are Hindus responding because
1. The need for self protection and self preservation (as a part of "dharma")
or
2. Because our God is true and the other God is false
or
3. because our holy books demand that we kill those who do not believe in our Gods

Here we reach a point where "Western Univeralism" impinges on this issue. The British came to India with thei minds pre-programmed with the firm belief that all societies had "religions". And in their minds "religion" was something that had to look and feel like Christianity, except that the identity of God was different. They could not understand a society that did not protect one God. They never understood it although they tried to cobble up a theoretical "Hindu religion" which could be used in order to put "secular laws" in place. It is this cobbled up British idea of religion that most of us have internalized now because of the fact that we are educated in English - which lacks many of the words and concepts that Hindus had to describe their relationships and duties with regard to God and society.

The lungi dance to try and fit Hindu-ism into a religion box are a result of colonized minds who loudly claim that they are the biggest protectors of Hindu-ism. When you try to fit Hindu-ism into a religion box, you get contradictions that you cannot explain - which then have to be settled by giving rationalizations that are often contradictory like "You can worship this God today and that God tomorrow" or "You can do this today and that tomorrow" and then claiming that "This is what religion means" in opposition to what every person of other religions claims.

By doing that we are desperately trying to fit Hindu-ism into a "religion" box. This is exactly what the British did. I think Hindus literally need to step out of the box - but as this thread shows - a very large number of loud and aggressive supporters of Hindu-ism have the most refractory colonized minds. And it is these colonized minds who are most keen to show who the Hindu religion stands opposed to the Islam and Christian religion in an exact copycat mirror image of those religions. That is how "they" understand "us". But nowadays even "we" understand "ourselves" in their way, not as ourselves. We do not look at our society and practices objectively but through the cliches formed in our minds by the fact that we are now convinced that we have a "religion" like Islam or Christianity.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Nov 2014 07:29

brihaspati wrote: Why is this situation? shiv ji, you give it in your post itself. Why do you feel you have to explain your "Hindu nationalism" to anyone? Why do you stress on and accept the demand for "avoiding expansile and coercive conflict" "outside this geographic region"?

<snip>

Stop feeling ashamed of having the wish to see expansion of Hinduism.

No No. This is not at all about shame, apology or how we should behave.

This thread was more of an exploration of what is the loyalty that Hindus feel that has been called nationalism and has been criticized by seculars and others as a type of "religious chauvinism".

It is my thesis that this (Indian nationalism/loyalty) cannot be loyalty to one God. It is also not a form of fascist group loyalty that seeks to eliminate anyone else. But there is loyalty alright.

With regard to how we should behave I have no specific disagreement with what you say - nor even be apologetic towards spread of Hinduism. But here I would say that what we should be spreading is Hindu dharma or "Indian Universalism", not a religion that seeks to fight against Gods and prove that X god has a longer one than Y god. That cannot go very far - unless we seek to impose war on others for the specific purpose of the spread of "Hindu-ism". That (i.e. imposition of war for the spread of Hindu-ism as a religious doctrine) has not been done in the past. Whether this will be done in future is moot, but we need to have some grip on what we are spreading, if war is imposed to spread "The Hindu religion".

Personally I don't think there is any religion worth spreading. But spreading dharma is another issue. Note that war to impose dharma is perfectly valid. From Hindu tradition, texts and folklore, it would be difficult to spread Hindu-ism as a religion by violent means, but imposing coercion/war for the purpose of dharma is not just allowed, it is a duty. I see that as a much better way of seeing continuity between our own history and the future.

In fact I will explore a thought I have in my mind that there is a coincidence between Hindu dharma and Indian national interest - but I will leave that for another post or thread - it's just a thought I had.

peter · Post by **peter** » 23 Nov 2014 10:06

A_Gupta wrote:likewise:
MN 101: Devadaha Sutta — At Devadaha {M ii 214} [Thanissaro].
The Buddha refutes a Jain theory of kamma, which claims that one's present experience is determined solely by one's actions in past lives, and that the effects of past unskillful actions can be "burned away" through austerity practices. The Buddha here outlines one of his most important teachings on kamma: that it is both the results of past deeds and present actions that shape one's experience of the present. It is precisely this interaction of present and past that opens up the very possibility of Awakening.
This is a refutation of a Jain theory, not a "revolt against a Jain theory". Only reason you can use the word "revolt" is ... (b) You imagine that the astikas somehow were the "oppressive majority" against whom one had to revolt.

Quite the opposite. This b) is the reason why all with your thinking seem to be hurt by the word revolt.

I feel Hinduism was so powerful a religion that it allowed these revolts knowing fully well that in the long run they all become indistinguishable from the mother ship.

peter · Post by **peter** » 23 Nov 2014 10:07

A_Gupta wrote:^^^ शक्रो देवानं इन्द्रः - Indra, as Shakra, is "the guardian of Buddhism" (in modern lingo). This is not a "revolt against", but an appropriation and re-purposing of the Vedic cosmology.

Nope. Read what Buddha says about Brahmans who composed Rg Ved. You are cherry picking and it aint allowed.

peter · Post by **peter** » 23 Nov 2014 10:10

peter wrote: You did not understand. Any groups claims cannot be accepted as true merely because they are saying so.

Pulikeshi wrote: Au contraire mon frere - there is no 'true' group to claim such for or against any such 'other' group.
Gotra is indeed used for the purpose, but everyone knows not to question the origins (sages & rivers)
The madness of purity and true forms or groups is the worst of all that maya offers!

You have gone off context!

peter wrote: Again confused! The point here is not about original aryavrat but many centuries later when Hinduism went beyond the shores of aryavrat the "new people" were mostly shudras. Initially in these new lands the kings and priests were from the mother ship.

Pulikeshi wrote: Your arguments are stuck in medieval India or in a medieval mind transposed to the current age.

Oh really? Till yesterday I was a paki or a mosi or something?

Pulikeshi wrote: This same idiocy of a theory is what the esteemed Gearman ischolars (racists) and later Brishit ischolars (rascists) said about the Shudars of Bharat.
Read the Smritis (yes plural) and even the Artha Shastra - the Shudra are ARYA!
Being an ARYA Shudra is my disposition not my ethnicity or geographic location.

Again you have lost the context!

peter · Post by **peter** » 23 Nov 2014 10:12

Pulikeshi wrote:
peter wrote: Nah. Please do make an effort to research. No point in making silly statements.
Here is a start and obviously many more references:
Hindu temples
What are you Chinese? I don't need a silly book written on temples in English...
Have you been to temples all along the coast of Western India? Bangalore Kerala Temples

I was asking you a genuine question on where is the reference to what you said in works such as:
Shilpa Shastra, Vishwa Karma Prakasam, Vaastu Vidya, etc. do any of these books mention this...
On this I was trying to learn something, but you seem to give me trite irrelevant responses.

Hmmm. Everyone is an idiot on this topic and you are the only smart one. Great! Enjoy the bliss.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 23 Nov 2014 10:35

peter wrote:
A_Gupta wrote:^^^ शक्रो देवानं इन्द्रः - Indra, as Shakra, is "the guardian of Buddhism" (in modern lingo). This is not a "revolt against", but an appropriation and re-purposing of the Vedic cosmology.
Nope. Read what Buddha says about Brahmans who composed Rg Ved. You are cherry picking and it aint allowed.

Indra as Shakra as guardian of the Buddhist Dharma is not cherry-picking. He is found all over the lands where Buddhism is still extant.

Anyway, a closed mind has to open itself.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 23 Nov 2014 11:39

peter wrote: You do raise some good points and I will get to them a bit later but do read this:
Once a brahman asked him what he thought of the claim that the authors of the Vedas had direct experience of the divine. The Buddha replied, ‘What do you think about this? Is there one brahman who says, “I know. I see. This alone is true, all else is false”’?
‘No Gotama.’
‘Did any of the teachers of the brahmans or even their teachers going back through seven generations ever say that’?
‘No Gotama.’
‘Then what of ancient brahman sages who composed the Vedic hymns, who chanted, uttered and compiled them and which the brahmans of today still chant and recite, just repeating what has been repeated and chanting what has been chanted? Did they ever say “We know. We see. This alone is true, all else is false”’?
‘No Gotama. They did not.’
‘Imagine a string of blind men each touching the other. The first one does not see, the middle one does not see and neither does the last. The claim of the brahmans is like this. The first one does not see, the middle one does not see and neither does the last. So it seems that the faith of the brahmans turns out to be groundless.’ (M.II,169-70).

Sorry, Peter, the above is really a cherry-pick. I don't have the patience to type the whole dialog here, but the key point quite different from what you are making out. First of all, this is not there in the dialog, whoever put it there was lying.

Once a brahman asked him what he thought of the claim that the authors of the Vedas had direct experience of the divine.

The dialog is in the Canki Sutta, and begins thusly (Bhikkus Nanamoli & Bodhi translation of the Majjhima Nikaya. I shall give excerpts, anyone here can verify I'm not cherry-picking.

11. Now on that occasion the Blessed One was seated finishing some amiable talk with some very senior brahmins. At the time sitting in the assembly was a brahmin student named Kapathika. Young, shaven-headed, sixteen years old, he was a master of the three Vedas with their vocabularies, liturgy, phonology and etymology, and the histories as a fifth; skilled in philology and grammar; he was fully versed in natural philosophy and grammar....

12. ........Then he said to the Blessed One: 'Master Gotama, in regard to the ancient brahmanic hymns that have come down through oral transmission and in the scriptural collections, the brahmins come to the definite conclusion: 'Only this is true, anything else is wrong. What does Master Gotama say about this?'

The dialog then goes as Peter has provided, and the Buddha goes to establish that not even the composers of the Vedic hymns said "We know this, we see this; only this is true, anything else is wrong."

Now it continues:

"The brahmins honour this not only out of faith, Master Gotama, they also honour it as oral tradition."

"Bharadvaja, first your took your stand on faith, now you speak of oral tradition. There are five things, Bharadvaja, that may turn out in two different ways here and now.

What five? Faith, approval, oral tradition, reasoned cogitation, and reflective acceptance of a view.....

The Buddha says that something accepted out of faith may turn out to be false, something not fully accepted out of faith may be factual, true and unmistaken. Likewise for the other four. The Buddha then says: (emphasis added).

[Under these conditions] it is not proper for a wise man who preserves truth to come to the definite conclusion: 'Only this is true, anything else is wrong.'

The conversation continues:

15. "But, Master Gotama, in what way is there the preservation of truth? How does one preserve truth? We ask Master Gotama about the preservation of truth".

The Buddha replies thus for the five things above, just as he does for faith:

'If a person has faith, Bharadvaja, he preserves truth when he says: "My faith is thus"; but he does not yet come fo the definite conclusion: "Only this is true, anything else is wrong." In this way, Bharadvaja, there is the preservation of truth; in this way he preserves truth; in this way we describe the preservation of truth. But as yet there is no discovery of truth.

So then the question is posed:

...But in what way, Master Gotama, is there the discovery of truth? In what way does one discover truth?

The Buddha answers, my paraphrase, you investigate the one how teaches you, with regard to his states based on greed, hate and delusion. Is this person going to claim knowledge out of greed, hatred or delusion so as to urge others to act in a way that would lead to harm and suffering? When you have satisfied yourself that this person does not act out of greed, hate or delusion, then one learns Dharma from him, memorizes it, examines its meaning, accepts it, and strives for it. The "final arrival at truth" lies in the repetition of these things.

---------
The above can be read as a refutation of fanaticism of any kind.

----------
You can read on, one of the illuminating dialogs is when two brahmins ask the Buddha to settle an argument for them - does birth or actions make one into a brahmin? The Buddha tells them that grass, trees, moths, butterflies, all the various quadrupeds, birds, snakes, fish, etc., are marked by their birth. But for humans, no differences in birth make a distinctive mark in them. Distinction among human beings is purely a matter of convention. One who farms for a living is called a farmer, one who trades is called a merchant. etc., It is the actions that make a man; then the Buddha describes the qualities that make a person into a brahmin.

"One is not a brahmin by birth,
Nor by birth a non-brahmin.
By action is one a brahmin,
By action is one a non-brahmin.

========
Basically, to put it in terms of a different religion - the Buddha would tell the Syeds that their claimed descent from the Prophet means nothing; nor does their faith in the Quran; it is their actions that make them virtuous or not-virtuous. The Buddha does not accept any claim of superiority over others by the clans of Brahmins; but he is willing to describe as a Brahmin somebody who by his actions shows certain high qualities, just as he would describe someone who farms as a farmer.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Nov 2014 11:52

Since Peter has made about 20 replies and 60 one liners I have summarized and classified Peter's principles of Hindu-ism so that we can refer back to these principles when we have doubts. I have left out the one liners where no infromation has been iven. All in all the amount of information is small and could be precious.

1.Peter's principles of the Hindu "religion"

peter wrote:We have already established you could be a Hindu even if you did not pray to gods, cow , the dung or the urine.
peter wrote:I feel Hinduism was so powerful a religion that it allowed these revolts knowing fully well that in the long run they all become indistinguishable from the mother ship.
peter wrote:hindu temple cannot be consecrated unless it has an image of a male and female making out

2.Peter's principles of Dharma

peter wrote:The claim that some know Dharma "absolutely" is false

peter wrote:But you are supposing the existence of "principles of Dharma"

Tsk. If only peter had told the Rajputs..

peter wrote:the only reason we are still having this debate on Hindus is because of these rajput kings and their armies..whatever "dharm" they established or fought for was very valid

3.Peter's principles of Aryas and Aryavrat

Rig Veda said this
peter wrote: If you study Vedas there was a concept of Aryavrat. People who did not believe in the practices of Aryas that is in Vedas were pushed out of the Aryavrat. And division of Aryas into four groups is mandated in Rg Veda.
But there was no need to bother about Rig Veda because:
peter wrote:People were thrown out of their groups/divisions/jaatis etc

peter wrote:A person of any group/division/varna/jaati could desire to do something else and change the division he was born in.
Even the name does not matter
peter wrote:System had the principle that you could change your varna as many example cited earlier. So you can name it anything you are comfortable with
About Kings:
peter wrote:In Indian kingdoms a kings son had to be from a mother who was the same group as the father.
But no matter, because
peter wrote:Any groups claims cannot be accepted as true merely because they are saying so

peter wrote:Aryavrat has been defined by many Sanskrit texts please read them. Me claiming to be "arya" is a bit different then whether "aryas" consider me an arya or not. Iranians under zoroaster had a schism with vedic aryans and considered themselves "the arya". Though the indic aryas did not accept the iranians to be aryas.

4.Peter's general advice to all

Rig Veda is a book, so
peter wrote:Well why don't you read Rg Veda again and maybe it will become clear?
Got questions? Read the previous line
peter wrote:Ok funny person then please give us your explanation on why the Rg Ved mentions the four sub divisions of aryan society
Broaden your horizon
peter wrote:Please travel to western europe and other western countries
Horizontalize your broad for piety?
peter wrote:hindu temple cannot be consecrated unless it has an image of a male and female making out

The rest of the posts are merely "I disagree" posts - which is easy. No information. All the information is summarized above, for posteriority.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 23 Nov 2014 11:54

In case you are confused, we continue to the Subha Sutta:

8. "Master Gotama, the brahmins prescribe five things for the performance of merit, for accomplishing the wholesome."

The Buddha asks the student to tell the assembly what these five things are:

"Master Gotama, truth is the first thing that the brahmins prescribe for the performance of merit, for accomplishing the wholesome. Asceticism is the second thing...Celibacy is the third thing...Study is the fourth thing...Generosity is the fifth thing... What does Master Gotama say about this?"

A repetition of sorts of the dialog above happens.

...is there even a single brahmin who says thus: 'I declare the result of these five things having realised it myself with direct knowledge'"?......is there a single teacher or teacher's teacher back to the seventh generation of teachers who says thus....

The Buddha takes it back all the way to the composers of the Vedas -- "did even these ancient brahmin seers say thus 'We declare the result of these five things having realised it ourselves with direct knowledge?".

The Buddha repeats his "suppose there were a file of blind men each in touch with the next; the first does not see, the middle one does not see, ......the brahmins appear like a file of blind men....".

----
So is the Buddha "revolting" against truth, asceticism, celibacy, study and generosity? If the same almost verbatim argument is taken as a "revolt against the Vedas" then surely this is a revolt against these five.

The Buddha explains later that "those five things that the brahmins prescribe for the performance of merit, for accomplishing the wholesome, I call equipment of the the mind, that is, for developing a mind that is without hostility and without ill will".

The meaning is clear.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 23 Nov 2014 12:40

peter, I saw and had already read what you asked me to read, quite a while ago... That does nothing to answer my questioning of the use of the word "revolt" in this context.

In any event, this point may be OT in this thread, and I apologise to the participants on this thread for the diversion - but I wanted to highlight and to the extent possible do a little to roll-back the canards that are often spread about the relationship between Hinduism and Buddhism.

Revolt applies in the context of Judaism and Christianity to a much greater extent, but that is a completely different thing and the way it panned out in the centuries thereafter clearly reflects that. In both cases.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 23 Nov 2014 15:02

peter wrote:
RajeshA wrote:Because Islam and Christianity are religions. There is an issue of oath of allegiance or oath of submission. One chooses a particular exclusive path of salvation, but more importantly one chooses a form of brotherhood, a group identity. One cannot have multiple allegiances.
One actually can. Please see this: Kafirs
Tribes of Kafir kindred, subdued and converted by the Mahometans in comparatively recent times are known as Nimcha, or " half-and-half." Many of these are on good terms with the Kafirs, and trade is carried on through their mediation. A most interesting account by Lieutenant-Colonel Tanner, of some tribes of this class, will be found in the Proc. Roy. Geog. Soc. quoted below.

You are speaking of transitions, and not settled-state equations. Those who give their allegiance to one religion, cannot give their allegiance to another religion or God.

In Christianity and Islam, a faithful gives his allegiance. He cannot give it again to another.

Yes a Christian can dabble in Yoga and Meditation, because the Christian feels that these activities do not bind him to a Shiva, or a Vishnu or some other Indian God and thus are kosher.

In Islam, even that is not really possible, as Islam claims to offer a complete system, and does not take lightly when its followers dabble with other systems.

peter wrote:
peter wrote: Please travel to western europe and other western countries to understand that your statement is a gross generalization and patently false.
RajeshA wrote:bhai, Bweston Oirope men to rehte hain!
Sorry what does this mean?

It means I live there (here) so don't need to travel there (here) to find out how it is!

RajeshA wrote:What I read is:
आमेर का राजा जयसिंह उन हिंदूऔं में से था जो पूजा-पाठ को ही धर्म मानते थे तथा राष्ट्र-सेवा के धर्म को भूला कर विदेशी हमलावरों का साथ देने का घोर पाप-कर्म कर रहे थे।
Translation: King of Amber, Raja Jai Singh was one of those Hindus who believed in "Dharma of Puja-Paath" but having forgotten the "Dharma of service to Rāshtra", he committed the grave sin of allying with foreign invaders.

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

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

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

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

peter wrote:
RajeshA wrote: let me try to understand your thinking, and you can tell me, if I am making a mistake
Will respond to your list a little later.

Yes, please do let me know!

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 23 Nov 2014 17:11

The Buddha explains later that "those five things that the brahmins prescribe for the performance of merit, for accomplishing the wholesome, I call equipment of the the mind, that is, for developing a mind that is without hostility and without ill will".

The meaning is clear.

Can we identify what it was at time of Budhdha? The revolt part seems to be what others did in Europe (to Greeks, Romans) but that can't be projected on non Europeans.

Yes a Christian can dabble in Yoga and Meditation, because the Christian feels that these activities do not bind him to a Shiva, or a Vishnu or some other Indian God and thus are kosher.

Does it matter to us? We can claim it does make people more Hindu and be done with their flipflops.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 23 Nov 2014 17:53

vishvak wrote:
Yes a Christian can dabble in Yoga and Meditation, because the Christian feels that these activities do not bind him to a Shiva, or a Vishnu or some other Indian God and thus are kosher.

Does it matter to us? We can claim it does make people more Hindu and be done with their flipflops.

In general, not every White person in the West is a Christian. In Europe, the number of Christians has been steadily coming down. Today in Europe, if one asks somebody about religion, he/she may say something on the lines of

- I do think there is something out there, a God
- I am spiritual, but not religious
- I am culturally a Christian and I derive my values from Christianity

All this means they are not taking Christianity and its claims at face value, they are not Church going Christians, and in fact they seek their distance from the Church.

From my assessment, though I haven't seen any numbers lately on this, the vast majority of Europeans tend to be like this. Even among those who do wear crosses across their necks, and I know such people as well, they too tend to keep it quiet. One would never see them talking about all the wonderful things of Christianity let alone trying to convert others.

There are of course Christians in Europe as well, the way we know them in India or in other places around the world, whose lives revolve around Jesus, but I would tend to think that Europe is becoming less and less Christian.

So there is indeed place for new thinking.

And Europeans are indeed taking more interest in Yoga, in Meditation, and even Eastern traditions of cosmogony.

But I think it is very important, that we have a very clear architecture of our Sanskriti, our belief systems, and these do not fit in Religion.

In fact, I would like to use the term "Ārya" for them, rather than "Hindu".

Disclaimer: As far as I am concerned, only an Indian Subcontinental can be called a Hindu and that too if he resists imperial dominance and aggression by predatory powers and ideologies over Bharat and efforts to subdue our glorious past.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Nov 2014 18:16

On the general topic of the "colonized mind" a good indicator is the idea that the Rig Veda is a written text that can be read.

The Rig Veda is a text that is transmitted orally. As a written text it is worthless. And how worthless it becomes has been well described by Aurobindo

From Aurobindo's "Secret of the Veda"
http://www.sriaurobindoashram.org/ashra ... .php?id=30

We have in the Rig Veda, — the true and only Veda in the
estimation of European scholars, — a body of sacrificial hymns
couched in a very ancient language which presents a number
of almost insoluble difficulties. It is full of ancient forms and
words which do not appear in later speech and have often
to be fixed in some doubtful sense by intelligent conjecture;
a mass even of the words that it has in common with classical
Sanskrit seem to bear or at least to admit another significance
than in the later literary tongue; and a multitude of its voca-
bles, especially the most common, those which are most vital to
the sense, are capable of a surprising number of unconnected
significances which may give, according to our preference in
selection, quite different complexions to whole passages, whole
hymns and even to the whole thought of the Veda.

About "translations" of the Rig Veda he says

we possess in its entirety
the traditional interpretation of the Indian scholar Sayana and
we have in our own day the interpretation constructed after
an immense labour of comparison and conjecture by modern
European scholarship. Both of them present one characteristic
in common, the extraordinary incoherence and poverty of sense
which their results stamp upon the ancient hymns.

..this is 100% true of William Jones translation where the text reads like utter trash.

Aurobindo says:

The scholar
in dealing with his text is obliged to substitute for interpretation
a process almost of fabrication. We feel that he is not so much
revealing the sense as hammering and forging rebellious material
into some sort of shape and consistency.

But if we accept the current interpretations, whether
Sayana’s or the modern theory, the whole of this sublime and
sacred reputation is a colossal fiction. The hymns are, on the
contrary, nothing more than the naive superstitious fancies of
untaught and materialistic barbarians concerned only with the
most external gains and enjoyments and ignorant of all but the
most elementary moral notions or religious aspirations.

In his book Aurobondo goes on to describe how the Rig Veda has a double meaning - an outer apparent meaning and a more sublime meaning which dovetails perfectly with the wisdom o the later Upanishads. The upanishads did not come into existence out of thin air - they rested on the Vedas - but not on idiotic buffoon translations that we can "read"

This aspect of our mental colonization needs to be revised. You need Rig Veda - learn the recitation. Don't say "I have read it." or "Please read it again". If you have read it you have read trash

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Nov 2014 18:23

RajeshA wrote: In fact, I would like to use the term "Ārya" for them, rather than "Hindu".

Rajesh I have no objection to that but unfortunately mental colonization of Indians has made this simple act an uphill struggle. the minute someone call himself Arya - there are a bunch of Indians whose colonized minds make them say "Oh? You are Arya? Then I am Dravida."

We can argue till the cows come home that this is mental colonization, but anyone who argues against a colonized mind instantly hits a brick wall of angry cognitive dissonance. You will see it again on this thread very soon - mark my words

For somewhat similar reasons I once asked David Frawley (after a very illuminating talk about the Vedas) why we should not use some other term. He warmed against it - saying that it would not help given the number of groups who seek to take advantage of anyone giving up such a name.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 23 Nov 2014 19:59

The assault continues unabated:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archive ... insrc=hpss
Wendy Doniger explicates "the role of the Gita in the rise of Hindutva in India today".

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 23 Nov 2014 20:22

shiv wrote:
RajeshA wrote: In fact, I would like to use the term "Ārya" for them, rather than "Hindu".
Rajesh I have no objection to that but unfortunately mental colonization of Indians has made this simple act an uphill struggle. the minute someone call himself Arya - there are a bunch of Indians whose colonized minds make them say "Oh? You are Arya? Then I am Dravida."

shiv saar,

I think, Bharatiyas have not made a forceful claim that not just all of Bharat, but till some time ago, even places as far as Philippines, Vietnam, Japan, Korea East Turkestan, Iran, Indonesia were also to a large extent Ārya and Dravida was a part of core Āryavarta.

Those who now consider themselves part of Ummah or Kingdom of God, may not be Ārya, but all the rest of Dravidians most certainly are. Ārya is our basic Sanskritik, our civilizational Identity. Our whole system is called Ārya. How can we let some Nazis and white supremacists take away our most basic identifier, and spit on us?

Itihas, Dharma, Sanskrit are the common pillars of Ārya Vyavasthā.

shiv wrote:We can argue till the cows come home that this is mental colonization, but anyone who argues against a colonized mind instantly hits a brick wall of angry cognitive dissonance. You will see it again on this thread very soon - mark my words

For somewhat similar reasons I once asked David Frawley (after a very illuminating talk about the Vedas) why we should not use some other term. He warmed against it - saying that it would not help given the number of groups who seek to take advantage of anyone giving up such a name.

Frawley is right. We should never give up on "Hindu", but "Hindu" has a different etymology and came as a reaction to Islamic and later British invasions and colonization.

I am not saying we should stop using "Hindu" and instead look for alternatives like "Dharmic", "Ārya" and so on, because of any shame of using "Hindu". On the contrary "Hindu" should be used with pride, but need not be used to denote our "Religion", as we should distance ourselves from "Religion" altogether.

JMHO

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 23 Nov 2014 20:28

A_Gupta wrote:The assault continues unabated:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archive ... insrc=hpss
Wendy Doniger explicates "the role of the Gita in the rise of Hindutva in India today".

We might divide them into two broad groups: what I would call the warrior’s Gita, about engaging in the world, and the philosopher’s Gita, about disengaging. The Gita’s theology—the god’s transfiguration of the warrior’s life—binds the two points of view in an uneasy tension that has persisted through the centuries.

There is no division at all. All engagement in the world should be with the disengaging attitude that the fruits of engagement are not for oneself! Inaccessible to the Western mind!

Comer · Post by **Comer** » 23 Nov 2014 20:34

RajeshA, I may be the first such mind whom shiv talked about.piping up in this thread! But this not to start language wars but only for my understanding.
Not to put a fine point on it but any such characterisation should factor in the origin of a few languages not on any branch of Indo European. JMT.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 23 Nov 2014 20:58

saravana wrote:RajeshA, I may be the first such mind whom shiv talked about.piping up in this thread! But this not to start language wars but only for my understanding.
Not to put a fine point on it but any such characterisation should factor in the origin of a few languages not on any branch of Indo European. JMT.

Sanskrit is a "refined" language. It is not a natural organically evolved language in that sense. Many Prakrits (common languages) have contributed to Sanskrit's creation.

All this Indo-European language thing is something that runs orthogonal to spread of Ārya culture. Many cultures to the West of India may have been influenced by Indo-European Prakrits, and many may have been influenced by Sanskrit itself, when Indians steeped in Ārya culture spread out as conquerors, teachers, healers, explorers.

What Ancestral North Indians (ANI) and Ancestral South Indians (ASI) over the thousands of years together created was an Ārya Civilization, and I believe Sanskrit is a product of that.

Some words and sounds of the Indo-European languages may have emerged over the 45 thousand years when ANI and CEU (Central Asians and Europeans) started splitting. Let's not think that these people were in any way "whiter" or had "blue-eyes" and "blond" hair, as that would have come later due to the environs in which they lived. But due to Out-of-India migrations, the dominant Indians would have carried ever more of the Sanskritized Indo-European Language to them, and the CEU would have adopted many such words.

Both Sanskrit and what is known under Aryan symbology, are an export from India to the West, and India means both North and South India.

Comer · Post by **Comer** » 23 Nov 2014 22:41

^^ I wanted to mention that it in my original post itself, yes, it could be an orthogonal thing.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 24 Nov 2014 02:38

shiv wrote:
brihaspati wrote: Why is this situation? shiv ji, you give it in your post itself. Why do you feel you have to explain your "Hindu nationalism" to anyone? Why do you stress on and accept the demand for "avoiding expansile and coercive conflict" "outside this geographic region"?

<snip>

Stop feeling ashamed of having the wish to see expansion of Hinduism.
No No. This is not at all about shame, apology or how we should behave.

This thread was more of an exploration of what is the loyalty that Hindus feel that has been called nationalism and has been criticized by seculars and others as a type of "religious chauvinism".

It is my thesis that this (Indian nationalism/loyalty) cannot be loyalty to one God. It is also not a form of fascist group loyalty that seeks to eliminate anyone else. But there is loyalty alright.

With regard to how we should behave I have no specific disagreement with what you say - nor even be apologetic towards spread of Hinduism. But here I would say that what we should be spreading is Hindu dharma or "Indian Universalism", not a religion that seeks to fight against Gods and prove that X god has a longer one than Y god. That cannot go very far - unless we seek to impose war on others for the specific purpose of the spread of "Hindu-ism". That (i.e. imposition of war for the spread of Hindu-ism as a religious doctrine) has not been done in the past. Whether this will be done in future is moot, but we need to have some grip on what we are spreading, if war is imposed to spread "The Hindu religion".

Personally I don't think there is any religion worth spreading. But spreading dharma is another issue. Note that war to impose dharma is perfectly valid. From Hindu tradition, texts and folklore, it would be difficult to spread Hindu-ism as a religion by violent means, but imposing coercion/war for the purpose of dharma is not just allowed, it is a duty. I see that as a much better way of seeing continuity between our own history and the future.

In fact I will explore a thought I have in my mind that there is a coincidence between Hindu dharma and Indian national interest - but I will leave that for another post or thread - it's just a thought I had.

the loyalty is not to god. it is to culture, religion, dharma, beliefs, systems, socio-psychological thinking which owes its origin and survival tot he Bharatiya roots and land.

it's as simple as that. you are unnecessarily bringing in a "one God". there is no such thing. Hindus never based their loyalty to nation on "one god". they based it on a shared sense of destiny being bound by a "magical" connection to this land and its history.

Hinduism has transcended the "land" factor, there is no doubt about that. but fundamentally Hindu loyalty is to the land which hosted their beliefs for millenniums.

this loyalty also motivates us to completely destroy those forces which refuse to accept the same loyalty and insist on bending their minds to foreign imperial ideologies. this loyalty drove States like Vijayanagara to maintain vastly militarized societies for more than 2 centuries to defend and stop the advance of Islam.

fundamentally, this loyalty is all embracing, but also all-destroying to those forces who show the intent to destroy the bonds which hold us together.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 24 Nov 2014 02:44

in a broader sense, we need to abandon the fake dichotomy between "dharma" and "religion". either stop using the word "religion" b/c it is too narrow to encompass everything that we mean by "dharma", or just take "religion" as "dharma". in other words, we appropriate "religion" on the basis of our understanding of "dharma".

but I see increasingly this deceptive way of approaching "religion" and "dharma" to confound and confuse the Hindus.

it is true that "religion" is not an exact translation of "dharma". but this is being deceptively argued for as an excuse to claim that Hindu Dharma as it exists today is not a "religion".

this is a deceptive argument that plays with semantics, gullibility of the innocent and preys on Hindus via intellectual subversion.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 24 Nov 2014 02:53

devesh wrote:in a broader sense, we need to abandon the fake dichotomy between "dharma" and "religion". either stop using the word "religion" b/c it is too narrow to encompass everything that we mean by "dharma", or just take "religion" as "dharma". in other words, we appropriate "religion" on the basis of our understanding of "dharma".

but I see increasingly this deceptive way of approaching "religion" and "dharma" to confound and confuse the Hindus.

it is true that "religion" is not an exact translation of "dharma". but this is being deceptively argued for as an excuse to claim that Hindu Dharma as it exists today is not a "religion".

this is a deceptive argument that plays with semantics, gullibility of the innocent and preys on Hindus via intellectual subversion.

Such a perception may be based on a thinking that "Religion" is something wonderful, something to be aspired for while Hindu's Dharma-based architecture is inferior if it rejects being called "Religion".

Where is the real loss if Hindus purge any association with "Religion"?

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 24 Nov 2014 03:13

^^^

think about the masses. forget the intellectual discussion on BRF. for most of us, we do want a "bhagwan". we want the psychological and social link to the active and lively imagery of our Gods and the mythologies surrounding them.

if you completely destroy or dissociate from "religion", Hinduism will become an intellectual object of fascination like Greek or Norse mythology.

for better or worse, Hindus retained their psycho-socio-cultural "belief" and "link" to our Puranas, Itihasas, and Devas. for us this is "religion". we pray to them. we take great moral and "spiritual" courage from them. we believe in the "Power" of rejuvenation through prayer to these Devas and through Yagna/Japa of these Devas.

this has kept our Dharma a LIVING SYSTEM. once your dissociate from this, it's over.

I've left behind my urge to "transcend" religion. it cannot be transcended b/c once you do, your inculcated instincts take over and you look for an alternative. Indian commies and marxists are one example of this. or you look for an alternative religion. and in modern world, ppl like that fall easy prey to Christos or Islamics.

as an intellectual discourse, it's find to build constructs of "dharma" and "religion". but the basic reality of our society and masses is that "dharma" and "religion" are inseparable to us.

any attempt to dissociate the two will only lead to more confusion. and this becomes a favorable situation to the leeches who are always waiting to prey on the weak.

Dipanker · Post by **Dipanker** » 24 Nov 2014 03:16

In Indian context dharma and religion are used interchangeably, which I think is alright even though dharma actually is the superset and religion a subset of it?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 24 Nov 2014 03:42

if you completely destroy or dissociate from "religion", Hinduism will become an intellectual object of fascination like Greek or Norse mythology.

for better or worse, Hindus retained their psycho-socio-cultural "belief" and "link" to our Puranas, Itihasas, and Devas. for us this is "religion". we pray to them. we take great moral and "spiritual" courage from them. we believe in the "Power" of rejuvenation through prayer to these Devas and through Yagna/Japa of these Devas.

this has kept our Dharma a LIVING SYSTEM. once your dissociate from this, it's over.

devesh ji,

it is very easy to misunderstand what I am trying to say!

There is no question of Hindus rejecting our श्रद्धा-व्यवस्था (Śrad'dhā-Vyavasthā, System of Devotion) - our faith, our worship, our devotion, our पूजा-पाठ(Pooja-Pāṭha), our भक्ती (Bhaktī)!

This is not what I term as 'Religion'. I take Religion as how the British, who came to India, understood the word 'Religion', and how it is still understood by most, who preach, practice and propagate Christianity and Islam. We simply cannot force-fit our Sanatan Dharma into that structure, it is a square peg in a round hole.

Religion is mostly pursuit of political power, social control and subversion of rivals using the medium of an alleged divine sanction and piety!

We need to have a different architecture for our Sanskriti, which contains Śhruti, Itihas, Dharma, Saṃskṛtam, Darśanams, Śrad'dhā-Vyavasthā, Paramparās, Saṃskāras, Samājik-Vyavasthā, Jñāna, etc.

The reason for rejecting "Religion" is that unless we put some distance between ourselves and "Religions" like Christianity and Islam, we simply would not be able to counter them ideologically and show them for the nonsense they are.

We should not seek "equivalence" with them, but rather ideological opposition!

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 24 Nov 2014 05:35

While this is obviously a gross - in all senses of the word - cariacature, there is a spark in truth in it that makes it funny, (and relevant to the distinction between religion and dharma):
http://deadstate.org/this-guy-summed-up ... s-perfect/

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 24 Nov 2014 06:47

Y'all ought to (

) listen to Balu at the ICHR, quicktime MP3 here:
http://ichr.ac.in/PHOTO_GALLERY/gallery.html

If someone can suggest to me where I can host a 60MB MP3 recording, I can make it more widely available.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Nov 2014 07:23

saravana wrote:RajeshA, I may be the first such mind whom shiv talked about.piping up in this thread! But this not to start language wars but only for my understanding.
Not to put a fine point on it but any such characterisation should factor in the origin of a few languages not on any branch of Indo European. JMT.

Saravana - this is not about languages. It is about calling the Dravida an inferior black race, which is what the British said initially.

Here is a scan of a page from a 1911 book that belonged to my grandfather

Note how the "Aryans" were supposed to have imparted their knowledge to the Dravido-Kolarians - described as "masses of black heathendom" and in turn the Aryans were "tainted" by the "gross corruptions" of the said black heathendom

Neither did Indians view themselves in this light before the British, nor do genetic studies reveal any such differences between the British-labelled Aryans of Aryavarta and the black heathendom of the Dekkan.

But with colonial education of Indians who felt themselves as part of Aryavarta believed the Brits and began to pride themselves in their own racial superiority over the "Dravidians". In reaction, Dravdian politics has tended to start saying fuk you to the others. Both these silly consequences are the result of colonized minds, north and south.

As is this was not enough, it is now being claimed that teh Aryan Hindus were the original racists who screwed teh Dravidians and right now, as I type, there is a huge move in South India by evangelists to convert the formerly "corrupt masses of black heathendom" into Christianity. The west has, in 100 years done a 180 degree turn on race and its now Hindus who are racist, based on history written by the Brits and mugged up and internalized by good Hindoo students of British colonial gyan

Hindus need to understand how the Birtis view on race and religion affected Indian minds. Right on here on this thread we have colonized minds having a huge rant and giving us lectures. Our very own Peter-ji, Hindu par excellence has echoed the words of the above 1911 British book of how "Buddhism was driven from the field". When your mind is colonized you don't know it because that is the only mind you listen to.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Nov 2014 07:33

devesh wrote:in a broader sense, we need to abandon the fake dichotomy between "dharma" and "religion". either stop using the word "religion" b/c it is too narrow to encompass everything that we mean by "dharma", or just take "religion" as "dharma". in other words, we appropriate "religion" on the basis of our understanding of "dharma".

but I see increasingly this deceptive way of approaching "religion" and "dharma" to confound and confuse the Hindus.

it is true that "religion" is not an exact translation of "dharma". but this is being deceptively argued for as an excuse to claim that Hindu Dharma as it exists today is not a "religion".

this is a deceptive argument that plays with semantics, gullibility of the innocent and preys on Hindus via intellectual subversion.

I think an important distinction exists between religion and dharma. Dharma sits above religion as a moral code that is to be followed by people as individuals or as leaders no matter what particular god they owe their allegiance to. That actually turns the meaning of religion as understood by people of Abrahamic religions upside down.

To repost an abridged analogy I posted earlier (IMHO):

shiv wrote: Let me describe the difference between dharma on the one hand, and religions/nation states on the other. The relationship is like that of the relationship between the United Nations (Dharma) and Nation states (religions and nations)

The United nations has a set of gudiing principles for the purpose of preserving the world free from conflict and nations at peace with each other.

UN Charter guiding prinicples

The UN puts itself over and above religion and nation states. All nations can have their own laws and their own religions, but need to conform with the UN charter.

If you look at Dharma, its aims and objectives are similar

Dharma is a set of guidelines to preserve and propagate human society in an environment friendly way, avoid conflict if possible while allowing people to have their own nations and practise their own "religions"

But the nations and religions that arise within the United Nations of Dharma (UND) cannot have laws and religions that go against the UND charter.

What this means is that Dharma is a Universal code for human survival - to be adopted in Nation States who can then have their own religions and their own constitutions and their own law book.

Looked at in this way it is easy to figure out the role that Dharma played in Indian society. It was a UN charter for the United Nations of India. Since the entire country pretty much followed it - we had hajaar nations under one united umbrella of Hindu Dharma.

When the British came, the 5000 year old idea of Dharma was ahead of its time and a similar concept would not be born until the League of Nations was created.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Nov 2014 07:42

A_Gupta wrote:The assault continues unabated:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archive ... insrc=hpss
Wendy Doniger explicates "the role of the Gita in the rise of Hindutva in India today".

For Doniger, this is a soft article - I think the rebuttals she has had from scholars is making her tread somewhat carefully - unless I missed something. However she does back up something that Balu says in the article

Useful information on how Indian minds got colonized

In 1772, Warren Hastings, governor-general for Bengal, “issued,” as Davis writes, “his recommendation that the British colonial administration should seek to govern the territories under its control not according to British law but rather according to the laws and customs of the local residents.” (This was what Star Trek would call the Prime Directive.) Anticipating Michel Foucault and Edward Said by two centuries, Hastings argued that translating such texts was a political act: “Every accumulation of knowledge, and especially such as is obtained by social communication with people over whom we exercise a dominion founded on the right of conquest, is useful to the state.”

The British (Protestants) knew that any self-respecting religion had to have One Book; so they asked some educated, Anglophone Calcutta Brahmins, What is your One Book? or indeed, What is your Bible? And the answer was, the Gita. In 1785 Wilkins published his full English translation of the Gita, the first work of classical Sanskrit translated directly into English; he made it sound as biblical as possible, using King Jamesian “thee”s and “thou”s.

Gradually, step by step, Hindu-ism changed from whatever it was to a unitary belief, one book one religion like other religions

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Nov 2014 07:47

Dipanker wrote:In Indian context dharma and religion are used interchangeably, which I think is alright even though dharma actually is the superset and religion a subset of it?

Dipanker - as increasing numbers of Indians learn English, they start calling dharma as religion. No equivalent word exists in Indian languages and Indians who are un-educated in English speak of their system as "dharma".

We need an Indian English dictionary that includes the word dharma as a separate word.

Comer · Post by **Comer** » 24 Nov 2014 08:12

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