<!--QuoteBegin-agnivayu+Aug 14 2009, 07:02 AM-->QUOTE(agnivayu @ Aug 14 2009, 07:02 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->No you are. I just mentioned one aspect of it. I am well aware of Brahman and unity with Brahman. Just because I didn't cover everything doesn't mean that I said Hinduism is just that.[right][snapback]100383[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Here's your original that I then commented on:
<!--QuoteBegin-agnivayu+Aug 6 2009, 07:16 AM-->QUOTE(agnivayu @ Aug 6 2009, 07:16 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Note how even a Non-Hindu acknowledges how Kirtan stabilizes the Mind. Hinduism's and Vedic technology's <b>primarily goal</b> was this.[right][snapback]100147[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->My point was that it is not in fact the primary goal, but merely the side-effect. But if you now choose to change the stress you laid on it to "aspect" instead, then I have no more contention.
What's with the confrontational attitude? I just mentioned one aspect of it, doesn't mean I am saying Hinduism is all psychology like an atheist.
You're misreading. It was not confrontational, mere criticism. And this too was more generally directed than merely the statement in your post (which was only an example): it was to criticise a general flaw, a common tendency of Hindus today to make very essentially Hindu things (sound) more secular than they actually are, without realising it perhaps. Hence they end up using generic terms like "spiritual", "universal", "God" which others then take as an invitation to appropriate. Or Hindus today state that Yoga is merely beneficial exercise or some general spiritual practice, when it's not - it is a *Hindu* practice for union with Hindu Divinity.
Hindus' problems with christian appropriation of Yoga and Keertanas and Bharatanatyam etcetera are in some measure due to them not stating clearly to the public that these are fundamentally Hindu things concerning Hindu Gods.
That Urbanized part is increasingly growing, ... The core loyalists will always stay with Hinduism. Those on the outer rings may drift. And yes there are many cowards. Under Islamic rule, many "hip" ones studied persian poetry and converted to Islam because that was associated with Money and power at the time. If someone did that today, they would be laughed at. So like it or not, politically speaking (not spiritually, because if we believe something is the truth, it will triumph no matter what) building impressive power, structures and having hard power backing up Hinduism does have a great psychological effect on how Hindus (and others) will view the religion.
While my position was that there is no stronger hold of Hindus on their Sanatana Dharma than their possessing an intimate, in-depth knowledge of SD. The more they know of it, the more they see themselves as a part of it, simply because it is true and hence resonates with humanity, beauty.
Under Islamic rule, many "hip" ones studied persian poetry and converted to Islam because that was associated with Money and power at the time.
[...]
If the Mughal Empire had lasted another 500 years, what % would Muslims be in India? (Now they are 40% in the Indian Subcontinent). Our large size saved us from the Islamists. In Pakistan/ Bangaldesh once Muslims reached a critical mass they have nearly wiped out Hinduism.
As you would be well aware, most of the conversions out of Hindu Dharma and into islam were due to violence (forcible conversion including harems), involving much larger numbers of Hindus than those that may have opted for the 'fashionable' religion of islam.
And this tragedy can be repeated even today.
We need more Hard power to back us up.
No one would contest that.
The word "cool" got you riled up quite easily.
Nah, not really.
Maybe you need to "Cool" off.
Ugh. Not Kindergarten again. Thanks for the invite, but Pass.
I never said someone is Hindu because it's cool
Not you. It was in reference to the Indian girl Angela of the article in post 58 who wrote: 'In my case, though, this new genre of "Hindu hip" represents the opportunity to rediscover some of the traditions I avoided as a child because they didn't seem so cool at the time.'
I am trying to explain the situation in large urban areas of the U.S. (and the West) with regards to religion.
Those on the outer rings may be sticking with it because they were either born in it, have nostalgia for it, or due to association with others not because they have a deep understanding.
A lot of people don't like to think about concepts of death, or Brahman, or the nature of the Universe.
The problem you describe is christoconditioning which dumbs people down. In Bharatam - certainly TN and a neighbouring state - up to the last few generations, even illiterate or very poor or remote people knew their Hindu Dharma excellently well. They may have been poor when it came to prosperity and state education, but they were not poor in this respect.
That is the sort of strengthening of the Hindu society that Hindus ought to aim for, IMO. Any less can easily become a liability. Standards have to be high, so our efforts can be adjusted accordingly - or so I always held.
Rajan Zed has successfully brought a Euro-Dalit issue (Roma) into the forefront.
Great. But my comment was about this statement in the article of post 58: "Hindu scholar Rajan Zed has called for kirtan to be included as a Grammy awards category."
It's quite silly and hence not very helpful. And there are other things that aren't quite so comical, but rather more troublesome instead.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Here's your original that I then commented on:
<!--QuoteBegin-agnivayu+Aug 6 2009, 07:16 AM-->QUOTE(agnivayu @ Aug 6 2009, 07:16 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Note how even a Non-Hindu acknowledges how Kirtan stabilizes the Mind. Hinduism's and Vedic technology's <b>primarily goal</b> was this.[right][snapback]100147[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->My point was that it is not in fact the primary goal, but merely the side-effect. But if you now choose to change the stress you laid on it to "aspect" instead, then I have no more contention.
What's with the confrontational attitude? I just mentioned one aspect of it, doesn't mean I am saying Hinduism is all psychology like an atheist.
You're misreading. It was not confrontational, mere criticism. And this too was more generally directed than merely the statement in your post (which was only an example): it was to criticise a general flaw, a common tendency of Hindus today to make very essentially Hindu things (sound) more secular than they actually are, without realising it perhaps. Hence they end up using generic terms like "spiritual", "universal", "God" which others then take as an invitation to appropriate. Or Hindus today state that Yoga is merely beneficial exercise or some general spiritual practice, when it's not - it is a *Hindu* practice for union with Hindu Divinity.
Hindus' problems with christian appropriation of Yoga and Keertanas and Bharatanatyam etcetera are in some measure due to them not stating clearly to the public that these are fundamentally Hindu things concerning Hindu Gods.
That Urbanized part is increasingly growing, ... The core loyalists will always stay with Hinduism. Those on the outer rings may drift. And yes there are many cowards. Under Islamic rule, many "hip" ones studied persian poetry and converted to Islam because that was associated with Money and power at the time. If someone did that today, they would be laughed at. So like it or not, politically speaking (not spiritually, because if we believe something is the truth, it will triumph no matter what) building impressive power, structures and having hard power backing up Hinduism does have a great psychological effect on how Hindus (and others) will view the religion.
While my position was that there is no stronger hold of Hindus on their Sanatana Dharma than their possessing an intimate, in-depth knowledge of SD. The more they know of it, the more they see themselves as a part of it, simply because it is true and hence resonates with humanity, beauty.
Under Islamic rule, many "hip" ones studied persian poetry and converted to Islam because that was associated with Money and power at the time.
[...]
If the Mughal Empire had lasted another 500 years, what % would Muslims be in India? (Now they are 40% in the Indian Subcontinent). Our large size saved us from the Islamists. In Pakistan/ Bangaldesh once Muslims reached a critical mass they have nearly wiped out Hinduism.
As you would be well aware, most of the conversions out of Hindu Dharma and into islam were due to violence (forcible conversion including harems), involving much larger numbers of Hindus than those that may have opted for the 'fashionable' religion of islam.
And this tragedy can be repeated even today.
We need more Hard power to back us up.
No one would contest that.
The word "cool" got you riled up quite easily.
Nah, not really.
Maybe you need to "Cool" off.
Ugh. Not Kindergarten again. Thanks for the invite, but Pass.
I never said someone is Hindu because it's cool
Not you. It was in reference to the Indian girl Angela of the article in post 58 who wrote: 'In my case, though, this new genre of "Hindu hip" represents the opportunity to rediscover some of the traditions I avoided as a child because they didn't seem so cool at the time.'
I am trying to explain the situation in large urban areas of the U.S. (and the West) with regards to religion.
Those on the outer rings may be sticking with it because they were either born in it, have nostalgia for it, or due to association with others not because they have a deep understanding.
A lot of people don't like to think about concepts of death, or Brahman, or the nature of the Universe.
The problem you describe is christoconditioning which dumbs people down. In Bharatam - certainly TN and a neighbouring state - up to the last few generations, even illiterate or very poor or remote people knew their Hindu Dharma excellently well. They may have been poor when it came to prosperity and state education, but they were not poor in this respect.
That is the sort of strengthening of the Hindu society that Hindus ought to aim for, IMO. Any less can easily become a liability. Standards have to be high, so our efforts can be adjusted accordingly - or so I always held.
Rajan Zed has successfully brought a Euro-Dalit issue (Roma) into the forefront.
Great. But my comment was about this statement in the article of post 58: "Hindu scholar Rajan Zed has called for kirtan to be included as a Grammy awards category."
It's quite silly and hence not very helpful. And there are other things that aren't quite so comical, but rather more troublesome instead.