• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Sanatana Dharma - Aka Hinduism (3rd Bin)
Related to post 196





At

indiafacts.co.in/in-honor-of-tamil/



there was another long post by R Nanjappa. Am not in complete agreement. In defence of genuine Tamizh Hindoo heathenism and hence all Tamizh Hindoos:



While dravoodianism has indeed been corrupting the written and even spoken Skt-related Tamizh words - and many of the cases Nanjappa identified are very serious causes for concern - there are still many instances of Tamizhised sounds to Skt words that pre-date the invention of dravoodianism and any christian conspiring. And such genuine Tamizh pronunciations of inherited Skt words in Tamizh are encountered among all Tamizh Hindoos. Including for instance among deceased generations of Tamizh vedabrahmana families, including the very same members who would of course still pedantically pronounce these Skt-origin words as per Skt pronunciation in Skt contexts* like the Vedam, while they pronounced it in Tamizh manner in Tamizh, since this is their mother tongue and the traditional Tamizhised variants often fit more naturally in Tzh contexts. *Many Tamizh Hindoos - definitely of older generations - not just vedabrahmanas, know to do this, many having familiarity with not just the Tzh pronunciations of pan-Hindoo names but the Skt pronunciation as well. Admittedly Kannadiga Hindoos are more naturally knowledgeable about the correct Skt pronunciations since it does not differ from their own).



Further "Aarumugam" (from 6 in Tamizh + Tamizh word mugam from Skt mukham = ShaNmukha) - like "Aingaran" (= 5 in Tamizh + Tamizh word kara/gara from Samskritam kara = pancha+hasta) which is a surname of HindOOs - and "Vinayaga"* in Nanjappa's examples are IIRC old and valid Tamizh-Skt combinations and valid/traditional Tamizh pronunciations of Skt names.

Many of these occur in sacred Hindoo stotras and folk songs and ancient family names or first names. E.g. Arumugam occurs for instance in shrI AruNagirinaathar's Tiruppugazh, one of the titles/refrains of a stotra itself. Aarumugam is Murugan/Kartikeya's OWN name in Tamizh, as any who knows SubrahmaNya would know. And in that same sacred Tamizh language stotra there is IIRC reference to Aanaimugam (or as some Tamizh Hindoos say Aanaimugam/Yaanamugam/Yaanaimugam), aka gajamukham, another name for the pa~nchahasta/aingaran.



* Similar to vinAyaga (and vinAyaka, both are traditionally common in Tamizh), other such valid pronunciations in Tamizh of Skt-origin names are Sangaran, Narasingham**, Ambigai etc. Singham as the Tamizh pronunciation for Simha has counterparts in northern parts of India: Sinha and Singh. These are all ancient pronunciations of these Skt-Tamizh names in Tamizh.

*My favourite Tamizh pronunciation is Narachimmam, which seems to me about as equidistant from 'siMha' as Si~Ngham/Si~Ngh is, and which is apparently also valid (being pre-dravoodianist) in colloquial Tamizh. Also, Narachimmam sounds about as adorable as Sri NarasiMha looks. :those ears:



Therefore, while it is very important to weed out dravoodianist=christo perversions of proper Tamizh pronunciations of Tamizh names and words deriving from Skt (often pan-Hindoo) names and words, it is imperative to retain ancient, established=Hindoo, Tamizh pronunciations as valid variants in Tzh itself, and to make sure the wider Hindoo public including the non-Tamizh kind speaking know this, so that they don't assume traditional Tamizh Hindoos have been dravoodianised. For instance, names like "Subbulakshmi" are old, valid Hindoo Tamizh.

It's not all that different from how BhIm is apparently one of the valid Hindi pronunciations for the originally Skt name BhIma, etc.
  Reply
Related to the copy-paste portions of: posts 189, 198 and 199 of this thread, and 162 of the Buddhism etc thread.





The following's from the intro of another book - by yet another Hindoo of established background - which has some relevant stuff.

Transcribing excerpts:



Quote:In the MahAbhArata it is said that there is no knowledge such as SA~Nkhya and no power like that of Yoga. We should have no doubt as to SA~Nkhya being the highest knowledge. (ShAntiparva 316-2).

[...]



The references to SA~Nkhya SUtras are found in the Vedas. For example, Tamas is described in the R^ig Veda as:

Quote:तम आसीद् तमसा गूळ्हमग्रे अप्रकेतम् (R^ig Veda X-129-3).

which later assumed the form of the unmanifest. This very R^ig Veda shows the dissolution of the elements of the elemental world in its cause, thus indicating SatkArya vAda to which philosophy SA~Nkhya belongs. Even the PradhAna is referred to as AjA and the Veda explains it as below:

Quote:तमिद्गर्भं प्रथमं दध्र आपो यत्र देवाः समगच्छन्त विश्वे ।

अजस्य नाभावध्येकमर्षितं यस्मिन् विश्वानि भुवनानि तस्थुः ॥ (R^ig Veda X 82.6)

(ajA is Amman, who is the prakRiti/pradhAna, the devAtma-shakti of Ishvara. See Shvetaashvatara UpaniShad.)



Further, the Sattva, Rajas and Tamas of the SA~Nkhya Philosophy is [was already] explained in the ChAndogya UpaniShad, and the SA~Nkhya categories are clearly mentioned in the KaTha Upanishad (3.10, 11). It is a well known fact that ShvetAshvatara UpaniShad is essentially a SA~Nkhya UpaniShad [i.e. all being the pre-classical=seshvara sAMkhyam] because it clearly mentions the SA~Nkhya categories. In the ShvetAshvatara UpaniShad, the word 'SA~Nkhya' and 'Kapila' have been used for the first time (6.13). Again in the same UpaniShad words like Vyakta, Avyakta and J~na also are found (1.8). Similarly the use of the words PradhAna, PrakR^iti and GuNa is also found here (1st Chapter 10, 4th Chapter 10, 1st Chapter 13). The mention of such words as Sattva, Rajas and Tamas by name, the exposition of five subtle elements, the enunciation of the five gross elements, the reference to the SA~Nkhya categories of KShetraj~na, Sa~Nkalpa, AdhyavasAya, AbhimAna and Li~Nga clearly show that these UpaniShads were formed after the formulation of the SA~Nkhya system of thought. [<- I.e. the pre-classical=Vedic=theistic sAMkhya, seshvara sAMkhya onlee, from which the more reduced form emerged later. Contrary to Elst's claims].

In the MahAbhArata and the PurANas we find the SA~Nkhya Philosophy fully explained.

[...]



So:



1. More proof that the liars peddling ur-Shramanism are the real swindlers (=their accusation, returned to them): Hindoo heathenism=Vedic Religion naturally evolved SA~Nkhya-Yoga, all through the Vedam.



And Vedic religion shows its working (all the way from even the Rig Vedam it seems), and is the only Indic religion that can. Meanwhile, the Shramanisms merely 'inherited' - or rather poached, since that's what they dared accuse Hindoos/Hindoo religion of - what was already long well-formed/full-fledged in Hindoo heathenism and as it existed as at the time of the appearance of the Shramanisms. But the shramanisms were always easily dated. And their backprojected antiquity - via multiple Buddhas and Teerthankaras - was just their missionary fraud.





2. And to keep harping on it:



contrary to Elst pretending that Hindoo heathens="polytheistic idolators" had eclipsed the "godless schools of [Indian] thought" via some "coup d'etat", such as "the godless philosophy of sA~Nkhya" - by which Elst meant only the later, classical sAMkhya,

the fact is that not only does the GitA sAMkhya pre-date the classical kind (also contrary to Elstianisms), sAMkhya was originally theistic onlee - e.g. see Shvetaashvatara UpaniShad - being literally "seshvara sAMkhya" [=also the alternative name of the classical yoga darshana, in contradistinction to the classical, atheistic sAMkhya darshana = nirIshvara sAMkhya].



And it was further the atheistic kind that evolved later from the original heathen version, which original heathen version was already long developed and closely associated with yoga [and vedaanta] (whereas the later classical sAMkhya was not closely associated with yoga).



So it is in fact very legitimate of Hindoos to say that Yoga is in origins indeed "theistic Hindoo"*, because the original sA~Nkhya[-yoga-vedaanta] was so, which is actually why its continuation to the present times in Hindoo heathenism remains so. And it's why Vaidika=HindOO tantra manuals are about the sAMkhya-yoga-vedaanta =Vedic onlee.



* And the Yoga darshana "aka seshvara sAMkhya" was called, of which Patanjali's Yogasutras is held up as the authoritative text of this age, sounds rather consistent to the original Hindoo heathen version of sAMkhya-yoga-vedAnta (see shvetAshvatara Upanishad) i.e. the pre-classical=Vedic=theistic sAMkhya (which is a seshvara sAMkhya).





The relevant stuff is in the quoteblock.
  Reply
swarajyamag.com/columns/gita-govinda-of-jayadeva/



Quote:स्मरगरलखण्डनं मम शिरसि मण्डनं देहि पदपल्लवमुदारम् |



Place your foot on my head--

A sublime flower destroying poison of love!

(Translation by Barbara Stoler Miller)



Legend has it that after Jayadeva put these words into the mouth of Krishna in his poem, he was suddenly taken aback by his own hubris. How could he place a woman's feet on the highest God's head? Jayadeva quickly scratched out the sacrilegious lines and went to have an oil bath. Krishna then appeared in the poet's guise, restored the lines, ate his food and left. When Jayadeva returned, he was surprised to see his wife Padmavati having food before serving him. Jayadeva soon put two and two together and fell at Padmavati's feet -- she had been blessed with a meeting with Krishna that even he had been denied.Having obtained divine mandate, Jayadeva completed the Gīta Govindam, and introduced himself in the work as Padmavati's husband padmāvatī-caraṇa-cāraṇa-cakravartī 'the ruler of Padmāvatī's dancing feet'.



Actually that is a typical Hindoo heathenism exhibited/realised by Jayadeva from worship of Krishna.

Apparent from:



murugan.org/research/shakta.htm



Quote:Lord Muruga was the Divine Suitor and companion to her Excellency the Hunter Girl, the Lover and bodyguard of Valli. He declared that He was Her slave for all time and had it so inscribed on Mount Meru, witnessed by the devas. He massaged Her feet; His head is often decorated by bowing down to Valli's feet. He grasped the feet of Valli treating it as the Seed of the Pranava mantra. Śrī Arunagirinatha has worshipped Śrī Valli and has referred to the method of Śakta worship by which the husband worships his wife as the World Mother or Para Śakti. This is the inner meaning of Lord Muruga's worship of Śrī Valli.

And of course, see also certain shlokas in Adi Shankaracharya's SL.

<snip>
  Reply
Related to two posts up.



indiafacts.co.in/comrade-yechurys-unyogic-poses/



Quote:Regardless of the fact whether pre-Vedic Indians used the appellation Hindu -- which was a much later usage -- Yoga was practiced, preserved and evolved by an unbroken chain of Yogis starting from the pre-vedic days to the most modern times. It is only recently that people other than Hindus have started to make a study of Yoga and its practices.

(I hope that is not cue for introducing ur-Shramanism...)



But it's nonsense. Yoga has been consistently credited to Hiranyagarbha as its first teacher/promulgator. And the very name "Hiranyagarbha" is Vedic Skt onlee. Besides the specific reference being consistently explicated as the God Hiranyagarbha onlee, IIRC read he's regarded as the Ishvara, the first-manifest Parabrahman, creator of the All, in core/famous Upanishads, with whom OM is associated as per these Upanishads, also IIRC. He was not just the creator of the cosmos [HiraNyagarbha is another name for BrahmA], but as first teacher of yoga, he was the Adiguru. (<= Term used in Patanjali yogasutras for Ishvara.)



Moreover, the origins - beginnings - of Yoga can be seen in the Vedam onlee. It was Vedic society that practiced Pranayama, apparently even for properly carrying out rituals (proper recitation), for which purpose it was also developed.



And let's be VERY clear, pre-Vedic society evolved only into Vedic society. NEVER into Vedic + Ajeevika + LokAyata + Jain + Buddhist (+ Sikh) etc.

Ajeevikas, Charvakas, Buddhisms and Jainisms were spin-offs of Vedic religio, or evolved only in contradistinction. Not of anything pre-Vedic.



Finally, IVC is NOT pre-Vedic. And it is associated with Vedic religion.

Can scroll down here (down to the photo captioned with "Harappa Period Chariot from Daimabad, Maharashtra, Source: Upinder Sindh/Sali 1986:477-479") to see obvious ratha-s in IVC. The same link includes a photo captioned with "This copper chariot was found by M.S. Vats, the Director of the ASI, at Harappa. Dates back to 3000 BC. Oldest so far found in world." At least these 2 photos of IVC artifacts are unmistakable. (Meanwhile, IE-ism wants to claim rathas were a development in 1600 BCE - since in Euro/Steppe space they can only trace chariots that far back apparently - and that all IE migrations that brought the 'IE' chariot 'innovation' therefore have about 1600 BCE as a ceiling.)







Won't go into christian communitwit Yechury's debile comments. As far as I'm concerned he can choke on his own vomit. Obviously he's on an agenda mandated by christianism since christianism infesting India is evolving the same new myths/distractions at the same time. Can't be a coincidence.



But this comment points to something:



Quote: Radha Rajan



http:// thehindu.com/news/national/international-yoga-day-using-culture-to-hegemonise-people/article7313102.ece



Anuradha Raman in The Hindu. Read this together with Sri Sri's statement and Jaggi Vasudev's statement that Yoga has no religion. At the height of the Ram Janmabhumi movement S Guhan said Ayodhya os [of?] the Ramayanam is not inside India. Anuradha Raman says yoga is from Greece. And read this also with the protests against Gajendra Chauhan's appointment as chief of FTII. The rascals in media and rascals like Ananad Patwardhan had nothing to say when Leela Samson was holding three posts at the same time. The anti-Hindu scum are hysterical.

I'm still waiting for the ur-Shramanists to descend - they will be aided and abetted by the usual Hindu nationalists/subscribers of a universal Indic religion - like they also did regarding Ayodhya.



But here's that link that Radha refers to:



thehindu.com/news/national/international-yoga-day-using-culture-to-hegemonise-people/article7313102.ece



Quote:NEW DELHI, June 14, 2015

Updated: June 14, 2015 04:02 IST

News Analysis

Using culture to hegemonise people



Anuradha Raman



(Let me guess. Tamizh. Possibly of brahmin ancestry. Very probably a cryptochristo, of catholic variety. Lots of Tamizh "brahmins" are.

Surprised she's not died of haemorrhaging on her own stupidity. Maybe she should try it? I mean, she can't be worse at it than at "reporting", right?)






"It may not be entirely right to say yoga is Indian as ancient Greece and Rome engaged in similar exercises"





[...]

The article then goes on to describe how Shiva taught yoga to a chosen few after he was satisfied about their intent and preparation. Historian D.N. Jha dismisses the Shiva connect as just a myth, arguing that yoga which is peddled now is vastly different from what it meant -- meditation. "If I remember it right, it is in the Hatha Yoga Pradipika, where there is evidence of postural yoga. [1] It may not be entirely right to say yoga is Indian as ancient Greece and Rome engaged in similar exercises." [2]



[...]

[1] Who's betting Jha just plagiarised Elst's subversion without crediting him? Typical.

"Denn die Toten reiten schnell." Yeah, and next to the nosferatu, the lies travel thick and fast too.



[2] So the catholic Anradha iRaman being an idiot herself has to refer to communist hysterian Jha who then tried to recall right that...

yoga isn't Indian "as ancient Greece and Rome engaged in similar exercises"



With no actual references to primary sources.

(I'm surprised he didn't cite Doniger who had done such hard work to claim that Yoga was European and christian besides.)



But nice try.



Heathen sympathiser with an interest in the truth, classicist Rowland Smith, the learned modern-day biographer of Rome's 4th century Emperor Julian, in illustrating the degree of familiarity that Julian had with then long popular history/documentation regarding Alexander called the Great (4th century B.C.E),

reveals that even in Alexander's era, the gymnosophists (i.e. yogis, and no one is contesting the equation of Greek gymnosophist=reference to what Indians call "yogi") were regarded as 1. something emanating from foreign climes outside Greece (and NOT Rome) and 2. emanating specifically from India; 3. the gymnosophists as per Rowland Smith's translation of the tradition were specifically brahmin gymnosophists. Onlee. (Not even Jain or Buddhist kinds note.)





The GrecoRomans didn't have yoga. And don't claim it.

And I moreover doubt Jha could even identify the points of similarity as he knows them not. But even they do not constitute yoga.





research.ncl.ac.uk/histos/documents/2011.02SmithCastingofJulian.pdf



THE CASTING OF JULIAN THE APOSTATE 'IN THE LIKENESS' OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT: A TOPOS IN ANTIQUE HISTORIOGRAPHY AND ITS MODERN ECHOES

Histos 5 (2011) 44-106, Rowland Smith

p.49

Quote:For Julian, 'philosophic interests' meant especially the search for 'true opinions about divinity', and Plutarch pictures Alexander as one of the elect to whom Aristotle had orally transmitted 'secret teachings on arcane matters': he 'never lost the devotion to philosophy innate in him'; in Egypt, he elicits 'secret prophecies' from Ammon's oracle at Siwah to learn better what his own connexion with divinity might be, and attends lectures by the (fictional) philosopher Psammon expatiating on the 'divine element'c to be found in every human mind; in Bactria, he weeps to hear a philosophic theory pro-posing the existence of an infinite plurality of worlds; in India, he [Alexander] quizzes a band of Brahmin gymnosophists to learn their teachings.



[So the earliest Greek contact with ancient India that the west will allow - i.e. that of Alexander the Great - has Alexander learning from "Brahmin gymnosophists"=Brahmin yogis in India. (Besides Hindoo theories on the multiverse, in the pre-Mahayana era and certainly pre-Mahayana presence in Bactria.)

So EVEN IF Greece and Rome exhibited yoga thereafter, the direction surely is from Vedic religion to Greece/Rome, as per the Greek tradition regarding Alexander already long established in Julian's own time.

And why would Alexander have to learn the teachings of Vedic yogis [i.e. yoga] if Alexander's own Greek people already had Yoga? NAH?

After all, Alexander was by all Greek documentation learned in Greek philosophy and religion. So he'd already know it if it was Greek. But it wasn't, which is why he - as per his chroniclers - had to learn about it from the Vedic yogis.

Note also Alexander didn't learn it from Romans, before Jha types start claiming this. Greece had long had outposts in Rome - like Sicily, which was/is ethnically Greek - since well before. And so Alexander would already have known yoga if it had been Roman.

Also, Romans derived a lot of religio-culture from the Greeks - their close ethnic kin - and was never ashamed to admit this.



Further, the fact that ancient Greeks found the practices of the Vedic yogis peculiar and distinct enough to repeatedly comment about this and coin a new term for such Indians -"gymnosophists"- to refer particularly to this (their yoga) - implies that Greeks and Romans did not "similar exercises".]




In the popular tradition, he is treated by one of the Brahmins to a lecture on the fatuity of earthly kingship, and the passage of enlightened souls to a paradisal after-life: 'I myself would wish to cease making war', he confesses to the sage, 'but the master of my soul will not allow it'.

[...]



(There are some interesting questions even implications in the above paragraph, BTW. Nothing new or unknown of course.)

Anyway. The above is certainly more proof - from ancient Greek sources quoted by the great and above-suspicion Classicist Rowland Smith -

than Jha, who's only provided hysterics as evidence for the theories he spouts.



You know Indian christo-communitwits are morons when even I am better at history (well, referring to documented stuffs about it) than their champion hysterians.





And pre-emptively, gymnosophists was a word the Greeks coined specifically for people from India doing certain practices (specifically yoga) - i.e. Greeks coined gymnosophists=yogis/yoga is from India - and which practices had no basis in anything the Greeks themselves knew/were familiar with. That is, there were no "Greek gymnosophists" originally.
  Reply
This post is in pre-emption.



The quoteblocks contain the only important things.



New-agey Indians and religion salesmen already sold (out) yoga to alien demons.

And so now modern Indians/"Hindus" are on the backfoot, as it is being wrested from them. Communist crypto-christo allegations that Yoga has nothing to do with (Hindu) religion - and is in fact Greek or Roman or anything else - gets the retort from "Hindus" that yoga is Hindu in origin, but tied to yet another grave error: that just because it is Hindu "in origin" it does not follow that christoislamaniacs and the dabbling alien demons can't dabble in it too. <- A bit like monogamists saying that even though X should be recognised as my spouse doesn't mean others can't sleep with X. Even the tackiness in the arguments is identical.



In other words, modern Hindus have totally capitulated and the enemies know it (though not the 'Hindus' arguing): such Hindus have essentially said anyone may pillage on yoga now. It is also an invitation to distortion, which is all Malhotra wants to disapprove of, but this is an inevitable secondary problem that follows on from the aforementioned primary one.



Long ago had wondered out loud what things still remain to Hindoo heathenism. Though modern Hindus might try selling all that remains off next (and then give up without a proper fight with the right arguments too). I mean, they've already sold most things to Buddhism and Jainism, from which it got branded "all-Indian" by christianism, after which these things were also encroached on by christianism as equally christian and actually/originally christian.





A very serious matter to heathen Hindus - note: to heathens, i.e. Hindoos alone, so not atheist Hindu Atanu Dey types or neo/pseudo-Vedantins like "ccc" to whom heathenism=Vedic religion dubbed 'polytheistic idolatry' doesn't compute and who therefore confuse it with christoislam -

Again: a very serious matter to HindOOs is that, Buddhism and christianism too have been attempting to not just redefine bhakti to refer to Buddha bhakti and christian bhakti respectively, but to claim that each originated it. It's a trait of the many infernal missionary religions plaguing heathens.





An example of the Buddhist assertions is brought up in post 251 and onwards in the Buddhism thread, and particularly discussed in post 257.

The christian case is more well-known to Indians, and can be seen in much of the back-projected missionary literature on India, including that by S Korean missionaries even.





Christianism has long been eyeing bhakti, to claim this as its own origination, and to thereupon claim that christianism must have influenced Hindoo-ism with this (and other heathenisms, since what Hellenes call Piety is a natural and indigenous feature of all heathenisms). Like Buddhism peddlers and the Jain Minority Forum, who have tried the same joke, christianism is still on a compulsive lying spree.



Bhakti is exclusively and originally Hindoo, originating in and exclusively concerning the Vedic religion=Gods (and the Hindoo cosmology) onlee, as seen in the Vedam. Missionary religions merely encroach on the word 'bhakti' and make a shadow copy of its meaning, all in order to missionise on heathens: by declaring that the original devotion or the true devotion was to their gawd/replacement entity. (Buddhism argues mostly by 'original devotion' and christianism via 'true devotion' but hopes to even try 'original devotion'.)





Transcribing - in pre-emption, as stated before - from a useful source:



Quote:[Bhakti:] Its Vedic Origin



Actually the doctrine of bhakti is as old as the R^ig-veda itself. While commenting on the aphorism 'bhaktiH prameyA shrutibhyaH' [1], shrI nArAyaNa tIrtha has accumulated quite a mass of unassailable evidence to prove its [bhakti's] Vedic origin. Take for instance the R^ik where the Lord Vishnu has been praised and there is also a reference to the recitation of His names:



"You praise that Ancient Cause, the Origin of R^ita (the Divine Law), according to your knowledge. You will be freed from birth.** If you cannot praise Him, recite His name. However, we, O Lord ViShNu, devote ourselves to your light and attributeless form*!" (R.V. 1.156.3)



(Looked up and transcribed the referenced Rik from the RV index that was compiled by ethnic Hindoos [a temple initiative] and which is now hogged by alien demons - typical summary of how Hindoo endeavours get siphoned off to enlarging the alien vampires.)



Quote:tam u stotAraH pUrvyaM yathA vida R^itasya garbhaM januShA pipartana |

Asya jAnanto nAma cid-vivaktana mahaste viShNo sumatim bhajAmahe || (R^igveda 1.156.03)



तमु स्तोतारः पूर्व्यं यथा विद ऋतस्य गर्भं जनुषा पिपर्तन ।

आस्य जानन्तो नाम चिद्विवक्तन महस्ते विष्णो सुमतिम् भजामहे ॥ (ऋग्वेद १.१५६.०३)
* Can't quite work out where the 'light & attributeless form' bit appears. <- Is this the "chid-vivaktana mahaH", 'Vishnu, your chit-only and light [form]'? Note: this supposition is based on plain dictionary lookups, to find out which words match the translator's provided translation segments.



** "You will be freed from birth" seems to be a ref to "[tam...] garbhaM januShA pipartana". If translated this way, as has been done above, it does sound like a reference - in the Rigveda itself - of ancient Hindoos already aiming for mokSha as freedom from rebirth/samsAra...

Merely noting.



Quote:And again, this R^ik where there is a clear allusion to the hearing and reciting of His (Vishnu's) names as also surrender to Him:



'He who offers (his all) to Lord ViShNu, the husband of ShrI (LakShmI), the Ancient Cause, the Creator, the Ever-new, he who recites the glorious birth and works* of this glorious Being, that giver, that reciter, obtains fame (or bhukti) and reaches the Highest Abode' (R.V. 1.156.2)



(Looking up the original Skt of the verse againSmile

Quote:yaH pUrvyAya vedhase navIyase sumajjAnaye viShNave dadAshati |

yo jAtam asya mahato mahi bravat sed u shravobhir yujyaM cidabhyasat || (R^igveda 1.156.02)



यः पूर्व्याय वेधसे नवीयसे सुमज्जानये विष्णवे ददाशति ।

यो जातम् अस्य महतो महि ब्रवत् सेदु श्रवोभिर् युज्यं चिदभ्यसत् ॥ (ऋग्वेद १.१५६.०२)
* "Reciting the glorious birth and works [of Vishnu]". Wait wait, is that a ref to Vishnu's avataaras? Nah, can't be: Vishnu's avataaras were totaal verboden by Elst/Elstians.



[BTW, the above two examples of Vishnu worship taken from the R^igvedam contravenes Michel Danino's statement that Vishnu was a Puranic deity (or any possibly intended implication that Vishnu-worship is Pauranic). Of course, the Hindoo Puranas are part of Vedic religion and not otherwise, but the point is that the Vedam already shows Vishnu worship (well obviously) and so it cannot be dated/traced to the Puranas for origins - as it's not a separate religion.]





Quote:Another R^ik considers Indra the great God as father and mother:



'O Vasu! O Shatakratu! You have become our Father! You are Mother! So now we bow down to you!' (R.V. 8.98.11)



Quote:tvaM hi naH pitA vaso tvam mAtA shatakrato babhUvitha |

adhA te sumnam Imahe || (R^igveda 8.098.11)



त्वं हि नः पिता वसो त्वम् माता शतक्रतो बभूविथ ।

अधा ते सुम्नम् ईमहे ॥ (ऋग्वेद ८.०९८.११)
:zó lief:

Anyway, can see it's literally true: the Vedam itself says so. Indran+his devAtmaShakti (Shachee Amman) gave birth to all the ethnic Hindoos and the cosmos. Like Vishnu united with his wife LakShmI 'sumajjAnaye viShNave' seen just a bit above in RV 1.156.02, and like Rudra united with UmA seen in the posts 189-191 on the previous page.



Note: all the above - the Gods and the vedamantras about them - belong to HindOO heathens onlee. Not to 'Hindus' who reinvented themselves as "atheist agnostic Hindus".

"Sorry."





Quote:Coming to the UpaniShads [...]

(And then the above goes on to give examples from the Upanishads. But I stop excerpting here, because enough examples have been referred to in the ShvetAshvatara Upanishad in post 189 on the subject of Ishvara praNidhana, devotion to the Ishvara [Hindoo Gods]. But this bit is literally relevantSmile



The ShvetAshvatara UpaniShad actually uses the word bhakti and clearly states prapatti also (Shv. U. 6.23)



(And of course the already mentioned "sharaNam prapadye" to Rudra the Maheshvara literally occurring in 6.18 of Shv.U.)

So not only does the bhakti - the profound affections - of Hindoos for their Gods date to the Vedam, but the word itself too.

But then, christianism stole the word Piety from Hellenismos and pretended that only christianism cultivated 'piety'. In truth, only Hellenes ever felt deeply for their Olympic Gods, as all heathens in Europe and beyond did for their pantheons of Gods, whereas christians were at most brainwashed into obsessing over a non-existent entity, by replacing their heathen ancestors' attachment to the heathen Gods with the obsession/fake feelings to the fake gawd that replaced the ancestral heathenisms. Christoislamics never loved their gawd: not only are they incapable of love and only capable of genocide, but that's all that their fake religion with its evil and non-existent=false monogawd *could* ever inspire.





[1] Expanded version of reference:

Quote:'bhaktiH prameyA shrutibhyaH || 9

purAnetihAsAbhyAM cheti || 10

(and from the worship and conduct of bhaktas starting with Rishis)'



"Bhakti is to be known from the Vedas. || 9

And also from the PurANas and itihAsas. || 10"



Anyway, the pre-emptive warning is that HindOOs shouldn't let other Hindus allow christos/everybody else to steal the origins and sole home of bhakti away from Hindoos, the so-called "polytheistic idolators", the way originally-heathen Hindoo yoga has been sold to anybody and everybody to dabble in.



Other Hindus are NOT heathens. Bhakti at least can't be contorted to some universal Indic religion, as it concerns exclusively Hindoo heathenism, and so non-heathens who go by the Hindu appellation have no right to speak on it, much less gift Bhakti next to missionary religions, Indic or alien.



In truth, the so-called "polytheistic idolatry" is the only thing that prevents the Borg-assimilation of Hindoos into the replacement movements. Whenever this feature ("polytheistic idolatry") - which is the definition of heathenism - is removed from HindOOs, they become de-heathenised, and they or their progeny somewhere along the line can become easily assimilated into any missionary religion or into unheathen replacement ideologies, whether these go by the Hindu label too or not.

And there is No Way back to heathenism from de-heathenisation - excluding deus-ex-machinas, obviously. Heathenism/"polytheistic idolatry" does NOT compute to once-were-monotheists and atheists/agnostics (the latter would have to have seen the Gods before they have any valid reason to change over to heathenism, anything else is sentimentality and hypocrisy, and the former repeatedly show proof that heathenism makes no sense to them without the direct intervention and initiation into heathenism by the Gods to encourage their efforts. Example of direct intervention leading to successful reversion. Another example of proper reversion to heathenism is famously Julian himself, although his inclinations were heathen - his quality was innate - except that he had unfortunately been raised by christians in a christianised family.)



In short, it is very easy to lose the heathenism one is raised in (i.e. the heathenism of one's recent lineage) - by de-heathenising - but it is very nigh impossible to become a heathen of one's ancestral tradition. The examples are not just the tragic case of most of the west, but also seen among Indians, even among many calling themselves Hindus but who are not heathens (not HindOOs) though their ancestors were in most cases.





The stuff in quoteblocks are the only important parts of this post.
  Reply
Indiafacts has a series of articles on Kalidasa where he is projected as an Indian poet, Indian this, Indian that.

He's specifically HindOO (hyper-HindOO), not Buddhist/Jain/Sikh/christoislamic/whatever. Don't know why Hindu nationalists, who surely must be aware of inculturation by now, persist in relabelling all sacred Hindoo matters and persons as merely "Indian", or even pretend they're 'all-Indic'.



And in the comments section of one article in the series, the Vedic Rishis were universalised too, i.e. not just dubbed merely Indian.



Soon this idiotic sharing tendency of modern Hindus will be reciprocated by the competition with inculturation from their end ("Kalidasa and Vedic Rishis belong equally to us, as they're all Indian, etc". Actually, that half-Sikh half-Paki, the Pollock promoter, Aatish Taseer already pretended Kalidasa somehow -magically?- had something to do with him, and was encroaching even on the Kumarasambhavam and dared to speak of Aparna.)



More inculturation for Hindus to look forward to.



Yoga, Bharatanatyam, Hindu classical music. Not enough for modern Hindus to gift that away.



Soon, the quintessentially HindOO Kalidasa and his sacred works (they are sacred), and the hyper-Hindoo (hyper-Vedic) Vedic Rishis - and the Vedam with them - will be commodities for every alien and other enemy to pillage from.



And just like Yoga is suddenly "not really Hinduism" - but more fool those who didn't see that spin coming from the Indian christomedia - soon Kalidasa and his works and the Vedic Rishis and the Vedam will magically become "not really Hinduism" too. (Hard to imagine? I bet some decades ago it would have been hard for Hindus to imagine that yoga being part of Hinduism be denied too. And yet that's exactly what's happened.)



And again, some (large) part of the blame will lie with modern 'Hindus' (vocalists, nationalists), for enabling it from their own end.
  Reply
bharatabharati.wordpress.com/2015/07/02/central-russian-officials-crack-down-on-yoga-classes-to-check-occultism-pti/

Quote:“The Moscow Times reported that the order has been issued ‘to prevent the spread of new religious cults and movements. … Nizhnevartovsk officials have barred use of municipal buildings for yoga classes and have issued orders to the two studios on this.” — PTI



Close on the heels of India leading worldwide International Yoga Day celebrations, Yoga classes have been banned in a central Russian city by the authorities to check spread of ‘religious occultism’.

[...]

Banning may create an underground movement or martyr complex* (dabblers, being new-ageists, are like christians and Harry Christnas in that respect).



But otherwise this is actually good news.



May all aliens ban yoga for themselves. And ban the Vedam. And just ban all dabbling in others' heathenisms.

May they properly revert to their ancestral heathenisms.





* Far better for Russia - and general christianism's secular media arm - to innocently project yoga as undesirable for being dangerous or having side-effects to the mental or physical health or something, like some have started to do.



Of course, modern Indians being stupid, such a concerted yoga-defamation programme may actually have the effect that in the subcontinent, many modern new-agey Indics stop doing yoga too, rather the way a lot of ayurveda has become sidelined. But there's no accounting for modern Indians' stupidity.

But isn't the relinquishing of heathen practices and lifestyle by heathens themselves exactly what christianism always wanted? And since de-heathenisation of Hindus has thus become an inevitability and as that can't be avoided anymore, let there at least be an end to the alien and christo dabbling in all things Hindu. Because at the moment, yoga itself is being de-heathenised and separated from its cosmological views, projected as distinct from Hindoos' heathenism and as some universal accessory for anyone (and as a new-ageism to dabblers in Hinduism). And contrary to new-agey Indians' self-delusions, that's not Hindu "culture" spreading to the world. That's alien assimilation of the Hindu yoga into their own utterly unrelated purposes.
  Reply
swarajyamag.com/culture/jeyamohan-on-the-question-of-being-a-cultural-hindu/





Quote:If you are still unsatisfied after reaching that pinnacle, if you have learnt every spiritual-philosophical explanation that Hinduism has to offer and have rejected all of them, and then if you fully feel that you are an Atheist but are unsatisfied by all the Charvaka atheist philosophies in Hinduism, then – and only then – you could go outside and call yourself a Cultural Hindu.

(What is wrong with using the word 'Indic' when speaking of the many Indic ideologies and religions?)





But I still think there is a place for the term Cultural Hindu today. Two reasons:



– All the religions that evolved out of India like Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism, could be seen as belonging to the same cultural space. Their mythologies, fundamental beliefs, and symbolisms are all born out of what we would generally term as Hindu Culture.

(But when they turn missionary on Hindoo laity, can admit it was merely inculturation on Vedic religion/Hinduism. Or maybe the "cultural Hindu" was merely a euphemism for that. In any case, when christianism tries the same - like ex-Hindu Indonesians converted to christianism wanting to take "pride" i.e. stake claims in the Hindu civilisation via the "cultural Hindu" tag, see Hinduwisdom.info's email section from almost a decade back vs the same converts continuing to missionise Hindus in their area - everyone should also insist that such Indonesian christians are "cultural Hindu". All anti-national and anti-Hindu Indians are culturally Hindu too: can hardly escape the influence. But some even don the bindi or keep Hindu names for their crypto activities.)



– If someone is Jain, Buddhist or Sikh, they could be still be called as culturally a Hindu. You could also include Sufism in this. The symbolism and the stories in the songs of Kunangudi Masthan Sahib, Peer Mohammad Appa and Umaruppulavar were all born out of the immense Hindu cultural space.

Isn't the author - 'Jeyamohan' - the guy who last time pretended that Taoism and Shinto had a 'happy marriage' with Buddhism.

I suppose in the comparison the above is less offensive as only Hindus are the victims of this current fantasy.



So now a Sufi is culturally a "Hindu" too as per such "Hindus".

Brilliant. And Sufis are claimed to be equidistant from every other kind. Again.



But then why not call inculturating christians "Hindu" too? I mean, surely their culture would not look so "Hindu" had they been natives converted to christianism in say Iran or wherever? Therefore, since Hindu culture influenced them too (never mind that they consciously inculturated for missionary purposes), can lump the "cultural Hindu" title on the christians too. Especially Syrian christians who've spent around 1.5 millennia in India and have parasited I mean inculturated on a lot of outward Hindu "culture". And the converts that catholicism made in Goa: so many catholic "brahmins" even.





OOoh, I can already imagine Indian matrimonial ads by Sufis: "Hindu male seeks Hindu female". <- What 'love jihad'? It ain't islamic subterfuge or taqiyyah then, since Jeyamohan and his applauding commenters have inducted sufis into the "Hindu" label too.







Why can't:

- "Indic" be used to refer to Indic religions or ideologies,
i.e. those native to the land. I.e. Charvaka, Ajeevika, Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism, everything extinct or extant, small or now big, that once sprang up in the subcontinent, that disagreed or inculturated or went into cut-throat competition with missionising and attempted replacement of the native heathenism (Vedic religio).

- "Indian" be used for nationality/citizenship in relevant context and ethnicity where this is concerned. Christoislamics etc are already included here. Other anti-nationalists are included too.

- and "Hindu" be used for the heathens of the Vedic religion, so that Hinduism is Vedic religio, and so that Hindus hence have a word in English, which moreover corresponds to how the word has long been used in English to credit Hindus with (not least with an existence).



After all, Hindu heathenism (Hinduism) having subgroups is no different than how subgroups exist within Buddhism (several extant and several extinct ones) and within Jainism (certainly 2 prominent ones) and Sikhism. And any conflict between Hindu subgroups is no different from conflict within subgroups of Buddhism and Jainism and Sikhism.





What is it with "Hindu" vocalists insisting on turning "Hindu" into meaning "Indian" all over again? Sure, now that Indian means christoislamics too, native religions are devalued in the once-implied nativity of Indian. (Then again, during the British Raj, British imperialists festering in India were referred to as "Indian" by Brits in their homeland. E.g. the "Indian gentleman" used in colonial era books.)

But the word Indic replaces it capably, and excludes Abrahamic religions *and* Zoroastrians (who are an Iranic religio-ethnic identity). Indic can also imply ethnically Indian in relevant context.



Few outside the Hindus and other Indian nationalists of India are going to accept that "Buddhists" are Hindus. E.g. Chinese or even Thai Buddhists are generally unlikely to accept being clubbed as "Hindus". Not by ethnicity, not by religion, and culturally and civilisationally the former at least consider themselves closer to Chinese culture.





I suspect that if English had developed yet another word for designating the Hindoo heathens (an Indic religio-ethnic group), that nationalists would insist using that too to equally designate Buddhists and Jains and Sikhs etc. What bothers them is that Hindoo heathens should have a word to distinguish themselves from the others at all. They're not bothered by the fact that the extant Indic groups of Buddhists and Jains and Sikhs have terms for their religious identifier in English (or that these regularly threaten to be distinct and often don't want to *be* lumped with Hindoos: they can see there is a separate and distinct religion they don't want to be lumped with, even if they refuse to acknowledge the existence when in missionary mode and denying the existence of any laity). It is only nationalists' objection that Hindoos should have one. (As it is, many "Hindus" have started insisting that other Indics are all Astikas too and that Hindoos must not notice any distinction: all equi-distant from Hindoo subgroups.)



I'm guessing this is a side-effect from the constitution and modern Hindu nationalism particularly Hindutva. They're the ones who used English words anyway. The latter being significantly non-heathen (and modern non-heathen moreover) in origination, the word 'Hindu' naturally needed to be reinterpreted to include non-heathens, and the other Indic religions naturally fell within that huge range. Hindutva even in terminology is a replacement religion: denying heathenism and insisting on lumping it with non-heathenism and other Indic traditions.



But Hindu has long been a legitimate word in English/western languages with a meaning: and these are the only languages where the word is really needed. (Indian languages already distinguish between the other Indics and Hindoos.) And in those languages, "Hindu" (and "Hinduism") already has a dictionary meaning: not even indologists who have more recently decided in unison (upon conferring) to deny 'Hindus' and 'Hinduism' from existing, can undo the fact that there are countless dictionaries and encyclopaedias of English words from before their decision that do use and define "Hindu" and "Hinduism" as referring to the Vedic religio. And they do not include the other extant Indic traditions in them, as these also have terms in English (Sikhism, Buddhism, Jainism - which words are recognised by Indian nationalists and not universalised by them, I note.)







It was a bad mistake for "Hindus" to deny Hindoos the term Hindu (and Hinduism) in English. And following it's own internal logic, some have seen fit to naturally develop this into including Sufis too now. Who's to insist that only religions originally/entirely born in Indic space should be dubbed "Hindu"? Some choose to draw the lines looser still, after all.





(* Though those Sufi streams that developed in Iran - and also recognised as Sufism - are not dubbed "culturally Hindu". Jeyamohan and co. mean obviously mean "culturally Indian" or influenced significantly by the presence of Hinduism*. Since for the Iranian variants of Sufism, no one in Iran would say "culturally Zoroastrian", because at least Iranians and esp Zoroastrians would recognise that 1. Zoroastrianism is a religion; 2. deserves a name; 3. refers to a religious group. But Hindoos have no such luck. Everyone else has a name. Even the Yezidis and Bahai who are relatively tiny populations compared to HindOOs have their own names.)





Hmmm. One could theoretically argue that Indian wahhabism is also significantly, formatively being influenced by Hinduism: as seen in their reactiveness to the Hindoo majority and their need to jihad the Hindoos to turn what remains of Hindoos' heathen homeland into Mughalistan. There are many examples, but for instance: Indian muslims/jihadis have taken to insisting on beef-eating as a "feature" of the religion, and organise the theft of cows from Hindus. Yet islam is not particularly anti-cow in dar-ul-islams outside Hindoo space. (Compare with how in Iran islamics virulently attack the dog, and often stone the creature as a rule, precisely because it is/was a sacred animal in Zoroastrianism). I think such Indian wahabbism could well be called "culturally Hindu" too, since Hindu "culture" clearly influenced such an Indian strain of jihad I mean islam.





Anyway, infernal stupidity.







The news was -



One "Jeyamohan" - last seen spreading misinformation about Buddhism w.r.t. Shinto and Taoism - at least restricts his sphere of subv... I mean activity to just Indians this time:



swarajyamag.com/culture/jeyamohan-on-the-question-of-being-a-cultural-hindu/



Quote:– If someone is Jain, Buddhist or Sikh, they could be still be called as culturally a Hindu. You could also include Sufism in this. The symbolism and the stories in the songs of Kunangudi Masthan Sahib, Peer Mohammad Appa and Umaruppulavar were all born out of the immense Hindu cultural space.

Don't know why Indian nationalists don't just say Hindu means Indian now (plus convert-dabblers) and be over and done with. Why take so long to get to that conclusion, when that's where it's headed? (If sufism=islam is included, they've mostly arrived at drawing that equivalence already.)
  Reply
My own fault for visiting that "swarajya" ragazine (why is it called that? Parody? Almost like The Hindu/Chindu).



Didn't even notice, but they're peddling Amish Travesty I mean Tripathi's subversionism using an interview.

This bit of a typical new-agey excuse (also the way christians answer such questions, btw):



swarajyamag.com/magazine/an-interview-with-amish-tripathi/



Quote:Your plots are very finely crafted, with twists and turns, and people changing allegiances. How do you do that? Are you still using Excel sheets that you relied on as a banker?



No, I am certainly not using Excel anymore to chart my plotlines. I wish I could explain, in a manner others may consider “rational”, how these plots come to me. But I can’t. I just open the laptop, and there is this parallel universe that opens up and I record what I see. I discover the story while writing just as much as readers discover the story while reading. So I know it may sound strange but I genuinely believe that these stories are the blessings of Lord Shiva. I am only a channel. I am only someone who is lucky enough to receive this blessing.

Christians, who've never seen their gawd, also have to refer to "belief" in the gawdly "intervention/inspiration" behind their nonsense.

Meanwhile, any Hindoo who's authentically written works factually divinely inspired [and interceded] by Shiva/any Hindoo God shows how *actual* Gods intervene: directly. Unmistakably. Not via "I feel, I believe" nonsense.



Anyway, "I just open the laptop, and there is this parallel universe that opens up and I record what I see. I discover the story while writing just as much as readers discover the story while reading. ... I am only a channel" describes the writing experience for many fantasy/fiction storytellers. Duh.

E.g. JRRT with LOTR described that in the beginning he merely had a vague notion of getting Frodo to Rivendell, but no idea how this was to actually happen. But as he wrote the story, it unfolded itself to him (and eventually to the readers) the way it did and eventually moved past Rivendell to the War of the Ring and its conclusion.

Another typical example is Miyazaki with Mononoke Hime. He had no idea about the story at all. As he storyboarded it, the story got revealed to him. Storytellers often have no idea. Some may have a minor goalpost or an eventual intermediate one or even an approximate end (e.g. even a common trope like "the good guys won, the bad guys lost and they all lived happily ever after"), many are often clueless of the actual journey and make it when they write.

As JRRT wrote in his now-famous essay on Fantasy/Fairy Tales, it is like channeling from or rather visiting the world of Faerie or Fantasy. Though subversionist nonsense sounds like it's just concocted. Maybe channeled from the World of Tripe?



Amish Travesty sounds like he's ignorant of how the experience of having everything unfold to the writer as s/he writes is rather common to many (most?) fiction storytellers. To use this as an excuse to plead divine inspiration in Travesty's case - when his output is so clearly untraditional as to be simply false (whereas in contrast, Middle-Earth has dollops of truth to it as does Mononoke Hime) - sounds more like Amish Travesty's attempt to infuse authenticity and authority into his anti-traditional subversionism.



The traditional "re-tellers" like Kalidasa and Kamban and countless other Hindoos in India were always true to the originals and were truly divinely inspired. Even if no other proof of the divine inspiration driving their work is offered, it is already there in the degree to which these HindOOs stick to tradition and add authentically to it with further details (also seen in the equally factually divinely-inspired Shaiva/Kaumara Arunagirinathar's refs to unique details about Rama in Ramayanam and Krishna in Mahabharatam & Srimad Bhagavatam that Sri Vaishnava acharyas refer to in lectures to Hindoos as being fully authentic details.) But modern subverted Indians can only manage new age (and subversionist) tripe and - like christians - make desperate refs to invisible forces/non-existent alleged interventions to excuse their inauthentic subversionist accounts. [Of course, from an objective point of view, if Elst can project Rama and Krishna as deified and not as avataaras of (CORRECTIONSmile Vishnu, those who agreed and those who didn't object needn't object when others mete out the same treatment to the same and to Shiva too. When people leave traditional views, they may apply any standards of interpretation, no need to nitpick between them. And need not suddenly start pretending at having some principles now. All subversion is subversion, the difference being merely degree.]



** ADDED: Like Sri Arunagirinathar, IIRC Sri Kalidasa also had a mantra written on his tongue by the Hindoo Gods: Arunagirinathar by Murugan, and Kalidasa by Kali. Tirugnanasambhandar was fed divine milk by Ambaal too and so then came his outpouring of stotras to Uma-Shiva. Others like Adi Shankara at Tiruchendur and Narayana Bhattathiri were granted darshanam by Murugan and Vishnu-Krishna respectively while composing their stotras to these Gods. Etc etc. So their authority and the authenticity inherent in 'their' works on their divine subject matters is not in question. (Though Adi Shankara admits in IIRC the final stotra of the SL that his words actually already belong to his Divine Mother for their very accuracy, and that this essentially cannot be otherwise. And in the SAL he - like all such HindOOs - is constantly repeating accounts about Shiva and his true nature from the Vedas incl. Upanishads, the Puranas, Itihasas, and literature on preceding bhaktas. His own contribution is to offer himself as another in the line of bhaktas.)





Modern Indian readers like at swarajyamag and Rajeev Srinivasan promoting Amish Tripathi of course can't tell nonsense from authenticity or even why such subversion is fundamentally detrimental to heathenism. (Already discussed the essentials here, will try not to repeat.) It changes authentic=correct views, and replaces them with novel=false ones, replacing heathenism with new-ageism/modernist mythology and a pseudo one at that, and de-heathenising the views of heathens too. It becomes 'the original, true way of interpreting/perceiving it', or even an 'alternative "equally" valid' view (something Amish 'argued' in cringeworthy fashion in his interview with recourse to new-agey refs to Hindoo heathenism).



How I hate these talentless hacks (no I haven't read Travesty's works; the allusions in reviews and summaries suffice for me).

- They can't even add to tradition (which can only be done by sticking to tradition, as actual heathens have done ever, but all *those* were factually divinely inspired with direct interventions and such works were therefore not quite attributable to the scribes who merely jotted it down).

- AND the subverted hacks multiplying and proliferating in modern India* have no talent of their own for complete invention either (or else they crave a pre-existing audience as a ready-made market, which may explain their parasiting on Hindoo traditions to supply everything to them for their contortion, unless the aim in doing so is also deliberate mass-subversion). Rather than being able to invent something of their own and leaving heathenism pristine and untarnished, they have to parasite on an existing body of heathenism, murdering it to promote their own replacements.



They replace the true and great sources of heathenism (oh please, does anything compare to the HindOO epics or the Kumarasambhavam etc) with subversionist low-quality gutter nonsense - appreciated by the modern brainless crowds and nationalist vocalists of course, as everything worthless is. Any work truly inspired by the Hindoo Gods would never subvert heathens, but further enhance proper perception of the authentic lives/nature and adventures (accounts) of the Hindoo Gods. By definition.





* Some other commenter at Indiafacts referred to how they were reading something called "Aryavarta Chronicles" as per which anti-Hindu fiction it 'turned out' that the Pandavas were not so heroic or a force for right/dharma after all. <- Apparently such subversionist fictions are given equal weighting to the original sources now. Oddly sounds a bit like the Russian inversion of JRRT's Legendarium in "Black Book of Arda" where Morgoth and Sauron etc were the misunderstood good side... And that has a fandom too. Still inauthentic and would never have a life of its own had it not parasited on JRRT's Legendarium (plagiarism though this itself was of European heathenisms). But that brings me to the other point: even the catholic JRRT was far closer to indicating the nature of Shiva (e.g. even in some features of TB and GB) than most modern Indians describing the same, let alone the descriptions of Amish's humanising of the Gods [sort of like centuries after Chinese rationalists went through that trend. Indians are ever playing catch up?]

Of course JRRT, despite being catholic, was entirely inspired in his Legedarium by the "mythologies" of the Anglo-Saxons and other European heathens, and had to unnaturally work his christianism into it. But everything of authentic ring to it in it - which is most of it - is entirely from European heathenisms. Even his fellow Inkling and fantasy author totally and deliberately infused heathenism into the latter's own fantasy world: all that made it attractive and come across as authentic.

Christian readers, being ignorant of European heathenisms, project that the obviously European-Gods-inspired deities in JRRT's Legendarium are actually a hierarchy of angels. Nonsense. JRRT never concealed his admiration for the heathen sources in which he had specialised and which he worked into his own fantasy. The admiration was to some extent grudging: as he had to admit to himself and ever remembered that they were heathen and not christian. His mangling his own work by tying in christianism into it here and there was his compromise, as his friend Lewis did too: forcing a non-existent monogawd and the false christianism into obviously heathen settings inspired by (and even plagiarised from) actual heathenisms and profuse with heathen Gods who have never known the non-existing monogawd.



Again: Ironic how even the catholic JRRT portrays a more accurate image of heathen Gods (even in features of the aforementioned TB and GB) than modern Indians claiming "Hinduness" can.



And at least, despite the copious plagiarism, JRRT's Legendarium was an authentic, standalone fantasy set in its own world. Not a contortion of existing heathenism, merely inspired by it, and revisited under other names. A sad day when even the christowest should have become more original, more of a true storyteller than 'Hindus'. Let alone more true to heathenism.



For this reason alone, I think it imperative that closet Hindoo fantasy/fiction writers should put their works - especially epic fantasy works - out in the open. And write more. Drown out the visibility of the tripe produced by talentless freaks (as seen in "Aryavarta chronicles" and Amish Travesty) in a stream of actual quality fantasy, invented from the ground up. Fantasy is a realm that is infinite in all directions. And all heathens can visit it easily, regularly and with none of the guarded qualifications of christians like JRRT who had to make the revelations of his journeys there conform to his christianism.***



HindOO fantasy/fiction writers can at least give the undiscerning Hindu audiences an alternative, better quality (actual class) of fantasy and literature, and send garbage (starting with the subversionist kind) to the bin where it belongs.



Grief, the regressive depths modern Indians have descended to. And to think nationalist vocalists/mouthpieces think such output worthy of peddling left and right among Hindus (yet complain about alien demons trying to subvert Hindoos' heathenism by equally subversive means). One of the major things plaguing Indians is a sudden lack or absence of taste. Another disease our heathen ancestors never suffered from.

It's very late, but modern would-be Hindus really need to start getting immunised to stupidity. It's just so lethal to heathens and heathendom's civilisation.



It's my own incorrigible stupidity for visiting "nationalist" sites like Swarajya. Modern ("Hindu-origin") Indians are beyond salvaging: they *are* the ultimate cause of their own (heathenism's) downfall. Nothing is going to change. Why do I keep imagining things will? Like it's not going to go only downhill. As if there should be some larger arc to all this relentless, endless stupidity, or some eventual reason to counteract and offset it. But what reason can there even be? Modern Indians are a black hole. Debilitating, debile. Every bloody thing of great value has become wasted on them (almost as wasted as on alien dabbling demons/"converts"; never a good sign). No wonder modern Indics have let subversionism and christoislamania takeover: they are subvertible. Everything that can possibly go wrong magically does go wrong with modern Indians: Everything they can possibly do wrong, they *will* do wrong. How is this even possible? It's like some nightmare. It's just insane. Statistically you'd think this was beyond unlikely.

Disgusting. Hindoos need to cut off the gangrene and let these come to a natural end (sooner not later). And Hindoos need to avoid subversionists like the plague and always be on the lookout for subversionism: especially start looking for it in those who claim Hindu-ness. There's too much at stake and too much to lose. Heathenism in the world at large can't afford any more losses, or the story of mankind will have a very bleak ending, and mid-way, followed by a long forward tail (into the future) of nothingness/nothing much truly worthwhile.





This post is yet another long spammy complaint.





ADDED:

*** "And all heathens can visit it easily, regularly and with none of the guarded qualifications of christians like JRRT who had to make the revelations of his journeys there conform to his christianism."

And consider how Lewis tried to better sell christianism by very deliberately coating it in the more attractive heathenism. Lewis peddled christianism because its inculturations on European heathenisms was all that 'remained' of the latter. European heathen reconstructionists argued with direct quotes from Lewis how he seemed to have a clear bent for "paganism". He IIRC further argued that the only remaining 2 paganisms in the world were "christianism and Hinduism", that people should therefore follow one of these two, since islam and Buddhism were mere heresies of them (of christianity and Hinduism respectively). However, christianism is not a paganism but a heresy of Judaism. As with Buddhism, christianism looks like a 'paganism' to ignorants because of its deadly inculturations on actual heathenisms which it replaced.
  Reply
[deleted]
  Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 13 Guest(s)