Sanatana Dharma - Aka Hinduism (3rd Bin)

[Husky]

Wrote the following about a week ago, wasn't certain I wanted to post it. But figure I wrote it, may as well.

The first example refers to something I saw 2 weeks past.



Only the stuff in quoteblocks are relevant. And maybe some items highlighted in blue.



Post 1/?



[color="#0000FF"]Complaint about a perplexing trend: (degree of) de-heathenisation among self-declared 'Hindu nationalists'[/color]





Example 1:



[color="#0000FF"]In the twitter feed of the Rajeev2004 blog this past week, Rajeev Srinivasa(n) - who appears to have started to spell his surname differently - seemed to be in some discussion about who the heroes of the MBh were vs who weren't really. The statements by his respondents were not visible, but there were clear signs it was not a monologue.

Rajeev decided that the real hero of the MBh was Karna, and that Arjuna wasn't really one, but rather that Arjuna merely had everything handed to him on a platter, and that both Karna and Draupadi had been shortchanged (by the turn of events in their life). At one point it he wrote that Draupadi was tragic for being oppressed because of her gender. And Karna was caste oppressed or something.



IIRC Rajiv even declared at some point that there are no temples to the Pandavas or something.[/color] I didn't save the exact statement he made on this, but he said something to that effect. But it's inaccurate.



There most certainly are temples to the Pandavas all over the country. In TN alone, there are numerous ancient Kovils to the Pandavas with Draupadi and Kunti, including village temples. E.g. a number of the Dharmaraaja temples in TN are to YudhiShThira rather than his father Yama: Yama's son inherited names/titles from his father since he too is an embodiment of Dharma, making Yudhishthira essentially a Repeat of his Father. (C.f. Murugan is in essence a repeat of Shiva.)

Yudhisthira Dharmaraaja Hindu Kovils in Tamil Nadu naturally contain his relatives. This next one contains his Wife Draupadi and the rest of his Pandava Brothers, as well as his Mother Kunti and Krishna. But in the Yudhishthira Dharmaraaja Kovils, the primary God is Yudhishthira. There are temples where Draupadi Amman is the primary God etc.





eprarthana.com/temples/chennai/tn155dhar.asp?tid=155

Dharmaraja Temple

Location : M.K. Amman Koil Street, Mylapore.

Main Deity : Dharmaraja.

Other Deities : Arjuna, Bhima, Draupadi, Ganapathi, Krishna, Kunti, Nakula, Sahadeva, Subhadra.

wikimapia.org/14588212/DHARMARAJA-KOIL-STREET-DROWBATHI-AMMAN-KOIL

DHARMARAJA KOIL STREET,DROWBATHI AMMAN KOIL. (Arcot)

India / Tamil Nadu / Arcot

World / India / Tamil Nadu / Arcot World / India / Tamil Nadu / Vellore



Most powerfull daity,this god is worshipped once in 12 years by big festivel,40 days festivel,having 40 days Mahabharatha sorpozivu,20 days theru koothu,6 god marriage functions,Arjuna thabasu,Finally people(devoties) will walk on fire by the grace of the god Drowpathi amman.

Chinna Babu/V>Lakshmana Kumar/Bullet Babu-who also walked on the fire.

We are twin brothers-Ram,Lakshman-Peribabu,Chinnababu(R.Vyrakkannu Sub-Registrar-Sulochana ammal-Parents.)

There are a great many temples all over India to the Pandavas (and their mother and Draupadi), some with Karna too.





But there are also temples to Karna all over Hindu space. In the following, Karna is the primary deity, but is understandably worshipped with his Pandava brothers:



E.g. india9.com/i9show/Karna-Temple-62329.htm

India | Uttaranchal

Karna Temple





Karna Temple is located in Deora Village in Uttarkashi District. The temple is dedicated to Karna, elder brother of Pandavas and one of main characters of the Mahabharat. It is a rectangular wooden temple. A wooden umbrella with brass finial is topped on its pent roof. The temple's wooden beams and columns are decorated with carvings and the doors are decorated with metal plates. The doors depict birds, animals, reptiles and scenes from the Ramayana. [color="#0000FF"]Six miniature temples, located in the compound, are dedicated to Karna and the five Pandavas.[/color] There is also a Shivling in the compound. Images of Parvati and Nandi are installed in the temple. The nearest airport and railway station are at Dehradun.

Can note how Karna is worshipped together with his brothers here. Consistent with tradition too. In the MBh itself, the divine Karna was supposed to be united with his divine brothers and mother as a family again in Swarga.



www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VFKfE8vUjo

Karna temple Kerala



Not sure if this is the same as or different from the Malanada Karna temple in Kerala.

(There's also Kovils featuring Karna in TN, btw.)







All 6 brothers - Pandavas + Karna - are actually Gods. Being born of the divine essences of their Divine Fathers, they are practically the same as their Fathers. This is considered literally true, as seen in Yudhishthira's case - he is a repeat of Yama Dharmaraaja - but also that of his brothers. Karna *is* Surya('s essence), Yudhishthira *is* Yama Dharmaraaja('s essence), Bheema *is* Vaayu, Arjuna *is* Indra, and Nakula and Saahadeva *are* the Ashwins. So declaring that Karna is the real hero and not Arjuna reduces to the logically inane statement that Surya > Indra. (And just to be explicit: Surya is not < Indra either.)



The thing is, the MBh is filled with the Hindu Gods. And not all appear on the winning side.



- You've got Gods appearing in vesham and as themselves: e.g. Shiva + Parvati disguised as Hunters at first.

There's cameos by other Gods - either incognito or as themselves - such as Agni and Hanumaan and some others that I can't remember.



- But you also have Gods manifesting in incarnations: e.g. Brahmaa owing to a temporary "curse"** comes down as the Gandharva Raaja Chitrasena (and naturally Saraswati will have come down as Chitrasena's wife). There's also Gangaa. According to the famous MBh serial's first or so episode both Gangaa and her Deva husband were conveniently "cursed" to come down as important progenitors of the Kuru dynasty. Vishnu and Lakshmi obviously come down as Krishna and Bala and as Rukmini and Revati and most - if not all - of Krishna's many other Wives (some of which are said to be Bhoo and NeeLaa Devi. Essentially all the wives are Amman's essence here).



- And the Gods even make their appearance on the losing side. First, there is the Vasu Raaja manifesting as Bheeshma owing to yet another "curse"** which conveniently made him appear on earth too in pseudo-earthly form and "coincidentally" just in time to take part in the great epic. (Though the incarnation as Bheeshma may have pretended to be single, the Vasu Raaja himself is eternally married.) Then there is of course Surya Bhagavaan manifesting his essence as Karna. I suspect that just like the Vasu Raaja's presence accounts for all of the Vasus, Surya's presence summarises all the Navagrahas.



- 5 further Gods (and at least one Amman) also manifested by their essences. The essences of the aforementioned Yama, Vaayu, Indran and the two Ashwins came down as the Pandavas.

But at least several of these Gods - including Surya - also make appearances in the Mahabharatam as themselves - i.e. as Indran and Suryan and Yama - distinct from their sons. The identity relationship with their sons seems the same as with how Murugan is identical to and yet distinct from Shiva.

Draupadi's case also saw her making the usual divine appearance by IIRC yagnya, which is highly indicative of divine intent besides especially pointing to a Goddess.



- In fact, it may well be that the entire Devasenaa accompanied Indran by manifesting as the Pandavas' sena. Considering that Shiva's appearance as the Hunter - along with his Wife - also brought along the Shiva-Ganas in disguise in the narrations I have heard. So why wouldn't Indran have the essences of the devasena manifesting in Bhooloka alongside his own essence? Like Rama's Vanara Sena are often said to be - at least in oral traditions in the South - the essences of all the Devas manifesting alongside Vishnu as Raama.



** The "curses" against Brahmaa, Gangaa Amman and the Vasu Raaja (who then appears as Bheeshma) were obviously just devices to get them to appear on earth, to play their divine parts in the great earthly war that mirrored the war in the beyond.



(Cont. in next)

[Husky]

Post 2/?



It seems to be the usual reason that sees the confluence of hosts of Hindu Gods all manifesting in some fashion on Bhoo at this point in time and in the appointed place, in time to take part in the great drama: the MBh appears to be expressly mirroring on earth a major decisive battle between the Devas and Asuras in the Beyond. Same as happened with the Ramayanam where Rama and his Vaanara Senaa fighting the raakShasas were repeatedly described as mirroring Indran and his Devasena fighting with the Asuras.

So while Duryodhana, the villain made incorrigible by fate, kept wondering in non-understanding what in the world impelled him to be unreasonably unlikeable to his cousins and why he should hate them so blindly, MBh narratives (repeated colourfully in a children's MBh book from my childhood written by a TN Swami as well as a popular Hindu painting, for example) tell the listener/reader about Duryodhana's dream where the Asuras promise him that they will be on the Kauravas' side in the upcoming war, and tell of how the Asuras were doing counter-sacrifices/rites to ensure the victory of the Kauravas over the Pandavas, in order to thereby ensure their own (Asuras' own) victory over the Devas. As the listener, we are made privy to this dream so that we may know exactly what is really going on. Not that it wasn't obvious from the existing pattern from Hindu epics.



I think the Asuras are to have been trying to topple dharma by increasing adharma in the various lokas again, and so the Devas stage the grand show of the MBh with intent to make it famous in order to provide longevity to memory in bhooloka/among Hindoos of what constitutes the (implicitly exlusively Vedic) Dharma and imprint this strongly in even subconscious Hindoo recollection. And the memory's lasted until now, through hijackings and subversions by missionary religions and the onslaught of the christoclass memes. But has apparently not been able to survive self-subversion/de-heathenisation.



It seems straightforward that some Gods would need to manifest on the Kaurava side too and play out their parts there in order to not make the battle - wherein the lessons on Dharma are embedded, and which constitutes the MBh - laughably one-sided. Likewise, a Goddess, invoked by the Asuras to ensure the Kauravas' victory against the Pandavas - and consequently the intended parallel Asura victory over the Devas - also plays along in deceiving the Asuras until the play's end. A young Kunti's decision to give up Karna would merely have been part of the overall intention, so too Arjuna's slight of Karna (=device) which was an influential step in the route to fixing Karna in the Kaurava camp.





Ultimately, the Pandavas and their elder brother Karnan are *all* Hindu Gods - and not quite "new" Gods either, but the familiar essences of known Gods. (But, as stated, these 6 weren't the only Gods on the scene either.)

As a consequence, all 6 brothers are *all* worshipful to the Hindus, hence the Hindus have ancient Kovils to them. The entire MBh is a divine play, with a great many Gods in it. One where not even the plain vanilla "villains" are actual villains. They need to have shades of grey, since that is what real life is like, and hence makes the lessons on Dharma more potent. It is not mere history to be recorded, but an instruction to be understood and learnt: that shades of grey (including characters on the other side that one can't help sympathise with and respect for their admirable qualities) ultimately do Not wipe out a very clear line that distinguishes between dharma and adharma. That *line* is not grey. And it may never be allowed to become or be perceived as grey. There are some things that should be fundamentally unacceptable, and for which man should be prepared to go to war over and for which principles man should even be willing to part with his (her) own life.



The battle is about Dharma and is intended as a lesson to the earthly Hindoos for whose benefit the divine play is ultimately staged. Only one side is on the Right (Dharma), and the other is on the wrong side since their choices increase adharma. The actors on Dharma's side are obviously meant to win, they are *meant* to be the indisputable heroes. (And since the drama is about Dharma, they must have characters to match the requirement of indisputable heroes.) The unavoidably-obvious giveaway is that Yudhishthira is known as Dharmaraaja - being the essence of Yama Dharmaraaja - so whatever side YudhiShThira is on is *literally* the side of Dharma. (Him being the literal manifestation of Dharma.)



So the Pandavas etc all fall on the Right side, while Karna and Bheeshma fall on the wrong one, but the point is that the important story that the Gods are playing out on earth as an example needed to be impelled to its logical conclusion. And that can't happen unless you have superhuman characters on the other side to balance it. The likes of Surya and the Vasu Raaja are merely conspicuous in obliging for these roles. But they're hardly villains. Karna was unquestionably heroic and his admirable sides naturally come out. We're meant to sympathize with him - and on occasion even sympathise with more extreme characters like Duryodhana - but beyond the sympathy and consequent admiration, we're meant to realise that these good points merely underline their larger flaws: they are doomed for their larger errors. Individuals are the sum of their choices - our choices make up who we are at life's end. Karna made some really bad decisions about important matters. Despite being born with a natural tendency for a better character, he still *would* say and do the wrong (adharmic) things here and there at crucial crossroads - and Bheeshma criticises him for it, though himself still not budging from Duryodhana's side either, thereby sealing Bheeshma's own fate.



But the Gods were all just playacting - the entire thing is so *obviously* a staged play. This is repeatedly underscored when various Devas or YakShas come in disguise and test the heroes with questions on Dharma; the answers to which the heroes *clearly* know, and the only true beneficiary of their Q&A exchange and their illuminating answers is us - the Hindoos who're born after they have finished their Divine Play. In this respect, it is perhaps more obviously a Divine Play than even the Ramayanam is.



Note: Am not at all saying the MBh is a myth/story, but as History allows heathens no room for Gods there is no advantage in making appeals to history. (Though religio-history is history - at least in some sense - to heathens.) Am merely saying that the MBh is *true*. And that it is in fact literally true. It further has important lessons on dharma to impart as its main objective.





De-heathenised Indian seculars who often want to claim a share in a concoction called "Indian civilisation" are frequently willing to forego a claim to Ramayanam - for being "obviously Hindu" - but yet idiotically declare that the Mahabharatam is "secular Indian". Nothing could be further from the truth. The Mahabharatam - no less than the Ramayanam - is not remotely secular/all-Indian/other Indic (Buddhist, Jain, Sikh, bla) or anything else. MBh is naturally populated by the Hindoo Gods and is firmly in heathen i.e. Hindoo cosmology. Further, MBh IS the Vedam and the Vedam alone - in different but equivalent form - and since ancient times advertised as being so. Making MBh an embodiment of the Hindu Gods and the Vedam (and there's already an equivalence between the Hindu Gods and the Vedam as being embodiments of each other.)

[Husky]

Post 3/?



As regards MBh being another case of the Deva-Asura battle being mirrored on Bhooloka, found the following relevant snippet, which seems to underline it all the more:



hinduonline.co/Scriptures/Puranas/[color="#0000FF"]MarkandeyaPurana.html[/color]

The birds say- 'Frightened by the severe penance of Trishira, Indra killed him to protect his authority and power. But the sin of killing a Brahmin took away Indra's radiance. Trishira was the son of Twashta. Twashta became furious at his son's death. He plucked one strand of hair from his hair-lock and offered it in the sacrificial fire. This resulted into the creation of a formidable and strong demon named Vritrasur. This demon was created with the objective of killing Indra.



Learning about the birth of Vritrasur, Indra sent Saptarishis as emissaries to work out a pact with the demon. The Saptarishis effected a friendship between Indra and Vritrasur. But Indra had other ideas. He took Vritrasur by surprise and killed him. This deceitful action of Indra further enraged the clans of the demons. [color="#0000FF"]Soon the atrocities of the demons increased to unbearable limits. Even Prithvi felt unable to bear the burden of their atrocities. She approached the deities and requested them to get her rid of the burden.



Thus, to relieve Prithvi of her burden, the deities began to take incarnation on earth. Dharma and Vayu implanted Indra's radiance in the womb of Kunti. This resulted in the birth of Yudhishthir and Bheema. Then Indra himself produced Arjuna from Kunti. Nakul and Sahadev were born because of Indra's radiance implanted by Ashwini kumars in the womb of Madri. Thus all the five Pandavas originated from the same source even though they appeared as distinct entities, whereas Draupadi was none other than Shuchi, the wife of Indra, produced from the altar in Drupad's palace. In human incarnation, Draupadi got five Pandavas as her husband.[/color]

So Indran's essence is in all the Pandavas it seems, as per the Markandeya Purana itself, and Shachee Amman's essence in Draupadi. Ontzettend lief. Draupadi was always supposed to be an Amman, but didn't know which one exactly.



And makes sense. MBh is a variant of the Vedam, a variation on it. In the Vedam too, Indran and other Gods take on the Asuras to maintain Ritam, and are the undeniable heroes. Indran emerges ever victorious, ever unscathed (by definition) and is the embodiment of dharma (vrishabha) coursing through the Vedam.



[As an aside: the above find also fits with how, despite Draupadi loving all her 5 husbands, she couldn't help loving Arjuna more, since he was more fully Indran than even the other 4. I guess this reduces all of Arjuna's other wives to Shachee too, and reduces all of the wives of the other Pandavas to Either the wives of the relevant Gods - like Bhagavaan Yama et al - Or again to Shachee. Or maybe combinations of essences...]



But that seals it then. Indran manifests on Bhoo to fight for Dharma and the cosmic law against the Asuras' trying to make Bhoo into another prong in their attack. Clearly the Pandavas' sena then is the Devasena's parallel manifestation on Bhoo, even as in the Beyond the devasena is led by Indran to take on the Asuras there too. And that explains why the Asuras were from their world trying to favour the Kauravas in the Kurukshetra war.



That the Pandavas - when taken all together - turn out to fold back into Indran himself also adds to an existing pattern. The earthly-mirroring of the Deva-Asura conflict in the beyond is not the only common feature between the Ramayanam/MBh (and Trivikrama account etc): all these feature the brothers Indran and Vishnu working as a divine duo to defeat the Asuras. In the Ramayanam, Vishnu as Rama (and Lakshmana) helps Indran's tight battle against the Asuras by fighting the raakShasas on earth - a running parallel is drawn between the two events. In the MBh, Vishnu as Krishna helps the Pandavas, which 5 brothers - as per the Markandeya Purana's summary excerpt seen above - are all similarly reducible to Indran. (Even the ending of the Bhagavad Gitaa - "Wherever Yogeshwara Krishna and the Indradhanus-wielding I mean Gandiva-wielding Arjuna are there is victory" or something - speaks of this auspicious combination ever guaranteeing dharmic victory.) And Upendra Vishnu had manifested as Vaamana-Trivikrama, again to help his literal brother Indran defeat the Asuras who for a while seemed to be gaining the upperhand again in the war against the Devas. Und so weiter. Whenever Vishnu manifests on earth to defeat raakShasas or adharma on bhooloka, I suspect that it's stated to be happening in concert with Indran and his devasenaa defeating the Asuras at least in the beyond. But then, the Hindoo Gods are ever united/one in purpose.





Anyway. To reiterate: for anyone to say that Karna is "the real hero" (and not Arjuna et al) makes even less sense than were they to declare that Karna's a better warrior than Arjuna et al. The latter statement is like saying Surya is > or < Indra, which is an inane comparison. But the former - to say that Karna is "the real" hero of the MBh - is to say that adharma is the "real lesson" the MBh is trying to teach...

But as Karna is on the wrong side, technically and logically he *cannot* be the "real hero" of MBh, even had he been more like Bheeshma (disagreeing all the way yet tagging along nevertheless) rather than part of the instigation team.



On this from the Markandeya Purana excerpt:

Learning about the birth of Vritrasur, Indra sent Saptarishis as emissaries to work out a pact with the demon. The Saptarishis effected a friendship between Indra and Vritrasur. But Indra had other ideas. He took Vritrasur by surprise and killed him. This deceitful action of Indra further enraged the clans of the demons.

A Hindu narrative I heard narrated once, not sure of the source, mentioned that despite asuras being deceitful as a Rule - compared to how "deceit" is used relatively rarely and as a necessity in the case of the Devas - yet, the Devas get criticised disproportionately for their occasionally stooping to the level their enemies deserve (starting with Indran, who always gets all the flak for his grandiose "crime" of doing as much as it will take to ensure the victory of dharma/devas over adharma and asuras), whereas the Asuras as a whole get praised for one-off good characteristics or good individuals. People expect perfection from those who are good - and will readily boo at the same for any minor failings and remember only these minor flaws - yet will be moved to doting on villains by even a glimmer of goodness in these.



The same seems to happen with Krishna who gets criticised by unHindus for "cheating" too, and the Pandavas - and Arjuna in particular - getting singled out as "not so wonderful heroes after all" for the rare flaw (and which flaws are usually just a plot device, such as to drive Karna to the Kaurava side, or which have a necessary function, such as Krishna advising the Pandavas to cheat on occasion since dharma's victory couldn't have been attained in those instances otherwise). In contrast, villains are always lauded to the skies for their far fewer good characteristics and conveniently remembered only for their good points*: "but he was a good guy when you get down to it" (Brian De Bois Gilbert anyone? A tormented villain given a mid-novel makeover as 2nd romantic lead doomed to unrequited love) - and their flaws get smoothed over: "Well, admittedly he shouldn't have pulled Draupadi's saree, but at least he was a good friend". <- See, that kind of argumentation may not seem so problematic when people are merely pontificating about contexts far removed from themselves like ancient Hindoo epics, but fortunately - in actual life - people are less likely to morally side with persons who have colluded in harrassing a woman just because those persons also have "good sides"...



* In both cases where the generally-noble are dumped for relatively minor errors while the villainous side is championed for their occasional flashes of nobility, that phrase about not seeing the wood for the trees applies. E.g. Duryodhana is utterly ungenerous to his cousins for no fault of theirs, and for no reason that he can even think of, other than a sentiment of unreasonable petty rivalry and jealousy (festering since childhood) pushing him onward. Yet people fall all over themselves to give Duryodhana a Good Character certificate for instances like being generous to an unknown (Karna) and for elevating Karna to a King, though not not for entirely altruistic purposes: doing so conveniently served Duryodhana's own ends very well, just as he must have known Karna would: he recognises that Karna can antagonise the Pandavas ably, so Karna clearly came in very handy. I'm not at all saying that Duryodhana is a total villain either - and Hindus recognise, remember and value his good points too - but his good points can't be allowed to overshadow the larger darker sides to his character (which sides did threaten to overshadow his entire person at times). Anything else sounds like people are merely smitten. (They do say nothing makes one so blind as to a person's true character as infatuation.)



Further, the few flashes of ignoble behaviour by a few MBh heroes - such as Arjuna snubbing Karna - are so obviously contrived (for the divine drama) and not in-character that it points to being a device to further the divine play in its intended direction.





Finally, people don't mention Ghatothkacha as often as he deserves to be remembered. But he is another great and exemplary hero of the MBh that many Hindoos like to identify themselves with. There are temples to this Divine Hero, one is apparently even situated near to a temple to his Mother Hidimbaa, the beloved Wife of Bheema: appropriately called the "Hidimbaa Devi Temple". (Amman appeared as a RaakShasI, just like Amman also appeared in Manusha form, e.g. Draupadi.)

[Husky]

Post 4/?



While there are of course lots of temples to the Pandava side and Karna, there are also several to Duryodhana all over, at least one of which includes Shrines to chief persons on Duryodhana's side:



mirrortoindia.wordpress.com/2013/07/20/here-they-worship-the-villain/

Now, let me take you to this village named Poruvazhy in Kollam district of Kerala. Here, we have a temple where Duryodhana is the principal deity. The villain of the Mahabharata has been deified here, is adored by the people and they flock in during the festival season to worship and offer their prayers to him. The Malanada Temple at Poruvazhy, much different from a structural temple without a garbhagriha and idol, lets the devotee imagine the deity -which is placed on a raised platform- according to their understanding of divinity.



Like every temple, this one too has a legend behind how it came into existence. It is said, years after the Pandavas were exiled after losing the game of dice, spies and wandering mendicants would bring in their news to Hastinapura. While Duryodhana rejoiced at the suffering of his cousins, he also was envious learning about their achievements like that of Arjuna acquiring celestial weapons, following which he went into depression. Karna who could not stand his dear friend being restless came forward to comfort him saying that he had all the Pandavas’ wealth and was the ruler while his foes lived like beggars, foraging for fruits and berries in forests. When Duryodhana could not be comforted by his words, Karna suggested that they go to the forests in search of the Pandavas, find them out and mock at their plight.



Incited by Karna, Duryodhana marched off to the southern forests and eventually reached the location where the Malanada Temple is located now. He was exhausted after the long journey and went to a nearby house and asked for water. He did not realize that it was the house of a Kurava (a Shudra Tribe) chieftain who was the ruler of that region. The elderly woman present there gave him toddy to drink, which is customary as a mark of respect to the Supreme King and gave him a herbal concoction to get rid of his fatigue. Refreshed, Duryodhana rose to thank the lady and then he noticed her mangalsutra, which indicated she was from the Kurava tribe. As per customs, it was not proper for a Kshatriya to have food or drinks offered by the lower classes, and Duryodhana decided to console himself and perform penance for this deed.



He was touched by the helping mentality and divinity of the lady, and appreciated the knowledge of the community in medicine, and thereby, he sat on the nearby hill and worshiped Lord Shiva for the welfare of the tribe as they were his subjects and that no divine wrath must be cast on them for offering food to the Kshatriya King. Duryodhana formally granted the title of “Siddha” to the tribesmen and prayed that they be never robbed of their wealth of knowledge. He also donated 101 yojanas of land around the hill to the tribesmen, which the tribals surrendered back to the King nominally and promised to build a temple in his honor on the place where he sat and prayed. Duryodhana then requested them to build shrines for Karna, Gandhari, Dussala, Bheeshma, Dronacharya & Shakuni and rode off.



Accordingly, the Kurava tribesmen built a raised platform and a temple around it, and began to worship Duryodhana as an avatar of Shiva. Within the complex, sub-shrines, devoted to Karna and others as named by Duryodhana came up. The concept of “Sankalpa” takes prominence here, as the devotees bow down to Duryodhana the avatar of Shiva, thus mentally submitting themselves to Lord Shiva through their beloved King. The story of 100 yojanas of land around the temple which was nominally given back to the King still holds importance, as the present temple and land belonging to it have been registered in the name of “Mr. Duryodhana” as per Kerala State Revenue records and Temple Endowment Board records!

Initially a tribal shrine, the temple is now thronged by people from all paths of Hinduism although it still follows the tribal customs like the main offering being toddy and chicken curry.

[...]

A spin-off to the legend again adds more insights into the embracing nature of our culture which can find the best in the supposed-to-be-worst . There is a temple nearby, dedicated to Abhimanyu, Arjuna’s son who was brutally slayed in the Chakravyuha. It is said that after the death of Abhimanyu, Duryodhana was repentant about the act, although he did not express it. That night he appeared in the dream of the Kurava chieftain and asked him to build a shrine for Abhimanyu and worship him, but build it in such a way that it faces away from his own shrine, as his conscience makes him ashamed of facing Abhimanyu. The temple was built. Now, once a year, during the annual festival, the idol of Abhimanyu is taken to the Malanada temple, symbolizing the nephew visiting his uncle to pay obeisance and Duryodhana apologizing for his deed !

Didn't know Duryodhana is regarded as an incarnation of Shiva by some. Well the entire thing was a divine play featuring many Gods, so it's not inconsistent. However/Pre-emptively: note how Duryodhana is NOT worshipped as any entity antagonising Hindu/Vedic religion, but still remembered as someone who is of the Hindu cosmology alone - the worshippers even tie him back to Shiva (and as a Hindoo worshipping Hindoo Gods, incl Shiva, as seen in the excerpt above) - and who is ultimately not really a villain: the Hindus worship Duryodhana as fundamentally good, and even celebrate an annual rapprochement between Duryodhana and Abhimanyu, which further underlines that Hindoos see how Duryodhana is not actually a villain beyond his role in the Divine Play (nor even a total villain in that role) and see in him another part of the divine hand(s) guiding the events in the MBh to their intended outcome.







https:// answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110205212707AAnA9v2

shows that there are Duryodhana temples in Uttarakhand and other parts of India too.

Peruviruthi (Duryodhana) Ambalam(Temple)



Malanada Temple in Poruvazhy, Kollam Dist , Kerala State

KOLLAM: The `malakkuda’ festival of Poruvazhi Peruviruthi Malanada temple will be held on March 21. It is considered to be the only Duryodhana temple in the entire South India. The Malanada temple is the centre of the 101 hillshrines spread over Kollam and Pathanamthitta districts. The `malakkuda’ festival is held on the second Friday of the Malayalam month of Meenam. `Eduppukuthira’ from the seven karas are brought to the temple on the festival day. Tens of thousands of devotees will visit the temple on the festival day. The temple is administered by an elected body of 25 members. The entire Hindu community of the seven ‘karas’ vote to elect the 25 representatives. The Ezhava, Nair and Kurava communities have 8, 6 and 4 members respectively in the temple trust. Other Hindu communities are also given representation. 12 km from Adoor (the nearest town) in Pathanamthitta district. Nearest railway station: Chengannur about 30 km away.

Nearest airport: Thiruvananthapuram International Airport, about 91 km.



In Kumaon region of Uttranchal, several beautifully carved temples are dedicated to Duryodhana and he is worshipped as a minor deity. The mountain tribes of Kumaon fought along with Duryodhana armies in the Mahābhārata war; he was venerated as a capable and generous administrator.



Temple of Duryodhan, Osla (Uttarakhand, India)

The Duryodhan Temple in Tons Valley was built by the local inhabitants of Saur who worship the Kauravas as their ancestors. It is believed that the local people wept so much at the defeat of the Kauravas and the death of Duryodhana at the battle of Kurukshetra that their tears became a river named Tamas (literally meaning sorrow). Tamas is also known as Tons. According to the local populace, the tear still flows and hence, the river water is never used for drinking. Duryodhan Temple is 13 km from Sankri. Duryodhana is worshipped in the upper valleys of the rivers Tons, Yamuna, Bhagirathi, Balganga and Bhilganga. This is the biggest temple dedicated to Duryodhana in Uttaranchal and other Duryodhana temples can be seen at Osla, Gangar and Datmir.



Duryodhana Temple, Mori

Mori’s local inhabitants claims or believed themselves as the ascendants of the Pandavas and Kauravas. They worship the Kauravas as the God. The Duryodhana temple, the temple for the eldest Kaurava, in Jakhol near Mori was constructed by the local folks. The main deity is Duryodhana. This is the biggest temple in the state dedicated to Duryodhana.



Folk stories say that Tons river, known anciently as river Tamas, is formed by the tears of the local people who wept over the defeat of Kauravas in the great battle of Mahabharatha. This river water is not being used for drinking, since according to the local belief, still the tear flows. This is a nice temple to visit having a variety of customs and of course for the deity also.



Nearest airport is Jollygrant which is 175 km away from Mori and is situated in Dehradun. Jollygrant airport is connected to Delhi airport. Taxi services are available from airport to Mori and it costs about Rs 3300. Delhi is the nearest international airport which is 410 km away. Delhi is well connected to all major cities in India and many cities abroad.



Nearest railway station is also Dehradun, which is nearly 175 km away from Mori. This station is connected to all cities in India. Taxi services are available from Dehradun to Mori, costing about Rs 3300.



Duryodhan Temple

The local inhabitants of Saur built the Duryodhan temple. Legend goes that Krishna, who had stage - managed the show granted Bhubruvahan eternal life after the war. Consequently, his head was placed on the top of a tree that overlooked the war field. And so, his helpless head watched the Kauravas lose the war, making protesting noises, inciting them to fight harder; advising them about new strategies; shedding tears at their every defeat.

Bhubruvahan's tears still flow today, so say the local people. It is those tears of intense, helpless, uncontrollable sorrow, that now make the river Tamas or Tons. That is why waters from this river are never used for drinking.

Along with the Duryodhan temple, the inhabitants also built the Karna Devta Temple at Sarnauli and both together forms the Kshetrapal of the area.

The above further shows that Duryodhana is only ever worshipped as part of Hindu cosmology again, including as being an ancestor of the locals. So, pre-emptively again: non-Hindoo ideologies can't hijack Duryodhana for peddling their own religions.



The statement in bold above - "Krishna, who had stage - managed the show" - indicates the common Hindoo perception of the MBh. And another obvious Hindu observes in the same vein in a comment at that link:

There is nothing to be surprised as Duryodhan was not a bad man but was just a part of bigger objectives that Shri Krishna wanted to show us for the sake of establishing Dharma.

[Husky]

Post 5/?



And the [color="#0000FF"]"Draupadi was gender-oppressed" conclusion that Rajeev drew[/color] does not apply. Really wish well-meaning individuals would stop envisioning gender oppression where (and when) there was none. Nationalists do harm than good by name-dropping it where it does not apply.



Draupadi is seen by Hindus as an exemplary character and remembered among 5 sacred women. While the heroes had moments when they were ready to relent, she refused to forget the injustices done and insisted that the Kauravas must be made to face the consequences. She was not a mere receptacle reacting to outside forces, but the driving force of the MBh. She was the sole reason the Pandavas didn't forget it all/throw in the towel and go find some other lands to rule: IIRC she kept goading them to destroy the Kauravas, reminding them of the humiliation (=device) she suffered and reminding the Pandavas of their promise to her that they would avenge her and what they owed to Dharma. Draupadi was their conscience and their memory driving them.



Compare to the horror that Indian society is today: sexual violence against Hindoo women by christoislamics, communists and psecular anti-Hindus going unpunished. (<- Shows that actual gender oppression exists now rather than in the past.)



While Draupadi's not actively taking revenge herself - and she didn't need to with 5 super-kShatriya husbands - she was nevertheless an active agent in the Kauravas' demise. Of course, IndraaNi could have knocked out the Kaurava army with her divine pinky hurling her Vajram from atop Airaavatam, but that was not the intended end for the MBh: Krishna was meant to guide the Pandavas to victory and so she had to play the injured party that served as her husbands' motivation and conscience concerning the pursuit of justice.



In some ways, one could perhaps see both Sitaa and Draupadi as actually playing the roles of bait, to get the adharmic side to cross the line, which infraction is then used against the villains: to rout Ravana and his gang, and to rout the Kauravas and drive home the point on dharma. In both cases, the Devas winning over the Asuras in the beyond, and dharma over adharma.



Further, for Rajeev to speak of gender oppression implies that this was institutionalised (else he would have referred to "Draupadi Oppression" instead). But some other women including wives of the MBh heroes were active against enemies. E.g. Satyabhaamaa accompanied Sri Krishna in his battle against Narakaasura, and when IIRC Krishna was temporarily knocked unconscious, his wife Satyabhaama got doubly angry and continued to take on Naraka's army with her arrows. I heard the tale itself when I was little, but turns out it's from the Harivamsha. [Some Hindoo-made paintings of Satyabhama in action - showing her arrows plunging into the Narakasura's heart - have captions stating that it depicts the scene where she kills Narakaasura.]



And Chitrangadha, wife of Arjuna, is supposed to be another female warrior. (Just like in Raamayanam, Bharata's mother Kaikeyi was a warrior, and possibly any of the other 2 raaNis of - correcting silly typo: NOT DhritaraaShTra but - Dasharatha too.)



So Draupadi can't be a victim of "gender oppression", since others of her and earlier times were not victims of any such (implicitly systematic) oppression. One doesn't see Arjuna or Krishna or anyone bat an eyelid at the notion of some of their wives going into battle, which implies that the lines for what professions and what training Hindoo women could have so long ago were either drawn very differently from a more recent period in the modern world (the christian west) or not drawn tightly, or else there were no lines as to which professions were open to them - within the same restrictions as that of their men: i.e. varna. (And MBh and Ramayanam were well before Chanakya's advice to hire female bodyguards for their suitability.) Draupadi may not be as active on her own behalf as some other wives in MBh's Vedic society, but in real life too, not everyone is the same and hence doesn't have the same hobbies and interests. Kshatriya men had a duty to be active kShatriyas all through the prime of their life - and they could not really get out of it even if they theoretically wanted to - while for kshatriya women, bearing arms appears to have been a right not a duty. So one wonders why no one ever writes that the Pandavas were the oppressed ones. By their birth duties. By their misfortunes throughout the MBh. Etc. But then, they take it all in stride and don't behave like victims of fate, but meet their challenges and circumstances as heroes - which they are. And while Draupadi does not directly effect redress for her suffering herself, she remains likeable, and is believable in her role as heroine. Also, if one looks closely, her weapons *are* her husbands and she wields them with devastating effect against her enemies.





The oft-implied anti-human (including anti-female) notion is that only females in the MBh, Raamayanam etc could represent Hindoo women or their aspirations. Or that only the male heroes of the MBh and of other Hindu literature would represent Hindoo males. Utter nonsense. The Hindoo Heroes - of either gender - represent the idealism of all Hindoos (including animals**), who find identification with them all. Hindoo men never pretend an especial claim on the Pandavas merely for being men also, as if gender (of all absurd things) was the minimum requirement that makes a Pandava etc. Nevertheless, this weird notion seems to proliferate among modern types. And I think it is this notion that's also behind Rajeev's sympathising unnecessarily with an alleged "gender oppression" of Draupadi: the statement becomes the vehicle of his sympathising with women in general/with general gender oppression.



In reality, Hindoo women do not peculiarly restrict themselves to identifying with Draupadi and Kunti and Gandhari etc in the MBh, but with all the persons of the Hindoo epic. That's another reason why - when the anti-Hindu fembots in India whine about "oh poor Kunti/Sitaa/..., so oppressed by patriarchal Hindoo society", in the hopes of alienating Hindoo women from Hindoo-ism - they fail miserably. Anti-Hindu fembots in India peddling their subversions concerning the Ramayanam and Mahabharatam etc find equal success among male feminists and female feminists, but never among Hindoos. The whole "Draupadi was gender-oppressed" is a grave insult to all Hindoos, including Hindoo females.



** Animals reminded me: IIRC, when the Pandavas are exiling in a forest, Yudhishthira dreams that all the forest animals come to him with tears in their eyes and plead to him about his brothers hunting their kinds in the forest. As a consequence, YudhiShThira relays his dream to his brothers and the Pandavas pack up and leave the forest. This is yet more Hindoo sensibility and behaviour. (And also very Indran, the protector of all animals, who seek refuge in him.) The heroes' choice here makes its point eloquently without ever resorting to beating you over the head with it. They lead by example and action, rather than dreary moralising. I like that they cared.







IIRC Rajeev Srinivasan mentioned Karna as "caste oppressed" and even brought in Ekalavya. Oh no not again. Besides, both are veiled Kshatriyas: MBh tells us Karna is the Pandavas' own elder brother and Harivamsha apparently intimates that Ekalavya is the royal cousin of Krishna who had been abandoned too or else accidentally lost, though by his father this time.



As for Arjuna's insult to Karna during their early meeting, it is so obviously out of character - he doesn't generally step on people who haven't had the same advantages as himself, or go out of his way to hurt people who are on unequal footing: even later heroes never did that. That Arjuna nevertheless steps so far out of character as to say something that hurts Karna to such an extent that it propels the latter to hate Arjuna and to throw his lot in with the dubious dharma of the Kauravas, is yet more argument that it is all a fateful conspiracy to unfold the greater plot of the MBh.



Still, Hindoo listeners/readers are clearly meant to disapprove of Arjuna's high-handedness in this incident and to laud Duryodhana for the reverse and to feel for Karna. So that between them, the point was well made. And again without moralising.

[Husky]

Post 6/?



A few actual statements Rajeev made. Have found the relevant comment in someone else's twit feed:



https:// twitter.com/SumukhNaik/statuses/478784444900196354

rajeev srinivasan ‏@RajeevSrinivasa ·Jun 15 (2014)

why aren't draupadi (gender oppressed) and karna (caste oppressed) kindred souls? she 'crushed' him? @TedhiLakeer @yoginisd @SandeepWeb Details Expand Collapse

Going back in time, the source where Rajeev imbibed such views from (and made them his own in the meantime) becomes clear:





www.rediff.com/news/sep/22rajeev.htm

At the bottom of the page it says: "Copyright 1997 Rediff On The Net", but can't determine if that's the date of the article itself.

Rajeev Srinivasan picks his favourite Indian fiction of the last fifty years

[...]



Ini Jnan Urangatte (... And now I must sleep), P K Balakrishnan, Malayalam.

A strange and wonderful work, this is the retelling of portions of the Mahabharata from the points of view of its two most wronged characters: Draupadi and Karna; yet Balakrishnan is able to show they are the true centres of the epic -- the woman and the putative low-caste man. Both exploited, both put upon by the powers that be; yet the epic revolves around them.

Truly, Karna is the hero of the Mahabharata, a man with his human failings, yet one who always strives, one who remembers his roots, and one who is honourable. Particularly well done are Karna's conversation with Kunti when she reveals that he is her son; and Draupadi's interior monologue, without the feminist rhetorical excess that seems to afflict other such attempts. Another Sahitya Akademi winner.

www.firstpost.com/ideas/the-karna-syndrome-and-rahul-dravid-as-the-hero-60411.html/2

The following paragraph is Rajeev's, he's speaking about his book choice in 2011:

The Karna Syndrome and Rahul Dravid as the hero

Aug 13, 2011

[...]

There is a remarkable Malayalam book by PK Balakrishnan, Ini Jnan Urangatte (And now I must sleep), which retells the epic from the point of the putative low-caste man, Karna, and the woman, Draupadi. It is a forceful and insightful retelling, a paradigm shift.

On:

rajeev srinivasan ‏@RajeevSrinivasa ·Jun 15 (2014)

why aren't draupadi (gender oppressed) and karna (caste oppressed) kindred souls? she 'crushed' him? @TedhiLakeer @yoginisd @SandeepWeb Details Expand Collapse

The answer is simple - and right there in the Mahabharatam: there's clearly no love lost between the two.

(That's not even considering that Draupadi is IndraaNi Devi who will marry Indran alone.)

"without the feminist rhetorical excess that seems to afflict other such attempts. Another Sahitya Akademi winner"

Yet he's the one who described Draupadi as "gender oppressed". So subversionist views - of the same class as those Rajeev is criticising - are forgiven when he finds them to be convincing.

Ironic, considering that he wrote an article IIRC called "Surpanakha's Daughters" where he criticises other views that are in this line albeit more extreme. I suppose the same stuffs when diluted or when peddled by the 'right' persons - a.o.t. the wrong persons - will succeed in subverting. It's a pattern that could be observed for at least the last 1.5 decades.



The following is an exchange concerning Vamana and Bali between Rajeev and another oft-seen Hindu nationalist ("Witan") at Rajeev's blog. The comments are very... insightful about their owners:



rajeev2004.blogspot.com/2012/12/today-vamana-avatara-yesterday-more.html

Wednesday, December 19, 2012

Today vamana avatara. Yesterday more appropriate: narasimha. #namo. But vamana too sent asuras to underworld



Posted by nizhal yoddha at 12/19/2012 05:02:00 PM

Reactions:

5 comments:





witan said...

Nizhal Yoddha, who is a Malayalee, ought not have highlighted the Vamana avataram. People in Keralam still worship Mahabali: RIGHTLY!

Actually, this illustrates the fallacy of drawing moral lessons from epics as different from scriptures.

12/19/2012 8:37 PM





nizhal yoddha said...

not quite, witan. kerala people do not *worship* mahabali, we are just fond of him as a good king. and incidentally, we know good kings -- when others were laboring under the british yoke, travancore was ruled by exemplary kings: considerate, frugal, imbued with foresight.



so i don't know what you mean by "RIGHTLY". it is also kerala hindus' prerogative to worship anybody they feel like; and in fact we do worship vamana as an avatara of vishnu.



there are many moral lessons in the epics. one is that the gods might have information not available to the mortal man, and that they might upon that in ways that might befuddle mortals.



on the other hand, the entire vamana story is a metaphor for the buddhists of kerala (thus 'asuras') being defeated by brahmins. being a descendant of said asuras, i am not sure i have a good enough rationale to rant against something that happened some 1200 years ago as part of the Counter-Reformation in hinduism, following up on the Reformation circa 2500 years ago that resulted in the creation of buddhism and jainism. i am pretty sure you don't have anything concrete either, just some conjectures.

12/20/2012 1:34 AM





witan said...

“Vamana is ... the younger brother of Indra.”

“The Bhagavata Purana describes that Vishnu descended as the Vamana avatar to restore the authority of Indra over the heavens, as it had been taken by Mahabali, a benevolent Asura King. Bali was the grandson of Prahlada, the son of Hiranyakshipu. ... Just before King Mahavali was pushed out of this earth, he was given permission by Vamana to visit his people once a year. The Onam festival is a celebration of welcoming Mahabali home to his lost kingdom. During this festival, beautiful floral decorations are made in every house and boat races are held throughout Kerala. A twenty-one-course feast is the most important part of the Onam festival.” [wikipedia]

The decorations and celebrations are to make Mahabali think that the people are happy and prosperous. The people did not want their erstwhile king to feel sad.



I repeat, “Mahabali, a benevolent Asura King”. IOW, the Vamana ousted Mahabali for no other reason than as a personal favour to Indra, — blatant Nepotism. What moral lesson can one draw from this?

12/21/2012 6:12 AM





nizhal yoddha said...

i repeat, you were wrong, we do not *worship* mahabali, but we respect him as a great king. thank you for keenly supporting my statement with your wikipedia quote.



this idea of mahabali as a victim of some conspiracy is a vestige of 'dravidian' tamil garbage, which i reject in its entirety. except for a few communists, so do most kerala people. and, i repeat, as a descendant of the so-called asuras, i have no problem with the reality: buddhists were overthrown by hindus in that episode. buddhism had, by that time, degenerated to being merely an atheist version of hinduism (much like communism is today an atheist version of christism). it had lost its intellectual and emotional charm due to a) sankara's counter-attack and B ) the alwars/nayanmars of tamil country with their ecstatic worship of personal gods.



it is a matter of great sadness that tamil culture, which was of such a high caliber 1200 years ago, has degenerated into this vile 'dravidian' crap today. thank you, padre caldwell (the inventor of 'dravidianism') and the dmk.

12/21/2012 5:44 PM





nizhal yoddha said...

i love witan's tamil-imperialist urge to tell me what to think. we malayalis are obviously vassals to the great tamil nation.



i don't have to read the wikipedia to understand what onam is: i *live* it. it is my festival. just as i don't presume to tell tamils what their jallikettu or pongal is, it would be best that you tamils don't tell me what onam is.



there is a malayalam phrase that describes this sort of behavior: "kanda nee avide nilkoo, ketta jnan parayatte" meaning, "you who saw the incident keep quiet, let me, who heard about it from someone, pontificate about the incident".



presumptuous, i believe the word is.

About the statements such as those highlighted in blue above: these are emitted by self-professed "Hindu nationalists" by the way.



Clearly Witan's bought the Dravoodian propaganda against Hindu religion as much as Rajeev's internalised the Bauddhising propaganda against Hindu religion. Hook, line and sinker - both. If hijacking of Hindu religio-history for Buddhism is admissable, so should the Jain and Dravoodian attempts to this end be. Each make identical arguments, after all, but with each in turn projecting themselves as the maligned victims of Hindu religion in what is actually a Hindu narrative concerned exclusively with Hindu cosmology (and which doesn't know of Jainism/Buddhism/Dravoodianism/whatever). Already discussed in earlier posts in the Buddhism thread.



From the above, it's evident that Dravoodian propaganda eventually got to Witan and Bauddhising propaganda got to Rajeev. (BTW, there's a very palpable passive-aggressive undertone against Hindu religion that these - and quite a few others of this kind - have going on.) Oryanism succeeded with yet others. And Doniger-class statements seeped into further others, although usually when parroted by persons less objectionable. Etc. Etc. Every visible vocalist seems to succumb to some idea or other.

[Husky]

(Follows on from previous)

Post 7/?





The following is relevant to Onam, Vaamana and Mahabali, and is in particular relevant to Rajeev's conclusions concerning these:



www.telegraphindia.com/1130916/jsp/nation/story_17354615.jsp

Monday , September 16 , 2013

Emperor strikes back

ONAM SPECIAL: The vital statistics of a festival mascot have landed Kerala between a popular pot belly and a six-pack regimen worked out by a royal

[...]



Some Malayalis are debating the looks of Mahabali aka Maveli, the Asura (demon) king who folklore says ruled the earth thousands of years ago and whose annual “visit” to his subjects is celebrated through Onam.

Ardent Mahabali fans are aghast at the portrayal of their beloved king as a podgy figure in government and commercial ads during the Onam season, as well as in literature on the festival, paintings and TV pictures. They feel the popular depiction resembles a jester rather than an idealist king whose praise they have grown up listening to.



(^What the actual article is about^. The Hindus don't want the unlikely modern presentation of Mahabali as an oversized comic character. The seculars/cryptos want to demote him into a comic character, to secularise him further into some Indian santa type. The article features an image of Mahabali commissioned and approved of by the Travancore royal family. Hindoos should consciously make this and similar images famous among themselves as a suitably representative likeness.)



[...]



Onam is a harvest festival when families wear new clothes, make floral arrangements at home and invite relatives and friends to feasts. M.G.S. Narayanan, historian and former head of the Indian Council for Historical Research, traced its history for this newspaper.

Narayanan said none of the ancient texts that mention Mahabali makes any reference to Kerala, so any suggestion that he ruled over the state has to be treated as fiction.



(Puts a damper on Rajeev's highly evolved fantasizing and self-identification concerning his allegedly buddhist ancestors being allegedly oppressed and replaced by Hindu religion and then allegedly referred to as asuras thereafter... Also, historic Jains are on record claiming it was they who drove out Buddhism from India's Tamil regions, Kerala and the south in general into SL; and anti-Hindu SL Buddhist monks also still insist this is so.

As for Kerala's region not being mentioned in the Pauranic Vamana accounts, it does not rule out that these events may still have had Kerala for their setting - or not. But even if it were, Dravoodianism/Buddhism/Jainism were still never involved. And which latter claims remain unHindu fantasizing.

Further, just to be contrarian: there are Tamil Hindu traditions that place the Vamana vs Mahabali event in Tamil regions, as I'm sure there are traditions tracing the events to other parts of Akhanda Bharatam ... Just saying. BTW, Onam is also a sacred Hindu observation known to Tamil Hindus since ancient times, as seen also in the following statements where the Alwars are mentioned



“There are five or six Puranas that cite the story of Mahabali and how he was banished from earth by Vamana, the avatar of Vishnu. But what records like the poems of the Tamil Alwars, who were Vishnu devotees, and copper plates from some central Kerala temples suggest is that at least till the 11th century or so, the hero of the festival was Vamana,” he said.

“But by the 16th century, the festival, which had till then been confined to temples, began to be celebrated at homes as well and Mahabali gained prominence over Vamana. The Mahabali imagery can be attributed to this democratisation of the festival.”



(So just like Vamana's importance and benevolence got obscured, overshadowed, replaced and forgotten by confused Indians, moderns have now demoted Mahabali as well, by turning him into a comic figure. The de-volution of the sacred Hindu festival continues.)

As seen above, the festival originally concerned exclusively Hindu cosmology - the context was "many 1000s of years ago" when Mahabali was to have ruled all the earth (and not just Kerala or TN by the way). Much later, Jainisms, Buddhisms and Dravoodianisms appeared and over time each have made incursions to hijack the Hindu narrative in order to insert themselves as the injured victims. So that now, as seen below, Onam is "equally" communist too - indeed, Kerala's communists like to project it as the world's oldest "socialist" aka communist festival. [And Onam is since more recently hijacked by christianism too. But if one utterly uninvolved missionary ideology can be allowed to hijack the sacred Hindu festival to peddle itself, so can others surely?]

Besides, the belief that Mahabali ran a Utopia-like state has prompted some to describe Onam as the world’s oldest “socialist festival” —– a label that strikes a chord in a state that usually alternates between governments led by the communists and the Congress every five years.

Such interpretations also make Onam more digestible to communists, just as community participation allows Durga Puja to transcend barriers in Bengal.

Despite the increasing number of claimants making incursions on Onam and Hindoodom, *nevertheless*, Onam - like Durga Pooja etc - and the religio-historic context and characters involved in the observance (Mahabali, Vamana) all remain exclusively Hindoo and will never have anything to do with christianism/ communism/ dravoodianism/ Jainism/ Buddhism/ whatever missionary ideology appears next.





Am repeating the following segment again, to provide an example for its statement on how the sacred Hindoo festival of Onam was originally celebrated with Vamana as the hero (and still is in southern Vamana Kovils including Kerala):

M.G.S. Narayanan, historian and former head of the Indian Council for Historical Research, traced [Onam's] history for this newspaper. [...]

"There are five or six Puranas that cite the story of Mahabali and how he was banished from earth by Vamana, the avatar of Vishnu. But what records like the poems of the Tamil Alwars, who were Vishnu devotees, and copper plates from some central Kerala temples suggest is that at least till the 11th century or so, the hero of the festival was Vamana,” he said.

But by the 16th century, the festival, which had till then been confined to temples, began to be celebrated at homes as well and Mahabali gained prominence over Vamana. The Mahabali imagery can be attributed to this democratisation of the festival.

So they're saying it was as late as the 16th century - later even than Buddhism, Jainism and christianism appeared in the world - that Mahabali overtook Vamana as focus of the sacred festival.

So then here's the relevant Kerala example where Onam is still celebrated with Vishnu-Vaamana as the hero in the established traditions of an old Hindoo temple dedicated to him:



www.tourismindiatravel.com/kerala/vamanamoorthy-temple-thrikkakara/

Vamanamoorthy Temple Thrikkakara

Vamanamoorthy Temple is located in Thrikkakara within 10 kms from east side of Cochin in Kerala. This place is fully covered with beautiful sceneries, landscape, rivers, and hills etc. It is also famously called as Thrikkakara Vamanamoorthy Temple. The word Thrikkakara is separated as “Thiru” “Kaal “and “Kara” which means “Land with the blessed foot”.

(Same meaning in Tamil too.)



Architecture of Vamanamoorthy Temple

It is the 13 centuries old temple constructed by the king Kulasekhara Varma belongs to the Chara Empire. It was constructed in unusual style of architecture. A small Shiva temple is located near to this temple. Other gods also placed in this temple namely Lord Ganapathy, Goddess Parvathy, goddess Bhagavathy, Lord Sastha, Lord Subramanyan, and Lord Gopalakrishnan.

(The typical listing of additional Gods featured here is noteworthy. Also seen in most Hindoo temple sites in TN.)



This temple is devoted to Lord Vamana who is the 5th avatar of lord Vishnu. He was also called as Vamanamoorthy or Trikkakara Appan. In Kerala it is the only temple devoted to Lord Vishnu.(<- Must be typo, I think it's meant to be "Lord Vamana", since there are many temples to Vishnu/avataaras in Kerala **) And it is one of the 108 Vaishnava temples in Kerala. This temple holds some old records and proof which add more proud to this place.



(Don't know if there's any overlap with Kerala's list of 108 Vishnu temples, but in one of the famous 108 Divyadesams known to Tamizh Hindus, one is to "the God [Trivikrama-Vishnu] Who Measured The World" [with his feet] too. But the temple and moorti name is different.)



Festivals in Vamanamoorthy Temple

Onam is harvest festival and is also the state festival for Kerala. It is the major festival to this temple celebrated in a grand manner every year. Earlier the Onam festival is celebrated by 61 local rulers under the control of Travancore Maharaja. It is celebrated during the Malayalam month of Chingam for 10 days Another annual event in Tripunithura is the celebration or Athachamayam which is taken out on the Atham day before the Onam and marks the opening of celebrations of Onam festival. It is a colourful ritual to see almost all the folk art forms of Kerala. A grand rally is held in Kalamasserry from where Kalabam was brought to Thrikkakara Temple during this festival.



Onasadhya is the most delicious part of the Onam festival. It is prepared on the last day of Onam. It is considered to be the most elaborate and grand meal prepared by all people without seeing any caste or religion. Large numbers of devotees visit to this temple during this festival. This festival is held in Tiruvonam hall which can hold 15,000 people. It is specially opened to devotees during this ceremony. Another ritual held during this festival is Mahabali. It is believed that Lord Vamana came to earth to banish the King Marthanda varma. (<- If that was his name in actual Hindu scriptures, the asura is still not to be confused with later human kings known as Martanda Varma, such as the famous one of the 17th or 18th century.) So that day is celebrated as Mahabali. Devotees believed that god will come to earth again during this celebration.

So in the Kovil, they expect Mahavishnu to make an appearance again at this time.

Essentially, the Hindoo traditions still uphold the Hindoo cosmological view that Trivikrama teamed up with Indran in order to check the Asuras' growing powers, and on Bhoo this had to be achieved by removing Mahabali. And Mahabali - like Duryodhana and his Kaurava brothers and Ravana etc - remain part of Hindoo cosmology onlee, same as the Hindoo Gods and other Hindoo heroes. Any peddling of other ideologies into Hindoo religio-history is unHindu and indeed anti-Hindu and either consciously or subconsciously motivated by the same.



** Vamanamoorti Temple obviously can't be the only Vishnu Temple in Kerala and that statement must have been a typo. There are lots of Vishnu temples in Kerala (and the excerpt itself immediately proceeds to mention there are 108 Vaishnava temples in Kerala). E.g. Kerala has Narasimha temples, many Krishna temples - not just the famous Guruvaayoorappan one, but also of course the Pancha Pandava Divyadesams built by each of the Pandavas for Krishna (which includes the Paarthasaaraty Kovil built to Parthasarati Krishna by Arjuna. Arjuna similarly also built Ernakulam Shiva Kovil to Kiraata-Shiva, containing the Shivalingam that Arjuna constructed and worshipped.)

[Husky]

Forgot to post.



Post 8/8



Example 2:



Had come across this some months earlier. Indiafacts used to have a link off the main page to a FAQ (the page itself is still there) where they would answer all your questions on Hindu religion. After reading the first one I stopped:



indiafacts.co.in/answers/

Hitanshu: How do we explain appearance of Hanuman and Ganesha to our kids. Why do we worship Monkey and Elephant?



Answer: A recommended approach to explain Hanuman and Ganesha to children is by giving a background that Hinduism regards all living and non-living beings as sacred and worthy of worship. That is why they have been elevated to the status of Gods. For example, a monkey can leap in the air effortlessly from tree to tree, climb mountains, etc in a way that humans cannot. Thus, every being in this creation is endowed with certain special qualities and we must respect and worship these qualities. This attitude instills a sense of reverence in kids for the entire universe.

- The question is unheathen.

- The answer is not just unheathen, it's de-heathenising. (Note that the statement "That is why they have been elevated to the status of Gods" directly implies that humans invented the Hindoo Gods. And again: People who so *obviously* have never seen the Hindoo Gods should really not be lecturing others on the matter and others should not be listening to them. Indiafacts is as ignorant - and as unqualified to answer the question - as the person who asked it. When actual Hindoos don't know, they would at least try to answer from tradition - i.e. from authentic sources by those who *have* seen the Gods - or parrot living people who do know first-hand. Else they would keep quiet/redirect the questioner to someone who knows.)

Googled on who is behind indiafacts. Turns out to be SandeepWeb, which explains everything.

How do we explain appearance of Hanuman and Ganesha to our kids. Why do we worship Monkey and Elephant?

A: Hindoos worship the Divine Monkey Hanumaan because he is a God. Hindoos worship the Divine Elephant(-headed) Ganapati because he is a God. (duh)

Hindoos worship their Gods. That's what Hindoos do. That is what all heathens do. It is the definition of heathenism.





What a question. Only christoconditioned/christians ask such questions. Never heathens (e.g. traditional Daoists never ask such insipid questions about the Hindoo Gods Ganapati and Hanumaan).



Other questions that will no doubt appear next in such minds are: "Why do we Hindoos have female Gods", "Why do we have many Gods", "Why do we do idolatry". Etc, etc. All are the same class of questions. In other words, heathenism doesn't compute to them. But christianism does: can note how the question doesn't ask why there are Hindoo Gods who have human-like form. Their christianised minds militate only against Gods with animal form/Animal Gods. In christianism, humans - actually only human *males* - are said to be made in the image of the christogawd ("women were made from adam's rib"), hence the human form is said to be perfect **, while animals are lower down the christian hierarchy, aka the christian casta system.



(** Which further goes to show that the babble was concocted by humans long ago. The human build/body design is not perfect as it has flaws. Summarising from anthropologist Dr Roberts: for example, our spines have adapted to but are not optimised for upright life. Leads to chronic back ache in the species. But because we don't die of it and certainly not before reproducing, this defect is our species' constant companion.)

[Husky]

Yet more spam.



Directly related to the latter half of post 146 somewhere above: the comments by Rajeev and Witan concerning Vamana-Trivikrama and Bali at the Rajeev2004 blog (

rajeev2004.blogspot.com/2012/12/today-vamana-avatara-yesterday-more.html).



Was pawing through the Sundara Kaandam for someone else, when something caught the eye that seemed rather relevant to Rajeev's determined avowal that the account of Trivikrama's dealings with the asura Mahabali is "actually" a post-Buddhist allegory for some Buddhist persecution/replacement sobstory. Or Witan's equally self-certain opinion that the ancient Hindoo narrative "actually" pointed to the ousting of the (lately-invented) Dravoodianism instead.



Soon both "Hindu nationalists" will have to foreswear the Raamaayanam too :evil grin:, since - sadly - it doesn't seem to want to comply with the credo-s/subversionist dawaganda they have each sworn by.





Here. The online version of the shloka from the kaaNDam also confirms the relevance:

valmikiramayan.net/utf8/sundara/sarga1/sundara_1_frame.htm



तद्रूपमतिसंक्षिप्य हनुमान् प्रकृतौ स्थितः || ५-१-२०६

त्रीन् क्रमानिव विक्रम्य बलिवीर्यहरो हरिः |

[tadrUpam ati saMkShipya hanumAn prakR^itau sthitaH || 5-1-206

trIn kramAn iva vikramya balivIryaharo hariH | ]



206. hanumaan = Hanuma; atisaMkshipya = greatly reducing (His size); prakR^itau sthitaH = became (normal) in nature; tat = (regaining) that; ruupam = (original) appearance; hariH iva = liKe Vishnu; baliviiryaharaH = who mitigated the strength of Bali; triin kramaan vikramya = by taking three strides.



Hanuma greatly reducing His size became normal in nature regaining His original form, like Vishnu who mitigated the strength of Bali by taking three strides.



(Another commentator explains what is actually implictly obvious in the above



Hanumān shed his colossal form to resume his small form, like Mahā Vishnu, after pushing Bali down into Pātāla Lōka, resuming His Incarnate form of Vāmana.

Have now found yet more relevant references, by searching for Trivikrama-related statements over the entirety of the ValmikiRamayanam site. Some selections follow. But am not pasting from the baalakaaNDam's equally-copious mentions of Vaamana-Trivikrama (and/or [his] dealings with Bali), but am instead sticking to the middle kaaNDas, since Hindoos are of course never allowed* to refer to the baalakaaNDam as substantiation for anything (except among their own kind, naturally). * To do with Elst Class Arguments.



But shlokas from the rest of the VAlmIki RAmAyaNam more than suffice to make the point of how the Trivikrama account is already familiar to the Ramayanam, and indeed, is considered by the Ramayanam to be an event earlier to itself - one that the protagonists of the epic (as well as the poet Valmeeki who described it) moreover seem to look back upon as 'quite long ago' with respect to themselves. Even the rather extremely long-lived King of [Teddy] Bears, Jambavaan, recalls the Trivikrama epoch with words of the "I remember back when I was younger..." variety, which surely is a sign - if ever there was one - of this being ur-history to the other Ramayanam characters. (BTW, Jaambavaan more than once refers to a grown Hanumaan as Taata - IIRC "(male) baby, little one, child". :lief



Not that any of the above is news to Hindoos: they're already aware from Hindu tradition that Trivikrama's manifestion is supposed to be in some era well before Rama. As opposed to recently concocted *Untradition* (unheathenism/subversion) that it was all "actually, originally" about some post-Buddhist event concerning Buddhism, where the "poor Buddhists" ob: are - but of course - put upon by the evil-weevil Hindoos. Rinse and repeat the sobstory with Jains too, of course, and now also the recently-invented (but no less back-projected) Dravoodians, which last has been espoused by Witan almost as fervently as Rajeev champions the Buddhist version of the anti-Hindu propaganda. <- 'Hindu nationalists' both. Ah the valiant defence of Hindoo heathenism by modern Hindu nationalism. (I'd hate to meet *their* definition of subverted subversionists/unheathens/unHindus...)

valmikiramayan.net/ayodhya/sarga14/ayodhya_14_frame.htm



evam pracoditaH raajaa kaikeyyaa nirvishankayaa |

na ashakat paasham unmoktum balir indra kRtam yathaa || 2-14-11



11. evam= Thus, prachoditaH= by Kaikeyi, nirvishaNkayaa= without hesitation, rajaa= king Dasaratha, indrakR^itam yathaa= as trapped by Indra, naa shakat= was not able, moktum= to untie, paasham= the cord.



Thus compelled by Kaikeyi, who had no uneasiness in her mind, king Dasaratha could not untie the cord of plighted word that fettered him , any more than Bali could unloose the noose placed (round his body) by Indra(through his younger brother Vamana in order to deprive him of his sovereignty of the three worlds).





[The reference appears to be to how IIRC Asura king Bali was performing a yagnya and was therefore compelled - as planned by Mahendra and MahaVishnu - to grant as daanam in this case three steps-worth of his territory to the little braahmana Vaamana that had appeared at the rite and requested it. Bali had promised to grant it and thus was already fettered by his word for giving the daanam, just as Dasaratha was also fettered by his word to grant one or more boons whose implications were unknown to him at the time of giving his word.]







valmikiramayan.net/kishkindha/sarga40/kishkindhaitrans40.htm



tatra puurvam padam kR^itvaa puraa viSNuH trivikrame |

dvitiiyam shikharam meroH cakaara puruSottamaH || 4-40-58



58. puruSa uttamaH= Person, Supreme; viSNuH= Vishnu; puraa trivikrame= earlier, in Trivikrama incarnation; puurvam= firstly; tatra= there - on that peak; padam kR^itvaa= foot - foothold, making; dvitiiyam= second one - foot; meroH shikharam cakaara= on Mt. Meru's, peak, he made - he placed.



"Earlier while treading the three worlds in the incarnation of Trivikrama, the Supreme Person Vishnu made His first foothold on that pinnacle Saumanasa, and the second on the pinnacle of Mt. Meru to tread the heavens. [4-40-58]







valmikiramayan.net/kishkindha/sarga65/kishkindhaitrans65.htm



taan ca sarvaan hari shreSThaan jaa.mbavaan idam abraviit |

na khalu etaavat eva aasiit gamane me paraakramaH || 4-65-14



14. sarvaan taan hari shreSThaan= to all of, those, to monkey, best ones; jaambavaan idam ca abraviit= Jambavanta, this, also, said; me gamane paraakramaH= to me, in [the stint of] going, capability; etaavat eva= thereunto, only; na aasiit khalu= not, is there [limited,] definitely.



Jambavanta further said this to all of those best monkeys, "my capability in the stint of going was not definitely limited only thereunto... [4-65-14]





mayaa vairocane yaj~ne prabhaviSNuH sanaatanaH |

pradakSiNii kR^itaH puurvam kramamaaNaH trivikramaH || 4-65-15



15. maya= by me; puurvam= once; vairocane yaj~ne= in Vairocana's legatee's [Emperor Bali's,] Vedic-ritual's - at the time of]; kramamaaNaH= when He was treading; prabhaviSNuH= Omnipresent; sanaatanaH= Eternal [Vishnu]; trivikramaH= [in the incarnation of] Trivikrama; pradakSiNii kR^itaH= circumambulation, He was made by me.



"Once I have performed circumambulation around the Omnipresent and Eternal Vishnu in His incarnation as Trivikrama, when He grandiosely increased His physique from that of a Divine-Dwarfish Brahman boy to that of an Omnidirectional Being, thus filling whole of the Universe to tread all the three worlds, during the time of Vedic-ritual of Emperor Bali, the legatee of Vairocana... [4-65-15]





(IIRC Jambavaan is still speaking



valmikiramayan.net/kishkindha/sarga66/kishkindhaitrans66.htm



trivikrame mayaa taata sa shaila vana kaananaa |

triH sapta kR^itvaH pR^ithivii parikraantaa pradakSiNam || 4-66-32



32. taata= oh, dear boy; trivikrame= in Trivikrama [during the period of incarnation]; sa shaila vana kaananaa= with, mountains, forests, thickets; pR^ithivii= earth is; maya= by me; triH sapta kR^itvaH= three*seven= twenty-one, times, on making - multiplying; pradakSiNam parikraantaa= circumambulations, moved around.



"During the period of Trivikrama incarnation I have circumambulated the earth inclusive of its mountains, forests and thickets for twenty-one times, moving rightward around it... [4-66-32]





viSaaNNaa harayaH sarve hanuman kim upekSase |

vikramasva mahaavega viSNuH triin vikramaan iva || 4-66-37



37. hanuman= oh, Hanuma; sarve harayaH viSaaNNaa= all, monkeys, are dispirited; kim upekSase= why, indolence of yours; mahaa vega= highly, speedy [speedier than sound, light and thought - supersonic, super-photic, super-cerebric;]; viSNuH triin [lokaan] vikramaan iva= Vishnu, three [who trod the triad of worlds in a trice,] trod, as with; vi kramasva= boldly, triumph over. {(aadaraartham punarukti) vi kramasva= boldly, triumph over.}



"Oh, Hanuma, all these monkeys are dispirited. Why this indolence of yours? You boldly triumph over the ocean as your speed is highest, supersonic, super-photic, super-cerebric is your celerity. As with Vishnu who trod the triad of worlds in a trice, you too triumph over..." Thus Jambavanta persuaded Hanuma to get ready for action. [4-66-37]





valmikiramayan.net/kishkindha/sarga67/kishkindhaitrans67.htm



prahR^iSTaa vismitaaH ca api te viikshante sama.ntataH |

trivikrama kR^ita utsaaham naaraayaNam iva prajaaH || 4-67-3



3. samantataH= all over [available]; te= those [monkeys]; pra hR^iSTaa= altogether, buoyed up; vismitaaH ca api= utterly, astounded, also, even; prajaaH= [as with] people; trivikrama kR^ita utsaaham= in Trivikrama [incarnation,] made [when tri-world was trodden by Vishnu,] enthusiastically [as with the enthusiasm then shown by the people]; naaraayaNam iva viikshante= at Narayana, as with, [monkeys] are seeing [at Hanuma.]



Those monkeys available all over there are altogether buoyed up and utterly astounded, and as with the people who have enthusiastically seen Narayana when He maximised His physique to tread the triad of worlds in His Trivikrama incarnation, these monkeys too are looking at Hanuma who is now maximising his body. [4-67-3]







valmikiramayan.net/aranya/sarga39/aranyaitrans39.htm



aham tasya prabhaavaj~no na yuddham tena te kshamam |

balim vaa namuci.m vaa api hanyaddhi raghun.na.ndana || 4-39-19



19. aham tasya prabhaava j~naH= I am, of his, efficacy, knower of; te= to you; tena= with him; yuddham na kshamam= war, not, fair enough; raghun nadana= Ragu's, descendant - Rama; balim vaa namucim vaa api= Emperor Bali, either, Namuchi, or, even; hanyat hi= can kill, in fact.



"I am well-acquainted with his efficacy, and a war with him will be an unfair thing for you, for that Raghu's descendant can in fact kill either Emperor Bali or Namuchi, the demon. [4-39-19]



Emperor Bali is more powerful and mighty than Ravana. aananda raamaayana says in a chapter on the 'defeats of Ravana' raavaNa paraajaya, that Ravana once entered netherworld to conquer it, where Bali is held captive by Trivikrama, i.e., Vishnu. At that time Bali and his queen are playing dice game. When Ravana entered, the dice in the hand of Bali has slipped to the floor, and Bali asks Ravana to pick and give it before conquering netherworld. Ravana who lifted Mt. Kailash could not lift that two-inch dice, which is so far handled playfully by Bali. Such is the might of Emperor Bali

And it's not just the protagonists of the Ramayanam that get compared to the mighty size, tread, bearing and lustre of Vishnu-Trivikrama. One raakShasa antagonist of the Ramayanam at least gets a share of the complimentary comparison too here - Kumbhakarna. From my understanding, he's supposed to be a giant among giants and doubtless takes over the horizon as well, thus sort of reminiscent of Trivikrama:

valmikiramayan.net/yuddha/sarga61/yuddhaitrans61.htm



tam dR^iSTvaa raakSasashreSTham parvataakaaradarshanam |

kramamaaNamivaakaasham puraa naaraayaNam prabhum || 6-61-2



2. dR^iSTvaa= seeing; tam raakSasashreSTham= that paramount demon; parvataakaara darshanam= whose appearance was in the form of a mountain; prabhum naaraayaNam yathaa= looking like Lord Narayana (the son of the original Man); kramamaaNam= taking strides across; aakaasham= space; puraa= long ago (manifested in the form of Trivikrama, who measured the whole universe in a couple of strides) Rama became vigilant).



Seeing that paramount demon, whose appearance was in the form of a mountain and looking like Lord Narayana (the son of the original Man); taking strides across space, (manifested in the form of Trivikrama, who measured the whole universe in a couple of strides) Rama became vigilant.





valmikiramayan.net/yuddha/sarga65/yuddha_65_frame.htm



sarvaabharaNanaddhaaN^gaH shuulapaaNiH sa raakShasaH |

trivikramakR^itotsaaho naaraayaNa ivaababhau || 6-65-31



31. sarvaabharaNa sarvaaN^gaH= adorned with all ornaments to all his limbs; shuulapaaNiH= with a spike in his hand; saH= that; raakSasaH= demons; aababhau= shone; naaraayanaH iva= like Narayana, the all-embracing Lord; trivikrama kR^itotsaahaH= enthusiastic to take the three long strides (which were meant to cover the entire universe).



Adorned with all ornaments to all his limbs and with a spike in his hand, that demon shone like Narayana, the all-embracing Lord, enthusiastic to take the three long strides (which were meant to cover the entire universe).

"Poor" Hindu nationalist Witan: Rajeev shouted him down unfairly (rajeev2004.blogspot.com/2012/12/today-vamana-avatara-yesterday-more.html) for Witan having lamely fallen for dravoodian dawaganda (as only subvertibles could), when Rajeev himself fell no less willingly for the equally-false Buddhist propaganda, and batted for and peddled the latter as hard as Witan did the Dravoodian variant.



Yet the Ramayanam is in disagreement with both.



How utterly easy modern angelsk-speaking Hindus esp. vocalists are. So easy to subvert. One can only shudder in utter disgust.

Well, at least there's no undoing subversion, no backpeddling being possible in such cases: people must live with the consequences of their choices, and the bridges they burnt while making them. After all, Rajeev - and Witan - did insist with such vehemence and such certainty, and attempt to convince not just each other but their readership.

[Husky]

Came across a supporting statement for this claim made in post 142 above:



[quote name='Husky' date='28 June 2014 - 10:24 PM' timestamp='1403974017' post='117283']

Further, [color="#0000FF"]MBh IS the Vedam[/color] and the Vedam alone - in different but equivalent form - and since ancient times advertised as being so. Making MBh an embodiment of the Hindu Gods and the Vedam (and there's already an equivalence between the Hindu Gods and the Vedam as being embodiments of each other.)[/quote]Ramayanam(=Gayatri Mantram) is the Vedam too, obviously.



Typing out something that the previous Kanchi Sankaracharya (Chandrashekharendra Saraswati Swamigal) wrote. Note that in the following, he is simply repeating well-known established Hindoo tradition:

Mahaabharata is called the 'Panchamo Veda', the fifth Veda.

As regards Ramayana, it is said that when the Purusha who can be known only by the Vedas took birth as Dasaratha's son, the Vedas also appeared as Valmiki's child in the form of Ramayana.

"hrIshcha te lakShmIshcha patnyau" or something (YV, puruSha sooktam - je crois)



MBh is further also plainly stated to be the Vedam, IIRC.

[Husky]

Post 1/4



vijayvaani.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?aid=3250

Attack on Shirdi a political conspiracy

by Sandhya Jain



Where Jain attacks a legitimately appointed Shankaracharya and darkly hints that he's a fraud, all for something that he said that turns out to be demonstrably true. Meanwhile many Hindu readers lost their marbles and are following Jain in her attack of the Shankaracharya, not because they are irked by his statements' alleged political angle or timing, but because of his criticism of Shirdi Sai Baba as being an invalid object of Hindu worship.



The actual topic is already well-discussed in the comments at the link.



Personally, the bit in italics in the following (but *only* the bit in italics) is the story I had heard from several quarters about Shirdi Sai Baba. And it sounds like it may turn out to be just that: a story -

There are many different stories on Sai Baba; some consider him a Brahmin by birth, even an incarnation of Dattatreya

Krishna

July 01, 2014

I tend to agree with several of Krishnakumar and Senthil's comments there. And the latter is empirically correct in observing that in India, god(wo)men are becoming cults/replacement theologies: they're certainly replacing the Hindoos' Gods in primacy in modern Hindus' minds. Whether this is owing to actual conspiracy, for which Senthil provides examples, or just due to modern Hindus' gullibility I don't know. The Shankaracharya certainly seems to argue - at least as per Sandhya's transmission of his statements - "that devotion to Sai Baba is a conspiracy to disturb the existing hierarchy of Gods". If true, it's not like he has no reason to disapprove: as per the very chronicle on Shirdi Sai Baba (see VV link) that the latter's devotees proliferate among Hindus, Shirdi Sai Baba apparently got his food 'blessed' by a maulvi, which only further underlines that Shirdi Sai Baba was consciously a muslim (even if truer muslims might takfir him, as they do so many others). Contrary to Sandhya Jain, having food 'blessed' by some maulvi cannot actually be reconciled with Hindus' religion.



Oddly enough critics have fastened on to how the Dwaraka/Badrinath Shankaracharya lists only Rama and Krishna as Hindoo Gods, accusing him of thereby sinisterly ignoring/demoting the Hindoo God that Sandhya Jain calls "Mahadeo" (i.e. Mahadeva). [Not sure why Sandhya Jain suddenly cares: the Hindu Shiva Mahadeva has nothing to do with Jainism and is not a Jain teerthankara, contrary to late Jain back-projections, by which means the likes of Jain Minority Forum - and even Sandhya Jain at one time - tried to impose on Hindoos' religion.] Yet elsewhere at least, the Dwaraka acharya has mentioned a longer list of Hindu Gods for worship: the same list promulgated by the Adi Shankaracharya. As admitted even by an alien, who interviewed the Swami:



paulmason.info/gurudev/sources/text/SwamiSwaroopanand.htm

Thumbnail sketch biography of Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati

- Compiled by Paul Mason



Swami Swaroopananda was born Pothiram Upadhyay on September 2nd 1924, in the Jabalpur area of Madhya Pradesh. At nine years old he left home to visit the holy places of India, including Varanasi where he eventually studied with Swami Karpatri (aka Hariharananda Saraswati), a disciple of Guru Dev Swami Brahmananda Saraswati. At 19 years old he became a freedom fighter in the 'Quit India' movement (1942) and was known as 'Revolutionary Sadhu' (serving two prison sentences for same of 9 months & 6 months). In 1950 Guru Dev made him a dandi sannyasi.



<read rest at link>

[...]



Transcripted excerpts, pertinent to the lifestory of Guru Dev Shankaracharya Swami Brahmanand Saraswati, from an interview of Shankaracharya of Dwarka, Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati, by Robert Kropinski in Vrindaban, India, October 1986.



[...]



Q: The religion that Guru Dev preached was connected with five forms of God-Devatas-such as Pancha Devupasana and so what relation has it with Vedic Sanatan Dharma (worship of God) as well as in regard to the varna (caste system) and ashram (four stages of life) systems?



Shankaracharya: The Lord, Adi Shankara was a great exponent of Vedic Sanatana Dharma. God, he taught, is grouped into six forms. He preached six types - five based on forms of God like Shiva, Shakti, Vishnu, etc. and one, Nirakar, without form. However, the worship of God without form being extremely difficult was reserved for renunciates. That is what Adi Shankaracharya had instructed.

Bhagavan Shree Shankara revived Vedic Sanatan Dharma. He said God has six forms. So accordingly, Maharaj Ji gave upadesha (initiation) to meditate upon those forms for the sake of our worship.

So it's not like the Dwaaraka Shankaracharya actually ignores Shiva as a Hindoo God. Rather he is consistent with Adi Shankaracharya here.



Also, I suspect - but don't know - that the Dwaraka Shankaracharya made the statement concerning Rama and Krishna in his local language (Hindi?) rather than English, and that it may be dubious translation that renders the statement more absolutist, though I could be wrong. Other than the following news item in newsnation.in - and Sandhya quoting from their potential translation of his words in her article that's posted both at dailypioneer and vijayvaani - the web search engine does not find any other sources for this statement he was to have made:



newsnation.in/article/47750-sai-baba-a-god-a-conspiracy-halt-ayodhya-temple-construction-shankaracharya.html

Sai Baba is not a God, says Shankaracharya Swaroopanand

By: News Nation Bureau



Updated On: 23, Jun 2014 | 12:14 PM (IST)



New Delhi : Shankaracharya Swaroopanand Saraswati on Monday raised a controversy by declaring that Shirdi's Sai Baba is not a God and should not be given special place in prayers.



He even compared Nirmal Baba with Sai Baba and mentioned that it is a conspiracy to divide existing hierarchy of Gods.



"This is a conspiracy to divide the belief of common man. There are only 2 Gods- Lord Ram and Krishna," he added.



He informed that all those people who don't want the Govt to construct Ayodhya temple are spreading these beliefs that Sai Baba was a God. Even Sai Baba trust is involved in the conspiracy

[Husky]

Post 2/4



Here's apparently a Hindi(?) language interview with this Shankaracharya on the very topic, wish I understood it:

youtube.com/watch?v=v5wEVpkNujI

Shankaracharya Swaroopananda Saraswati against worship of Sai Baba

[media]http://youtube.com/watch?v=v5wEVpkNujI[/media]



The timing may not be good and the political angle may be worrisome, but the Shankaracharya has a point in not recognising Shirdi Sai Baba as a Hindu (or any other) God to be worshipped by Hindus if he is a muslim.



dailypioneer.com/columnists/edit/swami-takes-on-a-sage-devotees-confused.html



(Seems to essentially be a copy of Sandhya Jain's VV article)



Many of the comments and commenters who violently agreed with her at VV seem to have reappeared at DailyPioneer (or vice-versa).



This one comment at DP is however both critical and appears to be unique to DP (didn't see it at VV) - my lips are not moving, someone else is angry:

Sayan Sen from TIRUCHCHENDUR



I being a humble follower of Sanatan Dharma as laid down in the Shrutis and Smritis, issue an open challenge to all the followers of that Muslim mystic to prove that their Baba was an Avatara or God according to our holy scriptures. Sandhyaji, you are a Jain and you belong to a Nastika school of philosophy. Your religion is completely at odds with the Vedic Sanatan Dharma. The dominance of your religion and your fellow Nastika religion, Buddhism was ended by the Adi Shankara who institutionalized Hinduism. It is because of the works of him that you belong to a microscopic minority.Hence it is quite conceivable that you bear ill will towrads the Adi Shankara and his successor, Swami Swarupananda. (I don't think that's why Jain has an issue with Swami Swarupananda. E.g. she didn't attack Kanchi Shankaracharyas.) No self-respecting Hindu who has an elementary idea about his religion (not those internet Hindus who do not know even the difference between Shruti and Smriti) will ever like to be lectured about his religion from a Nastika (i.e. Jain) like you. No doubt Nastikas find an ally in that ignorant fakir and his followers. Swami Swarupananda is politically aligned because he is sufficiently educated to be so. It is because of his nationalism that he courted jail in Quit India Movement. Quite unlike this self-styled fakir baba who had no political idea (surely because of his lack of education). This baba was from the Muslim community but no self-respecting Muslim will ever prostrate before his picture or statue and commit heresy/haram. Then are we Hindus so miserable that we will continue to worship this mlechha with our Vedic hymns and rituals thus polluting the sanctity of those hymns and rituals? Isn't it high time that we should kick out the pictures and statues of this baba from our temples and homes and above all from our minds?

Points

40

8 days ago · (1) · (2) · reply (0)

Don't agree with Sayan Sen wanting to credit Adi Shankara with institutionalising Hinduism either. The Hindu Gods, Vedam, itihaasas and puranas did that. Adi Shankara merely upheld that religion. But nice to see a Bengali (?) in Tamizh regions. And to see a Hindu for once not rolling over to every Indic religion and declaring it is all identical to/the "same" as the sanatana dharma (=Vedic Dharma).



Although it's a bit awkward that the Dwaraka Shankaracharya should insist that Buddha is an avataaram of Vishnu - as in news item below - when Adi Shankaracharya would not have: the Adi Shankaracharya declared Buddha to be misleading the people either through ignorance or by design. I understand that the Dwaraka Shankaracharya is appealing to those Hindu puranas where Buddha ended up being included as an avataaram, but these are late interpolations involving non-Hindus (and which is moreover a serious cause of annoyance to many agitating Buddhist monks). Whether other Hindus agree or not, at least it is not very in line with Adi Shankara's known statement regarding the Buddha: he's not likely to consider Buddha to be Vishnu [other than in the very general advaitic sense of 'everything being brahman' or something].

daily.bhaskar.com/article/NAT-TOP-shankracharya-slams-uma-bharti-for-supporting-sai-babas-worship-asks-union-minis-4663253-NOR.html



Shankracharya slams Uma Bharti for supporting Sai Baba's worship, asks Union Minister not to politicise issue

Bhaskar News | Jun 29, 2014, 15:58PM IST



New Delhi: After BJP leader Uma Bharti backed the worship of Shridi's Sai Baba, Sankaracharya Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati slammed the water resources minister asking her not to "politicise" the issue and "interfere in religious matters".



"By supporting Sai's worship, Uma Bharti is trying to make the issue political. She is a minister, not a God. She has been voted to power to serve people. I ask her not to interfere in religious matters," the Shankracharya told reporters.



On Saturday, Bharti had supported Sai's worship and had said she also has faith in the saint. She added Sai never claimed to be a God or immortal.



Raising questions on the minister's faith in Sai, the Shankracharya said, "The saint the minister follows has also supported my stand on Sai."



The Shankaracharya had kicked-off a controversy on on Monday by asking Sai followers not to worship the saint because he was not God. Comparing Sai Baba with another spiritual leader Nirmal Baba, he even declared the Sai's worship a "conspiracy against Hindus as it divide the hierarchy of Gods".



“Going by the Hindu beliefs, only an avatar or a guru can be worshipped. Lord Vishnu is said to possess 24 avatars, as per the Sanatana Dharma philosophy. There is no mention of any other except Buddha and Kalki in the religious text. So, Sai clearly can’t be an avatar," said the Shankracharya.



Shankaracharya’s second rationale: “As far as it’s about following Sai as guru is concerned, he doesn’t fulfill the credentials of the same. Not only did he consume meat and facilitated circumcision operations, he was born into Pandarak society which is comprises of dacoits. For the reason, he can’t be considered as a role model for us.”



File photo: Sankaracharya Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati

In the last 2 paragraphs: I think the Dwaraka Shankaracharya is stating that among those who were born or otherwise appeared in human form in human society, only 1. the human-form avataaras of Hindoo Gods and 2. Gurus may be worshipped by the Hindoos, as per what sort of human(-seeming) being is considered worshippable in Hindoos' religion. But he then explains that Shirdi Sai Baba is obviously not an avataaram as per Hindu texts - post-Krishna, only Buddha and Kalki are mentioned in the scriptures as avataaras of Vishnu - and in the para after that he explains why Shirdi Sai Baba can't be a guru either as per the Hindoo=only definition of the word.

(Note he's making a logical argument with reference to Hindu scriptures. Either prove him wrong based on those scriptures he's appealing to or accept that his argument is valid.)



This seems to me to explain why the Shankaracharya specially mentioned Rama and Krishna (rather than just mentioning as "Vishnu"). And Shiva does not have "avataaras" in the strict/literal sense, as Senthil also observed, though Shiva does manifest among humans - as well as animals! - and they are the famous Shiva moorties. Rama and Krishna are avataaras appearing in human-like forms, taking divine "birth" in human dynasties. As such they are the only ones classed among "humans" that Hindus may worship, as well as Gurus.** Doesn't seem a sinister statement to me, let alone one that bans Hindus from worshipping their divine trees etc let alone any other Vedic Gods such as Agni, Vaayu Bhagavaan, Gangaa etc... (But don't know why Sandhya Jain mentioned these Vedic=Hindoo Gods.) The acharya was speaking specifically of what 'human' forms are to be worshipped.





** ADDED:

In southern parts, Ayyappa is an avataaram of ShrI Dharmashaastaa, having appeared in human-like form among humans with the same sort of purpose as his parent Vishnu does with his avataaras: as a way to actively protect and preserve, since that is one half of what Dharmashaastaa does, being one half Vishnu's essence. More such cases in the south. And Balaraama is considered a human-looking avataaram of Vishnu too in southern parts. Parashuraama avataaram is a Rishi, and Rishis are often listed separately from ManuSha. (E.g. IIRC even vigrahas carved by them are listed under Rishi-made vigrahas and hence classed separately from manuSha-made vigrahas or deva-made ones or raakShasa-made ones or swayambhu ones.) Guessing this might be why the Dwaraka Shankaracharya did not mention Parashuraama (?) Else perhaps the Acharya is just listing Rama and Krishna as a sort of shorthand summary, their being the most popular avataaras that are classed as "human" - as opposed to avataaras as any other species of animal.



Surely it's unlikely that the Shankaracharya would have said that - for example - the irresistibly-adorable YagnyaangaH - the Saukara - was not to be worshipped. Why else would Vishnu have taken such an irresistible form otherwise, if not to allow himself to be worshipped as such? It's a four-legged mammal form. It has pettable fur. A soft snout. Absurdly cute ears and tusks. And a tail(!) It's obviously meant for cuddling - I mean poojaa, I said poojaa: it's meant for poojaa. Its entire body - all parts - is literally the yagnya, which is why the same descriptive is also its personal name: Vishnu is named YagnyaangaH since his avataaram as Saukara is literally said to be YagnyaangaH. And a commentary listed as Adi Shankaraachaarya's on the meaning of this name IIRC waxes eloquent in further detail about how the Snouted One is a 1-to-1 mapping of the yagnya, repeating other Hindu texts on the same.

So it seems to me no more likely that the Dwaraka Acharya excluded the other Hindoo Gods as deserving of Hindus' worship - certainly not the particular additional Gods singled out by Shankara Bhagavadpaada - than it is likely for him to have excluded the other avataaras of Vishnu. The form of his argument in his statements in dailybhaskar rather seem to specifically deal with which sorts of "humans" are to be worshipped: Hindoo Gods who took avataaram in human form and Gurus (as per the specific definition of who can and can't qualify to be called a Guru in Hinduism), as he said.

[Husky]

Post 3/4



Anyway, Sandhya Jain does seem to have a bone to pick with this Shankaracharya:

- IIRC she previously attacked his statements when, after a natural disaster at a temple site, he had advocated that a Hindoo moorti of a Hindoo God[dess] at a Hindoo temple be immediately reinstalled or re-consecrated or something. Jain felt it was her business to call into question his motives, despite his being an established Hindoo acharya speaking on matters pertaining to Hindoos' Vedic religion (a.o.t. Jainism).

- In a comment to her latest article she even referred to "his evil influence (on the mathams)":

[...]

Go and tell your Sankaracharya to at least release the mathams from his evil influence now that we know that he does not accept Mahadeo as a deity. This is truly astonishing. Pah



PS: will be nice to know your real name

Sandhya Jain

July 01, 2014

But Sandhya Jain already admits to knowing that the Dwaraka+Badrinath Shankaracharya does accept the Vedic=Hindoo God (a.o.t. Jain clone) Shiva Mahadeva as a Hindoo God. She admits to reading the news that every other Indian would have read too: about the same Shankaracharya protesting the use of the "Har(a) Har(a)" prefix on Modi which belongs to Shiva Mahadeva and is a sort of mantram. [Again, whether his criticism was politically motivated or not, don't know. Although I do note that the "newsnation.in" and other news sources certainly spun it that way: that the Acharya was going to canvas against Modi or something over this. The same "newsnation.in" also promises an article with the Shankaracharya's "angry face" or something... Hardly unmotivated source. But it seems to be the origin for Sandhya's "Rama Krishna" quote. It's not impossible that they deliberately mistranslated his statement on Rama and Krishna being Hindoo Gods.]



And here is Sandhya in the VV article itself admitting that the Shankaracharya took objection to the Hara Hara being randomly applied:

Readers may recall that Swami Swaroopanand's animus towards the BJP and its Prime Ministerial candidate is so pronounced that during the recent Lok Sabha campaign he slapped a journalist who asked him about Narendra Modi becoming Prime Minister. Previously, he took objection to the enthusiastic slogan "Har Har Modi" and complained to the RSS chief, who caved in, to the dismay of party workers.

Whatever the timing or even reason for the Shankaracharya's complaint, the objective fact remains that that prefix does not belong to Modi, and I'm sure Modi understands why. (And further news had confessed that Modi himself discouraged enthusiastic followers from applying it to him, presumably after hearing of the Shankaracharya's objection.)



So why Sandhya's pretence that this Shankaracharya would exclude Shiva, when she is aware that the Shankaracharya recognises Mahadeva as a God (and so could have had no other grounds to object to the "Hara Hara" getting attached to Modi)?



Also, why does Jain lecture Hindoos not only about Hindoo acharyas but on Hindoo Gods? And no one tells her to Back Off. [<- EDIT: Sayan Sen told her off.]

Instead people would prefer to align with non-established godmen.

How quickly Hindus gang up against actual acharyas upholding the Vedic religion.

As quickly, I recall, as other modern Hindus turned on their Gods/avataaras. It's just the same malady I suppose, with its effects just trickling further down the hierarchy.

What with modern 'Hindus' swearing by Buddhism, Jainism, dravoodianism (and new-ageisms) - and almost always at the expense of their own religion - what's one more deviation, right?

[Husky]

Post 4/4



Also found myself agreeing often enough with several comments on this Vijayvaani page by one "shaastra sevaka". On occasion he sounded uncomfortably like an earlier/dead version of someone else. But the following and similar responses he made to Vijaya Rajiva's odd (or rather ISKCON-ist) claims concerning 'Rama vs Krishna' necessarily disproves that suspicion:

[Rajiva said:] "It is interesting that indeed if he was a Muslim he then upheld the Hindu faith. The Dwaraknath Shankaracharya's criticisms are quite baffling. Krishna was a sampoorna avatar and Rama only a partial avatar and yet both are worshipped."



[Shaastra Sevaka said:] So much for your knowledge of shaastra. Will you tell me the exact reference from valmiki ramayana where he has been called a partial avatar? (I have read the valmiki ramayana several times, i haven't found what you claim).



[...]



[Rajiva said:] "This is all a matter of people's faith. Millions of Hindus believe in the Sai Babas and the pronouncements of one dogmatic shankarachariar does not change that."



[Shaastra Sevaka said:] You are the one trivializing the (i) concept of an avataara, (ii) the concept of an arcaavataara mUrti etc. (go and please learn about these concepts before you pontificate about someone being eligible to be "given" avatarhood etc.).

Rare to see modern Indians use logic these days. Usually it's more of the "I feel, I sense, my feelings are hurt" variety.

But quick someone, call down Elst etc on this poor guy - Shaastra Sevaka or whoever. He seems to still insist that Rama and Krishna are avataaras of Vishnu instead of "apotheosised human heroes". How unacceptably heathen. Has the fan brigade not hit him on the head yet? Of course, Shaastra Sevaka might turn out to be just one more subvertible entity that merely needs exposure to subversive forces before he too will de-heathenise along the usual lines (=pattern). They all do. In the end. It's become the rule. (I suspect it is naivete coupled with non-exposure rather than insubvertibility let alone first-hand knowledge that is preventing subversion of the remaining heathens. People can prove me wrong, but I have this horrid suspicion time will prove me right.)





Anyway, Vijaya Rajiva (whom Shaastra Sevaka responded to above) seems to demonstrate an amazing ability to dodge forthright questions by talking about something totally different with the air of a pseudo-scholar.



Sandhya Jain is a Jain not a Hindoo and therefore has every right to speak badly about Hindoo acharyas. (Though she must also be aware of her influence on her predominantly Hindu audience, and is clearly not innocent of it.) But it's another for Vijaya "Hindu" Rajiva to parrot Sandhya like the usual applauding angelsk-speaking public and declare that the Shankaracharya must be a fraud/be a "so-called" Shankaracharya (despite said Shankaracharya not having actually said anything un-Hindu/unVedic in the article that I can make out). IIRC Rajiva then threatened to do "research" on the Shankaracharya to "evaluate" whether he was a true Shankaracharya or not. <snip>





Now, I have no idea as to the reasons for the Shankaracharya's criticism of the Shirdi Sai Baba proliferation at this point in time. Or whether there is any political impetus behind it. Why now, why Maharasthra, are valid questions. But what he says - the grounds of his criticism - is not incorrect; at least, I can't see that it's invalid. It may be inconvenient timing, it may be inconvenient - period - but the argument itself still stands until someone can actually disprove him on logical grounds. Wish he had picked a better time and place. Too late. It may even be that the Congressis will use this incident against him to make him less popular, so that they hit two birds with one stone, getting all the advantages out of this latest drama and leaving Hindus none. Who knows.



What Hindus in Maharashtra should do is vote the BJP into power but retain only the Hindoo Gods in their temples. Gradually phase out all Shirdi Sai Baba worship in India. Educate people. Hindus have survived millennia by not including unHindus in their worship, so they won't die from this either.

If people in Maharashtra want to have one more God to turn to, there's always Dharmashaastaa who is a very Vedic God - a combination of Vishnu and Shiva - and is pan-Hindu. I've noticed people from even Pakistan listening to Samskrita stotras on him. Clearly he's irresistible. Further, his worship encourages the worship of all the Hindu Gods with stotras recited to everyone from Ganapati to Hanuman alongside invoking Ayyappa/Dharmashaastaa.





Wish that Hindus would dump all godmen (Jaggi Vasudev is a known anti-Hindu besides) and would instead return to worshipping their Gods (it's one thing to respect people, especially if they have special abilities, but Gods are something entirely different). Wish also that modern Hindus would stop swearing by the multiple (back-projected) Buddhas and Jinas/teerthankaras and stop randomly calling upon the historical Buddha/Mahavira. And that modern Hindus will stop falling for dravoodian propaganda, Buddhist/Jain/etc self-projections onto Hindu religio-history, christian subversion, islamaniac dawaganda, oryanist de-heathenisation, world-mythological equivalences etc etc. But can bang your head against the wall about modern Hindus, yet there'll only be a bump to show for the effort. So best not to bother. Acharyas can try. May turn out to be wasted effort too, for all I know, but I suppose they feel a sense of responsibility.

[Husky]

Post 1/3



Relevant to the above-mentioned topic of the Dwaraka-Badrinath mathas' Shankaracharya and what Sandhya Jain called his "evil hold on the mathas" etc etc.

3 news items.



1. zeenews.india.com/news/chhattisgarh/shankaracharya-vs-sai-baba-clashes-erupt-at-dharma-sansad-in-kawadha_957245.html

Later, Shankarachrya himself had to intervene to ease off the situation and the police had to deploy extra force to prevent any untoward incident.





Around 400 religious leaders had come to attend the two-day long Dharma Sansad, which began here on Sunday.



The congregation which includes Shankaracharya Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati and representatives of 13 'Akharas' and other religious leaders discussed whether the status of `Saint` to be given to Shirdi Sai Baba or not on the first day.



Meanwhile, the Dharma Sansad today passed a resolution that Sai Baba, the 19th century saint from Shirdi, should not be worshipped as a deity by the followers of `Sanatan Dharma`.



Swaroopananda Saraswati has argued that Shiridi Saibaba cannot be accepted as god in Hinduism. The Dwarka seer has argued that the Hindu scriptures have accepted Shiv, Shakti, Vishnu, Ganesh and Surya and their respective reincarnations as Gods.

The Gods accepted by 'sanatan dharma' (Hinduism) have found mention in various religious scriptures pertaining to the religion, and Saibaba does not fall in either of the category.



The Shri Sai Baba Sansthan Trust, Shirdi had already decided not to send the representative at Dharam Sansad after they were invited by the Shankarachrya.



Later, Shankarachrya himself had to intervene to ease off the situation and the police had to deploy extra force to prevent any untoward incident.

So, just as suspected: turns out that the Shankaracharya did not mean to exclude Shiva (or other Vedic Gods). Whereas Sandhya Jain and many of her commenters - more than merely eager to misunderstand the Shankaracharya by taking bad and motivated christomedia translations of what he was to have said literally and ignoring his web-accessible interviews mentioning Shiva - were all wrong.

[Husky]

Post 2/3



2. dnaindia.com/mumbai/report-dwarka-peeth-seer-invites-shirdi-trust-for-dharma-sansad-2009962

Dwarka Peeth Seer invites Shirdi trust for Dharma Sansad

Tuesday, 12 August 2014 - 6:40am IST | Agency: DNA

Vaishali Balajiwale



Shakaracharya's gesture believed to be a move to dilute controversial statement

Dwarka Peeth Seer Shakaracharya Swami Swarupanand Saraswati has sent an invitation to the Shri Sai Baba Sansthan Trust, Shirdi to participate in the 'Bruhad Dharma Sansad'.



A delegation on behalf of the seer that arrived in Shirdi on August 10 and handed over the invitation to the deputy executive officer of Shri Sai Baba Sansthan Trust, Shirdi Appasaheb Shinde. The invitation extended to the trust is to attend the two day meeting — Dharma Sansad, to be held at Kabirdham in Kavardha district of Chhatisgarh on August 24-25, and present their views.



Only some time back, Shankaracharya Swami Swarupananda Saraswati's remarks against Sai Baba and the trust had raked a controversy till the devotees of Sai Baba decided to ignore the remarks.



Speaking to the media, Vidyanand, a member of the seer's delegation, said that they had come to Shirdi on behalf of Swami Sswarupananda to end the controversy following the remarks by the Shankaracharya. "Swami Swarupananda himself has sent us to end this dispute and has urged the Sansthan Trust to attend the two-day Dharma Sansad and present their views. The meet will be attended by Swami Swarupananda himself, Shankaracharyas of Shringeri and Puri Peeth and other seers," Vidyanand said.



While the delegation met the officials of the trust and spoke to the media, they did not visit the temple. When asked about it, Vidyanand replied. "We are here to perform the duty assigned by my Guru (Shakaracharya Swami Swarupanand), which we have done. God is everywhere," he exhorted.



While the police beefed up security during the delegation's visit, it was informed that the delegation members did not visit the temple only to avoid a possible uproar by devotees and any chaos thereafter.



Public Relations Officer of Shri Sai Baba Sansthan Trust, Shirdi Mohan Yadav, said that the delegation from Swami Swarupanand including Vidyananda has given the invitation for two-day Dharma Snasad and it has been accepted by Sansthan's deputy executive officer Appasaheb Shinde. The invitation will be placed before three-member-committee of the Sansthan Trust to decide on it, Yadav said.



ShirdiSai BabaTempleDwarkadevotees



Jump to comments

So predictably, the entire Dharma Sansad which also included the Puri and Shringeri Shankaracharyas*, logically derived the same conclusions from the Dharma Shaastras as the Dwaraka+Badrinath Shankaracharya did, regarding Shirdi Sai Baba's (non-)worshippability by Hindus.

[* Note how these are not the new-agey swamis who jetset to the west and seek alien "convert" followings there. These are *actual* Hindoo acharyas. Note also that, being Hindoos, they're speaking of Sanatana Dharma=Hindu religion onlee, not of Buddhism/Jainism/Sikhism/whatever, so Sandhya Jain is not bound by their conclusions.]



- Many VV comments had spoken about Swami Swaroopanand as a fraud unrepresentative of Hindu religion and even ignorant of what it "actually" entails (because new-ageists know so much better than traditional HindOOs)

- Sandhya Jain had, besides launching other insinuations, spoken of his "evil influence on the mathas"

- Vijaya Rajiva called him a "so-called" Shankaracharya for his statement, besides echoing Sandhya et al that his views do not represent Hindu religion

- And there was this other "Hindu" vocalist writing a piece against the Shankaracharya shortly after Sandhya Jain had paved the way for it -

vijayvaani.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?aid=3278

Swami Swarupanand is an embarrassment to acharya parampara

by M Pramod Kumar on 26 Jul 2014 28 Comments

Now all these entities may repeat their allegations against ALL the Acharyas and Sadhus gathered at the Dharma Sansad. And since Swaroopaananda's Shankaracharya-ness had been called into question on account of his issuing this very statement, then the Shringeri and Puri Shankaracharyas' alignment with him on this very matter - both of whom were present at the Dharma Sansad - should equally call their Shankaracharya-ness into question too. No? Am I wrong? No backing down now. It's the Same "Crime" after all. Letting the rest of the Dharma Sansad off the hook would be hypocrisy - and indicate obvious/sinister VV discrimination against Swami Swaroopananda.

[Husky]

Post 3/3



3. india.com/news/india/sai-baba-should-not-be-worshipped-dharma-sansad-2-129548/

Sai Baba should not be worshipped: Dharma Sansad

By Press Trust of India @indiacom | August 26, 2014 1:40 PM | comment

Tags: 'Dharma Sansad, news, Sai baba, Shirdi, Shirdi Sai Baba



Raipur, Aug 25: A two-day-long 'Dharma Sansad' convened by the Shankaracharya Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati of Dwarka Peeth today passed a resolution that Sai Baba, the 19th century saint from Shirdi, should not be worshipped as a deity by the followers of 'Sanatan Dharma'.



'Kashi Vidvat Parishad' has taken a decision that Sai Baba was neither a god nor a guru, therefore he cannot be worshipped, Rajesh Joshi, the media in-charge for the Dharma Sansad (religious conclave), which was held in Chhattisgarh's Kabirdham district, told PTI.



After Shankaracharya Swaroopanand raked up a controversy by opposing the worship of Sai Baba, Divya Chaturmas Mahotsav Samiti organised the conclave at Kawardha, 150km from here, to debate the issue.



Representatives of 13 Akharas and other religious leaders discussed the issue.



Resolutions on other issues, including introduction of Hindu scriptures in school curriculum, making the country free of addiction, safety of women, construction of Ram Mandir in Ayodhya, protection of cows, etc. were also passed, Joshi said.



(Oh at last, some Hindoos/representatives of the Hindoos - and representing the wishes at the heart of every Hindoo. Insisting on the all-important Sri Rama Kovil at Ayodhya and protecting the gau. And insisting on the protection of that other hapless group: Hindoo women, preyed upon as they are by the christoislamaniac rape jihad.

Don't care if the Dharma Sansad are powerless to implement any of their resolutions or in full. I love them for insisting on all these things as being the aspirations and rights of Hindus. Wonderful to see that HindOO acharyas at least remain steadfast and haven't lost sight of imperative heathen Hindoo concerns.

If Hindoos had had Emperor Julian, a Sri Rama Mandiram would have been rebuilt at Ayodhya by now. Sigh. With each passing day, the total failure of Indian nationalism/"Hindu" nationalist government to muster an iota of Hindoo heathenism in their governance and concerns, just shows up more and more how great a heathen ruler Emperor Julian was. And how spectacularly diminutive everyone else is in the comparison. It may be hard to be great, but it should not be hard to be a heathen for those who are.)



Shri Saibaba Sansthan Trust,which runs the Shirdi Sai temple, did not respond to the invitation by the Shankaracharya to attend the Dharma Sansad.



However, devotees of Sai Baba from Delhi and Ahmedabad participated in the conclave.



A minor row erupted when a sadhu on the dais interrupted Manushya Mitra, a Sai Baba follower, while speaking, said Superintendent of Police, RS Nayak. Both were pacified by others present on the dais.





Modified Date: August 26, 2014 1:40 PM

Christomedia from zee to especially rediff went all out to blacken the reputation of the Dharma Sansad, first by implying that the Hindoos there were intolerant of dissent from a few Shirdi Sai Baba devotees who had IIRC invited themselves (whereas the Shirdi Sai Sansthan reps were invited but did not come) and then Rediff went so far as to ask readers to comment whether said readers thought the Dharma Sansad had the right to decide this matter for the Hindu masses. Total mental manipulation by Rediff. The Dharma Sansad merely looked over the Hindu texts and found - by sane reasoning (as opposed to new-ageist feely-weely subjective "opinion" crap) - that the Hindu dharma shaastras are against Hindus worshipping persons like Shirdi Sai Baba. People are free to worship him of course - as they are free to worship any other muslim who has his food blessed by a maulvi and who facilitated circumcisions - but it isn't Hindu religion and shouldn't be combined with Hindu religion.





It's like the traditional Daoist priests have been telling the lay Chinese Buddhists who'd pleaded to learn how to properly worship their ancestral Daoist Gods at home: don't place the Buddha alongside the Daoist Gods but have separate, non-adjoining pooja areas (even separate pooja rooms) for them; don't apply Buddhist rituals/practices to the Daoist Gods and contexts, and do NOT use Daoist rituals on Buddhist characters like Buddha and in Buddhist contexts (this is further considered by Daoists to be Buddhist inculturation on Daoism), and realise that what you're doing is dabbling part-time in Buddhism and part-time in Daoism, rather than following Buddhism or Daoism properly, since the two religions don't really have anything to do with each other despite Buddhist inculturation on Daoism: their cosmologies are fundamentally different and not reconcilable. In short, "don't mix, because these two religions don't mix".



Further, the same Daoists have instructed lay Daoists to do away with any statues of Bauddhised clones of Daoist Gods that are in their personal possession. A specific example they gave was the famous Daoist God who does not have the head of a pig, but which Buddhism's perversion of Daoism insinuated as having the head of a pig and which false disrespectful Bauddhified image of a sacred Taoist God consequently became unnaturally popular in some lands where Chinese have historically settled. The Daoists were therefore understandably advised to dislodge the inauthentic (Bauddhified) imagery of their Gods and acquire the correct Daoist vigrahas of the same Gods and worship that. Because Daoism is understandably Very Pedantic about correct form and representation of their vigrahas. (Else nothing works, plus the Daoist Gods will not accept it.)



And while the Daoists oppose Bauddified images of their Gods as doing yoga - in the Chinese Buddhist context, this implies that the Daoist Gods are seeking Buddhist Nirvana and are further subordinated to the Buddha, whereas in reality the Daoist Gods have nothing to do with Buddhism and Buddha and are instead eternally perfect beings that are the source and pinnacle of Daoist enlightenment - the same strict Daoists have not complained against those SE Asian Daoist temples housing Hindu Gods in separate sannidhis nor have they any objection to Daoists offering worship to these Hindu Gods alongside the temples' primary Daoist deities. (And it's not that they don't know that some vigrahas are of Hindu Gods.) Daoists are also clear among their kind to resist the modern trends in China etc to invent and join new religions that are a mix of Daoism + Buddhism + Islam + Christianism (and sometimes Confucianism too), because Daoism cannot be mixed with these other religions.





The above paragraphs are also relevant to the sorts of typical igno-Rant comments at that Rediff article - the one which had desperately invited people's "opinions". Ignoring the many islamics and obvious cryptos responding there, a great number of many self-professed "Hindu" comments at Rediff were all against the Dharma Sansad for daring to "dictate" to Hindus what does and doesn't constitute Hindu religion and who Hindus can and can't worship. But the Dharma Sansad is not dictating to them. It is merely stating the facts of what is and isn't Hindu religion and who is and isn't worshippable to a *Hindu*. People can take it or leave it, BUT can't pollute established Hindu rituals and spaces (i.e. Hindu temples) with Shirdi Sai Baba etc. That is, anyone can still worship Shirdi Sai Baba - in non-Hindu buildings dedicated to this - but not in Hindu temples. And doing so of course means your doing new-ageism and not Hindu religion. That is, you're not really a proper Hindu, just a new-ageist. (C.f. some people in China dabbling in the aforementioned modern 5-religion-ideology combining Daoism+Buddhism+islam+christianism+Confucianism aren't Daoists.) And that if you think of yourself as a Hindu you wouldn't be worshipping Shirdi Sai Baba. Note also that in some respects, this position of the Dharma Sansad is not dissimilar to the Daoist answer to the lay Chinese Buddhists: that their interest in Daoist Gods meant they were essentially dabbling half-heartedly in 2 distinct religions and hence not doing either properly, since the two were unrelated and - in some important respects - are mutually exclusive. (=Also the traditional Shintos' argument - to this day - against mixing Buddhisms with Shinto, since it was Buddhist inculturation on Shinto, and since it further diluted Shinto religion and took away from its pristine quality and actual import.)



Note how traditional heathenisms are not "Anything Goes" religions. Neither Hindu, nor Daoism nor Shinto religions. And they are regularly forced to purge themselves from subversions that creep in or that have been insinuated into their religion by missionary ideologies.

Note also how the heathen situation is very different from the monotheisms' intolerance for other religions, contrary to how rediff-reader types like to pretend that the Dharma Sansad's conclusions make their pronouncements equal to islamic fatwas. Not at all. Islamic fatwas are on pain of death.



Missionary religions can't stand the existence of heathens practising their heathenism, and at best will inculturate on them to replace them at the head and at worst will convert-or-kill to replace them in full. Heathens don't mind the existence of other religions, they simply don't want their own religions subverted and distorted from its pristine quality and intent, since heathen religions are directly related to their cosmologies and Gods, and any distortions here will distort the heathens' understanding of their Gods and of their relationship to their Gods, and this in turn obstructs (ritual practices for) communion with their Gods/the aims of their religion.

[Husky]

Post 4/4

The quoteblocks in the previous 3 posts are important. This one is mere opinion.



Forgot to add.



1. I think it would be a good thing for all the mathas and ashramas who were present at the Dharma Sansad to provide an FAQ on the Hindu position regarding Shirdi Sai Baba worship. They can put the FAQ on their websites - I know some mathas have a web presence - and provide both the regional language version of the FAQ and an English language translation.



This serves two purposes:

- christomedia has expended energy in misrepresenting the Hindu acharya's and the Dharma Sansad's position and statements, as did also those modern Hindu vocalists who were screeching at Swami Swaroopaananda over at VV. An FAQ at the official websites of mathas and ashramas will provide a source of info that can silence any conspiracy theories and dissent that detractors at VV and elsewhere have been generating.

- More crucially, it will allow the mathas etc to articulate their position more fully to a sympathetic Hindoo audience that wants to understand and know the reasoning more fully, and a written FAQ will allow the mathas to use as many sentences as necessary to clarify and answer all kinds of questions that have been or may be raised. They can also add answers to any additional questions that suddenly arise, and surrounding which controversy is manufactured. For example, if they had started an FAQ on the topic, they could have added a new Q&A section upon noticing that the Rama and Krishna statement resulted in a controversy. E.g. adding a new question section like "The news reported that you/Shankaracharya Swaroopananda meant to exclude Shiva (Mahadeva)? Is this true? Why did you only mention Rama and Krishna?" and here the Swami or other Hindoos at his matham could explain how the Swami never intended to exclude Shiva or the other Vedic Gods.



Between them, the Dharma Sansad needs but one FAQ on the Shirdi Sai Baba topic, which they can copy across all their websites. Having an English language translation will not only reach the modern mono-linguists but also be useful to gag christomedia and other entities' attempts at defamation and misrepresenting the Hindu position.



Interviews posted at youtube may not reach as great a number of the target audience. And news reports on the Dharma Sansad will fade out of view even if the topic remains important for a long time. FAQs can even be retranslated in whole or in part as is required by Hindus who need to refer to it.



Actually, an FAQ for any relevant topic touched upon by the Dharma Sansad or by any particular matham/traditional Hindoo org would be helpful for the Hindu laity to get a clear understanding of the Hindu position from a primary source, as opposed to from dubious sources like news sites or "Hindu nationalist" sites.





2. Most of the Shirdi Sai Baba followers (not counting the hysterical angelsk-speaking new-age kind who ranted against the Swami at VV) tend to be regular Hindus whose bhakti has merely been misdirected. It is not impossible to redirect all their bhakti back to their Hindoo Gods exclusively. One of the sane comments at Sandhya's anti-Swaroopananda article was by one Senthil. He mentioned he had experience in de-programming Hindus from cults worshipping god(wo)men and from going to their new-agey centres, and had returned these Hindus back to worshipping their Hindu Gods alone in Hindu temples and pooja rooms. Clearly it is a task that's possible and that's important. Senthil is a conscious Hindoo, so he can be an example to others who wish to try the same. An FAQ by the Dharma Sansad could help in bringing home the reasons why the Shirdi Sai Baba has no connection to Hindu religion, and that it is misguided Hindus who have projected this connection onto him. It could also immunise Hindus from similar situations in future, preventing them from falling into any other cults worshipping muslim, christian or Indic godmen. As it is one can see everyday Hindu salesmen on the road who have been given images (probably by missionaries) featuring both jeebus and Ganapati, and the hapless Hindus keep these framed near their stalls.





3. I doubt this next would make me popular (if anyone were to ever read it), but:



Maybe the above is how Buddha ended up being proliferated among Hindus amidst their Hindu Gods too. I wonder when Buddha imagery is going to be removed from Hindus' temples and homes. Though I doubt the Dharma Sansad let alone Swami Swaroopananda has any objection to Hindus keeping Buddha imagery, the most prolific and influential and subversive peddling of Buddhism among Hindus in *India* today happens by the hand of subtly Buddhicised Hindus and nationalists. And Hindus' religion does Not benefit by being amalgamated with Buddhisms and by Hindus once more becoming the target of subtle bauddicisation.



It is beyond strange how much modern Hindus have fallen for a Buddhism of their own invention. Romantic notions they have. Ironically, the very aspects of Buddhism that they are infatuated with frequently tend to actually be originally Hindu, and which Buddhism has inculturated on or else distorted or has recently re-written as Buddhist. I suspect that if Hindus can develop immunity to the other Indic traditions - immunity to forcibly conflating them with Hindu religion - then we will have better immunity to religions and persons further removed from Hindu religion, such as muslim characters like Shirdi Sai Baba and christian characters like jeebus or saints. Hindus have not fully been able to deal with inculturation in the past, and Buddhism etc regularly creeps back in - or is allowed to creep back in owing to a population that fails to remain on guard. But missionary religions remain missionary, and they don't always need adherents to peddle them. Sometimes Hindus will peddle St Thomas or jeebus among other Hindus much better than a christian or missionary can. Similarly, would-be Hindus tend to peddle Buddhism in Hindu circles that are generally beyond the reach of the Buddhist Sangha.



IMO, it is all the *same* problem. At least the Taoists drew the line at Buddhism (and Confucianism too, BTW), so that they remain more readily vigilant against incursions by christianism and islam. Hindus have lost of lots of ground. I wonder when we will make up. What's incomprehensible to me is why clearly-Bauddhified individuals don't just convert to Buddhism already when they so obviously prefer Buddhism over Hindu religion. But, though they are free to convert, it must be made clear to them that they are banned from inculturating on anything Hindu after that - or anything Daoist or Shinto or Bon etc. (Which doesn't leave much in Buddhism that's attractive to the general populace after that....)







Only Mahavira and Buddha's spin-offs-turned-into-religions have survived, but at the same period of a few adjoining centuries, a great many similar Nastika sects emerged (some a bit older than both Jainism and Buddhism, like the Ajeevikas), borrowing from Vedic religion yet diverging from it at minor or more fundamental levels, and with promulgators of their own schools. (I think some may perhaps have found mention in that wiki page on shramanism.*) These promulgators of other, competing nastika schools were back then of the same status as Buddha and Mahavira. It is only time, and the survival of two of these schools and the demise of others, that has established Mahavira and especially Buddha in such importance and respect in Hindus' minds (aided by copious amounts of inculturation and unwanted insertions of Buddhisms into Hindu lit). Sure, if Buddha can be elevated to the level of a deity or a guru by Hindus, why discriminate against others who gave rise to nastika movements long back just because these others' movements had died out? Surely they are "Gods" to Hindus too? Or should be? Why not insert them as avataras into Hindu accounts, as Buddha has been?





* en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sramanism

Mahāvīra, the 24th Jina, and Gautama Buddha were leaders of their śramaṇa orders. According to Jain literature and the Buddhist Pali Canon, there were also some other śramaṇa leaders at that time.[9][note 3] Thus, in the Mahāparinibbāna Sutta (DN 16), a śramaṇa named Subhadda mentions:

...those ascetics, samaṇa and Brahmins who have orders and followings, who are teachers, well-known and famous as founders of schools, and popularly regarded as saints, like Pūraṇa Kassapa, Makkhali Gosāla, Ajita Kesakambalī, Pakudha Kaccāyana, Sañjaya Belaṭṭhaputta and the Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta...[10]

Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta (Pāli; Skt.: Nirgrantha Jñātaputra) refers to Mahāvīra.[note 4] In regard to the above other teachers identified in the Pali Canon, Jain literature mentions Pūraṇa Kassapa, Makkhali Gosāla and Sañjaya Belaṭṭhaputta.[11][note 5]



Some Brahmins joined the Sramana movement, such as Cānakya and Śāriputra.[12] [color="#800080"](I think Chanakya joined the Ajeevikas and hence was of the subgroup that worshipped Vishnu.)[/color]

Similarly, a group of eleven Brahmins accepted Jainism of Mahavira, and become his chief disciples or Ganadharas.[13][note 6]

Worried about the Modi government promoting Buddhism in India (and Hindus incl the govt are apparently threatening to shove Buddhism onto E Asia and SE Asia again. Why do Hindus only complain about christian and islamic missionising? What about Hindus and Buddhists missionising Buddhism onto S/E Asia? The crime is still the same.) With Modi building a Buddhist circuit in India and dumping Hindu money into major Buddhist projects - obviously too hard for him to have a Sri Rama Mandiram re-built at Ayodhya, I mean, who cares about his Hindu votebank - I am sure Buddhists in SL and in India will use it to become powerful in India and to missionise on the Hindus once more. They always do this. Everywhere. After Hindus spent so much effort in beating the missionary monster, why revive it again? (Not to mention how hard Daoists and Shintos had to work to protect their religion and prevent E Asia from turning into Buddhist Thailand, where there's no sign of the native ancestral religion.) Does the Modi govt even know what it is that it's doing?

Indians are good at doing Everything wrong. It's an achievement too I suppose.

At least the Sri Lankan Buddhists seem very happy about Modi's Buddhism plans. So too the Hindu Buddhism-fans/peddlers in India.

[Husky]

An example to illustrate my comments in post 157, in particular these statements:

Daoists are also clear among their kind to resist the modern trends in China etc to invent and join new religions that are a mix of Daoism + Buddhism + Islam + Christianism (and sometimes Confucianism too), because Daoism cannot be mixed with these other religions.

[...]

(C.f. some people in China dabbling in the aforementioned modern 5-religion-ideology combining Daoism+Buddhism+islam+christianism+Confucianism aren't Daoists.)

Just like in India, where you can see <insert many a popular Indian cult> trying to turn Hindus' religion into an "Everything Goes" buffet, by installing un-Hindus and anti-Hindus and other direct competitors in Hindus' temples, here you see a similar case happening in Taiwan.



There are some funny points too: an idol of Mohammed installed in a new, new-agey "Taoist" temple in Taiwan. Not sure that these Taiwanese are aware that islam absolutely forbids *anyone* - including islamics - from making images of mohammed, but it's good the ISIS don't have nukes yet, else they'd be aiming for this temple.

Clearly, the people who thought constructing this temple was a "good idea" didn't read about the Danish cartoon hysteria. And that wasn't even an idol of mohammed.





Taiwanese news, early 2010.



taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2010/02/17/2003466084

FEATURE: Some Taoist temples prove all-embracing

SOMETHING FOR EVERYONE Pingtung County’s Tiantai Baogong has a statue of Jesus Christ and the founders of other major world religions, along with Taioist deities

By Loa Iok-sin / STAFF REPORTER





Statues of the “founders of five religions” stand in front of a large statue of the Jade Emperor, the Taoist ruler of the Heaven, at Tiantai Baogong in Chaojhou Township, Pingtung County — from left to right: Mohammed, Laozi, Buddha, Confucius and Jesus — in this undated photograph.

PHOTO: LOA IOK-SIN, TAIPEI TIMESWalking into the three-story Glorious Pantheons (光正萬教宮) in Chiayi City, the temple looks similar to most other Taoist temples in the nation, with elaborately decorated pillars, a traditional roof and numerous statues of deities on the altars. However, upon taking a closer look at the altar, one difference becomes clear — there are two statues of Jesus, one with a cross and one without.



The temple was built in 1976 by a Taoist master, Huang Chin-ching (黃進卿), who believed that teachings of all religions are positive and righteous, hence one should think out of the box and learn the wisdom of all religions.

(Note that some groups are Taoist-Buddhists: they call themselves Taoists but are actually Buddhists, worship Guan Yin as the Bodhidharma and speak of Bodhisattvas and teach Buddhism not Taoism. Those groups also have masters.

Not sure what this Taoist master is. Then again, Hindus have many well-meaning but sadly-wrong swamis who have unwittingly peddled jeebus-ism and islam about among the masses. E.g. RK/M. Time will demonstrate how lethal all the aggregated mistakes of Hindus will be to Hindus and their heathenism.)



Huang’s idea became so popular that he had to build a larger temple in Jhongpu Township (中埔), Chiayi County, which was completed in 1998, the year before he died.



“Most followers of different religions — Taoists, Muslims, or Christians — believe only in the teachings of their own religions. However, they may miss the good things in other religions or become so narrow-minded that they are hostile toward other religions,” a Glorious Pantheons staffer Chen Yun-ying (陳雲英) told the Taipei Times.



“Our objective is to break the division between religions and to promote religious tolerance,” Chen said.



“We’re a Taoist temple, but we welcome people of any religion to come here,” she said.



The Glorious Pantheons, however, is not the only Taoist temple that honors Jesus.



At Tiantai Baogong (天台寶宮), a Taoist temple in Chaojhou Township (潮州), Pingtung County, a large statue of Jesus stands in the main hall, titled “Founder of Christianity” — right next to a statue of the Prophet Mohammed, titled “Founder of Islam.”



Mohammed is depicted as holding a saif — an Arab sword — in one hand and a Koran in the other.



In the same hall are statues of Laozi (老子), the “Founder of Taoism,” Siddhartha Gautama as “Founder of Buddhism” and Confucius as “Founder of Confucianism.”

(Laozu is NOT regarded as the "founder" of Taoism by Taoists, just as a forerunner, and not even the first human forerunner. According to Taoists, IIRC the Yellow Emperor - considered an avataaram of a Daoist God, from what I recall - is regarded the first human-class forerunner and cultivator of Taoism. Though not regarded as the "founder" of Taoism either, since Tao is eternal and co-eval with the Gods (the Gods are the Tao, and the cosmos is brought into being from this in stages). But oryanism has of course dismissed all of the Xia dynasty as "mythical": since the west is unable to claim the Xia dynasty as having oryan origins/influence, it needs to declare the first Chinese dynasty of kings as mythical in order to claim Chinese civilisation as an oryan aka white/western by-product upon claiming the China's 2nd dynasty, the Shang dynasty for oryanism using Iranians and Indians as a catspaw.)



Chairman of Tiantai Baogong’s Board of Administrators, Wu Hsu-ho (巫許河), said he doesn’t know why the founder of the temple decided to worship the founders of different religions at the temple, but he did not think it was inappropriate.



“All five major religions represented here — Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Christianity and Islam — serve similar purposes,” Wu said.



“They all teach people to be good, they all try to show the righteous way to do things for this world, so they’re not that much different if you look at the core of each religion,” Wu said.



However, some clergy and academics said they weren’t sure about such inclusivity.



“If you really look at the core of each religion, you wouldn’t think such a practice was appropriate,” said Sakinu Tepiq, a pastor at a Presbyterian church in Taitung County.



“For example, Christianity is against idolatry, so how is it appropriate to carve a statue of Jesus and worship it along with statues of other deities from other religions?” Sakinu said, adding that worshipping a statue of Jesus could be seen as downgrading Christianity.



People of different religions should engage in dialogue instead of conflict, but “what causes religious conflicts are humans, not Jesus Christ or Buddha, so simply putting their statues together wouldn’t help to create harmony among religions,” he said.



Tung Fang-yuan (董芳苑), a professor at Chang Jung Christian University’s Graduate Institute of Taiwan Studies who specializes in religious studies, agreed.





“I wonder if the templegoers actually understand and agree with the humanitarian spirit and actions of Jesus Christ? It would be a humiliation to Christ if the Jesus statue was simply placed there as just another deity that templegoers worship in exchange for peace and good luck,” Tung said.



“Only by truly understanding the meaning of other religions can a meaningful dialogue between believers of different religions be possible,” Tung said.



Cheng Chih-ming (鄭志明), a religious studies professor at Fu Jen Catholic University, however, thinks that when Jesus is worshipped at a temple, he no longer represents Christianity, but is simply another deity in Taiwanese folk religion.



“Christianity and Taiwanese folk religion are two unrelated religions, and no one should try to stop others from worshipping anyone in particular,” he said in a telephone interview. “Worshipping a figure from another religion shows the tolerance of Taiwanese folk religion.”

(But not vice-versa, see?)



Although both Glorious Pantheons and Tiantai Baogong claim to be Taoist temples, Tien Wei-li (田偉力), executive director of the Taoist Society of the Republic of China, said that the worship of Jesus and the Prophet Mohammed was not a Taoist practice.



“Taoists worship natural forces or phenomena, as well as people who lived strictly according to a set of guidelines or did good things when they were alive, or showed miracles afterwards,” Tien said. “In addition to Jesus and Mohammed, I’ve also seen worship of Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) — but we would not consider them ‘deities’ in Taoism because they do not meet the criteria.”



The chief executive director of the Wenhua Mosque in Taipei, Musa Ma (馬子誠), said Muslims do not worship Mohammed, because they do not worship anyone but Allah.



“The Prophet Mohammed is respected as a prophet, but he is not God,” Ma said. “Not to mention that we are against idolatry.”



However, Ma said that he fully respects the freedom of the temples to worship whomever they want.



“Some radical Muslims may protest, but as for Muslims in Taiwan, we would respect other people’s religious freedom — as long as they do not humiliate the Prophet Mohammed,” Ma said.

Muslims in Taiwan are just waiting for the ummah to back them up, at which point they too will suddenly "remember" that islamania bans idols of Mohammed.





Note the above is NOT posted to further inflame the sense of complacency among Hindus (i.e. not to invoke the "oh phew, we're not the only ones to descend to such detrimental depths"). It's already known that Hindus are not the only heathen population who are prone to this behaviour. E.g., to the west and backwards in time, the new-agey heathen Roman emperor Alexander Severus kept a bust of jeebus along with busts of deified emperors and I think Epicurus as well as of the Greek Gods and heroes. New-agey jeebus etc worship alongside the worship of the Gods - which was not tolerated by the church/christianism/bible but which behaviour was conspicuous only among heathens, as usual - didn't just occur among the emperors, but like in India, where jeebus and mohammed etc have been included by some lay Hindus who don't know better, the ancient Roman empire also saw some of its laity become unguarded and trivialise their religion.

And the lesson was clear: mass descent into stupidity is a sign of worse things to come. But it points to a fault/weakness in heathenism: the tendency to accumulate the unrelated and nonsense, and place this alongside the meaningful. That's why regular purging of unrelated elements that have accumulated or been insinuated into a heathenism is important: it returns the heathenism religion to its pristine state which strengthens the heathenism once more.





Posted the above article as an example of the forcible-merging of Daoism with unTaoist and alien and anti-heathen religions into the "5 religion" mess. Such a merger is vehemently opposed by traditional Taoists.



On the surface it looks like Daoists fell into the same pothole that so many Hindus like to fall in, but there's 2 differences: 1. the scale of stupidity, not just in terms of numbers of susceptible entities but also modern Hindus being several orders of magnitude stupider than their Taoist counterparts and 2. the effort of traditional Taoist experts in fighting off such subversions of their religion combined with - the all-important difference - how much better-received the judicious arguments and conclusions of the traditional Taoist experts are by the Taoist laity. In contrast, among Hindu masses, everyone appoints itself the expert and is ready to renounce learned acharyas and/or tradition (in favour of new-ageism or Bauddhification or Elst class argumentation, etc). As seen in the example of how easily "Hindus" ganged up on poor Swami Swaroopananda - whose great "crime" was to state mere facts ** - and how easily "Hindu" readers at Rediff ganged up against the Dharma Sansad, asking what the Dharma Sansad's "qualifications" were to make declarations on what is and isn't Hindooism and wondering how the DS "dared" to make declarations on behalf of all Hindoo-dom.



In contrast, the Taoist laity - being heathens a.o.t. self-satisfied new-ageists - has humility, the sense to recognise the limitations of what they know, and has respect for the expertise of knowledgeable Taoists (Taoist Experts) and are willing to listen to their arguments and consequently realise the sense in what they're trying to say.



[** And I noticed that VV hasn't retracted a single bit of their massive libel campaign against Swami Swaroopanadanda or against traditional Hindoo-ism on the matter of Shirdi Sai Baba. When they were so quick to learn of his "evil" statements and condemn it all with sweeping melodramatic filler, how come they did not come by the widely-visible announcements of the Dharma Sansad yet? Instead they're pretending nothing has happened. No matter. Backpeddling and "apologising" after such criminal behaviour is unforgivable. Hindus should smack them hard on the gob if they ever even *attempt* to backpeddle. They knew - or should have known - the magnitude and gravity of their allegations and the cost of being wrong. Do the crime, do the time, after all: the VV detractors' only option is to linger/wallow perpetually in their wrong. Mwahahaha. I'm getting way too much satisfaction from this. But I find I'm liking being petty. Plus someone needs to compensate for how the maligned acharya and the Dharma Sansad are not.]







It is impossible - in the "unforgivable" sense - to paste Taoist traditionalists' rebuttals of the subversive 3/4/5-religions-in-1 trends (such as is seen in the above article), because the links invariably lead to deep discussions among Taoists of highly private Taoist practices. Things that do not concern outsiders (including not just outsiders like well-meaning Hindus, but especially Buddhists/Bauddhified and also terrorists such as alien dabblers aka "converts" to Taoism).



Will just say the Taoists argue their point forcefully (more absolute than Swami Swaroopananda or the Dharma Sansad were in declaring theirs) with supporting arguments, making it unmistakably clear - even to me - that there can be NO mixing Buddhism (or even Confucianism) let alone jeebusism and mohammedanism with Taoism, and that the modern trends of 3-religion ideology (Taoism, Confucianism and Buddhism) to 5-religion variants (T, C, B plus christianism and islam) is 1. not Taoism and 2. is a subversion of Taoism and 3. is a threat and must be resisted.





But good grief. There was squabbling between Taoists and Confucianists (Confucianism is a Sinic religion and was competing with the ancestral native Taoism, like Buddhism/Jainism/Sikhism etc are Indic religions that compete with the ancestral native Hindu religion). But alien missionary ideologies/unheathenisms like Buddhism and christianism and islam (and zoroastrianism etc) were recognised as a serious threat in Chinese history, and Taoist emperors understandably made it a priority to take serious measures to clear them off from Chinese territory/from the Chinese heathen homeland. So the attempt to re-introduce the evil christoislamism and unwanted Buddhisms in what should be a Taoist temple makes even less sense.



And while the islamic threat in Taiwan is comparably less than what it was in history or what it is elsewhere, the christian threat is growing by the day. Here's an example of how eastern Asian christian missionaries that are infesting Taiwan are conspiring against Taoism and Buddhism there:



raykliu.wordpress.com/2013/03/16/a-new-mission/

As we walked one block around the mission house, we counted 5 temples of various sizes. The enemy had blinded the eyes of our fellow Chinese who live in spiritual darkness. Pray that their eyes will be opened to the gospel.



[Image caption:] Temple around the block

raykliu.wordpress.com/2013/03/18/our-mission-house/

A garage converted into a temple near the mission house

The Enemy had blinded the eyes of the people to the gospel with idolatry. There are 18,000 Taoists and 4,000 Buddhist temples in Taiwan. This one used to be an auto repair shop, but business was not very good so the owner converted it into a Taoist temple to increase revenues!

Note again the numbers: 18,000 Taoist temples - just in Taiwan - and 4,000 Buddhist temples.

Ethnic Indians (not just Buddhists) are always ready to label E Asia as Buddhist. Uh, no.

I expect that Indian neo-Buddhists and Sri Lankan Buddhist monks will write pamphlets declaring that the "evil Taoists" had stolen Taiwan's Buddhist temples and "converted" them to Taoist temples. You know, the way these Buddhists - quite like the Jain Minority Forum types - declared that the "evil Hindus" had stolen India's "Buddhist, no Jain, no Buddhist" temples and "converted" them to Hindu temples. (Never mind that Buddhism and Jainism copied temple building from heathens - even their hopeless arguments to make their case accidentally reveal this - and never mind that temple-building ONLY makes sense in religions with Gods and where the Gods are central. Plus Buddha was originally never even depicted. Only his relics and feet/imprints were worshipped and early Buddhists specifically disallowed imagery of the Buddha.) In reality, many of the "Buddhist" temples in E and SE Asia were built - without invitation, and with Bauddhified-government force - within heathen temple sites and complexes, and often Buddhas and buddhisms were forcibly installed within the heathen temples proper, so that such complexes were over time dubbed "Buddhist-Daoist"/"Buddhist-Shinto"/"Buddhist-Hindu" and some have since been magically dubbed "Buddhist" and even been taken over wholesale for Buddhism and become advertisements for Buddhism: "look how beautiful Buddhist temples are" and "see how Buddhism includes all those other religion's Gods, look at all those vigrahas" (except those were the temple's original vigrahas and the Buddhas/Buddhist tokens were installed/tattooed much later). Sort of like how everything Taoist is gifted to Buddhism as a crowning achievement of Buddhis, merely for Buddhism inculturating on Taoism in China.





Anyway, it's not just Hindu temple spaces that christians invade, and where christians pray that the heathens will convert and will destroy their own temples/idols or convert their temples to christian churches. Christians - foreign and local - inflict such "prayers" regularly to Taoist temples all over E and SE Asia too.



And although christians similarly assemble to howl christian "songs" in front of Buddhist temples too, or will even invade Buddhist temples to leave christian dawanganda there, as in the next example below, Buddhism should learn to stomach this as it's quite the same as the more palatable tactics that Buddhism employed against Taoism and Shinto. (Buddhists in Japan, standing in front of Shinto shrines, meaninglessly chanted their sutras at the Shinto Gods, with the intent that the shrines' Kami could thereby be declared to have got "nirvana" - by which process these Shinto Kami were then magically declared "Bodhisattvas" and were proclaimed as part of Buddhism/in the Buddhist hierarchy. <- Bauddhification of Shinto shrine complete, no matter the heathen Shintos' protestations. And Buddhists regularly snuck in unwanted meaningless Buddhist items and Buddha statues into Taoist and Shinto temples and then declared the site all "Buddhist therefore". Buddhists wrote long propaganda tracts denouncing Taoism and Taoists, and even wrote lame fictions dubbed "classics" demoting Taoist Gods. It wasn't just Hindus who got that glorious treatment. The important difference is that Buddhism is NOT native to other Asian nations.)



first-thoughts.org/on/Buddhist+Temple/

I wonder how SA's Mr. Short. 75yrs, is today, arrested and in a North Korean prison, for putting his Christian pamphlets in the Buddhist Temple. Seems he was quite purposive. Possibly facing 15 yrs in prison.

Wasn't aware that the "poor" alien famously "unfairly" stuck in N Korean prison was a missionary pulling the usual christian terrorism in a Buddhist temple. International christo-media only reported how a western man was imprisoned and made it all seem random and unprovoked in order to win international sympathy for the christian terrorist.

[Husky]

First 2 of 3 posts are moved here from the christianism=terrorism thread.





Post 1/3



A distinguishing feature of many missionary religions - certainly of all the missionary religions I'm familiar with - is the famous "seal of the prophets" routine, which is that technique whereby an invented missionary religion backprojects itself by dragging in the Gods/heroes/sacred/famous persons of other religions as its own predecessors (e.g. as previous prophets in the same lineage) and parading these characters from Other religions as having always belonged to the newly invented missionary ideology and having propounded said invention at an earlier time. (Backprojection and hijacking established pedigree/authority and riding on the popularity of familiar personages, is always the reason for encroaching on the prominent characters of other religions.) The inventor of the newly-minted missionary religion is then declared the "seal of the prophets" - which was the whole purpose - and the nonsense he (it's usually a he) propounds is declared "the final say" on the subject of religion, even as anything said and done by the Other religionists - who got lumped as predecessors/preceding prophets - is declared as being in line with the nonsense, though usually it is not only unrelated but often even contrary.



Besides the jeebus invention being peddled as the rabbi whose theology was to replace Judaism - the final "prophet" having the final say as per christianism (i.e. OT being superceded by the NT, even though they also had jeebus claiming he was coming to uphold the Law/OT) - there were many others.



Famous examples (outside known Indian-origin cases) are:



- Manichaeanism (around the same century of origin as christianism): hijacked the then much-popular Krishna and Buddha - backwards in time, of course - and declared them "previous avataras" of the new religion in order to peddle itself. It further poached on IIRC Ganapati, Hindus' view of reincarnation, used Hindus' Supreme Brahman/Parampurusha as a basis for the Manichaeans re-worked "Great Spirit" and more.

Therefore poaching was not just applied to Zoroastrianism and christianism/Judaism, but had to involve Indic religions too. (And as if jeebus creepus said the same thing as Krishna. In other words, Manichaeanism is so *obviously* a concocted religion.) Then Mani got crowned the Seal of the Prophets. Literally.



- Islamania: hijacked Alexander "The Great" - backwards in time, of course - declared Alexander a prophet, despite Alexander regarding himself as the son of Zeus and being a Hellene who had never heard of islamania nor even christomania (rather like Krishna and Buddha had never heard of Manichaeanism or the next example: Bahai). Then Mohammed anointed himself the Seal of Prophets. Again, literally. Not even original at this game.

Of course islam was a typical late ME religion and poached from Judaism and christianism and even Zoroastrianism. And at least Hellenism's Alexander.



- Bahai: Abrahamic religion invented in the mid 19th century (1800-something), incorporated not just prophets from IIRC all 3 famous Abrahamic religions (backwards in time), but also hijacked Buddha and the God (not "prophet") Krishna as prophets. Worse still, Bahai like to mangle the Mahabharatam and Gita - pretending it has something to do with their religion (backwards in time again) merely because they decided to poach on Krishna - all in order to declare that the MBh is in line with Bahai/that it belongs to them, so as to interpret it to align with their religion and to prove that Krishna was teaching Bahai/mono-moronism. (Bahai also poached on Ashtanga yoga and a zillion other Hindu stuff, and like to pass it off as theirs. Clearly they don't have anything original - and desperately need to steal Others' stuff - to acquire converts.) And for those who want to cheer the fact that some monotheists have made a "special" (actually meaningless and offensive) place for Krishna and Buddha - though no more "special" than Alexander or even jeebus' position is in islam - it's not all fun and games: e.g. see angelfire.com/mo3/bahai/krishna.txt where some Bahai looney is trying to argue that Krishna - and Buddha - was an oryan/Euro/"white", by mangling the Mahabharatam to do it. He even argues that Krishna would have been blue because of a skin disorder. (Now there's a first.) Rather like oryanists who always insist that Krishna cannot have been dark - and that this must have been attributed to him later on by the miscegenated Hindus - because surely Krishna "must" have been oryan=European="white", since the MBh is all important for aliens/oryanists to claim as their own (since they have absolutely nothing like it).



It doesn't matter to me that characters of missionary religions should themselves become victims of poaching/hijacking by other even later missionary religions that similarly attempt backprojection. But Krishna belongs to a heathen religion. Not to mention belonging to Hindoo religion exclusively. I know other Indians like to "share" away with everything - starting within India - but this is the sort of thing that always happens because Hindus don't draw the line between their own religion and every spin off.

Note that it is not just ME religions that did this to Hindu Gods: Buddhism declared Buddha an avataaram of Vishnu (and poached on many Hindu Gods) - just like Manichaeanism declared IIRC Mani an avataaram of Krishna and Buddha and poached on Ganapati, while Bahai - invented in ~1850 - declared their cult's inventor to be an avataaram of Krishna. And Jainism roped in Shiva by declaring their first (unhistorical, backprojected) teerthankara to be an avataaram of Shiva, and similarly used Krishna to tie some other backprojected unhistorical Jina characters as Krishna's relatives as a means to acquire a longer lineage for Jainism. All are cases of late missionary religions needing backprojection to present a pedigree to the masses and project themselves as religions established "since the beginning", whether this "beginning" starts at the monogawd and Adam or is the cyclical eternity of Hindu religion. Bahai is no different. And the tactic clearly works: look how many people, including western ones, fall for the lately invented and obvious fraud called Bahai. [No, I'm not tolerant of fictional religions that encroach on other religions to sell themselves/to missionise.]

In contrast to these inculturating and poaching tactics seen in most if not all missionary religions, you don't see heathen, ancestral religions (which are all original) ever doing such things. Heathens never pretend to have a claim on others' religion, they certainly don't pretend to know it better than the actual adherents of the ancestral religion, they wouldn't dare to mangle it, and they would Never pretend it all belonged to them (let alone more than it belonged to the real adherents). More reasons why heathens can't help being awesome, while missionary religions are just Replacement Theologies. Christoislam aren't the only ones who inculturated and then tried to replace the religion they spun off from (Judaism) as a precursor to peddling themselves all over.



Here's another example of Bahai craziness on Krishna



alaska.net/~peace/krishna.htm



^A page^ on how to convert "followers of Krishna" (i.e. Hindus) to Bahai - I mean, how to present Bahai to Hindus - using "Krishna was a prophet of Bahai-ism" re-invention/excuse. Sort of like how jeebus followers try to use christna to convert Hindus from Krishna to jeebusism. Or how islamaniacs try to use "jeebus was a prophet of islam" to convert jeebusites to islamania. [=That other feature of late ME religions: where Gods of others are turned into "prophets" - human characters - of their own religions, a la christianism turning Gods of Hellenismos into christian saints.]