Hindu Narrative

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-SwamyG+May 4 2007, 09:20 PM-->QUOTE(SwamyG @ May 4 2007, 09:20 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Kidding apart, why not let Ashok, Husky, Bodhi, Shiv, Hauma etc write, and if people like to read them and follow them so be it. It has both pros and cons. People who want to criticize Hinduism would pick the parts written badly, or by "evil" people to say "Look, Hinduism is disgusting". But some people are going to pick up the other invigorating parts and glorify them.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
SwamyG,

That was not what I meant.

I of course welcome writings by all and sundry about hinduism from "their" perspective. My complaint was regarding giving an artificial "Agama" kind of form.

Let me recall here that hinduism has two types of "revealed" literature, nigama (vedas or shruti in general) and Agama (many tantras). They both supposedly came directly from the divine, and are attributed as such, and are held in particular reverence.

In the case of shaiva "Agama" literature, shiva answers questions posed by shakti. This is where the "black-magicians" have played havoc. If they had written texts claiming them to be product of their own fertile minds, then it wouldn't be an issue. But attributing some truly horrendous texts (e.g. some prescibing human child sacrifice etc) to shiva himself is a first class chicanery. These are the texts that need to be evaluated and culled.