(See Dhu's post above.)
No one said it yet. So I will.
Post 125:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->May I also remind you that the Indian Social Structure as it was depicted in the Vedas Millenniums ago, made it an edict to leave Tribals and Adivasis alone and not to impose Hindu religion, culture or values on them. The word âcasteâ my friend is an English word! The Sanskrit word for âcasteâ is âVarnaâ and it means vocation or occupation and does not mean âcasteâ as it does in the English interpretation or translation of the term!
[...]
Let me ask you, Mr. Williams, what modern country that you know of today still have primitive tribals living undisturbed, âuncivilizedâ and untouched by their society living around them? As they do in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands of India? Did you know that these islands are off limits to all Indian citizens, to protect these tribals?Is it done to discriminate against the tribals as âuntouchablesâ or is it done to protect them? The State of Assam, was a similar tribal area until it got overran by zealous Christian Missionaries that have destroyed their social fibre and their culture.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I appreciate other parts of the response made by Edward Hamala, but I don't think this bit was right.
Hindu religion is the religion of 'tribals'. The Gods of the "tribals" tend to be 'our' Gods (I hate differentiating between Hindu people as if there are two groups; there are perhaps thousands, there is certainly only one). Many of 'them' were 'our' Rishis and writers. From Valmiki to Vyasa, from the Rama bhaktas living in remote regions of India who come in the Ramayanam, to the woman of a fisherman community who was ancestor to the dynasty of Pandavas and Kauravas. The so-called tribals regularly came into centre stage of Hindu history, and to think that they were not Hindus beggars belief. I can't even begin to understand this wholly alien idea.
Since I'm Hindoo, my opinion may not count. Therefore I'm pulling in stuff from Elst's page on Are Hindu Tribals Hindus. Do these people seem like they have a different tradition:
http://koenraadelst.voi.org/books/wiah/ch9.htm
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Pre-Harappan cave dwellings contain cultic elements which are still found in Hinduism today, e.g. in a Palaeolithic site in the Siddhi district of Madhya Pradesh (10,000 to 8,000 BC), a Mother Goddess shrine was found which contains the same symbols which Shaktic cults use till today,-squares, circles, swastikas and esp. triangles which are part of the iconography of Durga even in urban Hinduism.25 <b>A Flemish expert on tribal culture told me of a similar finding in the Bastar area; when the painted triangular stone was dug up, the tribal (Gond) guide at once started to do puja before it.</b>26 But the point is that the very same cultic object would fit in a Hindu temple in Varanasi just as well: living Hinduism continues many practices from hoary tribal antiquity.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The sacred triangle is the - how can I not recall what its proper name is :blink - Sri Yantram I think. In any case, it is very very very Sacred. Its shape is also used in building the inner sanctified chamber of the Devi in Kovils - all over Bharatam I think (and also has to do with the Chakras in Yoga).
Hence the Gonds know their Mother when they see her auspicious sacred form manifest. Hindus have made an art of presenting it in drawings and sculptures. If you look in Hindu homes (leastways, in my state, and I think it's fair to say the same about elsewhere in India) you will see these 'Triangles' (sometimes lotus-shaped) in pictures and in Puja Room mandapams, just like it is always there in Kovils. And us oddball tribalistic animystical Hindooooos always touch it to our eyes and do Namaskarams to it. (The "triangles" is in fact the central item of puja for Devi, just as the ShivaLingam is for Shiva and items like Vishnu Padam and the Five items of preservation are for Mahavishnu.) How can anyone tell the difference between this 'Gond' tradition and 'our' tradition? I can't.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->After citing some similar cases, Jain proposes to ?clinch the issue? with a very telling example: ?The Lingaraja temple in Bhubaneswar, built in the eleventh century, has two classes of priests: Brahmins and a class called Badus who are ranked as Sudras and are said to be of tribal origin. Not only are Badus priests of this important temple; they also remain in the most intimate contact with the deity whose personal attendants they are. Only they are allowed to bathe the Lingaraja and adorn him and at festival time (?) only Badus may carry this movable image (?) the deity was originally under a mango tree (?) The Badus are described by the legend as tribals (sabaras) who originally inhabited the place and worshipped the linga under the tree.?103
Linga worship is, of course, a hoary tradition carried from very ancient cultures into the centre of Hinduism. It is slightly absurd to accuse the linga-worshipping Hindus of demolishing the shrines of linga-worshipping tribals to replace them with temples for linga worship.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Oh, so now Lingam worship is "their" tradition? Who is "they" anyway? It is certainly 'our' tradition. It is certainly 'their' tradition. Or: as we so clearly worship the same Gods, we are simply all Hindus. Yes, mathematical reduction solves all such problems easily I find, and the annoying, artificially-introduced, 'mystery' duplicate variable finally goes away. No more paradox.
And think of Puri Jagannath - only the most aesthetically pleasing ultra-cuteness version of Krishna, Balarama and Subhadra I've ever seen. (Makes me want to plant my flag near it and proclaim It's Mine All Mine.)
More catalysts of Hindu Dharma in Bharatam:
http://koenraadelst.voi.org/books/wiah/ch9.htm
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>for the tribals have developed their own religious reform movements since more than a century</b>, such as the Bhili Bhagats, Tana Bhagats, Sapta Hors and Haribaba. ... their reforms can best be understood by comparison with the Arya Samaj, e.g. Jatra, the Oraon founder of the so-called Tana Bhagat movement (ca. 1920), <b>told his followers to abstain from meat and alcohol, and enlisted his movement in the national freedom struggle.?107</b>
<b>Birsa Munda</b>, whose Munda rebellion started with attacks on mission posts in 1899, claimed to have visions after the mode of the Biblical prophets, but <b>told his flock to give up animal sacrifice, witchcraft and intoxication and to wear the sacred thread, all amounting to a kind of self-sanskritization.108</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->To me, this sounds pretty much like more modern Hindu teachers self-realizing their way and paving the path for their communities. Rather like Valmiki, or how Adi Shankaracharya also changed a lot of local practises. Save us! It's a conspiracy! They're all 'going' Hindoooo like Bharatam always went Hindoooo! Or maybe, it is in us all along. This Sanatana Dharma, I mean. It is there for us to make our way back to it, like a Mother patiently waiting for her child to return. That explains this spontaneous conscious Hinduization of what are actually already-Hindu people. (This, by the way, is the difference between Natural Traditions, which is already in its people, and the artificially made-up terrorist ideologies that have to foist themselves on others with their jihads, crusades and evangelical missionizing salesmen/brainwashing tours.)
This "don't harry the so-called Tribals" that Hamala refers to is not a matter of converting "tribals" to Hinduism or "us" converting to "their" religion. We're all already part of the same religion, hence we don't have a reason for converting each other. (It's a different thing that Hinduism shows respect for the existence of community identities; Hinduism does not enforce assimilation. Hence Hinduism preserved the identity of NE Nagas - whereas, within a couple of decades, christoterrorism has endangered the real, Dharmic Nagas. The still-Nagas don't recognise the christoconverts as such but see that the christos have forsaken their identity upon conversion, while the converts predictably still cling to the name as if it were a mere genealogical word.)
But this notion of "Not involving 'ourselves' with the 'tribals'" does not make sense. Such a foreign idea only manifests when people imitate the christoBritish teachings and start thinking of Girijan or other Hindu communities as being separate from the few that are still allowed to be called 'the Hindu fold'. I can't remember that Valmiki or Vyasa avoided teaching the rest of the Hindu population what they knew. Why are others not supposed to return the favour? Hindu Girijan had regularly made brave stands for Dharma against islamis and the christobritish. And for all their efforts, all they get in return is this modern alienation - from what is after all *their* religion as much as it is mine?
From the page Ashoka Kumar pointed out - the Atharva Veda "Prithvi Suktam":
http://www.hindunet.com/forum/showthreaded...w=&sb=5&o=&vc=1
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->For the sake of the country and its people, may we speak charitably of the councils (of learned men) responsible for the upliftment of the rural people and the forest-dwelling tribal people, as well as the councils constituted during the time of war for the defence of the country and in times of emergency.
May we at all times be concerned with the development of the country.
12.1.57<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I don't know about the accuracy of the translation. But from how it reads, I can't tell from the above that they entertained the notion that Girijan or rural people (does that mean village, by the way?) were of a 'different' religion. All that is apparent from it is that good things like prosperity and spiritual gains when realised must be shared back amongst all Hindus, even when remote. Moreover, in a parallel statement, the army (plus any local militia) is also similarly mentioned. Surely defence forces and meets are not considered a different religion either?
Hindus would do the same for me - in fact, thanks to many Hindus Bharatam-over having stuck up for Hindu Dharma, I am here and safe today, and not languishing in the spiritual prison of islam or singing Rule Britannia, for instance. The very very least I can do is recognise them for what they are (Hindus). I would be a total ingrate if I did not respect various Hindus' contribution to my Dharma or to the defense of my Bharatam. I am unable to identify with any Hindu who will not recognise that other Hindus (such as those still called "tribals" today) are Hindus.
Sure, christoislamics, communistics and their foreign puppeteers are all only too eager to declare that Hindu communities are separate peoples or separate traditions. But that's the problem with listening to their lies: one may start believing it. Or, one could let them lie away until they turn blue in their face, while we continue to be what we always were.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The logo of the Vanavasi Kalyan Ashram shows a tribal with bow and arrow, which is indeed reminiscent of Rama, Drona and other heroes of the Vedic Age. Vedic and Puranic Hinduism started as a form of tribal animism, and have never repudiated these roots altogether.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I'd say.
The Rishis brought the knowledge of Sanatana Dharma for all the Hindus/Dharmics of India to share, and our teachers of RK Math, Arya Samaj and other Mathas continue this work. It would be ungrateful to forget that Hindus are one - same as our ancestors have always been - and instead regurgitate the sinister christoBritish fables as if we were good little illiterate students in their Dickensian Dotheboys horror-schools.
No one said it yet. So I will.
Post 125:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->May I also remind you that the Indian Social Structure as it was depicted in the Vedas Millenniums ago, made it an edict to leave Tribals and Adivasis alone and not to impose Hindu religion, culture or values on them. The word âcasteâ my friend is an English word! The Sanskrit word for âcasteâ is âVarnaâ and it means vocation or occupation and does not mean âcasteâ as it does in the English interpretation or translation of the term!
[...]
Let me ask you, Mr. Williams, what modern country that you know of today still have primitive tribals living undisturbed, âuncivilizedâ and untouched by their society living around them? As they do in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands of India? Did you know that these islands are off limits to all Indian citizens, to protect these tribals?Is it done to discriminate against the tribals as âuntouchablesâ or is it done to protect them? The State of Assam, was a similar tribal area until it got overran by zealous Christian Missionaries that have destroyed their social fibre and their culture.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I appreciate other parts of the response made by Edward Hamala, but I don't think this bit was right.
Hindu religion is the religion of 'tribals'. The Gods of the "tribals" tend to be 'our' Gods (I hate differentiating between Hindu people as if there are two groups; there are perhaps thousands, there is certainly only one). Many of 'them' were 'our' Rishis and writers. From Valmiki to Vyasa, from the Rama bhaktas living in remote regions of India who come in the Ramayanam, to the woman of a fisherman community who was ancestor to the dynasty of Pandavas and Kauravas. The so-called tribals regularly came into centre stage of Hindu history, and to think that they were not Hindus beggars belief. I can't even begin to understand this wholly alien idea.
Since I'm Hindoo, my opinion may not count. Therefore I'm pulling in stuff from Elst's page on Are Hindu Tribals Hindus. Do these people seem like they have a different tradition:
http://koenraadelst.voi.org/books/wiah/ch9.htm
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Pre-Harappan cave dwellings contain cultic elements which are still found in Hinduism today, e.g. in a Palaeolithic site in the Siddhi district of Madhya Pradesh (10,000 to 8,000 BC), a Mother Goddess shrine was found which contains the same symbols which Shaktic cults use till today,-squares, circles, swastikas and esp. triangles which are part of the iconography of Durga even in urban Hinduism.25 <b>A Flemish expert on tribal culture told me of a similar finding in the Bastar area; when the painted triangular stone was dug up, the tribal (Gond) guide at once started to do puja before it.</b>26 But the point is that the very same cultic object would fit in a Hindu temple in Varanasi just as well: living Hinduism continues many practices from hoary tribal antiquity.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The sacred triangle is the - how can I not recall what its proper name is :blink - Sri Yantram I think. In any case, it is very very very Sacred. Its shape is also used in building the inner sanctified chamber of the Devi in Kovils - all over Bharatam I think (and also has to do with the Chakras in Yoga).
Hence the Gonds know their Mother when they see her auspicious sacred form manifest. Hindus have made an art of presenting it in drawings and sculptures. If you look in Hindu homes (leastways, in my state, and I think it's fair to say the same about elsewhere in India) you will see these 'Triangles' (sometimes lotus-shaped) in pictures and in Puja Room mandapams, just like it is always there in Kovils. And us oddball tribalistic animystical Hindooooos always touch it to our eyes and do Namaskarams to it. (The "triangles" is in fact the central item of puja for Devi, just as the ShivaLingam is for Shiva and items like Vishnu Padam and the Five items of preservation are for Mahavishnu.) How can anyone tell the difference between this 'Gond' tradition and 'our' tradition? I can't.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->After citing some similar cases, Jain proposes to ?clinch the issue? with a very telling example: ?The Lingaraja temple in Bhubaneswar, built in the eleventh century, has two classes of priests: Brahmins and a class called Badus who are ranked as Sudras and are said to be of tribal origin. Not only are Badus priests of this important temple; they also remain in the most intimate contact with the deity whose personal attendants they are. Only they are allowed to bathe the Lingaraja and adorn him and at festival time (?) only Badus may carry this movable image (?) the deity was originally under a mango tree (?) The Badus are described by the legend as tribals (sabaras) who originally inhabited the place and worshipped the linga under the tree.?103
Linga worship is, of course, a hoary tradition carried from very ancient cultures into the centre of Hinduism. It is slightly absurd to accuse the linga-worshipping Hindus of demolishing the shrines of linga-worshipping tribals to replace them with temples for linga worship.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Oh, so now Lingam worship is "their" tradition? Who is "they" anyway? It is certainly 'our' tradition. It is certainly 'their' tradition. Or: as we so clearly worship the same Gods, we are simply all Hindus. Yes, mathematical reduction solves all such problems easily I find, and the annoying, artificially-introduced, 'mystery' duplicate variable finally goes away. No more paradox.
And think of Puri Jagannath - only the most aesthetically pleasing ultra-cuteness version of Krishna, Balarama and Subhadra I've ever seen. (Makes me want to plant my flag near it and proclaim It's Mine All Mine.)
More catalysts of Hindu Dharma in Bharatam:
http://koenraadelst.voi.org/books/wiah/ch9.htm
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>for the tribals have developed their own religious reform movements since more than a century</b>, such as the Bhili Bhagats, Tana Bhagats, Sapta Hors and Haribaba. ... their reforms can best be understood by comparison with the Arya Samaj, e.g. Jatra, the Oraon founder of the so-called Tana Bhagat movement (ca. 1920), <b>told his followers to abstain from meat and alcohol, and enlisted his movement in the national freedom struggle.?107</b>
<b>Birsa Munda</b>, whose Munda rebellion started with attacks on mission posts in 1899, claimed to have visions after the mode of the Biblical prophets, but <b>told his flock to give up animal sacrifice, witchcraft and intoxication and to wear the sacred thread, all amounting to a kind of self-sanskritization.108</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->To me, this sounds pretty much like more modern Hindu teachers self-realizing their way and paving the path for their communities. Rather like Valmiki, or how Adi Shankaracharya also changed a lot of local practises. Save us! It's a conspiracy! They're all 'going' Hindoooo like Bharatam always went Hindoooo! Or maybe, it is in us all along. This Sanatana Dharma, I mean. It is there for us to make our way back to it, like a Mother patiently waiting for her child to return. That explains this spontaneous conscious Hinduization of what are actually already-Hindu people. (This, by the way, is the difference between Natural Traditions, which is already in its people, and the artificially made-up terrorist ideologies that have to foist themselves on others with their jihads, crusades and evangelical missionizing salesmen/brainwashing tours.)
This "don't harry the so-called Tribals" that Hamala refers to is not a matter of converting "tribals" to Hinduism or "us" converting to "their" religion. We're all already part of the same religion, hence we don't have a reason for converting each other. (It's a different thing that Hinduism shows respect for the existence of community identities; Hinduism does not enforce assimilation. Hence Hinduism preserved the identity of NE Nagas - whereas, within a couple of decades, christoterrorism has endangered the real, Dharmic Nagas. The still-Nagas don't recognise the christoconverts as such but see that the christos have forsaken their identity upon conversion, while the converts predictably still cling to the name as if it were a mere genealogical word.)
But this notion of "Not involving 'ourselves' with the 'tribals'" does not make sense. Such a foreign idea only manifests when people imitate the christoBritish teachings and start thinking of Girijan or other Hindu communities as being separate from the few that are still allowed to be called 'the Hindu fold'. I can't remember that Valmiki or Vyasa avoided teaching the rest of the Hindu population what they knew. Why are others not supposed to return the favour? Hindu Girijan had regularly made brave stands for Dharma against islamis and the christobritish. And for all their efforts, all they get in return is this modern alienation - from what is after all *their* religion as much as it is mine?
From the page Ashoka Kumar pointed out - the Atharva Veda "Prithvi Suktam":
http://www.hindunet.com/forum/showthreaded...w=&sb=5&o=&vc=1
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->For the sake of the country and its people, may we speak charitably of the councils (of learned men) responsible for the upliftment of the rural people and the forest-dwelling tribal people, as well as the councils constituted during the time of war for the defence of the country and in times of emergency.
May we at all times be concerned with the development of the country.
12.1.57<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I don't know about the accuracy of the translation. But from how it reads, I can't tell from the above that they entertained the notion that Girijan or rural people (does that mean village, by the way?) were of a 'different' religion. All that is apparent from it is that good things like prosperity and spiritual gains when realised must be shared back amongst all Hindus, even when remote. Moreover, in a parallel statement, the army (plus any local militia) is also similarly mentioned. Surely defence forces and meets are not considered a different religion either?
Hindus would do the same for me - in fact, thanks to many Hindus Bharatam-over having stuck up for Hindu Dharma, I am here and safe today, and not languishing in the spiritual prison of islam or singing Rule Britannia, for instance. The very very least I can do is recognise them for what they are (Hindus). I would be a total ingrate if I did not respect various Hindus' contribution to my Dharma or to the defense of my Bharatam. I am unable to identify with any Hindu who will not recognise that other Hindus (such as those still called "tribals" today) are Hindus.
Sure, christoislamics, communistics and their foreign puppeteers are all only too eager to declare that Hindu communities are separate peoples or separate traditions. But that's the problem with listening to their lies: one may start believing it. Or, one could let them lie away until they turn blue in their face, while we continue to be what we always were.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The logo of the Vanavasi Kalyan Ashram shows a tribal with bow and arrow, which is indeed reminiscent of Rama, Drona and other heroes of the Vedic Age. Vedic and Puranic Hinduism started as a form of tribal animism, and have never repudiated these roots altogether.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I'd say.
The Rishis brought the knowledge of Sanatana Dharma for all the Hindus/Dharmics of India to share, and our teachers of RK Math, Arya Samaj and other Mathas continue this work. It would be ungrateful to forget that Hindus are one - same as our ancestors have always been - and instead regurgitate the sinister christoBritish fables as if we were good little illiterate students in their Dickensian Dotheboys horror-schools.