Maybe someone of the Vaishnava stream will come and explain it better.
Until then, here's a placeholder. I will write what I remember. I suspect you already know this (though you are being unnecessarily unsure of yourself).
<!--QuoteBegin-thayilv+May 22 2008, 07:43 AM-->QUOTE(thayilv @ May 22 2008, 07:43 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->While that may be the case, the documentary also went on to say that the concept of virgin birth is present in Sanatan Dharma. It cites the example of Krishna and his mother Devaki.
[right][snapback]81879[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Krishna is born after his sister Maya (Devi) and Balarama and 5 others. Krishna is the 8th child of Devaki.
They will argue that just because Kunti conceived and delivered Karna and thereafter literally <i>became</i> a virgin again, that Devaki's case must be the same. (After all, wouldn't it make a more persuasive argument if Devaki could be <i>made</i> to have the same story as Kunti, because then they can declare that all God narratives are a clone and jeebus is but another. Then they will hit you with the club saying that since jeebus is a fraud the earlier originals of the ME and Greco-Roman empire must be too, and try to confound Krishna and Buddha in their confused mess of an argument.)
<!--QuoteBegin-thayilv+May 22 2008, 07:43 AM-->QUOTE(thayilv @ May 22 2008, 07:43 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Is this another example of poor understanding of our heritage?[right][snapback]81879[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I don't know about these particular people.
But <i>if</i> they're anything like the self-proclaimed American mythologist who calls herself "acharya s" (her pseudonym, don't ask), there'd be no point trying to correct them, as most of western 'rationalism' is christoconditioned: their alleged 'rationalists' act just like christians, with as difference that where christianism says that all other religions are false without exception, rationalism says all religions are false without exception. Both make these universal truth claims (as if self-evident) without bothering to investigate outside their biblical framework. That is, christian says: bible is true and it says other religions are false, therefore other religions are false, Q.E.D. Christo-conditioned rationalist bases his argument against other religions on the bible and takes bible's word and christianism's view (like christoBritish dawaganda) against them as true, then the christo-conditioned rationalist merely needs to disprove the bible itself. Yes, you noticed right, there's an internal loop in that reasoning as it is premised on the bible being true and then being false.
Christos observe other people and describe and prescribe others' religions for them from their christo-dictated POV. And likewise, the christo-conditioned rationalists do exactly the same. There's no humility on their part: they will not profess to not knowing, or to perhaps having faulty or incomplete or misinterpreted info about other religions. They will simply say that they know, you don't and that they are right and you are wrong. Rather the same slogan as "Ours is the true religion and you are worshipping false Gods." (Where your take on your Gods don't count.) It's the same arrogance and tendencies to monotheistic superiority and intolerance.
Most of modern western thought is based on the same flawed, non-independent thinking of christianism. Even where they rebel against christianism, they still play by its rules as they can't free themselves from the thought boundaries it has set for them. If you disagree with the christo-conditioned mythologists/western rationalists, they will get furious (a la WitSSel, how dare you question their authority) and say "you are only a stoopid Hindoo, what do you know about Hindooism? I will condescend to tell you about your religion." And all you are allowed to do is nod in agreement (or else). Very democratic of them, I'm sure.
The question comes down to: do you think your Hindu ancestors including grandparents and parents - and yourself - know your Hindu Dharma better than people who know no more of it than having heard of it and who think 'research' means getting dubious information 7th hand (where the first 'source' in the chain were dubious things jotted down by travellers from 2 or 3 centuries back and then referenced so many times until the first source ceases to be a mere travelogue recording hearsay and becomes elevated to the status of an empirical observation/fact instead).
If you find you do know better, then the way to counter them is not by pointing out their mistakes (after all, they believe absolutely that they are the absolute authority, and that you are just the Hindoo subject being observed who merely has the Right To Remain Silent and no right to protest). Rather, ignore them. Be indifferent to their fancies. It will bother them no end.
What they seek is recognition of their shallow research and acknowledgement of its validity by people (the equivalent of adulation and prostration to stroke their ego). Failing that, they will resort to the persecution complex they inherited from their christianism: if Hindus were to protest about mistakes, they will say they are being attacked by Hindootva, that their 'facts' are being stifled. Therefore, merely refute their silliness to other Hindus and teach Hindus why it is best to ignore them as well. (This last bit is important, since one can't just remain inert in the face of lies and misinformation.)
Because, just like christians, of all things they can't <i>abide</i> being ignored.
Until then, here's a placeholder. I will write what I remember. I suspect you already know this (though you are being unnecessarily unsure of yourself).
<!--QuoteBegin-thayilv+May 22 2008, 07:43 AM-->QUOTE(thayilv @ May 22 2008, 07:43 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->While that may be the case, the documentary also went on to say that the concept of virgin birth is present in Sanatan Dharma. It cites the example of Krishna and his mother Devaki.
[right][snapback]81879[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Krishna is born after his sister Maya (Devi) and Balarama and 5 others. Krishna is the 8th child of Devaki.
They will argue that just because Kunti conceived and delivered Karna and thereafter literally <i>became</i> a virgin again, that Devaki's case must be the same. (After all, wouldn't it make a more persuasive argument if Devaki could be <i>made</i> to have the same story as Kunti, because then they can declare that all God narratives are a clone and jeebus is but another. Then they will hit you with the club saying that since jeebus is a fraud the earlier originals of the ME and Greco-Roman empire must be too, and try to confound Krishna and Buddha in their confused mess of an argument.)
<!--QuoteBegin-thayilv+May 22 2008, 07:43 AM-->QUOTE(thayilv @ May 22 2008, 07:43 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Is this another example of poor understanding of our heritage?[right][snapback]81879[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I don't know about these particular people.
But <i>if</i> they're anything like the self-proclaimed American mythologist who calls herself "acharya s" (her pseudonym, don't ask), there'd be no point trying to correct them, as most of western 'rationalism' is christoconditioned: their alleged 'rationalists' act just like christians, with as difference that where christianism says that all other religions are false without exception, rationalism says all religions are false without exception. Both make these universal truth claims (as if self-evident) without bothering to investigate outside their biblical framework. That is, christian says: bible is true and it says other religions are false, therefore other religions are false, Q.E.D. Christo-conditioned rationalist bases his argument against other religions on the bible and takes bible's word and christianism's view (like christoBritish dawaganda) against them as true, then the christo-conditioned rationalist merely needs to disprove the bible itself. Yes, you noticed right, there's an internal loop in that reasoning as it is premised on the bible being true and then being false.
Christos observe other people and describe and prescribe others' religions for them from their christo-dictated POV. And likewise, the christo-conditioned rationalists do exactly the same. There's no humility on their part: they will not profess to not knowing, or to perhaps having faulty or incomplete or misinterpreted info about other religions. They will simply say that they know, you don't and that they are right and you are wrong. Rather the same slogan as "Ours is the true religion and you are worshipping false Gods." (Where your take on your Gods don't count.) It's the same arrogance and tendencies to monotheistic superiority and intolerance.
Most of modern western thought is based on the same flawed, non-independent thinking of christianism. Even where they rebel against christianism, they still play by its rules as they can't free themselves from the thought boundaries it has set for them. If you disagree with the christo-conditioned mythologists/western rationalists, they will get furious (a la WitSSel, how dare you question their authority) and say "you are only a stoopid Hindoo, what do you know about Hindooism? I will condescend to tell you about your religion." And all you are allowed to do is nod in agreement (or else). Very democratic of them, I'm sure.
The question comes down to: do you think your Hindu ancestors including grandparents and parents - and yourself - know your Hindu Dharma better than people who know no more of it than having heard of it and who think 'research' means getting dubious information 7th hand (where the first 'source' in the chain were dubious things jotted down by travellers from 2 or 3 centuries back and then referenced so many times until the first source ceases to be a mere travelogue recording hearsay and becomes elevated to the status of an empirical observation/fact instead).
If you find you do know better, then the way to counter them is not by pointing out their mistakes (after all, they believe absolutely that they are the absolute authority, and that you are just the Hindoo subject being observed who merely has the Right To Remain Silent and no right to protest). Rather, ignore them. Be indifferent to their fancies. It will bother them no end.
What they seek is recognition of their shallow research and acknowledgement of its validity by people (the equivalent of adulation and prostration to stroke their ego). Failing that, they will resort to the persecution complex they inherited from their christianism: if Hindus were to protest about mistakes, they will say they are being attacked by Hindootva, that their 'facts' are being stifled. Therefore, merely refute their silliness to other Hindus and teach Hindus why it is best to ignore them as well. (This last bit is important, since one can't just remain inert in the face of lies and misinformation.)
Because, just like christians, of all things they can't <i>abide</i> being ignored.