Historicity of Jesus - 2

[Husky]

1. The excerpt of #695 is by - I think - "Incognito", right? (Well, by someone who also used to frequently comment at Rajeev2004 at any rate, even if I got the handle wrong. I recall s/he had a blog where they once wrote an entry containing what's now quoted in #695.)





On that (in a communication to someone) -

06 May 2010 - 07:50 PM

[...]



2. I looked at your blog. I can't see myself contributing a post for your blog.

For me, the Hindu Dharmic tradition

- is most certainly a religion. I use "religion" in the sense of how Hellenismos is a distinct religious tradition. AND

- it is distinct from Bauddha, Jaina - and other non-theistic Ajeevika paths if any still exist - and Charvaka, Sikh, etcetera Indian traditions.



Half the destruction of what Hindus themselves have been causing to the Hindu Dharmic religion derives from today's Hindus refusing to recognise what the Hindu religion is and what it is not. And from their denying the label "Hindus" to give recognition to the religious unity of the otherwise unnamed (hence suddenly orphaned) non-Jain, non-Buddhist, non-Sikh etc body of Dharmic traditionalists "unless the named traditionalists can equally share in it".



Hindus will extinct in this invisibility. And it is other Hindus who are enforcing this invisibility. This strait-jacketing of Hindus with other Dharmics (many of whom don't want the Hindu label anyway, because they do not want to be joined with a religion that they know is distinct from theirs. It is NOT the label they object to - contrary to nationalists' assumptions. It is the religion: they know it exists, that it is a religion and hence they object to the label denoting that religion: Hindu. They can clearly see there is a distinct religion - and don't want to be attached to it under an umbrella term, even one that can be made to mean something larger with repeated utterance).



"Hindu" may not be an apt label. I'm not contesting that.[*]

But "Hindu" has for some time been a commonly-used term for a body of traditional Indian religionists who exist as they have ever. Hindus need a name. They need a name. Even if it is only so it may go on their epitaph. And it needs to be one that has been in use in print (and recognised widely) so that the future may be identified with the part of the past that is in print. Therefore it must be "Hindu".



[* And I have ever agreed that "Dharma" is not "religion" - it is only in Hindi and perhaps some other Bharatiya languages - where the Samskrita Term has acquired that meaning. I mean "Dharma" in the Hindu Samskritam sense: so Hindu Dharma is Vedic Dharma, i.e. Hindu code of conduct as in the Hindu Shastras: the Vedas and Upanishads, Agamas and Tantras, the Hindu Itihasas and Puranas etc.]





You are responsible for your own actions, but be very careful in denying Naming Terms to a population (especially those of a natural tradition). And for forcibly merging them with religions/traditions they do not belong to, under an umbrella "civilisational culture". You may find the usage of "Hindu" harmful or at the very least an incomplete description, but for Hindus to become namelessly orphaned when they are under attack - and it is specifically them: only the ones identified as "idolatrous AND polytheistic" are targeted first, both because they are the #1 enemy of the christoclass mindvirus and because they make up the majority heathen religion of Bharatam -

for Hindus to become namelessly orphaned now makes the extinction process that much faster and more definite. Because self-denial and the invisibility/merging with the background that ensues facilitates extinction.



If you would, think your position through completely first. More so than you perhaps have done so far.



Indians are not all merely to be defined and described by the "Bharatiya Samskriti" term as one member ("Incognito") commenting at the Rajeev2004 blog would have it.



Please understand I don't wish to have a conversation on this matter with you - or anyone else. I merely gave you my view to indicate why I don't agree with your blog (for which you asked me to write a post). I have no intention of and no interest in convincing you or anyone to adopt a view similar to mine. I just don't want to make this into a matter of discussion.





The (Hindu) Gods are the (sum-total of the) religion of all my ancestors. It is all that matters to me too. I recognise only that. The Gods come first. And second come those people for whom the Gods similarly come first. Nothing else is remotely relevant to me. I recognise no further allegiance.

- I have sympathy for the other Dharmic traditions.

- Beyond sympathy, I feel affinity for those Gods-based Natural Traditions in the world that are similar to the Hindu religion.



So you know you cannot trust me. For you the "devi devatas" have but merely "helped" you and your ancestors, along with "divine beings". Something you thank them for.

For my ancestors, the Gods are all there is, the Gods are the whole and sole purpose to their life. The Gods are the religion of my ancestors (i.e. for them, Hindu Gods=Hindu religion), and for many other ancient Hindus besides.





Your blog states:

"I make this assertion that the Bharatiya Dharmas are the finest and only system surviving on this planet (native American and African traditions are gone) that can enable Human beings to live sustainably with nature and accelerate Human evolution."



Bharatiya Dharmic traditions are nowhere near the only systems surviving on the planet that enable the same. They are not the sole finest.

When you do not know other natural traditions (that continue to exist, esp. in Asia - it is apparent from your conclusion that you do not know them) how can you make such claims?



I'm sorry if I sound angry. I'm just tired.

[...]

2. On this excerpt in #696:

This creation of a specie called ‘hindus’ is a western characteristic that creates such species called christian, muslim, kaffir, heathen etc.

Parroting oneself is lame, but I've done it so often, why stop now -

Mentioned the following in a different context once, on why "Pagan" (like kaffir) should not be used as a means of self-address by people of the various traditional religions. (Not in any serious sense or situation, certainly never in one's mind, which of course one doesn't do.) While the topic of #696 is different, from that angle too, I want the following stated:

And the English term [color="#800080"]("pagans")[/color] is even more inappropriate: the traditionalist peoples certainly have nothing to do with the christian biblically-imposed worldview of the "christians and pagans" - "the faithful and infidels", "dar-ul-islams and dar-ul-harbs", "heaven/pardees and hell/jahannah" (and monopolytheism ultimately fits in this continuum since it derives from enforced views). Natural Traditionalists are not part of the christian world (incl. its views of humanity's place in it, etc.), they don't believe in jeebusjehovallah, don't subscribe to the bible, don't end up in hell (or christoislamic heaven - same thing) no matter how hard the christoislamics believe.

[color="#0000FF"]That's not to say that these vituperative terms are not referring to actually existing groups: the terms were designed to. The point is, these populations have names for themselves - legitimate names, self-references they identify with. Ones that explain to ourselves who we are - views that exist entirely independent of the bible[/color], its judgements/commandments, or its non-existent demonic character jeebusjehovallah. (The way "AD and BC" are not anyone's dating system but christists'.)