[quote name='Swamy G' date='11 November 2010 - 09:36 PM' timestamp='1289491081' post='109193']
It is indeed fascinating. Fascinating because it is from Rajeev. I thought he was one of those frothing Hindus, who see ghosts in every shadow.
[/quote]
I'm not sure why such a response is necessary - the dismissal of RS' entire character, I mean. Such as with the unreasonable statement that he supposedly is "one of those frothing Hindus, who see[s] ghosts in every shadow."
Rajeev Srinivasan was wrong on the matter which I spammed about in some successive posts above (dangerously wrong, but I don't think he is aware of how certain motivated others are using the same false, unfounded argumentation against Hindus). Okay, so it wasn't the first time he was wrong either*, but as I just implied, this instance was on a matter important to affected Hindus (like the Tamizh kind) and so some sort of correction was required for the record.
That is no occasion to insinuate that his entire character is one of paranoia and to publicly set him down.
I'd just had enough with core Hindu matters (like Hindu Gods, Temples, rituals and practices) - not to mention even non-Indian religions - being donated away to Buddhism etc. by people today who apparently can't care less about such things. Hence those posts. I may have mentioned RS' name in the above posts far more often than a lot of other persons/orgs propagating the same falsehood - in their case, knowingly - who deserved at least as much mention. But unlike them, I had *expected* more of Hindus.
But he has written knowingly on other matters and has been helpful in opening many angelsk-reading Hindus' eyes to christianism and its terrorism. That's a lot more than many Indians manage (usually one only witnesses christian protectionism). And that does not make him "a frothing Hindu who sees ghosts in every shadow" for it. Any ghostly shadows of christoism - are very real.
Came here to write on a different matter - on something that has been bothering me for some weeks: a symptom of the misfortunes suffered by Daoism (hardly a minor matter to Daoists), but I guess that will wait.
* Example of another erroneous post by RS that is relevant to this thread. (Or maybe it's just the language medium/sentence structure used that looks to me to imply an equivalence where none was intended). Tracked it down, it's this one:
http://rajeev2004.blogspot.com/2010/09/h...ereof.html
1. 'Gods' in Buddhism - where Buddhism references them at all - is a different matter entirely to what Gods are/mean in the traditional Gods-centred religions. But I think that's been sufficiently touched on in this thread.
2. Isn't anthropomorphism the human tendency to see/ascribe human features and other humanisms - like emotions and motivations - to non-human matters like animals, forces of nature, etc.?
While it's true that anthropomorphism is not there in Hindu religion, what doesn't seem to be stressed in the above is that the Hindu Gods (when with form) most certainly have their Own Forms, which are natural to them (i.e. not human-assigned, just like animals' forms are not human-assigned) and which forms are in fact *central* in the modes of worship prescribed for many of the Gods. There are (at least) *several* Gods for whom the forms are a most primary way to reach them. And to deny that is to the deny the very Hindu Gods concerned in such worship.
Again: these things matter.
3. The 2nd half of the statement by RS that "hinduism and buddhism talk of non-anthropomorphic forces, the former of 'it' and the latter of 'the void'" seems to imply - and I could just be misreading, it's not clear - that Buddhist and Hindu religions are talking of the same thing: that the Void is Buddhism's way of regarding Hindu's Absolute Reality (Supreme Ultimate) or vice-versa. But they're Not the same.
This time, I'm going to quote heathens *other* than Hindus on the matter. I thought the following item from Hellenism's Neo-Platonist Philosophy seemed relevant in this respect:
![[Image: NP-1.jpg]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v130/indiaforum/NP-1.jpg)
Although Proclus above - and he wasn't the only one - didn't write that with Buddhism in mind, the above nevertheless gives hints of even the Neoplatonist Hellenistic views with respect to Buddhistic-type ideas (Buddhism wasn't the only one that came up with Nothingness as the final reality, the ancient world was quite familiar with the notion, and the above sort of Hellenistic arguments against such actually derive from their general experience).
Daoists explain clearly the danger inherent in people wrongly assuming that Nothingness - when reached as a conclusion of sorts during Daoist "philosophical" pursuit - is the final end. Because in Daoism, where their Gods are known to be real, Daoism's Supreme Ultimate is the Reality, not nothingness. (And this view was not derived as an answer to Buddhism - though it can be applied as a response - but is an earlier observation in Daoism, one that is internal to it and, again, derived from Daoist experiences.)
Buddhism would claim the opposite (seen at its most obvious in western dabblers in Buddhism...I mean converts...who make this claim after they mis-use Advaitam* - which doesn't even involve or concern Buddhism but is exclusively Hindu - as a stepping stone in their practice of Zen and other Buddhisms): that they have gone "beyond" the experience of the Absolute Reality to reach the Nothing and realise this as the 'true/real' 'reality'.
Traditional Buddhists are entitled to their views. But Buddhism's Void is not the same as the end-goals of the various Gods-focused religions: none of them claim such sameness.
* You can see many western converts to Buddhism misusing Advaitam in this manner: so many of them energetically go after translations of traditional Hindu books on Advaitam and then declare it "helps them with their Buddhism". (There's the unspoken one-way rule that everything Hindu is "therefore" magically Buddhist as well. For once: just learn to say No.)
Anyway, their confession that "it helps them with their Buddhism" indicates one of two things:
- either Buddhism really is incomplete, even in the area of what people mislabel "philosophy": if Buddhists are unable to get the feeling they have got further/anywhere without resorting to *Hindu* teachings on what are very much *Hindu* knowledge and views/understanding,
- or it is that western converts just don't get Buddhism. Yet they *will* dabble and misuse even Hindu religion for it.
Whichever, the gall of it is that they then write sermons on how they have (a) "moved/evolved past" the experience of the All/Reality of Hindu religion - usually with ref to Advaitam, since that is what they tend to dabble in, to (b ) realising the "truth" of Buddhism by having "experienced the Nothingness Beyond It All" - before advertising as usual that "Buddhism is therefore real/true/superior/the final step/seal of prophets" to Hindu religion. When in reality they only imagine having experienced both (certainly, they only imagine having experienced the first-mentioned, (a)).
It is indeed fascinating. Fascinating because it is from Rajeev. I thought he was one of those frothing Hindus, who see ghosts in every shadow.
[/quote]
I'm not sure why such a response is necessary - the dismissal of RS' entire character, I mean. Such as with the unreasonable statement that he supposedly is "one of those frothing Hindus, who see[s] ghosts in every shadow."
Rajeev Srinivasan was wrong on the matter which I spammed about in some successive posts above (dangerously wrong, but I don't think he is aware of how certain motivated others are using the same false, unfounded argumentation against Hindus). Okay, so it wasn't the first time he was wrong either*, but as I just implied, this instance was on a matter important to affected Hindus (like the Tamizh kind) and so some sort of correction was required for the record.
That is no occasion to insinuate that his entire character is one of paranoia and to publicly set him down.
I'd just had enough with core Hindu matters (like Hindu Gods, Temples, rituals and practices) - not to mention even non-Indian religions - being donated away to Buddhism etc. by people today who apparently can't care less about such things. Hence those posts. I may have mentioned RS' name in the above posts far more often than a lot of other persons/orgs propagating the same falsehood - in their case, knowingly - who deserved at least as much mention. But unlike them, I had *expected* more of Hindus.
But he has written knowingly on other matters and has been helpful in opening many angelsk-reading Hindus' eyes to christianism and its terrorism. That's a lot more than many Indians manage (usually one only witnesses christian protectionism). And that does not make him "a frothing Hindu who sees ghosts in every shadow" for it. Any ghostly shadows of christoism - are very real.
Came here to write on a different matter - on something that has been bothering me for some weeks: a symptom of the misfortunes suffered by Daoism (hardly a minor matter to Daoists), but I guess that will wait.
* Example of another erroneous post by RS that is relevant to this thread. (Or maybe it's just the language medium/sentence structure used that looks to me to imply an equivalence where none was intended). Tracked it down, it's this one:
http://rajeev2004.blogspot.com/2010/09/h...ereof.html
Quote:quite interestingly, these sentient-being fantasies only afflict the semitic ideologies. hinduism and buddhism talk of non-anthropomorphic forces, the former of 'it' and the latter of 'the void'. no problem if 'intelligent design' and suchlike are shown to be so much poppycock.
1. 'Gods' in Buddhism - where Buddhism references them at all - is a different matter entirely to what Gods are/mean in the traditional Gods-centred religions. But I think that's been sufficiently touched on in this thread.
2. Isn't anthropomorphism the human tendency to see/ascribe human features and other humanisms - like emotions and motivations - to non-human matters like animals, forces of nature, etc.?
While it's true that anthropomorphism is not there in Hindu religion, what doesn't seem to be stressed in the above is that the Hindu Gods (when with form) most certainly have their Own Forms, which are natural to them (i.e. not human-assigned, just like animals' forms are not human-assigned) and which forms are in fact *central* in the modes of worship prescribed for many of the Gods. There are (at least) *several* Gods for whom the forms are a most primary way to reach them. And to deny that is to the deny the very Hindu Gods concerned in such worship.
Again: these things matter.
3. The 2nd half of the statement by RS that "hinduism and buddhism talk of non-anthropomorphic forces, the former of 'it' and the latter of 'the void'" seems to imply - and I could just be misreading, it's not clear - that Buddhist and Hindu religions are talking of the same thing: that the Void is Buddhism's way of regarding Hindu's Absolute Reality (Supreme Ultimate) or vice-versa. But they're Not the same.
This time, I'm going to quote heathens *other* than Hindus on the matter. I thought the following item from Hellenism's Neo-Platonist Philosophy seemed relevant in this respect:
Although Proclus above - and he wasn't the only one - didn't write that with Buddhism in mind, the above nevertheless gives hints of even the Neoplatonist Hellenistic views with respect to Buddhistic-type ideas (Buddhism wasn't the only one that came up with Nothingness as the final reality, the ancient world was quite familiar with the notion, and the above sort of Hellenistic arguments against such actually derive from their general experience).
Daoists explain clearly the danger inherent in people wrongly assuming that Nothingness - when reached as a conclusion of sorts during Daoist "philosophical" pursuit - is the final end. Because in Daoism, where their Gods are known to be real, Daoism's Supreme Ultimate is the Reality, not nothingness. (And this view was not derived as an answer to Buddhism - though it can be applied as a response - but is an earlier observation in Daoism, one that is internal to it and, again, derived from Daoist experiences.)
Buddhism would claim the opposite (seen at its most obvious in western dabblers in Buddhism...I mean converts...who make this claim after they mis-use Advaitam* - which doesn't even involve or concern Buddhism but is exclusively Hindu - as a stepping stone in their practice of Zen and other Buddhisms): that they have gone "beyond" the experience of the Absolute Reality to reach the Nothing and realise this as the 'true/real' 'reality'.
Traditional Buddhists are entitled to their views. But Buddhism's Void is not the same as the end-goals of the various Gods-focused religions: none of them claim such sameness.
* You can see many western converts to Buddhism misusing Advaitam in this manner: so many of them energetically go after translations of traditional Hindu books on Advaitam and then declare it "helps them with their Buddhism". (There's the unspoken one-way rule that everything Hindu is "therefore" magically Buddhist as well. For once: just learn to say No.)
Anyway, their confession that "it helps them with their Buddhism" indicates one of two things:
- either Buddhism really is incomplete, even in the area of what people mislabel "philosophy": if Buddhists are unable to get the feeling they have got further/anywhere without resorting to *Hindu* teachings on what are very much *Hindu* knowledge and views/understanding,
- or it is that western converts just don't get Buddhism. Yet they *will* dabble and misuse even Hindu religion for it.
Whichever, the gall of it is that they then write sermons on how they have (a) "moved/evolved past" the experience of the All/Reality of Hindu religion - usually with ref to Advaitam, since that is what they tend to dabble in, to (b ) realising the "truth" of Buddhism by having "experienced the Nothingness Beyond It All" - before advertising as usual that "Buddhism is therefore real/true/superior/the final step/seal of prophets" to Hindu religion. When in reality they only imagine having experienced both (certainly, they only imagine having experienced the first-mentioned, (a)).