Post 2/?
The final lines of the VV article by Pramod Kumar make a few erroneous assumptions:
The first faulty assumption is that the Hindutva leaders are "Hindu elite".
No, the traditional Hindoos - in particular the Experts in Hindu religion (i.e. experts on the Hindoo Gods) - are the ones who know Hindu religion. These are all the ones whom the Hindu Gods directly interact with* - which refers to a large number of everyday traditional Hindus. Don't know why nationalists are crowned the Hindu elite let alone spokespersons for Hindu religion. If you haven't seen the Hindu Gods, you have the right to listen (which is the only right I have) not to lecture (which is the right expert Hindoos have).
* With which I don't mean aliens claiming to have "seen" the Hindu Gods, and who without exception give away the falsehood of their claims by making serious mistakes concerning the Hindu Gods they say they've seen.
The second misapprehension is that Shourie is a Hindu, let alone a Hindu elite. He is a Buddhist, and that is something underlined in some statements in Pramod Kumar's article above. In particular, Shourie's championing of Buddhist views taken from pre-existing Hindu views, while knocking the same views in Hindu religion - that is a very Buddhist (a very missionary Buddhist) thing to do. As is the declaration that Hinduism (and other ethnic religions) is "flawed like christianism etc" and that Buddhism is exempt/not a religion in this sense and is the only "true solution". [Sort of like how christianism claims exclusivity by being "not a religion", when yesterday - in late Roman times - it argued that it was. But christianism/missionary religions are ideologies.]
Shourie is a cryptobuddhist since he speaks of "our religion Hinduism" (the word "our" is made red+bold in Pramod's article above) while championing Buddhism and undermining Hindu religion.
Pramod Kumar could have known Shourie was a Buddhist/converting from earlier articles alluding to this in passing mention. Will re-post some things related to this in the next.
Don't know why Buddha gets a special pass or is placed by Shourie et al as beyond the pale of suffering or with some actual (divine?) stature backing up his obvious humanity. His life - what we are told of it (though a lot was made up after his life, so sifting between what was real and what was posthumous embellishment is often hard: Shourie need not turn off his assumed 'rational' side where Buddha/Buddhism - and Shourie's emotional attachment to the same - is concerned, surely?) - again: the traditions concerning Buddha's life may be considered extraordinary, but his death was very ordinary/mundane and one might say rather banal. Which perhaps is testimony for the only part of his life that's likely to be guaranteeably historic*: seems unlikely followers would have made up such an inglorious and forgettable end to a career that was meant to be impressive. Buddha died of mushroom poisoning/pork - pick one. (BTW, don't know why Shourie expects a perfect world to be vegetarian and yet does not expect Buddhists to be. He is ready to hold the Hindu Gods accountable for the lack of the former, but not Buddhists for the latter.)
* Buddha's birth stories were fictions that appeared afterwards, which is why these take on identical forms to birth stories of parallel figures such as in Jainism (which also got similarly "inspired" from elsewhere/prior influence).
Anyway, like other Buddhists (especially modern ex-Hindu converts to Buddhism, and alien "converts" to Buddhism), Shourie's attack on Hindu religion and missionising attempt on Hindus - it is an attack, but Hindus are conditioned to recognise only christoislamic overtures as attacks, and not the missionisng attempts of Jains and Buddhists - takes the same format, seen even in sudden alien "converts" to Buddhism who 'critique' Hindu religion in the same manner, in order to convey that Buddhism is the sole and real solution, and there is nothing remarkable (or valid) about Hindu religion. Can see this in a lot of Buddhists who critique Vedanta and go on to offer Buddhism's replacement theories as the "real and final truth beyond Advaita/etc".
The final lines of the VV article by Pramod Kumar make a few erroneous assumptions:
Quote:It is appalling and unfortunate that leaders who espouse ââ¬ËHindutvaââ¬â¢ in public life have such a poor understanding of their own faith and philosophy. Leaders who espouse Hindutva must understand Hinduism properly first. They are supposed to be the Hindu elite ââ¬â who will teach them?
The first faulty assumption is that the Hindutva leaders are "Hindu elite".
No, the traditional Hindoos - in particular the Experts in Hindu religion (i.e. experts on the Hindoo Gods) - are the ones who know Hindu religion. These are all the ones whom the Hindu Gods directly interact with* - which refers to a large number of everyday traditional Hindus. Don't know why nationalists are crowned the Hindu elite let alone spokespersons for Hindu religion. If you haven't seen the Hindu Gods, you have the right to listen (which is the only right I have) not to lecture (which is the right expert Hindoos have).
* With which I don't mean aliens claiming to have "seen" the Hindu Gods, and who without exception give away the falsehood of their claims by making serious mistakes concerning the Hindu Gods they say they've seen.
The second misapprehension is that Shourie is a Hindu, let alone a Hindu elite. He is a Buddhist, and that is something underlined in some statements in Pramod Kumar's article above. In particular, Shourie's championing of Buddhist views taken from pre-existing Hindu views, while knocking the same views in Hindu religion - that is a very Buddhist (a very missionary Buddhist) thing to do. As is the declaration that Hinduism (and other ethnic religions) is "flawed like christianism etc" and that Buddhism is exempt/not a religion in this sense and is the only "true solution". [Sort of like how christianism claims exclusivity by being "not a religion", when yesterday - in late Roman times - it argued that it was. But christianism/missionary religions are ideologies.]
Shourie is a cryptobuddhist since he speaks of "our religion Hinduism" (the word "our" is made red+bold in Pramod's article above) while championing Buddhism and undermining Hindu religion.
Pramod Kumar could have known Shourie was a Buddhist/converting from earlier articles alluding to this in passing mention. Will re-post some things related to this in the next.
Don't know why Buddha gets a special pass or is placed by Shourie et al as beyond the pale of suffering or with some actual (divine?) stature backing up his obvious humanity. His life - what we are told of it (though a lot was made up after his life, so sifting between what was real and what was posthumous embellishment is often hard: Shourie need not turn off his assumed 'rational' side where Buddha/Buddhism - and Shourie's emotional attachment to the same - is concerned, surely?) - again: the traditions concerning Buddha's life may be considered extraordinary, but his death was very ordinary/mundane and one might say rather banal. Which perhaps is testimony for the only part of his life that's likely to be guaranteeably historic*: seems unlikely followers would have made up such an inglorious and forgettable end to a career that was meant to be impressive. Buddha died of mushroom poisoning/pork - pick one. (BTW, don't know why Shourie expects a perfect world to be vegetarian and yet does not expect Buddhists to be. He is ready to hold the Hindu Gods accountable for the lack of the former, but not Buddhists for the latter.)
* Buddha's birth stories were fictions that appeared afterwards, which is why these take on identical forms to birth stories of parallel figures such as in Jainism (which also got similarly "inspired" from elsewhere/prior influence).
Anyway, like other Buddhists (especially modern ex-Hindu converts to Buddhism, and alien "converts" to Buddhism), Shourie's attack on Hindu religion and missionising attempt on Hindus - it is an attack, but Hindus are conditioned to recognise only christoislamic overtures as attacks, and not the missionisng attempts of Jains and Buddhists - takes the same format, seen even in sudden alien "converts" to Buddhism who 'critique' Hindu religion in the same manner, in order to convey that Buddhism is the sole and real solution, and there is nothing remarkable (or valid) about Hindu religion. Can see this in a lot of Buddhists who critique Vedanta and go on to offer Buddhism's replacement theories as the "real and final truth beyond Advaita/etc".