01-10-2015, 12:56 PM
Post 3/?
Tangential: new-ageists declare all Ramayanas equally valid. And that Hindoo Ramayanas - which are firmly within the Vedic tradition - are equally related/unrelated to each other as to the Jain/Buddhist subversions, and foolishly legitimise missionary inculturation (tomorrow must repeat the same for christian inculturation then)
On this comment I made:
* Like in Tiruppugazh on Murugan, and LS where all of Vishnu's dashavatarams reappear on Lalitha's behalf, in order to destroy their customary enemies like Ravana, Hiranyaksha and Hiranyakashipu which have all been manifested by Lalitha's enemy the Bhandasura. Among the dashavataram who appear on Lalitha's bidding then is Rama, along with his brother and Hanuman, who proceed to vanquish the 10-headed one again. Like the LS of the BP, the Tiruppugazh also makes especial mention of various famous avataras of Vishnu. That is, Tiruppugah specifically refers to Vishnu's avataras like the Koormaavataram and Rama and Krishna - and their exploits, such as against Ravana - in the same breath as mentioning that these are all that Vishnu whose favourite is his nephew Murugan. Vaishnava exponents have got a lot of rather endearing details not in Valmeeki - though entirely consistent with Valmeeki's Ramayanam, i.e. the originally and exclusively Hindoo tradition of the Ramayanam - from the references to Vishnu's avatara Rama in Ramayanam [and his avatara Krishna in Mahabharatam and Bhagavatam] from Tiruppugazh.
The following concerns my (perhaps unreliable) memory about an indiafacts article I caught last year.
In contrast, last year's indiafacts article on multiple Ramayanas presented all the Hindoo Ramayanas - despite their being consonant with the Hindoo tradition on Ramayana - as "equally valid" as the Jain and Buddhist subversionist inculturationist missionary versions. To go beyond the call of duty to declare that the Ramayanam is all-Indian-secular - to make sure that Hindus don't dare to declare it to be originally let alone exclusively Hindu - indiafacts resorted to hiding behind their claim that not all branches of Hindu religion even recognised Rama as an avataram of Vishnu. Indiafacts
- implied this with their partially concealed reference to the LS - which as mentioned above - most certainly mentioned Rama as a Vishnu avataaram and affirmed all the 10 major avataras of Vishnu besides (of which Buddha is not one, since LS' locus is south India and Balarama is number 8 followed by Krishna and Kalki).
- claimed this of either some or all shaivas. I don't know which Shaivas the indiafacts author was talking about, but major Shaiva temples of India's historically-Tamil regions tend to have multiple other Gods in there including especially Vishnu, often Vishnu is present in his sannidhis as himself, at other times as one of his avataras (like Parasurama or Rama or Krishna, or BhuVaraha or even several of them) and often even as both Vishnu AND one or more of his avataras. But in all such cases, Vishnu AND his avatarams are marked with naamam on the forehead, so there's no mistaking that the Shaivas have any mistaken notions about which God this is. Several such Vishnu/avataram sannidhis in Shiva kovils further have Vaishnava priests doing pooja to the vigraham as per the rites for Vishnu [which, as usual, are very specific and non-random]. The one I remember from my last visit to TN, was most relevant: it was a Lakshmana-Rama-Sita-Hanuman sannidhi - bearing naamam of course - with 2 Vaishnava priests doing pooja, all within a famous huge and very ancient Uma-Shiva kovil. So the whole "shaivas don't recognise that Raama is Vishnu" spiel is just a spiel. There may possibly be such Shaivas - anything being possible - but in TN and much of the south too at least, it is a standing tradition since ancient times that Rama is Vishnu, both among Vaishnavas and Shaivas (which last includes Shaktas and Murugan-bhaktas in Tamil space).
But the indiafacts article didn't stop at denying the existence of Hindus/that there was any baseline consensus among Hindus and pretending that all Hindu subsects were as equidistant from each other as from Buddhism/Jainism (may as well throw in christianism, with inculturation it has started to "look" as "Hindu" as Buddhism and Jainism have done also thanks to inculturation). IIRC the indiafacts article even went one step further: pretending that the earliest Jain plagiarism of the Ramayanam (dated by western scholars to 2nd to 3rd century CE IIRC, whereas the west always dates the Valmeeki older than the Jain copy and admits the Jain clone to be a copy) may be "older" than the Valmeeki version. Ignorance and universalism all-Indianism seems to be plaguing lots of Indian nationalits vocalists allegedly batting for Hindu religion. Tomorrow they will follow the example of many nationalist Hindu vocalists from TN: who have blindly internalised the recent spiel that Tiruvalluvar and Adigal were Jain (previously they repeated these writers were secular, tomorrow they will repeat that these ancient Tamil writers are christian; whatever is the trend). So I expect that when christianism next inculturates on the Ramayanam - christianism really should, nothing else could expose the hypocrisy of modern angelsk-speaking new agey "Hindu" nationalist vocalists - the same nationalists will at first balk and protest, but given enough time, their kids will start repeating this subversion too.
Meanwhile, while angelsk-speaking Hindus are beyond foolish - and acting without permission - in their presumed magnanimity to share what is exclusively Hindoo with the inculturating missionary religions (then don't hypocritically complain when christianism does the same), Jains and Buddhists do Not reciprocate by sharing said Hindoo stuffs back: Jains started loudly claiming theirs is the original Ramayanam and that Hindoos plagiarised from them and made it Vedic religion [though no one but Jains have fallen far that one], whereas Buddhists - see next post below - have similarly started to declare that their equally-pathetic clone in the Jataka is the earliest version of the Ramayanam and that Hindoos plagiarised from Buddhism.
The moral is: Heathens sharing their religion with missionary religions Does Not Pay. 1. They all turn ingrate when the opportunity arises, 2. they all plagiarise for inculturation=missionary purposes and 3. they appropriate Hindoo religious stuffs for replacing Hindoo religion with their own (i.e. Replacement Theology), and so they mangle the original with intent to peddle Jainism/Buddhism/christianism/dravoodianism/moronism.
Therefore all Hindus - even the desperate nationalists - must really be prevented from their "sharing" tendencies, as these are suicidal (will destroy only HindOOs and Hindoo religion), whereas they promote the desperate missionary ideologies that are always competing with Hindu religion to obtain converts.
Having said that, I have every expectation of seeing several Bauddhified 'Hindus' in time swear by how "the oldest/original version of Ramayana was Buddhist" [or dravoodian, or Jain, or christoislamic]. You know, like that joke some pulled with the account of Trivikrama vs Bali. [The TamilAndVedas site points to Sayana for authority that the Rig Veda refers to Trivikrama's 3 steps. And you know that Mahabali can't be far behind where Da 3 Steps are concerned. Of course the Bauddhified will then merely conclude that "the Rig Veda therefore mentions Buddhism".]
Tangential: new-ageists declare all Ramayanas equally valid. And that Hindoo Ramayanas - which are firmly within the Vedic tradition - are equally related/unrelated to each other as to the Jain/Buddhist subversions, and foolishly legitimise missionary inculturation (tomorrow must repeat the same for christian inculturation then)
On this comment I made:
Quote:the ancient Hindu tradition of Rama seen in Valmeeki, which last is however echoed in every local Hindoo rendition of the Ramayanam and all brief traditional Hindoo references too.*
* Like in Tiruppugazh on Murugan, and LS where all of Vishnu's dashavatarams reappear on Lalitha's behalf, in order to destroy their customary enemies like Ravana, Hiranyaksha and Hiranyakashipu which have all been manifested by Lalitha's enemy the Bhandasura. Among the dashavataram who appear on Lalitha's bidding then is Rama, along with his brother and Hanuman, who proceed to vanquish the 10-headed one again. Like the LS of the BP, the Tiruppugazh also makes especial mention of various famous avataras of Vishnu. That is, Tiruppugah specifically refers to Vishnu's avataras like the Koormaavataram and Rama and Krishna - and their exploits, such as against Ravana - in the same breath as mentioning that these are all that Vishnu whose favourite is his nephew Murugan. Vaishnava exponents have got a lot of rather endearing details not in Valmeeki - though entirely consistent with Valmeeki's Ramayanam, i.e. the originally and exclusively Hindoo tradition of the Ramayanam - from the references to Vishnu's avatara Rama in Ramayanam [and his avatara Krishna in Mahabharatam and Bhagavatam] from Tiruppugazh.
The following concerns my (perhaps unreliable) memory about an indiafacts article I caught last year.
In contrast, last year's indiafacts article on multiple Ramayanas presented all the Hindoo Ramayanas - despite their being consonant with the Hindoo tradition on Ramayana - as "equally valid" as the Jain and Buddhist subversionist inculturationist missionary versions. To go beyond the call of duty to declare that the Ramayanam is all-Indian-secular - to make sure that Hindus don't dare to declare it to be originally let alone exclusively Hindu - indiafacts resorted to hiding behind their claim that not all branches of Hindu religion even recognised Rama as an avataram of Vishnu. Indiafacts
- implied this with their partially concealed reference to the LS - which as mentioned above - most certainly mentioned Rama as a Vishnu avataaram and affirmed all the 10 major avataras of Vishnu besides (of which Buddha is not one, since LS' locus is south India and Balarama is number 8 followed by Krishna and Kalki).
- claimed this of either some or all shaivas. I don't know which Shaivas the indiafacts author was talking about, but major Shaiva temples of India's historically-Tamil regions tend to have multiple other Gods in there including especially Vishnu, often Vishnu is present in his sannidhis as himself, at other times as one of his avataras (like Parasurama or Rama or Krishna, or BhuVaraha or even several of them) and often even as both Vishnu AND one or more of his avataras. But in all such cases, Vishnu AND his avatarams are marked with naamam on the forehead, so there's no mistaking that the Shaivas have any mistaken notions about which God this is. Several such Vishnu/avataram sannidhis in Shiva kovils further have Vaishnava priests doing pooja to the vigraham as per the rites for Vishnu [which, as usual, are very specific and non-random]. The one I remember from my last visit to TN, was most relevant: it was a Lakshmana-Rama-Sita-Hanuman sannidhi - bearing naamam of course - with 2 Vaishnava priests doing pooja, all within a famous huge and very ancient Uma-Shiva kovil. So the whole "shaivas don't recognise that Raama is Vishnu" spiel is just a spiel. There may possibly be such Shaivas - anything being possible - but in TN and much of the south too at least, it is a standing tradition since ancient times that Rama is Vishnu, both among Vaishnavas and Shaivas (which last includes Shaktas and Murugan-bhaktas in Tamil space).
But the indiafacts article didn't stop at denying the existence of Hindus/that there was any baseline consensus among Hindus and pretending that all Hindu subsects were as equidistant from each other as from Buddhism/Jainism (may as well throw in christianism, with inculturation it has started to "look" as "Hindu" as Buddhism and Jainism have done also thanks to inculturation). IIRC the indiafacts article even went one step further: pretending that the earliest Jain plagiarism of the Ramayanam (dated by western scholars to 2nd to 3rd century CE IIRC, whereas the west always dates the Valmeeki older than the Jain copy and admits the Jain clone to be a copy) may be "older" than the Valmeeki version. Ignorance and universalism all-Indianism seems to be plaguing lots of Indian nationalits vocalists allegedly batting for Hindu religion. Tomorrow they will follow the example of many nationalist Hindu vocalists from TN: who have blindly internalised the recent spiel that Tiruvalluvar and Adigal were Jain (previously they repeated these writers were secular, tomorrow they will repeat that these ancient Tamil writers are christian; whatever is the trend). So I expect that when christianism next inculturates on the Ramayanam - christianism really should, nothing else could expose the hypocrisy of modern angelsk-speaking new agey "Hindu" nationalist vocalists - the same nationalists will at first balk and protest, but given enough time, their kids will start repeating this subversion too.
Meanwhile, while angelsk-speaking Hindus are beyond foolish - and acting without permission - in their presumed magnanimity to share what is exclusively Hindoo with the inculturating missionary religions (then don't hypocritically complain when christianism does the same), Jains and Buddhists do Not reciprocate by sharing said Hindoo stuffs back: Jains started loudly claiming theirs is the original Ramayanam and that Hindoos plagiarised from them and made it Vedic religion [though no one but Jains have fallen far that one], whereas Buddhists - see next post below - have similarly started to declare that their equally-pathetic clone in the Jataka is the earliest version of the Ramayanam and that Hindoos plagiarised from Buddhism.
The moral is: Heathens sharing their religion with missionary religions Does Not Pay. 1. They all turn ingrate when the opportunity arises, 2. they all plagiarise for inculturation=missionary purposes and 3. they appropriate Hindoo religious stuffs for replacing Hindoo religion with their own (i.e. Replacement Theology), and so they mangle the original with intent to peddle Jainism/Buddhism/christianism/dravoodianism/moronism.
Therefore all Hindus - even the desperate nationalists - must really be prevented from their "sharing" tendencies, as these are suicidal (will destroy only HindOOs and Hindoo religion), whereas they promote the desperate missionary ideologies that are always competing with Hindu religion to obtain converts.
Having said that, I have every expectation of seeing several Bauddhified 'Hindus' in time swear by how "the oldest/original version of Ramayana was Buddhist" [or dravoodian, or Jain, or christoislamic]. You know, like that joke some pulled with the account of Trivikrama vs Bali. [The TamilAndVedas site points to Sayana for authority that the Rig Veda refers to Trivikrama's 3 steps. And you know that Mahabali can't be far behind where Da 3 Steps are concerned. Of course the Bauddhified will then merely conclude that "the Rig Veda therefore mentions Buddhism".]