This post is just another long complaint.
The spam is continued from the heathenism/Natural Religions thread.
First, reprising final paras for context -
Everyday I come across some "I'm a Hindu" atheist/agnostic entity who is happy to claim as his inheritance everything heathen in Hindus' religion - except the very thing that makes it a heathenism: the Gods. And they go about some self-rationalised means to stake their claims. (It is not only unheathen alien dabblers that are attempting to divorce the heathenism from Hindoos' heathenism.)
After Shivaratri, came across a link to an article by IIRC atheist Atanu Dey. He was full of pride/full of himself upon finding a Nataraja had been planted (a gift from Indics) at a key physics site in Europe. Atanu Dey lectured all-knowingly - his instruction came from Sagan - about the cosmological significance of Shiva and his Tandavam. Also like a typical unheathen*, Dey declared his displeasure in the fact that Nataraja statues were 'sadly' delegated to gracing only Hindu dance centres and the like, when the suddenly-expert Dey finds that Nataraja statues have better places (like European physics institutes) to be posted mutely at. Also, Dey expressed gratitude to the intelligence or was it intellect or intuition of his 'ancestors' for intuiting physics cosmology (and presumably for embedding it in allegories concerning Shiva).
<- Not a single commenter to that article noticed the myriad problems in Dey.
First of all, Sagan learnt of the Hindoo cosmology of Shiva from traditional *heathen* accounts, but Sagan shaved off the heathenism and reduced Shiva, his Tandavam and Hindoo cosmology to an *allegory* of physics cosmology. But Sagan can't be expected to do more (and he did well to get as far as he did): Sagan's an atheist with 0 ethnic Hindu background, and this is as far as Hindoo cosmology will compute or reveal itself to him. Dey is another story:
Despite having some (presumably ethnic Hindu or at least Indic) ancestry, Dey - who is clearly not familiar with (not interested in) the traditional Hindoo cosmological view, getting his knowledge exclusively from the much reduced (and de-heathenised) spin by atheist Sagan - concludes that Sagan's interpretation of Shiva (Tandavam and cosmology) is Da interpretation. I.e. that it is all merely allegory for the atheist universe rather than a literal truth. I.e. what Dey did is to interpret the heathen=theistic cosmology of the Hindoos into the atheist cosmology revealed by pure science, turning Shiva into a notional construct that Indian "Hindutva" atheists can delusionally imagine they have an equal claim to. No and Never.
(And stating matter-of-factly, to record for posterity some authentic Hindoo-dom 'Hindoo narrative' to counter the growing wave of atheist encroachment on Hindoo heathenism which is rewriting heathenism into an allegory to make it compatible with atheism:
Shiva's Tandavams - and the laasya of his wife - is *literally* true. He literally does dance, often with his wife, and takes great pleasure in it. This is not evidence, and no more than mere confirmation for Hindoos who already know: Even yet-living bhaktas - at least one - have been granted darshanam of the dance duet, and learnt profound insights by witnessing it, just as Panini and Patanjali were to have had. The particular tandavam that dissolves the universe is a much more cosmic level one and - mayhap - has another form. But make no mistake: there is no allegory to either Shiva or his tandavam (or his wife). <- No apologies for the lack of proofs provided for this statement. But these sorts of matters touch on the very reason why Hindoos and Taoists are not atheists, and why the matter of the Gods bears bringing up repeatedly: they're at the centre/core of heathenisms for a reason.)
Presumably the atheist Dey thinks that a Nataraja statue belongs at alien scientific centres to serve as a reminder of the re-imagined great, rationalist 'Hindutva' conception of the universe in 'elegant' allegory. Dey thinks Nataraja has been "confined"/"limited" to Hindoo dance centres owing to ignorance among actual Hindoos of the great 'actual' significance of Nataraja that he [Dey] imagines he's realized (from internalising Sagan's interpretation: no originality on Dey's part, and certainly no familiarity with the actual Hindoo tradition concerning Shiva/Hindu cosmology). This neglect of Shiva et al's greater 'meaning' - statues of him are relegated to dance centres - Dey laments as a regression of Hindus in their 'proper' understanding, which only Dey has (courtesy of Sagan).
What a joke. Shiva is Sabhaapati. He (embodied in his images) must be housed only where there are bhaktas who acknowledge him as the centre of the universe. This is *exactly* why he is given a pride of place in Hindoo traditional dance centres: he presides over the dance hall. They dance for him, and by his leave, he is the prime audience. And he is the promulgator of the dance they do in his honour and as his worship, in his imitation, and as union (yoga=bharatanatyam) with him.
His images Do Not Belong in centres of aliens and atheists who think Nataraja a quaint statue that is symbolic of physics cosmology from an 'enlightened' ancient Indian perspective.
His images may well be housed in Hindoo centres of physics, where he -and other Hindoo Gods- are given pride of place as the core of all learning, all sciences, by the Hindoos researching there. <- That would be acceptable, as long as he is offered worship and not forgotten, like some toy or piece of art or furniture.
Dey has no right to speak on Shiva or the Tandavam or Hindoo cosmology - unless he repeats the Hindoo heathen POV alone - even less right to interpret it or pretend to know the "true" meaning/implication and the "true" use(s) for the Nataraja statue. He need not waste time in thinking about or looking at Nataraja/Shiva either. Like I stated earlier: if you don't view your Gods (and their images) aright, you are a Failure as a heathen='idolator'. Dey is not a heathen and, like all aliens, he is Not welcome to view the Hindoo Gods, since all he can do - and no more was to be expected from the like, I realise - is to subvert heathenism in order to turn it into an atheism so that it may compute to thim (be forcibly made compatible with him) and so that he may pretend he has any claim to it. He lost all any claims to heathenism when he found himself an atheist. This is no loss: atheism is not remotely invalid. Truth is (truth) as far as may be ascertained by an individual. BUT atheists may not encroach on any part of heathenism. There are no two ways about that statement. If one is an atheist - whether of older Indic or modern "international" flavour does not matter - stick to what is yours alone. No coveting any part that belongs to heathenism. It no longer concerns one.
Dey even betrays undeserved pride at the fact that international scientists allowed the Nataraja statue on their western premises, assuming that they thereby acknowledge the 'greatness' of ancient Indian insights - and thanks 'his' ancestors for their wondrous insights. But they ceased to be his ancestors when he ceased to be heathen. This is as true of Taoist as of Hindu heathenism. They're merely random genetic predecessors, as related to him as more ancient monkey forbears. Heathen ancestors no more identify with atheist progeny - however fervently espousing "Hindutva", that great replacement of Hindoo heathendom with airy nothings - than they would identify with christoislamic progeny, both being dead ends to their lines, from their perspective. (Aside: Hindoo heathens can still commune with pitrus. "Hoe zit dat nou, en met Sankhya?") Christians likewise can't claim the accomplishments of ancient Hindoos in their family tree. And - just as Indic atheists are forbidden from twisting Hindoo heathen=theistic cosmology into an atheism to suit their own atheist outlook, neither can christians twist the Hindoo accomplishments of Hindoos in their dwindled pedigree into achievements of, for or about christianism. Again: anyone who is not of the ancestral tradition and its views has no more claims on it, and lost the right to speak on it as any authority (let alone to interpret it).
Another example of ongoing de-heathenisation of heathenism by removing the Gods:
Just yesterday I happened upon a twitter comment, possibly a few days old, by the SandeepWeb person, while looking up a Baloch gentleman who sounded like he was inclined towards heathenism. Anyway, the Sandeepweb person (he of "discovering temple culture" fame/infamy) said something along the lines of how "we" are defined or guided by "our dharma, our temples, our Rishis". <- He actually said even the word temples, but without a mention of the Gods. A more than obvious omission. But that word and what it entails really sticks in de-heathenised throats' doesn't it? What temples is he talking about, Buddhist and Jain ones? And if so, does he plan on lumping them with Hindu temples under an umbrella "temple culture religion"?
neers: The only people allowed in Hindoo temples are those who have come to adore the Gods residing therein (and as per traditional perception alone). Not those who can't compute the Hindoo Gods anymore, nor other aliens.
A couple of years back, some commenter on fire for nationalism at HK similarly new-ageistically [so I made that word up too] declared that "temples were centres of power" and therefore good places for levitation I mean meditation. He kept repeating that "temples" were "centres of power", and was earlier seen arguing against the christoislamic destruction of "Hindu culture" and "civilisation" and lamenting the loss of these in Hindus. When confronted about why he left out the mention of the Gods when speaking of temples, and why he preferred to new-agily fasten on to the "centres of power" as his reason for their (temples') being and for visiting them, he merely gushed more of the exact same new-ageism - "centres of power" - but with greater irritation. In other words: the Gods didn't compute to him, yet he wanted to stake ("retain") a claim on the Hindu temples he too had forfeited.
The point is, the same obvious unheathenness is evident in a statement that is of the form "[Hindus are guided by] our dharma, our temples and our Rishis". Once more: the omission is telling. The Gods are *not* implied, not in a sentence of that structure. It is deliberate neglect.
How anyone can formulate such a statement is beyond me. There is no heathenism without the Gods. Temples of heathens have no purpose without the Gods, who are at their centre. The Rishis and the Hindoo temples and Da (only=Vaidika) Dharma are inseparable from the Hindoo Gods, and mentioning the latter is to mention all the former, but vice-versa doesn't hold: the Gods become conspicuous by absence, and the silence is that of the apologetics of one to whom the Gods do not compute and are not even an afterthought.
SandeepWeb's sudden interest in temples - "temple kultur", which he presented like some religion in itself - reminds me of another Hindu entity commenting on twitter, who looked at pictures of southern Hindoo temple carvings and after admiring these, displayed some brazen ignorance in asking what certain creatures (yazhis) were. Ugh, temple "culture" 101. Guess SandeepWeb didn't "explain" it for latecomers to "Hindu reconstructionism". The non-response from the "temple culture" person posting the pictures of the southern Hindoo temples he was invading to tourist about/admire was even more telling. I'm sure if someone told them what Yazhis were, they'd next post pictures of yazhis and start writing captions explaining - in typical connaisseur fashion - what yazhis are, as part of their sudden "I'm into temple culture now" hobby. Ugh.
But the above does provide a nice test for HindOOs when screening potential brides and grooms for one's family members: ask them what 'temples' are and where they stand on the Hindoo Gods/what or who they think the Hindoo Gods are, or if they're to be interpreted as some symbolic notion.
And when they blabber their new-age nonsense (like of the Achintyachintaka kind*), people can quickly and politely end the interview.
The word Hindu does not mean what Hindoos used to think it meant. It means nothing and less than nothing now. Therefore Hindoos need not ask for its avowal.
* Yet another internet vocalist. IIRC it was he whose articles declared a novel 'Hindu' orthodoxy where Hindoo Gods were to be psychic notions cooked up by Hindu human brains, as metaphysical means to metaphysical ends.
This post consists of complaints and nothing more. Pure spam.
The spam is continued from the heathenism/Natural Religions thread.
First, reprising final paras for context -
Quote:I have caught whimpers of complaint from internet "Hindu" activists rejecting late christo-conditioned Europe's presumption in claiming Greek philosophy stripped of its Gods by its illegally attempting to divorce the two: christoconditioned Euros were trying to separate Philosophy from the Heathenism of the GrecoRomans, since - again - the latter could not be digested by the unheathen mind that dared to covet the former. (Later on, christianism would try to ingest Philosophy as a christianism.) There are many christoconditioned in the west now who praise Philosophy as their great ancestral tradition, even as they, often in the same breath, dismiss or even deride the very Olympic Gods who brought forth this divine wisdom - which is of Them, and inextricably linked to Them - into (Hellenistic) mankind's ken.
Yet not a murmur from any Hindus when the Hindoo Gods are treated like nothings while the teachings passed on by Rishis - intimately associated with the Gods - are coveted and are delinked from the Gods and the religion pertaining to them.
I never learnt from christoconditioned western books that "Plato was a worshipper of the images of the Gods" (which books instead preferred to pretend he was a 'secular' Greek philosopher). To learn that detail, I had to hear it from Emperor Julian, whose recorded statement first revealed this little - yet non-trivial - fact about Plato to my limited knowledge. I see the same happening increasingly with Hindoos' ancestral heathenism.
Everyday I come across some "I'm a Hindu" atheist/agnostic entity who is happy to claim as his inheritance everything heathen in Hindus' religion - except the very thing that makes it a heathenism: the Gods. And they go about some self-rationalised means to stake their claims. (It is not only unheathen alien dabblers that are attempting to divorce the heathenism from Hindoos' heathenism.)
After Shivaratri, came across a link to an article by IIRC atheist Atanu Dey. He was full of pride/full of himself upon finding a Nataraja had been planted (a gift from Indics) at a key physics site in Europe. Atanu Dey lectured all-knowingly - his instruction came from Sagan - about the cosmological significance of Shiva and his Tandavam. Also like a typical unheathen*, Dey declared his displeasure in the fact that Nataraja statues were 'sadly' delegated to gracing only Hindu dance centres and the like, when the suddenly-expert Dey finds that Nataraja statues have better places (like European physics institutes) to be posted mutely at. Also, Dey expressed gratitude to the intelligence or was it intellect or intuition of his 'ancestors' for intuiting physics cosmology (and presumably for embedding it in allegories concerning Shiva).
<- Not a single commenter to that article noticed the myriad problems in Dey.
First of all, Sagan learnt of the Hindoo cosmology of Shiva from traditional *heathen* accounts, but Sagan shaved off the heathenism and reduced Shiva, his Tandavam and Hindoo cosmology to an *allegory* of physics cosmology. But Sagan can't be expected to do more (and he did well to get as far as he did): Sagan's an atheist with 0 ethnic Hindu background, and this is as far as Hindoo cosmology will compute or reveal itself to him. Dey is another story:
Despite having some (presumably ethnic Hindu or at least Indic) ancestry, Dey - who is clearly not familiar with (not interested in) the traditional Hindoo cosmological view, getting his knowledge exclusively from the much reduced (and de-heathenised) spin by atheist Sagan - concludes that Sagan's interpretation of Shiva (Tandavam and cosmology) is Da interpretation. I.e. that it is all merely allegory for the atheist universe rather than a literal truth. I.e. what Dey did is to interpret the heathen=theistic cosmology of the Hindoos into the atheist cosmology revealed by pure science, turning Shiva into a notional construct that Indian "Hindutva" atheists can delusionally imagine they have an equal claim to. No and Never.
(And stating matter-of-factly, to record for posterity some authentic Hindoo-dom 'Hindoo narrative' to counter the growing wave of atheist encroachment on Hindoo heathenism which is rewriting heathenism into an allegory to make it compatible with atheism:
Shiva's Tandavams - and the laasya of his wife - is *literally* true. He literally does dance, often with his wife, and takes great pleasure in it. This is not evidence, and no more than mere confirmation for Hindoos who already know: Even yet-living bhaktas - at least one - have been granted darshanam of the dance duet, and learnt profound insights by witnessing it, just as Panini and Patanjali were to have had. The particular tandavam that dissolves the universe is a much more cosmic level one and - mayhap - has another form. But make no mistake: there is no allegory to either Shiva or his tandavam (or his wife). <- No apologies for the lack of proofs provided for this statement. But these sorts of matters touch on the very reason why Hindoos and Taoists are not atheists, and why the matter of the Gods bears bringing up repeatedly: they're at the centre/core of heathenisms for a reason.)
Presumably the atheist Dey thinks that a Nataraja statue belongs at alien scientific centres to serve as a reminder of the re-imagined great, rationalist 'Hindutva' conception of the universe in 'elegant' allegory. Dey thinks Nataraja has been "confined"/"limited" to Hindoo dance centres owing to ignorance among actual Hindoos of the great 'actual' significance of Nataraja that he [Dey] imagines he's realized (from internalising Sagan's interpretation: no originality on Dey's part, and certainly no familiarity with the actual Hindoo tradition concerning Shiva/Hindu cosmology). This neglect of Shiva et al's greater 'meaning' - statues of him are relegated to dance centres - Dey laments as a regression of Hindus in their 'proper' understanding, which only Dey has (courtesy of Sagan).
What a joke. Shiva is Sabhaapati. He (embodied in his images) must be housed only where there are bhaktas who acknowledge him as the centre of the universe. This is *exactly* why he is given a pride of place in Hindoo traditional dance centres: he presides over the dance hall. They dance for him, and by his leave, he is the prime audience. And he is the promulgator of the dance they do in his honour and as his worship, in his imitation, and as union (yoga=bharatanatyam) with him.
His images Do Not Belong in centres of aliens and atheists who think Nataraja a quaint statue that is symbolic of physics cosmology from an 'enlightened' ancient Indian perspective.
His images may well be housed in Hindoo centres of physics, where he -and other Hindoo Gods- are given pride of place as the core of all learning, all sciences, by the Hindoos researching there. <- That would be acceptable, as long as he is offered worship and not forgotten, like some toy or piece of art or furniture.
Dey has no right to speak on Shiva or the Tandavam or Hindoo cosmology - unless he repeats the Hindoo heathen POV alone - even less right to interpret it or pretend to know the "true" meaning/implication and the "true" use(s) for the Nataraja statue. He need not waste time in thinking about or looking at Nataraja/Shiva either. Like I stated earlier: if you don't view your Gods (and their images) aright, you are a Failure as a heathen='idolator'. Dey is not a heathen and, like all aliens, he is Not welcome to view the Hindoo Gods, since all he can do - and no more was to be expected from the like, I realise - is to subvert heathenism in order to turn it into an atheism so that it may compute to thim (be forcibly made compatible with him) and so that he may pretend he has any claim to it. He lost all any claims to heathenism when he found himself an atheist. This is no loss: atheism is not remotely invalid. Truth is (truth) as far as may be ascertained by an individual. BUT atheists may not encroach on any part of heathenism. There are no two ways about that statement. If one is an atheist - whether of older Indic or modern "international" flavour does not matter - stick to what is yours alone. No coveting any part that belongs to heathenism. It no longer concerns one.
Dey even betrays undeserved pride at the fact that international scientists allowed the Nataraja statue on their western premises, assuming that they thereby acknowledge the 'greatness' of ancient Indian insights - and thanks 'his' ancestors for their wondrous insights. But they ceased to be his ancestors when he ceased to be heathen. This is as true of Taoist as of Hindu heathenism. They're merely random genetic predecessors, as related to him as more ancient monkey forbears. Heathen ancestors no more identify with atheist progeny - however fervently espousing "Hindutva", that great replacement of Hindoo heathendom with airy nothings - than they would identify with christoislamic progeny, both being dead ends to their lines, from their perspective. (Aside: Hindoo heathens can still commune with pitrus. "Hoe zit dat nou, en met Sankhya?") Christians likewise can't claim the accomplishments of ancient Hindoos in their family tree. And - just as Indic atheists are forbidden from twisting Hindoo heathen=theistic cosmology into an atheism to suit their own atheist outlook, neither can christians twist the Hindoo accomplishments of Hindoos in their dwindled pedigree into achievements of, for or about christianism. Again: anyone who is not of the ancestral tradition and its views has no more claims on it, and lost the right to speak on it as any authority (let alone to interpret it).
Another example of ongoing de-heathenisation of heathenism by removing the Gods:
Just yesterday I happened upon a twitter comment, possibly a few days old, by the SandeepWeb person, while looking up a Baloch gentleman who sounded like he was inclined towards heathenism. Anyway, the Sandeepweb person (he of "discovering temple culture" fame/infamy) said something along the lines of how "we" are defined or guided by "our dharma, our temples, our Rishis". <- He actually said even the word temples, but without a mention of the Gods. A more than obvious omission. But that word and what it entails really sticks in de-heathenised throats' doesn't it? What temples is he talking about, Buddhist and Jain ones? And if so, does he plan on lumping them with Hindu temples under an umbrella "temple culture religion"?
neers: The only people allowed in Hindoo temples are those who have come to adore the Gods residing therein (and as per traditional perception alone). Not those who can't compute the Hindoo Gods anymore, nor other aliens.A couple of years back, some commenter on fire for nationalism at HK similarly new-ageistically [so I made that word up too] declared that "temples were centres of power" and therefore good places for levitation I mean meditation. He kept repeating that "temples" were "centres of power", and was earlier seen arguing against the christoislamic destruction of "Hindu culture" and "civilisation" and lamenting the loss of these in Hindus. When confronted about why he left out the mention of the Gods when speaking of temples, and why he preferred to new-agily fasten on to the "centres of power" as his reason for their (temples') being and for visiting them, he merely gushed more of the exact same new-ageism - "centres of power" - but with greater irritation. In other words: the Gods didn't compute to him, yet he wanted to stake ("retain") a claim on the Hindu temples he too had forfeited.
The point is, the same obvious unheathenness is evident in a statement that is of the form "[Hindus are guided by] our dharma, our temples and our Rishis". Once more: the omission is telling. The Gods are *not* implied, not in a sentence of that structure. It is deliberate neglect.
How anyone can formulate such a statement is beyond me. There is no heathenism without the Gods. Temples of heathens have no purpose without the Gods, who are at their centre. The Rishis and the Hindoo temples and Da (only=Vaidika) Dharma are inseparable from the Hindoo Gods, and mentioning the latter is to mention all the former, but vice-versa doesn't hold: the Gods become conspicuous by absence, and the silence is that of the apologetics of one to whom the Gods do not compute and are not even an afterthought.
SandeepWeb's sudden interest in temples - "temple kultur", which he presented like some religion in itself - reminds me of another Hindu entity commenting on twitter, who looked at pictures of southern Hindoo temple carvings and after admiring these, displayed some brazen ignorance in asking what certain creatures (yazhis) were. Ugh, temple "culture" 101. Guess SandeepWeb didn't "explain" it for latecomers to "Hindu reconstructionism". The non-response from the "temple culture" person posting the pictures of the southern Hindoo temples he was invading to tourist about/admire was even more telling. I'm sure if someone told them what Yazhis were, they'd next post pictures of yazhis and start writing captions explaining - in typical connaisseur fashion - what yazhis are, as part of their sudden "I'm into temple culture now" hobby. Ugh.
But the above does provide a nice test for HindOOs when screening potential brides and grooms for one's family members: ask them what 'temples' are and where they stand on the Hindoo Gods/what or who they think the Hindoo Gods are, or if they're to be interpreted as some symbolic notion.
And when they blabber their new-age nonsense (like of the Achintyachintaka kind*), people can quickly and politely end the interview.
The word Hindu does not mean what Hindoos used to think it meant. It means nothing and less than nothing now. Therefore Hindoos need not ask for its avowal.
* Yet another internet vocalist. IIRC it was he whose articles declared a novel 'Hindu' orthodoxy where Hindoo Gods were to be psychic notions cooked up by Hindu human brains, as metaphysical means to metaphysical ends.
This post consists of complaints and nothing more. Pure spam.