Post 1/2
1. swarajyamag.com/politics/yoga-soulfully-hindu-is-the-bjp-sorry-about-it/
by one Abhiram Ghadyalpatil
who writes:
Typical.
Then why complain about "yesu namaskaaram" and "christian yoga" and jeebus as "yogacharya"?
Well, at least they're starting to be consistent now: allowing any and all to inculturate equally now. Not just Indic missionary religions any more. Good.
They won't. They're dhimmis. Fair-weather friends.
So at what price must yoguh be prostituted so that the price be not regarded as "cheap"? Still prostitution, mind.
That is not the purpose of yoga.
But let me guess, these new-ageists will tomorrow start peddling the Gayatri Mantram to "everyone" as the next 'gift to the world' too? Oh wait. They'd already started that nonsense too. Never mind little things like mantra deeksham.
NO. The question - again - is: how/why is it a "gift" to the world? It is NOT.
And this is why the upaniShads were not meant for all and sundry. 'Cause inclined to new-ageism will readily 1. peddle this to subvert heathens and 2. peddle it to unworthies/aliens/christoislamics, and thus universalise what is NOT universal and NOT for everyone.
Neo-vedanta is to blame for the universalism: it started peddling the private pursuits of Sannyasis (who are by definition not aiming to be part of life/this world for much longer) as being the svadharma to be pursued by all ethnic Hindus.* Those who fell for it then became subverted and started peddling it to aliens.
* The individual dharma-s of the majority of HindOOs is reflected throughout the MBh and Ramayanam (and Pauranic material) which illustrate every ethnic Hindoo heathen's svadharma and are life-affirming and lead to bhukti and mukti for society at large.
The propagation of the itihaasas to ethnic Hindoo society has been replaced by the subversive peddling of neo-vedanta. From this
process, which has subverted the ethnic Hindus into new-ageists, has come the next level of subversion: peddling of Upanishads including yoga and even other aspects of Hindoo heathenism to aliens.
The BhagavadGita is an upaniShad that is directly useful to all Hindoos, because it validates ALL Hindoos in their own heathen lives, whatever this be. It affirms - such as by means of Arjuna - that karma yoga and bhakti yoga ARE yoga, and thus that we -us non-Sannyasins- don't need to abandon (indeed mustn't) what comes more natural to us and is suited to us, and mustn't abandon our natural attachment to our Gods (and thus our rites), in favour of pursuing full-time dhyAnayoga/contemplating the ahambrahmasmi etc as if we were all sannyasins. Most Hindoos were never Sannyasins, which pursuit was always that of a minority. Until the original pseudo-Vedantists appeared:
It was the Shramanists that originally wanted to peddle some 'sannyasin' state - their spin on this, at any rate - universally, on all laity, and would impose Bhavabhaya or rather Bhava odium on all and make all the native society nihilistic and stuck permanently contemplating other-worldliness. Hindoo society has paid greatly for that mistake of the subversions (conversions). Now neo-vedanta is pursuing the same nonsense that is destructing Hindoos' heathenism and Hindoo society and converting them from Hindoos into new-ageists.
That leads back to this again:
How does reduced yoga belong to the more secularised-sounding 'Hindu civilisation' when it belongs specifically to Hindoo heathenism originally=authentically=exclusively (there can be no re-interpretations, like there can be none on OM).
Again, how did it become a "gift" to the world? And why would the world have use for any "yoga" that is NOT first stripped of Hindoo heathenism?
- Much of the world will not accept the Hindoo cosmological views that are INSEPARABLE from yoga, i.e. the old sAMkhya (seshvara sAMkhya, but any sAmkhya would be deemed offensive), as this goes not only against christoislam but against plain vanilla atheism too. It goes against all the west and the world at large.
- And if the author of the swarajyamag article is willing to peddle a yoga stripped of sAMkhyan views, which willingness on his part is *implicit* in his averring that yoga was meant as a "gift to the world", then why object to other Hindoo aspects being stripped from yoga too? Like OM. Like re-interpreting Ishvara to mean an atheism (as Elst and parrots did), etc.
- And again: why is it 'Hindu civilisation' and not Hindoo heathenism? 'Hindu civilisation' is a softer - more secularised - plank to start universalising Hindoo heathenism from.
I suspect every angelsk-speaking modern Indian 'Hindu' is a universalist, i.e. willing peddler of 'Hinduism Lite' to the west. They only differ by degree. And so the author of the swarajyamag article finds Naik's extreme universalism - in the form of total capitulation to islam by offering islamics to islamise yoga - offensive, but settles for a less drastic kind.
The answer is very simple: christoislamics should not do yoga. It is HindOO onlee. They cannot re-interpret Hindoo practices to refer to jeebusjehovallah or to make appeals to jeebushjehovallah, as it is about the Hindoo Gods onlee (doesn't stop christos and even some islamics from trying, but it is pointless, though many muslims are still not quite as idiotic as the desperately opportunistic christians in willingly subverting their own religion with paganism. But christianism is another success story of inculturation: it's still around isn't it?)
All re-interpretations of OM - to magically refer to jeebusjehovallah or the new invisible monodeity of Sikhism (which has since been declared to be specifically distinct from any Hindoo Gods) or which in time was given Buddhist and Jainist re-interpreted meanings - are simply that: re-interpretations.
There was a Buddhist/Buddhism peddler commenting at Elst's article on the Yogasutras, the one where Elst had defined Yogasutras as being 'actually more atheist than anything Hindoo heathen', so Elst could feel he had more right to dabble in this too (like he started to invoke Vedic Rishis since). Anyway, the Buddhism peddler had recommended some alien author's spin on the Yogasutras, as this work had "rescued Patanjali's Yogasutras from the Vedantic and theistic misinterpretations and acknowledged the heavy Buddhist influence." (For their exact phrasing, see bottom of this post.)
Indic universalists ("Hindus"/nationalists) of course would never dare respond. They're sticklers for this.
But then: Yoga needs to be rescued from the re-interpretations of EVERY inculturationist, including the Indic kinds. Note how they're all missionaries of missionary ideologies and want to claim yoga for themselves. When its origins and complete process of 'development' are in the Vedic religion onlee, in Veda texts onlee. Making everyone else a late plagiarist and - furthermore - a liar in pretending they have greater claims. They now deserve to be denied any. Though Hindus won't do that: won't return what Buddhists and Jains have been doing. (Though, at least, one can't say it would be either untrue or undeserved if Hindoos did it.)
The statement emphasised in bold is the author's - Abhiram Ghadyalpatil's - own interpretation.
But depending on how many vocalist "Hindu nationalist" treat the sacred site at Ayodhya and the necessity for the restoration of a temple to Hindoos' Sri Rama there as mere symbolism to prop up "Hindu pride" - is rather indicative of why there is still no Rama Mandiram at the site.
People first need to be deserving of it. And the undeserving gangrene is drowning (out) all those who are deserving.
1. swarajyamag.com/politics/yoga-soulfully-hindu-is-the-bjp-sorry-about-it/
by one Abhiram Ghadyalpatil
who writes:
Quote:Shripad Naik, a minister in Prime Minister Narendra Modiââ¬â¢s cabinet, has unwittingly delivered the worst possible advertising message for Yoga. Mr. Naik, in an apologetic bid to accommodate Muslim ââ¬Ëconcernsââ¬â¢ about Yoga, suggested they could take Allahââ¬â¢s name if they thought chanting the shlokas was un-Islamic.
Typical.
Then why complain about "yesu namaskaaram" and "christian yoga" and jeebus as "yogacharya"?
Well, at least they're starting to be consistent now: allowing any and all to inculturate equally now. Not just Indic missionary religions any more. Good.
Quote:To be fair to him, Mr Naikââ¬â¢s is not the only note of apology. There are ministers in the Modi government and BJP spokespersons who have frequently sounded sorry about things they ought to have been proud of. No one, not even those with a stated sympathy for the Hindu way of life, expects Modi and his ministers to be the messengers of Hinduism on a daily basis. But Hinduism and the Hindu political thought cannot afford bad ambassadors and wrong messaging either. Itââ¬â¢s time the ââ¬Ësorry-for-being Hinduââ¬â¢ apologists, who may well be genuine well-wishers, stopped batting for Hinduism on the back foot. They need to own their agenda and feel proud of their exceptional heritage.
They won't. They're dhimmis. Fair-weather friends.
Quote:Yoga, and so many other things fundamentally stemming from the Hindu thought, does not have to be sold cheap.
So at what price must yoguh be prostituted so that the price be not regarded as "cheap"? Still prostitution, mind.
Quote:The infinite faculties of mind and body that Yoga offers to anyone who is willing to practice it need not be tempered or customised to target a particularly sulking audience.
That is not the purpose of yoga.
But let me guess, these new-ageists will tomorrow start peddling the Gayatri Mantram to "everyone" as the next 'gift to the world' too? Oh wait. They'd already started that nonsense too. Never mind little things like mantra deeksham.
Quote:Yoga is essentially Hindu and one of Hindu civilisationââ¬â¢s greatest gifts to the world. Why be sorry about it?
NO. The question - again - is: how/why is it a "gift" to the world? It is NOT.
And this is why the upaniShads were not meant for all and sundry. 'Cause inclined to new-ageism will readily 1. peddle this to subvert heathens and 2. peddle it to unworthies/aliens/christoislamics, and thus universalise what is NOT universal and NOT for everyone.
Neo-vedanta is to blame for the universalism: it started peddling the private pursuits of Sannyasis (who are by definition not aiming to be part of life/this world for much longer) as being the svadharma to be pursued by all ethnic Hindus.* Those who fell for it then became subverted and started peddling it to aliens.
* The individual dharma-s of the majority of HindOOs is reflected throughout the MBh and Ramayanam (and Pauranic material) which illustrate every ethnic Hindoo heathen's svadharma and are life-affirming and lead to bhukti and mukti for society at large.
The propagation of the itihaasas to ethnic Hindoo society has been replaced by the subversive peddling of neo-vedanta. From this
process, which has subverted the ethnic Hindus into new-ageists, has come the next level of subversion: peddling of Upanishads including yoga and even other aspects of Hindoo heathenism to aliens.
The BhagavadGita is an upaniShad that is directly useful to all Hindoos, because it validates ALL Hindoos in their own heathen lives, whatever this be. It affirms - such as by means of Arjuna - that karma yoga and bhakti yoga ARE yoga, and thus that we -us non-Sannyasins- don't need to abandon (indeed mustn't) what comes more natural to us and is suited to us, and mustn't abandon our natural attachment to our Gods (and thus our rites), in favour of pursuing full-time dhyAnayoga/contemplating the ahambrahmasmi etc as if we were all sannyasins. Most Hindoos were never Sannyasins, which pursuit was always that of a minority. Until the original pseudo-Vedantists appeared:
It was the Shramanists that originally wanted to peddle some 'sannyasin' state - their spin on this, at any rate - universally, on all laity, and would impose Bhavabhaya or rather Bhava odium on all and make all the native society nihilistic and stuck permanently contemplating other-worldliness. Hindoo society has paid greatly for that mistake of the subversions (conversions). Now neo-vedanta is pursuing the same nonsense that is destructing Hindoos' heathenism and Hindoo society and converting them from Hindoos into new-ageists.
That leads back to this again:
Quote:Yoga is essentially Hindu and one of Hindu civilisationââ¬â¢s greatest gifts to the world. Why be sorry about it?
How does reduced yoga belong to the more secularised-sounding 'Hindu civilisation' when it belongs specifically to Hindoo heathenism originally=authentically=exclusively (there can be no re-interpretations, like there can be none on OM).
Again, how did it become a "gift" to the world? And why would the world have use for any "yoga" that is NOT first stripped of Hindoo heathenism?
- Much of the world will not accept the Hindoo cosmological views that are INSEPARABLE from yoga, i.e. the old sAMkhya (seshvara sAMkhya, but any sAmkhya would be deemed offensive), as this goes not only against christoislam but against plain vanilla atheism too. It goes against all the west and the world at large.
- And if the author of the swarajyamag article is willing to peddle a yoga stripped of sAMkhyan views, which willingness on his part is *implicit* in his averring that yoga was meant as a "gift to the world", then why object to other Hindoo aspects being stripped from yoga too? Like OM. Like re-interpreting Ishvara to mean an atheism (as Elst and parrots did), etc.
- And again: why is it 'Hindu civilisation' and not Hindoo heathenism? 'Hindu civilisation' is a softer - more secularised - plank to start universalising Hindoo heathenism from.
I suspect every angelsk-speaking modern Indian 'Hindu' is a universalist, i.e. willing peddler of 'Hinduism Lite' to the west. They only differ by degree. And so the author of the swarajyamag article finds Naik's extreme universalism - in the form of total capitulation to islam by offering islamics to islamise yoga - offensive, but settles for a less drastic kind.
The answer is very simple: christoislamics should not do yoga. It is HindOO onlee. They cannot re-interpret Hindoo practices to refer to jeebusjehovallah or to make appeals to jeebushjehovallah, as it is about the Hindoo Gods onlee (doesn't stop christos and even some islamics from trying, but it is pointless, though many muslims are still not quite as idiotic as the desperately opportunistic christians in willingly subverting their own religion with paganism. But christianism is another success story of inculturation: it's still around isn't it?)
All re-interpretations of OM - to magically refer to jeebusjehovallah or the new invisible monodeity of Sikhism (which has since been declared to be specifically distinct from any Hindoo Gods) or which in time was given Buddhist and Jainist re-interpreted meanings - are simply that: re-interpretations.
There was a Buddhist/Buddhism peddler commenting at Elst's article on the Yogasutras, the one where Elst had defined Yogasutras as being 'actually more atheist than anything Hindoo heathen', so Elst could feel he had more right to dabble in this too (like he started to invoke Vedic Rishis since). Anyway, the Buddhism peddler had recommended some alien author's spin on the Yogasutras, as this work had "rescued Patanjali's Yogasutras from the Vedantic and theistic misinterpretations and acknowledged the heavy Buddhist influence." (For their exact phrasing, see bottom of this post.)
Indic universalists ("Hindus"/nationalists) of course would never dare respond. They're sticklers for this.
But then: Yoga needs to be rescued from the re-interpretations of EVERY inculturationist, including the Indic kinds. Note how they're all missionaries of missionary ideologies and want to claim yoga for themselves. When its origins and complete process of 'development' are in the Vedic religion onlee, in Veda texts onlee. Making everyone else a late plagiarist and - furthermore - a liar in pretending they have greater claims. They now deserve to be denied any. Though Hindus won't do that: won't return what Buddhists and Jains have been doing. (Though, at least, one can't say it would be either untrue or undeserved if Hindoos did it.)
Quote:In the early 1980s when the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) was spearheading a movement to reclaim the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya, it had coined a slogan to provide the emotional quotient. ââ¬ËGarv se kaho hum Hindu hainââ¬â¢ (say with pride that we are Hindu) was the leitmotif that covered the Sangh Parivarââ¬â¢s larger ideological, cultural, and political agenda. The Ram Mandir in Ayodhya was one of the symbols of this Hindu renaissance that aimed at rekindling the Hindu pride. The slogan obviously angered the practitioners of the Indian variant of secularism. There was some discomfort on the non-secular side also. The discomfort had valid reasons.
The statement emphasised in bold is the author's - Abhiram Ghadyalpatil's - own interpretation.
But depending on how many vocalist "Hindu nationalist" treat the sacred site at Ayodhya and the necessity for the restoration of a temple to Hindoos' Sri Rama there as mere symbolism to prop up "Hindu pride" - is rather indicative of why there is still no Rama Mandiram at the site.
People first need to be deserving of it. And the undeserving gangrene is drowning (out) all those who are deserving.