<!--QuoteBegin-sroy+Apr 19 2007, 09:45 AM-->QUOTE(sroy @ Apr 19 2007, 09:45 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->
My belief is that in order to create a truly Hindu (read indigenous) narrative, we need to listen and record many peripheral traditions like Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism - various sects of Sanatana Dhrama, tribal folklore, animist and atheist traditions.
All these people and their belief systems are part and parcel of this ancient land. The existence of these diversities are due to the flexibility and freedom inherent in Sanatana Dharma. Leaving out any of them will make them susceptible to EJ/Islamist propaganda and most importantly, such an all encompassing narrative will truly reflect India and it will also provide due recognition to many marginal groups that have contributed to making of Indic civilization.
[right][snapback]67398[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Spot ON!
No dispute at all with your words.
All those together give a sense of what is Hindu.
<!--QuoteBegin-sengotuvel+Apr 18 2007, 10:28 PM-->QUOTE(sengotuvel @ Apr 18 2007, 10:28 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-acharya+Apr 19 2007, 01:23 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(acharya @ Apr 19 2007, 01:23 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->5 Hinduism never state it has monopoly on truth or God. According to Hinduism, God & truth are universal.
Rig Veda states: 'ekam sat viprah bahudaa vadanti' â¦meaning Truth or God is one but learnt men describe it in many ways.Â
6  Hindu scriptures state, âSathya meva Jayatheâ meaning âTruth alone triumps, never falsehood.â So Hindu scriptures allow FREE FLOW OF THOUGHTS.
Hindu authors knew that by allowing absolute free of expression, every one will finally end up attaining truth. They preached, "Ignorance is the root cause of all evils and knowledge eradicates ignorance.'
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I will utilize this post to pen down thoughts that occurred to me late night when I was trying to get back to sleep after a midnight emergency call.
1) Islam says that all children are born Islamic but are misled, so non-Muslims need to be "reverted" to Islamic belief in one God called Allah, who had one final Prophet, Mohammad, and requires you to follow some set rules.
2) Christianity it seems does not lay claim to all humans at birth and humans require to be initiated into Christianity by a rite called Baptism, after which one is presumed to show allegiance to father, son and holy ghost.
3) What does Hinduism say? It says what Acharya has quoted above. Hinduism does not insist that a person should follow Shiva or Allah, as long as he realizes that it makes no difference.
However some Hindus insist that a following of Shiva or Vishnu rather than Allah or Yahweh are sure-fire signs that a person is Hindu. Or they insist that a following of Allah or Yahweh makes a person non-Hindu. As per the definition of Hinduism above, these Hindus are wrong and they are themselves ignorant of Hinduism.
Please post opinions on this conclusion.
[right][snapback]67394[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What Hinduism says, is correct about the concept of following "any thing/person" as God, as long on realizes that it does not make difference.. but inclusion of Allah and Jesus means, the concept fails in its premise.
These western religion (xitian, muslim etc) followers does not accept Hindu ways.. hence, the acceptance of Hindu concepts is a problem for these folks. If that is the case, then it is required to make EJ proof, that we should not include Allah and Jesus from the texts of making all these Gods are okay to be followed.
I say, NO. If you are following Hinduism, then its NOT OK to follow Jesus or Allah, as they don't subscribe to Hindu way of living.
Hence, lets get out of this mentality of making the "hindu concept for all" theories, and rather stick to SD purely. The moment Jesus and Allah-ism enters, SDism is trashed.. they are totally opposite to understandings and realizations. Why include Jesus and Allah.
IMHO, all these Gods and Godmen are imaginary characters., or characters who took role as messiahs. They are not GOD(s) anyway, as they themselves agree. Their teachings entirely opposite to SD. Hence, they can't be inclusive.
Henceforth, we should remove this understanding that praying to Jesus, Allah is ok per Hinduism. NO.its not., it flaunts the understanding of the SD theory itself.
unless, Allah and Jesus followers subscribe to SD, ... and that is impossible for them to do, 'cause of their teachings., and blasphemous-ness of doing so. hence, theory of inclusiveness has an issue.
the ways of living is the problem. yes, it is ok for hindu to pray different places, but it is not ok for allah and jesus followers to pray in temples., cause, of the exclusive theism they follow.
I heard the argument that all Hindus are not tolerant many times. Of course, all Hindus are not perfect. I did not say all Christians or all Muslims are intolerant either. Right here on this blog we find Christians like Craig who say "A truly "Christian" nation will be a nation comprised of people of all faiths, of all ethnicities, and of all races, living amongst each other peacefully and actually cherishing the differences between all men."
That is not my point.
Secularism is not atheism. Atheism is an essential part of communism. Secularism tolerates atheism along with all religions but does not preach imposing atheism or any religion on non-secularists. In fact, secularism opposes such imposing.
But I see your point why Popes are against secularism. In Indian history, Shankaracharya tried to eliminate Buddhism when it was leading to atheism (he built temples over some Buddhist shrines) although Buddhism is a religion of compassion and Shankara taught onneness of God and Adwaita. Still I do not see why Popes want to convert India to Christianity because most Indians are still very spiritual; they are secularists but not atheists.
Some Shaivas and vaishnavas may still fight but as a rule, every Shiva temple has a Vishnu deity and vice versa. Traditionally, priests memorize well known verses which state that Vishnu and Shiva are one and the same.
My point is: there is a fundamental difference between Hinduism versus Christianity or Islam. In Gita, the Lord says "No matter in what form or in what name you worship Me, I am pleased and I will respond". He DOES NOT say "if you do not worhip me as Krishna and Krishna alone, you are doomed".
Actually, I find Jews in general, like Hindus, do not have agendas to go and spread their religion although there is such a thing called "conversion" in Judaism. They value their religion and are just quiet about other religions with no comments of respect or disrespect. They oppose Christians when Christians try to impose Jesus on them.
Yes, my argument is that Hinduism has broadmindedness codified in it. I am not talking about discrimination based on color, caste, language but discrimination based on religion. All discriminations exist in all nations of the world.
Secularism is part of Hinduism and when some Hindus fight for Hinduism, they are fighting for secularism but not against secularism.
As I said before, secularists tolerate all religions but when religious fanatics keep pushing their religion on secularists, secularists cannot help but fight back. But then people say "you are not saints, you react too, why are you all not Gandhis?" I do not think that it is being impartial or fair.
the problem with India is to agree to world view of secularism. What we mean by secularism is "incorrect". What christians and the whole views about secularism is synonymous to atheism. Per their defn: secularism is social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship. but, you could also argue to delink religion from statehood is also secularism., that is impossible for any state to be.
hence, Pope charts on to India to convert the 1 billion atheists into christianity. Perfecto.. since secularism means anti-worship or anti-faith.. its all christian oriented defintions again,, thus we (SD folks) have become succumbed to these definitions as well.
how about redefining it? or perhaps change India's secular nature (i.e, atheistic nature) to a religious community that is totally not against Nature and Science.
That way, we set upon a common framework for all religions to accept and live together.
Popism, needs to be banished at the definition level.
<!--QuoteBegin-saik+Apr 19 2007, 09:33 PM-->QUOTE(saik @ Apr 19 2007, 09:33 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->What Hinduism says, is correct about the concept of following "any thing/person" as God, as long on realizes that it does not make difference.. but inclusion of Allah and Jesus means, the concept fails in its premise.
These western religion (xitian, muslim etc) followers does not accept Hindu ways.. hence, the acceptance of Hindu concepts is a problem for these folks. If that is the case, then it is required to make EJ proof, that we should not include Allah and Jesus from the texts of making all these Gods are okay to be followed.
I say, NO. If you are following Hinduism, then its NOT OK to follow Jesus or Allah, as they don't subscribe to Hindu way of living.
Hence, lets get out of this mentality of making the "hindu concept for all" theories, and rather stick to SD purely. The moment Jesus and Allah-ism enters, SDism is trashed.. they are totally opposite to understandings and realizations. Why include Jesus and Allah.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
OK these are interesting observations, but to me your observations raise more prickly questions.
If the universal philosophy of the Hindu dharma cannot accommodate two more "Gods" Allah and Jehovah, how is the philosophy "universal" as claimed. It is just another viewpoint like the viewpoint held by Allah/Yahweh followers?
If we were to argue that Allah/Jehovah are not Gods at all, then how is the Hindu viewpoint any different from Allah saying "There is no God but me" and all other "Gods" are false.
With respect SaiK - I think you are misinterpreting the Hindu concept of "God" (as being the same as oneness/unity) to serve a particular narrow need to reject Allah and Yahweh. I believe that is wrong.
As long as a person accepts that it is OK to worship Allah or Shiva, and both are the same - he subscribes to the Hindu scheme of things.
If, however, he says that Shiva is out, only Allah/Yahweh are in, then that is a closing of the mind that goes against the tenets of Hinduism. Similarly saying that Shiva is in, Allah is out <i>could be</i> a closing of one's mind.
But this "closing of the mind" also raises some questions. Hindu thought has always accepted that minds could be closed and Hindu literature is rife with examples and guidelines of how one can open one's mind. It requires an opening of one's mind to put ALL Gods on an equal footing. More importantly there is a Hindu acceptance that different people can have different Gods, which means that different people can see or feel God of different human descriptions, but the important rider the Hindu dharma puts on all these Gods is that they refer to the same ultimate reality. There is no traditional Hindu reference to giving ranks to God as far as I know and would accept being corrected in this regard.
But when I speak of "traditional Hindu references" we have to see what references and knowledge exists in Hindu thought after Hindus became aware of the existence of closed mind concepts like Allah and Yahweh. In terms of "Yet another God" Allah and Yahweh offer nothing new to Hindu thought. But in terms of social and destructive military organization built around Allah and Yahweh, Hindus thinkers have hardly had a chance to cope with the consequences.
How many Hindu thinkers would have survived and continued their thinking in the middle of a tornado. That is what Alllah's followers did to Hindus and that is what Yahweh's followers are doing in a different way. How much locigal Hindu thought has gone into accepting or rejecting what Allah and Yahweh bring us? Vivekananda again is one of the few people we can rely on as a basis for coping with the flood of questions.
The point I am trying to make, is a I believe a very important one in terms of understanding just what SORT of threat is posed by Islamism and malignant evangelism.
The presence of an Allah or a Yahweh is no threat. Hinduism can shake off any Gods that exist or that are yet to come.
But the real threat is in the forcible closing of minds that is required by the active spread of Islamism and Christianity by conversion. Those who seek to close minds by forcing belief in a particular direction are a threat to freedom.
The argument that is used for allowing conversions is that one is allowed freedom of belief. Fine, but does belief in Jehovah or Allah give you freedom to believe in Shiva too? If not, then conversions have nothing to do with freedom. Using the word freedom is basically deceit. Freedom of religion does not amount to freedom of deceit.
I believe that it is important to have very clearly in our minds, the reason why conversion is a threat. Conversion to a thought process that accepts no other God is an assault on the identity of India. Indians have always accepted other faiths as equals. The survival of India as a secular state as per the Indian constitution demands that no thought process or religion should undermine the equality of all religions and Gods. This is perfectly compatible with Hindu thought as expressed in the post by Acharya above:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> Hinduism never state it has monopoly on truth or God. According to Hinduism, God & truth are universal.
Rig Veda states: 'ekam sat viprah bahudaa vadanti' â¦meaning Truth or God is one but learnt men describe it in many ways.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Anyone who attempts to upset that equality by preaching the supremacy of one God over the other is anti-national and must be opposed as an assault on the constitution. Conversion is sedition.
I do not want to derail this thread, so I wil start a new thread using this post - and will leave it to the forum leaders to decide whether it should survive or not.
Folks,
At the end of this note, I have summarized Sanatana Dharma's scriptures.
Please do send corrections. After going through the list we may be able
to answer sengotuvel's question more concretely.
Here's my answer:
"What Hindu would not recognize the oneness of Shiva and Vishnu with Ishwara,
and what Hindu will ask any one to follow (worship) one or both of them to the
exclusion of others?
I feel both these characters are equally uninformed.
I am a Hindu, and I do not worship Shiva or Vishnu. Brahma, though much maligned by Brighu, is to who my prayers go. If I am to be recognized as a Hindu said question cannot stand. If I am not to be considered one, then I ask what in the immense complexity of our sruti, only briefly summarized below, leads to the conclusion that Shiva and Vishnu are the only paths to truth?
Our scriptures have been evolving over 1000s of years. As Rudra, Manu and other dieties constructed from nature gave way to the Trimurti in popular faith, so exists the possibility for others to emerge. We are free to develop itihas and smriti, but consistent with and in continuation of Veda's core tenets ALREADY established. We are free to absorb other paths to truth in our narrative. This is how I feel.
<!--c1-->CODE<!--ec1-->
Sanatana DHARMA
Sruti
1. Veda (Veda Vyasa, total 1183 branches)
A. Rig Veda (10,552 verses, 25 branches)
B. Yajur Veda (185 verses, 108 branches)
 i. Sukla Paksha
 ii. Krishna Paksha
C. Atharva Veda (5987 verses, 50 branches)
D. Sama Veda (2000 verses, 1000 branches)
E. Architecture of Vedas corresponds to 4 stages of life
 i. Samhita
 ii. Brahmana
 1) Ithareya Brahmana  (Rig)
 2) Sankhayana Brahmana (Rig)
 3) Kausheethaki Brahmana (Rig)
 4) Shatapadha Brahmana  (Yajur)
 5) Thaiththareeya Brahmana  (Yajur)
 6) Maithrayaneeya Brahmana (Yajur)
 7) Jaimineeya Brahmana  (Sama)
 8) Thandya Brahmana  (Sama)
 9) Aarsheya Brahmana  (Sama)
 10) Shadvimsadhi Brahmana  (Sama)
 11) Chandhokya Brahmana  (Sama)
 12) Samavidhana Brahmana  (Sama)
 13) Abhootha Brahmana  (Sama)
 14) Vamsa Brahmana  (Sama)
 15) Samhithopanishathi Brahmana (Sama)
 16) Gopadha Brahmana (Atharva)
 iii. Aranyaka (When you are ready for vanaprastha!)
 1) Ithareya Aranyaka (Rig)
 2) Kausheethaki Aranyaka (Rig)
 3) Maithrayaneeya Aranyaka (Yajur)
 4) Thaiththareeya Aranyaka (Yajur)
Â
 iv. Upanishad  (Ved-antam, only 108 remain and there are many upa-upanishads (appendices) ): Summary of Association to Vedas: 10 with Rig, 19 with Yajur-Sukla, 32 Yajur-Krishna, 16 Sama, 31 Atharva. Summary of classes: 10 Mukhya, 21 Samanya, 23 Sanyasa, 9 Shakti, 13 Vishnu, 14 Shiva, 17 Yoga
 1) Ithareya Upanishad  (Rig)
 2) Kausheethaki Upanishad (Rig)
 3) Nadhabindhu Upanishad (Rig)
 4) Aathmabhodha Upanishad (Rig)
 5) Nirvana Upanishad (Rig)
 6) Mulgala Upanishad (Rig)
 7) Akshamalika Upanishad (Rig)
 8) Tripura Upanishad (Rig)
 9) Sowbhagyalakshmi Upanishad (Rig)
 10) Bhahvrucha Upanishad(Rig)
 11) Isovaasya Upanishad  (Yajur, Sukla)
 12) Bruhadharanyaka Upanishad (Yajur, Sukla)
 13) Hamsa Upanishad (Yajur, Sukla)
 14) Paramahamsa Upanishad (Yajur, Sukla)
 15) Subhala Upanishad (Yajur, Sukla)
 16) Mantrika Upanishad (Yajur, Sukla)
 17) Thrisikibrahmana Upanishad (Yajur, Sukla)
 18) Niralamba Upanishad (Yajur, Sukla)
 19) Mandalabrahmana Upanishad (Yajur, Sukla)
 20) Adhwya Upanishad (Yajur, Sukla)
 21) Taraka Upanishad (Yajur, Sukla)
 22) Bhikshuka Upanishad (Yajur, Sukla)
 23) Adhyaatma Upanishad (Yajur, Sukla)
 24) Muktika Upanishad (Yajur, Sukla)
 25) Tarashara Upanishad (Yajur, Sukla)
 26) Yanjavalkya Upanishad (Yajur, Sukla)
 27) Shatyayana Upanishad (Yajur, Sukla)
 28) Turiyatheeya Avadhootha Upanishad (Yajur, Sukla)
 29) Kada Upanishad  (Yajur, Krishna)
 30) Thaiththireeya Upanishad (Yajur, Krishna)
 31) Brahma Upanishad (Yajur, Krishna)
 32) Kaivalya Upanishad (Yajur, Krishna)
 33) Swetaswetara Upanishad (Yajur, Krishna)
 34) Garbha Upanishad (Yajur, Krishna)
 35) Mahanarayana Upanishad (Yajur, Krishna)
 36) Amrithabindhu Upanishad (Yajur, Krishna)
 37) Amrithanadha Upanishad (Yajur, Krishna)
 38) Kalagnirudra Upanishad (Yajur, Krishna)
 39) Kshurika Upanishad (Yajur, Krishna)
 40) Sarvasara Upanishad (Yajur, Krishna)
 41) Shukarahasya Upanishad (Yajur, Krishna)
 42) Tejabindhu Upanishad (Yajur, Krishna)
 43) Dhyanabindhu Upanishad (Yajur, Krishna)
 44) Brahmavidhya Upanishad (Yajur, Krishna)
 45) Yogatatva Upanishad (Yajur, Krishna)
 46) Dhakshinamoorthy Upanishad (Yajur, Krishna)
 47) Skanda Upanishad (Yajur, Krishna)
 48) Saareerika Upanishad (Yajur, Krishna)
 49) Yogashika Upanishad (Yajur, Krishna)
 50) Ekakshara Upanishad (Yajur, Krishna)
 51) Akshi Upanishad (Yajur, Krishna)
 52) Avadhootha Upanishad (Yajur, Krishna)
 53) Kadarudra Upanishad (Yajur, Krishna)
 54) Rudrahrudhaya Upanishad (Yajur, Krishna)
 55) Panchabrahma Upanishad (Yajur, Krishna)
 56) Pranagnihotra Upanishad (Yajur, Krishna)
 57) Varaha Upanishad (Yajur, Krishna)
 58) Yogakundalini Upanishad (Yajur, Krishna)
 59) Kalisantarana Upanishad (Yajur, Krishna)
 60) Saraswatheerahasya Upanishad(Yajur, Krishna)
 61) Kena Upanishad  (Sama)
 62) Chandokya Upanishad  (Sama)
 63) Aaruni Upanishad  (Sama)
 64) Maitrayanee Upanishad  (Sama)
 65) Maitreyee Upanishad  (Sama)
 66) Vajrasuchika Upanishad  (Sama)
 67) Yogachoodamani Upanishad  (Sama)
 68) Vasudeva Upanishad  (Sama)
 69) Maha Upanishad  (Sama)
 70) Sanyasa Upanishad  (Sama)
 71) Avyakta Upanishad  (Sama)
 72) Kundika Upanishad  (Sama)
 73) Savitri Upanishad  (Sama)
 74) Jabhala Upanishad  (Sama)
 75) Darsana Upanishad  (Sama)
 76) Rudraksha Jabhala Upanishad (Sama)
 77) Prasna Upanishad (Atharva)
 78) Mundaka Upanishad (Atharva)
 79) Maandukya Upanishad (Atharva)
 80) Atharvasira Upanishad (Atharva)
 81) Atharvasikha Upanishad (Atharva)
 82) Bruhat Jaabhala Upanishad (Atharva)
 83) Sita Upanishad (Atharva)
 84) Sarabha Upanishad (Atharva)
 85) Mahanarayana Upanishad (Atharva)
 86) Ramarahasya Upanishad (Atharva)
 87) Ramatapini Upanishad (Atharva)
 88) Sandilya Upanishad (Atharva)
 89) Paramahamsa Upanishad (Atharva)
 90) Annapoorna Upanishad (Atharva)
 91) Surya Upanishad (Atharva)
 92) Aathma Upanishad (Atharva)
 93) Pasuptha Upanishad (Atharva)
 94) Parabrahma Upanishad (Atharva)
 95) Tripuratapini Upanishad (Atharva)
 96) Devi Upanishad (Atharva)
 97) Bhavana Upanishad (Atharva)
 98) Bhasma Jaabhala Upanishad (Atharva)
 99) Ganapati Upanishad (Atharva)
 100) Mahakavya Upanishad (Atharva)
 101) Gopalatapini Upanishad (Atharva)
 102) Sreekrishna Upanishad (Atharva)
 103) Hayagriva Upanishad (Atharva)
 104) Dhaththathreya Upanishad (Atharva)
 105) Garuda Upanishad (Atharva)
 106) Narasimhapurvatapini Upanishad (Atharva)
 107) Naradapariprajaka Upanishad (Atharva)
 108) Narasimha Uththaratapini Upanishad (Atharva)
 Â
 v. Modern Vedanta (derives from Vedanta, the end of the Vedas!)
 1) Advaita Vedanta (Adi Shankaracharya)
   1. Modern Vedanta (Ramakjrishna Paramhans, Vivekananda)
 2) Vishishtadvaita (Ramanuja)
 3) Bhedabeda (Bhaskara)
 4) Dvaita (Madhava)
 5) Dvaitadvaita  (Nimbarka)
 6) Shuddhadvaita (Vallabha)
 7) Achintya Bhedabeda (Chaitanya Mahaprabhu)
 8) Purnadvaita (Sri Aurobindo)
 9) Gautama Buddha
 10) Jesus (?)
 vi. The APPENDIX!
 1) Upa-Veda (the appendix)
  a. Arthashaastra
  b. Dhanur Veda
  c. Gandharve Veda
  d. Ayurveda
  e. Saapadhyaveda
  1. Vaastu sastra
 2) Vedangas
  a. Shiksha
  b. Nirukta
  c. Vyakarana
  d. Chanda Shastra
  e. Kalpa Sastra (includes namakarana, upanayana, vivaha, vasatu, antiyeshti)
  i) Shauwta Sutra ,
  ii) Dharma Sutra ,
  iii) Pithrumedha Sutra ,
  iv) Sulba Sutra ,
  v) Gruhya Sutra
  vi) Prayaschitham.
  f. Jyothisha
  i) Ganitham,
  ii) Kalakriya,
  iii) Golam,
  iv) Jatakam,
  v) Muhurtham,
  vi) Prasnam
  vii) Nimiththam
 Â
2. Smriti (Lower Authority than Sruthi)
1. Dharmashastra :They Concern: Achaar, Vyavahar, Prayashchit
 i. Usana Smriti
 ii. Yanjavalkya Smriti
 iii. Vishnu Smriti
 iv. Manu Smriti
 v. Angeerasa Smriti
 vi. Yama Smriti
 vii. Atri Smriti
 viii. Samvarththa Smriti
 ix. Bruhatparasara Smriti
 x. Bruhaspati Smriti
 xi. Daksha Smriti
 xii. Saataatapa Smriti
 xiii. Likhita Smriti
 xiv. Vyasa Smriti
 xv. Parasara Smriti
 xvi. Sanka Smriti
 xvii. Gautama Smriti
 xviii. Vasishta Smriti
 xix. Apastamba
 xx. Baudhyan
 xxi. Narada Smriti
 xxii. ...
2. Itihasa ( some itihasas fall under puranas, they are old)
 i. Ramayana
 ii. Mahabharatha
 1. Bhagvad Gita (All the essense of the Vedas found here!)
 iii. Yogavashistha
 iv. Harivansa
3. Purana : They concern Satva, Rajas, and Tamas, divided into Maha, Upa, Sthala and Kula Purana
 i. Maha Puranas
 1) Vishnu Purana
 2) Bhavishya Purana
 3) Garuda Purana
 4) Agni Purana
 5) Mahabhagavata Purana
 6) Siva Purana
 7) Markandeya Purana
 8) Linga Purana
 9) Brahmavaivarththa Purana
 10) Matsya Purana
 11) Kurma Purana
 12) Varaha Purana
 13) Vamana Purana
 14) Skanda Purana
 15) Brahmaanda Purana
 16) Patma Purana
 17) Vayu Purana
 18) Naradheeya Purana
 ii. UpaPuranas
 1) Samba Purana
 2) Devibhagavata Purana
 3) Kalika Purana
 4) Lakhunaradheeya Purana
 5) Harivamsa Purana
 6) Vishnudharmmoththara Purana
 7) Kalki Purana
 8) Mulgala Purana
 9) Aadhi Purana
 10) Aathma Purana
 11) Brahma Purana
 12) Vishnudharma Purana
 13) Narasimha Purana
 14) Kriyaayoga Purana
 15) Surya Purana
 16) Bruhat Naradheeya Purana
 17) Prushoththama Purana
 18) Bruhat Vishnu Purana
4. Sutra RULES
 i. Yoga
 ii. Nyaya
 iii. Brahma
 iv. Kama
 v. Vyakarna
 vi. Jyotish
 vii. Sulva
5. Agama
6. Darsana
 i. Nyaya Darsana  (Gautama)
 ii. Vaiseshika Darsana (Kanada)
 iii. Sankhya Darsana (Kapila)
 iv. Yoga Darsana  (Padanjali)
 v. Purva Meemamsa Darsana (Jamini)
 1. 2 chapters - 1000 Adhikaranas (total).
 vi. Uththara Meemamsa Darsana  (Vedavyasa)
<!--c2--><!--ec2-->
Okay, here is masterful narration; one that does not directly tarnish other religions yet glories thyself; when describing the negative traits in itself compares it with the negativity found in general in the World. And time and time again in the narration it brings out its rich cultural heritage, arts, science, politics, diversity, unity and history in full glory.
And no marks for guessing it was the narration of Islam. A stunning piece of work called "Inside Islam" from The History Channel.
Being produced in USA, the only entities the documentary managed to tarnish were the British and the French. It depicts Mo as a peaceful prophet. It basks in the glory of being a victim when Ishmael is driven out by Abraham. It effortlessly crowns itself on the advancements of science, mathematics, politics and architecture without mentioning even once Hindus. It does mention Persia and Greece as two cultures that it derived some influence from. And manages to emphasis how the Europeans were living in the dark ages. It slaps hard about the inquisitions and crusades too. <b>All negative traits in Islam are explained as an outcome of regional cultural influences or influences from traditions before Islam.</b> How come nobody accepts the Hindus arguments about caste and other evils...........
Long story short....being produced in USA, it effectively targets the American audience about how great Islam is and insists how great USA is too. In the last few minutes it tends to dissect the radical elements. Not once does it talk ill of USA or Islam.
I would say it was an effective propaganda. Can the Hindus do something similar?
ps: The word "India" must have been mentioned 2-3 times. None of the eastern religions ever gets mentioned. Hinduism does not find mention even when talking about the decimal system.
pps: The DVD is available at NetFlix.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->But the real threat is in the forcible closing of minds that is required by the active spread of Islamism and Christianity by conversion. Those who seek to close minds by forcing belief in a particular direction are a threat to freedom.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If one were to consider the conversion specialists as sales people selling soaps, aren't they parading their soaps by extolling their products' virtues? It is up to the buyers who need to be careful if they are getting duped, right? Just playing hard ball <!--emo&  --><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-SwamyG+Apr 20 2007, 09:18 AM-->QUOTE(SwamyG @ Apr 20 2007, 09:18 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->
ps: The word "India" must have been mentioned 2-3 times. None of the eastern religions ever gets mentioned. Hinduism does not find mention even when talking about the decimal system.
[right][snapback]67491[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bottom line - the Hindu narrative DOES NOT EXIST except in the minds of Hindus. Nobody else is going to bring it out and unless Hindus bring it out, nobody else will.
There is a Hindu story on this earth. It needs to be heard. Do not go looking for it. If you know a part of it, tell it. Blurt it out. Record it for posterity.
<!--QuoteBegin-SwamyG+Apr 20 2007, 09:24 AM-->QUOTE(SwamyG @ Apr 20 2007, 09:24 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->But the real threat is in the forcible closing of minds that is required by the active spread of Islamism and Christianity by conversion. Those who seek to close minds by forcing belief in a particular direction are a threat to freedom.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If one were to consider the conversion specialists as sales people selling soaps, aren't they parading their soaps by extolling their products' virtues? It is up to the buyers who need to be careful if they are getting duped, right? Just playing hard ball <!--emo& --><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
[right][snapback]67492[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Two points;
1) An advertising ombudsmen exists even in advertising to make sure lies are not told.
2) Dismissing Proselytization as mere advertising of wares is possible, but the only people who stand to lose are Hindus. So the matter is of some import and IMO it is worth having a clear idea of what it is about proselytization that is wrong. What would hold up in a court of law?
I am not asking for emotions and gut feeling.
Maybe we could take this up in the conversion=sedition thread?
Oh no I had been missing out on this discussion for a long time.
Ecchh now I will have to play catch up
>>>I would say it was an effective propaganda. Can the Hindus do something similar?
Could we Hindus start a fund that is utilised purely to make documentaries etc. about Hinduism to be aired on various TV channels in India and abroad. I also remember while growing up reading 'Amar Chitra Katha'. Could similar books be published and made popular amongst children all over the world?
If someone starts such a fund to raise the level of awareness about Hinduism among non-Hindus, I will be more then happy to donate an 'X' amount regularly every month to such a fund.
Also, I think, we Hindus tend to be more reactive than proactive in some matters. e.g. We tend to just react angrily when we hear about EJs activities in India. Would love to hear views from other forum members as to how instead of just reacting to EJs activities, different ways to take the fight to their(EJs) camp so EJs,for once, start feeling the heat....
Also, is it possible to cultivate/create a strong political lobby that can create all the right noises about EJ threat... ways also need to be found to woo some media persons(one way could be by way of regular LIFAFA) who can counter the 'pseudo-secular' lobby in India.
Every year, around Ramnavami in Bangalore there are daily concerts by musicians and performances by dancers of localand national level stature.
Last Sunday I went to a concert by "Mandolin" Srinivas. As the concert was going on people were doing "arati"s and then bringing a plate with the flame around like so
<img src='http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a11/cybersurg/mandolin-srinivas-concert.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
Can somoene educate me about the exact significance of the arati?
<!--QuoteBegin-sengotuvel+Apr 20 2007, 04:51 PM-->QUOTE(sengotuvel @ Apr 20 2007, 04:51 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->
<snipped>
As the concert was going on people were doing "arati"s and then bringing a plate with the flame around like so
<snipped>
Can somoene educate me about the exact significance of the arati?
[right][snapback]67511[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The intent is to ward off influences from evil spirits and jealous "eyes". Apart from the flame variety there is the water+kumkum concoction too. They put some 'Akshadhai' in it. After performing aarti with these material they pour it away in a way where no body steps on it. People usually (in the olden days) did not step on 'Kolams' so it was poured over it. People still practice that way of disposal.
<!--QuoteBegin-sengotuvel+Apr 20 2007, 09:44 AM-->QUOTE(sengotuvel @ Apr 20 2007, 09:44 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Bottom line - the Hindu narrative DOES NOT EXIST except in the minds of Hindus. Nobody else is going to bring it out and unless Hindus bring it out, nobody else will.
<snipped>
Do not go looking for it. If you know a part of it, tell it. Blurt it out. Record it for posterity.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That documentary was clearly a post 9/11 one that sort to assuage the doubts in the Americans. Often it portrayed Islam being more like Christianity and Judaism and sort of played the common roots;book and god theme.
You are right no point in looking for it. But the documentary had to stumble through India 2-3 times. It glorified the Mughal dynasty and how it brought again prosperity and well being in the country. A Hindu watching it is like 'Now wait a minute.....'
The reason Hindu narrative gets missed out is maybe because of a combination of the following:
1. A Hindu does not care if the narrative gets told or not.
2. A Hindu believes the Hindu narrative is being told.
3. A Hindu wanting to narrate, does not know <b>what</b> to narrate.
4. A Hindu wanting to narrate, does not know <b>how</b> to narrate.
5. A Hindu wanting to narrate, does not have the <b>means</b> to narrate.
6. Hindu narrative being suppressed by non-Hindus.
IMO, reason #1 and #2 play a major part owing to the very nature of Hinduism. There is no one solution. People in #1 need to be told why not having a narrative is a No-No in the long run. People in #2 need to be told why it is being not done ENOUGH. And so on.
1. <!--QuoteBegin-sengotuvel+Apr 19 2007, 09:09 PM-->QUOTE(sengotuvel @ Apr 19 2007, 09:09 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> If we were to argue that Allah/Jehovah are not Gods at all, then how is the Hindu viewpoint any different from Allah saying "There is no God but me" and all other "Gods" are false.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I knew you would revert this way... I am & was not saying Allah and Jehvoahs are not Gods at all.. I was meaning, that their teachings are anti-teachings of Hindu-way-of-living (i.e., more naturalism, Sanatana Dharma, etc). My contention was to keep it different, since Jeusus an Allah followers wants it that way.. its their choice, and hence we accept them to be different and not force them to follow SD. But, we need to ensure SD being pure, hence all the more importance to keep those orthogonal religious teachings away from SD. But, if they come in reverse, and accept SD-ic concepts, then we should be more than open minded.. imho.
2. <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->- I think you are misinterpreting the Hindu concept of "God" (as being the same as oneness/unity) to serve a particular narrow need to reject Allah and Yahweh. I believe that is wrong.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No.. I am not, based on my previous (1), it should be clear what background I was thinking.. it is just to keep things simplified.. when we try to accept teachings that are entirely opposite and hence disqualifies to be following SD. Hence, I would request, its an interpretation that should not be wronged either by SD followers and those who are against SD., just to keep it going in the fight against the principle stand.
3.<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"closing of the mind"<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree. Its for the health of of "not closing the mind", I charted on the big "NO" to accept those teachings that encourages "closing of mind(CoM)". Lets calling "Anti-CoM" movement, instead of "OoM".. as it could sound more hinduish(AuM), perhaps internalize with that sounding. The point is to ensure, we have a theme, a theory that is not corrupted by foreign factors.. just because we have to accept those factors being part of the open mind theory., or a theory of everything. This stance, is just to convert all closed minds to open minds.
4. <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Vivekananda again is one of the few people we can rely on as a basis for coping with the flood of questions.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I guess, that was because, Hindu way of life was attacked, and people were totally disturbed in the "way of live". there existed no congregation of people to discuss and continue on the SD path. Think just like the "Internet", where we can join in. During the invasion periods, we lost this join delibreations of carrying Hinduism forward.. Its only after Independence, and further on after the demise of Gandhi-family (congress culture), that we have started to unify, again tyring to bring back our way of life to normal hinduism as was before invasions, and continue from there, and infact to better it and augment it.
5. <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I do not want to derail this thread...<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I understand.. but I wanted to ensure, that you dont misunderstand me. I am not a good writer, and can't put those beautiful words into shape that reflects exactly what is in my mind. I 'll try though.
bottom line: Lets not accept "closed minded" theories into an overall expanding "open minded" hinduism. Just to keep it pure., and the survival of such. For implementations, we need certain wall to make it survive (thank you India to a certain extent), but we need a fort now, especially for those vulnerable class who are easily carried away due to their economic state, and become Allahic or Ejihic.
We could have better platform for more narrations to (be)come.
book Review, The Telegraph, 20 April, 2007
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Where the mirrors do not open out windowsÂ
<img src='http://www.telegraphindia.com/1070420/images/20book5.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
<b>The Indians: Portrait of a People </b>By Sudhir Kakar and Katharina Kakar Penguin, Rs 395
Sudhir Kakar has been, for a while, one of the most definitive voices in all matters Indian. His seminal studies on Indian sexuality were preceded by an insight into childhood and society in India. They were succeeded, among other works, by an investigation into communal violence in India. Together with Katharina Kakarâs foray into Indian womanhood, the two authors have with them a composite body of knowledge, contemporary and updated, of India, its âwaysâ and its âmindâ. Little wonder, then, that they keep repeating themselves, and referring back to themselves in their footnotes. <b>Perhaps the retelling of the story of grand Indianness, like the great Indian epics, is supposed to establish its veracity, and provide it with simultaneity and continuity.</b>
<b>However, the Indianness that the Kakars try to set forth is discomfiting. They are themselves conscious of the possibility of arousing the âreflexive hostilityâ of those who profess the post-modernist credo.</b> Yet they cannot resist speculating on the big picture without which, they say, the wood would be missed for the trees. <b>But the mirror that they hold up to the Indian self allows for the reflection only of a particular image. There are no windows into the complex, concentric patterns that constitute Indian identities. The Kakars reveal the pan-Sanskritic culture of the Hindus, with which the upper and middle castes would identify. The ârestâ â and that leaves out swathes of Indian society and culture (âdalits and tribals, or the Christians and Muslimsâ) â are expected to âspot only fleeting resemblancesâ.</b>
The incompleteness of the picture does not bother the Kakars. <b>In fact, in delineating the religious and spiritual life of the nation, they exclusively, and unabashedly, concern themselves only with the faith of the majority. This is because the alternative traditions (called âritualsâ here) of bhakti, yoga, ascetism, tantrism and so on are practised simultaneously.</b> The Kakars are convinced that religious post-modernism has been achieved in India. It is only in the context of the Hindusâ conflict with their Other that Muslims are discussed.
Even in this, Muslims turn out to be a homogeneous community through the ages, while the authors discover three different strands in the Hindu perception of change. <b>There are the Hindu nationalists, typified by the VHP and the RSS, with their apprehensions about globalization, their undying faith in Hinduismâs universality, and their grudging tolerance of other faiths (which is supposed to save the day for India despite deteriorating communal relations). There are the Hindu traditionalists, with their rigid belief in the supremacy of their religion. And then there are the flexible Hindus, with their malleable political affiliations, susceptibility to Western mores and shifting loyalties to new-age gurus.</b> Quite certainly, these describe the traits of middle-class India. But are they necessarily Hindu?
<b>In tracing the cultural part of the Indian mind (a part that remains a fixed constant despite the march of history, one that Indians inherit but cannot discard of their own will) the authors discuss various interfaces between the individual and the society. The two things that determine individual action in Indian society are family and caste. It is not personal goals which drive Indians, but their loyalty towards their families (which are more joint than nuclear, the Kakars believe) and their caste fraternity.</b>
The structured hierarchy within caste groups and, more importantly, within families, apparently determine the organization of institutions, businesses and politics in India. <b>The breaking down of this hierarchy, particularly within the family between father and son, is expected to professionalize Indians. The gung-ho âfamilyismâ in Indian politics â especially among its younger breed, who do not appear to have experienced any great distances with their fathers â does not encourage such hopes.</b> The âcontext-sensitiveâ conception of rights and wrongs, of the ideals of honesty, equity and justice that Indians are supposed to hold, gives licence to opportunism of the worst kind, posing insurmountable problems in the working of India as an imagined political community that governs and is governed.
The Kakarsâ analysis of Indian womanhood and sexuality are a rehash of most of what has been said before, be it on the Kamasutraâs liberating atmospherics or the victimhood of girls growing up in an unequal society. The use of illustrative texts in their interpretations is less liberal than in Sudhir Kakarâs previous work on sexuality. But the anecdotes, when they do appear (like Siddheswari Deviâs encounter with the Westâs toilet habits) offer welcome breaks in the sweeping generalizations that the Kakars force upon the reader.
CHIROSREE BASU
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think while we try to grapple with Indian narrative others are rapidly working on it.
<!--QuoteBegin-ramana+Apr 21 2007, 02:59 AM-->QUOTE(ramana @ Apr 21 2007, 02:59 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->book Review, The Telegraph, 20 April, 2007
Where the mirrors do not open out windowsÂ
The Kakars reveal the pan-Sanskritic culture of the Hindus, with which the upper and middle castes would identify. The ârestâ â and that leaves out swathes of Indian society and culture (âdalits and tribals, or the Christians and Muslimsâ) â are expected to âspot only fleeting resemblancesâ.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is the point of contention.
The reviewer of the book Chirosree Basu has picked on this wellknown crtitcism that is made always and every time - that people speak of a "sanskritic" culture and that there is "something else" that needs to come out.
OK fair enough - that's one opinion.
But I have two points to make:
1) It is all very well to speak of "other narratives" - but when a person such as Kakar writes his narrative why attack it and say "I don't like it - there must be something else"?
I put it to Chirosree Basu that he/she may be bluffing. The "other narrative" has been told too much and what the Kakars have done is the only narrative that needs to come out. I see no evidence to think I am wrong
2) The other point is the questionable use of the term "sanskritic"
I am finding that word used more and more often by English writers of Indian origin. I want to use the example of the word "islamophobia" that lierally means "fear of Islam" but it was (I think) coined by a Paki to mean "hatred of muslims"
So we need to be careful about which way the word "sanskritic" is being moulded to mean.
"Sanskritic" could mean a relatively innocuous reference to that which is in the "samskriti" - cultural or traditional or the more vicious usage of the term in Aryan=invader=sanskritic=oppression.
<!--QuoteBegin-sengotuvel+Apr 21 2007, 07:18 AM-->QUOTE(sengotuvel @ Apr 21 2007, 07:18 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->The "other narrative" has been told too much and what the Kakars have done is the only narrative that needs to come out. I see no evidence to think I am wrong
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well that is your opinion (and point). To "those" people it might not be too much.
<!--QuoteBegin-SwamyG+Apr 21 2007, 07:28 AM-->QUOTE(SwamyG @ Apr 21 2007, 07:28 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-sengotuvel+Apr 21 2007, 07:18 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(sengotuvel @ Apr 21 2007, 07:18 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->The "other narrative" has been told too much and what the Kakars have done is the only narrative that needs to come out. I see no evidence to think I am wrong
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well that is your opinion (and point). To "those" people it might not be too much.
[right][snapback]67574[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly!
There are two sides to every story.
I have heard mostly one side since my childhood - the side where my ancestors were uncivilised brutes who oppressed people until peaceful and loving faiths came in and started the process of setting everything right. That is one story and if "others" have not heard enough, they are fortunate in that they can keep hearing it.
But there is another side to the story that willnot go away and that "others" may not like, and that's tough luck. They will just have to swallow it. That is the narrative that was private within my home and within hundreds of millions of Hindu homes. That narrative is going to have to come out and we had better bring it out.
So why worry if this story is "too much" for others. That is their problem. My problem extends only so far as they try to suppress my story which is hardly demonic in the way that it is made out to be.
|
