04-17-2007, 02:48 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Husky+Apr 17 2007, 01:45 PM-->QUOTE(Husky @ Apr 17 2007, 01:45 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->
My point was, authentic Hindu voices deserve to be heard. Pretenders to Hinduism should be ignored. Hindu perspective according to dhimmis (Hrithik Roshan for instance) should be weighted less than knowledgeable Hindus' versions.
Never mind. Go ahead, construct the narrative - minus mine. I'm curious to see how it turns out any different from what the christoislamics have so far projected Hindu Dharma as.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is no arguing with the idea that "authentic Hindu voices" should be heard. I find it interesting that you have chosen to reduce yourself to a minority of one on the issue, because it strikes me that if you start pinning a particular narrow definition on "authentic Hindu", then one would have to be prepared for reducing the number of "authentic Hindus" in India to perhaps 200 or 300 million or less ( a frightening 50 million??) . This is just a statement without any substantiation. For example if the definition is narrow enough "authentic Hindus" can be reduced to just one - yourself. Just as you have done.
The idea of recording a narrative is not to list authentic Hindus or pin them down to a narrow range of behavior or belief (like Christianity and Islam).
I personally based the idea of recording the narrative on the idea that Hindus and Hinduism are under threat and that there is no census to say how many "authentic Hindus" are left. Applying evolutionary theory - any population characteristic that falls below a particular critical mass may be doomed to die anyway, and Hinduism may already be doomed to die anyway. From that viewpoint, if authentic Hindus in the world is reduced to just you alone, Hinduism as we know it is already dead among humans and nothing will revive it, unless it revives itself (which it can, being a timeless collection of truths)
However if we happen to have (by the grace of Allah and Yahweh) enough Hindus left to carry on what is left, then we need to urgently record forever all remaining Hindu knowledge, tradition and folklore to serve as a reference for Hindus of the future who have lost the tradition of gaining knowledge by word of mouth, and who are so reduced in number that "word of mouth" spread is physically not possible. That is the idea of recording narrative.
Spending a great deal of time finding "authentic Hindus" (such as yourself?) and reaching agreement on whether a particlar narrative should recorded higher or lower rank or status would be fine if we had all the time in the world. Hindus had all the time in the world to do that before Christ and Mahomet. In the "Year of the Lord" 2007, there is not much time left to spend on haggling. Haggling should be done later. First record and document, and decide later whether it is "authentic Hindu" or not. Hindu knowledge and folkore should be treated as an archaeological site from which NOTHING is thrown, but something gets rejected only after deep analysis.
In short - you may be right. I just don't agree with your methodology.
My point was, authentic Hindu voices deserve to be heard. Pretenders to Hinduism should be ignored. Hindu perspective according to dhimmis (Hrithik Roshan for instance) should be weighted less than knowledgeable Hindus' versions.
Never mind. Go ahead, construct the narrative - minus mine. I'm curious to see how it turns out any different from what the christoislamics have so far projected Hindu Dharma as.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is no arguing with the idea that "authentic Hindu voices" should be heard. I find it interesting that you have chosen to reduce yourself to a minority of one on the issue, because it strikes me that if you start pinning a particular narrow definition on "authentic Hindu", then one would have to be prepared for reducing the number of "authentic Hindus" in India to perhaps 200 or 300 million or less ( a frightening 50 million??) . This is just a statement without any substantiation. For example if the definition is narrow enough "authentic Hindus" can be reduced to just one - yourself. Just as you have done.
The idea of recording a narrative is not to list authentic Hindus or pin them down to a narrow range of behavior or belief (like Christianity and Islam).
I personally based the idea of recording the narrative on the idea that Hindus and Hinduism are under threat and that there is no census to say how many "authentic Hindus" are left. Applying evolutionary theory - any population characteristic that falls below a particular critical mass may be doomed to die anyway, and Hinduism may already be doomed to die anyway. From that viewpoint, if authentic Hindus in the world is reduced to just you alone, Hinduism as we know it is already dead among humans and nothing will revive it, unless it revives itself (which it can, being a timeless collection of truths)
However if we happen to have (by the grace of Allah and Yahweh) enough Hindus left to carry on what is left, then we need to urgently record forever all remaining Hindu knowledge, tradition and folklore to serve as a reference for Hindus of the future who have lost the tradition of gaining knowledge by word of mouth, and who are so reduced in number that "word of mouth" spread is physically not possible. That is the idea of recording narrative.
Spending a great deal of time finding "authentic Hindus" (such as yourself?) and reaching agreement on whether a particlar narrative should recorded higher or lower rank or status would be fine if we had all the time in the world. Hindus had all the time in the world to do that before Christ and Mahomet. In the "Year of the Lord" 2007, there is not much time left to spend on haggling. Haggling should be done later. First record and document, and decide later whether it is "authentic Hindu" or not. Hindu knowledge and folkore should be treated as an archaeological site from which NOTHING is thrown, but something gets rejected only after deep analysis.
In short - you may be right. I just don't agree with your methodology.