Chandramoulee, you're right it's not Misra but Jaiswal. That's my mistake (also Jaiswal is a she... another mistake.)
So if you mentally replace all occurrences of my use of Misra in that post with Jaiswal then the post still stands and I don't retract my complaint contained therein.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I request Husky to read once again Dr Swamy's words.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I did after your suggestion.
I like all the other writings of S Swamy's that I've read at IF, as well as most of that article of his posted above. I only have a problem with his easy acceptance and endorsement of this new theory, a theory which suggests things heretofore unknown to many of the Hindu population.
This is the bit about the DMK (and similar) that I referred to:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Dravida Movement which includes DMK, MDMK, PMK, and DK parties,
has turned it's ire on Bhagwan Shri Ram, the King of Ayodhya, and want
the Rama Sethu to be demolished because it is a symbol of "North
Indian" domination. ...<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->After this comes the paragraph where the writer tries to explain how DMK et al are in error as it has nothing to do with 'North Indian domination' (which is right); but S Swamy needlessly refers to Jaiswal's new theory to do so. Rama has nothing to do with N Indian domination, but why resort to accepting that "King Rama of Ayodhya was transformed into Bhagwan Shri Rama of the whole nation, i.e., as a re-incarnation of Vishnu because of the Tamil Vaishnava saints"? Note, I'm not denying their contribution in making Ramar popular - which is apparently significant - I'm only contesting that until then he was never seen as Vishnu and that he was not worshipped as divinity.
Correct me if I'm wrong, every time I've ever heard the Ramayanam narrated, Shabari was a devotee of Rama. How can that be unless she did regard him as divine? Same goes for Hanuman, Jambhavan and others.
I know modern-day Hindus are only willing to accept characters as historical - if even that - if they can re-explain long-held perceptions about these characters' divinity via apotheosis (Rama, Krishna). As I've probably said several times in that previous post, this has nothing to do with the Hinduism of older generations.
This rewriting thing is not unique to the Indian situation. People today in general like to forcefit all non-Abrahamic religions into either the mythology category <i>or</i> history but where the latter is denuded of all significance.
I'd rather not have any historical Rama and Krishna if it can mean that certain old relatives of mine get to keep their traditional Isthadevas intact as described in the Puranas (Ramayanam and Mahabharatam in this case). Historicity doesn't interest me, no old family member ever dated Rama or Krishna or other deities ever anyway. It was always "a long time ago when King X ruled in Y".
Shiva, Uma, Kamis and the Great Spirit cannot be shown as historic either, but that does not detract from the value they have long had and meaning they've given for people in India, Japan and N America respectively. It is in this respect that these Gods can continue to work their inspirational magic on people.
When communists do choose to accept a historic Rama of Ayodhya, they invariably want to turn him into a random king devoid of anything useful or meaningful or having anything in common with the Rama old-generation Hindus and their ancestors grew up with. This is just another angle of attack, the previous one was labelling all our Gods with small g and calling our stuff 'mythology' whereas biblical stories plagiarised from older civilisations' stories is called History. Even meaningful mythology is better than a useless rewrite of 'history'.
In Jaiswal's case, Rama is not historical:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Ayodhya of Rama was originally mythical ( link )<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->but she goes one further: even traditional Hindu 'mythology' related to Rama is not allowed to be traditional, and Hindus for generations apparently have been deluding themselves into thinking they've been understanding Rama the same way their ancestors did at the time of Valmiki's Ramayana composition.
Accepting a retelling of our own religion that is inconsistent with Hindu traditions thus far will only be to the further detriment of our traditions. My opinion of course.
This is all the point I was trying to make (unfortunately, the verbosity to explain it could not be helped). My problem was not with Jaiswal inventing stuff - such people do it all the time - my problem was with someone as respectable and trustworthy as Subramaniam Swamy referring to that as if it were reliable.
Oh, another aspect of my problem, which naturally follows, is that I don't really understand what many Hindus of today mean when they say they want to 'preserve' Sanatana Dharma. Does that mean, for example, that they want to preserve the narration and understanding of Puranas as has been done for ages, or does it mean we just keep rewriting it as communists, and others inimical to our religion, dictate? <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo--> I suppose my thinking that Hinduism being labelled 'mythology' is the lesser of the two evils (that we were better off when we were still allowed to have 'mythology' at least) makes clear where I stand on this last.
So if you mentally replace all occurrences of my use of Misra in that post with Jaiswal then the post still stands and I don't retract my complaint contained therein.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I request Husky to read once again Dr Swamy's words.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I did after your suggestion.
I like all the other writings of S Swamy's that I've read at IF, as well as most of that article of his posted above. I only have a problem with his easy acceptance and endorsement of this new theory, a theory which suggests things heretofore unknown to many of the Hindu population.
This is the bit about the DMK (and similar) that I referred to:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Dravida Movement which includes DMK, MDMK, PMK, and DK parties,
has turned it's ire on Bhagwan Shri Ram, the King of Ayodhya, and want
the Rama Sethu to be demolished because it is a symbol of "North
Indian" domination. ...<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->After this comes the paragraph where the writer tries to explain how DMK et al are in error as it has nothing to do with 'North Indian domination' (which is right); but S Swamy needlessly refers to Jaiswal's new theory to do so. Rama has nothing to do with N Indian domination, but why resort to accepting that "King Rama of Ayodhya was transformed into Bhagwan Shri Rama of the whole nation, i.e., as a re-incarnation of Vishnu because of the Tamil Vaishnava saints"? Note, I'm not denying their contribution in making Ramar popular - which is apparently significant - I'm only contesting that until then he was never seen as Vishnu and that he was not worshipped as divinity.
Correct me if I'm wrong, every time I've ever heard the Ramayanam narrated, Shabari was a devotee of Rama. How can that be unless she did regard him as divine? Same goes for Hanuman, Jambhavan and others.
I know modern-day Hindus are only willing to accept characters as historical - if even that - if they can re-explain long-held perceptions about these characters' divinity via apotheosis (Rama, Krishna). As I've probably said several times in that previous post, this has nothing to do with the Hinduism of older generations.
This rewriting thing is not unique to the Indian situation. People today in general like to forcefit all non-Abrahamic religions into either the mythology category <i>or</i> history but where the latter is denuded of all significance.
I'd rather not have any historical Rama and Krishna if it can mean that certain old relatives of mine get to keep their traditional Isthadevas intact as described in the Puranas (Ramayanam and Mahabharatam in this case). Historicity doesn't interest me, no old family member ever dated Rama or Krishna or other deities ever anyway. It was always "a long time ago when King X ruled in Y".
Shiva, Uma, Kamis and the Great Spirit cannot be shown as historic either, but that does not detract from the value they have long had and meaning they've given for people in India, Japan and N America respectively. It is in this respect that these Gods can continue to work their inspirational magic on people.
When communists do choose to accept a historic Rama of Ayodhya, they invariably want to turn him into a random king devoid of anything useful or meaningful or having anything in common with the Rama old-generation Hindus and their ancestors grew up with. This is just another angle of attack, the previous one was labelling all our Gods with small g and calling our stuff 'mythology' whereas biblical stories plagiarised from older civilisations' stories is called History. Even meaningful mythology is better than a useless rewrite of 'history'.
In Jaiswal's case, Rama is not historical:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Ayodhya of Rama was originally mythical ( link )<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->but she goes one further: even traditional Hindu 'mythology' related to Rama is not allowed to be traditional, and Hindus for generations apparently have been deluding themselves into thinking they've been understanding Rama the same way their ancestors did at the time of Valmiki's Ramayana composition.
Accepting a retelling of our own religion that is inconsistent with Hindu traditions thus far will only be to the further detriment of our traditions. My opinion of course.
This is all the point I was trying to make (unfortunately, the verbosity to explain it could not be helped). My problem was not with Jaiswal inventing stuff - such people do it all the time - my problem was with someone as respectable and trustworthy as Subramaniam Swamy referring to that as if it were reliable.
Oh, another aspect of my problem, which naturally follows, is that I don't really understand what many Hindus of today mean when they say they want to 'preserve' Sanatana Dharma. Does that mean, for example, that they want to preserve the narration and understanding of Puranas as has been done for ages, or does it mean we just keep rewriting it as communists, and others inimical to our religion, dictate? <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo--> I suppose my thinking that Hinduism being labelled 'mythology' is the lesser of the two evils (that we were better off when we were still allowed to have 'mythology' at least) makes clear where I stand on this last.