swarajyamag.com/culture/jeyamohan-on-the-question-of-being-a-cultural-hindu/
Isn't the author - 'Jeyamohan' - the guy who last time pretended that Taoism and Shinto had a 'happy marriage' with Buddhism.
I suppose in the comparison the above is less offensive as only Hindus are the victims of this current fantasy.
So now a Sufi is culturally a "Hindu" too as per such "Hindus".
Brilliant. And Sufis are claimed to be equidistant from every other kind. Again.
But then why not call inculturating christians "Hindu" too? I mean, surely their culture would not look so "Hindu" had they been natives converted to christianism in say Iran or wherever? Therefore, since Hindu culture influenced them too (never mind that they consciously inculturated for missionary purposes), can lump the "cultural Hindu" title on the christians too. Especially Syrian christians who've spent around 1.5 millennia in India and have parasited I mean inculturated on a lot of outward Hindu "culture". And the converts that catholicism made in Goa: so many catholic "brahmins" even.
OOoh, I can already imagine Indian matrimonial ads by Sufis: "Hindu male seeks Hindu female". <- What 'love jihad'? It ain't islamic subterfuge or taqiyyah then, since Jeyamohan and his applauding commenters have inducted sufis into the "Hindu" label too.
Why can't:
- "Indic" be used to refer to Indic religions or ideologies, i.e. those native to the land. I.e. Charvaka, Ajeevika, Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism, everything extinct or extant, small or now big, that once sprang up in the subcontinent, that disagreed or inculturated or went into cut-throat competition with missionising and attempted replacement of the native heathenism (Vedic religio).
- "Indian" be used for nationality/citizenship in relevant context and ethnicity where this is concerned. Christoislamics etc are already included here. Other anti-nationalists are included too.
- and "Hindu" be used for the heathens of the Vedic religion, so that Hinduism is Vedic religio, and so that Hindus hence have a word in English, which moreover corresponds to how the word has long been used in English to credit Hindus with (not least with an existence).
After all, Hindu heathenism (Hinduism) having subgroups is no different than how subgroups exist within Buddhism (several extant and several extinct ones) and within Jainism (certainly 2 prominent ones) and Sikhism. And any conflict between Hindu subgroups is no different from conflict within subgroups of Buddhism and Jainism and Sikhism.
What is it with "Hindu" vocalists insisting on turning "Hindu" into meaning "Indian" all over again? Sure, now that Indian means christoislamics too, native religions are devalued in the once-implied nativity of Indian. (Then again, during the British Raj, British imperialists festering in India were referred to as "Indian" by Brits in their homeland. E.g. the "Indian gentleman" used in colonial era books.)
But the word Indic replaces it capably, and excludes Abrahamic religions *and* Zoroastrians (who are an Iranic religio-ethnic identity). Indic can also imply ethnically Indian in relevant context.
Few outside the Hindus and other Indian nationalists of India are going to accept that "Buddhists" are Hindus. E.g. Chinese or even Thai Buddhists are generally unlikely to accept being clubbed as "Hindus". Not by ethnicity, not by religion, and culturally and civilisationally the former at least consider themselves closer to Chinese culture.
I suspect that if English had developed yet another word for designating the Hindoo heathens (an Indic religio-ethnic group), that nationalists would insist using that too to equally designate Buddhists and Jains and Sikhs etc. What bothers them is that Hindoo heathens should have a word to distinguish themselves from the others at all. They're not bothered by the fact that the extant Indic groups of Buddhists and Jains and Sikhs have terms for their religious identifier in English (or that these regularly threaten to be distinct and often don't want to *be* lumped with Hindoos: they can see there is a separate and distinct religion they don't want to be lumped with, even if they refuse to acknowledge the existence when in missionary mode and denying the existence of any laity). It is only nationalists' objection that Hindoos should have one. (As it is, many "Hindus" have started insisting that other Indics are all Astikas too and that Hindoos must not notice any distinction: all equi-distant from Hindoo subgroups.)
I'm guessing this is a side-effect from the constitution and modern Hindu nationalism particularly Hindutva. They're the ones who used English words anyway. The latter being significantly non-heathen (and modern non-heathen moreover) in origination, the word 'Hindu' naturally needed to be reinterpreted to include non-heathens, and the other Indic religions naturally fell within that huge range. Hindutva even in terminology is a replacement religion: denying heathenism and insisting on lumping it with non-heathenism and other Indic traditions.
But Hindu has long been a legitimate word in English/western languages with a meaning: and these are the only languages where the word is really needed. (Indian languages already distinguish between the other Indics and Hindoos.) And in those languages, "Hindu" (and "Hinduism") already has a dictionary meaning: not even indologists who have more recently decided in unison (upon conferring) to deny 'Hindus' and 'Hinduism' from existing, can undo the fact that there are countless dictionaries and encyclopaedias of English words from before their decision that do use and define "Hindu" and "Hinduism" as referring to the Vedic religio. And they do not include the other extant Indic traditions in them, as these also have terms in English (Sikhism, Buddhism, Jainism - which words are recognised by Indian nationalists and not universalised by them, I note.)
It was a bad mistake for "Hindus" to deny Hindoos the term Hindu (and Hinduism) in English. And following it's own internal logic, some have seen fit to naturally develop this into including Sufis too now. Who's to insist that only religions originally/entirely born in Indic space should be dubbed "Hindu"? Some choose to draw the lines looser still, after all.
(* Though those Sufi streams that developed in Iran - and also recognised as Sufism - are not dubbed "culturally Hindu". Jeyamohan and co. mean obviously mean "culturally Indian" or influenced significantly by the presence of Hinduism*. Since for the Iranian variants of Sufism, no one in Iran would say "culturally Zoroastrian", because at least Iranians and esp Zoroastrians would recognise that 1. Zoroastrianism is a religion; 2. deserves a name; 3. refers to a religious group. But Hindoos have no such luck. Everyone else has a name. Even the Yezidis and Bahai who are relatively tiny populations compared to HindOOs have their own names.)
Hmmm. One could theoretically argue that Indian wahhabism is also significantly, formatively being influenced by Hinduism: as seen in their reactiveness to the Hindoo majority and their need to jihad the Hindoos to turn what remains of Hindoos' heathen homeland into Mughalistan. There are many examples, but for instance: Indian muslims/jihadis have taken to insisting on beef-eating as a "feature" of the religion, and organise the theft of cows from Hindus. Yet islam is not particularly anti-cow in dar-ul-islams outside Hindoo space. (Compare with how in Iran islamics virulently attack the dog, and often stone the creature as a rule, precisely because it is/was a sacred animal in Zoroastrianism). I think such Indian wahabbism could well be called "culturally Hindu" too, since Hindu "culture" clearly influenced such an Indian strain of jihad I mean islam.
Anyway, infernal stupidity.
The news was -
One "Jeyamohan" - last seen spreading misinformation about Buddhism w.r.t. Shinto and Taoism - at least restricts his sphere of subv... I mean activity to just Indians this time:
swarajyamag.com/culture/jeyamohan-on-the-question-of-being-a-cultural-hindu/
Don't know why Indian nationalists don't just say Hindu means Indian now (plus convert-dabblers) and be over and done with. Why take so long to get to that conclusion, when that's where it's headed? (If sufism=islam is included, they've mostly arrived at drawing that equivalence already.)
Quote:If you are still unsatisfied after reaching that pinnacle, if you have learnt every spiritual-philosophical explanation that Hinduism has to offer and have rejected all of them, and then if you fully feel that you are an Atheist but are unsatisfied by all the Charvaka atheist philosophies in Hinduism, then ââ¬â and only then ââ¬â you could go outside and call yourself a Cultural Hindu.
(What is wrong with using the word 'Indic' when speaking of the many Indic ideologies and religions?)
But I still think there is a place for the term Cultural Hindu today. Two reasons:
ââ¬â All the religions that evolved out of India like Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism, could be seen as belonging to the same cultural space. Their mythologies, fundamental beliefs, and symbolisms are all born out of what we would generally term as Hindu Culture.
(But when they turn missionary on Hindoo laity, can admit it was merely inculturation on Vedic religion/Hinduism. Or maybe the "cultural Hindu" was merely a euphemism for that. In any case, when christianism tries the same - like ex-Hindu Indonesians converted to christianism wanting to take "pride" i.e. stake claims in the Hindu civilisation via the "cultural Hindu" tag, see Hinduwisdom.info's email section from almost a decade back vs the same converts continuing to missionise Hindus in their area - everyone should also insist that such Indonesian christians are "cultural Hindu". All anti-national and anti-Hindu Indians are culturally Hindu too: can hardly escape the influence. But some even don the bindi or keep Hindu names for their crypto activities.)
ââ¬â If someone is Jain, Buddhist or Sikh, they could be still be called as culturally a Hindu. You could also include Sufism in this. The symbolism and the stories in the songs of Kunangudi Masthan Sahib, Peer Mohammad Appa and Umaruppulavar were all born out of the immense Hindu cultural space.
Isn't the author - 'Jeyamohan' - the guy who last time pretended that Taoism and Shinto had a 'happy marriage' with Buddhism.
I suppose in the comparison the above is less offensive as only Hindus are the victims of this current fantasy.
So now a Sufi is culturally a "Hindu" too as per such "Hindus".
Brilliant. And Sufis are claimed to be equidistant from every other kind. Again.
But then why not call inculturating christians "Hindu" too? I mean, surely their culture would not look so "Hindu" had they been natives converted to christianism in say Iran or wherever? Therefore, since Hindu culture influenced them too (never mind that they consciously inculturated for missionary purposes), can lump the "cultural Hindu" title on the christians too. Especially Syrian christians who've spent around 1.5 millennia in India and have parasited I mean inculturated on a lot of outward Hindu "culture". And the converts that catholicism made in Goa: so many catholic "brahmins" even.
OOoh, I can already imagine Indian matrimonial ads by Sufis: "Hindu male seeks Hindu female". <- What 'love jihad'? It ain't islamic subterfuge or taqiyyah then, since Jeyamohan and his applauding commenters have inducted sufis into the "Hindu" label too.
Why can't:
- "Indic" be used to refer to Indic religions or ideologies, i.e. those native to the land. I.e. Charvaka, Ajeevika, Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism, everything extinct or extant, small or now big, that once sprang up in the subcontinent, that disagreed or inculturated or went into cut-throat competition with missionising and attempted replacement of the native heathenism (Vedic religio).
- "Indian" be used for nationality/citizenship in relevant context and ethnicity where this is concerned. Christoislamics etc are already included here. Other anti-nationalists are included too.
- and "Hindu" be used for the heathens of the Vedic religion, so that Hinduism is Vedic religio, and so that Hindus hence have a word in English, which moreover corresponds to how the word has long been used in English to credit Hindus with (not least with an existence).
After all, Hindu heathenism (Hinduism) having subgroups is no different than how subgroups exist within Buddhism (several extant and several extinct ones) and within Jainism (certainly 2 prominent ones) and Sikhism. And any conflict between Hindu subgroups is no different from conflict within subgroups of Buddhism and Jainism and Sikhism.
What is it with "Hindu" vocalists insisting on turning "Hindu" into meaning "Indian" all over again? Sure, now that Indian means christoislamics too, native religions are devalued in the once-implied nativity of Indian. (Then again, during the British Raj, British imperialists festering in India were referred to as "Indian" by Brits in their homeland. E.g. the "Indian gentleman" used in colonial era books.)
But the word Indic replaces it capably, and excludes Abrahamic religions *and* Zoroastrians (who are an Iranic religio-ethnic identity). Indic can also imply ethnically Indian in relevant context.
Few outside the Hindus and other Indian nationalists of India are going to accept that "Buddhists" are Hindus. E.g. Chinese or even Thai Buddhists are generally unlikely to accept being clubbed as "Hindus". Not by ethnicity, not by religion, and culturally and civilisationally the former at least consider themselves closer to Chinese culture.
I suspect that if English had developed yet another word for designating the Hindoo heathens (an Indic religio-ethnic group), that nationalists would insist using that too to equally designate Buddhists and Jains and Sikhs etc. What bothers them is that Hindoo heathens should have a word to distinguish themselves from the others at all. They're not bothered by the fact that the extant Indic groups of Buddhists and Jains and Sikhs have terms for their religious identifier in English (or that these regularly threaten to be distinct and often don't want to *be* lumped with Hindoos: they can see there is a separate and distinct religion they don't want to be lumped with, even if they refuse to acknowledge the existence when in missionary mode and denying the existence of any laity). It is only nationalists' objection that Hindoos should have one. (As it is, many "Hindus" have started insisting that other Indics are all Astikas too and that Hindoos must not notice any distinction: all equi-distant from Hindoo subgroups.)
I'm guessing this is a side-effect from the constitution and modern Hindu nationalism particularly Hindutva. They're the ones who used English words anyway. The latter being significantly non-heathen (and modern non-heathen moreover) in origination, the word 'Hindu' naturally needed to be reinterpreted to include non-heathens, and the other Indic religions naturally fell within that huge range. Hindutva even in terminology is a replacement religion: denying heathenism and insisting on lumping it with non-heathenism and other Indic traditions.
But Hindu has long been a legitimate word in English/western languages with a meaning: and these are the only languages where the word is really needed. (Indian languages already distinguish between the other Indics and Hindoos.) And in those languages, "Hindu" (and "Hinduism") already has a dictionary meaning: not even indologists who have more recently decided in unison (upon conferring) to deny 'Hindus' and 'Hinduism' from existing, can undo the fact that there are countless dictionaries and encyclopaedias of English words from before their decision that do use and define "Hindu" and "Hinduism" as referring to the Vedic religio. And they do not include the other extant Indic traditions in them, as these also have terms in English (Sikhism, Buddhism, Jainism - which words are recognised by Indian nationalists and not universalised by them, I note.)
It was a bad mistake for "Hindus" to deny Hindoos the term Hindu (and Hinduism) in English. And following it's own internal logic, some have seen fit to naturally develop this into including Sufis too now. Who's to insist that only religions originally/entirely born in Indic space should be dubbed "Hindu"? Some choose to draw the lines looser still, after all.
(* Though those Sufi streams that developed in Iran - and also recognised as Sufism - are not dubbed "culturally Hindu". Jeyamohan and co. mean obviously mean "culturally Indian" or influenced significantly by the presence of Hinduism*. Since for the Iranian variants of Sufism, no one in Iran would say "culturally Zoroastrian", because at least Iranians and esp Zoroastrians would recognise that 1. Zoroastrianism is a religion; 2. deserves a name; 3. refers to a religious group. But Hindoos have no such luck. Everyone else has a name. Even the Yezidis and Bahai who are relatively tiny populations compared to HindOOs have their own names.)
Hmmm. One could theoretically argue that Indian wahhabism is also significantly, formatively being influenced by Hinduism: as seen in their reactiveness to the Hindoo majority and their need to jihad the Hindoos to turn what remains of Hindoos' heathen homeland into Mughalistan. There are many examples, but for instance: Indian muslims/jihadis have taken to insisting on beef-eating as a "feature" of the religion, and organise the theft of cows from Hindus. Yet islam is not particularly anti-cow in dar-ul-islams outside Hindoo space. (Compare with how in Iran islamics virulently attack the dog, and often stone the creature as a rule, precisely because it is/was a sacred animal in Zoroastrianism). I think such Indian wahabbism could well be called "culturally Hindu" too, since Hindu "culture" clearly influenced such an Indian strain of jihad I mean islam.
Anyway, infernal stupidity.
The news was -
One "Jeyamohan" - last seen spreading misinformation about Buddhism w.r.t. Shinto and Taoism - at least restricts his sphere of subv... I mean activity to just Indians this time:
swarajyamag.com/culture/jeyamohan-on-the-question-of-being-a-cultural-hindu/
Quote:ââ¬â If someone is Jain, Buddhist or Sikh, they could be still be called as culturally a Hindu. You could also include Sufism in this. The symbolism and the stories in the songs of Kunangudi Masthan Sahib, Peer Mohammad Appa and Umaruppulavar were all born out of the immense Hindu cultural space.
Don't know why Indian nationalists don't just say Hindu means Indian now (plus convert-dabblers) and be over and done with. Why take so long to get to that conclusion, when that's where it's headed? (If sufism=islam is included, they've mostly arrived at drawing that equivalence already.)