• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Sanatana Dharma - Aka Hinduism (1st Bin)
Unfortunately, ONLY the Hindu religion has fostered and protected Hindu philosophy. No other religion finds it necessary to remember or propagate the timeless truths of Hindu philosophy among humans.

Sikhism has done it and still does. Sikhism has made enormous efforts to protect and foster Hinduism and its philophical heritage.

Fair enough. But this is an interesting comment, because it shows how a faith (Sikhism in this instance) can sit comfortably with the title "religion" and still protect entities that do not require God.

If I may use an analogy, Allah does not need the Kaaba. Allah can exist without the Kaaba. But Islam chooses to protect the Kaaba as a symbolic holy structure (It is Islam's form of idol-worship).

So the tag "religion" encompasses human behavior that goes beyond mere belief in God to folklore, habits and cultural history of the people who follow that religion.

Christmas itself is complete cooked up nonsense, because Christ was not born on that day and the festival immortalizes a former pagan ritual.

It is only some Hindus who worry about the "religion" tag, and by doing so they fall into what I see as a needless attention diverting trap. In order to understand this trap, you have to approach and view Hindus as a Muslim, or as a Christian missionary of some centuries ago.

If you were born into Islam or Christianty in the early era and were brought up as a devout religious person, you would see humans as clear black and white.

Only some people will be saved by God. You have to be a good Christian/Muslim to be saved by God.

Anyone who does not accept this God and is not a good Muslim (or Christian) HAS NO GOD.

He who has no God has no religion. He who has no religion MUST be saved. My religion (Islam/Christianity) demands compassion. I simply MUST save anyone who has no God.

For me the answer to the question "Does this person have religion" should be YES only if he is a Christian (or a Muslim). If not, he is Godless and must be saved. This is programmable and can be gamed, so clear is the rule.

Both Islam and Christianity have this clear, easy to understand "digital" 1 or 0 answer to the question of religion.

Initially, there was only Christianity that organized to give people God under this 1 or 0 paradigm. Islam's biggest success was in breaking violently into the world and establishing itself as a "religion" by force, despite the earlier presence of Christianity.

These two religions came into violent conflict, and until the West became "secular" it was difficult or impossible for one of these to survive alongside the other in the same geographic area.

When both these religions met Hindus, they found people "without God". Deeper examination found Hindus to have false Gods. The only way Christians could "explain" Hindus to themselves was by going back to their books and coming up with the answer "pagan". The only way Muslims could explain Hindus to themselves was to go back to their scriptures and find that these were "kafirs". In both cases Hindus had no religion, they were Godless and needed to be brought under (an Islamic or Christian) God.

By the time Islam and Christianity "met" each other again in India, they had already fought enough battles to understand that there could be more than one religion. They both understood that other religions had to be fought because theirs was the only true religion. The other was always false.

In India, Islam and Christianity met a mix of people who sometimes fought and sometimes did not fight. Those Hindus who fought in the name of some God had to be opposed because they were following a false God. Those Hindus who did not fight but accepted Islam or Christianity had to be "saved" because they had no God.

This "mixed" behavior of Hindus could not be given one label as one religion. This is what led to the idea that Hinduism was not one religion, or was, at best multiple religions.

If we can accept the story so far as being reasonably representative of the truth, we can move on to what Hindus felt when faced with all these saviors.

Hindus never defined themselves as a "religion" and so could not ay "Yes we have a religion". This was quite convenient for the saviors who had to save Hindus.

However the one common denominator of all saviors who came to India, whether of an Islamic flavor or of a Christian flavor, they were disruptors. They disrupted and destroyed old social and cultural structures while they claimed to rescue and save.

Because both religions were predatory, and sought to change everyone and remove everything that existed, Hindus had no answers. Hindus had no single banner or single God to rally around. For too many centuries, Hindus had already evolved as people who mostly did not fight over God, and at the very least had never developed rules that asked for fighting if Gods were not similar.

But Hindus did survive. Although they did not have a single God or a single banner, and although they could not describe themselves as a single religion, and although Muslims and Christians could not identify a single Hindu religion, Hindus survived because they have a common set of beliefs of right and wrong. That common set of beliefs of what is right and what is wrong is Hindu Dharma. Hindus protected their Dharma, either by fighting, or by Hudaibiya. Hindu Dharma is Hindu religion.

It is a convenient trap to say Hindus are not one religion. From the Christian and Islamic viewpoint a group without a religion MUST have a religion forced down their throats.

Hindus who fail to realise that the word "religion" merely means "The belief you will fight for" and "the belief you will impose on others" will flounder in the neverneverland of the Godless.

The single Hindu religion is Dharma simply because
1) that is what Hindus have fought to preserve
2) that is what will not go away
3) that is what Hindus agree to impose on others.

I think the nature and boundaries of what Hindu Dharma is has been defined by Pulikeshi earlier. But Just because Hindu Dharma is not a male humanoid like the Muslim or Christian Gods does not make Hindu belief any less of a religion.

Religion does not mean God. It refers to belief. It is belief, and not God that makes the Kaaba and Christmas sacred. Similarly it is the belief in Dharma, and not any particular God that makes Hinduism a religion. The definition of the word religion==God was broken forever when Christianity and Islam accepted each other as religions. Two Gods. Two religions. Therefore religion is not restricted to one God.

It is important in this world to have religion, whether or not you have God. Your religion is a red flag that tells others that there is something you will fight for and kill someone else over. It is a complete waste of time to argue whether Hinduism is a religion or not when the vast majority of Hindus show behavior that is characteristic of any religion - i.e they will fight and kill over their beliefs and they will seek to hold and impose those beliefs over and above any new information fed to them.

Let us please put this "Is Hinduism a religion?" question aside and look at the consequences of Hindu and Muslim religionists interacting with each other.

Unless Hindus have a direct adversarial strategy towards other religions in which they claim that their Hindu religion with its zillion armed Gods are under threat and require human protection just like Allah is under threat and requires protection, Hindus have nothing to protect.

The complex and comforting philosophy of a "Hindu way of life" has been raped and torn asunder down the years and cannot now be protected. It is oh so easy to argue that the Hindu way of life included the "egregious social system and other terrible practices". If you say that has all changed now, the next question is "If that can change, why not something else?" So what the hell is this "Way of life"?

Hindus are masters of the profound and blind to the obvious. The profound Hindus will not survive.They do not have anything to protect. They are too well protected by their profound philosophy. Indian secularism thrives on such timeless and unprotectable philosophies while Hinduism dies. Only the stupid Hindus, who have vulnerable Gods can survive.

First, thank you for penning your thoughts. I do not think we differ in, what we want the actions to be. The active defense of hindu ways is non negotiable. I have made my effort to study the loss of Hindu India and cannot be blind to the obvious.

The exercise to define terms, better suited to the Hindu model is driven from a need to do “justice” to Dharmic concepts and also to a degree state a rejection of the existing, available terms as the framework from where these terms come from are disadvantageous to Hindus.

I also believe, attempts to redefine, explain and force fit Hindu concepts, within these alien terms have not succeeded.

My primary argument is one of debating frameworks. What is a debating framework and Why is it important? When a debate is setup, let us say: Do you support caste based reservations or not? The two opposing parties are locked in a debate about the merits and demerits of caste based reservations. No matter who the winner is the “acknowledged” results will affirm that caste itself is a valid concept of Hindu society.

What will not be looked at is, how did these so called castes of SC/ST, OBC et al come into being. How did they get there? Are the conditions that got them there in the first place, still valid? What are the ground realities of caste, across the land mass, today? What were the generally accepted theological doctrines on caste and its actual day to day practices in history? Is the concept of caste itself, as widely understood, valid? How did untouchability in Hindu society come around? How was untouchability actually practiced? Did these practices amount to persecution on a sustained basis? What was the effect of these differentiations, practices and so called prejudices?

And who’s word did we take to resolve many and all of these questions? The words of the British census, western and mancuaylized historians.

By the time we come to some reasonable policy on caste based reservations and maybe even an enlightened one, the overall context of caste has been well accepted. These terms and their meaning thereof, had a lasting and devastating impact.

If you look up the debates in the constituent assembly on the issue of caste based reservations, you will find some parallels. A small debate around, if caste based reservations, itself is a good idea and then an enlightened and reasonably considered policy at that time, in their view, to provide reservations for SC/ST. The decision to do so was done without any great understanding of how these 2300 or so SC/ST castes come from? How did they grow?

The reservation policies were coded in the constitution as articles 15(4) and 16(4). The founders did not envision reservations to be permanent or at the cost of efficiency of administration and neither did they consider it to be a matter of right. Reservations were viewed by the founders as an advisory and temporary, although not codified as such.

60 years down the line, these very words of our constitution are used by judges and politicians to fragment the Indian polity and use caste as a divisive element in Indian society. Much research has been done on the above questions on caste, which shed some new light but are they factored into policy? No. In fact, we go right ahead and provide reservations for OBC and have the audacity to estimate the OBC population at 52%(for which no adequate census exists) and we go right ahead and now talk about reservations based on caste for - minorities.

Did the founders envison this? Certainly not. Did the politicians and judges bend the words of the consititution out of recoginition? Absolutely. We can blame whoever we like but the fact is a lack of advantageous terms and frameworks of debate allowed the caste policies develop into a cancer it is, today in Indian polity.

I believe, a rejection of the definitions of caste and how they came about and what they actually were and are at the time, would have resulted in a different policy and subsequent evolution of that policy.

My point. If you do not define your own terms and frame works, some one else will define them for you. As in the case of caste, where the then people in power and “experts”, who did not think like Hindus did, in terms of Varnas and Jatis and distinctly not linked with economics. The result is today we live with their interpretations and the consequences thereof.

There are many such terms and concepts, which have been embedded in our constitution and part of the wider debate, which get Hindu Dharma in a disadvantageous position from the get go. Examples are:

“Secularism”: What is secularism, is obviously not defined. Hence, the implementation of this undefined idea is largely left to policy. Since minority appeasement is encoded through articles 29 and 30 and through separate personal laws, this idea of secularism is applied in a haphazard manner in the Indian state. The elite, minorities and DDM fear the replacement of “secularism” for a version of hindu hegemony, where muslims and Christians are second class citizens. This view flies in the face of documented history of India but the fear and black mail continues. The result:

Since ages, many Hindus worship the deity Sarasvati as a representation of the giver of knowledge. A deity is different from the monotheistic understanding of God. Seeking blessings in school and a prayer to the representative of knowledge would be a normal part of Hindu culture in many parts of India. So will be the obulations to Agni or Fire, represented as the giver of light. Our peace chants, ask for peace for all, without differentiation or prejudice.

All of these cannot be practiced in the public space, due to the minority veto in the name of secularism. Hinduism cannot be a theory and something to be practiced in the private domain only.

Even our national song of Vande Mataram had to be cut due to the objections from the minorities, only to find out that they had a problem with the first two stanzas also.

No matter which side of the debate you are from, pseudo secular, liberal or conservative, the loss is of the Hindus. For, what is codified is the validity of the secular model itself as a valid form of governance in a land that has never recognized or known or have the need for such a concept and does not share the evolution of the secular concept, as developed in the west. Yet, the systems of the land were more humane and tolerant of diversity of beliefs and practices than any other major known evolved system.

There are many other terms which do not provide easy answers, even for day to day conversations. Try answering these neatly and nicely, understandable to the average Christian or Muslim in a casual conversation. An honest and informed answer, will confuse the heck out of the other person, and short and sweet answers will not do justice.

What is your religion?

Do you worship god?

What do Hindus believe in?

Do you believe in rebirth?

Does your religion prohibit you from killing cows?

I can give the simple answers and get away with it but in my heart I know, I have not done full justice. How can you for these questions and the terms within them come from a certain context, alien to the hindu ethos.

What I am seeking is a better winning formula through a transformation. These transformations have the following initial aspects:

1. A clear definition of who we are and what we stand for along with a trajectory and framework for change management
2. Seek freedom from the dhimmified and macuaylized state of the Hindu mind. Almost always on the defensive and always defining itself on alien frameworks.
3. A process for Dharmic ways to start asserting its world views and evolve these Dharmic world views --- even if they some times oppose the dominant and accepted world views of forms of governance, economy and even the Indian state itself.
asprinzl wrote:
I think seriously that Hinduism must resort to propagation. I also think that in ancient times, the whole population of what is now India could not have become Hindu instantaneously. It had to have started somewhere and propagated from there on to the rest of the land and beyond. That has the the logic.

Also, the population of South East Asia, were introduced to Hindusm and Bhuddism by Hindu missionaries. So, it would be wrong to say that Mission Work is not in the blood stream of the Hindu.

I think, the Hindu became too complacent or comfortable closed his/her doors after that and forgot about continuing the mission work. The Hindu need not look to far to provide for himself. The land had plenty and provided bountiful. If not for all but at least to a significant size of the population. And then came the barbarians.

Its time to resuscitate the engines of propagation and active conversion.

A system cannot forever be on the defensive. Eventually, those who are carrying out offensive military operations against the defenders would break through.

Finally, I think there has to be a brand new direction to take all this forward. That is Political Hinduism. Leave behind all the dharmis, softy-mofty after world stuffs behind. Let the preachers, sadhus and gurus worry about that. The present and the future requires cold calculative realism firmly grounded in the material world. Bring the informed and ignorant masses together under one banner. Also, break down the barriers of the Islamic ghettos. You cannot fight Islamism without "Liberating" the ignorant Muslims who are under the suffocating grip of the resident Mullah. The Muslim had to be taken out of his ghetto, cleansed of the "bad influence" and given new life.

You cannot have a better front line soldier for your cause other than a Muslim rescued/liberated from the Ghetto. For this you need active, sustained and sophisticated Mission/Propagation work backed by solid money, psychologists and PR. I beliebe that inside every IM is a Hindu waiting to come out.

Your post seem like a correct step towards the future. With 99% of hindus only interested in making their living, the world will lose such a tolerant culture and religion. There are organisations that are doing this globaly, but not with an idea to convert-in-its-current sense. They should be given more support.

Watch Bangalore IT companies, internal charity and celebration mails, mainly driven through some HR, Admin guys infiltrated.
The recent converted ones have their names retained to confuse hindus
and enable more cultural infiltration among hindus, so these people are
used to do these activities.

Many top level people may want to stop these kind of mails, but fielded as charity mails, any opposition even from a top manager can get his feet burning when blamed as an RSS fanatic.

The main purpose is to legitimize one religion and its celebrations among corporate hindus. The second aim is to collect charity money for orphanages(most orphanages 100% are not orphans, instead just 20% or less) from hindus to enable conversion in rural bangalore. The modus-operandi is use hindu money for hindu conversion and self money to establish the system. We should be surprised to know that this missionary gang involves 80% of IT-engineers and students.

As usual once legitimized with little opposition, everything even future Corporate culture will be pseudo secular.

These are not de-centralized activities, instead done with full guidance, funds and programs.

I am sorry to bring this up as it is slightly OT. But it hurts to see it all happening right in front and helplessly watch, clearly aware of the way they have done it successfully in kerala.
I see, a major conversion lobby working in Bangalore, centered around IT companies and some colleges for money and work, and the conversions are done on poor inside villages of karnataka and North-indian workers who are in blr for construction works.
<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Message of Indian Philosophy </span>

Professor M.Hiriyanna is one of the little-known scholar-giants who gifted us new insights, and corrected thriving misperceptions in Indian philosophy. The title of this post is derived from his 1939 Indian Philosophical Congress lecture bearing the same title.

His lecture delivers the message of Indian philosophy in the layman’s language both in content and presentation. That is a rare feat given the complexity and abundance of technical terms and concepts Indian philosophy contains. As he mentions at the outset that the subject he has selected “possesses little technical importance.”

Hiriyanna deals with the “familiar theme” of the ideal of life in the backdrop of Indian philosophy. He begins by briefly examining the conception of philosophy itself.

Philosophy in India was not an idle quest unlike in the West where it aims at satisfying the desire or curiosity to know. In India, philosophic truth was sought for the light it may throw upon the ultimate significance of life. This practical interest in a way, unites all six systems of Indian philosophy. Philosophical exploration in India very early moved away from merely formulating a set of theoretical views of the universe and dealt in applying philosophic concepts to everyday life. This is also the Indian ideal of life.

Hiriyanna exposits this ideal of life in the rest of his lecture. As a starting point, he identifies three common features of this ideal as unselfishness, service, and abiding enlightenment.


Both Vedanta and Buddhism stress on unselfishness as one of the ideals of practical life. Buddhism goes the extreme step of denying the very existence of the self (nairatmya vada) “in order to impress upon its adherents the importance of unselfishness.” However, unselfishness is clearly defined as the “entire abnegation of self-interest.” It is indeed an ascetic ideal but not in the sense of voluntary forsaking of the world. It is asceticism that goes hand in hand with altruistic activity and not divorced from it. The aim of life is not just detachment but detachment and service, which brings us to the second feature of the Indian ideal of life.


Hiriyanna devotes the majority of his lecture to service. The pursuit of service is not running away from society and seeking passive isolation. Indian philosophy commends self-renunciation, not world-renunciation. The Gita upholds this feature by emphasizing the necessity of leading a life of incessant activity although one may have no personal gain as a result. In the words of Krishna, there’s nothing in the three worlds I have to toil for; and yet I act.

To explore this deeper, renunciation and service are not separate aims. In the Indian conception, service is the means to cultivate renunication. True detachment cannot be achieved without living an active life in the midst of people, devoting oneself to their welfare with no thought of self-advantage. In Hiriyanna’s words, “as active service, it invovles self affirmation and as tending to complete detachment it also involves self denial…” Hiriyanna explains this apparent paradox best:

…the excellence of this teaching is in bringing these opposites into harmony; and it is possible to do so by purifying the one of egoism and the other of passivity or inaction. But these activities are not left to be determined by the choice or opinion of the individual, for the service which is to be the means of cultivating the spirit of reununciation is defined as consisting in doing sva dharma or the duties of the station which one fills in society.

Most classical Indian texts on Dharma stress on performing sva dharma to near perfection. Very vaguely, sva dharma involves doing immediate duties first like taking care of the house. It is the simplest purifier known to man. A person who fails to perform sva dharma effectively, fails in every other task. Mahatma Gandhi is a good example. He embarked on liberating India while his own family life was in shambles. Was he effective in liberating India? All I can say is his legacy in this respect is doubtful. The need for performing one’s sva dharma is deeper.

…this insistence on the performance of one’s own duties implies the abolition of all distinctions of high and low among them for, when we consider duties as means to renunciation, it is not their content that matter, but the selfless spirit in which they are done. All can therefore be sanyasins in this sense.

So, does it stop at selflessness and renunciation? The Indian ideal of life recognizes incompleteness even here. A person may abolish self-interest but he/she will still be aware of agency. Agency is the cognition that the person is (still) the doer of action. According to the Gita, though he may free himself from the idea that he is an enjoyer (bhoktr), he will remain conscious that he is the doer (kartr). Thus, “disinterested activity, even when it is the result of strife, may be commendable. But it cannot be the ultimate ideal. The need for such effort must wholly disappear. The notion of agency must be given up.”

In other words, the agent should transcend the sense of duty, and must become the effort/action itself. Tat Tvam Asi in many senses. Hiriyanna recalls this wonderful verse from the Mahabharata’s Shanti Parva:

Tyaja dharmam adharmam ca ubhe satyanrte tyaja|
Ubhe satyanrte tyaktvaa yena tyajasi tat tyaja||

Foreswear dharma, adharma, truth, and falsehood–and then
Foreswear that by which you foreswore all these.

The Indian ideal holds a person conscious of his own unselfishness as imperfect, even dangerous. There is no greater tyranny than that of the person who is convinced of his own moral superiority. Hiriyanna illustrates this very well using the example of a mother’s love for her infant. A mother’s love for her child is not out of a mere sense of duty. A nurse who is paid to take care of babies does the same job equally well–as a duty. “But the mother’s response is on a higher plane where duty merges in love and she grows completely un-selfconscious in attending to the needs of the child.” The attainment of a similar level of action with regard to the whole universe represents the Indian ideal of life. According to Hiriyanna, it is “love mediated by comprehensive knowledge. Utter knowledge is utter love,” and

If one form of love is notoriously blind, all forms or it operate more or less instinctively and not with complete understanding. The only key to such understanding is philosophy.

Thus, in the Indian ideal, philosophy bridges the gulf between common morality and the ideal. A familiar term used even in routine conversation is Shastra-jnana or knowledge of philosophy (shastra doesn’t translate to scripture). And the way

For acquiring that key, a further course of discipline is necessary, that discipline is predominantly intellectual. Here we see the relation to philsophic theory to the ideal of practical life. Which means, it is not enough to think and know; one must also feel and experience. The knowledge conveyed by the teaching should be transformed into an immediate conviction, if it is to issue in unbidden action, like a mother’s love …. it is only such a living awareness, and not a merely conceptual knowledge of reality that can inspire love which will transmute conduct.

When we realize the highest end of service, we come to the third feature of the Indian ideal of life.

Abiding Enlightenment

So far, what we notice is the successively-higher and higher stages of evolution: unselfishness, service and reununciation, and now, abiding enlightenment.

When the ethical training of the first stage comes to be aided by such enlightenment, renunciation, instead of being merely an aim externally regulating conduct, becomes the natrual expression of an inner conviction; and…service, instead of being a means to an end, becomes the necessary consequence of that conviction. Or….the constraint of obligation is replaced by the spontaneity of love.

When this stage is reached, the person transcends all subjective valuations of his social/moral actions. He feels not the need to question “have i done right or wrong?” In other words, though he is in the world, “he is merely an impartial spectator.” More, he sets a standard for others to strive for. That was the way of a host of sages and similar people that have dotted Indian history. The Gita calls this loka samgraha meaning: what the best men do, that becomes the standard for the rest .

Hiriyanna concludes that the message of Indian philosophy is that

…man should seek for the fulfillment of his highest being in such service. The distinctive features of this service…are that it should be rendered in a spirit of absolute disinterestedness and that it should be rooted in an all-comprehensive love which is the outcome of complete enlightenment.

He laments the fact that in his time, “the emphasis on these features have weakened and the consequence was”

…subordination…of spiritual to worldly ends in the pursuits of life. The idea of altruistic service is..there but its scope has been narrowed in various soul-cramping ways. Its quality . has deteriorated…on account of attempts made to reconcile service to others with what is called ‘reasonable self-love.’

From sandeepweb.com
Indian scholars intrigued on European outlook on Indian Religion

By Sandeep Datta, New Delhi, Jan.22 : The ongoing conference on Rethinking Religion in India in the capital, despite commencing on a promissory note on Monday, is making many Indian intellectuals skeptical about the outcome.

Many feel that the European scholars were finding it difficult to understand Indian religion in its true perspective.

"It's just a beginning. We hope from next year of the conference, the discussion will intensify. The whole discussion needs to take a proper shape in the due course of time only after that the structure and framework of discussions could be properly understood," said Prof. K.D.Tripathi of Benaras Hindu University.

"These people seem quite 'anxious' about understanding India and perhaps that's why they are eager to 'rethink' about religion in India. They are 'worried' about the exterior of religion and its repercussions. They are comparatively less concerned about the internal aspects of religion in India," said Prof.K.D.Tripathi of Benaras Hindu University.

"The route to our experience of Indian religion goes through language, art, music and literature. We can realize the significance of our religion from within," Prof. Tripathi said.

"The debate they are having today was all started in the 16th century by Sikh Gurus. In Granth Sahib, there is a distinction made between "Dheen" which is used in Islamic context. And, the word "Dharma" which is used in traditional Indian context," said Jasdev Singh, Director of the Sikh Human Rights Group in U.K.

"Indian academicians look more obsessed about proving to the white European about his grasp of European philosophy. They should instead spend more time studying the Indian reform movements," said Singh.

<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>"It is a sad indictment of the colonization process of India that no conference is considered credible without the white European participants." he added. </span>

Prof.Rajeev Ranjan Sinha, Head of the Department of Sanskrit Vidya and Dean Faculty of Shramana Vidya at Sampoornanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi said: "We cannot be expected to understand our religion through European eyes or viewpoint. Without understanding the intrinsic examples and sources of Hinduism it cannot be covered by European concept of religion."

"Hindu Dharma is not a mere ritual. In Europe, the belief and rituals are centralized and monistic. But Hinduism is diversified and it believes in pluralism. We must try to discover some alternative aspect in its own ocean," Prof. Sinha stressed after attending the first roundtable session I Janapada Sampada", said.

"Hinduism of Gandhi and of a native farmer both are covered by the word 'Hinduism' in Indian perspective" he added.

At the end of the second day's discussions, many felt that as of now the participants are trying to project their scholarly achievements but the visiting scholars are still far away from understanding Indian religion.

The conference is scheduled to last till January 24. http://www.newkerala.com/one.php?action=...s&id=15971


I read about this conference a couple of days ago. All white guys, one Indian name (among those mentioned in the article).

Added later: Here:

and ..

Rethinking Religion in India attracting scholars

By Sandeep Datta, New Delhi, Jan.22 : The ongoing conference on Rethinking Religion in India is drawing an increasing number of participants, as was visible on Tuesday when several scholars and intellectuals from different parts of the country and abroad arrived here despite intense cold in the capital.

The second day commenced with Parallel Paper session I on Caste system and Indian religion 1 and followed by a Roundtable session participated by a number of scholars.

Research scholar Esther Bloch, as one of the speakers during the Parallel Paper session I on Caste system and Indian religion 1, said: "One of the problems of Hinduism has been felt (by Europeans) that you cannot explain Hinduism because it lacks one God, one holy book, one religion or one practice, etc. These things constitute or make them feel that their (kind of) framework is absent in India, is something what Europeans see."

Since it is not there the Europeans feel that something important is lacking in Indian society and that is why they feel that religion has 'degenerated'. Scholars question that if there is no structure-similar to that European society-- how can it exist. They perhaps wanted to replace something (structure) to make it exist in India, Esther Bloch added.

Professor Scaria Zacharia, School of Letters Mahatma Gandhi University, Kottayam, one of the speakers, said: "They (Europeans) often connect caste and religion. But relation between the two needs to be re-examined as a social process. It (the European perspective) emphasizes on two occupational fixity and endogamy (marriage from the same race). This conclusion has to be understood and examined under everyday life of pre-colonial India. Society needs to be understood by the views or system existing in pre-colonial system."

"You should not be carried away by the colonial vision of caste system. We should re-examine the past records and practices in the light of contemporary experiences. Today, Jaati (caste) system is back in its real political face," Zacharia added.

--- ANI
Sanatan Dharma is a vast ocean. Sometimes even one drop is enough to know what it is

All of these are parts of the ocean:

e.g: the peace chant

Asato Ma Sat gamaya
Tamaso Ma Jyotir gamaya
Mrityo Ma Bhrutam gamaya
Om Shanti, Shant, Shantihi

From untruth to truth,
From darkness to light
From mortality to immortality

The above is eternal, nothing can ever change it.

Sanatana Dharma believes that man is capable of higher moral action only when he grows into the qualities and powers of the Spirit: that he grows morally when he grows spiritually; therefore it teaches a an ethics of personal spiritual growth. It teaches the ten fold-fold laws and qualities of dharma: contentment (dhriti), forgiveness (kshama), self-control (dama), purification (saucha), sense-control (indriya-nigraha), wisdom (dhi), knowledge (vidya), truthfulness (satya) and abstentation from anger (akrodha).

Sanatan Dharma seeks “rebirth”, it teaches you to cultivate your hidden powers, new powers of the soul like Shradha, virya, smriti, Samadhi and prajna. It teaches an upward and inward look.

Sanatan dharma teaches man to embrace what is vast (bhuman) and reject the small (alpa)

Sanatan Dharma regards God as the inner-controller, and moral action as spontaneous and natural. In being moral, a man is being true to himself.

Dharma is loosely translated as righteousness by many.

The word dharma itself, means “That which stabilizes” society. Pulleshi and others ofcourse have their own nuances on these.

Gandhiji said his dharma is truth and non-violence.

All of the above are guiding principles and not “definitions”.

How do you package something that is inexhaustible and give it a neat little “definition”? I can give you about 100 or a 1000 more points but still not be complete. There are many modern sages who have done this job of writing this down in neat little books so that you (assumption) and I, who are illiterate about our scriptures can start to learn and not be over whelmed by the vast source literature.

Choose any one or more of these favorites of mine from Sri Ramakrishna, Vivekananda, Sri Aurobindo, Ramana Maharishi, Swami Dayananda, Sri Ram Swarup and even Sri Vamdev Shastri (David Frawley).


Hello, I am Abhi and I write the hindu-blog.com and I am a freelance web content writer. I have a post graduate degree in English Literature. Before becoming a freelace writer, I was working as animation script writer and as content writer for several media houses. I have written extensively on Hinduism for the past ten years and have undertaken research on Hinduism for several web portals. For me Hinduism is not a religion in the conventional sense. I find it more interesting without the religious tag or when it is in its pure form – the Santana Dharma.

via email..

Religion is meant to elevate human soul from ordinary humanity to a more respectable divinity, and therefore, a true and benevolent religion can never sanction such acts which may bring down humanity to the low level of bestiality. Religion, culture, and civilization are not the terms antagonistic to one another and therefore every inhuman act ought to be equally repulsive to the notions of civilization and culture also. Living on flesh of fellow creatures is an act no less than cannibal, and the society which advocates it is certainly going towards barbarism. The Aryasamaj stands for cultural and rational religion. It extends its hands of fellow feeling to all creatures, dumb and mute. It believes in the doctrine of Live and Let live.

The Vedas have been regarded as the bedrock of religion [Dharma], culture and civilization. It pains one when many of our writers like Raja Rajendralal Misra[ Beef in ancient India a chapter in Indo-Aryans vol.I] and D.N. jha [ The myth of holy cow. verso books 2002 London] making unsuccessful attempts to advocate the practice of meat-eating- even beef- on the basis of ancient authorities. There is no space here to clarify all the misapprensions, but an attempt would be made here to bring forth a few of the evidences to show that the Vedic religion was originally against any such inhuman practice. Certainly, at a later stage, people associated all sorts of intolerances with these scriptures.

<b>Vedas against Meat eating</b>.

The etymological argument: The Vedic Lexicon, Nighantu, gives amongst other synonyms of Gau[ or cow] the words Aghnya. Ahi, and Aditi. Yaska the commentator on Nighantu, defines these terms as follows.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->              Aghnya is one that ought not to be killed
              Ahi is one that must not be slaughtered.
              Aditi is one that ought not to be cut into pieces.
                                                          [Nighantu 11.4]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

These three names of cow signify that the animal ought not to be put to tortures. Mahabharatha[ shanti parva.[ Chapter263] also says that cows are known as aghnya, and they ought not to be killed. Anybody who kills a cow or bull is a great sinner. This sentiment is supported by a Vedic dictum Anago hatya y bheemah [Atharvaveda 10.2.29] which means that it is great sin to kill innocent animals. In this context let us hear what Manu in Manusmrithi says,

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Anumantha vishasitha nihantaa krayavikrayee|
                              Samskrtha chopahartha cha khadakaschethi ghatakah||
                                                                                        {Manusmrithi 5.51}<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Meaning. Those who permit the slaying of animals, and those who bring the animals for slaughter, those who slaughter, those who sell the meat, those who purchases the meat, those who prepare the dish out of it, those who serve that food, and those who eat that meat are all Villains.

Yagna never means animal sacrifice in the sense popularly understood. Yagna in the Veda means Sresthamaya karma [yajurveda 1.1] or the highest purifying action. One of the synonyms of Yagna in Nighantu is Adhvara which according to Yaska means as follows.

Adhvara is a synonym for Yagna. Dhvara means an act with himsa or torture. And therefore adhvara means an act involving no tortures. Were animals permitted to be sacrificed then Yagna should have been called as Sadhvara. However this is not the position. Rigveda says on the contrary calls Yagna as Adhvara as clear from the following Mantra.
  Agne yam yagnamadhavaram vishwathah paribhurasi|
  Sa id deveshu gacchati||  [Rigveda 1.1.4]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Meaning; [Agne] O lord of effulgence! [sah it], [yam adhvaram yajnam] over which non-violent Yajna, [vishvatah paribhuh asi] you prescribe from all sides, [devesu gacchati] touches divine proportions or is accepted by noble souls.

In Vedic literature when Yagna is described as Adhvara throughout, with what stretch of imagination then should one conclude that the Vedas permit violence to or slaughter of animals and birds? Partly on account of gross ignorance, and partly on the inability to control their minds and sense-organs and partly due to the influence of Greeks and Romans with whom our ancient people had to come into contact because of trade, commerce, and politics the people started indulging in slaughter of innocent animals and meat eating. Further the mischievous meanings given to Vedic Mantras by men who never cared to know what Niruktha said in the matter was another reason. Otherwise how do you explain the justification of cow/ox and other animals being killed when the killing is clearly prohibited as clear from the following?

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Ga maa himsiradhitim virajam [yaj13.43]
      [Do not kill the cow which is splendor of life and [which is] inviolable.
Imam Maa himseedvipadam pashum [yaj 13.48]
      [Do not kill the animal with unsplit hooves]
Imam utsam ma himsi [yaj  13.49]
          [Do not kill the Ox]
Imam urnayam ma himsihi [yaju 13.50]
[Do not kill this sheep]
Such are the Vedic injunctions.

The Vedas advocate humane treatment to animals--- At number of places; the Vedas are full of prayers and sanctions aiming at the protection of animals.

1. O God! Protect the cattle of Yajamam (yajamanasya pashunpahi) yaj 1.1
2. Do not ye torture man and other animals [Maa himsi purusham jagat] yaj 6.3
3. Ye men and women, both of you together protect your cattle [pashustreetheyatam ] yaj 6.11

The Vedas are definitely against killing cow horse or other creatures.—the following mantras are very clear in this respect.

1. A man who nourishes himself on the flesh of man , horse or other animals or birds or who having killed untorturable cows , debars them from their milk , O Agni, the King, award him the highest punishment or give him the sentence of death [ Atharveda 8.3.25]
2. The one who protects and sustains hundreds and thousands, one who is the fountain of milk, one who supplies people with milk , one who is aditi[ who ought not to be cut into pieces] do not torture such cow in this world[ yajurveda 12.49]

The passages given above show that the Vedas never sanctioned the torture of animals either in Yagnas or for any other reasons. Further, Charaka one of the founders of Ayurveda traces the origin of ati-sara [Diarrhea] to the animal meat. He says cow –meat is heavy, hot and Unnatural, causes inactivity of metabolism and dulls the intellect [Vide charaka chikitsa section ch. 10]

Thus it is clear, that the cow slaughter was introduced at much later period. It was not prevalent in the times of Manu even.

Aswamedha does not mean horse sacrifice at Yagna.

It is impossible to give an exposition of Aswamedha ceremony in this article. The Yajurveda clearly mentions that a horse ought not to be slaughtered.

Do not slaughter this one hoofed animal that neighs and who goes with a fast speed faster than most of the animals [Y.13.48]

The one-hoofed animal is definitely a horse, as is clear from the following statement of the Sathapatha Brahmana:
By one hoofed is meant a horse. Do not slaughter him [VII, v, ii 33]
In Shathapatha, Aswa is a name of Rastra. Or empire and Yagna done with a view to consolidate an empire is named as Aswamedha. The word medha does not mean slaughter. It is done simply an act done in accordance to the intellect [or medhas] Alternatively it could mean consolidation, as evident from the root meaning of medha i.e. medhru sangame.

Ajamedha is not the goat-sacrifice. It is a Yagna done with grains. The word aja means goat as well as grain. This duality of meaning has given rise to notion that ajamedha means goat sacrifice. The following passage from Mahabharata clarifies this point very definitely.

“The sense of the Veda is to perform Yagna with grains or seeds. Aja is another name for seed. It is not desirable to slaughter goats. Good people do not indulge in slaughter of animals. This krtayuga is the best of all; how can the killing of animals be permissible during the period? [Shantiparva]”

The passages from panchatantra also substantiate these views. “Those who sacrifice animals in Yagna are great fools; they do not the real sense of Veda. The Veda simply says; the Yagna should be performed through the oblations of aja; but the word aja means ‘paddy seven years old’. It does not signify any special animal. [Tantra.3, katha 2]

This is what meant by Aswamedha Yagna and Aja medha Yagna. We hear in Ramayana that Aswamedha Yagna was performed by setting loose a decorated horse carrying a state emblem. Whoever stopped or impounded the horse the king used to enquire and if this meant defiance to authority war was initiated to submit them. Precisely this is what was meant by Aswamedha.

Maharshi Dayananda Saraswathi, a doyen among our religious and social reformers was an outstanding scholar of Vedas as well. Dismissing the meaning that Aswamedha meant horse sacrifice he states in his immortal work Satyartha prakash {Light of Truth} as under.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->  <i>      “They interpolated these and similar other verses into the works of the seers, and also wrote books in the name of many great sages and savants, and thus introduced such sacrifices as Gomedha—a sacrifice in which cows were slaughtered – and Aswamedha—one in which horses were killed. They declared that by slaughtering these animals and offering them as a sacrifice both—the animals sacrificed and the Yajamana—went to Heaven. This evil practice seems to have originated on account of their ignorance of the true meanings of such words as Aswamedha, Gomedha, and Naramedha that occur in the Brahmanas, for had they understood them; they would not have committed such blunders.

      O—what are then the true meanings of such words as Aswamedha, Gomedha, and Naramedha?
      A—their meanings are noted what the Vamamargis think. Nowhere in the scriptures and other authentic books it is written that horses, cows and human beings should be killed and offered as sacrifice in the sacred fire called Homa. It is only in the books of the Vamamargis that such absurd things are written.

Whatever in the authentic books of the sages the sanction of such a sacrifice is found, it should be understood that the verse or the passage has been interpolated by the Vamamargis. Now mark! What the Shathapatha Brahmana says on the subject: “A king governs his people justly and righteously. This is called Aswamedha. “A learned man gives a free gift of knowledge to people. This is called Aswamedha. Again “the burning” of clarified butter and odoriferous and nutritious substances in the fire in order to purify the air is also called Aswamedha”. “To keep the food pure or to keep the senses under control, or to make the food pure or to make a good use of the rays of  Sun or keep the earth free from impurities[clean] is called Gomedha”. “The cremation of the body of a dead person in accordance with the principles laid down in the Vedas is called Naramedha”.</i><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<b>The Vedas do not advocate meat eating either.</b>

Meat eaters have always been looked down in Vedic literature. They have been separated from human society and generally known as Rakshasas. The other synonyms for them are
v Kravy da –kravya[ meat obtained from slaughter] + Ada [ the eater]—the meat eater.
v Pisacha -- pisita [meat] +asa [eater]—the meat eater.
v Asutrpa -- Asu [breath of life] + trpa [one who satisfies himself on]—one who takes others life for his meals.

v Garba da and Anda da – the foetus and egg eaters. Mans da – the meat eaters.
All these words are synonyms of demons or devils that have been out-cast from the human society.
We are quoting below a few of the passages to show that the Vedas are emphatically against meat-eating.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->                  <i>[i] O teeth! You eat rice, you eat barley, you eat masa [phaseolus radiatus] and you eat sesame. These cereals are specifically meant for you. Do not kill those who are capable of being fathers and mothers [male and female animals] Atharveda 6.140.2
                  [ii] We ought to destroy them who eat ammansa [cooked as well as uncooked meat, and also the cow meat] and pauruseya kravi [meat involving the destruction of males and females] who eat foetus [including eggs] and them who have thus made their bodies graveyards. [Atharveda. 8.6.23]</i><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Thus it is crystal clear that Vedas do not advocate meat eating and Yagna involving violence. However as already pointed it was due to wrong interpretation of Vedic Mantras coupled with selfishness the beneficial Yagnas like Aswamedha, Gomedha, and Ajamedha came under cloud. The barbaric practices done in the name of Vedas led to movement like Buddhism and Jainism which thought that it was God and Vedas that were responsible for these inhuman practices and therefore started movements which negated the god and Veda.

However these movements got degenerated in course of time and in order to remove the havoc caused by them Acharya Shankar came up denouncing these atheistic religions. Soon” no god” was replaced by “all god” and this also had a deleterious effect on our society.

The 19th century was an important landmark in the history of Bharat. It witnessed emergence of an outstanding Vedic scholar, sterling patriot and crusader of socio-religious reforms in the personality of Swami Dayanand Saraswathi who saw the havoc done by atheistic religions represented by Buddhism and Advaith religion represented by Shanker. He made a critical examination of both these religions in the background of what is stated in Vedas and rescued Hinduism from further degradation. He cut asunder all the myths and irrational practices surrounding Vedas and demonstrated the grace and glory of Vedic Dharma. The Aryasamaj he founded gave a virile and at the same time a practical blue print for the reconstruction of society based on the wholesome Vedic philosophy for the Hindus to follow. He provided right clues or a correct key to understand the Vedas and it is therefore desired that those who intend to pass judgment on Vedic practices would do well to study his books in the interest of Truth.

Bangalore D.V.Vasudevarao

[i] Light of Truth. By Swami Dayananda Saraswathi.
[ii] Humanitarian Diet. By Satya prakash.
[iii] Grace and Glory of Vedic Dharma. By Pt|| Sudhakara chaturvedi.

<b>Hanging out at temples to rationalise religion</b>
http://www.ibnlive. com/news/ hanging-out- at-temples- to-rationalise- religion/ 45972-3.html

http://www.ibnlive. com/videos/ 45972/hanging- out-at-temples- to-rationalise- religion. html
What is the origin of saying: "udAracharitAnAM tu vasudhaiva kuTumbakaM"? Which shAstra is it quoted from?
I've seen articles which say it is quoted from the Rig Veda.
Thanks Pandyan, will be good if you can redirect me to those articles. However I don't think it is from Rik or any other veda. I have got some other hints too, will get back.
Bodhi, I think I might have had its origins confused with those of another saying.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"...ayam nijah paro vetti gananaa laghuchetasaam. udaaracharitaanaama tu vasudhaiva kutumbakam..."
("This person is my own, the other is not."  Such is the perception of the narrow-minded.
For one of generous nature, the whole world is indeed a small family.)

Found it here.

Pandyan, they are mistaken. This coming from mahabharata is ruled out, so also Ramayana. It seems it is actually from panchatantra, which I have yet to confirm. Trying to locate online sanskrit text of the panchatantra first.
<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Apr 10 2008, 02:21 AM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Apr 10 2008, 02:21 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->This coming from mahabharata is ruled out, so also Ramayana. 
Could you tell me why this is?

I don't know why Hindus have this habit of ascribing everything to the Veda without even knowing the real origin. I had read several times that it is from some (nondescript) Veda so I hesitantly put my faith in their claims.

Check these -

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->It is stated in Vedas, "VASUDHAIV KUTUMBAKAM" and this declaration unites humanity into one string of brotherhood all over the universe.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Vasudhaiv Kutumbakam (world is a family) was taught 5000 years ago by the Vedas. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->That is why in Sanskrit which is the ancient language said that "Vasudhaiv Kutumbakam`" (The whole world is one family). This good saying is from Rig-Veda the first known human litterature.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->......achieve the goal of 'Vasudhaiv Kutumbakam'(the world as one family) outlined in the first book of the world 'Rig Veda'.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I have no doubt in my mind that associating that saying with any Veda has a political motive. I mean, if its found in the most authoritative book of the Hindus, then it has to be the most revered pronouncement right...The whole world is our family, lets sit around the campfire, holding hands with commies, mullahs, and missionaries and sing songs damning those evil Hindutvadis who blemish our peeshful religion.
I think the Dhrama/Grihya shastras/sutras in their translated form should be made easily available to dispell the ignorance. Even before the Muslims and the Westerners the big attackers were the Buddhists.
<!--QuoteBegin-Pandyan+Apr 10 2008, 11:47 PM-->QUOTE(Pandyan @ Apr 10 2008, 11:47 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Apr 10 2008, 02:21 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Bodhi @ Apr 10 2008, 02:21 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->This coming from mahabharata is ruled out, so also Ramayana. 
Could you tell me why this is?
I looked for it there and not found.

Found in various subhAShita collections.

Seems to be originally from BhartR^ihari but I couldn't find it in his three shatakas (nIti-shataka, vairAgya shataka, shR^ingAra shataka).

Also quoted in Vikrama Charita (or story of 32 statuettes on Vikramaditya's throne) , and some versions of Hitopadesha and panchatantra.

Vikrama Charita

Closely related to Prithivi-SUkta of Atharva-Veda.

Atharva VedIya Prithivi Suktam
Bodhi, I thought this to be in a similar vein though not directly related:
C&Ped from a 2007 Panchangam
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Let us have concord with our own people, and concord with people who are strangers to us. Ashvins, create between us and the strangers <i>a unity of hearts</i>. Atharva Veda 7.52.1<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The page Ashok Kumar referred to contained the following which, like he intimated, is more related to the "Vasudaiva Kutumbakam":
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->People who speak different languages, support different ways of thought, follow different beliefs and perform different duties, live on this earth. <i>The earth embraces all these people as if they were members of one household.</i>
Like the cow, docile and pacific while giving milk to nourish all the family members, may this earth nourish all its people with its resources.

Pandyan in post 215:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I have no doubt in my mind that associating that saying with any Veda has a political motive. I mean, if its found in the most authoritative book of the Hindus, then it has to be the most revered pronouncement right...The whole world is our family, lets sit around the campfire, holding hands with commies, mullahs, and missionaries and sing songs damning those evil Hindutvadis who blemish our peeshful religion.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Hindu Dharma instills in its conscious followers well-meaning and friendliness towards others, including strangers. Our ancestors therefore advised us to cultivate this in ourselves, just like they made prayers to achieve this for themselves. But they were not naive or foolish: they were ready to make friends with worthwhile others, but they were also sensible enough to recognise that Out There are mindviruses (and people <i>possessed</i> by the same) that are inimical to our way of life.
Again, taken from the link Ashok Kumar posted:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->On the earth, were trained people sing and dance with expertise (they enhance the joy of the people), <i>there are also enemies who, inciting war and beating the battle drums, cause sorrow and suffering. By removing these hostile forces, may this earth be free of enemies.</i>
12.1.41<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->May whatever I say be sweet and whatever I see be with good intent. May I be virtuous so that all may love me.
May I shine with the light of knowledge. May I be happy and successful in my work and finally, may I destroy <i>the enemies who, like ferocious animals, attack us.</i>
12.1.58<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Reference given for these:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->- Atharva Veda, Kanda 12, Sukta 1<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is the case that all that exists is ultimately part of the same family. It is similarly true that sometimes different parts can get possessed by a cancerous mindvirus which in its ingratitude tries to wipe out the entire world due to said mindvirus' highly destructive tendencies. It is therefore only sensible that free people fight back to preserve all Natural Religions/traditional ways of life. The Mahabharatam illustrates this too - though the Kauravas were Pandavas' family,
- that didn't stop the Kauravas from behaving monstrously and disregarding very essential aspects of Dharma
- it didn't prevent the Pandavas from having to fight the Kauravas. In fact, Krishna insists that the Kauravas must be stopped (and says that even if Arjuna decides not do his Dharma, then Krishna will nevertheless cause the end of the Kauravas to be achieved).

Christoislamicommunism and other terrorist ideologies must be fought and neutralised, because they destroy their victims as well as infesting others with their vampyrism and thus their terrorist cycle of violence would go on.
By recognising the oneness of the world it does not follow that we ought to lose sight of preserving that which is good and exists for the good of the world (Natural Traditions) and protecting these from destruction at the hands of so much that is twisted (terrorist ideologies). In fact, it is because Dharmic religions believe in there being a fundamental unity that Hindus/Dharmics want the best for the world and not just for themselves: for Natural Traditions to reclaim the world and for it to break free from the body-, mind- and spirit-strangling calamity that is christoislamicommuniterrorism.

That was a nice synopsis. Many ecology activists are fond of Prithivi Sukta, although its range is much bigger than just ecology.

<b>Re: Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam </b>

There are a couple of papers that claim that many of the Hitopadesa subhashita-s are chAnakya's creation. Hitopadesa's author narAyaNa pandita not only borrowed heavily from Panchatantra but also from chAnakya.

"Vasudhaiva-kutumbakam" present in Hitopadesa is supposed to be borrowed from chAnakya. although it is not part of chankya-niti as far as I could ascertain.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Cāṇakya's Aphorisms in the Hitopadeśa (I)
Author(s): Ludwik Sternbach
Source: Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 76, No. 2, (Apr. - Jun., 1956), pp. 115-
Published by: American Oriental Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/595079

Cāṇakya's Aphorisms in the Hitopadeśa (II)
Author(s): Ludwik Sternbach
Source: Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 77, No. 1 (Jan. - Mar., 1957), pp. 26-31
Publisher: American Oriental Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/594872
The second part of the paper lists "vasudhaiva kutumbakam" as the 50th borrowed shloka


Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)