Post 1/2
Oh NO. He did it again. Brutus.
(via the blogentry by 'Pagan' at rajeev2004.blogspot.com/2015/06/quick-notes-bio-fuels-angkor-copy.html)
twitter.com/RajivMessage/status/606939028152328193
Now replace Yoga (and what Rajiv said earlier about Bharatanatyam) with the Vedam.
So, now read this - as it is a legitimate and representative transpose and extension to what Rajiv Malhotra is saying:
Wait, deja-vu. Yes. I'm repeating myself.
And also:
[quote name='Husky' date='02 October 2011 - 06:31 PM' timestamp='1317559991' post='113123']
I'm afraid what the English-language vocalists/representatives for the Hindu side will have to say when the Vedam one day comes up as "disputed territory".
Will the argument go the same way as Yoga and Bharatanatyam? Recapping Hindu vocalists' arguments on appropriation of:
1. Yoga: "Just acknowledge it is Hindu, and all are allowed to dabble"
2. Bharatanatyam: "Inculturation not allowed. But all - including even christoislamaniacs - are welcome to dabble."
If the inculturating, appropriating and dabbling kind assume that the same logic therefore applies to the Vedam, one can hardly blame them for their conclusion, considering all the encouragement they've been getting so far on all other matters Hindu.
I certainly think the same logic does apply, but that 1 and 2 are entirely wrong. I.e. 1 and 2 should be "(Yoga/Bharatanatyam/...) has nothing to do with aliens and other non-Hindus." So that the same applies to the Vedam. In fact, that should form the universal response to all attempts to encroach on any part of Hindu religion.
[/quote]
(Point 2 above is what Malhotra is arguing for Yoga now.)
Yoga is NOT merely Hindu by 'supplier'.
I submit that it is exclusively for Hindu use too, i.e. for those ethnics of traditional perception.
Not for dabblers, not for aliens.
It is totally rooted in Hindoo cosmology (not counting re-interpretations/re-locations into other ideologies, which christianism is also doing). How can it concern anyone else if their cosmological perception is not the same?
Soon Rajiv Malhotra will declare that "OM = Hindu refers to supplier not user. Anyone can use."
Well, Buddhists/Jains/et al have inculturated on and re-interpreted OM into their use, so why should not christoislamics do the same, right?
After all, OM is identical to Brahman (the Paramaatman, the Sarvaatman) in Hindoo cosmology in which OM is rooted.
Buddhism denies Atman and denies Brahman by definition (although some later forms of Buddhism also inculturated on the word Brahman and re-interpreted it into Buddhism). How can OM have any meaning - but a novel one - in Buddhism? That is, Buddhism "distorted OM and at times even Brahman to fit", to use Malhotra's phrasing.
So then don't argue when christianism does the same.
Either be consistent or accept that the floodgates are open. And now *anyone* can come in.
Sure, Buddhism and Jainism had adapted sankhya views since early on and hence took to yoga too (since B&J were replacement theology spin-offs from Vedanta/Upanishads i.e. Vedic religion). But Buddhism and Jainism also negated a lot of the original context and views (Hindoo cosmology) and retrofitted their own views onto the remainder.
So what if christoislam were to next remove even more of the original Hindoo=Vedic cosmology from yoga - more than Buddhism/Jainism have done - (e.g. remove all of sankhyan views) and declare that therefore yoga is a practice of christian communion now?
So what if christoislam declares that OM now magically refers to jeebusjehovallah, since Sikhs have already declared that 'their' Ek O~Nkaar magically refers to their invisible mono-deity now whom they are most emphatic is not anything Vedic=Hindoo.
What or who's to stop christianism from doing this? Modern Hindus? Who can't even keep their argument straight let alone sane?
But the facts remain, that
- OM, Sankhya-Yoga[-Vedanta] is exclusively Vaidika (Astika) in origin and cosmology, and others in India merely refitted it for their purposes. (Not Charvakans admittedly, since they were dead set against Sankhya and all otherwordliness.)
- Yoga well predates classical=atheist Sankhya, Jainism and Buddhism. That's not even a question:
- Yoga is inseparably associated with pre-classical=Vedic=theist Sankhya onlee, which combine is further intimately (inseparably) associated with Vedaanta (Upanishadic perspectives), all being definitively Vedic. And no matter how much other Indic religions inculturate on and re-interpret OM to mean something for their religion, it isn't ever going mean anything but what it means in the Vedam: the Parabrahman, of Hindoo cosmology alone, not open to re-interpretation.
Yoga is of Vedic religion, and many Upanishads are on this very subject (note that several of these are *known* - even by indological schemes of chronology - to be very old compared to even the MBh incl Gita, both of which predate not just Buddhism and Jainism but classical sA~Nkhyam and Patanjali's yogasutras).
Pre-classical=Vedic=theistic Sankhya IS older than the later classical=atheist Sankhya. (Explicated at length by Hindoo scholars. A.o.t. new-agey "atheist/agnostic Hindus" vocalising on the internet, or indologists/alien dabblers.)
Classical=atheistic Sankhya is known to be derived from pre-classical=Vedic=theistic Sankhya by very obviously lopping off Vedic=Hindoo cosmology (which is theistic): Classical Sankhya has no cosmological views since it thought them irrelevant to its narrower focus of pre-existing sankhyam.
And Buddhisms and Jainisms retrofitted their eventually concocted cosmologies (i.e. backwards in time) onto pre-existing sAMkhyan views.
Again -
It is too late in the day for Hindoos, it is very nearly night, but the statement should have been and will ever be:
Yoga like the Veda and all Vedamantras starting from praNava - and all Vedic forms of mantras (and the word 'mantra' itself)- is of and for HindOOs onlee [and all origins of Tantra too, also regardless of inculturations by spin-off religions]; only for Hindoos to practice and only with traditional Hindoo views (not new-age or otherwise subverted views). Everything else being inculturation.
Same for Bharatanatyam and Carnatic, etc etc.
Cont.
Oh NO. He did it again. Brutus.
(via the blogentry by 'Pagan' at rajeev2004.blogspot.com/2015/06/quick-notes-bio-fuels-angkor-copy.html)
twitter.com/RajivMessage/status/606939028152328193
Quote:Rajiv Malhotra @RajivMessageAnd 82 sycophants I mean favourites, 179 retweets.
Yoga = Hindu refers to supplier, not user. Anyone can use. Some ideologies have contradictory ideologies: they must not distort yoga to fit
9:41 AM - 6 Jun 2015
179 179 Retweets
82
Now replace Yoga (and what Rajiv said earlier about Bharatanatyam) with the Vedam.
So, now read this - as it is a legitimate and representative transpose and extension to what Rajiv Malhotra is saying:
Quote:VEDA = Hindu refers to supplier, not user. Anyone can use. Some ideologies have contradictory ideologies: they must not distort yoga to fit
Wait, deja-vu. Yes. I'm repeating myself.
And also:
[quote name='Husky' date='02 October 2011 - 06:31 PM' timestamp='1317559991' post='113123']
I'm afraid what the English-language vocalists/representatives for the Hindu side will have to say when the Vedam one day comes up as "disputed territory".
Will the argument go the same way as Yoga and Bharatanatyam? Recapping Hindu vocalists' arguments on appropriation of:
1. Yoga: "Just acknowledge it is Hindu, and all are allowed to dabble"
2. Bharatanatyam: "Inculturation not allowed. But all - including even christoislamaniacs - are welcome to dabble."
If the inculturating, appropriating and dabbling kind assume that the same logic therefore applies to the Vedam, one can hardly blame them for their conclusion, considering all the encouragement they've been getting so far on all other matters Hindu.
I certainly think the same logic does apply, but that 1 and 2 are entirely wrong. I.e. 1 and 2 should be "(Yoga/Bharatanatyam/...) has nothing to do with aliens and other non-Hindus." So that the same applies to the Vedam. In fact, that should form the universal response to all attempts to encroach on any part of Hindu religion.
[/quote]
(Point 2 above is what Malhotra is arguing for Yoga now.)
Yoga is NOT merely Hindu by 'supplier'.
I submit that it is exclusively for Hindu use too, i.e. for those ethnics of traditional perception.
Not for dabblers, not for aliens.
It is totally rooted in Hindoo cosmology (not counting re-interpretations/re-locations into other ideologies, which christianism is also doing). How can it concern anyone else if their cosmological perception is not the same?
Soon Rajiv Malhotra will declare that "OM = Hindu refers to supplier not user. Anyone can use."
Well, Buddhists/Jains/et al have inculturated on and re-interpreted OM into their use, so why should not christoislamics do the same, right?
After all, OM is identical to Brahman (the Paramaatman, the Sarvaatman) in Hindoo cosmology in which OM is rooted.
Buddhism denies Atman and denies Brahman by definition (although some later forms of Buddhism also inculturated on the word Brahman and re-interpreted it into Buddhism). How can OM have any meaning - but a novel one - in Buddhism? That is, Buddhism "distorted OM and at times even Brahman to fit", to use Malhotra's phrasing.
So then don't argue when christianism does the same.
Either be consistent or accept that the floodgates are open. And now *anyone* can come in.
Sure, Buddhism and Jainism had adapted sankhya views since early on and hence took to yoga too (since B&J were replacement theology spin-offs from Vedanta/Upanishads i.e. Vedic religion). But Buddhism and Jainism also negated a lot of the original context and views (Hindoo cosmology) and retrofitted their own views onto the remainder.
So what if christoislam were to next remove even more of the original Hindoo=Vedic cosmology from yoga - more than Buddhism/Jainism have done - (e.g. remove all of sankhyan views) and declare that therefore yoga is a practice of christian communion now?
So what if christoislam declares that OM now magically refers to jeebusjehovallah, since Sikhs have already declared that 'their' Ek O~Nkaar magically refers to their invisible mono-deity now whom they are most emphatic is not anything Vedic=Hindoo.
What or who's to stop christianism from doing this? Modern Hindus? Who can't even keep their argument straight let alone sane?
But the facts remain, that
- OM, Sankhya-Yoga[-Vedanta] is exclusively Vaidika (Astika) in origin and cosmology, and others in India merely refitted it for their purposes. (Not Charvakans admittedly, since they were dead set against Sankhya and all otherwordliness.)
- Yoga well predates classical=atheist Sankhya, Jainism and Buddhism. That's not even a question:
- Yoga is inseparably associated with pre-classical=Vedic=theist Sankhya onlee, which combine is further intimately (inseparably) associated with Vedaanta (Upanishadic perspectives), all being definitively Vedic. And no matter how much other Indic religions inculturate on and re-interpret OM to mean something for their religion, it isn't ever going mean anything but what it means in the Vedam: the Parabrahman, of Hindoo cosmology alone, not open to re-interpretation.
Yoga is of Vedic religion, and many Upanishads are on this very subject (note that several of these are *known* - even by indological schemes of chronology - to be very old compared to even the MBh incl Gita, both of which predate not just Buddhism and Jainism but classical sA~Nkhyam and Patanjali's yogasutras).
Pre-classical=Vedic=theistic Sankhya IS older than the later classical=atheist Sankhya. (Explicated at length by Hindoo scholars. A.o.t. new-agey "atheist/agnostic Hindus" vocalising on the internet, or indologists/alien dabblers.)
Classical=atheistic Sankhya is known to be derived from pre-classical=Vedic=theistic Sankhya by very obviously lopping off Vedic=Hindoo cosmology (which is theistic): Classical Sankhya has no cosmological views since it thought them irrelevant to its narrower focus of pre-existing sankhyam.
And Buddhisms and Jainisms retrofitted their eventually concocted cosmologies (i.e. backwards in time) onto pre-existing sAMkhyan views.
Again -
It is too late in the day for Hindoos, it is very nearly night, but the statement should have been and will ever be:
Yoga like the Veda and all Vedamantras starting from praNava - and all Vedic forms of mantras (and the word 'mantra' itself)- is of and for HindOOs onlee [and all origins of Tantra too, also regardless of inculturations by spin-off religions]; only for Hindoos to practice and only with traditional Hindoo views (not new-age or otherwise subverted views). Everything else being inculturation.
Same for Bharatanatyam and Carnatic, etc etc.
Cont.