In a recent press gathering, the chief of RSS, Mr. Mohan Bhagwat has said:
1. “He who is an Indian is a Hindu and he who is not a Hindu is not an Indian.”
2. RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat on Sunday said that those who were Indians were Hindus and if one was not a Hindu he could not be an Indian.
3. "For us the word Hindu did not mean any religion but a way of life,"
1. “He who is an Indian is a Hindu and he who is not a Hindu is not an Indian.”
2. RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat on Sunday said that those who were Indians were Hindus and if one was not a Hindu he could not be an Indian.
3. "For us the word Hindu did not mean any religion but a way of life,"
We need to look at it a little closely to find out what MB must have meant by this. Some of my friends tell me that this has always been the stance of the RSS.
There are some very interesting consequences arising out of this. Firstly, since MB(RSS) has not defined what a Hindu is, and what an Indian is, this statement is like "Something that we do not know" is same as "Something that we do not know". Fair enough. MB and RSS have enough space for maneuver.
Therefore we have some interesting questions for the RSS. What is the way of life that is called by the name Hinduism? And who is an Indian? Let us try and analyze what these terms can not mean.
Let us call the present geopolitical entity India as India-GP. Similarly let us call the so called geographical Akhand-Bharat of the RSS India-AB. The passport holders of India-GP as Indian(s)-GP. Let us call those who live south-east of the Hindukush valley and in the peninsular region as Hindu-GP. If we add the Tibetan region to this Hindu-GP, we term it as Hindu-AB. Let us call the yet to be defined "way of life" WOL, and those who are Hindus by this way of life Hindu-WOL.
There are two interesting observations to be made here. India-GP, India-AB, Hindu-GP, Hindu-AB are geographic regions. Hindu-WOL is not a geographic definition.
MB's statement consists of two parts besides mentioning that by the term Hindu, MB meant Hindu-WOL.
a. Every Indian is a Hindu,
and
b. A person who is not a Hindu can not be an Indian.
We have following questions:
0. How do we determine who is a Hindu-WOL?
1. Are there Hindu-WOL residing outside India-GP? If yes, then in what sense does MB mean that they are Indians? Does RSS advocate issuing Indian-GP passport to them?
2. Are there people who are not Hindu-WOL within India-GP? If yes, what does RSS recommend towards non-Hindu-WOL living in India-GP? For example, are they to be thrown out of the India-GP?
3. What is the attitude of the RSS towards the government representing the India-GP state?
There is one easy path that RSS can take. They can define that a Hindu-WOL respects all religions. This leads to a funny situation that a Hindu-WOL need not respect Hinduism-WOL, and yet can be a Hindu-WOL . The compulsion to respect Hinduism-WOL is absent because Hinduism-WOL is not a religion!
Another question is: Does a Hindu-WOL have to respect those religions who are bloodthirsty against them, for example those who have vowed to destroy Hindu-WOL?
Mr. MB, now the time is here to stand up and be counted. Your convoluted language will not work. The least you can do to allay these misgivings is to make your notions of Hindu and Indian very very clear, preferably giving examples. Hiding behind the veil of secrecy and ambiguity will be counterproductive.
There are some very interesting consequences arising out of this. Firstly, since MB(RSS) has not defined what a Hindu is, and what an Indian is, this statement is like "Something that we do not know" is same as "Something that we do not know". Fair enough. MB and RSS have enough space for maneuver.
Therefore we have some interesting questions for the RSS. What is the way of life that is called by the name Hinduism? And who is an Indian? Let us try and analyze what these terms can not mean.
Let us call the present geopolitical entity India as India-GP. Similarly let us call the so called geographical Akhand-Bharat of the RSS India-AB. The passport holders of India-GP as Indian(s)-GP. Let us call those who live south-east of the Hindukush valley and in the peninsular region as Hindu-GP. If we add the Tibetan region to this Hindu-GP, we term it as Hindu-AB. Let us call the yet to be defined "way of life" WOL, and those who are Hindus by this way of life Hindu-WOL.
There are two interesting observations to be made here. India-GP, India-AB, Hindu-GP, Hindu-AB are geographic regions. Hindu-WOL is not a geographic definition.
MB's statement consists of two parts besides mentioning that by the term Hindu, MB meant Hindu-WOL.
a. Every Indian is a Hindu,
and
b. A person who is not a Hindu can not be an Indian.
We have following questions:
0. How do we determine who is a Hindu-WOL?
1. Are there Hindu-WOL residing outside India-GP? If yes, then in what sense does MB mean that they are Indians? Does RSS advocate issuing Indian-GP passport to them?
2. Are there people who are not Hindu-WOL within India-GP? If yes, what does RSS recommend towards non-Hindu-WOL living in India-GP? For example, are they to be thrown out of the India-GP?
3. What is the attitude of the RSS towards the government representing the India-GP state?
There is one easy path that RSS can take. They can define that a Hindu-WOL respects all religions. This leads to a funny situation that a Hindu-WOL need not respect Hinduism-WOL, and yet can be a Hindu-WOL . The compulsion to respect Hinduism-WOL is absent because Hinduism-WOL is not a religion!
Another question is: Does a Hindu-WOL have to respect those religions who are bloodthirsty against them, for example those who have vowed to destroy Hindu-WOL?
Mr. MB, now the time is here to stand up and be counted. Your convoluted language will not work. The least you can do to allay these misgivings is to make your notions of Hindu and Indian very very clear, preferably giving examples. Hiding behind the veil of secrecy and ambiguity will be counterproductive.
This is a great article. On the day RSS defines "Hindu" clearly, it will be dead!
ReplyDeletePK, why do you say so? Is it not possible that RSS will get some new supporters?
ReplyDelete1. Those who live outside india and are not citizens of other country are not hindus, but they can be hindus. Point B means that if one has to become an Indian, he has to be a Hindu. That did not say that all hindus are Indians.
ReplyDelete2. RSS never said that all non-hindus to be thrown out of India. They have to respect the culture of heritage of India and respcet other religions, need to co-exist with Hindus. That means, they can definitely worship their GOD, Jesus, Allah or whatever. But, they need to understand that for example, 1. Cow is holy in India and to be respected; one should not eat beaf. 2. People here have a great respect towards Ram, Krishna or Shiv or any other GOD and the Kashis, Ayodhyas and Mathiras, Rameshwars are holy places for hindus and non-hindus to respect the feeling. We can list down some more points which are basic for co-existing with Hindus. (Looking at the nature of the support growing for separate identity off late in non-Hindu religions, I doubt whether this would happen) 3. Govt. surely represents India as a state for all administrative purposes. Govt. does not represent Hindu dharma.
This is what I can tell as far as my understanding of RSS goes.
This point looks so funny for me. "The compulsion to respect Hinduism-WOL is absent because Hinduism-WOL is not a religion!" I pity your understanding of the term religion and sanatana dharma. Hindus basically believe that there is one GOD and there are many forms and many ways to reach him/her/it. In that case, Islam, Christianity or any other way of worship is respectable. If someone says that there is only one form of GOD and there is only way to reach him and all other ways are false, this is not true as per Hindu Dharma. Then, does the question of respecting untruth arise? I do not think so.
One more thing, accepting this logic Hindu Dharma is good for global harmony. Following this, one can still worship Allah, Jesus or any other GOD and respect eachc other. (Writing this, though not related to your article)
Please read the point 1 in the above cocmment as below :
ReplyDelete1. Those who live outside india and are citizens of other country are not Indians, but they can be hindus. Point B means that if one has to become an Indian, he has to be a Hindu. That did not say that all hindus are Indians.
P Kalyan, notion of Hindu is very well defined. There is no need of redefining its meaning.
ReplyDeletesamAlochaka, are you awake?
Anomymous said:
ReplyDelete"P Kalyan, notion of Hindu is very well defined. There is no need of redefining its meaning. samAlochaka, are you awake?"
Sam replies:
Mr. anonymous, could please supply this "well-defined notion of Hindu" that you have mentioned?
Thammayya, in his point number 1, wrote:
ReplyDelete"Those who live outside india and are not citizens of other country are not hindus, but they can be hindus. Point B means that if one has to become an Indian, he has to be a Hindu. That did not say that all hindus are Indians."
Sam replies:
What is "Hindu" for you? Is it Hindu-GP, or Hindu-AB or Hindu-WOL? From your statement, it appears that you mean Hindu-WOL, please correct this if needed. And secondly, what do you mean by "Indian"?
Without defining the terms of reference, there is no point in having a debate.
Thammayya, in his point number 2 wrote many things:
2.a. "Non-hindus can live in India, but they have to respect (sic) `the culture of heritage of India' and respect other religions."
Sam writes:
What is this culture and heritage of India? Please do not shower undefined terms.
Thammayya wrote:
2.b.1:
Cow is holy in India and to be respected; one should not eat beaf.
Sam replies:
How do you establish that in the 'culture of heritage of India' beef eating is prohibited?
Thammayya wrote:
2.b.2:
"People here have a great respect towards Ram, Krishna or Shiv or any other GOD and the Kashis, Ayodhyas and Mathiras, Rameshwars are holy places for hindus and non-hindus to respect the feeling."
Sam replies:
Who are the people that you are referring to?
Thammayya continues further:
"We can list down some more points which are basic for co-existing with Hindus. (Looking at the nature of the support growing for separate identity off late in non-Hindu religions, I doubt whether this would happen)"
Sam replies:
Please write an exhaustive list of points.
Thammayya wrote:
2.b.3:
"Govt. surely represents India as a state for all administrative purposes. Govt. does not represent Hindu dharma."
Sam replies:
Which "India"?
Mr. Thammayya's writings are typical of RSS-speak. Using undefined terms to explain other undefined terms, and thereby fomenting confusion. For example, he wrote:
"This point looks so funny for me. `The compulsion to respect Hinduism-WOL is absent because Hinduism-WOL is not a religion!' I pity your understanding of the term religion and sanatana dharma."
Sam replies:
I have brought out the inner contradiction in what MB (Mohan Bhagwat) has said. If pointing out internal contradictions is funny, then I am amazed at the sense of humor that Mr. Thammayya has. Notwithstanding this sense of humor, could Mr. Thammayya exhibit some sense of rigor?
Secondly, I am thankful to you that you have "pity for my understanding". Now, show some action on the basis of this pity. Please write "your own understanding" in precise terms. Your wisdom is greatly needed at this hour of confusion.
Thammayya wrote:
"Hindus basically believe that there is one GOD and there are many forms and many ways to reach him/her/it. In that case, Islam, Christianity or any other way of worship is respectable. If someone says that there is only one form of GOD and there is only way to reach him and all other ways are false, this is not true as per Hindu Dharma. Then, does the question of respecting untruth arise? I do not think so."
Sam replies:
There is no point in stating in terms of ifs and buts. This is a typical example of convoluted writing.
What do you think as to what Islam teaches? Does there exist confusion regarding Islam as well in your mind? Do you respect Islam?
What do you mean by "true as per Hindu Dharma"? Do you mean to say that there are many "truths"? What happens if these "truths" contradict each other?
Sam continues:
ReplyDeleteThe writing of Thammayya is very typical of the so called Hindutva brigade. Lot of gas, no clarity. If there is any substance, it is all mixed up in smoke.
As I have expressed earlier, I do believe that many so-called pro-Hindutva persons may be having the best of intentions. But these good intentions are wasted owing to the confusion.
Sam wrote to anonymous "could please supply this "well-defined notion of Hindu" that you have mentioned?"
ReplyDeleteBefore "supplying" the well defined notion of Hindu, anonymouse would like to know if there are different defintions for Indian? [See the original post
"Firstly, since MB(RSS) has not defined what a Hindu is, and what an Indian is, ..."]
Coming back to the statements under consideration, RSS could always say the following
1. “He who is an Indian is a Hindu and he who is not a Hindu is not an Indian.”
All Indians must behave like Hindus and who is not behaving like a Hindu is not an Indian
2. RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat on Sunday said that those who were Indians were Hindus and if one
was not a Hindu he could not be an Indian.
Read answer for 1.
3. "For us the word Hindu did not mean any religion but a way of life,"
Hindu is one who is following Hindu-WOL. It is not religion like Islam or Christianity.
An RSS supporter would answer the questions of Sam in the following way.
0. How do we determine who is a Hindu-WOL?
Basically, Hindus follow Hindu-WoL
1. Are there Hindu-WOL residing outside India-GP? If yes, then in what sense does MB mean that they are Indians? Does RSS advocate issuing Indian-GP passport to them?
Yes. All Hindus are not Indians. All Indians are Hindus. (Not answered)
2. Are there people who are not Hindu-WOL within India-GP? If yes, what does RSS recommend towards non-Hindu-WOL living in India-GP? For example, are they to be thrown out of the India-GP?
Yes. Figuratively yes. Practically, they have to helped to evolve to become Hindus.
3. What is the attitude of the RSS towards the government representing the India-GP state?
It may be India-GP or Hindu-GP, first instinct is friendship and cooperation. If the governments are working against the Hindus, then it is different.
Regarding - who is an "Indian"? - Indian is one who treats this country as montherland and inherits the culture of this land. I am not referring the "Indian" by citizenship. As far as citizenship is concerned, MB's comment does not matter. ones Indian citizenship remains legal, irrespective of MBs definition. All Indians are Hindus by culture. If not, they have to become Hindus to become Indians by cultural definition. This does not mean they have to change their religion. As i mentioned already, they just need to follow the values of Hindutva.
ReplyDeleteRelated to point 2, - what is culture and heritage? - that is something which requires a lot of space to write. There are some good books. I suggest you read them. If you email me, I can suggest you the books (do not remember the exact details now)But, I agree that the terms 'culture and heritage' are not understood in the same manner by all.
Regarding cow - Hindu-WOLs treat cow as sacred. There are books which can be referred to prove this. I can suggest you if you are interested.
Point 2.b.2- "people" means Hindu-WOL. regarding exhaustive list - I do not think there can be an exhaustive list. You can keep on adding every small thing into it. Hindu dharma is not based on a few books. Based on the context, there may be many things added and deleted to this list. So, there cannot be such a list. Hindu dharma is more of a common sensical and natural one. It evolved over a period of time. Whatever is good for humanity to coexist with other people and nature, that was incorporated and it is in many smritis, but all are based on Vedads. This is what my understanding goes.
2.b.3- which india? - india-GP.
Regarding this point - The compulsion to respect Hinduism-WOL is absent because Hinduism-WOL is not a religion!' -- one should have a biot of common sense in understanding this. When he says all religions, it means religions, ways of life, beliefs and etc., If you treat it this way, then there is no confusion.
Regarding the last point, Hindu dharma says that there is only one GOD and many forms. If someone says that there is one form, hindus are not directed to kill them. That one form someone else believe is also acceptable as yet another form as per Hindu Dharma.
Islam or Christianity can say anything. Hindu Dharma does not suggest to correct the whoel world and ensure that everyone believes the same. So, they are free to say that. But, as per hindu dharma, it is everyone's duty to protect their dharma. Hence, when there is an attack on Hindu dharma, Hindus have to protect it. There is no doubt.
I personally, do not respect teachings jihad and crusade of islam and christianity respectively. But, I do not have any problems with them worshipping allah, jesus or any other GOD.
Hey, I have another suggestion. What do you think, MB should have told? Interesting to know this.
Anonymous asked a very pertinent question:
ReplyDelete"Before `supplying' the well defined notion of Hindu, anonymous would like to know if there are different definitions for Indian? [See the original post
`Firstly, since MB(RSS) has not defined what a Hindu is, and what an Indian is, ...']"
And Thammayya must give a clear answer to them.
Anonymous gives his answers as well:
"1. `He who is an Indian is a Hindu and he who is not a Hindu is not an Indian.'
All Indians must behave like Hindus and who is not behaving like a Hindu is not an Indian."
Sam writes:
Sir/Madam, don't you see that you are using the same undefined terms again, except that you have introduced a new word, viz. behave. The confusion is far from resolved.
Anonymous in his point 3 gives a better clarification:
"Hindu is one who is following Hindu-WOL. It is not religion like Islam or Christianity."
Sam asks:
So does it mean that whenever anonymous (or RSS) use the term Hindu, it means Hindu-WOL?
Anonymous wrote:
"Hindus follow Hindu-WOL"
Sam asks:
Then the essence of Hindu-WOL has to be specified. Could you do that for the convenience of the readers?
Anonymous wrote:
"Yes. Figuratively yes. Practically, they have to helped to evolve to become Hindus."
Sam asks:
What do you do about those who are unwilling to adopt Hindu-WOL, claiming that it goes against the tenets of their religion. Would you change your stance on freedom of religion?
Anonymous wrote:
"It may be India-GP or Hindu-GP, first instinct is friendship and cooperation. If the governments are working against the Hindus, then it is different."
Sam writes:
Jawahar declared India to be secular. Was it pro-Hindu or anti-Hindu?
The government takes money from Hindu temples and uses it to subsidize Haj travel. Is it pro-hindu or anti-Hindu?
By and large, has the government been pro-Hindu or anti-Hindu.
The BJP government, under the prime ministership of the wind-bag released terrorists in Kandahar. Was it pro-Hindu or anti-Hindu?
Sir/Madam, you are hiding behind ifs and buts. This will not serve any purpose.
That is why, in my original post, I wrote, stand up and be counted.
Specific examples are very useful.
ReplyDeleteJawahar declared India to be secular. Was it pro-Hindu or anti-Hindu?
Anti Hindu.
The government takes money from Hindu temples and uses it to subsidize Haj travel. Is it pro-hindu or anti-Hindu?
Anti Hindu.
By and large, has the government been pro-Hindu or anti-Hindu.
Anti Hindu.
The BJP government, under the prime ministership of the wind-bag released terrorists in Kandahar. Was it pro-Hindu or anti-Hindu?
Anti Hindu.
One more question:
Self proclaimed intellectuals are demanding definitions for each and every terminology (concepts) associated with Hinduism. Is it anti-Hindu? or pro-Hindu?
Thammayya is so immersed in his habit of being nebulous that he is unable to understand my difficulty even though he claims to have pity for me. This is why, every time he answers questions, more questions emerge.
ReplyDeleteNow many of you may feel that we are merely quibbling over words, and arguing like lawyers infected by word-diarrhea, but this is not so. Any pursuit of clarity will involve nit-picking. Those who shun this, will be doing so at their own peril. This, in my opinion has been the folly of many of Hindutva promoting thinkers. They imagine that they know all the answers, even before they comprehend the questions.
However, notwithstanding this, let us be patient for some more while.
Thammayya wrote:
"Indian is one who treats this country as motherland and inherits the culture of this land."
Sam asks:
Sir, what do you refer to by the term "this" country? India-GP? Hindu-GP? Should you have used or instead of and in your answer? Your statement, in its present form, leads to a confusion. How do you classify a person who is born and brought up in , say U.S.A., to possibly caucasian parents, and has been initiated into "Hinduism" by ISKCON? Would you call him an Indian? Will he consider "this" country as his mother-land or aunt-land?
Again the use of the undefined term culture complicates matters further. Now we need information regarding Indian Culture! We have to find a way of ending this cycle, and not perpetrate this cycle of circulating undefined labels in terms of unknowns!
Thammayya wrote:
"Related to point 2, ...I agree that the terms 'culture and heritage' are not understood in the same manner by all."
Sam writes:
Thanks for understanding. Now it is the job of RSS and Hindutva brigade to have an ability to express their point of view in a crystal clear well articulated manner. For every question that I have posed to the Hindutva promoters, I have heard a prescription that I read a book. A book by a person named Mr. M. S. Golwalkar, titled "Bunch of thoughts" has been "prescribed" to me so many times that now its prescription causes nausea. And in my humble and arrogant opinion, the book should have been titled "Crunch in thoughts".
Thammayya wrote:
" `people' means Hindu-WOL. regarding exhaustive list - I do not think there can be an exhaustive list.
Sam writes:
This is a good clarification regarding `people'. Now if you think that there can not be an exhaustive list, you have to articulate it in some other manner. Please see my next point.
(Cont. ...)
Owing to some problem in blogger, I am compelled to post the remaining in my next comment, please bear with the inconvenience.
Sam continues:
ReplyDeleteThis is the continuation from the previous comment on Mr. Thammayaa.
Thammayya wrote:
"Whatever is good for humanity to coexist with other people and nature, that was incorporated and it is in many smritis, but all are based on Vedas. This is what my understanding goes."
Sam writes:
Which smriti is to be taken as a reference? What if there is a contradiction amongst smritis? Or are you sure that there are no contradictions amongst smritis?
What do you mean by the Vedas? The books published by Gita Press, Gorakhpur? Do the books contain all of the Vedas?
Sir/Madam, please pardon my arrogance, but I am beginning to develop compassion for the confusion that is obvious.
Thammayya wrote:
"When he (MB) says all religions, it means religions, ways of life, beliefs and etc., If you treat it this way, then there is no confusion."
Boldface mine.
Sam writes:
If MB is addressing for the general public, he must take caution to use terms in senses so as to cause minimum confusion to the largest audience, and preferably no confusion to anyone.
For the sake of argument, even if he included both Hindu-WOL and Islam, amongst all others, in his term religions, does he expect a person with Hindu-WOL to respect Islam, or does he believe that a person following Islam would respect Hindu-WOL?
If MB is so naive as that, I wonder if he can provide any leadership to the cause of promoting Hindu-WOL.
Thammayya wrote:
"Regarding the last point, Hindu dharma says that there is only one GOD and many forms. If someone says that there is one form, hindus are not directed to kill them. That one form someone else believe is also acceptable as yet another form as per Hindu Dharma."
Sam writes:
So do you believe that Hindu-dharma is mono-theistic? I feel a further surge of compassion.
What about the "formless" God? Do you believe that the God of your Hindus, Islam, and Christianity are the same God? I feel an explosion of compassion.
Thammayya wrote:
"I personally, do not respect teachings jihad and crusade of Islam and Christianity respectively. But, I do not have any problems with them worshiping Allah, Jesus or any other GOD."
Sam writes:
Can you separate Jihad and worshiping Allah in Islam?
Thammayya wrote:
"Hey, I have another suggestion. What do you think, MB should have told? Interesting to know this."
Sam writes:
It is interesting that you ask this now, that is at this juncture in this discussion.
I would definitely have written a better speech for him if I was his speech-writer, albeit I am not looking forward to becoming one.
Now to answer your question, I must say that it depends on what MB wanted to say. As I have said earlier, I do believe that he had (and has, like many other Hindutva folks have) good intentions, but that the intentions get wasted.
I am preparing my take on what could have been said by MB, I will post it when I am done.
Anonymous has given his insights on the pro-Hindu anti-Hindu questionnaire. I think it will be a useful exercise to make a list of anti-Hindu activities being done.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said:
"Self proclaimed intellectuals are demanding definitions for each and every terminology (concepts) associated with Hinduism. Is it anti-Hindu? or pro-Hindu?"
Sam replies:
A one word answer: highly pro-Hindu-WOL to be better termed as pro-Sanatana-Dharma
Sam continues:
Pursuit of a clear understanding in terms of words, definitions, and concepts has been an established traditional practice in Sanatana Dharma.
Anonymous, by questioning the validity of this pursuit of clarity is exhibiting symptoms of the DF-ness that is so rampant amongst those incompetent thinkers who strive to pass off as self-proclaimed-intellectuals. By the way, the first and foremost amongst such DFs are the Secular, Socialist, and Communist ones.
Sam wrote, Pursuit of a clear understanding in terms of words, definitions, and concepts has been an established traditional practice in Sanatana Dharma.
ReplyDeleteI Agree.
Sam wrote, Anonymous, by questioning the validity of this pursuit of clarity is exhibiting symptoms of the DF-ness that is so rampant amongst those
incompetent thinkers who strive to pass off as self-proclaimed-intellectuals. By the way, the first and foremost amongst such DFs are the Secular, Socialist, and Communist ones.
Muslim,Christian and Communist intolerants, posing as intellectuals, are exploiting this tradition to sustain an endless debate among Hs. Note that, there is no one to answer similar qs on the other side. And there is no one to raise similar questions? Definition of Islam,Christianity or Communism, etc. The strategy is to maintain status-quo till the opportune time comes - in governance, in juidiciary, in executive, in media. Hindus/Hindu organizations are in analysis-paralysis mode. So, the need of judging the validity of the apparent pursuit of clarity.
The established anti Hindu proponents are showing DFness w.r.t to rational thinking, consciously or unconsciously. This will create a problem for pro Hindu proponents. Always show their DFness and be seen as a bad mouth, stuck in criticism, Muslim, Christian and/or Communist basher. The leaders of Hindu organizations are struggling to ward of this label. Any attempt to express in a moderate way is not able to educate those who are not aware of the real anti hindu politics.
Anonymous wrote:
ReplyDelete"Muslim,Christian and Communist intolerant, posing as intellectuals, are exploiting this tradition to sustain an endless debate among Us."
Sam writes:
If someone can exploit a tradition, then it is also indicative of the incompetence of the followers of the tradition. Similarly, the inability to conclude debate needs to be overcome, and the bluff of Muslims and Christians exposed. This is far more important than chest-beating and crying foul. However, as I have maintained, this requires good quality intellectual work by competent thinkers, and unfortunately, that has not been happening within the Hindutva brigade.
Anonymous wrote:
"Note that, there is no one to answer similar qs on the other side. And there is no one to raise similar questions? Definition of Islam,Christianity or Communism, etc."
Sam writes:
Islam is well-defined, the following of the tenets in the Quran and the Hadiths. Similarly Christianity is defined in terms of The Bible.
This well-defined nature of their religion can easily be used to analyze them.
It is onerous on the Hindutva Brigade to find discrepancies, inconsistencies, and most importantly incompatibilities in the above mentioned belief-systems and to bring these facts to the fore.
Anonymous wrote:
"The strategy is to maintain status-quo till the opportune time comes - in governance, in judiciary, in executive, in media."
Sam writes:
This, in my opinion, is the famous Ostrich strategy, namely, to bury one's head in the sand and imagine that the enemy is non-existent.
This status-quo-ism has resulted in intellectual paralysis in the Hindutva thinkers. I must add though that we are assuming that there are thinkers on the side of Hindutva. Going by what has been happening, there seems to be no trace of competent thought within the hindutva camp.
Anonymous wrote:
"Hindus/Hindu organizations are in analysis-paralysis mode. So, the need of judging the validity of the apparent pursuit of clarity."
Sam writes:
Hindu/Hindu organizations are not in analysis-paralysis mode! Rather, they are in intellectually paralyzed mode. They have become, to paraphrase a song by the rock group Pink Floyd, Comfortably Dumb.
It is this mental sloth that, in my opinion, needs to be remedied.
Anonymous wrote:
"The established anti Hindu proponents are showing DFness w.r.t to rational thinking, consciously or unconsciously."
Sam writes:
This DFness has to be exposed and highlighted.
Anonymous wrote:
"This will create a problem for pro Hindu proponents. Always show their DFness and be seen as a bad mouth, stuck in criticism, Muslim, Christian and/or Communist basher."
Sam writes:
One needs to establish a truth-revealing reputation. The above comment shows that the so called Hindu Proponents lack creativity.
Anonymous wrote:
"The leaders of Hindu organizations are struggling to ward off this label."
Sam writes:
This is what comprises the essence of DFness. When anti-Hindus label HP (hindu-proponents) as Communal, and label themselves as Secular, HP never question Secularism, instead HP struggle hard to show that HP is truly Secular, while the others are pseudo Secular.
Anonymous wrote:
"Any attempt to express in a moderate way is not able to educate those who are not aware of the real anti hindu politics."
Sam writes:
The same education need not work for all. That is why, I repeat, that HP lack intellectual creativity, and they are reeling under intellectual sloth. However, despite this abysmal state of affairs, they think they know it all, and that is the DF-ery or DF-ness.
Sam wrote: - Islam is well-defined, the following of the tenets in the Quran and the Hadiths. Similarly Christianity is defined in terms of The Bible.
ReplyDeleteSee the following definitions:
In Islam, there are Shia, Sunni, Ahmadi and Sufi sects. Customs, traditions, beliefs and outlook are not same. There are bitter differences. [See www.umaia.net/images/Islamicdefinitions.doc, two prominent Muslims excluding Hindus and Christians from the definition of Kafirs]
In Christianity, there are hundreds of faith groups including Roman Catholic church; the Eastern Orthodox churches, other conservative, mainline, liberal and progressive Christian faith groups, various denominations of protestant groups. They all identify themselves as Christian. In fact, many regard their group as the only "true" Christian church. Yet they, and their followers, have very different beliefs about the life, events, teachings, actions, sinlessness and expectations of Yeshua. Also included as Christians are those who regard themselves as being followers of Jesus even though they do not affiliate themselves with any particular religious group. They appear to be growing in numbers.
In communism, there are marxist, non-marxist schools, Overground and underground means, also something called Christian Communism.
A Hindu is a native or inhabitant of Hindustan or India; is a person who adheres to Hinduism; is one who is following a lifestyle defined by Varnashrama; is one who is aligned with Vedic phiolosophy. All of these; any of these.
How could we accept that the terms Muslim, Christian and Communist are well defined. Why do we say Hindu is not defined? Is it a symptom of intellectual paralysis?
Anonymous has raised an interesting point. That there are variations within the groups termed Islam, Christianity, and Communism.
ReplyDeleteThese variations do not contribute to any lack of well-defined nature of these belief-systems. For example Islam is based on Quran and Hadiths, any variations in Islam do not add or subtract to Q and/or H. The variations arise from differing or selective interpretation of the same texts. Similarly for Christianity. Communism may be slightly more complex, but if we get to the core of its foundations, viz., the clash between the classes, a unified picture emerges. And please note that each such thread is well-defined in terms of the interpreting texts and their underlying principles.
Now, anonymous may be expecting me to summarize these points about these ideologies. Fair enough. But then, this is what I am calling the DF-ness of the Hindutva Brigade. They (the HB) are forever unwilling to do the homework and just keep seeking ready-made answers from their interlocuters.
And if their intelocuter turns out to be a sharp-witted, then they throw in the towel cutting a sorry figure.
Watch any debate on TV where a VHP (Vishwa Hindu Parishad) or RSS "intellectual" is up against their "pseudo-secular" adversary and then it is easy to notice how these HB-intellectuals perform. Pitiable and full of plight!
For a glaring example, watch the self-proclaimed spiritual master Chhi Chhi RaviShankar taking on Zakir Naik. The "dialogue" is available on You-tube.
Hindutva Brigade has to slough off this sloth, or else they are doomed, period.
Another point of Anonymous is regarding the well-defined nature of Hindu as native of Hindustan, and follower of Hinduism. I wonder if the members of the Hindutva Brigade ever get beyond making circular and convoluted statements.
Fortunately Anonymous has dropped two significant hints by using the terms Varnashrama Dharma and Vedic Philosophy.
Now Anonymous is getting into difficult waters. If Anon. takes Varnashrama Dharma, as defined by texts which advocate Untouchability then all law-abiding (constitution-adhering) citizens of India (who he has defined as Hindus) can be ruled out of following this VD. And we get an ironical situation where a law-abiding citizen can not be Hindu (at least as per one of Anon's definitions) and if one is a Hindu, one can not be law-abiding!
What a great clarification you have offered Anonymous. I hope Mr Thammayya and other members of the Hindu-Brigade are reading you.
Regarding the term Vedic Philosophy, the old questions that I asked of Thammayya remain unanswered.
Then there is another (at least one) contradiction within the theory proposed by Anonymous. And it is the following.
I presume that by "Hindu as native of India/Hinduthan", Anon. means a person born in the geopolitical entity India, which I termed as India-GP. This makes the Shahi Imam of the Main Mosque in Delhi as a legitimate Hindu. Shahi Imam, has no problems eating beef. Now another friend of Anon., Mr. Thammayya said that "people of this country" consider cow to be holy so beef eating has to be prohibited as it is anti-hindu.
This means that Anon. considers a person with anti-Hindu credentials (beef eating) by Thammayya standards to be a legitimate Hindu (born in India).
Absolutely incompetent homework! It appears that Anon. and Thammayya belong to the same Hindutva Brigade.
My dear readers, I made a comment earlier, that these Hindutva Brigade people are intellectually paralyzed. I apologize, I could be wrong, I modify my comment. They are not intellectually paralyzed. They appear to be intellectually dead!
Sam writes: "If Anon. takes Varnashrama Dharma, as defined by texts which advocate Untouchability...."
ReplyDelete"Texts that define Varnashrama Dharma advocate untouchability" - This is an on going propaganda for centuries by vested interests who care least about truth, fairness and justice. There are many people in this world who are happy with the following working defintion " A Hindu is one who follows untouchability. It is now clear that Sam belongs to this brigade.
Theare are two aspects about Shashi Imam. Because he is residing in Hindustan, he becoming a Hindu. Second, prohibiting Shahi imam to kill and eat cows. Both are desirable. There is no contradiction in these two things.
A good discussion, but I am sorry after I started reading the comment chain i really got confused what was the discussion all about. Let us forget RSS for time being.
ReplyDelete@Sam: You have carefully divided the problem space into 4 parts
1) India - GP
2) India - AB
3) Hindu - GP
4) Hindu - AB
and the fifth jargon which is the matter of all the debate Hindu-WOL
Now India-GP or India-AB are geographical entities and let us keep them aside for sometime.
Hindu - GP or Hindu - AB are very narrow classifications and are probably divided here only on the basis of the geographical entities.
Now let us consider an entity Hindu - Universal, which is a set of all entities that follow Hindu-WOL and also conform to all rules and laws of Hinduism. When I say rules and laws it means a comprehensive set of instructions laid down by our ancestors who were the first to start this Hindu - WOL. With my knowledge on the above topic let us consider Smritis, Puranas, Upanishads etc as those documents which speak of these rules & regulations. Some people call all these by a single name Shastras.
Now Hindu - Universal is an entity which is not bound to any geographical entity. It may not be specific to India - GP or India - AB.
But as I mentioned our ancestors who first laid down rules of Hindu- WOL were probably from some geographic area which was part of both India-GP and India-AB. And the followers of Hindu-WOL were not only residing in the above areas but also beyond these geographical boundaries (examples can be found in historical and archeological references).
Although I am not an authority on the topic of Hinduism – I have heard from people who have authority to speak about the subject about Hinduism. By authority I mean people who have mastered all the above said documents which lay down guidelines for Hindu-WOL. They say according to Hindu-WOL a living being who takes birth on this planet called earth (let us not consider ET entities as I do not know about them) comes under the Hindu-WOL framework. It does not matter whether he is a Christian, Muslim or any other religion. In fact it says he is born with a purpose and the purpose being that he is born in a Christian or Muslim family. Let me not take this further depth but all I wanted to point here is that Hindu – WOL doesn’t really object a muslim or a chrisitian are … for not being a Hindu. After all they are still under the Hindu – WOL.
Now coming to the actual blog topic. The paradox here is that the notion of India/Indian was not there when Hindu/Hinduism was first laid. India/Indian is a recent development. I would rather put it this way: Hindusthan is a place where Hindu-WOL originated and the people living inside it were conforming to the Hindu-WOL framework irrespective of his religion. Now the problem is because of the erosion in the Hindu-WOL concepts (lack of clarity on all the laws/rules) and also because of the wrong preaching/spreading of the Hindu-WOL the entropy level within Hindusthan is very high. So people who hate/dislike Hindu-WOL have increased.
Now people who conform/like to being in Hindu-WOL framework are termed Hindus and they can live anywhere in this world (no geographical boundaries) and people who dislike Hindu-WOL framework in spite of being part of the framework (probably because of wrong preaching) must be clarified of the concepts (which is an ideal situation). The latter community who peacefully debate/introspect to accept that they are part of the framework should be facilitated. Other way round if they attack the former group (Hindus) to force them to dislike the Hindu-WOL/ to grab their geographical entities then rightful action must be taken (the action to be taken is also mentioned in the Hindu-WOL framework).
Well the above is just a brief idea that I have inked as ideas in my mind have just flowed. In no sense it is a well formulated/researched article. Comments welcomed
I am neither authority of shastras nor a researcher of history but I am a Hindu. Being a Hindu, seeing rituals being performed (Puja, Varta) by elders, performing the rituals and in the process of understanding the purpose of each ritual, I have learnt one thing over and over again.
ReplyDelete"There is no rules and regulations" in Hinduism unlike Mr. Arya has stated.
Hinduism says only one thing "Dharma Artha Kama Moksha"
Dharma - My purpose of life
Artha - Learning (science)
kama - Lust, desire
Moksha - The accomplishment of the purpose
Human is a special because of his super power of thinking, because of his ability of express emotions in speech, that’s what makes humans express his thought, desire, anger, jealousy, selfishness so on and so forth using his boneless tongue.
Hinduism has stressed only on this aspect of human behavior. The "Thinking" and "Desire" of a individual will be healthy when its between the boundaries of Dharma(Purpose) and Moksha(Accomplishing of Purpose). It becomes unhealthy when it violate the boundary (Just like what happened in the case of one of the self proclaimed god man). So, it’s again left to the individual to define his boundaries (Dharma).
If observed carefully, respected readers can notice that Hinduism just tries of define a methodical, disciplined way of passing time between birth and death. Neither it worries about which part of the planet the human is born, nor does it worry about which religion the human is following.
Comments are welcome.
@Adithya: You have said "seeing rituals being performed (Puja, Varta) by elders...". How did our elders learn? from their elders! this goes on until somebody might have started it afresh right? When i said rules & regulations i meant the same thing what you trying to convey. Elders meaning our ancestors who have composed the foundation of Hindu-WOL have told "follow the rituals" this will help you in realizing the real beauty of Hinduism
ReplyDelete@Arya,
ReplyDelete"Started it afresh" is something which I am not sure about (If you are, please let me know)
I personally feel, just like physics, chem, biology evolved over time, Hinduism has also evolved over time. Generations after generations people have realized things which they have wrote down in the form of purana. What we are discussing today might become a purana 1000 years later. People will read, understand and think about what to follow and what not to follow based on what is comfortable and based on the purpose (Dharma). This is my personal thought. What say you?
Adithya koundinya said...
ReplyDeletejust like physics, chem, biology evolved over time, Hinduism has also evolved over time. Generations after generations people have realized things which they have wrote down in the form of purana. What we are discussing today might become a purana 1000 years later. People will read, understand and think about what to follow and what not to follow based on what is comfortable and based on the purpose (Dharma).
STOP your purana! This what I can say
@peter,
ReplyDeleteI Have no problem in stopping my purana. If you are ready to start your bible. ;)
Arya (Mar 16th, 2.26am) has many clarifying points.
ReplyDeleteIf sanatana dharma (hinduism) is the sustaining principle, everyone in this world is bounded by it.
If some one is trying to go away from the path of the Dharma, he suffers. Those who are in the path of Dharma would make every attempt to bring those who are deviated to the right track.
India which is so closely associated with Hinduism naturally has a special place in the whole discussion. This fact should be reflected in the way we interpret our definition.
Unlike physics, chem, biology and Hinduism, there is no need for Bible to evolve over time. People need not struggle with Bible as they do with Hindu puranas to read, understand and think about what to follow and what not to follow based on what is comfortable and based on the purpose (Dharma).
ReplyDelete@Peter: I am not sure about how easy/difficult it is to read Bible. All i want to say is reading Puranas is as easy as reading a story. Well puranas are meant for that purpose. They have been written to communicate the Hindu-WOL message to the common man. Their immediate elder brother is Upanishads and Eldest of all is Vedas. All of them tell the same thing. But the degree of complexity varies.
ReplyDelete@ Peter,
ReplyDelete"Struggle" my dear friend probably is not the right word. Mahabharatha, Ramayana are parts of purana and we have never struggled to learn those. And about "Thinking" and "Understanding", thats the basic need that differs a human from a animal. I say, Hinduism is open enough to support this basic needs.
Since you are not aware how easy/difficult to read Bible, and since I know how easy/difficut to read your Puranas, I can give the following tips for you.
ReplyDeleteBible is much easier to comprehend compared to Puranas. Since Puranas are ever changing (and new puranas may be in preparation), there is no point in keep on reading them. What I see is that changing Puranas are trying to catch up with the Bible.
Well appreciated tip. But let me illustrate the my idea of a free thinking Hindu society to you with a example.
ReplyDeleteSince, you seem to have knowledge about Hinduism, you must also be knowing the story of Sri Adi Shankara who actually debated with great learned men and women to sell his philosophy to the world, in the times when a Sanyasi was considered sacred, in the times when a Sanyasi was considered to have supreme knowledge. Many of such debates are today part of purana.
I agree when you say that Purana's are every changing, and new once might be on the way. As I have told you previously, "Thinking" and "questioning" is what that differs humans from animals. If I was forced to accept that Earth is in the center, Sun and other planets are revolving around earth, and if I would have not been allowed to prove it wrong, in the times when it really happened, I would have been one among those who supported Galileo, Copernicus, Aristotle and so on.
The water that is flowing is never contaminated and the water thats stagnant can be contaminated. Dear readers, society of Hindus is free thinkers society. That is what makes it special, It accepts if there is a flaw and it rejects if its right.
Adithya koundinya said... Well appreciated tip.
ReplyDeleteGod bless you.
Adithya koundinya said... Since, you seem to have knowledge about Hinduism, you must also be knowing the story of Sri Adi Shankara who actually debated with great learned men and
women to sell his philosophy to the world, in the times when a Sanyasi was considered sacred, in the times when a Sanyasi was considered to have supreme knowledge. Many of such debates are today part of purana.
Oh! I realise now that (Hindu) Sanyasis are not sacred/knowledgeable today.
Adithya koundinya said... I agree when you say that Purana's are every changing, and new once might be on the way.
You said it first. I agreed.
Adithya koundinya said... Hindu society accepts if there is a flaw and it rejects if its right.
Yes, there appears to be too many flaws in Hhinduism and looks like it is taking hundred of years to clean it up. But unfortunately, your scriptures are changing and your leaders (sanyasis) are not sacred and knowledgeable. I think it is a hopeless situation for you.
@Peter: You have been very abstract and ambiguous when you have made the claim "Yes, there appears to be too many flaws in Hhinduism and looks like it is taking hundred of years to clean it up. But unfortunately, your scriptures are changing and your leaders (sanyasis) are not sacred and knowledgeable. I think it is a hopeless situation for you." Well if you have mastered Hinduism to a level where you can identify flaws in it and announce "Sanyasis are not sacred and knowledgeable" please let the readers know about it. Let us discuss whether it is a flaw or an assumption which people generally make when they don't understand anything... probably because of the limitation in the thought process!
ReplyDeleteIt is not my observation. I extracted it from the discussion. Please read his writing
ReplyDeleteAdithya koundinya said ...."Since, you seem to have knowledge about Hinduism, you must also be knowing the story of Sri Adi Shankara who actually debated with great learned men and women to sell his philosophy to the world, in the times when a Sanyasi was considered sacred, in the times when a Sanyasi was considered to have supreme knowledge. Many of such debates are today part of purana."
One will understands from the above that "at the timeof Sankara, sanyasis were considered sacred (were they really sacred? Adithya koundinya is not clear) and they were considered as knowledgeable (were they really knowledgeable, Adithya koundinya is not clear) - implying that now they are not considered sacred/knowledgeable".
It is again from Adithya koundinya, we learnt that Puranas are changing and new ones will emerge. Adithya koundinya is also saying that "Hinduism accepts if there is a flaw and it rejects if its right" indicating that there are atleast a couple of such instances where Hinduism has accepted flaws. (Adithya koundinya could list them to start with).
I feel that position of Hindus is hopeless based on these admissions. I have expressed my feelings moderately in a language as simple as possible and to the extent possible in an unambiguous way.
peter said "(were they really knowledgeable, Adithya koundinya is not clear)", When I used the the words "considered" I also meant that they were knowledgeable. I also never told that the present sanyasi's are not knowledgable. However, the point what I wanted to make is, Hinduism supports free thinking.
ReplyDeleteMr peter better know that ur ancestors were also hindus and they were lured by money to become christians. in reals words your elders sold their souls.
ReplyDeleteour great saint of sringeri shri chandrashekara bharati swamiji.
ReplyDeletehe says
"Hinduism is a name which has been given to our system, but its real name has always been a sanantana Dharma and the Eternal Law. it does not date from a particular point of time or begin from a particular founder. Being eternal, it is also universal. it knows no territorial jurisdiction. All beings born and to be born belong to it.
They cannot escape this law whether they concede its binding force or not. The eternal truth that fire burns does not depend for its validity upon our allegiance to it. If we accept that truth, so much the better for us. if we do not, so much the worse for us . in either case the law is there, immutable, universal and eternal. such is our sanatana dharma"
also i would suggest all the people in the discussion to please read the book "Dialogues with the guru" to sort out ur confusions.
Bekugalu said... "Hinduism immutable, universal and eternal"
ReplyDeleteAdithya koundinya said...
"Hinduism has also evolved over time...like physics,chem, biology"
That is why Hinduism is confusing.
Either one of the views must be correct. Bekugalu / Adithya Koundinya!
ReplyDeletePlease tell who is correct
I do not know whether I am correct/Bekugalu is correct.. What i know is an authority on this subject is correct. So Mr Peter please read "Dialogues with the guru" to get clarification on the subject..
ReplyDeletemy purpose of getting into this discussion is achieved. bye
ReplyDeletehttp://davidgodman.org/interviews/Five_interviews.pdf
ReplyDeletehttp://www.satsangbhavan.net/biography.htm
these things will surely help u guys go deep into philosophy i believe!
Thammayya said... on March 10th,
ReplyDeleteThere are some good books. I suggest you read them. If you email me, I can suggest you the books (do not remember the exact details now)
Regarding cow - Hindu-WOLs treat cow as sacred. There are books which can be referred to prove this. I can suggest you if you are interested.
samAlochaka said on March 10...
Which smriti is to be taken as a reference?
Arya said on March 16th....
(examples can be found in historical and archeological references).
Bekugalu said on March 18th...
i would suggest all the people in the discussion to please read the book "Dialogues with the guru" to sort out ur confusions.
Adithya koundinya said on 18th...
I do not know whether I am correct/Bekugalu is correct.. What i know is an authority on this subject is correct. So Mr Peter please read "Dialogues with the guru" to get clarification on the subject..
Anonymous said on March 19th...
http://davidgodman.org/interviews/Five_interviews.pdf
http://www.satsangbhavan.net/biography.htm
these things will surely help u guys go deep into philosophy i believe!
My Dear Hindus, I dont have any confusion in what I am following. It is very clear from your pronouncement that you have confusions and you always lean on some thing else. I dont need to guided by such confused people. Instead, you should leave those things that confuses you and start following simple things like Bible.
It is good that you are not confused as of now. But the trick of your comment and our comments is the following:
ReplyDeleteThere majority of the people here who are commenting follow Hindu - WOL in one way or the other and are inspired by different aspects of Hindu - WOL. It is obvious they are aligned to whatever aspect they are inspired by and hence have commented on such topics.
BUT the minority comment is from you. So it means only one person is commenting in favor of bible.(which is unfair!) From my understanding one person can be aligned to single line of thought and write comments supporting that thought. Now if there were more people who were supporting you then we would have witnessed probably a bigger list of confused references.
Keep up the good work of confusing others which you people have been doing since centuries...
The little girl was sitting with her grandmother, who had presented her with her first little children's Bible, in an easy-to-read translation, when she was very young.
ReplyDeleteNow, a decade or so later, the elderly lady was ready to spend a few
sweet moments handing down the big old family Bible, in the time-honored
King James Version, to her only grandchild.
Understandably excited, the youngster was asking a number of questions,
both about the family members whose births and deaths were recorded
therein, and about various aspects of the Scriptures themselves.
Her grandmother was endeavoring to answer all the child's questions in terms she could understand, but the one that stopped her cold was this sincere inquiry:
"Which Virgin was the mother of Jesus? Was it the Virgin Mary, or the King James virgin?"
The discussion seems to be drifting endlessly. I would like to make a few points here. Some of the commentators are writing too long and meandering essays.
ReplyDeletePlease stick to a few points in one comment. Too long and essay type comments are difficult to deal with. It is inconvenient for other readers as well. You may have a lot to say, and you are welcome to say this, but please break down the content into smaller fragments. Thank you.
Arya has pointed out an important point, and that is, it is important to decouple Hindu-WOL from a geographic confinement.
ReplyDeleteAdithya has introduced the comparison with science: Physics, Chemistry and so on; and has used the term Evolution too!
This has led to a doubt in the discussion whether "hinduism" is final or still changing?
Peter, among his desultory writings, has pointed out the confusing nature of "hinduism", and has been indulging in evangelical activities.
His main point being that the bible is "easy" to understand! He is entitled to his own intellectual convenience, but that is besides the point.
If we disregard who said what, and concentrate on what has been said, we need to tackle some salient issues:
ReplyDeleteThe most important being: What is the essence of Hinduism-WOL?
This is what Mr Thammayya also wanted, when he sought an alternative to MB's (Mohan Bhagwat's) statement.
Let me point out that occasional sarcasm aside, the essential substance of what the commentators have been saying has been very important.
For the moment, I will ignore RSS, MB etc., and try concentrating on getting some precision on Hinduism. For this I am writing a new thread, I welcome my readers to the same.
You are welcome to continue commenting here as well.