Has Hinduism had the Longest Tradition of Continuous Religion?

Re:urstruly#307

[...Practically, for all intent and purposes almost every other religion except Islam are either dead or they are dying dinosaurs- they only live on the life-support of rituals-they offer no ideology and no hope for mankind.....]

Religion can never offer any hope or ideology for mankind. It is the biggest organized hoax, a mass delusion, that preys on man`s fears on what happens after death. Nothing happens after death i.e. it is just an end as our neurons stop firing. Man finds it hard to accept that harsh reality and creates a fantasy of afterlife - God, heaven, hell etc.

If there is an all powerful God, why doesnt he/she reveal himself and show us his masterplan via Islam or any other religion and give us a tour of heaven, hell etc? It can end all bickering and everyone can follow the ``perfect`` religion. It will never happen because there is no such being like God that exists who can validate the claims of religion.

Given the amount of violence and hatred in the name of religion, I wish all religions would die out and mankind can live in peace without this nuisance. At least whatever time we get in our lifetimes, we can all enjoy that to the fullest until our demise. The Western civilization has got it right - enjoy life, be happy and make the best of what you get since this is the only chance you will ever get. Everything else is just BS.

Krishna_abcd #305 {``{``The debate arose when people like your brother Urstruly made his post #2 ``inviting`` all Hindus to ``join`` the one true faith``}

Krishna bhayya,
That was a cheap trick on the part of Urstruly Sahib to have as many Hindus as possible become suntanned. Please disregard his invitation if you are allergic to suntans.

Krishna_abcd #305 {``{``The debate arose when people like your brother Urstruly made his post #2 ``inviting`` all Hindus to ``join`` the one true faith``}

Krishna bhayya,
That was a cheap trick on the part of Urstruly Sahib to have as many Hindus as possible become suntanned. Please disregard his invitation if you are allergic to suntans.

jang #300
``this i believe to be true and makes practice of hinduism very personal, somewhat limited to family traditions, or a larger clan tradition. it also makes hinduism least uniform, since it does not make specific demands, and i argue less available to political organization in the long run.``

It also results in stuff like an individual being passive about caste oppression happening around him while also believing in advaita and unity of creation as the central tenet of his faith.

Urstruly#307:

``There have been several attempts at codifying the moral codes into laws like Manu Smiriti, Dayabhaga and Mitaksara``

I am hearing about Dayabhaga and Mitaksara for the first time. While I had read about Manu Smriti, I learnt about its contents only when I came to chowk even though the British apparently developed Hindu Civil Law based on it. But being a Smriti, it could not provide a constitutional framework akin to the Hdood in Islam. The fact that the Hindu civil laws derived from the Manu Smriti could be changed by the stroke of a pen by an agnostic Hindu shows that it was really not important to the Hindus. Contrast this with the Caste system, which the same law also tried to abolish but more than half century later, the casteist attitudes are still firmly entrenched in the psyche of the Hindus (and dare I say, even non-hindus of the subcontinent!) and are now part and parcel of Indian politics.

``Just like Islam, Hinduism is also facing a challenege from Atheists who call themselves Secularists .....``

I am not so sure of this. The Hindus would probably use their time-tested inclusive approach and let them be secularists/atheists and hindus at the same time.

Murad Sahib:

You raised a valid question, but got lost in the details of your analysis. If belilef in Vedas and associated thoughts and philosophy has a continuity, then I can assure you what you call Hinduism today has continuity, as long as these thoughts and scriptures have been around.

You cannot apply semetic religions` formulation to analyze Hinduism (as it is know today or whatever it was known earlier). The basis of semetic religions is defined code and canonical laws, the basis of eastern religions is inner search and self-discipline. Two entirely different approaches.

Anil

Re: # 304 DM

``However, religion is more than that: it involves a complete system of genesis, moral code and laws - ``

I think Hinduism stresses on all three aspects as aggressively as any so-called Abrahamic religion. It has strong tradition of laws such as inheritance, marriage, adoption and even economics. There have been several attempts at codifying the moral codes into laws like Manu Smiriti, Dayabhaga and Mitaksara - the timespan while these laws were implemented and practiced is no less than a milleneum; ranging from 1st century AD to 11th century, when Muslims invaded hindustan. After that Hindus lost political clout and hence lost their laws just as after Britain took over India, Muslims lost their Islamic Sharia laws, which were replaced by English Common Law.

But this statement is not entirely true either; just as Hindu law continued to be practiced during Muslim era, in some aspects Muslim laws were also permitted to continue in British era. After independence this continuation resumed under the tiles of Muslim Common Law, and Hindu Common law respectively. Law is not a static entity; it updates at the speed at which society progresses. This change is brought into laws by science of jurisprudence and jurisprudence can only be practiced through sovereignity. Therefore, both Islamic and Hindu laws in subcontinent have been stagnant because both Hindus and Muslims lack soveriegnity. Our respective countries were hijacked by atheists or ritualists after independence.

No law can exist in vacumm. Law can only be established by a fraternity of men under a soveriegn polity. Individuals do not and cannot practice law, they practice moral codes, which is a step below the law. Hence saying that Hindusim does not encourage fraternization, as some of the interactors are suggesting below is a fallacy. Just like Islam, Hinduism is also facing a challenege from Atheists who call themselves Secularists and pretend to be indifferent to religion. BUt in fact they are not. I think atheists have achieved their glory when they put christianity and judaism under hostage since Renaissance but now this glory is beggining to fade as they have engaged themselves in a mortal combat against Islam. Practically, for all intent and purposes almost every other religion except Islam are either dead or they are dying dinosaurs- they only live on the life-support of rituals-they offer no ideology and no hope for mankind.

#305, Krishna_abcd, {``It is the missionary zeal of these Abrahamic religions that have created the dog-eat-dog world that we see today``}

Krishna,
I agree with this statement.

{``The debate arose when people like your brother Urstruly made his post #2 ``inviting`` all Hindus to ``join`` the one true faith, and your brother Naqshbandi and other brothers started spouting about Islam being the most perfect religion - ``}

Krishna,
Again I agree with you. Both Urstruly and Naqshbandi should be attacked, looted, killed, and burned as punishment for their inappropriate posts. No one has the right to invite you to join anything. No one can claim their side to be the most perfect anything. I agree with you. They are both wrong and I will understand fully if you get your buddies to bomb their places of worship and then have them both castrated and then hanged in the Chowk parking lot.

{``But you are welcome to live with your delusions. ``}

And, Krishan, my friend, you are welcome to live with yours. Lakum dinakum wali yadin. :)

#278 by Salim_Chauhan

[No you are not. You are looking for weak points to pounce on and claim some sort of ``victory`` over a poor Musla.]

This is what is a textbook definition of an ad-hominem attack. Look up the definition, if you want.

[Rest assured, I plan to leave you alone. If others are inviting you to join their faith (Urstruly or Pat Robertson) please blame it on their bad taste and willingness to accept any Ram, Krisha, or Hari into their faith. :) ]

Whether you plan to leave me alone is not the point. It is the missionary zeal of these Abrahamic religions that have created the dog-eat-dog world that we see today. And as I have said before, Hindus do not believe in ``inviting people into`` any faith. It is an intellectual tradition, based on inquiry. Club membership-type concepts do not exist in the Hindu mindset, and ``dharma`` is considered a mode of inquiry and observation - quite different than your membership id concept. This is why there has never been the concept of ``conversion`` in Hinduism - it is as ridiculous as ``converting`` someone to Algebra, or Political Science.

I do get your clever remark about inviting ``any`` Ram, Krishna, or Hari into your faith. You probably do not realize how much contempt I have for idiots like yourself standing in line with membership tokens, so your probably will never have any idea how inconsequential your intended slight really is.



[I am content with Islam because of:

Its message of brotherhood for all
Its simplicity
Its straightforward statement that no one is superior to another - including black/white, Arab/Ajam, etc.
Its rejection of ``original sin``
Its lack of statues, images, and relationships for God.
Its discipline and equality during prayers.
Its insistence on providing charity
Its treatment of orphans and widows.
Its introduction of women`s rights as early as 7th century - Unfortunately this was not reinforced or even augmented in latter yeasrs. ]


The debate was not about whether you should be ``content`` with Islam. You are perfectly within your rights to be ``content`` with Grimm`s fairy tales, for all I care. The debate arose when people like your brother Urstruly made his post #2 ``inviting`` all Hindus to ``join`` the one true faith, and your brother Naqshbandi and other brothers started spouting about Islam being the most perfect religion - the one and only true religion, and the best thing since sliced bread - and all of this in relation to an article on Hinduism.



As I see, you have not been able to quote to me any Sura that makes your religion so remarkable. All of the points you have listed here do not explain why ANYONE has to ``belong`` to anything - they are commonsense and generally accepted universal concepts - read king Asoka`s edict a thousand years before Muhammad was born.

So why do you or anyone else need to ``belong`` to Islam or any other sect for these universal principles?


By the way - NONE of the points you listed have ANYTHING to do with Islam.

Let`s see:

[Its message of brotherhood for all ]

Except if you are a non-Muslim.


[Its simplicity ]

So are nursery rhymes. Shallowness doesn`t have to be complex.


[Its straightforward statement that no one is superior to another - including black/white, Arab/Ajam, etc. ]

Except Muslims are superior to non-Muslims. And men are superior to women.


[Its rejection of ``original sin`` ]

Who gives a flying fcuk?


[Its lack of statues, images, and relationships for God. ]

Indicating its lack of imagination.


[Its discipline and equality during prayers. ]

Unlike the hard drinking and rowdiness that is so prevalent in other ``religions``?


[Its insistence on providing charity ]

Yes. Muhammad was charitable all right. He sold those war-booty women and children for a real bargain.


[Its treatment of orphans and widows. ]

Yes. He orphaned the children of those 700, widowed their mothers and sold them all as slaves. Not to mention the countless war-booty sex-slaves he collected by widowing or orphaning them first.


[Its introduction of women`s rights as early as 7th century - Unfortunately this was not reinforced or even augmented in latter yeasrs.]

This is another one of the biggest lies disseminated by Muslims on a regular basis. BEFORE Muhammad, women had excellent rights in Arabia - the provider for his drone-like existence - his first wife - was an independent businesswoman, like many back then, and equal to men in most rights. All of that changed after Muhammad - women`s status was DEFINED in the Quran as subservient to men`s to the extent that now they could not even pray in a mosque with them. There are countless suras in the Quran that show women as being inferior to men. But you are welcome to live with your delusions.

Urstruly#299:

``I think you are defending Hinduism using wrong premis``

If I am to defend Hinduism, it does not have much chance of survival.:)


``The fact of the matter is that the only thing that is holding Hindusim together today is superstition and a regimen of rituals``

I don`t think that I can agree with this. I think that what is holding Hindus together (I do not know what is the meaning of ``holding hinduism together``) is a sense of identity forged by a common history of millenia.

Whether or not Hinduism is a religion depends upon how you define the term. You have given two definitions:

[Definition 1: `` people’s beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature, and worship of a deity or deities, and divine involvement in the universe and human life``]

I cannot see how Hinduism can qualify as a religion according to this definition since it does not have a common belief or opinion regarding the ``existence, nature and worship of deity or deities, and divine involvement in the universe and human life. Most of the Hindu treatises were written by sages who may or may not have been divinely inspired but did not claim to be the messenger of a deity or deities.

[Definition 2: ``a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. ``]

Hinduism perhaps satisfies this definition or some elements of it. But so did Greek philosophy. Indeed, I see many parallels between Greek philosophers and their Indian counterparts of roughly the same time period.

I tend to separate faith from religion. Hindus have an abundance of faith, perhaps too much of it. It is that easy acceptance of faith that allows sects like Satya Sai Baba, Sri Ravi Shankar, Biasawale or Nirankaris to flourish in India. However, religion is more than that: it involves a complete system of genesis, moral code and laws - all three Abrahamic religions provide these, with Islam perhaps doing it more competely than others.

#302 warrior, what you say is most certainly true. in modern world, when you can form groups and communities on the internet, all this sounds kinda silly..but in my experience communities like sikhs, jains, damman vanias, parsis GSBs etc who ``take care of (their own) folks`` is appealing to me...and one wishes that a divine angry-god is not necessary for charity, as it will invariably become a political tool.

Re: # 300

Jang
So what you are saying is that a religion should encourage conformance and community spirit by its laws. It is this same demand for conformance that will go out of bounds when faced with something that is dramatically different from it.

Perhaps that is why toleration is not entirely present in religions that demand conformance, as can be seen from Christianity , Islam etc. . On the flip side the personal quest will make a religion open to the vagaries of human thought and vice as is evident in Hinduism.

Both sides have problems. You pays your money and you takes your choice.

One of the greatest strengths of the hindu tradition is its mongrel like nature. Today somebody is starting a bhakti sampradaya; yesterday, ram mohun roy was convinced that reading vedas like Bible is the way to go; Ramakrishna paramahansa became convinced he was a women and a dalit at various times. Maybe there is one god, maybe there are many. Maybe god created the universe, but then who created the gods?

As DM-ji points out this, this religion-tamasha is a middle-eastern thing. While it could be considered a ``contribution``, it has both negative and positive aspects. This needs to be clearly explained to some of our interactors here. The imperial forms of islam, in which conquest, murder, loot, and slave taking are all justified in the name of religion is a disgusting aspect of this tradition. The islamo-supremacist attitudes of even quite reasonable muslims (``our religion is perfect/logical/supreme`) is another manifestation of the same.

Hindus need their own internal criticism and articulation of concepts. Without a doubt the diversity of hinduism has also allowed some bizarre cults to flourish, without a doubt many hindus have been accepting of inequalities far too easily. This is the down side of a khicchdi tradition.

But lets not throw out the key positives because of some negatives. The issue is how to work with the exhilarating diversity of hindu expression and develop means of challenging those aspects that are over the top and with little meaning in the 21st century.

#296

``Third, individual uniqueness. For Hindus, every individual is the ultimate architect of his life and must work out his salvation himself. ``

this i believe to be true and makes practice of hinduism very personal, somewhat limited to family traditions, or a larger clan tradition. it also makes hinduism least uniform, since it does not make specific demands, and i argue less available to political organization in the long run. the practice of hindutva and that of religion have remained like water and oil, almost all practicing hindus unaware of hindutva and many hindutvawadis irreligious.

i personally find this to be a deficit of hinduism, and consider it lacking in community spirit. sikhs and jain sects seem to have corrected this flaw by insisting on a specific conformance behavior and therefore evolved a useful spirit of community and (communal) charity.

DM

I think you are defending Hinduism using wrong premis. The set of beliefs that people, who call themselves Hindus, espouse, and rituals they practice qualifies Hinduism as a religion. (see the definitions below).

The correct premis, however, is that Hinduism has become so self-contrdictory that it is impossible for a Hindu to define his religion. That is the reason if you check the first 100 interacts of this thread, almost all those written by Hindus contain the phrase ``...but you wouldn`t understand it``. The fact of the matter is that the only thing that is holding Hindusim together today is superstition and a regimen of rituals- no one treads upon the path of belief any more. Is there one God or millions of gods? If there are millions of gods then where does One God fit in. It is a mind boggling endeavor, isn`t it. So the matter of fact is that Hinduism is a hodgepodge of rituals where self-interest and superstition directs oneself to diety and not a sense of duty and purpose.

Religion

Definition 1: `` people’s beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature, and worship of a deity or deities, and divine involvement in the universe and human life``

Definition 2: ``a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. ``

Re: # 287
HP
It really doesn`t matter what the religion or way of life was called. If it was called Hindu because of the name given to people that`s really fine. Judaism was named after the province of Judah. So even before it was called Judaism there were people believing in Yahweh.

Now agreed that many beliefs and their deities have been folded into Hinduism. However there has been a constant skein of thought with beliefs in the Vedas, Upanishads, etc for several centuries before the common era (BCE). Therefore it did exist. Now our current practices may vary. However by the same token Presbytarianism is still a branch of Christianity and Wahabism is still Islamic.

So whatever changes have taken place in the last few centuries does not disprove the fact that the religious thought processes existed before.

By the way Marxist historians see everything through the prism of class struggle. That is like the old saying, that, when the only tool you have is a hammer then everything begins to look like a nail.