Has Hinduism had the Longest Tradition of Continuous Religion?

swarrier #various
I have to wonder why are you arguing with a self-declared illiterate who thinks he is omniscent merely because he gives gaalis(like the most of his compatriots). Have you ever seen him give any reference for any of his sweeping assertions except gaalis?

The foremost `debating` technique of a dishonest Paki is to wilfully misread what you post - I provided the url of my quotes in my post and wrote clearly those were a Kamkoti Shankaracharya`s words and yet in typical dishonest manner this Paki is attributing those quotes to me. Is it worth caring what this Paki says? No.

After that he wilfully misinterprets what is said, which is the second `debating` technique of a dishonest Paki. The author`s contention which I was contesting with those quotes was that the Upanishads and Sanskrit scriptures were hidden by Brahmins until the advent of the British. On the contrary they were taught in universities and schools. Is it worth caring what gloss this loser is putting on the same quotes? I don`t.

The third step of a dishonest Paki is to give the people disagreeing with him/her gaalis. That happens all the time with most of them. So what precisely is the point of wasting your reasoning and your time on such people?

#278 excellent reasons for staying the course..can you say what you find inherently offensive in ``statues, images, and relationships for God.``

#277 by swarrier

“The Vedas were definitely part of the relgious faith that I was born into.”

That is not the point of this discussion. The issue is whether any religion called “Hindu” existed say 2500 years ago? If yes, then did it have a universal name all over India?
I am sure people had some beliefs but they could be different in different areas of India.

” Roy`s native Bengal has a view of Hinduism that differs quite widely from say my native state of Kerala or my domiciled state Maharashtra.”

Could it be that it was all different religions or faiths that were later called Hindu by Roy or someone else fairly recently?

#272 Krishna_abcd {``I`m listening.``}

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

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.

Re: # 274
HP
I`m not a ``swami``, unless it`s some new jazz group I`d like to be associated with. -)

The Vedas were definitely part of the relgious faith that I was born into. At least the Adi Shankara referred to was from a place where the Vedas were a dominating influence in religious practice prior to and after he was born This further means that a common relgious thought process existed before him in other parts of the Indic lands since the Vedas did not originate in Kerala, the land where he was born.

The speculation that you have quoted is not hers. It is what she has quoted. Besides whether the religion enjoyed state patronage or not has nothing to do with whether it existed, was followed etc. Obviously temples are built with patronage and since there are ancient temples it is possible to assume that the relgion existed.

A progressive religion changes with time, if it doesn`t it has very little to say. Obviously Hinduism has had it`s own schisms and idiot savants.

Your statement after quoting Roy is also speculation and nothing more. Roy`s native Bengal has a view of Hinduism that differs quite widely from say my native state of Kerala or my domiciled state Maharashtra. The practices are still distinct from each other. Granted political leaders did use religious festivals for furthering their issues.
The performance of the Ramayan in temples in areas like Bali etc where Hinduism flourishes came long before Roy and the Brahmo Samaj etc.

Would you say that Buddhism that has such differing practices from the country of its birth to places such as Japan and China is not a religion? Would you say it existed only because it became popular after the Dalai Lama and Richard Gere? I see Buddhism as another logical descendant of Indic thought.

To me all religions are pagan (in the real use of the term) because the meanderings of a people in Judah and their delusions, hopes, beliefs, joys and sorrows are also built only of their imaginations and experiences and beliefs. There is nothing revealed there that is very different from common humanism allied to a generous dollop of superstition and some interesting musings.

As I mentioned very early on in this post, pagan beliefs gave us ideas like democracy , rational thought, mathematics, sciences etc. It is good to be pagan, perhaps not so good to be blindly religious. -)

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

#271 by swarrier
Swami,

“I don`t think Sadna meant that the development of Hinduism is a 19th century phenomenon.”

It does not appear that she is denying it either. What she appears to be quoting is that some books or Vedas existed for a long time. But she is NOT addressing whether they were ever part of one religious thought process or faith or not.

She further wrote, “It has inspired stories and novels. However, nobody seems to have dealt with the information that I have gained from my own historical inquiries -- that the Tamil rulers supported the Vedas and sastras in a big way.”
Here she is merely speculating.

“why would it be a political entity? I do not understand your conclusion at all. To me politics is something that is suited to government.”

Defining political entity would be a much larger debate in scope but in simple terms, it defines a people or a group of people or a unit with similar economic, cultural, and social interests. A political entity is involved in politics that does not necessarily define government or is in the government domain only.

Please refer to a comment in this article that I referred o in my post 202.

“Raja Ram Mohan Roy, in 1826, first began the use of the word Hindu to describe a religion instead of a name for the local people.”

Obviously, Raja Ram Mohan Roy did not start the Hindu religion. He created a religious identity for the people that were already known as Hindu. So my contention is that the Hindu is a political entity that was used to create one unified religion putting the existing undefined rites or beliefs that perhaps differed widely in different parts of India and were not already defined as Muslim or any other religion. ( I assume that the Indian constitution takes the same definition when it defines Sikhs, Jains and others as Hindu.)

“you have to define what you mean by ``pagan``, whether it is mentioned in a perjorative sense or whether it simply means that you do not follow any of the revealed religions.”

Well! I did not mean it in pejorative terms but I must say that the use of the word, for the lack of a better word perhaps, does invoke a pejorative use. It is true that mostly revealed religions describe others as pagan religions or rites.

THIS ARTICLE IS ABOUT HINUDISM ... NOT ABOUT ISLAM .... WHY`TRE HINUDS SO OBSSESSED WITH ISLAM ......................?????????????

#266 by Salim_Chauhan

[When it comes to spiritual guidance, I am NOT particularly looking for a Pullitzer Prize winning masterpiece.]

Most obviously not. This is definitely not going to win any prizes. :)


[I want simple directions about the purpose of life, how to live a good life, and what to expect when this life ceases to exist.]

The suras you mentioned have nothing about the ``purpose of life`` or ``how to live a good life`` or ``what to expect when this life ceases to exist``.


[Whether I follow the entire Holy Koran, some parts of it, or none at all is my concern.]

Who said anything otherwise? You sound kind of defensive.


[I am very familiar with people such as you who establish a viewpoint against Islam, Muslims, and their beliefs, and then proceed to find holes, inadequacies, and contradictions to justify their negativity. You, of course are welcome to do that. If you notice, most Muslims do not waste their time trying to disprove the Hindu scriptures and beliefs - we don`t HAVE to. :) ]

Is that why the author here has to write this article, or many similar articles before? Is that why many muslim interactors on this site keep talking about ``cow piss`` and Hindus? Is that why Muslims keep trying to convert other people instead of just leaving them alone? Is that why Urstruly keeps asking Hindus to convert?

Hindus are the most tolerant bunch of humans anywhere on this planet. Jews have been mercilessly persecuted and butchered by Christians AS WELL as by Muslims for many centuries JUST for the crime of not believing in the faith of the majority community. Imagine what would have happened to the Jews if they had done to the Christians or Muslims what the Muslims have done to the Hindus for the last thousand years - killed, raped, forcibly converted, razed their temples to the ground, erected mosques in their holiest places, forced them to pay Jezia and so on. If Hindus were like the Christians, or the Muslims, they would have buried each and every Muslim alive.

So shut the fcuk up about being tolerant.


[By the way, my understanding of the sura is as follows:

``He is not born as we think of birth and He does not procreate as we think of procreation.`` ]

Good. Then let`s proceed.



Let`s look at the suras you mentioned:


[1. Our belief in the One God, our declaration of His supremacy, His mercy, and His compassion and our request that He show us the right path. ]

This signifies a belief in One God or Monotheism. Okay.


[2. Our belief in the Oneness of God and our insistence that neither is He begotten nor does He beget. ]

This means ``He is not born as we think of birth and He does not procreate as we think of procreation.``. Great.


[3. The very essence of ``Pray and let Pray`` doctrine. We are urged to tell unbelievers ``I do not worship that which you worship and you do not worship that which I worship and you will not worship that which I worship and I will not worship that which you worship. So you go your way and I will go mine.`` This is a far cry from the conversion by force charge that we are constantly plagued by. This verse should forever discount such stupid allegations. ]

Meaning Muslims do not try to convert others. (more on this later)



So tell me. Is THIS the basis of why you consider yourself a ``Muslim``? Is THIS all there is that you guys keep bragging about? If you say that it is not, then kindly mention the Sura that depicts what is so very remarkable about your religion. Because these are amongst the most common sayings in many religions.

I`m listening.

Re: # 269
HP
I don`t think Sadna meant that the development of Hinduism is a 19th century phenomenon. The first part of her paragraph was merely a quote from the article. She was trying to show that the ideas existed a long time ago so that even Buddhist schools were influenced by Vedic ideas. That is not too difficult to understand considering a large body of Buddhist thought would have been influenced by Hindu ideas.

Secondly , you left out henotheistic, pantheistic all of which exist and enmesh perfectly well within Hindu schools of thought. It could be that Hinduism is a mishmash of pagan rituals. But then you have to define what you mean by ``pagan``, whether it is mentioned in a perjorative sense or whether it simply means that you do not follow any of the revealed religions.

Now whether Hinduism is a religion or not is a question you must ask and define. After all the word religion is a Judaeo-Christian word. If it (religion) is defined by Judaeo-Christian traditions then Hinduism may not be a religion. That is fine. But some people of Judaeo-Christian traditions think it is. So then, should it be one? Practising Hindus say they follow their Dharma. That could mean ``reality`` or ``higher truths or Natural law``.

Lastly why would it be a political entity? I do not understand your conclusion at all. To me politics is something that is suited to government. Now all religions are inherently political in the sense they are used to govern a portion of your life. But Hinduism does not directly deal with governing cities, states, ( a ``polis`` so to speak.).

HP,

If hinudism is a religion, then Alif Laila is a religion as well.

#267

Some more non-sense from Balwant.

I never in my post said that any religion is rational or logical. Making up stuff to prove a non-existing point is typical RSS game to create straw men and come up with non-sense.

This thread is about Hindu religion or whatever we may call it and my post #202 by HP discusses only that and did not compare Hinduism to any other religion.
It would be best for Balwant to respond to the post and tell us how his religion Hinduism is not what I have described.

In my post, I wrote:

“Lastly, is Hinduism a polytheistic religion, a monotheistic religion or a Trinitarian (Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva) religion or is it henotheistic?

So many contradictions lead to just one conclusion that Hinduism is no religion at all but a hotchpotch of pagan rites that have been put together in one forced entity now known as Hinduism. That makes Hinduism a political entity rather than a religious entity.”

Balwant or any other hindu on this board has not addressed my post yet.

Secondly, The title of the article is “Has Hinduism had the Longest Tradition of Continuous Religion?” My contention is that perhaps the title is misleading as we first have to address the issue that “The question should really be whether Hinduism can actually be classified as religion at all?”

Infact, sadna in #263 petty much is saying that development of Hindu religion is a 19th century phenomenon.

I hope Balwant would try to stay on topic which is abt Hinduism and nothing else.
Bringing other religions into the discussion is just a planned distraction to steer the topic away from Hinduism.

Re: # 267

Well said...

Religions are essentially based upon paganistic idea of the polarity between the body and the spirit. All Abrahmic religions postulate this along with a number of fantastic spiritual entities. To say that one religion`s entities are ``rational`` or ``real`` or ``logical`` is plain stupid. These are essentially terms used by evangelists in every religion for `proving` that their metaphysical entities are more real than the other religion`s entities.

This idea of one religion being a hotch potch and another being a ``logical`` or ``rational`` is a typical evangelistic attitude and is a dangerous thing since it is the begining of the communal strife. There are enough studies to show what Abrahmic religions took from each other. And what metaphysical theories the Abrahmic religions took from other civilizations.
Instead of doing this we need to look at how the religious metaphysics is COMPLETELY Obliterated by scientific materialism.
It is only those like our Chowk Politician CKP alias HP who use religion as the foundation of politics and try to push identities and solidarities based upon religious ideas that want to prove other religions as somewhat ``inadequate`` or ``inferior`` - otherwise for most of us a plain old secualr liberal democratic order is good enough!!
I think the world would be much better without these mullahs trying to create havoc in trying to discuss whether Martians are really better compared to the Venusians.

krishna #253 {``The reason I asked you to show me some Suras that you think are so revolutionary is to make it abundantly obvious to anyone on this forum that there is NOTHING remarkable about the book that apparently came straight from ``God``.
``[112:3] ``Never did He beget. Nor was He begotten.``
seems to mean:
``He Who creates without a partner, and Who was not created`` ``}

Krishna,
When it comes to spiritual guidance, I am NOT particularly looking for a Pullitzer Prize winning masterpiece. I want simple directions about the purpose of life, how to live a good life, and what to expect when this life ceases to exist. Whether I follow the entire Holy Koran, some parts of it, or none at all is my concern. I am very familiar with people such as you who establish a viewpoint against Islam, Muslims, and their beliefs, and then proceed to find holes, inadequacies, and contradictions to justify their negativity. You, of course are welcome to do that. If you notice, most Muslims do not waste their time trying to disprove the Hindu scriptures and beliefs - we don`t HAVE to. :)

By the way, my understanding of the sura is as follows:

``He is not born as we think of birth and He does not procreate as we think of procreation.``