Has Hinduism had the Longest Tradition of Continuous Religion?

Reply # 342

dear Ranjit,

I again try to elaborate my point of view.

I was trying to make a point that skilled workers or tradesmen enjoy high prestige in the science based real world where as they are considered ``kamis`` or low caste in India and Pakistan.


In the scientific and real world, ``unlicensed`` and `` unqualified`` tradesmen with no apprenticeship or hands on experience are not allowed to spoil the materials or to claim as a professional electrician or professional carpenter.

unskilled Labour is a different issue ...

The people who illegaly enter USA from Mexico side, usually work underground and they do simple labour like lifting boxes etc. and they make 3-5 dollars an hour wage.

There are millions of unskilled legalized workers in USA and Canada and they make 6-8 dollars an hour wage which comes to approx Rs 4000 a day.

I was talking about licensed and qualified plumbers, carpenters and electricians and no slave labour or illegal workers can work in their place.

It is about ``Standardization`` and quality control and governments make sure that people and workers are classified and specialized and they don`t want ``bad workmen quarrel with their tools`` kind of examples and to ruin materials also.

Workers who work on construction sites make approx 18-20 dollars an hour wage and they are required to elaborate on their resumes ,their previous experience, references and ability to read building blue prints, drawings and operate machinery, and to ensure quality etc..

During British Raj in India, students of Engineering universities were required to go to brick kilns and learn to make and bake bricks, then they were learning hands on experience about brick laying, pointing and importance of codes and neat workmanship etc.

They wanted to make sure that each and every ``brick`` of empire was well trained and well baked.

Leaders like Winston Churchill belonged to royal family but still he took courses in Masonry and brick laying in order to give dignity and show importance of tradesmen and builders of the empire.

As a role model for ordinary citizens, his photos while he was building walls were widely circulated, so that people could feel good to work with their hands and people could have pride in learning hands on skills.

In our countries we have useless and talktive story tellers, mahapandits, mullahs , chaudries, khans , wadairas and Rajpoots and we have hired prime ministers who being a role model cover their inferiority complexes and low self esteems through ``armani`` clothes and spend millions on their kitchens and then show their fat faces on TV.

Rest of the white shirts wearing government babus or divisional forest officers and Executive engineers follow him and they feel insulted if they are asked to repair heritage building of their office or to plant a sapling or touch a brick with their delicate and holy hands.

Results are in front of us ...we find honor , dignity and quality buildings and products in London and in Pakistan and India we find junk buildings , shoddy products and stiff necks in uniforms with iron rods in them....

#343 by ranjit

[I understand the discomfort that this statement may cause you.]

I`m afraid you don`t. A theory is not correct/incorrect JUST BECAUSE it may/may not cause discomfort.

It may cause YOU discomfort, but why project that onto me? :-)



[However, do you really think that once you die, you will be met by Chitragupt on the door to heaven, who will look at your life and assign you a place in heaven or hell? Do you think you will get to see Indra and the 10000 gods and the apsaras dancing? I mean, for crying out loud. Thats the same kind of delusion that the jihadis have. Once they die, they will meet Allah who will assign them houris in heaven. What utter BS!! ]

If from my posts, that is the impression you got, then it is no point discussing any of this with you.


[I guess, it is but natural and human to dream that it will turn out something like that. Just like a kid dreams of Santa Claus and is utterly convinced that Santa exists.]

Is that how you debate? By putting words into the other person`s mouth, and then debating that? :-)


[I will throw you one challenge. If there is an all powerful God - call him Allah, Bhagwan, Vishnu, Shiva whatever, why doesnt he reveal himself to all of us? Not to someone in a cave or in a dream. But directly in front of all of us and give us clear expectations of what is there before and after death. Why not remove all doubts, suspicions and ambiguity? If that being is really that powerful to control all of us, it is trivial to do this and set us all straight. Everyone will then follow one religion and no one will do any evil deed for the fear of God. It wont happen becaus such a being or force does not exist. Period!! ]

It`s too much of a challenge for me to handle. Goodbye.

:-)

Re:krishna_abcd#341
[..But saying that when we die, our neurons stop firing, and that`s it - like a flame going out - is a statement fraught with all kinds of implications. That is not to say that it is impossible that that is indeed the case - .....]

I understand the discomfort that this statement may cause you. However, do you really think that once you die, you will be met by Chitragupt on the door to heaven, who will look at your life and assign you a place in heaven or hell? Do you think you will get to see Indra and the 10000 gods and the apsaras dancing? I mean, for crying out loud. Thats the same kind of delusion that the jihadis have. Once they die, they will meet Allah who will assign them houris in heaven. What utter BS!!

I guess, it is but natural and human to dream that it will turn out something like that. Just like a kid dreams of Santa Claus and is utterly convinced that Santa exists.

I will throw you one challenge. If there is an all powerful God - call him Allah, Bhagwan, Vishnu, Shiva whatever, why doesnt he reveal himself to all of us? Not to someone in a cave or in a dream. But directly in front of all of us and give us clear expectations of what is there before and after death. Why not remove all doubts, suspicions and ambiguity? If that being is really that powerful to control all of us, it is trivial to do this and set us all straight. Everyone will then follow one religion and no one will do any evil deed for the fear of God. It wont happen becaus such a being or force does not exist. Period!!

Re:nature_lover#340

[..In USA you will notice that a ``journeyman Electrician`` makes 28 dollars an hour wage where as a professional engineer might be making 30 dollars an hour....]

It all boils down to population that drives demand/supply. The western countries are sparsely populated so even for hands-on work like masonry, carpentry, plumber, electrician etc, you do not have enough people. Therefore their wages are high, even though it doesnt take that much effort to become one. Heck, even illegal immigrants from Mexico with zero education make a decent living in the US because of the lack of available manpower to do low skill work.

As compared to that India and Pakistan are overpopulated with people who have low level skills. You can shout carpenter and a thousand carpenters will line up. Same with electricians. So how can their wages go up? Thats why professional occupations and specialized tradesmen make more money in India/Pakistan. Its not some grand social/political conspiracy by brahmins and mullahs. If you want to change that, first you will need to reduce the population density to what it is in the western world.

#338 by ranjit

[Ajeya, I am thoroughly disillusioned with all religions. We all think that religions provide a moral compass based on doing ``good`` things in this life to be in the good books of God, so as to have a good afterlife in heaven. The reality is the opposite. Religion has been misused for violence throughout human history and the misuse is even more pronounced today. If you think lack of belief in God will lead you to kill people for the heck of it, it is the other way round. It is the faith in God as per your religion, that is pushing all these jehadis and other loonies into killing innocent people for the heck of it, thinking that they will get rewarded by God afterwards.

Think of the jihadis who planted the bombs in Mumbai trains. Do you think they are just amoral villains like the kind we see in hindi films? People who kill anybody for the heck of it since they have no moral compass. No way!! The jihadis are in all likelihood very, very religious people with strong morals. They probably pray 5 times a day and consider muslim life to be very precious that needs protection. If there is natural disaster, they would provide humanitarian relief (just see the Lashkar-e-Toiba`s earthquake relief efforts in PoK). However, when it comes to people from a different religion, they have no hesitation to kill innocent men, women and children as if they are subhuman animals. Why is that? In their warped mind, they are soldiers for Islam. They are doing a good deed which will get them benefits after death from Allah.

I submit that a mind that is detached from religion (either total disbelief or nominal belief as mumbo-jumbo) is much more likely to follow a moral compass that is not driven by greed for benefits after death. Rather it will be driven by practical considerations to maximize the quality of life on earth. It will be more likely to treat people fairly and avoid prejudice. It will be much more tolerant of differences and believe in live and let live. The fantastic progress of the secular west, secular far-east countries, secular Turkey, secular Malaysia and the pretty good progress of secular India, proves this hypothesis. ]

ranjit,

Being disillusioned with religions is one thing. But saying that when we die, our neurons stop firing, and that`s it - like a flame going out - is a statement fraught with all kinds of implications. That is not to say that it is impossible that that is indeed the case - that we are nothing more than a sumtotal of atoms and molecules that blind evolution has churned up - all I`m saying is that it is very difficult to be sure. To paraphrase Somerset Maugham - you can be sure that you cannot be sure of anything. The Universe is such an amazing mystery, our own existence is so improbable and so very pointless, that it is impossible to discount anything. And that is why I was discussing what such a belief really signifies.

This is why I am so comfortable just being a human being. The term ``Hindu`` signifies my cultural upbringing. NOTHING more. I think it is quite possible for a society to live happily for a while without any religion - like the Chinese - maybe for a few generations. But I think religion will ultimately make its resurgence in China as well. Because religion is a mental crutch in a world where there are, and always will be, so many unknowns.

I`m not sure, but that`s what I think.

Don`t blame the religions. Blame the false prophets and the idiots who follow them. Or at least blame those who believe in bad things just because some prophet said so.

# 339 by Ranjit

I guess you couldn`t get my point.

There is no doubt that non scientific mullahs, pundits and cultural mythologies play important role in nation`s lives and they influence psyches of individuals and nations.

In rationality based scientific world ``hands on worker`` is no less important than those who make drawings on paper or write with pens.

In USA you will notice that a ``journeyman Electrician`` makes 28 dollars an hour wage where as a professional engineer might be making 30 dollars an hour.

``Journey man Electrician`` is a very respectable title in Europe and USA and they usually attend 4 years of technical institute after grade 12 and they do atleast 4 years of tough apprentice ship before they get that respectable title like `` Electrician``, `` carpenter``, or ``licensed mason`` etc.

Reason is very simple , you don`t see power failures, loose joints, jumbles of wires or explosions of transformers or electrocutions of innocent citizens in these countries..why...??

Becuase ``hands on work`` is what matters here...they don`t want to destroy their billions dollars equipment and materials by giving all powers to those Engineers who probably got Engineering degree from UET, Lahore at a gun point and who got the government job, because they killed 4 fellow students while they were heads of the students wings of Muslim league or People`s party.

In the real world, where we find high quality buildings, reliable machines and professional services, supervisors and senior Managers reach to higher positions through apprentice ships and through ``hands on`` experience, so that they become REALLY able to ``train`` and supervise junior engineers and tradesmen.

Scientific and prosperous nations respect and implement ``codes`` and ``specifications`` just like we Pakistanis and Indians respect and honour our mullahs/pundits and their rituals.

Re:nature_lover#337

[...Why Hindu pandits of India and talktive lazy mullahs of Pakistan look down at those people who are ``kamis``, low caste, builders, masons, carpenters , blacksmiths etc. etc. ....]

What do you do yourself? Are you a mason, carpenter or blacksmith? Obviously not, otherwise you wouldnt be posting on the internet. It is easy to preach but very difficult to practice what you preach.

Let me take it one step further. Do you have a sister or daughter? If you want her to get married, will you get a mason, carpenter, blacksmith or will you go for a doctor, engineer or MBA?

Economics is driven by supply and demand. India/Pakistan have surplus population with little education. Therefore, they can do the hands-on work like masonry, carpenter, blacksmithy etc. Since there is a lot of people like that, the wages are low and their life is hard. Even people with useless education like liberal arts are also in the same situation and end up doing some low level work to make a living. Professions that require skills require education and brains. That is difficult to acquire. Due to limited supply of people, the wages are higher and hence life for these people is better. That is why, every parent in India and Pakistan want to send their kids to convent schools and get them professional education. It has nothing to do with Pundits, Brahmins or Mullahs. Just plain economics!!

Re:krishna_abcd

[...My intention was to try to discuss with Ranjit the implications of taking the view he was taking -....]

Ajeya, I am thoroughly disillusioned with all religions. We all think that religions provide a moral compass based on doing ``good`` things in this life to be in the good books of God, so as to have a good afterlife in heaven. The reality is the opposite. Religion has been misused for violence throughout human history and the misuse is even more pronounced today. If you think lack of belief in God will lead you to kill people for the heck of it, it is the other way round. It is the faith in God as per your religion, that is pushing all these jehadis and other loonies into killing innocent people for the heck of it, thinking that they will get rewarded by God afterwards.

Think of the jihadis who planted the bombs in Mumbai trains. Do you think they are just amoral villains like the kind we see in hindi films? People who kill anybody for the heck of it since they have no moral compass. No way!! The jihadis are in all likelihood very, very religious people with strong morals. They probably pray 5 times a day and consider muslim life to be very precious that needs protection. If there is natural disaster, they would provide humanitarian relief (just see the Lashkar-e-Toiba`s earthquake relief efforts in PoK). However, when it comes to people from a different religion, they have no hesitation to kill innocent men, women and children as if they are subhuman animals. Why is that? In their warped mind, they are soldiers for Islam. They are doing a good deed which will get them benefits after death from Allah.

I submit that a mind that is detached from religion (either total disbelief or nominal belief as mumbo-jumbo) is much more likely to follow a moral compass that is not driven by greed for benefits after death. Rather it will be driven by practical considerations to maximize the quality of life on earth. It will be more likely to treat people fairly and avoid prejudice. It will be much more tolerant of differences and believe in live and let live. The fantastic progress of the secular west, secular far-east countries, secular Turkey, secular Malaysia and the pretty good progress of secular India, proves this hypothesis.

Reply #245

Echoboom looks like a Pakistani version of ``holy than thou`` Hindu pandits of backward and superstitous India.

One will find just rhetoric, plain ``dangerous`` rhetoric and nothing of substance in his black pages.

Why Hindu pandits of India and talktive lazy mullahs of Pakistan look down at those people who are ``kamis``, low caste, builders, masons, carpenters , blacksmiths etc. etc.

In Europe and USA,.. tradesmen rule the society, Winston Churchill was a qualified mason and a ``licensed`` brick layer...in civilized and healthy societies Tradesmen come to work in luxury cars and live in mansions..

In India and Pakistan ``anti work man`` mindset is a perpetual gift of the ``caste system`` which was created by crazy Hindu Pandits and adopted by their counterpart Pakistani Mullahs...

Prophet of Islam said, `` al kasib o habibullah``, a person, a tradesman who works with his hands is a friend of God...

Salvation of India and Pakistan lies not in more superstitous talks but in Scientific revolution.

#335 by kaalchakra

kaalchakra,

Yes, they don`t necessarily contradict each other.

My intention was not to delve into philosophy per se. My intention was to try to discuss with Ranjit the implications of taking the view he was taking - I wasn`t sure if he had thought things through.

It`s not important, anyway. Although these are important concepts, and lie at the heart of most of our value systems, most people could care less. People usually don`t want to think much, and few are capable of thinking on point - people usually like to be told what to do, and what to think. This is good in a way (as every father who has had a teenager in the house knows - some idiot teenagers think that they have pretty much figured out everything), but it can be bad also - for example when the faithful ``believe`` in the bad stuff.

Ajeya

Krishna

The view that one ought to maximize one` happiness and the view that one ought to reduce others` pain.

Sorry about the confusion!

(May be you could make your scenario even more interesting, and conflicted. What would one do if one of the two men could survive only by killing the other, and say, eating the victim`s body parts.)

#333 by kaalchakra

[There doesn`t seem to be a conflict between the two positions.]

I`m not sure I understood. Which two positions?

Krishna

There doesn`t seem to be a conflict between the two positions. Charvaka philosophy, to the best of my knowledge, does not promote hedonism or self-interest at the cost of consciously increasing someone else`s pain.

#327 by kaalchakra

kaalchakra,

I was familiar with sage Vrihaspati`s saying - only because it is oft-quoted. I am not familiar with sage Vyasa`s sayings (I think I`m not - I don`t know what I don`t know :)).

But what Vrihaspati is saying does not address the issue of moral relativism - he is not proposing that you do any harm to anyone - no morals involved here. And I will have to read all of Vyasa`s sayings to understand what he is trying to say.

Although you are absolutely right when you say that the issue is about moral absolutes - in fact it is also about how you define the word ``morals``.

330 by sunlight
``Om tat savitur varenyam, bhargo devasya dhimahi, dhiyo yo nah pracodayat``
``That glorious sun, whose radiance illuminates the universe, may his light illuminate my mind``
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Small mistake in translation, should have been:
``Om tat savitur varenyam, bhargo devasya dhimahi, dhiyo yo nah pracodayat``
``That glorious sun, whose radiance illuminates the universe, may his light illuminate our minds``

322 by ranjit
Is this a joke? 50% of Saudi population i.e. women cant even drive a car. Minorities have no rights. They cannot practice their faith. People from South Asia and Southeast Asia are treated like cattle. Are you saying that they are very happy? Maybe the poll is limited to the Saudi royal family.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Apparently you did not read the reference I gave you. It is from New Scientist (a very well known and respected scientific magazine). The research was carried out by a professor from the University of Leicester.

FYI - partly because of the influence of the effect of yoga and meditation on people - there is now a large amount of research going on in psychology departments on happiness. This is unlike traditional psychology, which focussed on curing psychological disorders, and so was focussed more on ``unhappiness``.

If you have any evidence or data to support your opinion, I humbly request you to furnish it.

``Om tat savitur varenyam, bhargo devasya dhimahi, dhiyo yo nah pracodayat``
``That glorious sun, whose radiance illuminates the universe, may his light illuminate my mind``

#327 by kaalchakra

Gotta run. I`ll get back to you soon.

Thanks...

#326 by ranjit

[Well, if it doesnt benefit you in any manner, why would you kill that man? It is needless waste of your own time, which is limited as it is. You may want to enjoy that in peace. On the other hand, if he has something valuable that DOES make a major difference to you, you will indeed attack him and take it away since there is no law enforcement there. That is assuming he doesnt have the means to defend himself. This is just common sense, no great philosophy here!!]

You are still missing the point.

The question is not WHY you would want to kill the man.

The question is, IF someone wanted to (for whatever reason - maybe he likes to kill people, or he likes to hunt, and considers humans fair game - along with wild animals - the reason is not important), would that be okay with you?

( Now don`t tell me that it is not a valid question because it is unrealistic. Because then none of the elementary school arithmetic questions would ever get solved. :) )

ranjit, krishna_abcd

Interesting discussion about the existence and relevance of moral absolutes!

Two great and immortal traditions that have something to say to each of your two positions:

Brihaspati Principle - Maximize your happiness on this earth, since no one knows what happens hereafter:

Yavaj jeevet sukham jeevet, rinam kritvaa ghritam peebet
Bhasmibhutasya dehasya punaraagamanam kutah.

Sage Brihaspati says: As long as you live, live happily. Borrow money and drink ghee. For when this body is reduced to ashes, who knows where/how it will come back from?


Vyasa Principle -

Ashtaadasha puraaneshu Vyasasya vachanah dwayam
Paropakarah punyaaya papaaya parapeedanam.

In eighteen puranas, the Sage Vyasa sends just these two messages: By helping others one gains merit; by increasing others` pain, one commits sin.

Re:krishna_abcd#325

[Imagine a scenario where you are a man with only a few days left to live. You are stranded on a planet that is a vast distance away from earth where the only other inhabitant is also a human with a few days to live as well (for whatever reasons).

If the presence/absence of that other man on that planet makes NO difference to you, would it be then okay for you to kill that man? Because he is just a machine anyway?
]

Well, if it doesnt benefit you in any manner, why would you kill that man? It is needless waste of your own time, which is limited as it is. You may want to enjoy that in peace. On the other hand, if he has something valuable that DOES make a major difference to you, you will indeed attack him and take it away since there is no law enforcement there. That is assuming he doesnt have the means to defend himself. This is just common sense, no great philosophy here!!

Re: #324 by ranjit

[Au Contraire!! If we accept that we have a finite life span on earth and there is nothing before or after that, it is a very liberating thought. Your objective changes from chasing a fantasy in the afterworld (as the muslims do) to surviving in the best possible manner in this world.

Survival dictates that you want to prolong your lifespan and that of your near and dear ones. Hence you will submit to a legal framework that ensures that no one else kills you as long as you dont kill anyone. After survival comes maximizing prosperity. Again, you will submit to a legal framework that ensures that you can maximize your opportunities and protect your gains as long as everyone else can do the same. That takes care of all the legal/ethical behavior. Finally you want to maximize happiness given that you have limited time. That involves maintaining proper social relationships with spouse, family friends etc.

If you think about it, western civilization is based on this framework- life, liberty and pursuit of happiness as articulated in the US constitution. We can see the results as they have managed to make the most comfortable, luxurious and advanced society in the world. As compared to that we have the muslims, who can only think of the afterlife as they send their children to commit suicide bombings. We Indians are somewhere in the middle but even our caste and other abominations have crept in due to an imaginary afterlife, rebirth model. After all, who will accept crap in this life, if there is no chance of afterlife or rebirth?

By the way, this framework has nothing against people who want to go to some religious place and mumble some mumbo-jumbo five times a day or once a week. You can do that as long as you keep it at a mumbo-jumbo level and dont kill anyone to impose your nonsense.]


I think you misunderstood the main thrust of my question.

You have laid out the reasons why we should have a legal framework that is unrelated to morality, but related to common interest. While I think that we should have such a legal framework for BOTH of these reasons - morality AND common interest (and these two are related in some ways, although not all ways), THIS IS NOT THE POINT I AM MAKING.

Let me re-state my question -

Imagine a scenario where you are a man with only a few days left to live. You are stranded on a planet that is a vast distance away from earth where the only other inhabitant is also a human with a few days to live as well (for whatever reasons).

If the presence/absence of that other man on that planet makes NO difference to you, would it be then okay for you to kill that man? Because he is just a machine anyway?

Re:krishna_abcd#323

[..So then if we are really nothing but robots, would you say that killing anyone is okay? There is no moral or legal provisions against destroying a mechanized toy, is there?...]

Au Contraire!! If we accept that we have a finite life span on earth and there is nothing before or after that, it is a very liberating thought. Your objective changes from chasing a fantasy in the afterworld (as the muslims do) to surviving in the best possible manner in this world.

Survival dictates that you want to prolong your lifespan and that of your near and dear ones. Hence you will submit to a legal framework that ensures that no one else kills you as long as you dont kill anyone. After survival comes maximizing prosperity. Again, you will submit to a legal framework that ensures that you can maximize your opportunities and protect your gains as long as everyone else can do the same. That takes care of all the legal/ethical behavior. Finally you want to maximize happiness given that you have limited time. That involves maintaining proper social relationships with spouse, family friends etc.

If you think about it, western civilization is based on this framework- life, liberty and pursuit of happiness as articulated in the US constitution. We can see the results as they have managed to make the most comfortable, luxurious and advanced society in the world. As compared to that we have the muslims, who can only think of the afterlife as they send their children to commit suicide bombings. We Indians are somewhere in the middle but even our caste and other abominations have crept in due to an imaginary afterlife, rebirth model. After all, who will accept crap in this life, if there is no chance of afterlife or rebirth?

By the way, this framework has nothing against people who want to go to some religious place and mumble some mumbo-jumbo five times a day or once a week. You can do that as long as you keep it at a mumbo-jumbo level and dont kill anyone to impose your nonsense.

#313 by ranjit

[ 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. ]


So then if we are really nothing but robots, would you say that killing anyone is okay? There is no moral or legal provisions against destroying a mechanized toy, is there?

Re:sunlight #321

[...Take a look at the ``World Map of Happiness`` which shows that the US and Saudi Arabia are equally happy....]

Is this a joke? 50% of Saudi population i.e. women cant even drive a car. Minorities have no rights. They cannot practice their faith. People from South Asia and Southeast Asia are treated like cattle. Are you saying that they are very happy? Maybe the poll is limited to the Saudi royal family.

#318 by ranjit
I support liberal, strictly secular, democracies with captitalist economy. That works best and has proven itself all over the world to maximize human happiness. In every other system, especially religion based systems, the people are totally miserable.
++++++++++++++++
Take a look at the ``World Map of Happiness`` which shows that the US and Saudi Arabia are equally happy. http://www.physorg.com/news73321785.html An enlarged map is here http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9642.html

````Further analysis showed that a nation`s level of happiness was most closely associated with health levels (correlation of .62), followed by wealth (.52), and then provision of education (.51). ``

Re: # 307


``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. ``

``
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. ``



That was a perceptive anlyses. But there is another view to it.

British Common law was indeed one of the most important piece of British contribution in this sub-continent.

With the British Common Law the supressed and exploited workers, women and other oppressed members of these traditional societies in the sub-continent were able to find a way to escape out of the oppressive hold of the archaic institutions of caste, creed, religion and patriarchy. The modern cities of Delhi, Bombay and Calcutta with overwhelming British presence were the embodiment of these common laws , and by escaping to these cities the lower and exploited rungs of society could find a way to break away from the archaic social institutions spawned by the Kings and Nawabs.
The cities thrived and the common law found its best publicity in the form of the wealth of the cities. Those who preferred to live by their ``Sau Khoon Maaf`` Jagirdaars lost the liberty, equality and freedom that the cities with their common laws provided. The older laws continued to bleed the villages and perpetuated their perverse forms of slavery in the form of casteism and feudalism.
These older laws we still find in remote areas of Pakistan and India- the perverse places out of the reach of common law!!

Compare Hinduism & islam on the basis of the following criteria

``capacity to hold diversity(diverse opinions-ideas-points of views) within its fold``

hinduism wins , islam fails miserably !
hinduism is superior to islam atleast on this basis.

Re:sunlight

[...Do read a little (recent) history; you will find that atheistic governments (Communist Russia, Communist China, ...) have perpetrated much larger mass murders than any religious government.....]

That is true but I do not support aethist dictatorships either. I support liberal, strictly secular, democracies with captitalist economy. That works best and has proven itself all over the world to maximize human happiness. In every other system, especially religion based systems, the people are totally miserable. Show me any other system that can make man happy.

Secondly your contention doesnt imply that religon is benign. Just look at the violence throughout history in the middle-east, europe, south asia and elsewhere in the name of religion. The jihads, crusades, inquisitions, pogroms, holocausts etc in the name of religion. Even as we speak, we see idiots blowing themselves up all over the middle-east in the name of religion. How stupid can one get to lose one`s only chance to experience consciousness in entire eternity!!

#313 by ranjit

`` 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. ``

Oh I don`t know if I really want to agree with your hypothesis. It is so convenient for me fantasize heaven as a worehouse. Apparantly, in that worehouse there are 72 hores per every true believer. Now isn`t that the fantasy worth blowing up for ?

#313 by ranjit
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.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Do read a little (recent) history; you will find that atheistic governments (Communist Russia, Communist China, ...) have perpetrated much larger mass murders than any religious government. For example, if you look at the Khmer Rouge (Cambodian communists)
http://www.yaleherald.com/archive/xxvi/12.4.98/news/genocide!.html

``In Cambodia, some scholars estimate that atrocities committed by Pol Pot`s murderous Khmer Rouge regime resulted in the massacre of at least 1.7 million people between 1975 and 1979, annihilating roughly 25 percent of the country`s population.``

http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/Genocide/pol_pot.htm
``He (Pol Pot) began by declaring, ``This is Year Zero,`` and that society was about to be ``purified.`` Capitalism, Western culture, city life, religion, and all foreign influences were to be extinguished in favor of an extreme form of peasant Communism.``
[...deleted...]
``At Phnom Penh, two million inhabitants were evacuated on foot into the countryside at gunpoint. As many as 20,000 died along the way.``

``Millions of Cambodians accustomed to city life were now forced into slave labor in Pol Pot`s ``killing fields`` where they soon began dying from overwork, malnutrition and disease, on a diet of one tin of rice (180 grams) per person every two days.``

``Workdays in the fields began around 4 a.m. and lasted until 10 p.m., with only two rest periods allowed during the 18 hour day, all under the armed supervision of young Khmer Rouge soldiers eager to kill anyone for the slightest infraction. ``

``Anyone suspected of disloyalty to Pol Pot, including eventually many Khmer Rouge leaders, was shot or bludgeoned with an ax. ``What is rotten must be removed,`` a Khmer Rouge slogan proclaimed.``

``Up to 20,000 persons were tortured into giving false confessions at Tuol Sleng, a school in Phnom Penh, which had been converted into a jail. Elsewhere, suspects were often shot on the spot before any questioning.``

``Ethnic groups were attacked including the three largest minorities; the Vietnamese, Chinese, and Cham Muslims, along with twenty other smaller groups. Fifty percent of the estimated 425,000 Chinese living in Cambodia in 1975 perished. Khmer Rouge also forced Muslims to eat pork and shot those who refused.``

All this cr@p talk of some retarded posters here about ``My religion is most perfect and superior to yours. Convert or die `` sounds like the childish rant of my 5 year old nephew. The other day he had some of his buddies come over to his house and was showing off his remote control ATV toy. He made the toy run over the legs of his hapless buddies until all of them agreed his toy was superior to any toys any one of them ever owned. He was so insecure he had to make a point through violence.

A great article on this topic, that I have quoted before: ``From Manusmriti to Madhusmriti Flagellating a Mythical Enemy`` by Madhu Kishwar
http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/s_es/s_es_kishw_mythical.htm

``I commented in a recent TV interview that Manusmriti (and other shastric texts) have as much or as little authority for Hindus as have Madhusmriti (my writings) - or for that matter the pages of Manushi, for its subscribers.``
[...deleted...]
``The Englishmen who came as traders in the 17th century were befuddled at the vast diversity and complexity of Indian society. Having come from a culture where many aspects of family and community affairs came under the jurisdiction of canonical law, they looked for similar sources of authority in India. They assumed, for example, that just as the European marriage laws were based in part on systematic constructions derived from church interpretations of Biblical tenets, so must the personal laws of various Indian communities similarly draw their legitimacy from some priestly interpretations of fundamental religious texts.``
[...deleted...]
``the British took no steps to understand local or jati based customary law or the way in which every community ... regulated its own internal affairs ... The power to introduce a new custom, or change existing practices, rested in large part within each community. ... This tradition of self-governance is what accounts for the vast diversity of cultural practices within the subcontinent. For example, some communities observe strict purdah for women, whereas others have inherited matrilineal family structures in which women exercise a great deal of freedom and social clout. Some disapprove of widow remarriage, while others attach no stigma to widowhood and allow women recourse to easy divorce and remarriage.``
[...deleted...]
``Neither shastras nor smritis suggest that there exists an immutable, universal moral doctrine. Rather, they emphasise that codes of morality must be specific to time, person, and place, and evolve according to changing requirements. ... Manusmriti itself stresses that the business of the ruler is not to impose laws from above but that,
``a king... must inquire into the law of castes (jati), of districts (Ganapada), of guilds (Shreni), and of families (kula), and settle the peculiar law of each...Thus have the holy sages, ... embraced as the root of all piety good usages long established.`` (Mulla, Principles of Hindu Laws, 15th ed., 1986, p. 23).
[...deleted...]
Since different smritikars documented the customs of different communities, there were substantial differences in their approaches, perspectives, and precepts. But characteristically, none of the smritikars deny the authority of other smritikars or attempt to prove that theirs is the supreme, most authoritative version of a code of conduct. They acknowledge that the authority of the king and the law are derived from the people. ... The Smriti of Yajnavalkya, for instance, lists twenty sages as law givers. The Mitakshara explains that the enumeration is only illustrative and Dharmasutras of others are not excluded. Nor is the authority of any shastrakar assigned hierarchical importance.
[...deleted...]
Gandhi is one of the few modern social reformers to have understood this principle underlying the shastras. Therefore, he could unhesitatingly declare:
``My belief in the Hindu scriptures does not require me to accept every word and every verse as divinely inspired... I decline to be bound by any interpretation, however learned it may be, if it is repugnant to reason or moral sense.`` (The Collected Work of Mahatma Gandhi, The Publication Division, Government of India, Vol. XXI, p. 246)

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.

Those who say that Hinduism is a label and not a Religion have a valid point. In my opinion, Religion as a concept itself is alien to the native ``religions`` and there is no word in Indic language that I can think of that corresponds to ``mazhab``.

There is no need for Hindus to be ashamed of this lack of ``Religion``, which is a uniquely Middle Eastern contribution to humanity. But this does not mean that people of the subcontinent do not have any continuous religion-type traditions. Indeed, what we call Hinduism may indeed be viewed as an umbrella of various faiths and traditions bound by some common rituals and concepts. These rituals have remained unchanged since the Vedic times, as pointed out by someone, and the chants and mantras used by the priests in Kanyakumari are the same as used by the priests in Amritsar. And the concepts of reincarnation, karma and a desire to acheive moksha, are also common to most faiths. Within this umbrella, there was tolerance for diverse and even contradictory hypotheses regarding the nature of the Beyond, which included monotheism, polytheism, agnosticism, atheism or even hedonism. We do not know how and when the term Hindu came into being. But the ``shoe`` fitted and the people started wearing it quite comfortably.

One more longish post:


Bhikhu Parekh may be Marxist in tendency and I might not agree with every word but this article contains a fair description of the general Hindu attitude to religion, wrt its tolerance and intolerance both :

http://www.india-seminar.com/2003/521/521%20bhikhu%20parekh.htm
Some reflections on the Hindu theory of tolerance

BHIKHU PAREKH

...
Hindu theory of tolerance is grounded in and overdetermined by the following four beliefs, which have played and continue to play an important part in Hindu thought. First, primacy of conduct. Hindus hold that the ethical quality of life and not a body of dogmas lies at the heart of religion, and matters most. Religion represents a way of life, and is to be judged by the kind of life it inspires.

Beliefs are not important in themselves but only insofar as they affect one’s ability to lead the good life, and are to be assessed not in terms of their cognitive validity but their moral effects. Hindus are therefore allowed a considerable freedom of religious belief including borrowing those of other religions provided that they lead what the wider society takes to be an acceptable way of life.

Second, a dharmic view of morality. The ethically acceptable life is one lived according to dharma or a set of moral duties. Dharma is divided into two types: sadharanadharma or universally binding duties such as telling the truth, non-injury to other living beings, non-stealing, purity, freedom from envy and control of passions, and varnashramadharma or the duties pertaining to one’s caste and stage in life. Unlike the former which is the same for all, the latter is relative to and varies with the individual’s caste and stage in life. Except in the case of the renunciates who step out of the social order altogether, the good life in the Hindu view is one that meets the demands of both, especially the latter.

This idea is also extended to non-Hindu societies, each believed to have its own view of dharma which it is entitled to follow. In the traditional Hindu society, such non-Hindu communities as existed were generally entitled to live by their traditional customs and practices. According to Dharmasastras, their dharma is an integral part of their communal identity and collective inheritance, and it is an act of sacrilege to violate it.

Third, individual uniqueness. For Hindus, every individual is the ultimate architect of his life and must work out his salvation himself. Salvation is not a gift or an undeserved act of grace, but a personal achievement based on one’s karma or deeds. While sharing the atman with others, every individual has a distinct self consisting of a unique set of psychological and moral dispositions (swabhava), that is a product of his karma in his previous life and which he can and should improve upon in this one.


Every human being goes through a cycle of births in the course of a journey all his own, and builds up a distinct personality or self. No two individuals are therefore ever like or have the same moral and spiritual needs. The mode of worship, the conception of god, and the form of moral and spiritual discipline that suit one individual do not necessarily suit another. Although they all have the same destination, namely liberation from the cycle of rebirth,their paths vary.

Fourth, religious pluralism. For the Hindus the ultimate reality is infinite and cannot by definition be grasped in its totality by the finite human mind. All religions grasp some aspects of it and miss out others. Like the blind men trying to imagine the size and shape of the elephant on the basis of one particular part of it, different religions represent different and inherently partial visions of the ultimate reality and contain both truth and error.2 Even though God incarnates Himself in history, He reveals Himself differently to different societies and epochs depending on their capacities and needs. Divine self-revelation is a continuous process, and no religion can claim to offer the final and exhaustive knowledge of God.



For Hindus, all religions are so many different ways of understanding and realising the ultimate reality or what may loosely be called God. As one of the Vedic maxims asserts, ‘Truth or Reality is one, though sages call it by different names.’3 In the Bhagvadgita, Krishna says that ‘whoever comes to me through whatever route, I reach out to him,’ and that ‘all paths in the end lead to me.’4 This raises the question whether some religions might not be wholly misguided or unworthy of respect.

The Hindu response is ambiguous. Some Hindu thinkers rule out this possibility. Some others hold that every religion has a self-correcting mechanism and that a wholly misguided one is bound eventually to collapse under the weight of its errors and false promises. Most, however, admit the possibility of a false or misguided religion, and argue that a religion that violates sadharanadharma or universal moral values and enjoins murder, deception, lying, and so on is inherently suspect. In their view certain values are so central to human life that they set limits to what constitutes a religion or one worthy of respect.

These four beliefs form the basis of the Hindu theory and practice of tolerance. Since religion is concerned with the quality of life and not with subscription to a particular body of dogmas, Hindus argue that all theological and religious disputes are pointless.5 The dharmic view of morality implies that different individuals and groups should lead different forms of life depending on their caste, psychological make up, traditions, and so on, and that inducing or coercing them to do otherwise violates their moral integrity and damages their wellbeing.

The principle of individual uniqueness implies that no religion suits all equally, that the idea of a single universal religion is fundamentally flawed, that each religion should grant its adherents the freedom to adapt its doctrines and practices to their unique spiritual needs, and that we should encourage tolerance not only of other religions but also within each of them. Finally, religious pluralism implies that since all religions lead to the same destination, mean much to their members, and contain both truth and error, they deserve equal respect. As Radhakrishnan once said, ‘tolerance is the homage the finite mind pays to the inexhaustibility of the infinite.’


The Hindu theory of tolerance approaches the question of tolerance from an angle very different to that of most of its European counterparts, and has its obvious strengths and limitations. Although it does not reduce religion to morality, it takes the latter to be central to religion, and makes little philosophical and emotional investment in religious beliefs. If an individual can lead the good life by holding one set of beliefs rather than another, he is left free to do so.

This partly explains why the Hindu religious tradition has generally been able to live with vast and deep doctrinal differences and avoid sectarian quarrels. Since it expects each individual and social group to lead their own appropriate way of life, it places tolerance at the centre of morality and religion, and avoids the all too familiar monistic disputes about which way of life is the best and should be imposed on others.``

...

The message here is not one of isolation of ``Brahminism`` from the folk traditions, even in language.
http://www.kannadasaahithya.com/eng/index.php?layout=main&cslot_1=48
Flowering of the backyard

U R Ananthamurthy

We have always lived in India in an ambience of languages. In the past Shankara who wrote in Sanskrit must have spoken Malayalam; and Madhwacharya in Udupi must have spoken Tulu and Kannada, but wrote in Sanskrit; and Ramanuja who must have been profoundly moved by the Alvar saints of Tamil also wrote in Sanskrit. Each of these great philosopher-saints, who propagated Advaita, Dvaita and Visishtadvaita philosophies travelled through the whole country and had disciples all over India. They also influenced, mystic poets in the regional languages of India through the centuries. The languages they spoke and the language they used for their learned discourse fulfilled specific functions in their lives. But the two did not remain apart. What was learned philosophical speculation based on the Vedas became myth and poetry in the bhashas of the common people. Also, a profound egalitarian impulse entered into the hegemonic structure of the Indian society. The Dasas of Karnataka, Chaitanya of Bengal and the Alvars of Tamil are products of such a process within the tradition.

Something else also happened in India. Goutama Buddha didn`t choose to write in Sanskrit. He questioned the authority of the Vedas and spoke the language of the unlearned masses. So too did the Jain philosophers. Later, in the medieval period (not the dark age here as in Europe), the saint poets of India didn`t use Sanskrit but the bhashas of India. They were mystics, their experience of God was immediate and not speculative. Basava, Tukaram, Kabir, Nanak and Chaitanya, by opting for the language of everyday speech for religious experience, empowered the languages of the masses. As a direct consequence of this option, their poetry empowered the women and people of low castes who spoke these languages. The spiritual insights and philosophical subtleties which marked Sanskrit, the language of the elite classes, became thus the possession of the Indian Bhashas. These Bhashas, ever since the medieval period, have always been the conduits of egalitarian passion working through the history of India. It is a continuous process of inclusion, and not negation of any language, either of Sanskrit ``the language of the Gods`` in the past, or of Persian or English, ``the languages of the powerful ruling classes`` later on. The most recent of these great saints, who can be described as the critical insiders of Indian civilization, is Mahatma Gandhi, who wrote in Gujarati, Hindustani and English.
...
A thousand years, ago, Pampa, a great Jain poet in my language, Kannada, wrote Mahabharata making Arjuna his hero. Thus he idealized the Hindu king who he served by comparing him to Arjuna. The Lord Krishna, who is the central figure for another great Hindu epic poet, Naranappa, could not have played the same divine function for Pampa in his recreation of the old epic. Pampa was profoundly Jain in his faith. It is amazing how in the past one could work within a tradition and yet strike a new path to suit his religious faith. it is a transcreation of the Mahabharata, which allowed him to remain true to his, Jain faith, while expressing his worldly loyalty to the king of another faith. This is truly a memorable example of creative secularism in India`s past, a thousand years ago.

Pampa`s worldly concern does not end with mere official loyalty to the king. He uses his lively sense of his times to make an ancient epic embody contemporary realities. Thus, in the poetic structuring of his work he manages to imbibe into the indigenous genius of his language what Vyasa and Kalidasa could offer him in Sanskrit. He is still a model as a writer to contempoary poets in Kannada. We have not only transferred experiences of one language into another in a continuous and spontaneous act of translation in the course of our daily lives, we have also knit India together through the ages in Pampa`s way. We have. freely used Ramayana and Mahabharata for this purpose. Therefore, it is possible to say, that, apart from all the innumerable languages of India, there are two more languages, metaphorically speaking. These are the great epics, Ramayana and Mahabharata. Most of us, I would dare say, have not read these two epics `for the first time`, as a European can be said to have read his Homer.

I remember here what A.K.Ramanujan, a creative translator of Indian literature once narrated. He was collecting oral Ramayanas in the Kannada language. There are thousands of them. These folk Ramayanas are narrated from memory by the non-literate rural people. In one of these Ramayanas, as in every one of them, Rama advises Sita that she should stay back in the palace and not accompany him to the forest to which only he has been exiled. Rama argues that Sita is a delicate princess and has never known suffering, and life in the forest is dangerous. Sita argues back that as his wife her dharma is to be by his side in joy and sorrow. The heated conversation is morally edifying to the listeners. What surprises is what follows. Rama comes up with very clever reasons for Sita to stay behind and serve his old and ailing mother. Then Sita demurs coyly, but firmly: ``In every Ramayana that I know of, Sita goes to the forest with her husband. How can you then say `no` to me?`` It is obvious that this rural Sita could not have read Valmiki; she needn`t read him either. Like everyone else through the whole land, whatever be her mother-tongue, she inherits Valmiki`s story. This is an excellent example of inter-textuality in Indian literary and cultural heritage...``

Re: # 272

``So many contradictions lead to just one conclusion that Hinduism is no religion at all but a hotchpotch of pagan rites..................``


Hate Pot alias CKP -

If you could not comprehend my original contention that the only commonality amongst all ``religions`` is the belief in Body-Spirit polarity, then you obviously need to pass a course on `Sociology of Religion` as well as ``Philosophy of Religion`` in order to find answers to your undergraduate level questions-

You are raising a question from a bigoted mullah view point that Pagan Religions like Hinduism are not like (Abrahmic) Religions and hence NOT (Abrahmic) ``religion`` ( and the Islamists` supressed underlying inference about his superiority!)

My view is that all religions share this belief in Body-Spirit polarity and the question of monotheism, monism, theism, polytheism are just a question of what metaphysics you develop on this polarity.

From what we can see Hinduism is a group of sub-religions like Buddhism etc which share metaphysical and ritualistic beliefs. Hinduism is obviously a Class , a Collective of similar sub-religions. To argue about its non-existnce is like saying that Abrahmic Religions have contradictory metaphysical views and hence does not exist. This is a laughable argument.


It is really amusing to see a politician argue!!!

An alternate view

http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/later.html

POST-SANKARAN ADVAITINS - AN OVERVIEW
A large number of teachers and writers have left their impress upon the advaita tradition during the 12 centuries after SankarAcArya. This page mentions only the seminal figures in the history of post-Sankaran advaita. True to the advaita spirit of not identifying with the body, our writers rarely give any clues to personal details in their texts. Consequently, all dates mentioned here rely upon the academic research that has been done within the last two centuries. Traditional details are mentioned where necessary, and it is important to remember that some historical details are still being disputed in the literature.

A list of post-Sankaran authors in advaita will have to include both sannyAsins and householders. Moreover, some householder authors took the vows of sannyAsa at a later stage in their lives, which means that some authors are known by more than one name (e.g. janArdana - Anandagiri). A general rule of thumb is that an author whose last name is miSra, or a variant of upAdhyAya, or dIkshita is a householder, while the names of sannyAsins are indicated by daSanAmI suffixes. However, there are some early sannyAsin authors whose daSanAmI suffixes are not known, such as jnAnaghana (grand-disciple of sureSvara, and author of tattvaSuddhi), his disciple, jnAnottama (the author of vidyASrI), vimuktAtman, citsukha, sukhaprakASa, amalAnanda and others. In these cases, that they were sannyAsins is known by the terms muni, yati, yogi etc. used by later commentators. The sannyAsin authors were generally associated with the four maThas established by Sankara and the other maThas established later. Thus, jnAnaghana and jnAnottama are found on the succession list of the Sringeri maTha, and Anandagiri is found on the list of the Dvaraka maTha. Meanwhile,the householder scholars formed the communities in which the sannyAsins were born, and from which the maThAdhipatis were chosen.

The name of vAcaspati miSra (9th century CE) stands out among the early post-Sankaran authors in the advaita tradition. His commentary, named bhAmatI [1], on SankarAcArya`s brahmasUtra bhAshya, is celebrated, and has given birth to a sub-tradition within advaita, called the bhAmatI school. Many commentaries to bhAmatI have been written in the course of the centuries. vAcaspati miSra is said to have written a commentary named tattva samIkshA to maNDana miSra`s brahmasiddhi, which is now unfortunately lost to us. He is also well-known as a scholar who wrote authoritative treatises in various Indian philosophical traditions, including nyAya-vaiSeshika (nyAyasUcInibandha and tAtparyaTIkA), yoga (tattvavaiSAradI), mImAm.sA (nyAyakaNikA) and sAm.khya (tattvakaumudI), in addition to advaita vedAnta. His erudition made him famous as a sarvatantra-svatantra, a title of high respect in India.

The next important author from the 10th century CE is prakASAtman, who wrote the vivaraNa [2] to padmapAda`s pancapAdikA. This work has also received a long line of commentaries from later authors, and lends its name to the other important sub-tradition in advaita vedAnta, namely the vivaraNa school. prakASAtman also wrote the SabdanirNaya and the nyAyamuktAvalI, a commentary on the brahmasUtras. sarvajnAtman, the author of samkshepa-SArIraka, pancaprakriyA and pramANa-lakshaNa [3] is another notable 10th century author. sarvajnAtman salutes his guru deveSvara in his works. The name deveSvara is usually seen as a synonym of sureSvara, Sankara`s disciple, and on this basis, sarvajnAtman is sometimes identified with nityabodhaghana. However, in the pramANa-lakshaNa, sarvajnAtman mentions the name of deveSvara`s guru as devAnanda, whose guru was SreshThAnanda. Hence, there is some confusion over whether sarvAjnAtman was a direct disciple of sureSvara or not.

sarvajnAtman was probably a younger contemporary of vimuktAtman, the author of ishTasiddhi. [4] One author named jnAnottama, who lived in the 12th century CE, wrote the candrikA on sureSvara`s naishkarmyasiddhi, and a vivaraNa to the vimuktAtman`s ishTasiddhi. This jnAnottama lived in the region of Tanjavur in Tamil Nadu. His full name in the manuscripts is jnAnottama miSra mahopAdhyAya, which indicates that unlike the jnAnottama mentioned earlier, he was a householder scholar. There is some evidence from the last verse of the candrikA that this author later became a sannyAsin by name sarvajnASrama.

Between the 9th and 13th centuries, SankarAcArya`s exposition of advaita came under attack by rival vedAntin teachers, such as bhAskara (bhedAbheda), rAmAnuja (viSishTAdvaita), nimbArka (dvaitAdvaita), and AnandatIrtha (dvaita). There was also a resurgence of nyAya-vaiSeshika philosophy around the same time, culminating in the fully developed navya-nyAya school of later times. After this period, all later authors in the advaita tradition concentrate on addressing issues raised by philosophers from nyAya, and rival schools of vedAnta. This is in contrast with the early authors whose major concerns were with the tenets of the sAm.khya, mahAyAna buddhists and the pUrva mImAm.sakas.

SrIharsha, who wrote the khaNDana-khaNDa-khAdya, [5] is an important author in the history of advaita vedAnta. He mainly addresses the nyAya school, and points out fallacies in their definitions of various concepts. Such criticisms lead to a later reworking of the nyAya system, which soon lost its earlier naive realism. After SrIharsha`s time, logical formalism took center stage, culminating in the highly formal logical system of the navya-nyAya (new logic) school. The khaNDana-khaNDa-khAdya was commented upon both by advaitins and naiyyAyikas. SrIharsha is also famous as the author of the naishAda-carita, which relates the purAnic story of nala and damayantI. He is known for using extremely difficult grammatical constructions in the sam.skRta language, and constructing sentences using words in such a way as to yield multiple meanings. For example, the word yAgeSvara can be split as yAgAnAm ISvara:, the lord of sacrifices, or as yA ageSvara:, the lord of mountains, and both meanings are significant in the same sentence. SrIharsha`s work has been commented upon by many later advaitins, and also by authors in the nyAya-vaiSeshika tradition.

citsukha, a disciple of jnAnottama, wrote a number of works, including commentaries on the khaNDana-khaNDakhAdya, brahmasiddhi and naishkarmyasiddhi. His tattvapradIpikA is more famously known as citsukhI. [6] Like SrIharsha before him, citsukha also makes effective use of the dialectical method seen in the works of nAgArjuna, the buddhist philosopher. Both acknowledge this fact, but criticize the madhyamaka school for not affirming the ultimate reality of brahman. Anandabodha, AnandAnubhava, akhaNDAnanda and anubhUtisvarUpAcArya are other important authors in the 13th century. sukhaprakASa, a disciple of citsukha, wrote commentaries on Anandabodha`s and anubhUtisvarUpa`s works. amalAnanda, a disciple of sukhaprakASa, wrote the vedAntakalpataru on the bhAmatI and also a pancapAdikA-darpaNa, thus forming an early link between the bhAmatI and vivaraNa schools.

Anandagiri (also known as AnandajnAna), a disciple of SuddhAnanda, is well-known as the author of a number of TIkAs and TippaNas on SankarAcArya`s upanishad bhAshyas. [7] anubhUtisvarUpa, mentioned earlier, was an important figure in the sArasvata grammatical tradition, and was