| Username |
Post |
| nepdude |
Posted
on 19-Aug-02 03:31 PM
Most Americans I meet are surprised to know that Nepal is predominately Hindu. Are the Buddhist is Nepal only Rai/Sherpa/Gurung and others from Tibetian descendants? Meaning are there Baun/ Chettri/ Newar looking Buddhists ? Let me know, so I can stop being ignorant about this...!
|
| SITARA |
Posted
on 19-Aug-02 03:50 PM
Quest a spiritual quest, Nepdude:
IN NEPAL, the institutions of Buddhism and Hinduism are not differentiated. Rather, since Buddhism is considered an off-shoot of Hinduism, it is not made such a big deal of. Those who epress that they are Hindus and do believe in the "Dash Avatar" will also acknowledge that Buddha is one of the Avatars....so, logically, if we analyze it, Hinduism and Buddhism are inseparable in "Hindu Nepal" regardless of caste.
The form of Buddhism that the westerners are refering to "Mahayana", "Hinayana", "Theraveda" , "Zen" or "Tantric Buddhism". Tibetans practise "Tantric buddhism" which has spread into the other regions of Nepal....esp, the Tibeto-Burman speaking population of Nepal. Also, the "Save Tibet" publicity and Dalai Lama have brought "Tantric Buddhism" out into the forefront.
So, the next time, you are asked about Buddhism, you might want to ask about the form of Buddhism he/she is reffering to. To recap... Buddhism and Hinduism are inseparable in "Hindu" Nepal!
Nice inquiry tho.
|
| nepali_keto |
Posted
on 19-Aug-02 04:45 PM
Sitara, if, as you purport, the institutions of Buddhism and Hinduism aren't differentiated, then can you please tell me what sect of Buddhism Nepalis follow (Mahayana, Hinayana, etc)? Truth is, what religion a person follows depends on his ethnic group. Pahadi groups are mostly Shaivite Hindus. People from the plains, the teraibasis, are mostly Vaishnavite Hindus. Then you have Janajatis, who are either Shamans, Buddhists, or Bonpos. If they are Shaivite Hindus, they usually mix it with Shamanism, and I don't find anything wrong with that, since Hinduism is a dynamic religion.
Buddha was actually added later on by high-caste Hindus as one of the Dash Avatars, in order to get rid of the threat posed by Buddhism. As we all know, India( and probably Nepal) is mostly comprised of Shudras and dalits who make up the bulk of Hinduism. Back in the days, many dalits had converted to Buddhism. The high-castes realized that if Buddha were taken as one of the Avatars, they would still be able to claim the dalits who had converted to a totally distinct religion, as one of their own. Hinduism, which was almost wiped out of Northern India thus began its rennaisance . In India today, many dalits have started converting to Buddhism, although it has not really gained momentum. Ambedkar, before he died, converted to Buddhism, and tried to mass-convert the dalits, but his attempts failed.
Buddhism cannot be taken as a branch of Hinduism, or off-shoot as call it. Since it developed due to apartheid and inflexibility in Hinduism, it should be taken as a totally different religion.
|
| bisun |
Posted
on 19-Aug-02 05:12 PM
I am just curious to know which religion did Budha's parents follow, without implying anything else. I would also be interested to know the sources of the "facts" that high caste people forced Budhism into Hinduism. I do have heard that some hindus at the time believed that Budha came to divert people towards destruction, but they still believed that it was an act of god. I am struggling with the logic though.
|
| tropical |
Posted
on 19-Aug-02 05:31 PM
If U purport that hinduism and Buddhism are completely separate then first understand the roots of hinduism.
You may know that Hinduism doesn't claim to have a single prophet. Also Hinduism that is practiced today cannot be classified as Shavism or Vaisnavism etc. People now a days are choosing themselves whom to worship. Thus classifying Shavism as belonging to only the Pahadi people is a dimunitive attempt at misrepresenting Hinduism.
|
| nepali_keto |
Posted
on 19-Aug-02 05:50 PM
It doesn't matter what Buddha's parents were. It doesn't matter what Buddha thought of himself as either. It is what his followers think of him that matters. Jesus was a Jew, but does that mean his followers are Jews too? Sure Judaism and Christianity have things in common, but they're different religions. Same thing applies to Buddhism and Hinduism.
Most Hindu sites don't tell the truth as to why Buddha was brought into the fold of Hinduism. One of the reasonshas to be conversion of people. Here's a quote that I found in a Hindu site, that DOES say that Buddhism was brought into the Hindu fold. It differs from my version in that it states it was due to Shaivism gaining popularity. I don't agree with that.
"The truth about incarnations: The fact is that a lot of myth is woven around the theory of incarnations. As we have already noted, some of the incarnations ascribed to Vishnu were previously ascribed to Brahma. Secondly none of the incarnations declared themselves as incarnations of Vishnu. Attempts were made to bring the Buddha as an incarnation of Vishnu. This was probably to bring Buddhism into the fold of Vaishnavism in response to the increasing popularity of Saivism whose followers viewed both Vaishnavism and Buddhism with the same disdain"
http://hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/vishnu.htm
Tropical,
Yes, you are right, Hinduism doesn't have a single prophet. Hindus believe that there are several paths to God. Following Christ, Buddha, Allah or Krishna are all valid paths. But Buddhists, Muslims and Christians don't believe in Hindu deities. Their path to God is limited, as compared to Hinduism.
Today's Hinduism can still be classified as Vaishnavism or Shaivism or Tantrism or Shaktism. Nepali pahadis are mostly Shaivites. Swastani is about Shiva. We have a big temple complex , Pashupati, dedicated to Lord Shiva. Also, pahadi version of Desain is mixed with Tantrism( goat sacrifice).
|
| bisun |
Posted
on 20-Aug-02 09:45 AM
"It doesn't matter what Buddha's parents were. It doesn't matter what Buddha thought of himself as either. It is what his followers think of him that matters. "
Very true. But then how do you define his "followers"? Why can't Hindus (actually I hate this term, but I have no better alternative) who follow Buddha in their own way, i.e. as an incarnation of one and only God (and there is only one god in Hinduism), be his followers? Why do you feel that there has to be yet another division? Haven't the already existing divisions divided us more than we ever wanted? Or do you think the "pure" Budhists feel exploited or devoid of their God when Hindus borrow Buddha from them? I thought sharing would be a better idea :)
|
| nepali_keto |
Posted
on 20-Aug-02 05:00 PM
Hi Visun,
Today's version of Hinduism has added in Buddha as one of Vishnu's incarnations. There is nothing wrong with that. Hinduism is a dynamic religion. You can believe that Jesus is the only God, and yet you can be a Hindu. You can believe Allah is the only God, and yet you can be a Hindu. But the problem is this. Other religions do not believe in this. Their viewpoint is that theirs is the only path to God. So, for this reason, a Hindu( I do not know an alternative way either. Hinduism is also called Sanatana Dharma, so Sanatana Dharmavadi??) hasn't really been able to practice his religion freely.
I do not agree with you when you say that Hinduism has one and Only one God. If I am correct, the idea of the Brahman was first cited in the Upanishads. Vedas, which were written earlier than Upanishads were basically pagan in nature. Back in the days, there were even atheistic cults. See how we have slowly evoloved? So, how do you really define a Hindu? He can be an atheist, an agnostic, a monotheist, a polytheist, or any other theist you can come up with. As long as you believe in Moksha, reincarnation and incarnation, you are a Hindu, and even an atheist can believe in these concepts. That's just my version. You are welcome to refute my arguments.
Hindus do think of Buddhism as an offshoot of our religion. But do Buddhists from, say, China, think the same? I do not think so. Fact of the matter is, Buddhism arose due to casteism. We are being one sided when we think of Buddhism as being a branch of Hinduism. I am not claiming that Hindus cannot follow Buddha. All I am saying is that he was taken as an Avatar later on, since Buddhism was gaining popularity, and Hinduism was declining.
Sorry if I am being too shallow. I am still learning about my culture and religion....
|
| taha cha |
Posted
on 20-Aug-02 08:15 PM
It is very encouraging to see such a discussion. I really applaud all those who are engaged in reading and participating in this forum. I am encouraged to see the level of insight that sajahaties have about the matter.
There are few things things I like to say, I will also include my experience with the Buddhist religion. I am a Hindu by birth but have a lot of respect for Buddhist philosophy and practice. When I was in Nepal I used to visit monasteries to meditate.
Buddha never said that he is teaching a new religion (or principle). He said that he is preaching the religion that already existed.
I was visiting a Tibetan Buddhist family. The scripts were written in Tibetan but they were the exact translations of Sanskrit slokas. The gentleman recited some of the scripts for me. Even though it sounded different it was the same Sanskrit sloka that my grandfather used to say it every morning.
I had privilege to meet and discuss a Tibetan Buddhist monk in San Francisco about 6-7 years ago, and I do not remember his name; even though I remember every single word he said. I was surprised when he told me that he had a doctorate degree from Banaras Hindu University in Sanskrit.
I asked him some questions and I will present here for the benefit of the readers.
Me: Why did you study Sanskrit?
A: All the Tibetan scripts are the translations of the scripts that existed. Our monks have studied those scripts and translated those scripts in Tibetan for the benefit of our people. This phenomenon is going on for generations.
During the Muslim invasion in India many holy books were destroyed, we still have many of those translated books in Tibet. You know, many of those books were destroyed in Tibet as well.
Me: What is the difference between "Sunya" and "Nirvana" (these are the differences in Hinduism and Buddism)
A. "Sunya" is not different than "Nirvana" It is the same thing.
Me: Could you enlighten me please?
A. Are you familiar with Adwaita? Sankaracharaya?
Me: Yes
A: Before Sankaracharaya, there was controversy that the Buddhist religion was different and the Buddhists were considered a separate religion. Sankaracharaya was successful in convincing the society at that time that the "Nirvana" is not different than "Sunya". He emphasised the importance of Adwaita and the and the similarities between both religions.
The discussion I had with the respected monk (I could give him more respect by addressing with his name or something better) was very long. Presented for the benefit of the readers in short.
After the discussion with the respected monk I learned that we should look for similarities, we should look for harmony and respect and should not look for differences. Even in differences there are similarities.
|
| SITARA |
Posted
on 20-Aug-02 08:33 PM
Taha cha:
I agree with you:
There is just a slight variation in the philosophy ( gyanmarg, not bhakti marg, mind you ) of both the religions:
Buddhism: The existence of Sunya!....translates for most into Nirvana
Hinduism: The consciousness of the existence of Sunya!.....Brahma gyan (Vedanta!)
Although I am born a Hindu;
I myself do not believe in the institution of organized religion....but have read quite a lot on the philosophy of religions the world over! esp. Vedanta and all branches of Buddhism. The philosophy of most religions are based on logic and reason....Muslim religion is based on biconditional reason (IFF) ...but very few actually apply the (IFF).
I like Zen Buddhism because it is very peaceful and serene in it's practice....very non reactive! It follows simple quiet humour...(my opinions entirely!) :)
|
| Junkie |
Posted
on 20-Aug-02 09:14 PM
Bisun: what's so sad about the word "hindu(s)"?
|
| nepali_keto |
Posted
on 20-Aug-02 09:34 PM
"Hindu" is a word given to us by the Persians. Corruption of Sindh. Foreigner giving our religion a name is sad indeed.
|
| Junkie |
Posted
on 20-Aug-02 09:57 PM
it's not all that bad ..... dunno the true meaning of it but sure it means something religious or "good" ......
afterall isn't "computer" a westernized word ..... if we start naming our names then we'd end up like the inidian translation of the movie "True Lies" = "Zootha Saach"
|
| czar |
Posted
on 20-Aug-02 10:36 PM
With due respect to all the folks learned in the ways of religion, here’s my two cents worth.
When faced with an ‘ism’ in the context of religion, I regard it as an entity with branches and competing interests. One that is geared to ensure its survival and adopt the necessary means to do so based on the situation it finds itself in. Perhaps that lead to the different schools of ‘ites’ in Hinduism.
Jesus preached against the excesses of the dominant religions of his era, Judaism. When Buddha was born, it was the Hindu religion that held center stage. Like all forces, it may have reached a low point, driven there by excesses of its practitioners, defection to other schools of thought or plain apathy. In this context, Buddha finds things he is not pleased with and sets about the task of enlightening his fellowmen. Regardless, be it Jesus or Buddha, neither figure’s stated intent was to consciously set out to start an ‘ism.’ That was what disciples who busied themselves with.
And how did the establishment react? Either assimilate the threat or attack it. The Romans had a field day with the ‘Christians’ n the lions. What is not so well documented, or at least I don’t claim knowledge of it, is how the reception to Buddha and his cohorts were. Adopting Buddha may have been a shrewd political move.
|
| bisun |
Posted
on 21-Aug-02 07:12 AM
taha cha:
"After the discussion with the respected monk I learned that we should look for similarities, we should look for harmony and respect and should not look for differences. Even in differences there are similarities."
I couldn't agree more with you, especially on the above lines. It seems we think alike at many levels.
|
| bisun |
Posted
on 21-Aug-02 07:16 AM
Junkie:
"Bisun: what's so sad about the word "hindu(s)"? "
I thought I would answer your question, " " before commenting on other postings; it might shed some light on what is to come.
The word "hindu" or "Hindu" is a whore. It's like your girlfriend whom you love a lot. But what would you do if you see her sleeping with someone else? You will hate her, right? It's ironic, but the more you are in love with her, the more you will hate her for deceiving you. It's the same with me and the word "hindu." I love the word so much that I can't stop hating it when it deceives me, and it deceives me many times.
But the sad story is that it is not its fault. It's not exactly your girlfriend's fault if she is being forced or exploited by another man. Politicians and other social groups have used the word "hindu" to their own advantages, and I incurred the loss in the posting in question above when I was afraid that someone would misinterpret me. So I said I hated the word for being so liberal.
But you know what? Its liberty might be the very reason for my loving it too. To draw yet another analogy with your girlfriend, it's is like her being very outgoing and ambitious. That might be the very reason you love her, and yet that might be the very reason she is out of your control. Your male ego wants to take control of her, and sadly, it fails. Similarly, the word "hindu" defies any definition, which by nature tries to control it. And since I cannot define it (but instead let the reader define it as it suits her), I cannot use it the way I want. It defies my grasp. However, since the word "hindu" gives people a chance to use it the way they want to use it, it gives me the same chance too, hence the my love for it. A person can use it to bring peace and harmony in the world, as well as to incite anger and bloodshed. It can be used to bring us under one common umbrella, as well as to divide us in pieces.
P.S. two things: (1) don't be upset with the girlfriend's analogy. take it lightly. I only have good wishes for her and u. :)
(2) keep an eye on sajha_poet's next week's column. It should answer your question more clearly if it is not already answered by this thread by the end of this week. I am trying to persuade him to write on the topic of Hinduism.
|
| bisun |
Posted
on 21-Aug-02 07:20 AM
Nepali_keto:
First, my nick/name is spelt "bisun" and not "visun" (not that I am upset, but just in case you were trying to get it right).
Second, before going any further, let me say that it's futile arguing about religions (again I have a problem with this word, but have no better alternative). The reason is that we can go no where with it: there are no evidences in the field of religion by its very nature; even if there are some, they are so hard to get hands on. If I point to a "source," it will be some sage whose interpretation we have generally accepted, but not something that is true in indisputable sense (and hence room for yet another argument). So I believe there aren't much "facts" and "evidences" there, to draw any conclusion as to what really is. When I (or anyone writing/talking in this field for that matter) say(s) that something "is" in certain way, what I(one) mean(s) is that this is how I(one) interpret(s) it to be or take(s) it to be. There are no "is"es; there are only "might be"s or phrases like "is plausible." The most we can do is trace back some of the religious and spiritual leaders' acts and refer to some texts (sacred or otherwise), authenticity of which will again be questionable as will be the material discussed in those texts and their sources. Most materials found there will be author's own interpretations and value judgments, and not any absolute truth. After all, I think religion is but a collection of values that a society has placed on certain things and that are bound to differ as societies differ. Religions are imaginary lines that divide us, while also providing meaning to our lives. So the best way to deal with a religion is to take it to be imaginary (and mind you, i am not undermining the value of religion by calling it imaginary, since imaginary things can be the most powerful), and not real. The advantage of this approach is that you cannot fight over imaginary things. You can only prove if something is real. My point: if there are no real lines between religions, how can you prove them or even fight over them?
Though I have no authentic source for it, I think most will agree with me when I say that Buddha was born in a largely Hindu community, and so it was natural for the Hindus to think Buddha as one of their own. It is (should i say might be? That will just weaken my sentence, but I think you got my point) true that his teachings largely differed from the mainstream Hinduism of the time. Naturally, some people thought it was according to Hindu norms, whereas others thought it was against them. As "taha cha" has already pointed out, I think Shankaracharya only formalized and proved in certains ways (validity of which are up to you to accept or not) that Buddha's teachings were in accord with the pre-existing norms. This is what, I guess, you might be referrign to when you say that Buddhism was a separate religion, but was later made the part of Hinduism by the high caste priests. If you are familiar with the history of development of Hinduism (and I am sure you are, since you seem to be well read in the field), then you will know that this did not only happen with Buddhism, but also with Shaivism, Shaktism, and others that are now without dispute considered to be the parts of Hinduism. Each sect at first gathered its own followers (and they still have their own followers), and were later amalgamated into Hinduism which was/is just an overall umbrella for various such sects. Now this is upto you to believe what you want to believe. If you can take Shaktism and others to be part of Hinduism, then why not Buddhism? It was acquired into Hinduism in no different way than other sects were.
(to be continued)
|
| bisun |
Posted
on 21-Aug-02 07:22 AM
(continued)
I don't want to argue that Buddhism is a branch or offshoot of Hinduism, because I believe every idea is a novelty in itself, and so was Buddha's idea. But if I had to make such an argument, then I think I could. As I said every idea is a novelty in itself, yet no one can have an absolutely novel idea. Each idea or even belief arises from pre-existing ideas and beliefs. I think Buddha was no exception to this rule. He grew up in a largely Hindu community, and so it is very hard for me to imagine that his ideas and teachings weren’t influenced by the existing norms. He did obviously did a lot of research and discussions with the sages of that time, and must have learnt something out of them. His novelty comes from the fact that he didn't completely agree with what he was given, and so found his own solution and shared it with others who were willing to accept it. But it would be hard to imagine that his solution was not an outcome of the pre-existing largely Hindu society. People must have had difficulty at first to accept his solution (as is the case with most new ideas) into Hinduism, but later must have accepted it. This must have been no different than what happened to Shaivism. Initially Shiva was not an Aryan god, and its followers (largely Dravidiyans (sp?)) were even looked down upon. But later they amalgamated Shiva or Shankar with Rudra, the dancing Aryan god. They became one and only god.
You agreed that in our country Hindus believe that Buddhism is a part of Hinduism. But you were having difficulty putting this fact along side yet another opposing fact that in China and other parts of the world, outside Nepal, people (largely the followers of Buddha) don't believe that. But I just don't understand why that should matter? Why can't we live with contradictory facts? After all, it's just a belief. Let people believe what they want to believe. I would like them to erase the lines if any (since this will only add to stronger unity), but if they are happy being in a enclosed circle of their own, then that is fine too. I think people are just obsessed with identity crisis, and are seeking/making solution to it whenever and however they can, which should also be perfectly fine.
(still to be continued :)
|
| bisun |
Posted
on 21-Aug-02 07:25 AM
(continued: thi is it: I think I am already following Parmendra dai :( I hope some one reads too :))
As to your disagreement with my statement that there is only one god in Hinduism, I would like to cite a dialogue from a Hindu's sacred text. Unfortunately, I forgot the name of the text and even the exact dialogue. I hope some knowledgeable reader will post the correct dialogue later. However, the dialogue is between a well-known and respected Sage and his disciple, and it goes something like this:
Disciple: How many gods are there?
Sage: 330 Millions
Disciple: How many gods there really are?
Sage: 1 million
Disciple: How many gods there really are?
Sage: 1 thousand
Disciple: How many gods there really are?
Sage: one hundred
Disciple: How many gods there really are?
Sage: ten
Disciple: How many gods there really are?
Sage: two
Disciple: How many gods there really are?
Sage: One
So deeper and deeper in reality you go (by asking the "really" questions to yourself), nearer you will reach to the truth, and when you reach there you will see that there is only one god. So it is not surprising that many people believe in 33 "koti" gods, but that's only the surface; one only has to take a deeper dip in the reality to go nearer to the truth.
I can go into how I interpret the "many and one" god idea of Hinduism, and actually love the seemingly contradictory idea, but I think that will just make this posting too long for anyone even to read. So I will just stop here.
|
| DWI |
Posted
on 21-Aug-02 07:34 AM
Did you hear about the atheist Sage and his disciple?
The sage went down to 0 gods. :)
|
| ms |
Posted
on 21-Aug-02 08:54 AM
Hi nepdude,
U being a nepali dude I though you would have little more idea of religions in Nepal, sadly I can't say that I understand them either. But I do have superficial idea of what popular line of thought makes out of Hinduism or Buddhism or any other religion.... it can be read in many of thought posted above.
I think we should not stop from quest of understanding the universe. Ultimately there is only ONE and only ONE truth. All the rest are miss interpretation or miss understanding or just shear ignorance.
Discussion should not be weather Buddhism belongs to Hinduism or if Christianity is any better....
Any following based on faith is wrong... fate is always blind ....
As an intelligent being we should try understanding ………………… discussion should be on how we can go in a path of understanding…. Step by step bit by bit .. learning more…… understanding more…..
|
| sparsha |
Posted
on 21-Aug-02 09:57 AM
Judaism does not consider Christ as a prophet but Islam does. Both Christianity and Islam accept Abraham and Moses as prophets. Christianity does not recognize Mohammad. Hinduism recognize Budhha as it's own and Buddhism also recognize Hindu deities. Sometimes back I read a book on Buddhism (forgot the name) where Brahma and Indra were mentioned as gods. So, I don't think Buddhism to Hinduism is what Christianity/Islam to Judaism.
Obviously, In the Rigved era (the oldest of the four Veds), Indra was the most widely worshipped god. There were no Narayan or Shiva then. Yes Rudra existed but was a very low key god (as Dikpals). Brahma was/is never a widely worshiped god (how many temples are you aware of that are dedicated to Brahma?). Some argue that the concept of Narayan was introduced by former slaves (rebellious) who wanted a god for them. They wished for a god who is merciful, equal to all, peaceful, easily accessible, calm, not impulsive, good listener...etc. unlike Indra. Indra basically was for rich and influential people (just remember how and his kngdom are described in books). Hinduism that we are aware of these days have included many more people into god or saint status.
[As they (Early believers in Hinduism) used to say there is god in everyone. Could it be why they came up with 33 koti deuta idea because the world population at their time was around 33 million?]
Mero bicharma, Buddha neither wanted to be a prophet nor god (as I understood). He was neither against any religion nor was finding a new one. He was not content with what was prevailing around him. So, went out for something else. He introduced what he found. Buddha never wanted clash with others in the name of religion neither should we. It will be a great tribute to Buddha if we could spare him for a competiing religious "war lord" title. Ki kaso?
Bishun, I really enjoyed your posting.
|
| Sangey |
Posted
on 21-Aug-02 10:39 AM
This probably is the right place to mention this:
What do you do if you see Buddha walking on the street?
You kill him.
Think about it.
|
| sparsha |
Posted
on 21-Aug-02 11:09 AM
Sangey,
Your Q&A reminded me a book called "Atitka pailaharu (?)" by Modnath Prashrit. That book is like an autobiography (his). There he mentions how he became a communist (bam panthi). One of the major incidents that showed him the 'bam panthi' way originated from an art exhibition in Butwal. A lot of people protested on his (Prashrit's) piece of art. He had painted Buddha with a gun. "Shanti ka doot with a gun"? Buddhist community got agitated. Administration wanted Prashrit to remove his painting but he refused pointing at the title of his painting. The title read "Buddha yadi aaja bhaidiyeka bhaye".
Well, in Prashrit's case Buddha would have killed people but in your case you are saying people will kill him. But what for?
(I don't think you are talking about my former room mate, Buddha, who till this date has not paid his share of the expenses when we used to share an apartment some ten years ago here in the US, are you? if you are then you are close. I don't think I will kill him literally but would be really mad for his "nakacharo' existence).
|
| bisun |
Posted
on 21-Aug-02 12:37 PM
Sparsha, thank you for your informative posting, and thank you for your kind words. I will keep my fingures on the keyboard as long as at least you enjoy what I write.
|
| sparsha |
Posted
on 21-Aug-02 01:24 PM
"I will keep my fingures on the keyboard as long as at least you enjoy what I write."
I will be interested in what you have to say, Bishun.
My simple point is Hindusim (I also don't feel comfortable with this word but Like you said *no better alternative*) is ever evolving and open system of culture or religion (if someone wants to call it a religion). Hinduism and Buddhism are not two completely distinct religions. We shouldn't say Hinduism to Buddhism (or vice versa) is equal to Judaism to Christianity/Islam (or vice versa). I think.
Hinduism has all kinds of works from all kinds of people-believer in mainstream or otherwise- in it. Rigveda basically is a book on music, as we know. But what does the absence of Shiva, Narayan and influential presence of Indra mean to us? We know the Rigved is the earliest and the Atharwabed is the latest one among four beds. So, we shouldn't assume what Athrwabed (About medicine by Rishi Atharwa) says is true in Rigbed too. Narayan got the momentum during the Upanishad era when slavery system was crumbling down in many parts-esp.in the north- of our subcontinent. Shiva was popular not only in south but in the north as well. In fact, I think Shiva invaded us from the north (Kailash---Jai Sambho!!!). South was not so thoroughly explored when many of Hindu religious books (including Veds) were written.
Books said (says) Yamraj lives in the south (Dikpal for the south). Someone went south meant "went down" (true even today) "khattam bhayo", "Chet". Veds (beds) were written by the scholars in the north. So, for them south was not an attractive place. Remember how Rakshes are described "black complexion, ugly looking, almost naked, man eaters...etc.)". However, people in the north were described as "deb barna" -fair complexion, good looking, with ornaments, luxurious...etc. "rich or full of good atributes". Most of the gods are introduced in the system by the northern scholars/people.
Nepali cinema publication during "Aama" time certainly couldn't have talked about Rajesh Hamal or Jala Shah. Also, how many times do we hear about extras? However, a publication on films today can certainly refer to the stars of yesterdays. As for the extras unless someone emerges out to be a star are ignored.
|
| SITARA |
Posted
on 21-Aug-02 05:15 PM
To the reflective thinkers and the strong arguers:
I am confused as to what you all are arguing about...the only words I recognize are "Hinduism", "Budhhism" "Christianity..."
I think that you guys are each arguing about different things and therefore vassilating between various disciplines;
Religious philosophy cannot be argued in a historical context and vice versa.
Neither can religious politics be argued in a philosophical context. Myths/mythologies can only be translated into a into philosopical context not historical. History demands evidence, philosophy does not. And Carbon 14 dating is not the most accurate dating method yet!! That is why religious history keeps changing as evidence unfolds...
One example is of whether, the Vedic Aryans were an invading race, who invaded and conquered "locasl" the Dravidians. Recent findings have proved not!...little knowledge is dangerous knowledge...as proven by Hitler and his assumptions! But guess what, everybody suffers from it...as long as a precise interpretation of historical data does not exist.
perhaps, if you could clarify the line of discussion (religion in hisorical or philosophical context,)...readers such as I would not be confused, to say the least!
Thank you! :)
|
| nepali_keto |
Posted
on 21-Aug-02 06:36 PM
Aryans actually did invade the Indian subcontinent. Majority of Aryans who invaded South Asia were males. So they had to interbreed with local dravidian women. Mtdna proves this fact. It has been proven that Dalit women are more upwardly mobile than dalit men. Also, high caste WOMEN are more dravidian than high caste MEN.
South Asians are basically mixed. Caste system didn't work that well. We need to get rid of it ASAP.
|
| sparsha |
Posted
on 21-Aug-02 07:00 PM
Sitara,
What is history for you? Define that for me then I will answer.
*...little knowledge is dangerous knowledge...as proven by Hitler and his assumptions..*
When are you gonna get the COMPLETE or WHOLE knowledge on something? Are you gonna keep quite until you are completely enlighted?
|
| SITARA |
Posted
on 21-Aug-02 07:01 PM
Nepali_keto;
I agree on the Caste system!!! It is dysfunctional, should also be obsolete!
As for Vedic/ Aryan invasions; that is an old theory now...Newer findings differ for the time being unless proven otherwise. Some very recent findings indicate so.... The invasion was more of the language... Sankrit was not the original language of Rig vedic people, Prakrit was. Prakrit means "original" Samskrit means "put together". so, it was more of an invasion of Indo-European language.
Anyways, my point was what is the line of discussion here? Philosophy or history?
:)
|
| sparsha |
Posted
on 21-Aug-02 07:05 PM
Correction
When are you gonna get the COMPLETE or WHOLE knowledge on something? Are you gonna keep quiet until you are completely enlighted?
|
| sparsha |
Posted
on 21-Aug-02 07:09 PM
*Sankrit was not the original language of Rig vedic people, Prakrit was. Prakrit means "original" Samskrit means "put together". *
What is your source? and how is Prakrit different from Sanskrit? Can you please furnish some examples for me?
|
| SITARA |
Posted
on 21-Aug-02 07:25 PM
Sparsha: You must be the enlightened one...I certainly can't/won't claim to be. I still happen to be in the quest for knowledge; would like to keep my mind expansive and inclusive enough to include new theories and /or observations! And so it is with an evolving mind of "most" homosapien sapiens.
As for my info on Prakit and Sanskrit;
The Vedic People; Their History and Geography.
Author: Rajesh Kochhar
Director of National Institute of Science, Technology and Development Studies (NISTAD), New Delhi
Published by Orient Longman Limited.
Year 2000
ISBN 8125013849
Sparsha, don't be defensive; it does not suit your "enlightened self". I was asking about the context of the discussion! Sparsha you did not even "Touch" on that.
|
| nepali_keto |
Posted
on 21-Aug-02 07:26 PM
Sitara, you have been visiting too many indocentric sites. Modern science relies heavily on genetic analysis. And guess what they have found out, a typical South Asian is a proto-Asian( mongoloid, which is an anthropological term for oriental people) and caucasian (people from the Middle East, Europe, etc) hybrid, with a teeny bit of australoid admixture.
In reality, it was like this. India used to be occupied by the australoids. Then came the proto-asians. Then came the mediterranean Dravidians, people related to the ancient Sumerians. If you go to Iran or Afghanistan, pure Dravidians known as Brahuis can still be found. They look Middle Eastern. Then came the Aryan invasion, people of Iranian descent. Then came the Scythian invasion, people related to Northern Europeans. Then came the Turkic/Pathan/Muslim invasion. Therefore, we are actually very mixed indeed!
We didn't just burrow the language Sitara. Dravidian women are basically raped and the men slaughtered by Aryan barbarians. The same thing that happened to South America happened in South Asia. South Americans speak Spanish, but are they all Spaniards? Nope! They are mostly mixtures of Native Americans+ Africans+ Europeans.
About Prakrit, according to Wikipidea.com
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Prakrit
"Prakrits are various Indic languages and dialects that developed from Sanskrit. The most popular among them was Pali. Typically they were vernacular languages, often used for ordinary speech while Sanskrit continued to be used as the literary language; some of the Prakrits, however, developed literary languages of their own. We might say that the Prakrits are to Sanskrit as Vulgar Latin and the Romance languages are to Classical Latin.
Some scholars include all modern Indic languages ultimately derived from Sanskrit under the rubric of "Prakrits"; others prefer to designate as Prakrits only dialects and languages that were used between the time of Sanskrit and about 1,000 - 1,200 CE. "
|
| SITARA |
Posted
on 21-Aug-02 07:41 PM
Nepali_keto;
I am not refuting anything you have posted, all I am saying is that historical evidences keep changing, and along with it theories....
Again: My point was, you cannot interague Religious philosophy and religious history and or politics.
As for my reading/s, you have assumed something based on a couple of postings and queries of mine.... I do not think I have to validate or invalidate your assumptions!
...And oh (do you still want to "date" this "petite" Nepali girl..... :) we'd spend quite some quality time expanding our mind!.... :) What say you? :)
|
| nepali_keto |
Posted
on 21-Aug-02 07:44 PM
Me shy with girls, hehehe :). But you sound like a cutie :D.
|
| Junkie |
Posted
on 21-Aug-02 07:50 PM
Bisun: you are confusing the abuser with the abused. Just cuz some people misuse it for religious riots doesn't make hinduism any bad than does ........ one's girlfriend sleeping with many makes the word "love" despicable.
Anyway, mark my use of third person. I said "one's girlfriend" and not "your girlfriend" .... you had me going for a while ..... "Aaye sachai yo Bisun knows my gal or what" ;)
words do bite sometimes for all the wrong reasons ......
|
| SITARA |
Posted
on 21-Aug-02 07:53 PM
Nepali_keto;
shy???????? hmmmmmm ....where did you get that? ;)
Impressed by your research in this subject. Keep your mind open tho, lest you are left hanging on to archaic views!....
Shy huh? :)
Thanks for the compliment!
|
| nepali_keto |
Posted
on 21-Aug-02 07:59 PM
Bisun, wow that was a long article :). We could go on and on about this. It's in vain. You have your own unique views, and i have mine.
|
| sparsha |
Posted
on 21-Aug-02 08:03 PM
Sanskrit has 10 Lakars. Ved is written with all ten lakars. Lakars are like mood in English language. English has four moods, as we know. Other books (except Veds) such as Purans are written in lok sanskrit using other lakars except the 5th (LET lakar) one. Ved sanskrit is considerably different from Lok sanskrit. Ved sanskrit scholar can read lok sanskrit but lok sanskrit scholar will have major difficulty in reading Ved sanskrit. One simple example would be to ask our “Puret” to read Ved. Lok sanskrit is read with swor only not sar but Ved sanskrit is read with swor and sar. Veds talk about Nirakar god.
Here is one of many Vedantic expressions from Geeta, “ Yagyat bhawati parjanyo, prajanyat danna sambhawa:..” It means Yagya bata barsha hunchha, barsa bhaye pachhi anna ubjanchha…” So, Ved was not asking people to do Yagnya only to secure a seat next to Indra in heaven.
In Ved for “ja” pet fareko [kateko as “sha” in shadayantra (in Ved sanskrit it’s pronounced as Khadayantra)] ya is used not dadoo ja. I believe, Rigved is written in Sanskrit not Prakrit. I am willing to be corrected though. What I realize, however, is that Sanskrit may also have developed from some other languages or it may have developed through its sars. Ved sanskrit is very much a closed- static-language not dynamic.
|
| nepali_keto |
Posted
on 21-Aug-02 08:05 PM
I always keep my mind open. If scientists, some day, come up with a version that cannot be disputed ( theory, and not just hypothesis) then I might change my views.
Yeah, shy. But funny :)
|
| ? |
Posted
on 21-Aug-02 08:21 PM
I found this rather interesting. Please read it even though it's pretty long.
BUDDHISM, THE FULFILMENT OF HINDUISM
By: Swami Vivekananda, at Chicago, Parliament of Religions(26th Sept. 1893)
I am not a Buddhist, as you have heard, and yet I am. If China, or Japan, or
Ceylon follow the teachings of the Great Master, India worships him as God-
incarnate on earth. You have just now heard that I am going to criticise
Buddhism, but by that I wish you to understand only this. Far be it from me
to criticise him whom I worship as God incarnate on earth. But our views
about Buddha are that he was not understood properly by his disciples. The
relation between Hinduism (by Hindusim, I mean the religion of the Vedas) and
what is called Buddhism, at the present day is nearly the same as between
Judaism and Christianity. Jesus Christ was a Jew, and Shakya Muni was a Hindu.
The Jews rejected Jesus Christ, nay, crucified him, and the Hindus have accept-
ed Shakya Muni as God and worship him. But the real difference that we Hindus
want to show between modern Buddhism and what we should understand as the
teachings of Lord Buddha lies principally in this: Shakya Muni came to preach
nothing new. He also, like Jesus, came to fulfil and not to destroy. Only, in
the case of Jesus, it was the old people, the Jews, who did not understand
him, while in the case of Buddha, it was his own followers who did not realise
the import of his teachings. As the Jew did not understand the fulfilment of
the Old Testament, so the Buddhist did not understand the fulfilment of the
truths of the Hindu religion. Again I repeat, Shakya Muni came not to destroy,
but he was the fulfilment, the logical conclusion, the logical development of
the religion of the Hindus.
The religion of the Hindus is divided into two parts: the ceremonial and
the spiritual. The spiritual portion is specially studied by the monks.
In that there is no caste. A man from the highest caste and a man from the
lowest may become a monk in India, and the two castes become equal. In religion
there is no caste; caste is simply a social institution, Shakya Muni himself
was a monk, and it was his glory that he had the large-heartedness to bring
out the truths from the hidden Vedas and throw them broadcast all over the
world. He was the first being in the world who brought missionarising into
practice - nay, he was the first to conceive the idea of proslytising.
The great glory of the Master lay in his wonderful sympathy for everybody,
especially for the ignorant and the poor. Some of his disciples were Brahmins.
When Buddha was teaching, Sanskrit was no more the spoken language in India.
It was then only in the books of the learned. Some of Buddha's Brahmin
disciples wanted to translate his teachings into Sanskrit, but he distinctly
told them, "I am for the poor, for the people; let me speak in the tongue of
the people." And so to this day the great bulk of his teachings are in the
vernacular of that day in India.
Whatever may be the position of philosophy, whatever may be the position
of metaphysics, so long as there is such a thing as death in the world, so
long as there is such a thing as weakness in the human heart, so long as there
is a cry going out of the heart of man in his very weakness, there shall be a
faith in God.
On the philosophic side the disciples of the Great Master dashed themselves
against the eternal rocks of the Vedas and could not crush them, and on the
other side they took away from the nation that eternal God to which every one,
man or woman, clings so fondly. And the result was that Buddhism had to die a
natural death in India.
But at the same time, Braminism lost something - that reforming zeal, that
wonderful sympathy and charity for everubody, that wonderful leaven which
Buddhism had brought to the masses and which had rendred Indian society so
great that a Greek historian who wrote about India of that time was led to
say that no Hindu was known to tell an untruth and no Hindu woman was known
to be unchaste.
Hinduism cannot live without Buddhism, nor Buddhism without Hinduism. Then
realise what the separation has shown to us, that the Buddhists cannot stand
without the brain and philosophy of the Brahmins, nor the Brahmin without the
heart of the Buddhist. This separation between the Buddhists and the Brahmins
is the cause of the downfall of India. That is why India is populated by
three hundred millions of beggers, and that is why India has been the slave of
conquerors for the last thousand years. Let us then join the wonderful
intellect of the Brahmins with the heart, the noble soul, the wonderful
humanising power of the Great Master.
|
| SITARA |
Posted
on 21-Aug-02 08:42 PM
?....Bravo!!!
And I rest my case!
And, to all those "enlightened" intellectuals, who refer to internet websites,...It is easier to post fallacies on a bought domain than it is to publish a book!! The critiques are harder on research findings! Unless the websites are "scientific" journals!
nepali_keto...Smart thinking! Yes, you are funny! :)
|
| nepali_keto |
Posted
on 21-Aug-02 09:01 PM
Yes, I am, ain't I? :). Anyways, I gotta sleep...It's 10 pm already. Ciao.
|
| ? |
Posted
on 21-Aug-02 09:38 PM
You still holding on to the Aryan Invasion myth. When do people realize that it was the same mythical feel superior theory deployed by German Nationalist to systematically eradicate 6 mil jews and the same theory used by the British Colonials to divide the Indian Subcontinental people and rule them. Max Muller, I heartily condemn you but what can I say, your legacy remains, and people are actually stupid to blindingly follow it. My advice to all those interested in vedic civilization is avoid the interpretation of our vast culture and civilization especially by the europeans of the late 19th century.
|
| SITARA |
Posted
on 21-Aug-02 09:53 PM
?...Were you referring to me?
no one was addressed in your posting.
|
| ? |
Posted
on 21-Aug-02 10:04 PM
Not you :). This one was addressed to nepali_keto. I realized his posting only when I scrolled up (hadn't seen it before). So I was tempted to reply given the provocative nature of his/her posting.
|
| SITARA |
Posted
on 21-Aug-02 10:20 PM
? thank you! Did not want to be condemned by another for NOT buying into one theory!
Has anyone read "Krishnamurti's" Writings????? He is one of the more logical (yet considered radical) thinkers. His line of questioning coaxes one to reflect upon vested interests in certain theory projections...
VivekAnand 's Warrior saint and Khaptad Baba's "Bichar Bigyan" are also interesting readings!
Interested if anyone has.
|
| taha cha |
Posted
on 21-Aug-02 10:54 PM
I am over joyed by this thread.
Thank you to ?, Bisun, SITARA and many others for such a great insight.
Sitara, I have read Khaptad Baba's Vichar Vigyan and some books on Krishnamurty's. I had a close friend in Nepal he was devoted to Krishnamurty's teachings. He had educated me and persuaded me to read some of the writings of Krishnamurty. Krishnamurty is a great philoshopher. Krishnamurty's teachings should be read in the light of the "knowledge" to be understood. It is almost impossible to understand his teachings without the understanding of deeper concepts of philosophy, which could be only understood by practice. What I mean is Krishnamurty speaks in the light of knowledge to understand his views it is necessary to "experience" some of the "self" or "truth" or "gyana" or "knowledge". Even though Krishnamurti speaks a very common and simple language his teachings are as deep as any one can go.
Khaptad Baba's Vichar Vigyan is amazing and it changed my life. I had the privileged of knowing baba personally and experiencing his knowledge and kindness. All I can say is he was a great man.
Have you read the Autobiography of a Yogi by Yogananda? or the autobiography of Rama Krishna? These books are worth reading.
Regards.
|
| SITARA |
Posted
on 21-Aug-02 11:05 PM
taha cha: Absolutely delighted to read your posts:
I have not read those but will keep that in mind...(Reading is my 1st love!! :)
the philosophy of" Atma gyan" is amazing...Know yourself and you will know the whole world! You will learn to appreciate the similiarities and accept the differences...because we are all part of a whole!
Hence, why I don't believe in "organized" religion...The philosophy of life and living is so simple and yet so deep that all else is irrelevant and mundane!
thanks :)...Now I know what we are talking about...Philosophy of life :)
|
| taha cha |
Posted
on 22-Aug-02 01:39 AM
Sitara,
I am gald that you like my views.
There are good and bad sides of organized and non-organized relegion. I think we should take the good sides of both and benefit fromt both sides. Khaptad baba used to say that he learns from every one from arogant pandits to self proclaimed vidwans. He used to say they all have some good things to say. I like that approach better.
You are absolutely right we are all looking for the philoshpopy of life. I think that we are all looking to fulfill some unanswered questions. Like the quest of Buddha. We all have a little Buddha in ourself. But philoshopy in-itself is not the goal. Philoshopy is the path, Truth is the goal. Once the traveller reaches the goal he ababdons the path. Same thing with philoshopy. Philoshopy is there to guide to the destination but once you reach the destination the path can be abondoned.
Regards.
|
| bisun |
Posted
on 22-Aug-02 08:06 AM
wow. this is really great. so much intput from so many people. I dont' have time right now to read through all or to comment on them, but probably will do in the evening when I get back from the office. For now I would just like to try and heal Junkie's heart:
Junkie: My words seem to have bitten you which I was afraid of. Anyway I could have used the third person, and saved myself, but now that I am already in your grip, let me escape by saying that I used the second person purely for rhetorical purposes, and not because of any personal thing. Rest assure, I know neither you nor your girlfriend. The second person, btw, though seemingly addressing you was meant to address any general reader. So it wasn't specifically to you. I had given a fictious girlfriend to those readers who belonged to FOSLA. Anyway, sorry for if I failed to convey the humor, then it was my fault.
I am not confusing the "abuser" with the "abused," they are confusing me :) I didn't say I didn't always liked the word "hinduism," I only didn't like it when its use meant that there was some high probability of getting misinterpreted.
For others: I might have more to say later, but I was hoping someone would strip my arguments/points to bare bones.
|
| bisun |
Posted
on 22-Aug-02 08:08 AM
wow. this is really great. so much intput from so many people. I dont' have time right now to read through all or to comment on them, but probably will do in the evening when I get back from the office. For now I would just like to try and heal Junkie's heart:
Junkie: My words seem to have bitten you which I was afraid of. Anyway I could have used the third person, and saved myself, but now that I am already in your grip, let me escape by saying that I used the second person purely for rhetorical purposes, and not because of any personal thing. Rest assure, I know neither you nor your girlfriend. The second person, btw, though seemingly addressing you was meant to address any general reader. So it wasn't specifically to you. I had given a fictious girlfriend to those readers who belonged to FOSLA. Anyway, sorry for if I failed to convey the humor, then it was my fault.
I am not confusing the "abuser" with the "abused," they are confusing me :) I didn't say I didn't always liked the word "hinduism," I only didn't like it when its use meant that there was some high probability of getting misinterpreted.
For others: I might have more to say later, but I was hoping someone would strip my arguments/points to bare bones.
|
| Junkie |
Posted
on 22-Aug-02 06:51 PM
Aah Bisun
humor is what I live for ..... drugs or no drugs ;) ...... I Knew you don't know my gf ..... cuz even I don't know who or where she is ..... *oink*
Anyway what in the holy cow's name is FOSLA .....
Laugh with the world .....
|
| bisun |
Posted
on 22-Aug-02 08:58 PM
"You have your own unique views, and i have mine."
---nepali_keto
And that is a gift; else how would would we discuss and learn from each other? If we all had the same view, that would be terrible. Not only life will be boring, but we won't progress. And the worst, there wouldn't be this thread. So cheers to our differences.
|
| bisun |
Posted
on 22-Aug-02 09:26 PM
Sitara:
"I am confused as to what you all are arguing about.."
Initially we were arguing whether Hindus were wrong to call "Buddhism" a part of their religion. But then we only started commenting on each other's post, sometimes agreeing and sometimes disagreeing. A few like Sparsha and nepali_keto provided us with informative posting, others provided us with their analyses. Some with humors, others with gravity of thought. So it might have been natural for you to get confused, because we stopped arguing on the way, but still kept teaching each others.
"Religious philosophy cannot be argued in a historical context and vice versa.
Neither can religious politics be argued in a philosophical context."
I thought muti angled approach was always better. There are no definite lines between disciplines.
"History demands evidence, philosophy does not."
Philosophy also demands evidence, albeit of different sort.
"That is why religious history keeps changing as evidence unfolds... "
This is true of any branch of knowledge, not only religious history.
"little knowledge is dangerous knowledge..."
I will ask you the same question as Saparsh did. I am with her on this.
|
| bisun |
Posted
on 22-Aug-02 09:35 PM
"Sparsha, don't be defensive"
--- Sitara
Sitara, I am not taking sides here ( at least not because she is a girl hehehe), but it never crossed my mind that she was being defensive. I thought her earlier questions were only rhetorical, and I think that was the best way to answer your posting. I would have done the same. The later questions only asked for the source of your evidences, which I think is a sign of a curious and critical readers. I don't think she meant anything personal. I am sure she would have still asked those questions had you been her most dearest person.
|
| bisun |
Posted
on 22-Aug-02 09:45 PM
"Hence, why I don't believe in "organized" religion.."
Me too :)
"Now I know what we are talking about...Philosophy of life :) "
I am so glad you did. But I am still trying to figure out. Knowing where you are going is always a good thing.
|
| bisun |
Posted
on 22-Aug-02 09:52 PM
Sitara, it seems today I am only commening on your postings. I hope I am not being biased on one way or the other.
To the rest especially, ?, sparsha, and taha chha, I would just like to say thanks. your postings were really insightful and i read them thoroughly. My reason for not commenting on them is that i just couldn't find anything interesting to say. I basically agree with most of what you have to say.
|
| bisun |
Posted
on 22-Aug-02 09:58 PM
?:
thank you for posting Vivekananda's article. It was insightful, except that I think he was jumping to conclusioins in the last few sentenes of the last paragraph.
|
| SITARA |
Posted
on 22-Aug-02 10:17 PM
Bisun ji thank you for your comments!!!...
I know where I am, I don't really know where I am going, but do have a vision of where I would like to be!
:) Does that make sense?
Philosophy is a way of life for me and helps me keep focused on the realities.....
As for claiming "rhetorical" enlightenment...... that is definitely not my cup of tea! George Bush has the "rhetorical" habit of doing that! Does not come across very palatable!
As for organized religion?.....I'm glad we agree on that! :
Vive La Difference! But one cannot write off someone else's difference as "rhetorical" ignorance........ I think this thread commands too much respectibility for that......
Having an "educated " argument is a far cry from "proving" a point by any "rhetorical" means/denouncements. (my opinions entirely! :)
|
| bisun |
Posted
on 23-Aug-02 08:07 AM
hello Sitara ji (aba hami ek arkalai ji-ji bhanne ki kya ho :):
"I know where I am, I don't really know where I am going, but do have a vision of where I would like to be!
:) Does that make sense?"
Yest, makes perfect sense. Most great people I have known feel the same way.
"But one cannot write off someone else's difference as "rhetorical" ignorance........ I think this thread commands too much respectibility for that...... "
couldn't figure out what you were referring to.
"George Bush has the "rhetorical" habit of doing that! "
didn't know that.
Anyway, asking rhetorical questions (though you and I might be talking about two different things as it seems as far as "rhetorical" is concerned) certainly makes a pooint prominent, as Sparsha seems to have proved it. Her questions did get up to you, but unfortunately you only seem to have taken it negatively.
"Having an "educated " argument is a far cry from "proving" a point by any "rhetorical" means/denouncements. (my opinions entirely! :) "
I totatally agree with you. I never meant to say that rhetorical phrases are all that we should aspire for. Those phrases are means to effective communication (only if used properly of course, and not in mean or denouncing ways), and not ends in themselves. But I just thought Sparsh wasn't trying to be mean/denouncing. I think her aim was only to make you reflective and guide you to your own answers, rather than being mean. That's what I read her as, and I would have read her similarly even if she had thrown the very same questions at me too.
Anway, I hope you don't read me as fighting :)
|
| sparsha |
Posted
on 23-Aug-02 09:27 AM
Sitara,
I was/am not being defensive. As Bishun said I was only curious and needed some clear definition to respond.
I also have learned many things from your postings for free.
I am reading this thread with serious interest.
|
| nepali_keto |
Posted
on 23-Aug-02 05:52 PM
Bisun
Hinduism has incorporated many different religions brought to the Indian subcontinent by the invaders. First and foremost, Shiva is an indigenous ("indigenous", being a relative term, since, in reality, there has ***always*** been population movements, and the dravidians are related to the Sumerians/Elamites) deity. Pashupati is supposedly the earliest depiction of Shiva. Gods like Indra and Agni were later imported when Aryans invaded the subcontinent. Still later, Scythians and Huns invaded the subcontinent, bringing with them their own religion and views. This too got incorporated into the ever-changing religion of the subcontinent. I mention all this to show you how dynamic Hinduism has been historically.
Now to the point. To limit Hinduism as only monotheistic is wrong as that is only ONE philosophy! The reason why Hindus are so adamant in making Hinduism monotheistic is due to post-colonial inferiority complex. So, due to this, Hindus have tried to Semiticize Hinduism. Hinduism is a way of life, and not just a religion. There are no Hindu fundamentals. We don't have a holy book, we don't have a pope, we don't have only one philosophy,we don't have only one way to do things, and so on. Since this is the case, we cannot really claim Hinduism to be only monotheistic. We cannot just ignore all the polytheistic aspects.
As for Buddhism being part of Hinduism, I guess we should just settle the argument with this. it just depends on the person's cultural affiliation. A Chinese Buddhist does not think that Buddhism is a branch of Hinduism. But a Hindu does. Buddha certainly was influenced by Vedas, Upanishads, and philosophies of his time. He, however, totally rejected the caste system.
|
| SITARA |
Posted
on 23-Aug-02 05:56 PM
Bishun-ji,
Thanks........ Are you one of the enlightened ones too? You do sound like them!! Pardon my intense observations! ;)
Sparsha-ji,
Free???
I thought this was an exchange of info........ ;)
but you are very gracious!
I must say...this is one of the best threads I have read... among a few others which are just hilarious!....
you know......if one believes in the "big bang" theory (scientifically or philosophically) or energy theory,...we are all made of star dust! So, there is no difference between the philosophies of religion (only the practice)....hence there is no difference between any one of us. Our internal energyies has to align with the external elemental energy which then aligns with the Universal energy. Religion is only a medium to achieve this hoina?
...But I am wandering from the track I think. :)
|
| nepali_keto |
Posted
on 23-Aug-02 05:59 PM
To "?", regarding this message,
"You still holding on to the Aryan Invasion myth. When do people realize that it was the same mythical feel superior theory deployed by German Nationalist to systematically eradicate 6 mil jews and the same theory used by the British Colonials to divide the Indian Subcontinental people and rule them. Max Muller, I heartily condemn you but what can I say, your legacy remains, and people are actually stupid to blindingly follow it. My advice to all those interested in vedic civilization is avoid the interpretation of our vast culture and civilization especially by the europeans of the late 19th century. "
About a year ago, Scientists conducted genetic tests on a group of individuals of diverse backgrounds in Southern India. Do you know what they came up with? They found out that genes of higher castes were more European than genes of lower castes, which were more Asian. Mind you, this was done in South India. Indocentrists do not believe in the Aryan Invasion theory, but there are way too many pieces of evidence that support it. Just coincidences? I don't think so. This did happen, and I am not going to deny it.
|
| SITARA |
Posted
on 23-Aug-02 06:06 PM
Nepali_Keto:
You back here????? :) Nice to see you on "this" thread!! ;)
In case you are interested, homosapien sapiens evolved out of Africa!!!......So.......we all have African Ancesters...Would you deny that?????????
|
| nepali_keto |
Posted
on 23-Aug-02 06:08 PM
Also, read this:
http://members.tripod.com/~tanmoy/bengal/races.html
"
mtDNA
Early mitochondrial DNA (which is maternally inherited) studies indicated that a vast number of Indian mtDNA lineages cluster with the East Asians, probably reflecting the proto-Dravidian. They also seem to be closely related to African (e.g. Ethiopian) populations, probably indicative of the Australoid-Veddoid substratum.
Modern studies indicate that the major mtDNA lineages in India belong to the typically asian M haplogroup, whose Indian variety probably originated around 48000 +/- 1500 years before present (i.e. about 46000 BC). This haplogroup shows no statistically significant linkage with caste as a whole. The lineages in this haplogroup do not segregate according to linguistic family, but some specifically Indian lineages (e.g. M3) correlate with the upper castes.
The second most common haplotype, the U2i, separated from an West Eurasian lineage around 53000 +/- 4000 before present (i.e. about 51000 BC). This one is strongly correlated with caste; the upper castes having these in the highest proportion. A small fraction of the Indian population (about 5-10%) belongs to lineages (W,H,K in upper castes; J,T in other castes) also common in Europe, and which have more recent divergence dates. They probably have caste linkages, but the data set is, as yet, too small to be definite. Also, the divergence times have not been estimated, so it is difficult to pinpoint which migration this refers to.
Previous research, which had not detected the caste linkage of the European haplotypes had concluded that, assuming they were largely of Western Eurasian origin (e.g. in accord with the Dravidian-protoElamite or the Indo-european hypothesis), the divergence time is about 9300 +/- 3000 BP (i.e. about 7300 BC), which is deduced as an average over various number of unknown founders (i.e. gradual migration model, rather than concentrated invasion model). Some minor geographical gradients from the Punjab to the Andhra in distribution of European haplotypes also needs further study
Y chromosome
The Y chromosome (which is paternally inherited) data is broadly similar. India groups clearly with the South/Southeast Asia cluster. The major European haplotype is pretty rare, but some European haplotypes are found amongst the upper castes, and in Punjab and Pakistan. A North African/Middle Eastern variety is found at low levels all over India, but many of the Indian haplotypes seem to be of Indian origin, possibly due to genetic drift in small endogamous units. The interesting aspect is the much stronger caste linkage in the genetic distance between the Indian and European populations found in these studies compared to those dealing with the maternally inherited mtDNA, though control over statistical and systematic errors is still lacking; as also estimates of divergence times.
Autosomal DNA
A similar caste linkage is also found in the autosomal studies: overall upper caste Indians are significantly closer to Europeans than other Indians. However, divergence times estimates are still lacking.
"
|
| nepali_keto |
Posted
on 23-Aug-02 06:10 PM
No Sitara, I wouldn't deny that. But there are two versions:
1. Out of Africa theory that you mentioned.
2. Another is that we came out of Africa and mixed with local "humans". For instance, Europeans are supposedly mixed with Neanderthals. I dunno what we're mixed with, according to this theory.
|
| suna |
Posted
on 23-Aug-02 06:43 PM
Sitara
so the missing link would be the Africans?
Just a thought....
|
| ? |
Posted
on 23-Aug-02 07:10 PM
Aryan Invasion Theory was put foward by Friedrich Max Muller, a nineteenth century german Indologist. He was not an archeologist by any means. His background also showed him as a fervent nationalist and if you've ever read his book, you could see that his politics has very much disoriented his findings. His theory in its original form was drafted to point out the similarities between the latin rooted western languages and Sanskrit. Remember this was the exact period when Germany united under the banner of prussia and was victorious against its arch enemy, France. Since the language turned out to be similar and given his political background, he had formulated the aryan invasion theory to claim the superiority of the his race of the 'aryan' race. He claimed that Aryan were nomads from central asia. They were skilled fighters(who rode charriots), and had a sophisticated culture and language( sanskrit). Mine and many others first contradictory point is: how can a nomadic tribe be so civilized? For a civilization to prosper, the first factor is immobility. People have to settle down, create society and henceforth unless you dont believe in evolution which brings me to my next point:
Muller was also a very religious protestant. It's a proven fact that Vedas, particularly Rg veda was written around 5000-3000BC. But in christianity, world was created on 9:00 am on 23 october 4004bce. He therefore, states that Rg veda was dated around 1200 BCE(for the credit of being the oldest written scripture alive). Now, I find this rather humorous and wonderous because, the bible says the world was created on 4004 BCE, then came the biblical flood which started around 2448. Lets say, the flood subsided in 1000 years, then we're left with 1448 BCE. Aforementioned muller states that rg veda was written around 1200 BCE. So my calculation says, in the span of 250 years, aryans invaded india (a sizable population of dravids), developed a sophisticated vedic culture and managed to spread around the entire subcontinent? Full of contradictions.
I don't have a problem with your so called DNA analysis and henceforth, it may hold true even though you don't list a valid source( at least not to my satisfaction). People may have immigrated from europe/central asia to india and may have developed a culture. Or maybe not, they were just displaced because the teutonic plates were moving rather rapidly seperating the continents. But that would have to be a very long time ago, say a several 10,000 years. They may have come to the Indian subcontinent, mingled with the native poputation and mutually created a civilization. I think that would've been reasonable. But the theory that a nomadic tribe marching in chariots (on mountains) conquering a rather advanced civilization in India. If that hold true, they were able to brain wash the local population of its entire history. It is very disbelievable, at least to my senses, when I look the views of the original person who started it all, muller.
|
| ? |
Posted
on 23-Aug-02 07:29 PM
Refined this of grammatical errors:
Aryan Invasion Theory was put foward by Friedrich Max Muller, a nineteenth century german Indologist. He was not an archeologist by any means. His background also showed him as a fervent nationalist and if you've ever read his book, you could see that his politics has very much disoriented his findings. His theory in its original form was drafted to point out the similarities between the latin rooted western languages and Sanskrit. Remember this was the exact period when Germany united under the banner of prussia and was victorious against its arch enemy, France. Since the language turned out to be similar and given his political background, he had formulated the aryan invasion theory to claim the superiority of the his teutonic race or the 'aryan' race. He claimed that Aryan were nomads from central asia. They were skilled fighters(who rode charriots), and had a sophisticated culture and language( sanskrit). My first contradictory point is: how can a nomadic tribe be so civilized? For a civilization to prosper, the first factor is immobility. People have to settle down, create society and henceforth unless you dont believe in evolution, which brings me to my next point:
Muller was also a very religious protestant. It's a proven fact that Vedas, particularly Rg veda was written around 5000-3000BC. But in christianity, world was created on 9:00 am on 23 october 4004bce. He therefore, states that Rg veda was dated around 1200 BCE(for the credit of being the oldest written scripture alive). Now, I find this rather humorous and wonderous because, the bible says the world was created on 4004 BCE, then came the biblical flood which started around 2448. Lets say, the flood subsided in 1000 years, then we're left with 1448 BCE. Aforementioned muller states that rg veda was written around 1200 BCE. So my calculation says, in the span of 250 years, aryans invaded india (a sizable population of dravids), developed a sophisticated vedic culture and managed to spread around the entire subcontinent? Full of contradictions.
I don't have a problem with your so called DNA analysis and henceforth, it may hold true even though you don't list a valid source( at least not to my satisfaction). People may have immigrated from europe/central asia to india and may have developed a culture. But that would have to be a very long time ago, say a several 10,000 years. Or maybe not, they were just displaced because the continental plates were moving rather rapidly seperating the continents. They may have come to the Indian subcontinent, mingled with the native poputation and mutually created a civilization. Reasonably thinking, that would've been somewhat acceptable. But the theory is that a nomadic tribe marching in chariots (on mountains) conquering a rather advanced civilization in India. If it were to hold true, they were able to brain wash the local population of its entire history(???). It is very disbelievable, at least to my senses, when I look at the views of the original person who started it all, muller.
|
| nepali_keto |
Posted
on 23-Aug-02 08:06 PM
Things have changed since Muller. Many things that Muller claimed are outdated today. Anyway, I do not believe that the original Aryans were of Northern European stock. I believe they were of Iranian stock. Iranians do cluster with Europeans. Perhaps the "European" genes they're referring to came to us from the Iranians? The zoroastrian book Avesta is very similar to the Rigveda. Vedic Sanskrit and the Avestan language are also very close linguistically. "Iran" by the way means "Aryan".
I never claimed that Aryans were civilized. They were barbarians. They raped and plundered and pillaged. Since males were the ones that came to India, they had no other choice but to breed with local women.
Rigveda was actually written well before 1500 BC. Aryans brought it to India with them. The Avesta does talk about a "Northern" homeland.
We'll never know the truth until someone invents the time machine....
|
| nepdude |
Posted
on 23-Aug-02 09:23 PM
As for beign the one that started this thread, I would liek to thank you all, hsve definately learnt alot about Buddhism here.....hehe. My original question still lies unanswered are Nepali Buddhists primarily only Tibeto descendants, or are there Baun, Chettri, Newar haru that are also Buddhists? I know ppl here might be impulsed to answer "you are Buddhists by heart, it doesnt matter who you are and where you are from"........ and so on. I am not looking for philosophical question rather just basic statistics on the enthography of Nepali Buddhists. Anyone know about it?
|
| ? |
Posted
on 23-Aug-02 09:25 PM
The demographics in India is such that to the north you see people with fairer skin and to the south, you find dark skinned people. So, if there were to be an invasion, you ought to see a fairly homogeneous population by now. Yet you see people with distinct physical features in the north and in the south. The criteria of migration certainly holds to support such an observation. But the I reject the notion that a certain stock of people(aryan?) came to India, pillaged or whatever, and built their society burdening the local indigent population.
Futher, you must remember the harrapan civilization(est 7000-2000BCE) and the subsequent vedic civilization was formed on the basin of saraswati river(while the latter being based on ganga river because saraswati went dry) on the extreme north west India, which actually is rather consistent with your definition of aryan people. And people with same features, extend from that part to central Iran. My guess is that the civilzation flourished, developed an advance culture and disseminated subsequently to the other parts of the country or even the continent. Henceforth, you see similarity(cognates) in latin and Sanskrit. In linguistic context, aryan or arya means noble or good hearted and is not a racial term. At its glory, the adherents of vedic religion spun from the indian subcontinent to the far corners of persia and even in islandic countries like Indonesia( Bali, being an example in modern times)
Even if there were to be a large scale invasion, you'd have to have proof of such(like fossils or a sign of large scale war), and the current empirical facts and what is suggested completely contradicts each other. In conclusion it makes me believe that the invasion was simply a 'myth'. A myth put forwarded by a somewhat misguided eugenists(muller) but subsequently popularized in the main stream by his misguided followers. Even if you claim facts, those items can be implied to suggest numeral contradictory things at the same time. After all, nobody has actually seen what happened. The cynicism, however, comes from the fact that how the originator(muller) started the whole idea and what purpose did it meant to serve him(feel good about one's race??).
Genetics may tell you the make up of a person, but it wont tell you how and what they've been thru.
|
| nepdude |
Posted
on 23-Aug-02 09:27 PM
I am talking about Buddhists who follow only Buddhism, I know many Hindus follow/respect Buddha, but for my question above I am refering to Buddhists who usually dont tend to follow Hinduism as well.
|
| nepali_keto |
Posted
on 23-Aug-02 09:42 PM
Nepdude,many Newars are Buddhists. Virtually all Bahuns and Chettris are Hindus. People usually presume that Nepalis look oriental, that's all.
|
| SITARA |
Posted
on 23-Aug-02 10:38 PM
Nepe dude.....:)
Sorry we strayed away from the topic!!!
But, most Tibeto Burman languages speaking people lean toward Buddhism.......
|
| czar |
Posted
on 23-Aug-02 11:20 PM
Learned folk,
Ever given thought to Erik von Daniken's musings that earth was colonized by aliens ? That the differences so thoroughly dwelt upon in the preceding passages above are merely the result of aliens interbreeding with the different species of evolving 'man?'
Does that perhaps explain the development of the 'sentient' beings that today is you and I ? Mere speculation, but that would be quite a twist to the tale.
|
| SITARA |
Posted
on 23-Aug-02 11:40 PM
CZAR!.......sci-fi !!! the modern religion of space again!!!!!!
you hit it!!
|
| conscience |
Posted
on 24-Aug-02 06:50 AM
hey nep dude..
for ur kind info..there r lots of newars like bajracharya,shakyas,tuladhars..who r buddhists..about bahuns n chettri..i 'm totally naive...frankly speaking i have never come across a buddhist bahun /chettri..Being born as a sherpa,i follow theraveda buddhism{one which believes in 4 noble truths dukha,magga,samodaya,nirodha}....inspite of being born in an orthodox family,i was told to respect GOD IN ALL FORMS..which i do...n i hope the same from all the nepalese..
As for a reply to bisun:
I thought prince siddhartha was fed up of sufferings in the physical world...which resulted in his thirst for NIRVANA...the day he got MOKSHA he was regarded as gautam buddha n then he started preaching about what he felt n what he gained during his years of constant meditation...after him,there were lots of followers..who believed in different theroies,resulting in various forms of buddhism...however the basic was PEACE..my point for telling all this britanta is just that i don't see any hinduism involved here.....so i was just wondering .........
one more thing..u might be surprised to hear this but this is fact..IN CHINA..only about 20% of the total population believe in GOD...amongst which 15% is buddhists n 5% is christians....the rest they believe in hard work....no wonder CHINA IS A DEVELOPED NATION NOW....
peaceeeee
|
| dirk |
Posted
on 24-Aug-02 09:48 AM
Nepdude,
The Newari clans of Manandhars, Shakyas, Bajracharyas, Tuladhars, Dhakwas, Tamrakars..etc., are Buddhists..FYI
As for the Aryans, I believe they originated somewhere in Central Asia....one strand moved northwards to Europe and the other to Iran and the Subcontinent. Over hundreds of years of evolution, the skin color and physical appearance changed dddue to diet, climate..etc.
|
| bisun |
Posted
on 24-Aug-02 09:48 AM
Sitara ji:
"Thanks........ Are you one of the enlightened ones too? You do sound like them!! Pardon my intense observations! ;) "
So now after leaving Sparsh off your claws, you are holding me in your grip, right? Well I am not going to try to escape. I am just going to make a cliche more cliched by saying that you have the right to your opinion. It's just that I don't want to use the same right to my opinion on this particular topic. :)
Both to Sitara and Sparsha: it's "bisun," not "bishun"
|
| bisun |
Posted
on 24-Aug-02 09:53 AM
nepali_keto:
"Hinduism has incorporated many different religions... First and foremost, Shiva is an indigenous... deity"
I thought I said the same thing. Yea, I agree with you.
"To limit Hinduism as only monotheistic is wrong as that is only ONE philosophy!"
Yea, I know. I would hate to do that :) I believe in many gods, that's why I believe in one god.
|
| SITARA |
Posted
on 24-Aug-02 10:04 AM
Bisun ji......
I truly appologize about the spelling.... while I am at it, how do I pronounce it?
Bi (with a "y" sound...? or "ee" sound") sun (with a "oo" sound or "u")....
I would like to be politically correct....:)
As for opinions, "You are enlightened" I humbly opine!!! :) I am entitled to that am I not?
Keep writing please...I enjoy reading this thread!
|
| dirk |
Posted
on 24-Aug-02 10:13 AM
Bisun-ji, any relation to Kisun-ji?
Just wondering
|
| SITARA |
Posted
on 24-Aug-02 10:22 AM
Dirk......me too wondering!! :)
Aren't they both "Surya Bangshi"??? very intriguing!
hehehe!!! Sorry Bisun ji........ I am open for any kind of information.... even comparative studies!! "Na risaoonoo hai please?"
|
| bisun |
Posted
on 24-Aug-02 10:27 AM
Sitara ji:
It's pronounced just as you would pronounce the english phrase "be soon," with the exception that the "oo" sound be substituted with "u" sound, i.e. a shorter "oo."
Dirk: Kisun ji and I are old pals from our past lives :)
|
| bisun |
Posted
on 24-Aug-02 10:36 AM
Sitara ji:
you seem to be my close friend, else you wouldn't know about the "surya bangshi" theory/hypo, whatever you call it. But still do keep my personal info out of the public threads. I hope I can make that request. Actually it doesn't really matter to me that much (and I myself never actually lie about my info without a god reason), but I think it wouldn't be a good idea to make this thread a thread of personal discussion. Let us not stray too much.
|
| bisun |
Posted
on 24-Aug-02 10:38 AM
Sitara ji:
I didn't know kisun ji was a surya banshi.
|
| SITARA |
Posted
on 24-Aug-02 11:33 AM
Bisunji!
Sorry...please ignore my ignorance!!!
Was not looking for personal info........just looking at the spellings of both Bisun ji and Kisun ji.
Bi(Sun) and Ki(Sun)
This is such a multidisciplinary thread...was looking at it from all angles!
Ok.....I will only listen... :(
|
