Desicritics Comments on Two Flawed Views of Hinduism

Comment by v.c.krishnan

Mon, 12 Nov 2007 13:09:26 EST

Dear Sir, Forget it. It is all a lot of hot air and as I would like to call it jornalistic clap trap. Please understnd he is just a servant to the media bosses. Do not get carried away because he talks english or that he wears a suit. He has to write like this to keep up his pay packet from his masters. Regards, vck

Comment by Kerty

Mon, 12 Nov 2007 10:08:57 EST

It seems secularists have hard time respecting the faith, beliefs, traditions of Hindus. Sure they vary among hindus and they are somewhat localized, and there are always 'other' beliefs, but that is no reason to disrespect them. As long as large number of Hindus believe certain things, that is sufficient enough to warrant that their faith and tradition of belief be respected. The debate about historicity, questioning the beliefs, contradicting with 'other' beliefs merely adds insult to the injury. It is not for secularists to question or debate religious matters. They are merely asked to respect. Secularists do not put faith and beliefs of other religions to such scrutiny and dabate, and Hindus are entitled to similar respect. Regarding economic development and religious freedom, one need not frame 'either-or' false choices. They both are possible. They have to be in any genuine secular paradigm. Any secularism that offers 'either-or' false choices will stand accused of pseudo secularism. They both must be possible. It merely requires redrawing of plans. We have had many cases where projects have been altered or abandoned in order not to upset religious sentiments of non-hindus. We have had many cases where plans that made great economic sense, had to be altered or dropped for purely secular or humanitarian reason i.e not to displace people. Hell, they have been routinely modified or abandoned for purely ideological and political reasons - communists and socialists do that routinely. Economic development has to remain flexible and sensitive to people and their wishes.

Comment by Sujai

Sat, 10 Nov 2007 07:12:16 EST

In the early texts, Indra, a god we never hear of today, played a major role. It is true that as with certain other mythologies, different gods we re popular at different times. Even in the contemporary India, we see this unfolding. Lord Venkateshwara is such popular god who has grown in popularity in recent times. It is linked to the popularity and also the increase in wealth of this god sitting on top of Tirupati. In the same way, Lord Shiva was more popular in three hundred years ago than he is now. We have different gods taking on popularities at different time. For those time periods of Ramayana, the Vedic Gods might have been more prevalent. But for us, gods of Ramayana are more important. Vir Sanghvi says that Ramayana and Mahabharata were ...put together over centuries and the story evolved over time. For instance, the Valmiki Ramayana and the Tulsi Ramayana are not exactly the same. This is wholly incorrect. You should stick to fiction. What do you mean 'this is wholly incorrect'? What evidences do you suggest that they are actually the same. Everyone who knows even a little bit about different Ramayana's know that their stories are very different from one another. Even during the screening of 'Ramayana' TV serial to millions of Hindus, there were many 'pundits' who have clearly disagreed with his version citing a different text. In addition to two popular texts, we have many more versions, even in South, which are quite different from one another. The introductory verses in the Ramayana clearly indicate the unity of the epic as a single narrative. Really? It is like saying Bible is word of God just because it is written in the bible that is the word of God ;-) Besides, those familiar with Sanskrit poetry can easily discern the difference in style if an interpolation has occurred. And they did. Their verdict is that there are different versions and that most probably these texts evolved over time. It is beyond doubt that Ramayana and Mahabharata have numerous interpolations but the original epic remains intact. Stick to religion. Don't discuss literary texts. The point of Hinduism lies in the message, not in the historicity. Interpreted another way, this also implies a denial of historicity to Hinduism. Religions, beliefs, and more importantly, values, do not exist in a vacuum bereft of time and space. Your interpretations are flawed – show you are standing on a very loose ground called irrationality. Nobody denies 'religions, beliefs and values' have significance in real time. They originate, evolve and die just like life. That does not mean we have believe and fight if Bay of Bengal was the sea where Asuras and Devas churned the sea on top of a giant tortoise using a snake and a mountain. We need not proceed to date that event and find the bones and skeletons of that giant tortoise or the remnant of that lost mountain. Do we proceed to find the remnants of Middle Earth, the elves and goblins of Tolkien's 'Lord of the Rings'? Or do we go about finding Spiderman's webs all around the city after reading Marvel Comics? it concerns preserving India's cultural heritage, of which the Ramayana--and consequently, Rama--stands in the forefront. You should also preserve the sea where Asuras and Devas churned out the divine potions, where Vamana stepped on three different planets, and where the palace where Parashurama massacred his opponents, and so on. And as citizens of the world, we should preserve Middle Earth, Kryptonite, and Hogwarts Castle. Instead, without any historical, archaeological, and philological study of Ramayana, the ASI has concluded that Rama was not a historical figure. As I said earlier, you should stick to fiction, or at the most become a priest who can keep on obfuscating statements. What ASI said was very different. ASI DID NOT say Rama DID NOT EXIST. They rubbished Valmiki Ramayana and Tulsidas Ramayana which were produced as evidences to claim Rama's existence saying that they are not historical documents and evidences. They also added there is not evidence to suggest that Rama ever existed. It is like saying Harry Potter does not exist other than in JK Rowling's books and the minds of millions. Just because million people believe Elvis Presley still exists does not make him real and story which suggests that Elvis Presley is my alibi not considered evidence in the court of law. Just because millions of kids believe in Santa Claus does not make him real. Can one submit Greek Mythology in court of law to suggest that Sun is actually a person riding a chariot and flying across the sky?

Comment by Sujai

Sat, 10 Nov 2007 07:09:51 EST

In the early texts, Indra, a god we never hear of today, played a major role. It is true that as with certain other mythologies, different gods we re popular at different times. Even in the contemporary India, we see this unfolding. Lord Venkateshwara is such popular god who has grown in popularity in recent times. It is linked to the popularity and also the increase in wealth of this god sitting on top of Tirupati. In the same way, Lord Shiva was more popular in three hundred years ago than he is now. We have different gods taking on popularities at different time. For those time periods of Ramayana, the Vedic Gods might have been more prevalent. But for us, gods of Ramayana are more important. Vir Sanghvi says that Ramayana and Mahabharata were ...put together over centuries and the story evolved over time. For instance, the Valmiki Ramayana and the Tulsi Ramayana are not exactly the same. This is wholly incorrect. You should stick to fiction. What do you mean 'this is wholly incorrect'? What evidences do you suggest that they are actually the same. Everyone who knows even a little bit about different Ramayana's know that their stories are very different from one another. Even during the screening of 'Ramayana' TV serial to millions of Hindus, there were many 'pundits' who have clearly disagreed with his version citing a different text. In addition to two popular texts, we have many more versions, even in South, which are quite different from one another. The introductory verses in the Ramayana clearly indicate the unity of the epic as a single narrative. Really? It is like saying Bible is word of God just because it is written in the bible that is the word of God ;-) Besides, those familiar with Sanskrit poetry can easily discern the difference in style if an interpolation has occurred. And they did. Their verdict is that there are different versions and that most probably these texts evolved over time. It is beyond doubt that Ramayana and Mahabharata have numerous interpolations but the original epic remains intact. Stick to religion. Don't discuss literary texts. The point of Hinduism lies in the message, not in the historicity. Interpreted another way, this also implies a denial of historicity to Hinduism. Religions, beliefs, and more importantly, values, do not exist in a vacuum bereft of time and space. Your interpretations are flawed – show you are standing on a very loose ground called irrationality. Nobody denies 'religions, beliefs and values' have significance in real time. They originate, evolve and die just like life. That does not mean we have believe and fight if Bay of Bengal was the sea where Asuras and Devas churned the sea on top of a giant tortoise using a snake and a mountain. We need not proceed to date that event and find the bones and skeletons of that giant tortoise or the remnant of that lost mountain. Do we proceed to find the remnants of Middle Earth, the elves and goblins of Tolkien's 'Lord of the Rings'? Or do we go about finding Spiderman's webs all around the city after reading Marvel Comics? it concerns preserving India's cultural heritage, of which the Ramayana--and consequently, Rama--stands in the forefront. You should also preserve the sea where Asuras and Devas churned out the divine potions, where Vamana stepped on three different planets, and where the palace where Parashurama massacred his opponents, and so on. And as citizens of the world, we should preserve Middle Earth, Kryptonite, and Hogwarts Castle. Instead, without any historical, archaeological, and philological study of Ramayana, the ASI has concluded that Rama was not a historical figure. As I said earlier, you should stick to fiction, or at the most become a priest who can keep on obfuscating statements. What ASI said was very different. ASI DID NOT say Rama DID NOT EXIST. They rubbished Valmiki Ramayana and Tulsidas Ramayana which were produced as evidences to claim Rama's existence saying that they are not historical documents and evidences. They also added there is not evidence to suggest that Rama ever existed. It is like saying Harry Potter does not exist other than JK Rowling's books and the minds of millions. Just because million people believe Elvis Presley still exists does not make him real and story which suggests that Elvis Presley is my alibi not considered evidence in the court of law. Just because millions of kids believe in Santa Claus does not make him real. Can one submit Greek Mythology in court of law to suggest that Sun is actually a person riding a chariot and flying across the sky?

Comment by Krishnan

Fri, 9 Nov 2007 21:46:43 EST

Excellent rebuttal and counter point to psuedo secularists like Vir Sanghvi. It is important to take a clear stance on protecting one's identity as a Hindu. Otherwise such powerful proponents like Sangvi et al will surely dilute the belief of Hinduism amongst the educated Hindu masses.

Comment by annamma

Thu, 11 Oct 2007 04:13:16 EDT

Sandeep, So in your opinion, are both versions of Hinduism flawed? Or are you contesting that there are two versions at all?

Comment by Harish

Thu, 11 Oct 2007 01:27:25 EDT

The Vedic religion also has historical founders in Shankara , Ramanuja and Madhva.

Comment by Capitol Guy

Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:08:42 EDT

I ws reading your post and it's interesting. There is a lot of flaws with a lot of different religions and peoples perception thereof. For instance, the some greek population, the Basilideans I believe they were called believed Christ was a hoax. they nicknamed him Abraxas, and because he appeared, disappeared and suddently reappaeared, (was born, cruified, died, and resurrected) they came up with the term Abracadabra which today we recognize as menaning magic. I personally think it's a crime - war started over all of these different beliefs. But I guess everyone has their own interpretations of religion.

Comment by Bihari

Wed, 10 Oct 2007 15:43:12 EDT

Islam's books have enough material to show that its Prophet was a little more than a pedophile but that fact according to Sanghvi is beyond scrutiny. Marrying off little girls to older men was also a Hindu tradition lets not forget it. Why can't they just pick the rocks up and place them somewhere else? Why do we compare whats wrong with other religions to stop scrutinizing our own? Why does it sound like we are whining that the school bully is allowed to get away while we are being held responsible for being naughty? Who cares about the school bully. He will reap as he sows. If the mullahs and christian priests are fanatics doesn't mean we allow our religion to also become blind and stagnant. They should be allowed to do carbon dating in Ayodha but Rama was North Indian king and the Ramayana clearly reflects the offensive hegemonic designs the north always had towards southern India. Ravana was right to defend his land and by some stories Sita was actually his daughter. There are so many stories about the Ramayana that the truth is lost which makes one wonder about the historical validity of the entire epic.

Comment by Atlantean

Wed, 10 Oct 2007 15:39:36 EDT

Ah! The beauty of arm-chair journalism!