karthik_v

Paths of rebellion that reject the tradition have rarely been successful. One can start with the example of Buddha himself. He rejected the authority of the Vedas and the concept of God. No doubt he highlighted many wonderful teachings such as compassion and argued against animal sacrifice, yet Buddhism as he taught soon died. Within centuries of his nirvana, Mahayana had already incorporated the concept of God into Buddhism and even had made Buddha a God. In those societies where Hinayana had taken roots, very soon everyone had become a meat eater. Why did this happen? In my opinion, social changes happen not when you reject the existing tradition, how much ever you disagree with some aspects of that. This is because, people draw their identity by taking recourse to their traditions. The key is to transform those aspects of the tradition with which one disagrees, so much yet subtly, that the society imbibes it effortlessly. When the Ajivikas and the Buddhists rejected the very roots of the traditions, the society never really accepted that. As soon as their charismatic founders had left, the tradition itself was lost.

How many of you have thought of Srila Prabhupada as a progressive revolutionary? If you haven't, then I am going to present several arguments that would lend credence to this statement of mine. Indeed he was one. Several great scholars and acedemics, who knew the traditions of Hinduism, held Srila Prabhupada in the highest regard. Many scholars thought and openly stated that he was a man of immense courage, who questioned the stereotypes that have taken roots in the society. Most importantly, he brought about his revolution without being disruptive. In my several coming posts, I will highlight on every one of these points and also present the many statements of the scholars verbatim. Just to set the ball rolling, as one scholar said: "The future success of this movement entirely depends on only one factor - the ability of the followers in being able to measure up to the levels of purity that Srila Prabhupada has set as a standard."

For example, both in Tamilnadu and Orissa Christians are 16% of the population, but the bar chart doesn't make it appear so.

Indeed there are several ethnic elements in Indian Christianity, as it is there in Filipino or any other form of Christianity. This is something that the Vatican had always tried to cleanse, as they have been doing since the Council of Nicea in 325 CE. One more thing which would blow the minds of most folks is to know that there is atleast one instance, dating to 11th century CE, when in Kerala, Jesus was referred to as Yogeshwara in hagiography. I don't recall where I read this, but I can research and find out. Europeanisation of Christianity started only after the Portugese invasions. Even that hasn't succeeded very much because the unit of jaati has been stronger than religion and the converted Christian tribals had always co-mingled with their jaati counterparts amongst the Hindus, than with other Christians. Even though the Muslims had utter contempt for polytheism, which can be said of the Christians too, this really didn't affect the Hindus, except a few anglicised ones like Ram Mohan Roy, as the Muslim and Christian attempts had been very crude and violent. I am yet to know of a society that was convinced that their ways were wrong, just because a bully said so. On the other hand, this only strengthened the Hindu belief in polytheism. Since jaati and not religion had been the binding factor among the people, even Christians accepted this notion easily. Just like you have Maariyamman, that is Shakti, whom the Hindus worship for cure from small pox, so do the Christians worship a form of Mary who is able to cure small pox. The Vatican didn't like this, but there was little they could do about it. Most of the recent clashes between the Hindu and the Christian tribals, have been due to the crude attempts by the Vatican to wean the converted tribals away from their traditional ways. And wherever the church has not suceeded in crude and vulgar Europeanisation of Christianity, you will find the Hindus flocking en masse to the church and worshipping. One example is that of Mary worshipped as Velaankanni, which translates as "the pure virgin". For those Hindus, there is no difference in visiting a Shiva temple, a Vishnu temple or the shrine of Velaankanni. And many would stop by at this church to pay their obeisances after having their head tonsured at the not far away Murugan temple of Tiruchendur. Those who are busy pointing their fingers at the Hindu awakening would find it hard to explain this, unless they are honest enought to admit that any strife has its roots in the actions of the church which refuses to accept pluralism. Or even to address another faith with dignity. For that, the first requirement is that you refuse to buy into the stereotypes projected by the western media, Indian anti-Hindu media and academics and seek the reality from the grass roots.

Perhaps, not as per the strict interpretation of Christianity, but you will find Indian Christians, priests included, use this term. The Indian reporters just report the ground reality as it is. They are under no obligation to correct the misinterpretations of the Christian Indian church. That is why I asked you if there is a basis for your claims that Indian reporters report Christianity falsely. Do you think that Christian theology allows for invoking the spirit of Jesus, through a mediator at will, to cure the illnesses of someone? Do you think that Christian theology allows for bringing a suffering patient under the spell of Jesus for a short while, while the patient is in trance? Do you think that Christian theology allows for mediating priest to chant secret mantras to invoke Jesus for a specific time to achieve the above purposes? All these are there in Indian Christianity. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif Fraud has no limits Jagatji. Indian Christian church is as adept at fraud as the Vatican and other western churches have been.

Debbie, You will find Bhagavad Gita As It Is translated and commented by Srila online at http://asitis.com/ This site has free downloads of Srimad Bhagavatam and Caitanya Caritamrta, as well as many cook books and other books written by SP http://www.harekrishnatemple.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&d_op=viewdownload&cid=3 The same site also has many devotional songs and also the diacritical fonts which you have to download so as to read the transliteration correctly. If you need print format, then they are all available from the nearest ISKCON temple.

Shiva, The arousal mechanisms are also different, aren't they? Once again, you have reiterated your statement, highlighted in bold above, without answering my question: "To whom"? If the answer is "men", then there is no need to push the women down the hierarchy. There is no need to hate sex either. You see, the 2 phenomenon are inter-related. Both stem from the fear of the unknown and if I may borrow the words of Jijaji, those who inherit such notions "alternate between fear and fascination for sex" - without ever getting to know what it is.

Raga, If only you can make that green appear below saffron, it would be the perfect picture. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Raga, If only you can make that green appear below saffron, it would be the perfect picture. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Shiva, Thanks for designating me as a swamiji. I never thought I would ever receive that salutation. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif Who said it isn't? Well, that is not my vision. I am all for women remaining feminine and men remaining masculine. I am all for robust and sensuous sex, that stems from such a dichotomy. Are we on the same wavelength? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif Sterotype. What if caste itself doesn't exist? Or what if priests don't exist? Do you think that would be the end of spiritualism? I don't think so. Perhaps, there will be real spiritualism where people don't indulge in commerce because they think it is their birth right. Whose pleasure, may I ask? And do you think that women derive no pleasure out of love making?

Debbie, To give him his due, Shiva is indeed correct that some "scriptures" display a terrible attitude towards women. It is another story that all such "scriptures" were man made at some point in time. What we should remember is that such "scriptures" have been used as justification, for several centuries, to hoist unspeakable crimes on women. And this happened even before the Muslims entered India. The beauty of Hinduism is that it is dynamic. It is not stuck on the dogmatic pronouncements of ONE founder. We can and should reject what is not compatible with our morality and still we would be left with an ocean of spiritual treasure in Hinduism. Even better, there won't be any fatwa issued against you for rejecting some tenets.

Please take them off Raga. Those green stripes make it sound so Islamic. I am allergic to anything Islamic. It is called Islamophobia. Saffron would be fine though. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Please take them off Raga. Those green stripes make it sound so Islamic. I am allergic to anything Islamic. It is called Islamophobia. Saffron would be fine though. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Debbie, You have seen some excellent responses from J N Das, Stonehearted and Atma. If somebody makes a derogatory statement about women or any social group, it must be treated as his/her opinion. Or sometimes, such statements are an outcome of certain social conditions or epochs. These are, by no means, scriptural injunctions. Let me provide you with some very interesting data. The vedas are considered apaurusya or eternal and are the holiest of the Hindu scriptures. They are 4 in number, the Rk veda being the oldest. Rk veda was revealed to 427 seers or sages and of them 21 were women. Now, let us not bother about the ratio; what this illustrates is that women are by no means inferior to men. Men and women are complimentary. Their relationship, whether spiritual or material, is symbiotic and not hierarchial. Likewise, some of the Vaishnava saints of the greatest acclaim have been women. Andal and Meera are 2 examples. If I were to make an audacious statement, may I add that their hymns are cherished and recited more than what their male counterparts wrote? Raga, And men are also meant to be sexually attractive. Just as every man seeks a woman who is "feminine", and the definitions of which vary by culture and epochs, women are also attracted to men who are "masculine". It is very natural for a woman to make herself attractive to men as it is for a man to make himself attractive to women. Shiva, There are always enough works that display some phobia towards women. To take them seriously is not correct. Both men and women are made for sex, though not sex alone. While, in general, neither can lead a meaningful life without sex, an obsession or aversion for sex doesn't enrich the life either; rather it divests it of its variety. And sex isn't something about which one needs to feel bad. Hindus didn't feel that way, until the Muslims invaded. Sex isn't animalistic either. It is the foundation on which the edifice of marital intimacy is built. It is the passion that goes with it, that makes the human kind strive. Lust is not a dirty word either, if it remains within the bounds of marriage. Barring very, very few transcendental souls, for whom sex is irrelevant [and they won't talk about it either], all the others should feel naturally at ease with sex. Some take to it naturally and enjoy pleasure; some repress it and it finds vent in the form of terrible attitudes with women - a species whom they haven't understood intimately, but can't let go either. You should feel sorry for such specimens instead of emulating them. Even if they turn up in saffron robes.

How phony does the entire thing look! Cossack that is totally unfit for Indian climate. Skull cap that has no roots in India and worn only to proclaim one's allegiance to Vatican [btw, skull cap itself is of Semitic origins /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif ], but just a few Sanskrit words and some flowers on a platter to attract the upper castes. All this to relauch Christianity, which is presently known as the religion of tribals who converted under inducement and coercion. All the upper castes, barring Syrian Catholics, converted during that rascal Xavier's stint under force. Naturally, Christianty is looking for a relaunch. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif If you want to have fun, you should ask them, if they will introduce yoga, as part of their Indianization process.

Are you aware of any instance when the non-Christian reporters in the Indian media misquoted the Christian sources? I thought such a previlege entirely belonged to the likes of NYT and Washington Post, when the report on Hinduism or anything Asia. Remember their tales on the Thai queen with a bushy tail?

Shiva, What to say? This is an unscientific statement, to say the least. And based purely on dogma.

I hope never. I am myself an ardent Hindu and detest any anti-Hindu politics. I am even appreciative of those politicians who are supportive of Hinduism - primarily because the general trend among the Indian politicians has been one of anti-Hinduism. Having said that, I believe that a government has to be secular, progressive and should never hobnob with religious organizations. I am all for preserving pluralism. A citizen should have the right to practice the religion of his choice, be an atheist or even criticize and condemn any religion or religious persona. Virtually every religious organization is opposed to pluralism. When political masters hobnob with religious organizations it sets a dangerous trend - a trend that can be witnessed in the history of the Christian west. A trend that led to sycophancy and decadence. When religious organizations court politicians, that is a clear indication that spiritualism has given room to commerce or even worse. This is not something to be glorified. Indian history holds a clear lesson for us. Every time a king surrendered to his guru and let him guide the society, his kingdom was weakened and very soon became extinct. The most successful kings, though religious themselves, always maintained a distance from religious leadership - a distance that saves both the king and the guru.

You may want to start with some of the devotional writings of Srila Prabhupad, the founder of ISKCON or Hare Krishnas as they are popularly called. If you like narratives, that is in the form of stories, then you may want to start with the book by SP titled "Krishna". If you like more philosophical type, then you can start with "Bhagavad Gita as it is". There are also a few more books meant for beginners, such as "Science of self realization". To know more about the founder himself, you may want to read his Biography - which is an excellent piece by the way. Most of these books are available in Spanish language editions as well. And most of these are available for free on the internet as well and some member can post the links for your benefit. I think Bhaktajoy has a web page which hosts some of them. Good luck.

As J N Das has correctly pointed out, Kamasutra doesn't qualify as a Hindu scripture. There are several works written in Sanskrit and everything is not religious. There are romantic works such as Kalidasa's Vikramorvasiyam or the numerous Mahayana Buddhist texts that have nothing to do with Hinduism. Likewise Kamasutra isn't a Hindu relgious text. Most academics hold that Kamasutra was written during the Gupta era during the first few centuries of the Christian era, but that is again a conjecture. All we can say with certainty is that it existed by then. What I need to point out is that Kamasutra has been incorporated into a lot of religious writings and sculptures though. Most ancient temples have engravings based on Kamasutra. Many puranas, such as Brahma Vaivarta Purana, have been shown to portray the sensuality between Radha and Krishna as one adhering to or resembling the rules of Kamasutra.

Some excerpts from the very own words of Saint my left foot Xavier, as found in a letter he wrote to the Vatican in 1543. Those who complain about the Hindu nationalists for condemning the church must read this to get some idea about one of the most revered saints of Christianity: About the villagers of Malabar, Kerala, India. He doesn't know their language. They don't understand him. Yet he claims to have preached /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif : On the acts of the youth he converted and turned into fanatics: Here is the inducement for the poor to convert. Look at the salary paid from the money they looted from the Hindus: Some "glorious" words he had for the Brahmins. Now you know how and when and why the hatred for the Brahmins started. What better strategy to divide and convert the Hindus: And, here he reveals the reason for his hatred unwittingly: PS: Looks like our "left foot" failed to create any impression in his debates and convert the folks. A general word of "praise" for the Indians: At last, our bigoted Saint my left foot Xavier is rewarded with the conversion of 1 Brahmin: After his sumptuous abuse of the Brahmins, you would have thought that Xavier is a man of some learning; not so it seems: PS: A 3rd grader in the USA or India would know that pagodas are not the Hindu temples. But then, why do you assume that a Christian saint should know as much? If you are surprised at this glaring stupidity, it is only because you haven't met enough of them. How about starting with the words of their master [nope not Paul] Jesus to get a measure of their theological depth? Don't dive headlong hoping it would be deep. They have forgotten to put up a sign board saying that the water is shallow and contaminated. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif Here he has some "charitable" words for the skin colour of the Indians and their idols: for your reading pleasure: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1543xavier1.html I verified the contents with the original source mentioned therein and it is accurate

I have posted the message relating to Xavier in the Spiritual discussion thread, as it is more relevant there.

Some excerpts from the very own words of Saint my left foot Xavier, as found in a letter he wrote to Vatican in 1543. Those who complain about the Hindu nationalists for condemning the church must read this to get some idea about one of the most revered saints of Christianity: About the villagers of Malabar, Kerala, India. He doesn't know their language. They don't understand him. Yet he claims to have preached /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif : On the acts of the youth he converted and turned into fanatics: Here is the inducement for the poor to convert. Look at the salary paid from the money they looted from the Hindus: Some "glorious" words he had for the Brahmins. Now you know how and when and why the hatred for the Brahmins started. What better strategy to divide and convert the Hindus: And, here he reveals the reason for his hatred unwittingly: PS: Looks like our "left foot" failed to create any impression in his debates and convert the folks. A general word of "praise" for the Indians: PS: Looks like our "left foot" is indeed some match to Jesus when it comes to racist hatred. At last, our bigoted Saint my left foot Xavier is rewarded with the conversion of 1 Brahmin: After his sumptuous abuse of the Brahmins, you would have thought that Xavier is a man of some learning; not so it seems: PS: A 3rd grader in the USA or India would know that pagodas are not the Hindu temples. But then, why do you assume that a Christian saint should know as much? If you are surprised at this glaring stupidity, it is only because you haven't met enough of them. How about starting with the words of their master [nope not Paul] Jesus to get a measure of their theological depth? Don't dive headlong hoping it would be deep. They have forgotten to put up a sign board saying that the water is shallow and contaminated. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif Here he has some charitable words for the skin colour of the Indians and their idols: for your reading pleasure: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1543xavier1.html I verified the contents with the original source mentioned therein and it is accurate.

Anyway, coming back to the original topic of the thread, now it should be very evident that the reason behind the Sanskritisation of the Catholic church is not a desire to internalise Indian culture, but only a new positioning strategy. Ironically, the very same church that started and fuelled the anti-Sanskrit movement of Tamilnadu a century ago, has now opted for Sanskritisation.