good reading:

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/what-hindus-can-and-should-be-proud-of/article4941930.ece?homepage=true

the chaddi response is anticipated bated breathedly. here is a helpful handy list of buzzwords to choose from, for your convenience, while you compose your frothing-in-the-mouth post: lefty, delhi university, congoon, nehruvian, muslim apologist, pseudo-psecularist.

i forgot sickular and fukular.

guha is mostly right but he forgot reformers from his own tradition -- folks like subrahmanya bharathi.

Good! Guha should affirm his secular belief by attending an Iftar party and rejecting food at a temple, Gurudwara and Jain Sangha.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:guha is mostly right but he forgot reformers from his own tradition -- folks like subrahmanya bharathi.

Did Bharati fight against religious extremism?

Rashmun wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:guha is mostly right but he forgot reformers from his own tradition -- folks like subrahmanya bharathi.

Did Bharati fight against religious extremism?

he did fight against casteism which is a blot on hinduism. he was somewhat like gandhi, very much a hindu, but with progressive ideals.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:guha is mostly right but he forgot reformers from his own tradition -- folks like subrahmanya bharathi.

Did Bharati fight against religious extremism?

he did fight against casteism which is a blot on hinduism. he was somewhat like gandhi, very much a hindu, but with progressive ideals.

Did he ever comment on religious communalism?

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:good reading:

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/what-hindus-can-and-should-be-proud-of/article4941930.ece?homepage=true

the chaddi response is anticipated bated breathedly. here is a helpful handy list of buzzwords to choose from, for your convenience, while you compose your frothing-in-the-mouth post: lefty, delhi university, congoon, nehruvian, muslim apologist, pseudo-psecularist.

i forgot sickular and fukular.

***********
As for the Indian military campaign, the chief commander in the field was a Jew, his immediate superior a Sikh. A Parsi served as Chief of Army Staff. His own superior, the Prime Minister of India, had notoriously been disallowed from entering the Jagannath temple in Puri because she had not married a Hindu.

That said, Hindus still have much to be ashamed about. As the recent spate of attacks on Dalits and women shows, deep-rooted caste and patriarchal prejudices remain entrenched in many parts of India.
***********

I agree....hindus bad...Christians good, Jews goodly and Muslims goodliest.

Rashmun wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:guha is mostly right but he forgot reformers from his own tradition -- folks like subrahmanya bharathi.

Did Bharati fight against religious extremism?

he did fight against casteism which is a blot on hinduism. he was somewhat like gandhi, very much a hindu, but with progressive ideals.

Did he ever comment on religious communalism?

i can't explicitly recall. communalism is not something he concerned himself with overtly. he was more concerned with reforming hinduism from within, women's rights, and kicking the brits out, and communalism was not a theme of the time and place he lived in. quite a bit of his poetry is in fact religious (hindu) in nature, but of a very light and sprightly kind. he saw religion and nature as a continuum. his belief was not of the dogmatic, vendantic kind.

if anything he was decidedly un-PC in the way he called women veiling their faces as a practice of the muslims of delhi (dilli-thurukkar seida vazhakkam adi).

Mr. Guha seems to have a shallow understanding of great Hindu saints (I wouldn't even call them reformers since that was par for the course in those times) that arose from strictly un-orthodox origins, shunning varnashramadharma. The cult of differences that spawned some form of caste hierarchy probably came much later.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:his belief was not of the dogmatic, vendantic kind.

Do you know what Vendanta means? If not, may I respectfully ask you to refrain from using words whose meanings you don't know? If you want to have an anti-Hindu jerk-off, please go ahead. But if you insist on using words whose meanings you don't know, you just look like an idiot. An idiot pretending to be an intellectual reformist is not a pretty sight.

Lastly, you are no one to dictate us what to be proud of!!
from: aditya

As it turned out, the Ram Janmabhoomi campaign led to two decades of strife across northern and western India, with thousands of people losing their lives and hundreds of thousands their homes and livelihoods.

This is a baseless claim. Hindu-Muslim tensions and riots in Northern India is a decades or centuries old problem. There have been countless clashes between Hindus and Muslims in North India both before and after the height of the Ram Janmabhoomi issue, which have nothing to do with that issue in particular.

Guha, the so-called historian must be completely aware of this fact. Yet, he talks about Ram Janmabhoomi issue as if it is an isolated, sole cause for "thousands of people losing their lives and hundreds of thousands their homes and livelihoods." There can be only one of two reasons for this: either he is a stupid historian who doesn't know history or he is being deliberately malicious and playing fast and loose with the facts. Which one is it?

I am asking.

The continuous attack on Hinduism by Dravida Khazhagam, the Communists and the so called secular Hindus has become so intolerable.

Why don't we Hindus simply convert en masse to Islam or Christianity?

Rishi wrote:I am asking.

The continuous attack on Hinduism by Dravida Khazhagam, the Communists and the so called secular Hindus has become so intolerable.

Why don't we Hindus simply convert en masse to Islam or Christianity?

From a reader's comment:
Another excellent article from Mr Guha. As the article mentions all
religions not just Hinduism needs its reformers and their radical
ideas to survive. Change is a part of life anything that is stagnant
will die eventually this includes religion.

Rashmun wrote:

Rishi wrote:I am asking.

The continuous attack on Hinduism by Dravida Khazhagam, the Communists and the so called secular Hindus has become so intolerable.

Why don't we Hindus simply convert en masse to Islam or Christianity?

From a reader's comment:
Another excellent article from Mr Guha. As the article mentions all
religions not just Hinduism needs its reformers and their radical
ideas to survive. Change is a part of life anything that is stagnant
will die eventually this includes religion.

I think it is praiseworthy that hindu reformers like Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar, and others came forward to put into place reforms in some of the ugly features that had crept into hinduism (sati, prohibition against widow remarriage, etc.). In my opinion reforms in Indian Islam need to take place just like they took place in Hinduism in India or in Islam in Turkey (under Kemal Ataturk).

SomeProfile wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:his belief was not of the dogmatic, vendantic kind.

Do you know what Vendanta means? If not, may I respectfully ask you to refrain from using words whose meanings you don't know? If you want to have an anti-Hindu jerk-off, please go ahead. But if you insist on using words whose meanings you don't know, you just look like an idiot. An idiot pretending to be an intellectual reformist is not a pretty sight.

i did not say i am a reformist. i have no interest in organized religion of any kind. since i have no interest in organized religion, i also don't have any interest in reforming any of it. an adult man who has a reading comprehension problem is definitely an ugly sight. i said bharathiar was a hindu, but had no interest in the philosophical aspects of hinduism.  my comments were about bharathiar's religious poetry.

Theorem: Guha is an asshole.

Proof: He is a historian. As a historian, he should be very well aware of India's history, and its historical achievements. He should be well aware of the forces which influenced and shaped these achievements. He should be aware of the one all-pervasive factor which has influenced Indian history for many centuries, across the length and breadth of the sub-continent and even beyond the borders of ancient India. This one factor is the sanaatana dharma, which is more commonly known today as the Hindu 'religion'. Yet, the only thing he could think of to be proud about this religion is the fact that it had reformers rise up from within.

And no, when I talk of India's historical achievements, I am not making the same old argument about how we invented zero or trigonometry or medical surgery or any of that (although they are all true). I am talking about the culture and society we built which was strong in all aspects of human achievements centuries before Western civilization went through their dark ages and rennaisance. These aspects of human achievements include economy, political governance (imagine continent-sized empires governed without modern communication!), art (all kinds), literature, architecture, education and academia, philosophy, spirituality, health, and yes, also science. And these achievements did not happen in a limited period of time or in a limited geographical area. They happened almost continuously, repeatedly, again and again, over many centuries, across the length and breadth of the Indian sub-continent.

This level of achievements, over a long period of time, over a large geographical area is NOT possible for any country with the size and diversity of India without a vibrant and healthy education system. An education system that was not accessible just to the elite brahmins (like historical revisionists such as Guha would want you to believe), but to most of society. For example, if you visit any ancient temples in India, you will find that the sculptures reveal great knowledge of architecture, science, dance, music, mythology, etc. in the person who made them. Surely, we don't believe that the sculptures were all made by brahmins, who were supposedly the only ones with such knowledge? If not, then the people who made them should have had access to all this great knowledge in many fields at a higher-than-novice level. These kinds of achievements in all fields of human endeavor are not possible without all or most people in the society working together in peace and harmony. It is not possible without a healthy respect for different points of view and varying opinions co-existing in society, and contributing to the common good. It is not possible without respect for scientific facts, logic, methods.

In ancient India, what was the one fountain, one common source, one common thread which bound together all the things I have described in the previous paragraph? It was the sanaatana dharma. It was a culture which was built on the concepts of this dharma that made all the great human achievements in old India possible. And that is the no. 1 reason why ALL Indians should be proud of Hinduism.

Conclusion: And now we have assholes like Guha who know all this, but deliberately don't want to talk about these things, and try to tell us what other things we should value and be proud of. And, we have people who parrot assholes like Guha either due to naivete, or due to blind dogmatic anti-Hindu / anti-North India / anti-Vedanta prejudices, or due to both. Probably both.

Disclaimer: None of the following words have been used in any of the preceding paragraphs - lefty, delhi university, congoon, nehruvian, muslim apologist, pseudo-psecularist, sickular and fukular.

PS: And let's be fair. If we want to blame Hinduism for all of the negative things in India for centuries, we should also blame Hinduism for all of the positive things in India since time immemorial.

Edit: Minor formatting and grammar.

SomeProfile wrote:Theorem: Guha is an asshole.

Proof: He is a historian. As a historian, he should be very well aware of India's history, and its historical achievements. He should be well aware of the forces which influenced and shaped these achievements. He should be aware of the one all-pervasive factor which has influenced Indian history for many centuries, across the length and breadth of the sub-continent and even beyond the borders of ancient India. This one factor is the sanaatana dharma, which is more commonly known today as the Hindu 'religion'. Yet, the only thing he could think of to be proud about this religion is the fact that it had reformers rise up from within.

And no, when I talk of India's historical achievements, I am not making the same old argument about how we invented zero or trigonometry or medical surgery or any of that (although they are all true). I am talking about the culture and society we built which was strong in all aspects of human achievements centuries before Western civilization went through their dark ages and rennaisance. These aspects of human achievements include economy, political governance (imagine continent-sized empires governed without modern communication!), art (all kinds), literature, architecture, education and academia, philosophy, spirituality, health, and yes, also science. And these achievements did not happen in a limited period of time or in a limited geographical area. They happened almost continuously, repeatedly, again and again, over many centuries, across the length and breadth of the Indian sub-continent.

This level of achievements, over a long period of time, over a large geographical area are NOT possible for any country with the size and diversity of India without a vibrant and healthy education system. An education system that was not accessible just to the elite brahmins (like historical revisionists such as Guha would want you to believe), but to most of society. For example, if you visit any ancient temples in India, you will find that the sculptures reveal great knowledge of architecture, science, dance, music, mythology, etc. in the person who made them. Surely, we don't believe that the sculptures were all made by brahmins, who were supposedly the only ones with such knowledge? If not, then the people who made them should have had access to all this great knowledge in many fields at a high-than-novice level. These kinds of achievements in all fields of human endeavor are not possible without all or most people in the society working together in peace and harmony. It is not possible without a healthy respect for different points of view and varying opinions co-existing in society, and contributing to the common good. It is not possible without respect for scientific facts, logic, methods.

In ancient India, what was the one fountain, one common source, one common thread which bound together all the things I have described in the previous paragraph? It was the sanaatana dharma. It was a culture which was built on the concepts of this dharma that made all the great human achievements in old India possible. And that is the no. 1 reason why ALL Indians should be proud of Hinduism.

Conclusion: And now we have assholes Guha who know all this, but deliberately don't want to talk about these things trying to tell us what we should value, what we should be proud of. And, we have people who parrot assholes like Guha either due to naivete, or due to blind dogmatic anti-Hindu / anti-North India / anti-Vedanta prejudices, or due to both. Probably both.

Disclaimer: None of the following words have been used in any of the preceding paragraphs - lefty, delhi university, congoon, nehruvian, muslim apologist, pseudo-psecularist, sickular and fukular.

PS: And let's be fair. If we want to blame Hinduism for all of the negative things in India for centuries, we should also blame Hinduism for all of the positive things in India since time immemorial.

Indian culture and its achievments in the sciences and arts were despite the ugly features in hinduism like caste system and caste hierarchy; and strictures against women like sati, prohibition against widow remarriage, etc.

I heard that Raja Ram Mohan Roy studied advaita and vedanta philosophy. His arguments against Sati was based on advaita its seems.

Rishi wrote:I heard that Raja Ram Mohan Roy studied advaita and vedanta philosophy. His arguments against Sati was based on advaita its seems.

 Let us be real. Ram Manohar Roy was able to do do what he did because of AKBAR and AURANGAZEB who were trail-blazers in reforming and saving Hinduism from extinction.

SomeProfile wrote:

As it turned out, the Ram Janmabhoomi campaign led to two decades of strife across northern and western India, with thousands of people losing their lives and hundreds of thousands their homes and livelihoods.

This is a baseless claim. Hindu-Muslim tensions and riots in Northern India is a decades or centuries old problem. There have been countless clashes between Hindus and Muslims in North India both before and after the height of the Ram Janmabhoomi issue, which have nothing to do with that issue in particular.

No. Hindu-Muslim riots in history used to be localized to one city, or one region within a state. Even during the fratricide of Partition in Punjab, other parts of India were relatively calm. The Ram Janmabhoomi movement changed all that, and gave Hindu-Muslim clashes a national character. Thousands of people did indeed lose their lives, and hundreds of thousands their homes and livelihoods, in the weeks and months following the demolition of the mosque.

Rishi wrote:I am asking.

The continuous attack on Hinduism by Dravida Khazhagam, the Communists and the so called secular Hindus has become so intolerable.

Why don't we Hindus simply convert en masse to Islam or Christianity?

Why do you read Guha's article as an attack on Hinduism? The thrust of his article is highlighting things that he thinks Hindus ought to proud of; why is that an attack on Hinduism?

SomeProfile wrote:Theorem: Guha is an asshole.

Proof: He is a historian. As a historian, he should be very well aware of India's history, and its historical achievements. He should be well aware of the forces which influenced and shaped these achievements. He should be aware of the one all-pervasive factor which has influenced Indian history for many centuries, across the length and breadth of the sub-continent and even beyond the borders of ancient India. This one factor is the sanaatana dharma, which is more commonly known today as the Hindu 'religion'. Yet, the only thing he could think of to be proud about this religion is the fact that it had reformers rise up from within.

And no, when I talk of India's historical achievements, I am not making the same old argument about how we invented zero or trigonometry or medical surgery or any of that (although they are all true). I am talking about the culture and society we built which was strong in all aspects of human achievements centuries before Western civilization went through their dark ages and rennaisance. These aspects of human achievements include economy, political governance (imagine continent-sized empires governed without modern communication!), art (all kinds), literature, architecture, education and academia, philosophy, spirituality, health, and yes, also science. And these achievements did not happen in a limited period of time or in a limited geographical area. They happened almost continuously, repeatedly, again and again, over many centuries, across the length and breadth of the Indian sub-continent.

This level of achievements, over a long period of time, over a large geographical area is NOT possible for any country with the size and diversity of India without a vibrant and healthy education system. An education system that was not accessible just to the elite brahmins (like historical revisionists such as Guha would want you to believe), but to most of society. For example, if you visit any ancient temples in India, you will find that the sculptures reveal great knowledge of architecture, science, dance, music, mythology, etc. in the person who made them. Surely, we don't believe that the sculptures were all made by brahmins, who were supposedly the only ones with such knowledge? If not, then the people who made them should have had access to all this great knowledge in many fields at a higher-than-novice level. These kinds of achievements in all fields of human endeavor are not possible without all or most people in the society working together in peace and harmony. It is not possible without a healthy respect for different points of view and varying opinions co-existing in society, and contributing to the common good. It is not possible without respect for scientific facts, logic, methods.

In ancient India, what was the one fountain, one common source, one common thread which bound together all the things I have described in the previous paragraph? It was the sanaatana dharma. It was a culture which was built on the concepts of this dharma that made all the great human achievements in old India possible. And that is the no. 1 reason why ALL Indians should be proud of Hinduism.

Conclusion: And now we have assholes like Guha who know all this, but deliberately don't want to talk about these things, and try to tell us what other things we should value and be proud of. And, we have people who parrot assholes like Guha either due to naivete, or due to blind dogmatic anti-Hindu / anti-North India / anti-Vedanta prejudices, or due to both. Probably both.

Disclaimer: None of the following words have been used in any of the preceding paragraphs - lefty, delhi university, congoon, nehruvian, muslim apologist, pseudo-psecularist, sickular and fukular.

PS: And let's be fair. If we want to blame Hinduism for all of the negative things in India for centuries, we should also blame Hinduism for all of the positive things in India since time immemorial.

Edit: Minor formatting and grammar.

The one thing your proof has going for it is volume. And what it lacks is substance*. Guha is not writing about ancient India, or even medieval India. He is writing about Hinduism today, and what he thinks Hindus ought to be proud of today. And he highlights as potential sources of pride people and events from relatively recent, modern times. And you call him an asshole because he doesn't highlight what you want to be proud of. Weird! 

* If you want to talk substance, Hinduism or sanAtana dharma is not the only common force that bound Indian civilization together in ancient times. For about 1,000 years between circa 400 BCE and 600 CE, Buddhism had greater influence all over the subcontinent than Hinduism. Besides, religion is but one aspect of social life. India was bound together as much by the values propagated by Ashoka as by shared veneration of the vedas.

"The one thing your proof has going for it is volume. And what it lacks is substance*. Guha is not writing about ancient India, or even medieval India. He is writing about Hinduism today, and what he thinks Hindus ought to be proud of today. And he highlights as potential sources of pride people and events from relatively recent, modern times. And you call him an asshole because he doesn't highlight what you want to be proud of. Weird! 

* If you want to talk substance, Hinduism or sanAtana dharma is not the only common force that bound Indian civilization together in ancient times. For about 1,000 years between circa 400 BCE and 600 CE, Buddhism had greater influence all over the subcontinent than Hinduism. Besides, religion is but one aspect of social life. India was bound together as much by the values propagated by Ashoka as by shared veneration of the vedas."

Extremely logical. So Rashmun was not entirely right in crediting Akbar and Aurangazeb. The Buddhists also made great contributions. When are you joining Guha, Sen and MT at the Iftar?

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:The Buddhists also made great contributions.

Yes, at the risk of upsetting you, they did. For instance, the Indian empire that ruled more of the Indian subcontinent than any pre-European ruler. In the process, they established common principles of governance that were used until the Muslim conquests. (Aurangzeb tried his best, but failed to exceed Ashoka in establishing control of the deep south).

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:When are you joining Guha, Sen and MT at the Iftar?

Ah, guruvu-gaaru, your old obsession with Iftar returns! Given how interested you are, you should check out an Iftar party and sample the fare. Try the haleem; it's usually excellent.

out of curiosity, what is an iftar party?

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:out of curiosity, what is an iftar party?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iftar

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:out of curiosity, what is an iftar party?

Iftar is the meal that Muslims fasting during Ramzan have after sundown to break their daylight fast. Iftar parties are hosted during the month by businessmen and politicians to hobnob with other movers and shakers.

Idéfix wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:The Buddhists also made great contributions.

Yes, at the risk of upsetting you, they did. For instance, the only Indian empire that ruled more of the Indian subcontinent than the British did. (Aurangzeb tried his best, but failed to exceed Ashoka in establishing control of the deep south).

Map of Asoka's kingdom at its greatest extent:


Mughal kingdom map at its greatest extent:

Rashmun wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:The Buddhists also made great contributions.

Yes, at the risk of upsetting you, they did. For instance, the only Indian empire that ruled more of the Indian subcontinent than the British did. (Aurangzeb tried his best, but failed to exceed Ashoka in establishing control of the deep south).

Asoka's kingdom at its greatest extent:



Mughal kingdom map at its greatest extent:

Another map of the mughal kingdom:

Rashmun and PP:  Aurangazeb and Asoka have one thing in common. To find out what it is, post the maps of their kingdoms soon AFTER THEY KICKED THE BUCKET. Nehru tried to be the next Asoka when he took the J&K issue to the UN and uttered Hindi-Chini bhai bhai.

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Rashmun and PP:  Aurangazeb and Asoka have one thing in common. To find out what it is, post the maps of their kingdoms soon AFTER THEY KICKED THE BUCKET. Nehru tried to be the next Asoka when he took the J&K issue to the UN and uttered Hindi-Chini bhai bhai.

Actually they are very different in that respect. Aurangzeb's empire crumbled even in his own time, with the rise of the Marathas. Within 50 years of his death, Delhi was in Maratha hands. All that Aurangzeb stood for in terms of government policy was repudiated by his own Mughal successors (e.g. jizya). The Mauryan empire crumbled after Ashoka's death, but his legacy survived in most of India for several centuries, in the principles of dharma and the government's duty to the people.

PS: As I said before, India was under a profound Buddhist influence until just before the Muslim invasions. Ashoka died circa 200 BCE, but sanAtana dharma did not make a comeback for eight hundred more years. Even the Hindu revival circa 600 CE did not bring back sanAtana dharma (i.e. the old vedic religion), but it brought in the bhakti movement and early elements of the Hinduism we recognize today.

Idéfix wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Rashmun and PP:  Aurangazeb and Asoka have one thing in common. To find out what it is, post the maps of their kingdoms soon AFTER THEY KICKED THE BUCKET. Nehru tried to be the next Asoka when he took the J&K issue to the UN and uttered Hindi-Chini bhai bhai.

Actually they are very different in that respect. Aurangzeb's empire crumbled even in his own time, with the rise of the Marathas. Within 50 years of his death, Delhi was in Maratha hands. All that Aurangzeb stood for in terms of government policy was repudiated by his own Mughal successors (e.g. jizya). The Mauryan empire crumbled after Ashoka's death, but his legacy survived in most of India for several centuries, in the principles of dharma and the government's duty to the people.

I don't disagree with Asoka's desire for peace and dharma, etc. But the Buddhist-convert Asoka (who was deeply saddened by all the death and mutilation) was a bit like Arjuna before GeetOpadEsam. He built his empire like what a Kshatriya would do (like Raja Raja, Krishnadevaraya, etc.) and let it evaporate by becoming a pacifist.

Idéfix wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Rashmun and PP:  Aurangazeb and Asoka have one thing in common. To find out what it is, post the maps of their kingdoms soon AFTER THEY KICKED THE BUCKET. Nehru tried to be the next Asoka when he took the J&K issue to the UN and uttered Hindi-Chini bhai bhai.

Actually they are very different in that respect. Aurangzeb's empire crumbled even in his own time, with the rise of the Marathas. Within 50 years of his death, Delhi was in Maratha hands. All that Aurangzeb stood for in terms of government policy was repudiated by his own Mughal successors (e.g. jizya). The Mauryan empire crumbled after Ashoka's death, but his legacy survived in most of India for several centuries, in the principles of dharma and the government's duty to the people.

PS: As I said before, India was under a profound Buddhist influence until just before the Muslim invasions. Ashoka died circa 200 BCE, but sanAtana dharma did not make a comeback for eight hundred more years. Even the Hindu revival circa 600 CE did not bring back sanAtana dharma (i.e. the old vedic religion), but it brought in the bhakti movement and early elements of the Hinduism we recognize today.

Aurangzeb's ideas died a quick death, but his great grandfather Akbar's ideas did not. That is why Amartya Sen considers Asoka and Akbar to be the two greatest kings India has known. That is why Sen also says that modern Indian secularism is based on Akbar's formulation of secularism in the Indian context. There is no doubt that Asoka exercised tremendous influence with respect to medieval Indian thinking but Akbar's influence on Modern India is surely greater. One more point: For all its goodness, Budhism is a 'slave religion' as its critics have described it. In the sense that it inculcates passiveness, non-violence, etc. The argument could be made that the arrival of Budhism and Jainism in India weakened the Indian psyche and made India ripe for external conquest. Freedom of the individual (salvation/nirvana) and individual enlightenment became more important than fighting external enemies.

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Rashmun and PP:  Aurangazeb and Asoka have one thing in common. To find out what it is, post the maps of their kingdoms soon AFTER THEY KICKED THE BUCKET. Nehru tried to be the next Asoka when he took the J&K issue to the UN and uttered Hindi-Chini bhai bhai.

Actually they are very different in that respect. Aurangzeb's empire crumbled even in his own time, with the rise of the Marathas. Within 50 years of his death, Delhi was in Maratha hands. All that Aurangzeb stood for in terms of government policy was repudiated by his own Mughal successors (e.g. jizya). The Mauryan empire crumbled after Ashoka's death, but his legacy survived in most of India for several centuries, in the principles of dharma and the government's duty to the people.

I don't disagree with Asoka's desire for peace and dharma, etc. But the Buddhist-convert Asoka (who was deeply saddened by all the death and mutilation) was a bit like Arjuna before GeetOpadEsam. He built his empire like what a Kshatriya would do (like Raja Raja, Krishnadevaraya, etc.) and let it evaporate by becoming a pacifist.

That is a valid criticism of Ashoka's politics. In his later years, having already shown his immense military might, he believed that exerting influence through diplomacy was more effective. That may have undermined the strength of his empire and led to its disintegration. The extent of his empire is remarkable, when you consider that it was not replicated in Indian history until the invention of cannon. But my point is not just about the extent of his empire, but about the lasting legacy. Hundreds of years after his death, the people of Amaravati built and worshipped at a stupa that depicted the ruler as the chakravartin in Ashokan style. More centuries later, his name was featured in several Hindu puranas.

Guruvu-gaaru, if you are interested, I posted about Ashoka and the supposed strain of pacifism in Indian history earlier: https://such.forumotion.com/t7290p50-ashoka-by-charles-allen#60114

Rashmun wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Rashmun and PP:  Aurangazeb and Asoka have one thing in common. To find out what it is, post the maps of their kingdoms soon AFTER THEY KICKED THE BUCKET. Nehru tried to be the next Asoka when he took the J&K issue to the UN and uttered Hindi-Chini bhai bhai.

Actually they are very different in that respect. Aurangzeb's empire crumbled even in his own time, with the rise of the Marathas. Within 50 years of his death, Delhi was in Maratha hands. All that Aurangzeb stood for in terms of government policy was repudiated by his own Mughal successors (e.g. jizya). The Mauryan empire crumbled after Ashoka's death, but his legacy survived in most of India for several centuries, in the principles of dharma and the government's duty to the people.

PS: As I said before, India was under a profound Buddhist influence until just before the Muslim invasions. Ashoka died circa 200 BCE, but sanAtana dharma did not make a comeback for eight hundred more years. Even the Hindu revival circa 600 CE did not bring back sanAtana dharma (i.e. the old vedic religion), but it brought in the bhakti movement and early elements of the Hinduism we recognize today.

Aurangzeb's ideas died a quick death, but his great grandfather Akbar's ideas did not. That is why Amartya Sen considers Asoka and Akbar to be the two greatest kings India has known. That is why Sen also says that modern Indian secularism is based on Akbar's formulation of secularism in the Indian context. There is no doubt that Asoka exercised tremendous influence with respect to medieval Indian thinking but Akbar's influence on Modern India is surely greater. One more point: For all its goodness, Budhism is a 'slave religion' as its critics have described it. In the sense that it inculcates passiveness, non-violence, etc. The argument could be made that the arrival of Budhism and Jainism in India weakened the Indian psyche and made India ripe for external conquest. Freedom of the individual (salvation/nirvana) and individual enlightenment became more important than fighting external enemies.

Advaita Vedanta by popularizing weird philosophical ideas like its definition of 'maya' also contributed to this. After all, if the world is an illusion, then why fight?

undefined wrote:

That is a valid criticism of Ashoka's politics. In his later years, having already shown his immense military might, he believed that exerting influence through diplomacy was more effective. That may have undermined the strength of his empire and led to its disintegration. The extent of his empire is remarkable, when you consider that it was not replicated in Indian history until the invention of cannon. But my point is not just about the extent of his empire, but about the lasting legacy. Hundreds of years after his death, the people of Amaravati built and worshipped at a stupa that depicted the ruler as the chakravartin in Ashokan style. More centuries later, his name was featured in several Hindu puranas.

 Indeed, he was great. So was Nehru. However, both in a strange way contributed to the weak, less comprehensive, modern Indian.

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

undefined wrote:

That is a valid criticism of Ashoka's politics. In his later years, having already shown his immense military might, he believed that exerting influence through diplomacy was more effective. That may have undermined the strength of his empire and led to its disintegration. The extent of his empire is remarkable, when you consider that it was not replicated in Indian history until the invention of cannon. But my point is not just about the extent of his empire, but about the lasting legacy. Hundreds of years after his death, the people of Amaravati built and worshipped at a stupa that depicted the ruler as the chakravartin in Ashokan style. More centuries later, his name was featured in several Hindu puranas.

 Indeed, he was great. So was Nehru. However, both in a strange way contributed to the weak, less comprehensive, modern Indian.

a more appropariate comparison with Asoka might be Adi Sankara who also led to a weakening of the Indian psyche by foolishly preaching that this world is an illusion.

Idéfix wrote:Guruvu-gaaru, if you are interested, I posted about Ashoka and the supposed strain of pacifism in Indian history earlier: https://such.forumotion.com/t7290p50-ashoka-by-charles-allen#60114

 Thanks.

Rashmun wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

undefined wrote:

That is a valid criticism of Ashoka's politics. In his later years, having already shown his immense military might, he believed that exerting influence through diplomacy was more effective. That may have undermined the strength of his empire and led to its disintegration. The extent of his empire is remarkable, when you consider that it was not replicated in Indian history until the invention of cannon. But my point is not just about the extent of his empire, but about the lasting legacy. Hundreds of years after his death, the people of Amaravati built and worshipped at a stupa that depicted the ruler as the chakravartin in Ashokan style. More centuries later, his name was featured in several Hindu puranas.

 Indeed, he was great. So was Nehru. However, both in a strange way contributed to the weak, less comprehensive, modern Indian.

a more appropariate comparison with Asoka might be Adi Sankara who also led to a weakening of the Indian psyche by foolishly preaching that this world is an illusion.  

Sandilya, your silence on Adi Sankara's foolish view that this world is an illusion is perplexing. Surely it is easy to see that such a view, if popularized, would lead to a weakening of the Indian psyche.

Rashmun wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

undefined wrote:

That is a valid criticism of Ashoka's politics. In his later years, having already shown his immense military might, he believed that exerting influence through diplomacy was more effective. That may have undermined the strength of his empire and led to its disintegration. The extent of his empire is remarkable, when you consider that it was not replicated in Indian history until the invention of cannon. But my point is not just about the extent of his empire, but about the lasting legacy. Hundreds of years after his death, the people of Amaravati built and worshipped at a stupa that depicted the ruler as the chakravartin in Ashokan style. More centuries later, his name was featured in several Hindu puranas.

 Indeed, he was great. So was Nehru. However, both in a strange way contributed to the weak, less comprehensive, modern Indian.

a more appropariate comparison with Asoka might be Adi Sankara who also led to a weakening of the Indian psyche by foolishly preaching that this world is an illusion.  

 So, are you suggesting that Tambrams (they follow Shankara) fled TN because not so illusory DKheads were chasing them?

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

undefined wrote:

That is a valid criticism of Ashoka's politics. In his later years, having already shown his immense military might, he believed that exerting influence through diplomacy was more effective. That may have undermined the strength of his empire and led to its disintegration. The extent of his empire is remarkable, when you consider that it was not replicated in Indian history until the invention of cannon. But my point is not just about the extent of his empire, but about the lasting legacy. Hundreds of years after his death, the people of Amaravati built and worshipped at a stupa that depicted the ruler as the chakravartin in Ashokan style. More centuries later, his name was featured in several Hindu puranas.

 Indeed, he was great. So was Nehru. However, both in a strange way contributed to the weak, less comprehensive, modern Indian.

a more appropariate comparison with Asoka might be Adi Sankara who also led to a weakening of the Indian psyche by foolishly preaching that this world is an illusion.  

 So, are you suggesting that Tambrams (they follow Shankara) fled TN because not so illusory DKheads were chasing them?

The vast majority of Tambrams do not follow Adi Sankara to the best of my knowledge. They are either Vaisnavites or Saivites, and not Sankarites.

Rashmun wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

undefined wrote:

That is a valid criticism of Ashoka's politics. In his later years, having already shown his immense military might, he believed that exerting influence through diplomacy was more effective. That may have undermined the strength of his empire and led to its disintegration. The extent of his empire is remarkable, when you consider that it was not replicated in Indian history until the invention of cannon. But my point is not just about the extent of his empire, but about the lasting legacy. Hundreds of years after his death, the people of Amaravati built and worshipped at a stupa that depicted the ruler as the chakravartin in Ashokan style. More centuries later, his name was featured in several Hindu puranas.

 Indeed, he was great. So was Nehru. However, both in a strange way contributed to the weak, less comprehensive, modern Indian.

a more appropariate comparison with Asoka might be Adi Sankara who also led to a weakening of the Indian psyche by foolishly preaching that this world is an illusion.  

Sandilya, your silence on Adi Sankara's foolish view that this world is an illusion is perplexing. Surely it is easy to see that such a view, if popularized, would lead to a weakening of the Indian psyche.

I kept quiet because I didn't want to argue with you on "the world being an illusion". To equate that statement with Sankara's advaita is like alcoholic Devadas explaining his weaknesses through Vedic verses. Sankara asked us to strive for understanding the real.

Rashmun wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

undefined wrote:

That is a valid criticism of Ashoka's politics. In his later years, having already shown his immense military might, he believed that exerting influence through diplomacy was more effective. That may have undermined the strength of his empire and led to its disintegration. The extent of his empire is remarkable, when you consider that it was not replicated in Indian history until the invention of cannon. But my point is not just about the extent of his empire, but about the lasting legacy. Hundreds of years after his death, the people of Amaravati built and worshipped at a stupa that depicted the ruler as the chakravartin in Ashokan style. More centuries later, his name was featured in several Hindu puranas.

 Indeed, he was great. So was Nehru. However, both in a strange way contributed to the weak, less comprehensive, modern Indian.

a more appropariate comparison with Asoka might be Adi Sankara who also led to a weakening of the Indian psyche by foolishly preaching that this world is an illusion.  

 So, are you suggesting that Tambrams (they follow Shankara) fled TN because not so illusory DKheads were chasing them?

The vast majority of Tambrams do not follow Adi Sankara to the best of my knowledge. They are either Vaisnavites or Saivites, and not Sankarites.

 Iyers!

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

 Indeed, he was great. So was Nehru. However, both in a strange way contributed to the weak, less comprehensive, modern Indian.

a more appropariate comparison with Asoka might be Adi Sankara who also led to a weakening of the Indian psyche by foolishly preaching that this world is an illusion.  

 So, are you suggesting that Tambrams (they follow Shankara) fled TN because not so illusory DKheads were chasing them?

The vast majority of Tambrams do not follow Adi Sankara to the best of my knowledge. They are either Vaisnavites or Saivites, and not Sankarites.

 Iyers!

In my opinion you are wrong. The matter is easily decided though. Let us ask Max to share his views on this issue.

Rashmun wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Rashmun and PP:  Aurangazeb and Asoka have one thing in common. To find out what it is, post the maps of their kingdoms soon AFTER THEY KICKED THE BUCKET. Nehru tried to be the next Asoka when he took the J&K issue to the UN and uttered Hindi-Chini bhai bhai.

Actually they are very different in that respect. Aurangzeb's empire crumbled even in his own time, with the rise of the Marathas. Within 50 years of his death, Delhi was in Maratha hands. All that Aurangzeb stood for in terms of government policy was repudiated by his own Mughal successors (e.g. jizya). The Mauryan empire crumbled after Ashoka's death, but his legacy survived in most of India for several centuries, in the principles of dharma and the government's duty to the people.

PS: As I said before, India was under a profound Buddhist influence until just before the Muslim invasions. Ashoka died circa 200 BCE, but sanAtana dharma did not make a comeback for eight hundred more years. Even the Hindu revival circa 600 CE did not bring back sanAtana dharma (i.e. the old vedic religion), but it brought in the bhakti movement and early elements of the Hinduism we recognize today.

Aurangzeb's ideas died a quick death, but his great grandfather Akbar's ideas did not. That is why Amartya Sen considers Asoka and Akbar to be the two greatest kings India has known. That is why Sen also says that modern Indian secularism is based on Akbar's formulation of secularism in the Indian context. There is no doubt that Asoka exercised tremendous influence with respect to medieval Indian thinking but Akbar's influence on Modern India is surely greater. One more point: For all its goodness, Budhism is a 'slave religion' as its critics have described it. In the sense that it inculcates passiveness, non-violence, etc. The argument could be made that the arrival of Budhism and Jainism in India weakened the Indian psyche and made India ripe for external conquest. Freedom of the individual (salvation/nirvana) and individual enlightenment became more important than fighting external enemies.

 argument could be made that your mughal obsession & heroworship of strong islamic men through the ages has weakened your sphincter and made it ripe for phlegmy's penetration on repeated basis much like ghori on delhi.

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Rashmun and PP:  Aurangazeb and Asoka have one thing in common. To find out what it is, post the maps of their kingdoms soon AFTER THEY KICKED THE BUCKET. Nehru tried to be the next Asoka when he took the J&K issue to the UN and uttered Hindi-Chini bhai bhai.

Actually they are very different in that respect. Aurangzeb's empire crumbled even in his own time, with the rise of the Marathas. Within 50 years of his death, Delhi was in Maratha hands. All that Aurangzeb stood for in terms of government policy was repudiated by his own Mughal successors (e.g. jizya). The Mauryan empire crumbled after Ashoka's death, but his legacy survived in most of India for several centuries, in the principles of dharma and the government's duty to the people.

PS: As I said before, India was under a profound Buddhist influence until just before the Muslim invasions. Ashoka died circa 200 BCE, but sanAtana dharma did not make a comeback for eight hundred more years. Even the Hindu revival circa 600 CE did not bring back sanAtana dharma (i.e. the old vedic religion), but it brought in the bhakti movement and early elements of the Hinduism we recognize today.

Aurangzeb's ideas died a quick death, but his great grandfather Akbar's ideas did not. That is why Amartya Sen considers Asoka and Akbar to be the two greatest kings India has known. That is why Sen also says that modern Indian secularism is based on Akbar's formulation of secularism in the Indian context. There is no doubt that Asoka exercised tremendous influence with respect to medieval Indian thinking but Akbar's influence on Modern India is surely greater. One more point: For all its goodness, Budhism is a 'slave religion' as its critics have described it. In the sense that it inculcates passiveness, non-violence, etc. The argument could be made that the arrival of Budhism and Jainism in India weakened the Indian psyche and made India ripe for external conquest. Freedom of the individual (salvation/nirvana) and individual enlightenment became more important than fighting external enemies.

 argument could be made that your mughal obsession & heroworship of strong islamic men through the ages has weakened your sphincter and made it ripe for phlegmy's penetration on repeated basis much like ghori on delhi.

Propa, are you telling me where your picked up your FISHERMAN LANGUAGE from? It is strange to see you shy away from this question.

Rashmun wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

a more appropariate comparison with Asoka might be Adi Sankara who also led to a weakening of the Indian psyche by foolishly preaching that this world is an illusion.  

 So, are you suggesting that Tambrams (they follow Shankara) fled TN because not so illusory DKheads were chasing them?

The vast majority of Tambrams do not follow Adi Sankara to the best of my knowledge. They are either Vaisnavites or Saivites, and not Sankarites.

 Iyers!

In my opinion you are wrong. The matter is easily decided though. Let us ask Max to share his views on this issue.

iyengars are srivaishnavites, but iyers are not exclusively saivite and worship at both temples. in fact the chidambaram temple has a separate entrance to the govindarAja perumAL temple which allows srivaishnavites to enter the temple premises without every having to lay their eyes on any saivite symbols.  iyengars were the breakaway faction from the original single group which never had any such divisions. the iyers simply continue to be part of the original group. the single best proof is that you'll find unmistakably vaishnavite names amongst iyers.

to my knowledge iyers consider themselves to be advaitins and ally themselves with either the kAnchi or the sringEri matams.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

 So, are you suggesting that Tambrams (they follow Shankara) fled TN because not so illusory DKheads were chasing them?

The vast majority of Tambrams do not follow Adi Sankara to the best of my knowledge. They are either Vaisnavites or Saivites, and not Sankarites.

 Iyers!

In my opinion you are wrong. The matter is easily decided though. Let us ask Max to share his views on this issue.

iyengars are srivaishnavites, but iyers are not exclusively saivite and worship at both temples. in fact the chidambaram temple has a separate entrance to govindaraja perumAL which allows srivaishnavites to enter the temple premises without every having to lay their eyes on any saivite symbols.  iyengars were the breakaway faction from the original single group which never had any such divisions. the iyers simply continue to be part of the original group. the single best proof is that you'll find unmistakably vaishnavite names amongst iyers.

That does not answer the question: should iyers be considered as a sect which considers Adi Sankara as their paramount spiritual leader?