Temples were not the highlight of the Indus Valley Civilisation. Toilets were.

Rishi wrote:My beliefs stem not just from a sense of digestive urgency – but are firmly rooted in India’s historic identity. As I wrote that last sentence I could already hear the gasps of disbelief, after all what is more Indian than Hinduism and, therefore, temples? But allow me to articulate my point of view before you see red (or saffron). The fact of the matter is that the oldest recorded inhabitation of the Indian subcontinent is the Indus Valley Civilisation. And let’s face it, temples were not the highlight of the Indus Valley Civilisation. Toilets were.
According to experts, the health benefits of the Indus Valley sanitation system – of which toilets were integral – might have been integral in curbing the occurrence of disease and sickness which is one of the key reasons cities like Mohenjodaro and Harappa prospered. The mysterious and sudden end of the civilisation cannot be blamed on their lack of temples. To do so, one would also have to ignore the fact that despite a lack of temples the ancient Harappans were known to have a fondness for Shiva. In spite of their fondness for Shiva, they let their heads rule their hearts which is why we see well-planned sanitation systems and not a proliferation of temples in the ruins of their cities.
Unfortunately for us, with the end of the Harappan Civilisation also came the end of proper civic planning which has resulted in nearly half of India’s population having no access to toilets today. In fact, the situation is so bad that nearly 60% of the global population who don’t have access to toilets reside in India.




http://www.newslaundry.com/2013/10/holy-shit/

Kris wrote:

Rishi wrote:My beliefs stem not just from a sense of digestive urgency – but are firmly rooted in India’s historic identity. As I wrote that last sentence I could already hear the gasps of disbelief, after all what is more Indian than Hinduism and, therefore, temples? But allow me to articulate my point of view before you see red (or saffron). The fact of the matter is that the oldest recorded inhabitation of the Indian subcontinent is the Indus Valley Civilisation. And let’s face it, temples were not the highlight of the Indus Valley Civilisation. Toilets were.
According to experts, the health benefits of the Indus Valley sanitation system – of which toilets were integral – might have been integral in curbing the occurrence of disease and sickness which is one of the key reasons cities like Mohenjodaro and Harappa prospered. The mysterious and sudden end of the civilisation cannot be blamed on their lack of temples. To do so, one would also have to ignore the fact that despite a lack of temples the ancient Harappans were known to have a fondness for Shiva. In spite of their fondness for Shiva, they let their heads rule their hearts which is why we see well-planned sanitation systems and not a proliferation of temples in the ruins of their cities.
Unfortunately for us, with the end of the Harappan Civilisation also came the end of proper civic planning which has resulted in nearly half of India’s population having no access to toilets today. In fact, the situation is so bad that nearly 60% of the global population who don’t have access to toilets reside in India.




http://www.newslaundry.com/2013/10/holy-shit/

>>>>I guess economists are now grappling with the 'toilets vs. temples' paradigm as opposed to the traditional  'guns vs. butter' debate . Anyway, the Indus Valley folks simply may have had a different approach to worship, even though many of their gods presumably comprised the rudimentary beginnings of Hinduism. It may not have been an active choice to forego temples to build bathrooms and sewer systems, but rather the former may not have been high on the agenda. For that matter, the same may been true of the indo-aryans as well, with their nature worship.

Rishi wrote:

Kris wrote:>>>>I guess economists are now grappling with the 'toilets vs. temples' paradigm as opposed to the traditional  'guns vs. butter' debate . Anyway, the Indus Valley folks simply may have had a different approach to worship, even though many of their gods presumably comprised the rudimentary beginnings of Hinduism. It may not have been an active choice to forego temples to build bathrooms and sewer systems, but rather the former may not have been high on the agenda. For that matter, the same may been true of the indo-aryans as well, with their nature worship.

>>>It seems that the Hindus got the idea of temples only after the Buddhists and Jains built edifices as their places of worship.  The Temples in Kanchipuram once belonged to Jains.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Rishi wrote:

Kris wrote:>>>>I guess economists are now grappling with the 'toilets vs. temples' paradigm as opposed to the traditional  'guns vs. butter' debate . Anyway, the Indus Valley folks simply may have had a different approach to worship, even though many of their gods presumably comprised the rudimentary beginnings of Hinduism. It may not have been an active choice to forego temples to build bathrooms and sewer systems, but rather the former may not have been high on the agenda. For that matter, the same may been true of the indo-aryans as well, with their nature worship.

>>>It seems that the Hindus got the idea of temples only after the Buddhists and Jains built edifices as their places of worship.  The Temples in Kanchipuram once belonged to Jains.

Watch it...you are about to be awarded a FATWA.

Rishi wrote:

Kris wrote:

Rishi wrote:My beliefs stem not just from a sense of digestive urgency – but are firmly rooted in India’s historic identity. As I wrote that last sentence I could already hear the gasps of disbelief, after all what is more Indian than Hinduism and, therefore, temples? But allow me to articulate my point of view before you see red (or saffron). The fact of the matter is that the oldest recorded inhabitation of the Indian subcontinent is the Indus Valley Civilisation. And let’s face it, temples were not the highlight of the Indus Valley Civilisation. Toilets were.
According to experts, the health benefits of the Indus Valley sanitation system – of which toilets were integral – might have been integral in curbing the occurrence of disease and sickness which is one of the key reasons cities like Mohenjodaro and Harappa prospered. The mysterious and sudden end of the civilisation cannot be blamed on their lack of temples. To do so, one would also have to ignore the fact that despite a lack of temples the ancient Harappans were known to have a fondness for Shiva. In spite of their fondness for Shiva, they let their heads rule their hearts which is why we see well-planned sanitation systems and not a proliferation of temples in the ruins of their cities.
Unfortunately for us, with the end of the Harappan Civilisation also came the end of proper civic planning which has resulted in nearly half of India’s population having no access to toilets today. In fact, the situation is so bad that nearly 60% of the global population who don’t have access to toilets reside in India.




http://www.newslaundry.com/2013/10/holy-shit/

>>>>I guess economists are now grappling with the 'toilets vs. temples' paradigm as opposed to the traditional  'guns vs. butter' debate . Anyway, the Indus Valley folks simply may have had a different approach to worship, even though many of their gods presumably comprised the rudimentary beginnings of Hinduism. It may not have been an active choice to forego temples to build bathrooms and sewer systems, but rather the former may not have been high on the agenda. For that matter, the same may been true of the indo-aryans as well, with their nature worship.

>>>It seems that the Hindus got the idea of temples only after the Buddhists and Jains built edifices as their places of worship.  The Temples in Kanchipuram once belonged to Jains.