Gods with Multiple Arms, etc.

Factual Questions
21

The internet is a great way to access stuff written by tendentious ideological ax-grinders, not necessarily a reliable means for accessing solid scholarly research. I have seen the sites you refer to taking the line contra “Aryan Invasion Theory” and they are all written by Hindu fundamentalists.

As if we are seriously supposed to believe that the Indo-European language family was indigenous to India, which is what their argument implies. The weight of everything in historical linguistics shows that assertion to be untrue.

Beware of fundamentalist ideologically-driven claims that cannot be objectively verified, except within their own tendentious frame of reference. The only people advancing these arguments are fundamentalists whose aim is to impose a fascistic Hindu state and persecute people of all other religions (as they are already doing). Fundies of all religions are vile.

Dravidian civilization indigenously existed in India before the Aryans arrived. The ancient Tamil writings show a distinctly different religion, social order, and culture from the Vedic import. Only by ignoring such data can the fundie ideological ax-grinders argue their racial supremacist fantasies.

22

OffCourseThere’s no need for hostility or derision. If we are ignorant or misinformed, educate us. Start the appropriate "Ask The Whatever Guy"thread. It would be a tragedy if this thread were to end up in the Pit.
BTW-Is it just me or do other posters feel like were sitting on set with Moyers and Campbell?

23

A few clarifications here (As it is a Religious topic, all are IMHO, but i’ll provide cites to whatever i say if you need):

1> Hinduism is not a code of conduct for the society but rather an guide to oneself.

2> The word Hindu means, the people who lived beyond (east of) the river Indus. It has no relevance to faith or beliefs or anything else. In fact none of the “hinduism” books calls anyone hindus.

3> The concept of God as described in Hinduism is thus : God is infinite and omnipotent, and humans cannot realize God because through their 5 senses. However, any representation of God is valid and everyone should decide based on their personality the form of God they like. Even if they think their particular version of God is correct and all others are wrong, they are right. So Christians, Muslims and Jews are Hindus too.

Not having any representation of God is fine too. God is not a definition imposed on anyone but rather a discovery within themselves. There are different paths to God namely - worship of God’s representation, Doing your work whole heartedly (Karma) and other methods. Everyone has to decide for themselves what works best for them. There is no one size fits all approach.

4> Coming back to many arms and colors. These are again a part of mythology and representations. People generally are awestuck by something which is fear arousing (the different representations of Kali - the black goddess), filled with love (the baby krishna) etc. etc. The many arms were added to make them appear frightening or having different powers.

Shiva is blue because he is bitten by snakes and does lot of opium and stuff. Krishna is blue because he was bitten by a snake when a kid and survived. Krishna has rampant sex when a youth. The Gods in heaven keep drinking lots of alcohol etc. etc. Representations of Gods keep playing jokes with each other, etc. etc. You can make fun of Hindu Gods, and infact they are often ridiculed. Krishna is ridiculed for running away from a fight (Taunted as : The running away scared wrestler). Shiva is one who gets fooled all the time in mythology and dresses rather scantily and is insulted by his in laws. etc. etc.

The point here is that the representation of Gods are as fallible as humans. Again, there is no restriction to the properties of God you can think about but still that is your God. It is left to individuals to decide how their God is.

Another thing central to hinduism (philosophy) is the concept of observer and the observed. Its said that everyone is a creator if their own reality. Also, the universe exists because you exist and you choose to observe.

Since every representation of God is valid, Hindus historically did’nt deem necessary to convert people. Also, you cannot convert to Hinduism, there is no equivalent of Church, Mosque, etc. in Hinduism (that is you don’t ever have to go any temple to prove u’r religion), etc.

24

I don’t think you understand. The Aryan Invasion, theory or fact, is used precisely to further those fundamentals’ fascist goals. The Aryans entering India, whether it happened or not, is what is thought to have caused the caste system in the first place. The Aryans thought they had a more “superior” culture/language/etc. and it was an excuse used to justify them putting themselves in the top three castes, and shoving the indigenous “tribal” Dravidians into the bottom ones and enslaving them. The fact that they had lighter skin and probably looked more “Caucasian” was also used to justify their superiority.

People who argue against the Aryan Invasion Theory are instituting that no, no one is superior because they have light skin/dark skin/blonde hair/six fingers/whatever. They’re shedding light on the idea that everyone is equal. They’re doing the opposite of what Hindu fundamentalists in India would do.

25

I think what you’re saying is that you don’t have to go through a specific, prescribed ritual in order to be accepted as a follower of Hinduism, not that it’s impossible to ever adopt that belief system, correct?

That’s not meant as a criticism of what you wrote (it’s nice to see someone posting who actually knows what they’re talking about), just as a clarification, especially since I know of at least one American, with no Indian heritage, who has converted to Hinduism. (Yaphet Kotto, for those who wonder).

26

No one said anything about invasion, anyway. The evidence, however, is incontrovertible that there were two separate cultures, whether you want to call them Aryan and Dravidian or not is irrelevant. The evidence for the following is solid –

The Dravidian languages (mostly in southern India) are descended from a common language which was once spoken throughout the Indian subcontinent, including in what is now Pakistan and northeastern India.

The Indo-Aryan languages (mostly of northern India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, and Sri Lanka) are descended from a common language (of the Indo-European language family, which includes most of the languages of Europe and Persia) and its speakers spread from a point in the northwest, displacing most of the Dravidian language speakers as they moved east and south.

Whether you want to call that an invasion or not is a matter of semantics. If you want to deny an “invasion,” you also have to explain why there are Aryans in Europe and Persia. Do you argue for an invasion from India westward?
Andy_fl, I would add this to your list –

– For every true statement about Hinduism, the converse is also true. It all depends on whom you ask. When describing religion, there is often a tension between official doctrine and actual practices. It is even more complicated in Hinduism because there is no “official” and there is conflicting scholarly doctrine on the one hand and on the other hand there is a tremendous variety in actual practices.

Except when Hinduism speaks about how people should interact with others; how leaders should lead and how followers should follow. It is not always possible to draw a bright line between individual and society and it is even more difficult in Hinduism, which downplays the value of individual desires in favour of duty.

This is clearly not a operative definition of “Hindu” in the world today. “Hindu” refers to those who subscribe to “Hindu” beliefs and practices. There is a wide range of practices, philosophies, and beliefs encompassed by Hinduism, but it is a category that is just as definable as other religions.

This is an ideal espoused in some Hindu philosophy, not all, and it is not universally accepted by Hindus.

Except when Hindu society imposes its will on individuals, which is not uncommon.

27

Someguy, yes thanks for the correction. You are right. I meant that Hinduism is not instutionalized and there is no one who certifies you to be a hindu. Again, hinduism is about yourself not about a group. You choose your path to God and be true to your path and you judge yourself. The path you choose and the actions you perform or don’t perform as per your path is your karma. As I pointed our Christians and Muslims and everyone else is also Hindu. It does’nt matter what you believe in as long as you do your duty (karma).

In fact most of the hindu “saints” have led lives in anonymity and isolation trying to master themselves and the stress in hinduism is to understand yourself. And what works for you may not work for others, so everyone should find their path for themselves.

Even Atheists can be hindus. If you don’t believe that there is a bigger force than yourself that is fine too, you’ll find the answers within you.

This is getting to be GD material :slight_smile: