<!--QuoteBegin-sureshmoorthy+Mar 8 2008, 09:04 PM-->QUOTE(sureshmoorthy @ Mar 8 2008, 09:04 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->#1 We distinguish between Hinduism and Hindutva. That doesn't mean we're dividing the Hindu society. We distinguish in order to understand the political situation better, NOT because we want to divide. A complex whole is often divided into many parts in order to facilitate understanding. This is the scientific approach.[right][snapback]79440[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->What it comes down to is that you're separating the core part of Hindu society from those you think you can mold your way:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->But only nationalists can be Hindutvadis. So our job is to strengthen Hindutva rather than Hinduism, <b>because at the end of the day,religious, temple-going Hindus are of no use to the Hindu society</b>, if their political views conflict with the interests of the Hindu people.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->So "religious" Hindus are pitted against 'Hindus' <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo--> We <i>are</i> the Hindus, you confusio. "Religious" Hindus - the ones that follow traditional Hindu Dharma - have always been Hindus, they have always made up the Hindu population of Bharat... Enough of your psecular doublespeak.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->There are many Hindus, even sanyasins... actively campaigned against Modi in Gujarat.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->You believe every falsehood against Hindus, don't ya?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->#2 This distinction helps in weeding out worthless people who, though calling themselves Hindus, are more dangerous than the enemy. Swami Agniwesh is one such instance, and there are many more. All the political parties, media, various activists, rights groups etc. are Hindus, but are more anti-Hindu than the enemy.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->No they're not Hindus. They're pseculars (though some still keep their Hindu names so they can further fool people). And Agnivesh is a well-known communist. Hinduism Today exposed him long ago as an anti-Hindu liar, while the Arya Samaj body by-and-large knows about this fraudulent furball and his organisation that parades around like a valid Arya Samaj. Similarly, it is communist Sandeep Pandey who hires comrade goons to impersonate Sanyasins and boo against Ayodhya and other Hindu matters. All this has long been documented here at IF.
But the people who instantly fall for these frauds and then cite them as example arguments against "Hindus" usually tend to be the real anti-Hindus. An actual Hindu would bother finding out the truth first.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->OTOH, there are <b>non-Hindus and even atheists</b> who believe in Hindutva. Who's our friend here, the religious Hindu or the non-religious Hindutvadi? It's a no-brainer.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->"Our"? Who is "our"? You already said the "religious Hindus are of no use".
If the "non-Hindus and atheists who believe in Hindutva" are so valuable to you, why don't you start a non-Hindu/Atheist Nationalistutva instead, since the present Hindutva offends you so. Note the word <i>Hindu</i> in Hindutva. We're still here. In spite of christoislamics telling us our Gods are a myth, instead of communists and christo-psecular media lying about us and our traditions, instead of macaulayite christocommunist schools teaching that our Gods are make-believe and have nothing on jehovallah, we're still here. In spite of modern day Indians who want India and glorious Hindu history but oddly don't want Hinduism to continue, we're still here.
Shivaji, the Shaivite Shahis of Afghanistan, the Shakta Rajputs, our Vedic Rishis, the Arya Samaj, the Shakta-Shaiva-Vaishnava S Indian kingdoms, Vaishnava Hindus of the Punjab, Vishnu-KAli-Shiva-bhaktas Aurobindo and Vivekananda, and others including many unnamed but not unvalued Hindu ancestors who fought valiantly - they were all "religious" Hindooooos. Bharatam is because of them. And yeah, we are still following in *their* footsteps. The Hindoo's nationalism is of <i>that</i> kind that recognises the Divinity manifested in Bharatam, in our traditions, in our life. Arts, sciences, skills developed in Hindu history are often directly attributed to the teaching of the Gods - for instance Shakuntala Devi says her genius math is due to her friendship with Ganapathi, just as KAli was the originator of Kalidasa's literacy and artistry (even a Japanese hero attributed his acquisition of special skills to Ganapathi=Kangiten) - the allegedly-'atheist' Jains accord even reading and writing to the teachings of a great Tirtankara. Our progress is due to our understanding that we are part of that greater whole and our knowledge sourced from it. We are Hindus because we follow that traditional Hinduism still. We have not yet been "cured". Incurable and inconvertible.
But I forgot that our continued presence/existence irks quite a few others. There are indeed Indians who'd prefer Hinduism not to have Gods anymore, not to have followers who believe in Gods anymore. It is beyond incomprehensible and even very embarrassing for some, and it stands in the way of the plans of others. But here we are. Going by a doco's stats (couple of years old), at least some 90% of India's <i>Hindu</i> population - that's 'tribals', villagers and even the majority of town urbania - still believes in our Gods. It is traditional Hinduism, it has ever been part of Hindu Dharma.
(Sad but true: Macaulayite education hasn't succeeded yet - my, how long it is taking.... When will we learn.... when will we see the light? When will we stop obsessing over Sri Rama... and his bridge. Why do us Hindooos bother about this bridge anyway? What a mystery. So backward of us Hindoooos.)
All this scares the modern Indian who readily wants the <i>history</i> of Hinduism (and wants to have full claim on it), but does not want Hinduism in the <i>present</i> - they want a non-traditional but 'nationalist' Indian culture, and <i>ideally</i> would have that it had evolved from some historical traditional Hinduism to a modern 'progressive' neutral mental state (that is, no continuation of traditional Hinduism in the present. Some would even prefer rewriting <i>historic</i> Hinduism to one that was Gods-free, just so that it would make more sense to them and not feel so entirely alien and unrelatable to them. Hindu Gods just <i>don't</i> compute for them otherwise.)
The modern Indian is thwarted in his visions too. Because the dratted Hindooos are in the way. Again. We're always in the way, I fear. Nothing - except perhaps christoislamicommunistic tactics - is working (and even the dubious success of Macaulayite education is just toooo darnnnn sloowwwww).
<!--QuoteBegin-sureshmoorthy+Mar 8 2008, 09:04 PM-->QUOTE(sureshmoorthy @ Mar 8 2008, 09:04 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->These are the reasons why any practical man will try to distinguish between Hinduism and Hindutva. <b>It's not to divide the Hindu society any further, but to make the goal and the path clear.</b>
[right][snapback]79440[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->No need to become all explanatory and try to side-track. You made your goal quite clear already:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->religious, temple-going Hindus are of no use to the Hindu society<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Hey, funny that. These "religious, temple-going Hindus" are the very same Hindoos that the christoislamicommunipseculars want made impotent/out of the way in India too! The same kind that the British targeted. What a coincidence!
Not a coincidence at all, of course, when one considers that this antagonism is but the result of christo-conditioning as well.
Psecularising the traditional Hindoo removes "religion" from it - first by indoctrination into western view of things and alienation from its traditions, then by the gap of generations, so that it ultimately becomes a foreigner looking at its own traditions as if these were entirely alien, incomprehensible and nonsensical.
Sometimes the successfully reprogrammed may still call itself Hindu for a while longer (maybe for a generation or two) even while it's opposed to traditional Hinduism. The psecularisation process may even have allowed it to retain some sense of its own identity in the form of a bare, stripped-down nationalism bereft of any deeper, meaningful sympathies (a modern-western style nationalism). And 100 years from now - or less - its offspring will be ready for molding by the Great Powers: ready to sell-out, buy-out.
These kinds of psecularised modern Indians were very much a part of the christocolonial plan too. And their minds have now been set such that they easily fall for the Christo Class Mindviruses - whichever thereof best appeals to the subject's mind (psecularism being the least violent of the lot). Yet there's one more peculiar (intended!) thing they have in common: an absolute incapability to understand or even sympathise with Hindu traditions, their actual background.
This is opposed to agnostic Hindus who always have sympathy for and often a connection to Hindu traditions. It's why they are willing to fight for the right of the average Hindu to continue Hindu traditions unencumbered by modern psecular taunts, even when these traditions are not all within their own personal sphere of experience - e.g. visiting temple or affinity with Hindu Gods or doing puja.
Balagangadhara is an example of an agnostic Hindu I think. (By the way, were I agnostic, I would argue all the points I made in the same way - to the extent that readers should not be able to distinguish between whether I am agnostic or whether I accept Hindu Gods' existence.... The goal of continuation of Dharmic experience is part of the basis of Hindu unity, IMO.)
Sometimes, agnosticism occurs when people have been separated from their Natural Religion by exposure to psyops/christo-education/equal-equal routine of discovering that christoislamism is a myth and thinking that "therefore, could Hinduism/Shinto/... be a bunch of stories too" and similar. It also happens if they've been too long away from traditional life in childhood and find it all a bit 'foreign'. But these are still people who couldn't actually be (successfully or permanently) reprogrammed away from their natural traditions. Instead, they try to merge back into their home; in any case, they already have or develop a sympathy and affinity for their traditions. In the Hindu case, sometimes they make their own way to the complete traditional Hindu experience: Sita Ram Goel for example, who in spite of his temporary infatuation with communism returned to develop a bond with Hindu Dharma and thereafter experienced Devi. (Often these Hindus also have a sympathetic or respectful position vis-a-vis other Natural Religions.)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->(sureshmoorthy
"because at the end of the day,religious, temple-going Hindus are of no use to the Hindu society, if their political views conflict with the interests of the Hindu people"<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Yes, so sad. I see how ~90% of the Hindu population being thoroughly traditional is tragedy to your alienating ideas.
Why don't you start your own thing instead of hoping to commandeer/hijack Hindu movements; I'm sure you can rustle up some of those likeminded "non-Hindu" friends you spoke of to join you. (In fact there are already many movements out there in India that you can join....)
I'm sorry that the majority of the Hindu population still believes in the "opium of the Hindu masses" (as some consider our Hindu Gods to be) and is unwilling to comply with your intentions and goals, but what can ya do? We're still happy little 'Mowglis', don't ya know - and glad to remain so. Oh what to do. Perhaps, as a superior social darwinist, you want to apply to the christoislamicommunists for tips on how to tackle the Hindoooo and <i>make</i> it comply. They have more practical experience...
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->But only nationalists can be Hindutvadis. So our job is to strengthen Hindutva rather than Hinduism, <b>because at the end of the day,religious, temple-going Hindus are of no use to the Hindu society</b>, if their political views conflict with the interests of the Hindu people.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->So "religious" Hindus are pitted against 'Hindus' <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo--> We <i>are</i> the Hindus, you confusio. "Religious" Hindus - the ones that follow traditional Hindu Dharma - have always been Hindus, they have always made up the Hindu population of Bharat... Enough of your psecular doublespeak.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->There are many Hindus, even sanyasins... actively campaigned against Modi in Gujarat.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->You believe every falsehood against Hindus, don't ya?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->#2 This distinction helps in weeding out worthless people who, though calling themselves Hindus, are more dangerous than the enemy. Swami Agniwesh is one such instance, and there are many more. All the political parties, media, various activists, rights groups etc. are Hindus, but are more anti-Hindu than the enemy.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->No they're not Hindus. They're pseculars (though some still keep their Hindu names so they can further fool people). And Agnivesh is a well-known communist. Hinduism Today exposed him long ago as an anti-Hindu liar, while the Arya Samaj body by-and-large knows about this fraudulent furball and his organisation that parades around like a valid Arya Samaj. Similarly, it is communist Sandeep Pandey who hires comrade goons to impersonate Sanyasins and boo against Ayodhya and other Hindu matters. All this has long been documented here at IF.
But the people who instantly fall for these frauds and then cite them as example arguments against "Hindus" usually tend to be the real anti-Hindus. An actual Hindu would bother finding out the truth first.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->OTOH, there are <b>non-Hindus and even atheists</b> who believe in Hindutva. Who's our friend here, the religious Hindu or the non-religious Hindutvadi? It's a no-brainer.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->"Our"? Who is "our"? You already said the "religious Hindus are of no use".
If the "non-Hindus and atheists who believe in Hindutva" are so valuable to you, why don't you start a non-Hindu/Atheist Nationalistutva instead, since the present Hindutva offends you so. Note the word <i>Hindu</i> in Hindutva. We're still here. In spite of christoislamics telling us our Gods are a myth, instead of communists and christo-psecular media lying about us and our traditions, instead of macaulayite christocommunist schools teaching that our Gods are make-believe and have nothing on jehovallah, we're still here. In spite of modern day Indians who want India and glorious Hindu history but oddly don't want Hinduism to continue, we're still here.
Shivaji, the Shaivite Shahis of Afghanistan, the Shakta Rajputs, our Vedic Rishis, the Arya Samaj, the Shakta-Shaiva-Vaishnava S Indian kingdoms, Vaishnava Hindus of the Punjab, Vishnu-KAli-Shiva-bhaktas Aurobindo and Vivekananda, and others including many unnamed but not unvalued Hindu ancestors who fought valiantly - they were all "religious" Hindooooos. Bharatam is because of them. And yeah, we are still following in *their* footsteps. The Hindoo's nationalism is of <i>that</i> kind that recognises the Divinity manifested in Bharatam, in our traditions, in our life. Arts, sciences, skills developed in Hindu history are often directly attributed to the teaching of the Gods - for instance Shakuntala Devi says her genius math is due to her friendship with Ganapathi, just as KAli was the originator of Kalidasa's literacy and artistry (even a Japanese hero attributed his acquisition of special skills to Ganapathi=Kangiten) - the allegedly-'atheist' Jains accord even reading and writing to the teachings of a great Tirtankara. Our progress is due to our understanding that we are part of that greater whole and our knowledge sourced from it. We are Hindus because we follow that traditional Hinduism still. We have not yet been "cured". Incurable and inconvertible.
But I forgot that our continued presence/existence irks quite a few others. There are indeed Indians who'd prefer Hinduism not to have Gods anymore, not to have followers who believe in Gods anymore. It is beyond incomprehensible and even very embarrassing for some, and it stands in the way of the plans of others. But here we are. Going by a doco's stats (couple of years old), at least some 90% of India's <i>Hindu</i> population - that's 'tribals', villagers and even the majority of town urbania - still believes in our Gods. It is traditional Hinduism, it has ever been part of Hindu Dharma.
(Sad but true: Macaulayite education hasn't succeeded yet - my, how long it is taking.... When will we learn.... when will we see the light? When will we stop obsessing over Sri Rama... and his bridge. Why do us Hindooos bother about this bridge anyway? What a mystery. So backward of us Hindoooos.)
All this scares the modern Indian who readily wants the <i>history</i> of Hinduism (and wants to have full claim on it), but does not want Hinduism in the <i>present</i> - they want a non-traditional but 'nationalist' Indian culture, and <i>ideally</i> would have that it had evolved from some historical traditional Hinduism to a modern 'progressive' neutral mental state (that is, no continuation of traditional Hinduism in the present. Some would even prefer rewriting <i>historic</i> Hinduism to one that was Gods-free, just so that it would make more sense to them and not feel so entirely alien and unrelatable to them. Hindu Gods just <i>don't</i> compute for them otherwise.)
The modern Indian is thwarted in his visions too. Because the dratted Hindooos are in the way. Again. We're always in the way, I fear. Nothing - except perhaps christoislamicommunistic tactics - is working (and even the dubious success of Macaulayite education is just toooo darnnnn sloowwwww).
<!--QuoteBegin-sureshmoorthy+Mar 8 2008, 09:04 PM-->QUOTE(sureshmoorthy @ Mar 8 2008, 09:04 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->These are the reasons why any practical man will try to distinguish between Hinduism and Hindutva. <b>It's not to divide the Hindu society any further, but to make the goal and the path clear.</b>
[right][snapback]79440[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->No need to become all explanatory and try to side-track. You made your goal quite clear already:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->religious, temple-going Hindus are of no use to the Hindu society<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Hey, funny that. These "religious, temple-going Hindus" are the very same Hindoos that the christoislamicommunipseculars want made impotent/out of the way in India too! The same kind that the British targeted. What a coincidence!
Not a coincidence at all, of course, when one considers that this antagonism is but the result of christo-conditioning as well.
Psecularising the traditional Hindoo removes "religion" from it - first by indoctrination into western view of things and alienation from its traditions, then by the gap of generations, so that it ultimately becomes a foreigner looking at its own traditions as if these were entirely alien, incomprehensible and nonsensical.
Sometimes the successfully reprogrammed may still call itself Hindu for a while longer (maybe for a generation or two) even while it's opposed to traditional Hinduism. The psecularisation process may even have allowed it to retain some sense of its own identity in the form of a bare, stripped-down nationalism bereft of any deeper, meaningful sympathies (a modern-western style nationalism). And 100 years from now - or less - its offspring will be ready for molding by the Great Powers: ready to sell-out, buy-out.
These kinds of psecularised modern Indians were very much a part of the christocolonial plan too. And their minds have now been set such that they easily fall for the Christo Class Mindviruses - whichever thereof best appeals to the subject's mind (psecularism being the least violent of the lot). Yet there's one more peculiar (intended!) thing they have in common: an absolute incapability to understand or even sympathise with Hindu traditions, their actual background.
This is opposed to agnostic Hindus who always have sympathy for and often a connection to Hindu traditions. It's why they are willing to fight for the right of the average Hindu to continue Hindu traditions unencumbered by modern psecular taunts, even when these traditions are not all within their own personal sphere of experience - e.g. visiting temple or affinity with Hindu Gods or doing puja.
Balagangadhara is an example of an agnostic Hindu I think. (By the way, were I agnostic, I would argue all the points I made in the same way - to the extent that readers should not be able to distinguish between whether I am agnostic or whether I accept Hindu Gods' existence.... The goal of continuation of Dharmic experience is part of the basis of Hindu unity, IMO.)
Sometimes, agnosticism occurs when people have been separated from their Natural Religion by exposure to psyops/christo-education/equal-equal routine of discovering that christoislamism is a myth and thinking that "therefore, could Hinduism/Shinto/... be a bunch of stories too" and similar. It also happens if they've been too long away from traditional life in childhood and find it all a bit 'foreign'. But these are still people who couldn't actually be (successfully or permanently) reprogrammed away from their natural traditions. Instead, they try to merge back into their home; in any case, they already have or develop a sympathy and affinity for their traditions. In the Hindu case, sometimes they make their own way to the complete traditional Hindu experience: Sita Ram Goel for example, who in spite of his temporary infatuation with communism returned to develop a bond with Hindu Dharma and thereafter experienced Devi. (Often these Hindus also have a sympathetic or respectful position vis-a-vis other Natural Religions.)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->(sureshmoorthy
"because at the end of the day,religious, temple-going Hindus are of no use to the Hindu society, if their political views conflict with the interests of the Hindu people"<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Yes, so sad. I see how ~90% of the Hindu population being thoroughly traditional is tragedy to your alienating ideas. Why don't you start your own thing instead of hoping to commandeer/hijack Hindu movements; I'm sure you can rustle up some of those likeminded "non-Hindu" friends you spoke of to join you. (In fact there are already many movements out there in India that you can join....)
I'm sorry that the majority of the Hindu population still believes in the "opium of the Hindu masses" (as some consider our Hindu Gods to be) and is unwilling to comply with your intentions and goals, but what can ya do? We're still happy little 'Mowglis', don't ya know - and glad to remain so. Oh what to do. Perhaps, as a superior social darwinist, you want to apply to the christoislamicommunists for tips on how to tackle the Hindoooo and <i>make</i> it comply. They have more practical experience...