Hindutva:The Primer, from a Hindu Nationalist

[Surya 1]

Then what does Hinduism means?

Hinduism can generally be defined as the philosophies , knowledge, mysticism, and tradition emerged from the Indian soil. That's why we called atheist like charvaks who don't believe in god as rishis. Unlike abrahamic religion, Hinduism doesn't have one book and one god. We have so many gods and goddesses. We have millions of books. What we saw in the process of seeking the highest truth was established as a way leading to ultimate reality. That is why our philosophy says "Ekam sat vipraha bahudha vadanti" means one truths is said differently by different knowledge persons. Therefore atheism is also a part of Hinduism. Read Charvak philosophies if you are interested. The vastu Shasta, the art of constructing houses, temples, palaces, ayurveda, the knowledge of medicines, ashwaveda, the art of raising horses, the dhanurveda, the are of making weapons , bows and arrows in particular and many such knowledge are part of Hinduism though it is not a religion or religious texts.

 

[Pakistani Fighter]

Hinduism doesn't have one book and one god

Ekam evadvitiyam

 

[El Sidd]

Indian soil

Which period of history does it most relate to?

Indian soil as in after 1947?

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

Which period of history does it most relate to?

Indian soil as in after 1947?

I got you on this question..don't worry

 

[El Sidd]

I got you on this question..don't worry

inshallah i will escape

 

[Surya 1]

Time period is irrelevant. India has thousands of years of history. 1947 is nothing special. When I say India, it includes Pakistan too. In fact, it includes subcontinent and extends upto Indonesia.

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

Which period of history does it most relate to?

Indian soil as in after 1947?

Buddhist Thought: A complete introduction to the Indian tradition, by Paul Williams


A History of Indian Buddhism: From Śākyamuni to Early Mahāyāna, by Hirakawa Akira

Bones, Stones, and Buddhist Monks: Collected Papers on the Archaeology, Epigraphy, and Texts of Monastic Buddhism in India, by Gregory Schopen

Buddhist India, by T.W. Rhys Davids

Buddhist Saints in India: A Study in Buddhist Values and Orientations, by Ray A. Reginald

Buddhist Thought: A complete introduction to the Indian tradition, by Paul Williams

History of Indian Buddhism: From the Origins to the Śaka Era, by Étienne Lamotte

Indian Buddhism, by A. K. Warder

Indian Buddhism: A Survey with Bibliographical Notes, by Hajime Nakamura


Tāranātha’s History of Buddhism in India (Ancient Book)


An Introduction to the Standards of Scriptural Authenticity in Indian Buddhism, by Ronald M. Davidson

Buddha-nature, Mind and the Problem of Gradualism in a Comparative Perspective: On the Transmission and Reception of Buddhism in India and Tibet, by David Seyfort Ruegg

Haunting the Buddha: Indian Popular Religions and the Formation of Buddhism, by Robert DeCaroli


Scriptural Authenticity and the Śrāvaka Schools: An Essay towards an Indian Perspective, by Peter Skilling (The Estern Buddhist Vol. 41. No. 2 - 2010)



The Literature of the Mādhyamaka School of Philosophy in India, by David Seyfort Ruegg


A History Of India: Fourth Edition, by Hermann Kulke and Dietmar Rothermund

A History of Indian Philosophy (Vol. I-V), by Surendranath Dasgupta (okay this was written by a Gangu)

Greater Magadha: Studies in the Culture of Early India, by Johannes Bronkhorst


Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and Other Indo-Aryan Languages, by Richard Salomon


Indian Insights: Buddhism, Brahmanism and Bhakti, by Peter Connolly & Sue Hamilton (Editors)


Language and Reality: On an Episode in Indian Thought, by Johannes Bronkhorst


The Character of Self in Ancient India: Priests, Kings and Women in the Early Upaniṣads, by Brian Black

The Origin and Development of Early Indian Contemplative Practices, by Edward Fitzpatrick Crangle

The Two Sources of Indian Asceticism (Second Edition), by Johannes Bronkhorst

The Two Traditions of Meditation in Ancient India, by Johannes Bronkhorst


The Penguin History of Early India From the Origins to AD 1300, by Romila Thapar (ok Gangu author.ignore)

Pāli Literature: Including the Canonical Literature in Prakrit and Sanskrit of All the Hīnayāna Schools of Buddhism – K.R. Norman; Jan Gonda (Editors) History of Indian Literature. Vol. VII. Facs. 2

The Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in Indian History, by Edwin F.Bryant and Laurie L.Patton (Editors)


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you really telling me that all these academic publications from premier world Universities are only referring to the post-1947 entity of Republic of India?

@W.11 above might have reading materials of interest for you..the only serious student of history on this forum

 

[W.11]

i dont really like to consult western or secondary sources on ''Buddhist history'' whch seem to undergo much revisionism to suit western eurocentrism, dont really get why buddha's death was revised first from traditional 540 BC to 480 BC and now even thats revised to 400 BC.

regards

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

i dont really like to consult western or secondary sources on ''Buddhist history'' whch seem to undergo much revisionism to suit western eurocentrism, dont really get why buddha's death was revised first from traditional 540 BC to 480 BC and now even thats revised to 400 BC.

regards

Yup I also wrecked my brain on that one...Prime instigator is Richard Gombrich and there were two big conferences in Switzerland one in the 80s and other 90s..to determine the birth of the Buddha...I myself lost hundreds of hours on this issue...my Final conclusion

Buddha born in 563 BC --->not the original Exaggerated 623 BC (counting error in Thai annals I think) nor the modern rounded down 480 BC...throws everything completely off regarding Bimbisara and Ajatashatru

 

[W.11]

Buddha born in 563 BC --->not the original Exaggerated 623 BC (counting error in Thai annals I think) nor the modern rounded down 480 BC...throws everything completely off regarding Bimbisara and Ajatashatru

a stupa in Nalanda has been dated to 6th-5th century, similarly mayadevi temple has also been dated to the 550 BC.

there is a chance that the stupa maybe pre buddhist as some scholars have pointed out, but so far the temple and the stupa doesnt go against the buddhist orientation.

regards

 

[SIPRA]

@Mangus Ortus Novem

Paa Jee: Ae @Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8 ajj Hindutva di shit noon halwa saabat ker kay e ravay ga.

 

[El Sidd]

Buddhist Thought: A complete introduction to the Indian tradition, by Paul Williams


A History of Indian Buddhism: From Śākyamuni to Early Mahāyāna, by Hirakawa Akira

Bones, Stones, and Buddhist Monks: Collected Papers on the Archaeology, Epigraphy, and Texts of Monastic Buddhism in India, by Gregory Schopen

Buddhist India, by T.W. Rhys Davids

Buddhist Saints in India: A Study in Buddhist Values and Orientations, by Ray A. Reginald

Buddhist Thought: A complete introduction to the Indian tradition, by Paul Williams

History of Indian Buddhism: From the Origins to the Śaka Era, by Étienne Lamotte

Indian Buddhism, by A. K. Warder

Indian Buddhism: A Survey with Bibliographical Notes, by Hajime Nakamura


Tāranātha’s History of Buddhism in India (Ancient Book)


An Introduction to the Standards of Scriptural Authenticity in Indian Buddhism, by Ronald M. Davidson

Buddha-nature, Mind and the Problem of Gradualism in a Comparative Perspective: On the Transmission and Reception of Buddhism in India and Tibet, by David Seyfort Ruegg

Haunting the Buddha: Indian Popular Religions and the Formation of Buddhism, by Robert DeCaroli


Scriptural Authenticity and the Śrāvaka Schools: An Essay towards an Indian Perspective, by Peter Skilling (The Estern Buddhist Vol. 41. No. 2 - 2010)



The Literature of the Mādhyamaka School of Philosophy in India, by David Seyfort Ruegg


A History Of India: Fourth Edition, by Hermann Kulke and Dietmar Rothermund

A History of Indian Philosophy (Vol. I-V), by Surendranath Dasgupta (okay this was written by a Gangu)

Greater Magadha: Studies in the Culture of Early India, by Johannes Bronkhorst


Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and Other Indo-Aryan Languages, by Richard Salomon


Indian Insights: Buddhism, Brahmanism and Bhakti, by Peter Connolly & Sue Hamilton (Editors)


Language and Reality: On an Episode in Indian Thought, by Johannes Bronkhorst


The Character of Self in Ancient India: Priests, Kings and Women in the Early Upaniṣads, by Brian Black

The Origin and Development of Early Indian Contemplative Practices, by Edward Fitzpatrick Crangle

The Two Sources of Indian Asceticism (Second Edition), by Johannes Bronkhorst

The Two Traditions of Meditation in Ancient India, by Johannes Bronkhorst


The Penguin History of Early India From the Origins to AD 1300, by Romila Thapar (ok Gangu author.ignore)

Pāli Literature: Including the Canonical Literature in Prakrit and Sanskrit of All the Hīnayāna Schools of Buddhism – K.R. Norman; Jan Gonda (Editors) History of Indian Literature. Vol. VII. Facs. 2

The Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in Indian History, by Edwin F.Bryant and Laurie L.Patton (Editors)


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you really telling me that all these academic publications from premier world Universities are only referring to the post-1947 entity of Republic of India?

@W.11 above might have reading materials of interest for you..the only serious student of history on this forum

Yes.

They all say Indian Bhuddism implying whatever it is perceived or believed in within India, the modern nation state which came about on August 15, 1947.

 

[Mangus Ortus Novem]

@Mangus Ortus Novem

Paa Jee: Ae @Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8 ajj Hindutva di shit noon halwa saabat ker kay e ravay ga.

O PaaJee,


Sanu ki!

Khotti nay te Khotti i rhena ae... o uon kumiar di owe ja phar chamiar di.... Khotti Khotti i a!

 

[H. Dawary]

It's fine if you adhere to an ideology, but if you can't tolerate a counterpoint to the ideology of your choice then ask yourself if that's what you want to adhere to?

We Muslims strongly believe in our truth, and even Allah in the Quran has given a challenge to all of mankind to produce a verse from the Quran just like it. We accept all debates and challenges, so long as they are constructive and well reasoned arguments thought out, without insults. the moment we refuse a challenge or aren't open to criticisms then in time we will lose those who adhere to the religion of Islam.

From my perspective, the Hindutva ideologue isn't open to criticism nor can it defend itself from it, you can try strengthening the Hindutva ideology so that it can withstand criticisms, if it can't do that then it will fail as an ideology and will have to adopt Hitler tactics.

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

True Islam is more open to dialogue than you think. The Golden Age of Islam was proof of this.

I think you have not read this thread of mine from 2016 which is an article by Nadeem Paracha about Socialist activism among Muslims in previous decades. This activism again was due to questioning and dialogue among Muslims for problems and issues of the modern world.

If there was a religion that in its inception was closer to modern atheism it was Islam. As an example, think of the Islamic concept of a formless, timeless God and the Islamic credo "La illahah illallah, Muhammadur rasoolallah" which means "There is no God but the One God and Muhammad is His messenger" and basically tells the Muslim to get one with his life instead of spending life and resources in maintaining priests and prayers in pleasing countless gods.



That underscores my point. The Hindutva idea of Humanity is not well-developed and educated. Savarkar and his colleagues looked at Nation through the prism of religion ( even if you insist that he was atheist ).



Savarkar was no "Veer" ( heroic ). He was the very opposite of Shaheed Bhagat Singh.

Well It didnot pan out well then if the original mission statement was minimal religion. People could not just let it go with the mere acceptance of the Islamic creed. A whole book had to be there. They had to make endless exegesis of each line of the text, in order to make laws governing every aspect of the secular life...On top of that the people were a bit insecure, so they had to again go back to life history of the Prophet to find guidance

So even within the first decades of the Caliphate, Islam was a massive machinery to say the least...It was not like the religion of the Germanic races in their forests when they were fighting, losing, winning , invading against the Romans ...The Germans had no temples, no holy texts, no shrines for their forest gods other than naturally formed groves,rivers and lakes themselves...Heck even the later Norse religion was more well developed in its theology, rituals, sacred grounds and texts (Eddas)......May be the bare minimum skeleton of a religion was reflection of the Teutonic race, more interested in rationality and the workings of this world rather than some vague afterlife.....


But the Bigger Problem is this: As long as there is a substantial Ulema (with or without its own judiciary) it will form itself as an alternative power centre to the politburo and that's something that cannot be allowed...Now we can argue that the Ulema and the politburo can merge...but then the question arises, what should be the mission of this new creature? promotion of theology or full flowering of socialism?

Still I think we need come back to this thread..as it needs a much more earnest and sincere treatment over a few years.....

I hope this conversation continues as full treatment of Nadeem F Paracha's article warrants another article...and I hope this conversation between you and me acts as an interface between Hindu nationalism and Islam derived Socialism...Let not the pages of history accuse us that we didnot try

and yes if we are into pure Rankings then Bhagat Singh ranks higher than Savarkar...But just because a Ferrari is slightly faster around corners, doesnot mean you bin the Honda Superbike

Yes.

They all say Indian Bhuddism implying whatever it is perceived or believed in within India, the modern nation state which came about on August 15, 1947.

No you are wrong, show me 10 books that talk about Pakistan saying Pakistani this or Pakistani that, regarding pre-modern history (may be there are some regarding IVC but certainly not from Western Scholars)...but I am not here to mock the land of Pakistan, as I will demonstrate...There are plenty of books on Ancient History that use the word Gandhara or Gandhari in its nomenclature...an argument can be made that Gandhara civilization forms the core, around which Pakistan grew

I am not so conversant with Gandharan civilization...but here are some books that drive home my point

Traces of Gandhāran Buddhism: An Exhibition of Ancient Buddhist Manuscripts in the Schøyen Collection, by Jens Braarvig and Fredrik Liland (Editors) - Hermes Publishing ◦ Oslo (2010)

Gandhāran Buddhism: Archaeology, Art, Texts – Pia Brancaccio and Kurt Behrendt (Editors) - Asian Religions and Society Series IV


@Sine Nomine @Talwar e Pakistan Some literature above that may interest you


Eastern Afghanistan grew around Kamboja

Pakistan grew around Gandhara

Northern India grew around the Republics along the Ganga Valley

You can always see a big geographical rift between Gandhara and the Western most Indic Kingdom, Kuru (The core region and dynasty of the Rig Veda)

It's fine if you adhere to an ideology, but if you can't tolerate a counterpoint to the ideology of your choice then ask yourself if that's what you want to adhere to?

We Muslims strongly believe in our truth, and even Allah in the Quran has given a challenge to all of mankind to produce a verse from the Quran just like it. We accept all debates and challenges, so long as they are constructive and well reasoned arguments thought out, without insults. the moment we refuse a challenge or aren't open to criticisms then in time we will lose those who adhere to the religion of Islam.

From my perspective, the Hindutva ideologue isn't open to criticism nor can it defend itself from it, you can try strengthening the Hindutva ideology so that it can withstand criticisms, if it can't do that then it will fail as an ideology and will have to adopt Hitler tactics.

I think this thread is designed to invite counterpoints...Sort of Hegelian Dialectic if you will.....If you go through the Original post, you will be able to see face-to-face the spirit of Hindutva