Nine killed as communal clash erupts in Bharatpur

johnee

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
3,473
Likes
499
Most Hindus in South India dont know who the fcuk was Manu !!
This south india thingy is getting out of hand. South India is too large a place and hindus are vastly diverse to be bracketed. Firstly, there is no one bloc called south-india.

In AP, you would find that Rayalaseem(south side) has cultural similarities to TN and Karnataka, while Telangana(north side) has cultural affinity with Maharashtra. Northern Coastal AP has cultural similarities with Orrissa. Yet all the regions share a telugu culture. This I believe is true for most larger states. So, there may be a 'south-indian' culture of sorts, but lets not overdo it. And lets not make huge generalisations.
 

Phenom

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2010
Messages
878
Likes
406
To say Manu Smriti changes Hinduism into an organised one, is to not understand Hinduism as practiced in the length and breath of the country. Manu has geographical and Caste limitations, not everyone follows it and most don't even know about it. There are other movements in Hinduism that has had far more impact on the religion than Manu smriti did.

Hinduism is an unorganized religion and that is its biggest strength. No organised polytheistic religion survived the onslaught of either Muslim or Christian empires. India has been conquered by both these forces and Hinduism still survived, that's primarily because its unorganized and to destroy Hinduism one has to destroy it at the grass-root level and not at the top, as is the case with any organized religion.
 

johnee

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
3,473
Likes
499
No offence, but generally Tamilians tend to assume they represent the whole of south India and then proceed to talk for them. Perhaps, they envision themselves as the leaders in the supposed south-India...remnants of dravidian movement.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
Just 6 Telugu guys and 1 Mallu guy (and for arguments sake their 50 friends) and you are arguing with me based on that. ?!? Get real as in 25 years you can get to know much more people from much more diverse backgrounds.

South India like North is mostly rural and how many rural folks in say TN or Kerala have you met up with to formulate your logic ? C'mon this is ridiculous. I stand by what I said about many South Indians not knowing who Manu was and just following Hinduism as a way of their life for millenia together with no "smritis" to guide them.
As I said, prima facie. You are welcome to stand by what you said. I am still going to believe people whom I have lived with and personally interacted with every day than somebody on a forum. And yes, they were a random set of samples, not handpicked from beyond n standard deviation from the mean, if you understand what I am saying.

Wrong again. Caste system was brought in much later than Hinduism and the practises of caste are independent of religious practises.
What exactly are you countering as wrong?

I would call a religion organized if it has a founder, a written set of guidelines that is expected to be followed to the word, punishments/excommunications occur if they are not, and they have religious heads or some authority who is the ultimate authority etc. Hinduism satisfies none of these criteria. So how can it become organized ?
You don't know what the word organised means.

Definition of ORGANIZED

1
: having a formal organization to coordinate and carry out activities <organized baseball> <organized crime>
2
: affiliated by membership in an organization (as a union) <organized steelworkers>

Organized - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Note the 'union' part. E.g., most temples, whether in South or North, had or have unions comprising of Brahmins. Even Brahmins who do not belong to that group are not allowed to perform rituals; note the 'carry out activities' part.

The adjective for a founder is debatable; for a Prophet is 'prophetic,' not organised. Again, I am not saying religions that have prophets are not-organised.

That being said, I wish as never before that Hinduism DO becomes more organized as other contemporary religions.
Hindus already were organised, into castes. The Vedic Varna System was replaced by the newer hereditary Caste System. I am glad this organisation of Hindu society is slowly breaking down. I do not support disorder and chaos, but organisation is good only if it is for a good cause, not otherwise.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
To say Manu Smriti changes Hinduism into an organised one, is to not understand Hinduism as practiced in the length and breath of the country. Manu has geographical and Caste limitations, not everyone follows it and most don't even know about it. There are other movements in Hinduism that has had far more impact on the religion than Manu smriti did.
Did caste exist in South India or not? Let us leave Manu to the side for the moment.

Hinduism is an unorganized religion and that is its biggest strength. No organised polytheistic religion survived the onslaught of either Muslim or Christian empires. India has been conquered by both these forces and Hinduism still survived, that's primarily because its unorganized and to destroy Hinduism one has to destroy it at the grass-root level and not at the top, as is the case with any organized religion.
One good example of 'organisation' of Hindu society is Arthashastra itself. I have already mentioned Caste system.

Additionally, is Hinduism polytheistic? What do the Upanishads say? (Hint: Chandogya Upanishad)

If I were you, I'd rather use pantheistic than polytheistic.
 

johnee

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
3,473
Likes
499
Hinduism is fairly organised and yet fairly diverse. The diversity does not mean it is not organised. Caste system is an organisation. Of course, it hereditary nature is not always convenient or even justified. This caste system has played organises Hinduism from bottom up. As opposed to the 'organised religions' that have a top-down nature. The caste system has played a vital role in preserving Hinduism.
 

Phenom

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2010
Messages
878
Likes
406
Did caste exist in South India or not? Let us leave Manu to the side for the moment.
Ofcourse it does, that's why the knowledge of Manu was restricted to only certain caste

One good example of 'organisation' of Hindu society is Arthashastra itself. I have already mentioned Caste system.

Additionally, is Hinduism polytheistic? What do the Upanishads say? (Hint: Chandogya Upanishad)

If I were you, I'd rather use pantheistic than polytheistic.
I don't even know what these things say, I have never read them nor do I intend to. And its not just me there are millions who don;t have any deep knowledge of the vedas and we are all as much Hindus as those who have the knowledge of the vedas. Caste system restricted the knowledge of Vedas to only one caste group, so to suddenly say, Hinduism is, what a few have read and not what many have practiced is folly.
 

johnee

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
3,473
Likes
499
Not all can read. If all only read, then who will provide protection, who will cultivate? So, few will have read, understand and memorise while others have to provide for them. In exchange these few will guide them on what to do and what to avoid. The many have practiced what was preached by few who were well read. Where is the conflict?
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
I don't even know what these things say, I have never read them nor do I intend to. And its not just me there are millions who don;t have any deep knowledge of the vedas and we are all as much Hindus as those who have the knowledge of the vedas. Caste system restricted the knowledge of Vedas to only one caste group, so to suddenly say, Hinduism is, what a few have read and not what many have practiced is folly.
This could be an interesting thread. :)
 

Oracle

New Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
8,120
Likes
1,566
Not all can read. If all only read, then who will provide protection, who will cultivate? So, few will have read, understand and memorise while others have to provide for them. In exchange these few will guide them on what to do and what to avoid. The many have practiced what was preached by few who were well read. Where is the conflict?
I do not think this post discriminates. What he meant was not all become an Armymen. Some become Doctors to help sick people, some become Engineers to better the infrastructure, and some farmers to provide food for all.
 

johnee

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
3,473
Likes
499
If I were you, I'd rather use pantheistic than polytheistic.
These categories are frankly too narrow to fit Hinduism. Hinduism is simultaneously pantheistic, polytheistic, monotheistic, and monistic. And yet it is beyond these narrow categories.

Wiki define Polytheism:
Polytheism is the belief of multiple deities also usually assembled into a pantheon of gods and goddesses, along with their own mythologies and rituals.
From this definition, Hinduism is polytheistic.

Consider the definition of Pantheism:
Pantheism is the view that the Universe (Nature) and God (or divinity) are identical.[1] Pantheists thus do not believe in a personal, anthropomorphic or creator god.
From this definition, Hinduism can be considered pantheistic but Hinduism admits a creator God.

Lets come to the definition of Monotheism:
Monotheism is the belief in the existence of a single (one) god.
There is a belief in a single God. However in Hinduism, He/She is not defined as being jealous of other Gods because there cannot be other Gods.

Monism is defined as:
Monism is any philosophical view which holds that there is unity in a given field of inquiry. Accordingly, some philosophers may hold that the universe is one rather than dualistic or pluralistic.
By this definition, Hinduism is monism.

When you quote upanishads to stress that Hinduism believes in One God, you must be aware that the very same Vedas talk about individual deities. Then, there are so many Puranas and Itihasas which describe various God and their individuality.

Therefore, Hinduism cannot be bracketed into any of these categories because Hinduism has qualities of all these categories. Hinduism is far beyond the comprehension of those who created these self-serving categories.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
^^

I could debate on that, but perhaps someone would open a new thread on this mono-poly-pantheism and Hinduism?

We could get derailed here.
 

johnee

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
3,473
Likes
499
^^

What the F*** dude, you just defended caste discrimination :frusty::frusty:
Caste system was a guide to distribution of labour. Every society needs that and every society has that. What you are against is, I assume, hereditary nature of caste system. I am also not a champion of hereditary nature of it. But division of labour itself is not bad, or is it?
 

Tronic

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
1,915
Likes
1,282
This is a little strange. Converted and yet not?
Islam doesn't have castes. You're either a Hindu+Rajput (etc.) or a Muslim. Can't board two boats at the same time.

Regards,
Virendra
Except for the ones that have been brainwashed in a Pakistani madrassa, that is not how it really is. Bhuttos are Rajputs, Kiyanis are Gakhars, Shoib Akhtar is a Gujjar, Waqar Younus is a Maitla Jatt, Aqib Javed is a Sandhu Jatt, Zia Ul-Haq was Arian, and so on and so fourth. A major chunk of Pakistan's Punjabis are actually Gujjars.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top