The Atlas Society Forums

Search Sort Posts:  Oldest to newest Newest to oldest

05-27-2007, 11:33 AM NickOtani Joined on 04-21-2006 Posts 323 A Few Things About Hinduism In the 1850s, archeologists uncovered, in North India, now Pakistan, an ancient civilization, the Indus Valley civilization, which flourished between 3000-1500 B.C.E. It revealed much about how elements came together to form a collection which is often called Hinduism, a combination of the habits and thought of the Indus Valley civilization and the contributions of a nomadic tribe called the Aryans (referring to a language group and not the mythical pure white race referred to by the Nazis). The words Hindu and Indian probably derive from the Indus. The Aryans brought with them the language of Sanskrit and an oral tradition of knowledge called the Veda. Different collections of the Veda deal with rituals, including rituals for human sacrifices to the gods. Their society was also stratified according to occupations. There were priests and teachers who were the Brahmins. There were also warriors and administrators, and there were farmers. A fourth group of people were simply the peasants or common folk. This evolved into a caste system, a social arrangement where people are identified as having different duties and privileges. Outside of this system are the "outcastes" or "untouchables" who do the dirty work, like burning dead bodies or cleaning toilets. The people do not rebel at not being treated equally because of their belief in Karma, that if they live their lives well in this existence, they will be reincarnated in a higher caste. Those who do not do as they should may be reincarnated in a lower caste or even as an animal. Another collection of texts is called the Upanishads. They represent a perspective called Vedanta, which means the end or completion of the Veda. The Upanishads focus on two courses of thought: the essence of human self and the essence of ultimate reality. The word which represents the human self is atman, and the concept for ultimate reality is Brahman. Both atman and Brahman are ways of saying, "God," but atman is a manifestation of Brahman. Brahman is more all encompassing. Everything is a manifestation of Brahman. And, Brahman is so all encompassing as to not be describable in human language. We can only get an idea of Brahman by saying what Brahman is not. Brahman is not limited and does not have qualities. In one sense, Vedic religions can be said to be polytheistic because they identify many gods, yet they are monistic in the sense that all gods are manifestations of the one god, Brahman. And, there are factions among those who talk of Brahman who think of him as abstract, impersonal, yet others consider him to be more imminent. These factions, however, get along with each other because they think of this as merely looking at Brahman in different ways, like one may describe water as H2O or as a cold splash in the face. Less important than the Vedas but more popular is a text called the Bhagavad-gita. It is part of a longer poem called the Mahabharata, and it describes a dialogue between Arjuna, a war leader, and Krishna, a human form of the god Vishnu. The war is between cousins in one large family, and Arjuna is a leader who is expected to give the signal for his side to attack. However, he looks out at his cousins and family members on the opposing side and loses the will to fight them. He puts his sword down and considers not starting the attack. Krishna is in the role of Arjuna's chariot driver, and he tries to persuade Arjuna to go ahead and start the battle. At first, he tries to shame Arjuna into doing his duty. A leader who walks away from a battle may be branded a coward. However, this does not bother Arjuna. He is too contemplative than to be worried about such things. He wonders about the value of war and the dishonor of killing his family members, those whom he knows from childhood and loves. Krishna, first, tells Arjuna that he is thinking about death and killing in a wrong way. Death is not an end to a spirit's life. It is just moving to another existence. It is like changing clothes. A person's next incarnation may be positive or negative depending on how that individual prepared for it. It is not Arjuna's responsibility. Next, Krishna talks about how actions can avoid bad, or even good, Karma if they are done without regard to consequences. One should be detached. Looking for rewards is selfish. It is putting too much emphasis on influencing an outcome. This is beyond the concern of a non-deity, a mere leader of war. Arjuna needs to play his role, as others need to play theirs. It is his duty, his dharma, to do, not to reflect on what he does. Krishna persuades Arjuna that he, Krishna takes responsibility for what happens. Arjuna is just the archer at his side. In the end, Arjuna is persuaded to go ahead and begin the battle and perform his function as a war leader. It is considered freedom to be unattached to goals and consequences and merely do what is one's dharma according to one's essence. It's ironic that the Bhagavad-gita is a call to war, but people such as Gandhi have found support for non-violence in it. There is much more to Hinduism than this. I am not doing it justice, and some might think I am slanting it through my own biases. I am not a Brahmanist. I do not believe in reincarnation or in doing things without attachment. I think the caste system is terrible, but I won't go as far as saying all Hindus are evil. I have studied this only for a short time and cannot claim to know as much about it as someone who is a Brahmanist. I can study a driver's manual, but it doesn't mean I know how to drive if I've never actually experienced driving. I would like to talk with Hindus on my messageboard and learn more about their thoughts, just as I welcome Christians and theists of all kinds. I also know that there are liberal Hindus who are working on weakening the caste system and making things better for women and making the religion more reasonable. This is also being done with other religions, even Christianity. Rather than shooting people who don't agree with us, let's talk about things and clarify our thoughts. Bis bald, Nick    Report

12-10-2007, 2:31 PM shekar Joined on 12-10-2007 Posts 4 Re: A Few Things About Hinduism I am sorry to say but your description of Hinduism is biased and something that many British archeologists/historians have been promulgating for a long time. For starters: 1. There is no evidence of a migration or invasion of the so called Aryans to India or to the Indus valley. Recent genetic studies conducted at StanfordUniversity and others have confirmed that the peoples of IndusValley civilization are the same Hindus who lived in India. In fact, this civilization now called the Saraswati valley civilization named after a river (that is dead now) based on archeological markings that can be observed through satellites. 2. The term Arya means a noble or gentleman in Sanskrit – there is no implication of race, superiority or any negative/positive connotation in this word. 3. There is a strong relationship between Sanskrit (probably the mother language of all the Indo European languages or close to the original proto language) and all the Indian languages spoken in India (including the so called Dravidian languages). In fact throughout its over 5000 year history there has always been a vibrant give-and-take between the “high” culture of Sanskrit and the “low” cultures of the regional language based groups 4. You talk about human sacrifice -- where is the evidence for this? 5. It is interesting that you focus on Vedanta but ignore the following:     - the Nyaya philosophy that anticipated Aristotle in formulating laws of deduction (yes including the syllogism), inference, perception, etc. In fact, this should be called the first treatise in epistemology     - the Sankhya philosophy that focused on understanding reality and creating a taxonomy of perceived objects – similar to what Aristotle did in Greece     - the Yoga philosophy that expounded on the Sankhya philosophy and espoused moral principles of good living to achieve a happy life here on earth    - the Vaisheshika philosophy that formed the metaphysics of Hinduism and also was the first to describe the physical world being made of atoms (anticipating Parmenides) 6. Interestingly, you leave out the main contribution of Vedanta where it describes causality - the karma that you describe is but just one aspect that everyone, rightly or wrongly, emphasizes today. Incidentally, you may want to know that the Hindus were the first ones to: 1. Sanskrit is the first language to have a formal grammar - that is why all the major philosophical works were written in it. Panini (ancient Indian philosopher) codified the rules of grammar for this language. 2. Invent the decimal number system (including invention of 0 as a numeric value) and a place-value 3. The Pythogores formula was known to the Hindus even before the Phythogores was born 4. The Hindus were advanced in astronomy (not astrology), mathematics, medicine, metallurgy, textiles, ship building, etc. in the ancient world. In fact, the Romans would bemoan the fact that they had a huge trade deficit with India. 5. One interesting tit bit – the Taylor series that ended up solving the “longitude” problem was first invented by Madhava – which gave the British navy the superiority in the seas Also, your description of Bhagavad Gita is a bit distorted. Khrishna does not just say do your duty and don't focus on the fruits of your labor. The main message of the Gita is: One has to fight for justice (in this context, Arjuna was fighting for what was justly his and his brothers) and while so doing do not focus on the fruits since that will only distract you. It is more a description of the psychological makeup one has  to have. Krishna in this is sense is said to be a supreme yogi. Gandhi derived inspiration from the Gita in this sense and fought the British by pointing out the evil in their methods of colonization, exploitation, looting, murder and racism. There is much to be said here but space does not permit me to do this but focussing on India's caste system and Mahabharata to describe Hinduism would be like me focussing on the key characteristics of Western civilization being: slavery and colonization - which I am sure while attributes of it are not necessarily essential.    Report

12-11-2007, 1:10 PM NickOtani Joined on 04-21-2006 Posts 323 Re: A Few Things About Hinduism (shekar)I am sorry to say but your description of Hinduism is biased and something that many British archeologists/historians have been promulgating for a long time.   (Nick) I did say, “There is much more to Hinduism than this. I am not doing it justice, and some might think I am slanting it through my own biases. I am not a Brahmanist. …”   (shekar)1. There is no evidence of a migration or invasion of the so called Aryans to India or to the Indus valley. Recent genetic studies conducted at StanfordUniversity and others have confirmed that the peoples of IndusValley civilization are the same Hindus who lived in India.   (Nick) This is a matter of dispute. Some authorities agree with you, shekar, but it is hardly a conclusive and confirmed fact. Edwin Bryant, a lecturer in Indology from Harvard, wrote a book about the controversy. An abstract follows:   Abstract: As a result of the discovery of similarities between Sanskrit and the classical languages of Europe, scholars hypothesized the existence of an early “proto-Indo-European” people who spoke the language from which the other Indo-European speakers evolved. The solution to this Indo-European homeland problem has been one of the most consuming intellectual projects of the last two centuries. At first it was assumed that India was the original home of all the Indo-Europeans. Soon, however, Western scholars were contending that the Vedic culture of ancient India must have been the by-product of an invasion or migration of “Indo-Aryans” from outside the subcontinent. Over the years, Indian scholars have raised many arguments against this European reconstruction of their nation’s history, yet Western scholars have generally been unaware or dismissive of these voices from India itself. Edwin Bryant offers a comprehensive examination of this ongoing debate, presenting all of the relevant philological, archaeological, linguistic, and historiographical data, and showing how they have been interpreted both to support the theory of Aryan migrations and to contest it. Bringing to the fore those hitherto marginalized voices that argue against the external origin of the Indo-Aryans, he shows how Indian scholars have questioned the very logic, assumptions, and methods upon which the theory is based and have used the same data to arrive at very different conclusions. By exposing the whole endeavor to criticism from scholars who do not share the same intellectual history as their European peers, Bryant’s work newly complicates the Indo-European homeland quest. At the same time it recognizes the extent to which both sides of the debate have been driven by political, racial, religious, and nationalistic agendas.   The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate Bryant, Edwin Lecturer in Indology, Committee for the Study of Religion, Harvard University Print publication date: 2001 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: November 2003 Print ISBN-13: 978-0-19-513777-4 doi:10.1093/0195137779.001.0001   (shekar)2. The term Arya means a noble or gentleman in Sanskrit – there is no implication of race, superiority or any negative/positive connotation in this word.   (Nick)I never suggested there was an implication of race or any positive/negative connotation in this word. I referred to them as: “…a nomadic tribe called the Aryans (referring to a language group and not the mythical pure white race referred to by the Nazis).”   (shekar)4. You talk about human sacrifice -- where is the evidence for this?   (Nick)According to Sankhayana (16.12.21-16.13.1-9) the man who has been chosen the chief victim is killed (by suffocating), and “when he is quieted, (i.e., killed), the Udgatar, sings over him, standing near him, the Saman which is addressed to Yama (the god of death),” and “the Hotar recites over him the PurusaNarayana-hymn.”    Further, I found this on the internet: A recent report by United Press trust of India (UPI) stated that during the past three years more than 2,500 young boys and girls were sacrificed to goddess Kali in India. Another of AFP's recent reports say: hundreds of young boys and virgin girls are sacrificed every month for the deity Kali. In one case Rama Sewak hacked his eight year old son to death in broad daylight in Dehii because goddess Kali had told him he would come back to life and bring him good fortune. Bloodthirsty Kali is worshipped openly the length and breadth of India. Kali's statue stands naked astride the inanimate body of the Hindu deity Shiva, tongue stuck out with blood dripping from fang-like teeth. She holds a noose, a skull-topped staff, a blood-encrusted sword and a severed head. She is also known as Durga, Devi, Shaktima, Uma and Parvathi in other manifestations. The priest of Delhi, Kali Bari, says that a child sacrificed to Kali ensures a man the birth of a son. Human sacrifices are also made to these gods or goddesses, either to appease them or to ask favours of them. Bihar's police chief J. Sahay said: "We have tried our best to curb human sacrifices, but what can an agency do when an entire village chooses a victim and cuts off his head with his parent's consent." Bihar's famous lawyer, Urnkant Chaturvedi, said that "Human sacrifice under our law is treated as murder, but the killer- never found - is always the local high priest." He continues, "at times the local policemen are reluctant to take action because of the inbred fear of the gods and goddesses." A famous human sacrifice occurred in 1972 when a powerful leader in Maharashtra state- in order to find a treasure - offered blood from 11 virgin girls to Manja. He did not find the treasure, but four persons were hanged for the crime and the main culprit escaped because of his political influence. Some time ago, two brothers named Siddharth and Ravi asked their 21 year old sister Shobha to take a bath and come for prayers to a nearby temple in Kerala State. To her horror, the brothers pierced her with a sword and iron rods whilst chanting Vedic mantras. Withering in pain, she begged for pity, but she was cut to pieces and her body burned bit by bit. The brothers had done it to unearth a hidden treasure. At first they tried to find another victim but when they failed to find another virgin girl, they sacrificed their own sister.   (shekar)5. It is interesting that you focus on Vedanta but ignore the following: (Nick)I think the points you bring up are good. I did not avoid them to purposely make Hinduism look bad. I did say there was much more to say. Had I written everything, the article would have been much longer. Still, you would have found something to criticize. (shekar) Also, your description of Bhagavad Gita is a bit distorted. Khrishna does not just say do your duty and don't focus on the fruits of your labor. The main message of the Gita is: (Nick)I still think the message Krishna gave Arjuna was a bit convoluted. It was the third attempt to rationalize to Arjuna the killing of members of his family in a civil war. The first two didn’t work. The final one didn’t seem that convincing to me, that one must simply do what one must do, play one’s role. I’m not the only one who has this interpretation. Bis bald, Nick          Report

12-11-2007, 8:04 PM shekar Joined on 12-10-2007 Posts 4 Re: A Few Things About Hinduism (Nick) This is a matter of dispute. Some authorities agree with you, shekar, but it is hardly a conclusive and confirmed fact. Edwin Bryant, a lecturer in Indology from Harvard, wrote a book about the controversy. As you state this is a disputed fact but yet you chose to focus on the "western" perspective. The one that was created by alleged scholars who were paid by the East India Company whose stated goal was to destroy Hindu civilization and eliminate everything of value from it - read Mcaulay and his program to Christianize India - I am sure you will find plenty of references to this on the net. Anyway, it would have been rational for you to at least state if only in parenthesis that this is a disputed fact. In fact, HarvardUniversity is full of alleged scholars who have been "defending" this Aryan invasion theory. To me until they can explain how the Indus/Saraswati valley civilization that had sophisticated architecture, running water, first comprehensive sanitation system, first peaceful society without a king or emperor, etc. could not have produced the literature of the Vedas, Sutras, Upanishads, etc. How could one have a society that had no evidence of any intellectual thought and how could you have these allegedly nomadic tribes have such sophisticated documents as the Vedas. It just doesn't compute. Ironically, this is one question that defenders of the Invasion theory consistently avoid - they just snicker when you ask them pointedly. This is plain disingenuousness  on their part. I was not stating that human sacrifice did not take place in India but I was asking you where in Hindu philosophy and thought (that is considered to essential to Hindu thought) do you find such activity recommended or condoned. I can also bring up numerous references in the Bible to human sacrifice but rarely one considers it to be essential to Christian ideology; for that matter I could also say that slavery was legal in the West and practiced by almost all Western nations but not one Objectivist I know of ever talks about it. In fact, I know that (have to dig up a reference for it now) but murder in any form is punishable in all forms of Hindu law. (Nick) Still, you would have found something to criticize. What is the implication of this? That I am not rational enough? I will find something to criticize if there is something to criticize -. I go by evidence as you claim to do too. Suppose I said that you will always trivialize and describe the non-essential bad things about India, would that be fair to you? (Nick)I still think the message Krishna gave Arjuna was a bit convoluted. It was the third attempt to rationalize to Arjuna the killing of members of his family in a civil war. The first two didn’t work. The final one didn’t seem that convincing to me, that one must simply do what one must do, play one’s role. I’m not the only one who has this interpretation. On this point I almost agree with you - that many scholars and non-scholars tend to emphasize the "duty" aspect of it. Further, it would relevant, nee necessary, to point out that the members of his family that Arjun has to kill were unjust to him and his brothers. These same members banished him and his family to the jungle for 13 years (by cheating nonetheless) which is tantamount to a death sentence. They also insulted his wife in open court, etc. After putting up with all that when Arjun and his brothers come back to claim what was rightfully theirs, his cousins try to murder them again and when all else fails; Arjun and his brothers have to resort to war. Without this build up, it all seems like a story that may have taken place in Elizabethan England – cousin imprisoning and murdering another because of a religious difference.   I was pointing out that there is much more to the Gita than this aspect of it. There is a significant amount of discussion of metaphysics, psychology, ethics, politics, etc. which all gets left out. Gandhi in his struggle for India 's independence focused on the whole Gita (he had much time to reflect on it since the British imprisoned him for a significant part of his time in India . He himself (i.e., Gandhi) never acted on the basis of duty - he always advocated self-sufficiency, right action, right thought (rational), etc. The only time I remember him mentioning duty (if my memory serves me right) was on how one should treat one's parents and even Ms. Rand has said something similar on this issue (of course she did not use the word duty but something to that effect anyway). My main point is that whenever I read about India , particularly in the West and to some extent by the Marxist dominated institutions in India it is always disparaging of Indian history, Hindu thought and Indic civilization. If I compared the best parts of Indian civilization with the worst part of Western civilization, I can also make the West look horrible. As Dr. Peikoff says in his courses on epistemology, one has to take everything into account and use essentials to describe things. Now I ask you: how are the Caste system, human sacrifice, the Bhagwad Gita essentials of Hinduism? Where is the account of all the things I pointed out: the four Vedas, the Sutras, the Puranas, etc.? Where are the discussions about the invention of the first formal language grammar (Panini’s Sanskrit), mathematics (invention of 0, algebra, calculus – almost anticipating differential calculus), astronomy, technology, democracy (the Indian city-states of Sind and Punjab were democratic even before Alexandar's time - in fact they were the ones to defeat Alexandar - which led to his retreat from India), psychology, philosophy (numerous treatises on philosophy including logic, epistemology, structuralism were either originated in India and then later adopted in the West or independently discovered in India), political science, medicine and on and on?   It seems to me your description of India and Hindu culture is the same as what most Westerners parrot – it is a backward country, primitive and uncivilized people and depraved society. That is exactly what the Muslims/Moguls did before invading India and that is exactly what the British did before conquering it. You can believe their writings or look at the new independent India , where we are setting the record straight – one brick at a time as it were and participate in its Renaissance.    Report

12-12-2007, 1:21 PM NickOtani Joined on 04-21-2006 Posts 323 Re: A Few Things About Hinduism (shekar)As you state this is a disputed fact but yet you chose to focus on the "western" perspective. The one that was created by alleged scholars who were paid by the East India Company whose stated goal was to destroy Hindu civilization and eliminate everything of value from it - read Mcaulay and his program to Christianize India - I am sure you will find plenty of references to this on the net. Anyway, it would have been rational for you to at least state if only in parenthesis that this is a disputed fact. In fact, HarvardUniversity is full of alleged scholars who have been "defending" this Aryan invasion theory. To me until they can explain how the Indus/Saraswati valley civilization that had sophisticated architecture, running water, first comprehensive sanitation system, first peaceful society without a king or emperor, etc. could not have produced the literature of the Vedas, Sutras, Upanishads, etc. How could one have a society that had no evidence of any intellectual thought and how could you have these allegedly nomadic tribes have such sophisticated documents as the Vedas. It just doesn't compute. Ironically, this is one question that defenders of the Invasion theory consistently avoid - they just snicker when you ask them pointedly. This is plain disingenuousness on their part (Nick)You are right. I should have researched this more carefully in the beginning and at least put in parenthesis that the Aryan migration or invasion is disputed. I will do so in other copies of this post which I can access and edit. I want you to know, though, that I am not out to destroy Hindu civilization and eliminate everything of value from it, and I don’t think that was the intended goal of the respected scholars from whom I received my information. Yes, they may be westerners and influenced by a common knowledge in the west which may be tainted, but I don’t think they are bad people. One authority from whom I got this information was Mark W. Muesse, Ph.D. from Harvard University. “Professor Muesse is a member of the American Academy of Religion and the Society for Indian Philosophy and Religion, and has been Visiting Professor at the Tamilnadu Theological Seminary in Madurai, India. He has traveled extensively throughout Asia and has studied at Wat Mahadhatu, Bangkok, Thailand; the Himalayan Yogic Institute, Kathmandu, Nepal; the Subodhi Institute of Integral Education in Sri Lanka; and Middle East Technical University in Ankara, Turkey.” And, Professor Muesse traces English words like “divine”, “video”, and “ignite” to the language of Sanscrit. This is rational evidence of a European connection or influence. It supports the migration theory. (shekar)I was not stating that human sacrifice did not take place in India but I was asking you where in Hindu philosophy and thought (that is considered to essential to Hindu thought) do you find such activity recommended or condoned. I can also bring up numerous references in the Bible to human sacrifice but rarely one considers it to be essential to Christian ideology; for that matter I could also say that slavery was legal in the West and practiced by almost all Western nations but not one Objectivist I know of ever talks about it. In fact, I know that (have to dig up a reference for it now) but murder in any form is punishable in all forms of Hindu law. (Nick)I realize there are references to human sacrifice in Christianity and other religions, and I realize that western cultures condoned slavery for most of history. I have no objection to hearing about this from those trying to be historically accurate. And Yes, murder, illegal or morally unjustified killing of humans, is frowned upon in most cultures, but ritualistic sacrifice is not always considered murder. We have also heard of the practice of widows being prompted to throw themselves on their dead husband’s funeral pyre. This is discouraged now, in some places, but was once part of some forms of Hinduism, whether it was an essential aspect of it or not. (shekar)What is the implication of this? That I am not rational enough? I will find something to criticize if there is something to criticize -. I go by evidence as you claim to do too. Suppose I said that you will always trivialize and describe the non-essential bad things about India, would that be fair to you? (Nick)I am not trying to antagonize you. There will always be something left out of a brief essay about a major religion, especially one as old and complex as Hinduism. A Muslim will find much missing from my essays on Islam, and a Jew will find much missing from my essays on Judaism. I could write a book and still not satisfy everybody. I said this at the end of my essay. It doesn’t mean I am out to destroy Hinduism. It seems unfair to me that you seem to imply that I am unfair. I am doing my best to capture a flavor of several different religions and assess them from my perspective. I admitted there is much more to say, and I invited those who know more and may disagree with me to contribute to the discussion. Is this not fair? (shekar)As Dr. Peikoff says in his courses on epistemology, one has to take everything into account and use essentials to describe things. (Nick)Puleese! Do not use Dr. Peikoff as an example of a competent and objective scholar. (shekar)It seems to me your description of India and Hindu culture is the same as what most Westerners parrot – it is a backward country, primitive and uncivilized people and depraved society. That is exactly what the Muslims/Moguls did before invading India and that is exactly what the British did before conquering it. You can believe their writings or look at the new independent India , where we are setting the record straight – one brick at a time as it were and participate in its Renaissance. (Nick)Feel free to augment my limited information on Hinduism and India with your information. Together, perhaps we can present a balanced view for our audience. Bis bald, Nick    Report

12-13-2007, 11:57 AM shekar Joined on 12-10-2007 Posts 4 Re: A Few Things About Hinduism Nick, Here are some books that I like. For very brief overviews that do not not seem to have any agenda: 1. History of Civilization - by Will Durant - Volume 1 - Our Oriental Heritage - this is more about Indian philosophy and culture 2. Illustrated World Religions by Huston Smith  - this is more about Hindu religiion Now for the heavy stuff: 1. India and her people by Swami Abhedananda - this is a compilation of more than eleven lectures he gave in 1906 in the US 2. History of Hindu Mathematics - two volumes by Bibhutibhushan Datta and Avadesh Narayan Singh Over the course of the next few days, I will try and excerpt some of the ideas in these books and post them here. There are other references on the web - articles written by different people - I cannot vouch for their accuracy or completeness. Part of the problem is many Indians do not know their own history properly. The Indian school systems to this day teach the same old tripe that the British defined as the "curriculum," with little modification and update. Of course they have removed some of the more eggregious portions but nonetheless the tone, historical content and subject matters covered are all biased. Most of the education system in India is defined by Marxist scholars who have a "bone to pick" against Hindu culture. Here is one simple observation - have you ever noticed how whenever Indian authors get published and popularized in the West, their books are always critical of Indian culture. Here are some good examples: Arundatti Roy (to some extent), VS Naipaul and Salman Rushdie. There are others such as Sukethu Mehta, Vikram Seth and Rohinton Mistry - whose heart is in the right place it seems. And of course we have the collection of Western authors who either praise the mystical elements of Indian culture or are disparaging of the negatives in the country. Incidentally, I consider Rudyard Kipling to be a combination of the two - a condescending racist. Okay, I am digressing now....    Report

12-13-2007, 10:12 PM NickOtani Joined on 04-21-2006 Posts 323 Re: A Few Things About Hinduism I have great respect for Will Durant and use his history volumes for research quite often. I also own and have read his philosophy books, The Story of Philosophy and The Pleasures of Philosophy. For Hinduism, however, I have used James K. Feibleman, who wrote a book called Understanding Oriental Philosophy, and I have read a few essays by Sri Aurobindo, who was born in India but educated in England. Of course for Buddhism and Zen Buddhism, I read D.T. Suzuki, Alan Watts, and Herman Hesse, but I digress now. bis bald, Nick    Report

The Atlas... » Ayn Rand's Idea... » General Discuss... » A Few Things About Hinduism

(please select) Forums Home |- Search Forums |- Active Topics |- Unanswered Posts User Options |- Sign In |- Join this community |- Forgot Password Ayn Rand's Ideas |- General Discussion Ayn Rand's Novels |- Atlas Shrugged |- The Fountainhead |- We The Living |- Anthem |- Short Stories and Plays Ayn Rand's Films |- We The Living |- The Fountainhead |- Love Letters |- You Came Along |- Atlas Shrugged Special Interest |- Meet Members |- My Favorite Rand Character |- My Favorite Rand Passage |- If You Like Rand, You'll Like... Summer Seminars |- Summer Seminar 2007 |- Summer Seminar 2008 University Place and PSU