BJP chief claims English bad for India, triggers outrage

[Sashan]

And you are the typical example of the misfortune which befalls upon a country for conducting its affairs in a foreign language.

There is nothing wrong in what @Rocky25 said. Sanskrit though a sacred language for Hinduism was taught to only the elite members of the society and so the reason for its demise. So the question is whether one need to learn an elitist language or a foreign language which has its own use and placing the food on the table for millions of Indians.

And here is my question - is Sanskrit the only sacred language for Hinduism?

 

[Icewolf]

Hinduism is influenced by Dravidian-African pagan customs and rituals and some of the indigenous religions of the Indus Valley...

 

[Infinity]

Does your language have 'Puri' in it, which you can eat when you're hungry? If not, then buzz off.

No it doesn't have 'puri' but has 'poori'...............

 

[sankranti]

There is nothing wrong in what @Rocky25 said. Sanskrit though a sacred language for Hinduism was taught to only the elite members of the society and so the reason for its demise. So the question is whether one need to learn an elitist language or a foreign language which has its own use and placing the food on the table for millions of Indians.

And here is my question - is Sanskrit the only sacred language for Hinduism?

Was Kalidas, the son of a wood cutter an ELITE ?

How come he wrote stories and poems in Sanskrit ? ........no body is TAUGHT their mother tougue. Everybody spoke corrupted forms of Sanskrit like Prakrit, Tatsama, Tadbhava, Apabhraṃśa etc...

Sanskrit was the language with the correct forms and grammer.

Just because people use slangs, and corrupted form of english in real life does not mean we stop teaching grammatically correct english in school. ............'wasszup' and 'yeah' ......and 'holy $hit' etc..are part of daily english use. But they are not part of formal texts in english. I doubt if any techical or legal document will have these words.

Now 'seculars' will argue that English was taught only to Elite members of society and that is why its dying ..... in fact a sentence made by an english speaking Hispanic, a afro-american or an Irish will have nothing common in it. Yet they all speak english.

Now for the second part of your question ...... almost ALL holy scriptures are written in Sanskrit. ...... those in other languages are mostly translations and commentaries on the original scripture. Even sruthi's are based on the original sanskrit scriptures.

 

[livingdead]

@sankranti .. all holy scriptures are written in sansrit because sanskrit is supposedly holy language. Most holy scriptures are writen by brahmins who had monopoly on knowledge.
you can give example of one or two non brahmins writing something, thats an exception not rule.

 

[Sashan]

Was Kalidas, the son of a wood cutter an ELITE ?

How come he wrote stories and poems in Sanskrit ? ........no body is TAUGHT their mother tougue. Everybody spoke corrupted forms of Sanskrit like Prakrit, Tatsama, Tadbhava, Apabhraṃśa etc...

Sanskrit was the language with the correct forms and grammer.

Just because people use slangs, and corrupted form of english in real life does not mean we stop teaching grammatically correct english in school. ............'wasszup' and 'yeah' ......and 'holy $hit' etc..are part of daily english use. But they are not part of formal texts in english. I doubt if any techical or legal document will have these words.

Now 'seculars' will argue that English was taught only to Elite members of society and that is why its dying ..... in fact a sentence made by an english speaking Hispanic, a afro-american or an Irish will have nothing common in it. Yet they all speak english.

Now for the second part of your question ...... almost ALL holy scriptures are written in Sanskrit. ...... those in other languages are mostly translations and commentaries on the original scripture. Even sruthi's are based on the original sanskrit scriptures.

That is the problem with you folks - trying to stereotype Hindus into a single entity - they should follow Vedas and Upanishads and should know Sanskrit etc. Try looking outside of your narrow views - For example, the Bhakti Movement which revived Hinduism in Tamilnadu and other places and replaced Jainism and Buddhism in many places and spread Hinduism to South East Asia does not follow its roots to Vedas or Upanishads. Tamilnadu Shiva temples play Tevarams, a Tamil scripture written by Nayanars who caused the revival of Hinduism in Tamilnadu. Raja Raja Chola is credited with introducing this practice in temples and he and his son, Rajendra Chola I are the two kings who went outside of India as far as Indonesia - and credit should be given to these for spreading the Hindu culture to those regions. Likewise Vaisnavas in Tamilnadu sing Divya Prabhandham - again it originated as part of the Bhakti movement and played in Vishnu temples in Tamilnadu. Still today Tevarams and Divya Prabhamdham are played in the temples in Tamilnadu.

I can also quote Basava who is credited with reviving Hinduism in Karnataka but will stay away as I do not have much background of him.

So you see - you will fail if you try to have Sanskrit represent the Hindu religion even among the Hindus.

 

[Indianpatriot1]

That is the problem with you folks - trying to stereotype Hindus into a single entity - they should follow Vedas and Upanishads and should know Sanskrit etc. Try looking outside of your narrow views - For example, the Bhakti Movement which revived Hinduism in Tamilnadu and other places and replaced Jainism and Buddhism in many places and spread Hinduism to South East Asia does not follow its roots to Vedas or Upanishads. Tamilnadu Shiva temples play Tevarams, a Tamil scripture written by Nayanars who caused the revival of Hinduism in Tamilnadu. Raja Raja Chola is credited with introducing this practice in temples and he and his son, Rajendra Chola I are the two kings who went outside of India as far as Indonesia - and credit should be given to these for spreading the Hindu culture to those regions. Likewise Vaisnavas in Tamilnadu sing Divya Prabhandham - again it originated as part of the Bhakti movement and played in Vishnu temples in Tamilnadu. Still today Tevarams and Divya Prabhamdham are played in the temples in Tamilnadu.

So you see - you will fail if you try to have Sanskrit represent the Hindu religion even among the Hindus.

Bhakti movement emphasized on the Bhakti Marg, rather than the Jnan Marg, which is fine as Bhagwad Gita considers both to be valid margas for Moksha. But I do not think the Bhakti saints went aginst the Vedas or called for disregarding it.

Srutis are the fundamental scriptures of Sanatan Dharma and it is very difficult to accept that one can be a Hindu without accepting the primacy of the Vedas.

 

[sankranti]

@sankranti .. all holy scriptures are written in sansrit because sanskrit is supposedly holy language. Most holy scriptures are writen by brahmins who had monopoly on knowledge.
you can give example of one or two non brahmins writing something, thats an exception not rule.

Sanskrit was a very ancient spoken language.

No language gets alphabets without being spoken first ............language is always spoken first, then aphabets are introduced to reproduce those sounds and then grammar evolves. Sanskrit grammer has evolved over the ages and underwent various modifications till it was finally perfected by Panini in 400 BC. That does not mean sanskrit did not exist before 400 BC.

Holy scriptures are written in Sanskrit because that was the language present during the time when written script became widely known. Before that the Vedas were taught and propagated through oral tradition. In fact even the knowledge of the Upanishads where part of the oral tradition and was not written down till very late. The meaning of the word Upanishad itself is 'sitting down near' ......and it is because advance students of Hinduism would sit near their Guru's and the Upanishads would be recited to them.

Most of the scriptures were written by 'Rishis' and not Brahmins. Do you understand the difference ?

Brahmins was the varna based on persons 3 gunas. Sattva, Rajas, Tamas. Those with sattva guna became brahmins. Those with Rajas became kshtriyas, Those with more Rajas and less Tamas were vaishyas and those with more Tamas and less Rajas were sudhras.

The word Raja itself comes from Rajas guna.

Now all Brahmins could be Rishis ....but not all Rishis were brahmins. Do you understand this difference ?

Maharshi Vishwamitra was a non Brahmin Rishi who is credited with the 'Gayatri Mantra' itself.

I hope you konw what that Gayatri mantra is ........most hindus seems know it...without actually knowing it.

 

[livingdead]

Sanskrit was a very ancient spoken language.

No language gets alphabets without being spoken first ............language is always spoken first, then aphabets are introduced to reproduce those sounds and then grammar evolves. Sanskrit grammer has evolved over the ages and underwent various modifications till it was finally perfected by Panini in 400 BC. That does not mean sanskrit did not exist before 400 BC.

Holy scriptures are written in Sanskrit because that was the language present during the time when written script became widely known. Before that the Vedas were taught and propagated through oral tradition. In fact even the knowledge of the Upanishads where part of the oral tradition and was not written down till very late. The meaning of the word Upanishad itself is 'sitting down near' ......and it is because advance students of Hinduism would sit near their Guru's and the Upanishads would be recited to them.

Most of the scriptures were written by 'Rishis' and not Brahmins. Do you understand the difference ?

Brahmins was the varna based on persons 3 gunas. Sattva, Rajas, Tamas. Those with sattva guna became brahmins. Those with Rajas became kshtriyas, Those with more Rajas and less Tamas were vaishyas and those with more Tamas and less Rajas were sudhras.

The word Raja itself comes from Rajas guna.

Now all Brahmins could be Rishis ....but not all Rishis were brahmins. Do you understand this difference ?

Maharshi Vishwamitra was a non Brahmin Rishi who is credited with the 'Gayatri Mantra' itself.

I hope you konw what that Gayatri mantra is ........most hindus seems know it...without actually knowing it.

all these are theory.. I know the theory.. in practice.. hinduism has remained brahminism for last 2k years, or possibly more (since time of buddha may be)

 

[Sashan]

Bhakti movement emphasized on the Bhakti Marg, rather than the Jnan Marg, which is fine as Bhagwad Gita considers both to be valid margas for Moksha. But I do not think the Bhakti saints went aginst the Vedas or called for disregarding it.

Srutis are the fundamental scriptures of Sanatan Dharma and it is very difficult to accept that one can be a Hindu without accepting the primacy of the Vedas.

The Bhakti saints did not go against Vedas but did not insist on Vedas. The reason for revival of Hinduism in Tamilnadu especially when Jainism was the dominant religion(followed by Pallavas and Pandhyas) is that Hindu saints who belonged to various castes brought the religion to the uneducated people and teaching them scriptures in the languages they understood and got them away from Jainism.

If you believe that one can't be Hindu without the primacy of the Vedas, then you should consider many of the South Indian Hindus as non-Hindus. We take pride in our Shiva temples and the sacred nature of our scriptures - Tevaram, Periya Puranam etc and we have grown up reading those. Even the Dravida movement does not ridicule these scriptures and they know they will touch a raw nerve with the people if they criticize them.


I beam with pride when I see Ankor Wat or Bayon or other temples in Cambodia or Mariamman temple in Ho Chi Minh City or Peruvudaiyar Temple in Tanjore(famously called as Big temple) - all these are influenced by the Hinduism - the Hinduism the way I learnt and take pride in and see it as my culture.

 

[sankranti]

all these are theory.. I know the theory.. in practice.. hinduism has remained brahminism for last 2k years, or possibly more (since time of buddha may be)

If you have a pet grouse against brahmins take it elsewhere. I am not here to help you sleep better at night.

 

[Bang Galore]

S

Maharshi Vishwamitra was a non Brahmin Rishi who is credited with the 'Gayatri Mantra' itself.

That is a story probably made popular by the Vashisthas whose rivalry with the Vishwamitas was legendary. Vashistha succeeded Vishwamithra as the guru to Sudas, the story created later is simply just that. Both are characters in the Rg veda, unlikely to have been of any caste.

 

[livingdead]

If you have a pet grouse against brahmins take it elsewhere. I am not here to help you sleep better at night.

I dont have anything against brahmins, why cant I tell the truth without having a personal issue.

The Bhakti saints did not go against Vedas but did not insist on Vedas. The reason for revival of Hinduism in Tamilnadu especially when Jainism was the dominant religion(followed by Pallavas and Pandhyas) is that Hindu saints who belonged to various castes brought the religion to the uneducated people and teaching them scriptures in the languages they understood and got them away from Jainism.

If you believe that one can't be Hindu without the primacy of the Vedas, then you should consider many of the South Indian Hindus as non-Hindus. We take pride in our Shiva temples and the sacred nature of our scriptures - Tevaram, Periya Puranam etc and we have grown up reading those. Even the Dravida movement does not ridicule these scriptures and they know they will touch a raw nerve with the people if they criticize them.


I beam with pride when I see Ankor Wat or Bayon or other temples in Cambodia or Mariamman temple in Ho Chi Minh City or Peruvudaiyar Temple in Tanjore(famously called as Big temple) - all these are influenced by the Hinduism - the Hinduism the way I learnt and take pride in and see it as my culture.

Hinduism's sacred vedas (at least early ones) came from outside. Rest its all mishmash of practices within India. Shiva was not an aryan god but hindu god, because southern influence. Indra the most powerful aryan god is nowhere now. Because the religion evolved.

I have been to a place here called 'bath' where romans used to have a deity. That deity actually belonged to locals but romans adopted her as their own and build a temple. That could be a shrewd political move or a genuine confluence of beliefs.

 

[sankranti]

That is the problem with you folks - trying to stereotype Hindus into a single entity - they should follow Vedas and Upanishads and should know Sanskrit etc. Try looking outside of your narrow views - For example, the Bhakti Movement which revived Hinduism in Tamilnadu and other places and replaced Jainism and Buddhism in many places and spread Hinduism to South East Asia does not follow its roots to Vedas or Upanishads. Tamilnadu Shiva temples play Tevarams, a Tamil scripture written by Nayanars who caused the revival of Hinduism in Tamilnadu. Raja Raja Chola is credited with introducing this practice in temples and he and his son, Rajendra Chola I are the two kings who went outside of India as far as Indonesia - and credit should be given to these for spreading the Hindu culture to those regions. Likewise Vaisnavas in Tamilnadu sing Divya Prabhandham - again it originated as part of the Bhakti movement and played in Vishnu temples in Tamilnadu. Still today Tevarams and Divya Prabhamdham are played in the temples in Tamilnadu.

I can also quote Basava who is credited with reviving Hinduism in Karnataka but will stay away as I do not have much background of him.

So you see - you will fail if you try to have Sanskrit represent the Hindu religion even among the Hindus.

With that single line "That is the problem with you folks" you have proved yourself as a Narrow minded person and a Hypocrite who is keen to Stereotype...........funny you don't see the Irony.

Veda's always take primacy in Hinduism ..... but that does not mean all other sects that evolved out of Vedic Hinduims is any less Hindu. Be it Jainism, Buddhism or Tantrism.

Temple worship is part of the Tantrism branch of Hindusims and that is what your are foolishly refering to as Bhakti Movment. Tevarams in Shiva temples is part of that Tantric tradition. It has different practices from the smarta traditions.

Bhakti movement is different from Tantrism. You are mixing the two due to your ignorance.

100% of Temples in India where prana prathista is done to the deity is Tantric in nature. That does not mean it does not have vedic roots.

 

[Bang Galore]

I dont have anything against brahmins, why cant I tell the truth without having a personal issue.

Your moniker is hinduguy, otherwise you would have already been accused of being a muslim or a christian.......

Hinduism's sacred vedas (at least early ones) came from outside.

Absolutely no basis for that assertion. The geography of the Rg veda makes it very, very unlikely for that to be true.