Ancient hinduism VS modern hinduism

[sankar100]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Hinduism has been evolving over a period of over 5000 years. But the most prevalent attitude out there seems to be this is how its always been.

I want to know if there is any book or source of information out there that sheds light on how hinduism was in several parts of ancient india during different times and how it has evolved to become what it is today.

Hindu philosophy is huge (breadth, width and depth). I mean the amount of philosophical knowledge seems too much to learn in a lifetime.

However, in modern india, hinduism has been reduced to nothing more than mere rituals and practices and mechanical worship.

 

[sangom]

Hinduism has been evolving over a period of over 5000 years. But the most prevalent attitude out there seems to be this is how its always been.

I want to know if there is any book or source of information out there that sheds light on how hinduism was in several parts of ancient india during different times and how it has evolved to become what it is today.

Hindu philosophy is huge (breadth, width and depth). I mean the amount of philosophical knowledge seems too much to learn in a lifetime.

However, in modern india, hinduism has been reduced to nothing more than mere rituals and practices and mechanical worship.

Shri sankar,

A nice topic.

In my limited experience, and if you are young or middle-aged person, try starting to read our immense archives on religion. Start with the vedas, brahmanas (the books, I mean), aranyakas, upanishads and then come to the puranas. If you have a basic background of sanskrit, it will help you much; if you don't have, try mastering sanskrit, it is not all that difficult for any youngster familiar with the software languages; the only drawback in sanskrit is that panini has made it so complicated that only an exclusive club would know it.

I said as above because many of our friends here have an intrinsic distrust of the very many books written by western indologists, and our people are confirmed in their belief that the veLLaikkaaran must have surely bluffed and so all those books are untrustworthy. In case you have a broader mindset, you may depend on the books by the westerners but cross-check whenever you get some doubt about the authenticity of what they translate/interpret as.

A whole life-time may not be sufficient to pronounce a final verdict on the point raised by you, viz., "how hinduism was in several parts of ancient india during different times and how it has evolved to become what it is today." But as far as my very limited study shows, I can say this much - hinduism was not uniform throughout the area known as India at present, it is even now so, and hinduism has evolved just as some cut vegetables become a curry and, with stagnation, becomes unfit for consumption.

 

[renuka]

Hinduism has been evolving over a period of over 5000 years. But the most prevalent attitude out there seems to be this is how its always been.

I want to know if there is any book or source of information out there that sheds light on how hinduism was in several parts of ancient india during different times and how it has evolved to become what it is today.

Hindu philosophy is huge (breadth, width and depth). I mean the amount of philosophical knowledge seems too much to learn in a lifetime.

However, in modern india, hinduism has been reduced to nothing more than mere rituals and practices and mechanical worship.

Ok I know a book which is written by Stephen Knapp...wait wait I know he is a white guy but he has done extensive study with no hidden agenda, infact he sounds more Hindu then anyone of us.
I will get the name of the book from my mum soon cos she is currently reading it and discusses it with my father the whole day.

 

[sravna]

It is sad that there is a concerted effort in this forum to malign what ancient India stood for and glorifying what modern west stands for. The contrast between any two philosophies cant be more and so we find two camps unable to agree on almost any topic.

Those who criticize hinduism say that its motive is to take gullible people for a ride so that brahmins can continue enjoying preeminence and control over others. I will come to this later. Let me ask you this. Is the modern west a paragon of virtue? The truth would be a big no. But they have devised a clever way of covering their nature with a cloak. It is honorably called pragmatism.

In simple words today's pragmatism is nothing but acknowledging that you can be bad and selfish without any stigma in the society. I think it is a tacit
way of acknowledging that you cannot be good and selfless. It is admitting one's own inabilities to rise above pressures and temptations of the world.

Worse still, I think the west has taken pragmatism to its logical end so that there are unwritten rules and codification of how people behave in a pragmatic way. It is more like something automated. No doubt we often hear people living in the west complaining of a mechanical life and actually the rest of the world is catching up on that count , sadly.

But if life is mechanical where is the fun. Pragmatism provides its own idea of fun. How can a selfish person be funny? With the help of his perverted thoughts. Since that is also part of pragmatism, it is acceptable and it is others who are naive.

I shudder to think the state of the world if it carries on in this course, even in the near future. So it is very ironical and outright hypocritical for those
who praise western values to point fingers at hinduism. At the very worst brahmins can be found fault with for their intellectual hubris. The varna system unfortunately developed a dark side and every right thinking individual will condemn that.

But all that is no match for the present day institutionalisation of pragmatism which basically mocks at the inability of people to practice values which our religion so rightly and wisely advocates.

 

[sankar100]

Ok I know a book which is written by Stephen Knapp...wait wait I know he is a white guy but he has done extensive study with no hidden agenda, infact he sounds more Hindu then anyone of us.
I will get the name of the book from my mum soon cos she is currently reading it and discusses it with my father the whole day.

Stephen is one of the best scholars of hinduism. I have conversed with him personally when I started to work on my hinduism knowledge project.

But he has a huge list of books. Please let me know the name of this book in particular.

 

[praveen]

One more topic that can be discussed at length.

 

[jaisiyaraam]

Namaste Sravnaji,

"...Is the modern west a paragon of virtue? The truth would be a big no..."

I dont know your definition for virtue so I am taking my chance by a citing specific case of modern west (neither tb nor hindu, not even ancient indian/hindu): several couples in modern west are living/leading a happy/healthy/progressive family life without getting married (as per ancient or modern indian/hindu customs) without even taking/making vows and are setting a very good example to thier kids.

If you take enough trouble to look around you then you will find enough (atleast one) couples raised & married in india as per ancient(or modern)hinduism customs but leading a false/immoral(un-virtuous? mechanical?) life in the very heart of spiritual/holy lands of bharatha varsha. I guess these couples/cases are very specific cases ... like few (insignificant number of) bad apple amoung basket full of holy apples and can/will be rejected for comparision citing purva janma karma theory.

On what basis we the holy/spiritual lot of ancient hinduism are more virtuous/holy than the modern west?

Un-Virtuos modern west does not make ancient hinduism virtuos ... people have to be guaged by their actions/life-style but not by their affiliations.

Thanks,
Jai SiyaRaam

 

[sravna]

Namaste Sravnaji,

"...Is the modern west a paragon of virtue? The truth would be a big no..."

I dont know your definition for virtue so I am taking my chance by a citing specific case of modern west (neither tb nor hindu, not even ancient indian/hindu): several couples in modern west are living/leading a happy/healthy/progressive family life without getting married (as per ancient or modern indian/hindu customs) without even taking/making vows and are setting a very good example to thier kids.

If you take enough trouble to look around you then you will find enough (atleast one) couples raised & married in india as per ancient(or modern)hinduism customs but leading a false/immoral(un-virtuous? mechanical?) life in the very heart of spiritual/holy lands of bharatha varsha. I guess these couples/cases are very specific cases ... like few (insignificant number of) bad apple amoung basket full of holy apples and can/will be rejected for comparision citing purva janma karma theory.

On what basis we the holy/spiritual lot of ancient hinduism are more virtuous/holy than the modern west?

Un-Virtuos modern west does not make ancient hinduism virtuos ... people have to be guaged by their actions/life-style but not by their affiliations.

Thanks,
Jai SiyaRaam

I am talking about the philosophy that pervaded ancient India and that which pervades the modern world which is basically that of the west. I am not talking about modern India. The less said the better about modern India which is going the way of the west.

The focus of today's world is after shallow and superficial objectives which is a far cry from the depth of purpose which was ascribed to life then. No doubt once the focus is on lesser things it transforms your personality and your way of thinking for the worse. Hence the need to have high ideals cannot be overemphasized. It at least keeps you on the right track. Ancient India had that focus.

 

[jaisiyaraam]

"...I am talking about the philosophy that pervaded ancient India and that which pervades the modern world which is basically that of the west. I am not talking about modern India. The less said the better about modern India which is going the way of the west...."

Sravnaji,

I am confused, you are talking about what/which "un-virtuous" western philosophies ?

I presented the case of modern west ie family setup (basis for creating good citizens ie human beings fit to live in society) living in western society immune/unknown to ancient hinduism.

You are blaming modern west for the defects of current eastern ie modern hinduism but people of modern west (once again immune/unknown to any of our holy/spiritual ancient hinduism philosophies) are leading happy/progressive/exemplary life. I mean exemplary for their kids but certainly not for holy/spiritual lot of ancient(or modern) hinduism.

On what basis you are blaming western philosophies ? what basis you are blaming western philosophies for down fall of holy/spiritual modern hinduism ?

I am really/honestly confused at your blame game on western philosophies in order to project the greatness of ancient hinduism and/or for blaming modern hinduism.

Thanks,
Jai SiyaRaam

 

[prasad1]

Mr. Shankar,

Let us start at the beginning.

What is your definition of Hinduism?
What is the period called Ancient?
When does the modern period starts?

What region are we talking about?

It is difficult to discuss practices in Hinduism without space and time defined.

 

[prasad1]

"...I am talking about the philosophy that pervaded ancient India and that which pervades the modern world which is basically that of the west. I am not talking about modern India. The less said the better about modern India which is going the way of the west...."

Sravnaji,

I am confused, you are talking about what/which "un-virtuous" western philosophies ?

I presented the case of modern west ie family setup (basis for creating good citizens ie human beings fit to live in society) living in western society immune/unknown to ancient hinduism.

You are blaming modern west for the defects of current eastern ie modern hinduism but people of modern west (once again immune/unknown to any of our holy/spiritual ancient hinduism philosophies) are leading happy/progressive/exemplary life. I mean exemplary for their kids but certainly not for holy/spiritual lot of ancient(or modern) hinduism.

On what basis you are blaming western philosophies ? what basis you are blaming western philosophies for down fall of holy/spiritual modern hinduism ?

I am really/honestly confused at your blame game on western philosophies in order to project the greatness of ancient hinduism and/or for blaming modern hinduism.

Thanks,
Jai SiyaRaam

Mr. SiyaRaam ji,
It would be honest if you state your position and affiliation. If you are comming from the point of Hindutva or RSS, it would be nice to know. That is all. No disrespect for your position.

 

[jaisiyaraam]

Namaste Prasad1ji,

I am not at all affiliated to Hindutva or RSS or to any staunch religious groups.

I am not commenting on you but it is very disheartening that "Jai SiyaRaam" reminds of BJP/RSS but not of Hanumanji !!!

I am very much human being like anyone else here with likes/dislikes and defects !!!

Thanks,
Jai SiyaRaam

 

[prasad1]

Namaste Prasad1ji,

I am not at all affiliated to Hindutva or RSS or to any staunch religious groups.

I am not commenting on you but it is very disheartening that "Jai SiyaRaam" reminds of BJP/RSS but not of Hanumanji !!!

I am very much human being like anyone else here with likes/dislikes and defects !!!

Thanks,
Jai SiyaRaam

Welcome, like I said I did not mean to insult you, it was just to know your position. I am a person of strong opinions, that is all. LOL

 

[Yamaka]

Dear Sravna:

Interesting post. My response in bold letters under each para:

It is sad that there is a concerted effort in this forum to malign what ancient India stood for and glorifying what modern west stands for. The contrast between any two philosophies cant be more and so we find two camps unable to agree on almost any topic.

I understand that the West stands for Equality, Equal Opportunity and a Pragmatic Solidarity with the weaker people and helpless people. As a person came from rural India, I fully subscribe to this philosophy... whereas the Ancient India stood sternly against ALL that I mentioned above, with minor variation... and I don't expect to have Equal Outcome, which solely depends on individual efforts and hard work,,, Ancient India told me that's ALL Pre-Ordained, or destined!!


Those who criticize hinduism say that its motive is to take gullible people for a ride so that brahmins can continue enjoying preeminence and control over others. I will come to this later. Let me ask you this. Is the modern west a paragon of virtue? The truth would be a big no. But they have devised a clever way of covering their nature with a cloak. It is honorably called pragmatism.

Let's first define what Pragmatism is: It is a practical approach to problem solving - not theoretical or ideological. It is a logical and reasonable approach to doing things specific to a given situation. Yes, this is a rational methodical approach as opposed to some SUPERSTITION or ASSUMPTIONS of the Ancient India or elsewhere in olden days. Please check your dictionary to understand the meaning of Pragmatism.

In simple words today's pragmatism is nothing but acknowledging that you can be bad and selfish without any stigma in the society. I think it is a tacit
way of acknowledging that you cannot be good and selfless. It is admitting one's own inabilities to rise above pressures and temptations of the world.

By the above definition, these assertions are simply FALSE, an innuendo. West has hundreds of millions of good and selfless people. It's the egoistic claim of some Theists in India to hog good behavior as an entitled property of only themselves... Not others in the West or the Atheists in the world.

Worse still, I think the west has taken pragmatism to its logical end so that there are unwritten rules and codification of how people behave in a pragmatic way. It is more like something automated. No doubt we often hear people living in the west complaining of a mechanical life and actually the rest of the world is catching up on that count , sadly.

But if life is mechanical where is the fun. Pragmatism provides its own idea of fun. How can a selfish person be funny? With the help of his perverted thoughts. Since that is also part of pragmatism, it is acceptable and it is others who are naive.

I shudder to think the state of the world if it carries on in this course, even in the near future. So it is very ironical and outright hypocritical for those
who praise western values to point fingers at hinduism. At the very worst brahmins can be found fault with for their intellectual hubris. The varna system unfortunately developed a dark side and every right thinking individual will condemn that.

The whole world recognizes the value of the Majestic Varna System that ancient Brahmin Hindus constructed and the Caste Hierarchy they developed to control and to cheat the Society! LoL

But all that is no match for the present day institutionalisation of pragmatism which basically mocks at the inability of people to practice values which our religion so rightly and wisely advocates.

It is nice to see that the ancient India is fast disappearing and she understands the usefulness of the Pragmatism of the West.. it has utility..

With the strong influence of Science Engineering & Technology, the modern India is charging against the FATALISM and SUPERSTITION of Hinduism...

Good progress... Pragmatism again I repeat is a logical and methodical PRACTICAL approach to things.. nothing else... and West is following it to the core.

Whereas Ancient India and Brahminism lived in Ideological Purity,,, and impracticality.

That was the problem

Cheers.

 

[jaisiyaraam]

Welcome, like I said I did not lean to insult you, it was just to know your position. I am a person of strong opinions, that is all. LOL

Thanks Prasad1ji !!!

Thanks,
Jai SiyaRaam

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Yamaka,

The point I am trying to make about today's pragmatism is simple. Pragmatism is about accepting that humans have defects and shape your attitude and behaviour based on that. I am not saying that having defects or admitting them is wrong. What is not right is to not to make to effort to strive to be right and perceive higher values as useless. That is dangerous to the society in the long run because you become nothing but glorified animals.

 

[happyhindu]

My take is like this:

There was nothing called ancient hinduism. Instead there were cultural phases over which tribes evolved in civilisation and culture. This evolution imo came as human intelligence developed rapidly with availability of sustained nutrition in the wake of neolithic farming.

The existentiality of what we call 'hinduism' begins with myriad tribes with disparate beliefs (with different concepts of universe, creation, etc) and who practiced myriad customs (pertaining to various life events of birth, death, marriage, etc).

There imo were 'tribal religions' of the subcontinent. Such tribal religions were part of tribal janapadas, and underwent transformation, in part or in full; with the 'transformations' also becoming part of the state formation as and when they met with 'foreign' influence, or clashed and merged in inter-tribal warfare.

When we say 'religion' it must be a set of beleifs centered around corpus texts. In such way, we can say atheism of kapila, yagnavalkya, samkhya school and patanjali's yoga are seperate religions unto themselves. Samkhya and Yoga "religions" had their founders.

Similarly, we can say Srivaishnava religion centered around divyaprabandhams, concepts of Vishnu avataras, with relevant concepts put down into texts is a seperate religion unto itself. I would say the founder of SV religion is Ramanuja Swami.

Then again, Saivasiddhantam centered around thevarams, philosophical interpretations of thevarams, absorption of siddha, kapalika and various heterodox systems within it, is a seperate religion.

Similarly, one may say Smathaism centered around a set of rituals and codes of conduct is a seperate religion unto itself. Since historically a section of Smarthas became SVs, so the SV religion could be termed the SV-Smartha religion. Similarly a section of Smarthas who became advaitins, could be termed the 'Advaitin Smarthas'.

Which of these (tribal and non-tribal beleifs or faith systems) is vedic and non-vedic is hard to say as Vedas became a monolith over a long period of time when texts were added to "The Vedas" in various cultural phases.

I would say the major cultural phases were (a) composition period of the samhitas (b) composition period of the brahmanas (c) composition period of upanishads. The first of these phases is imo lost in antiquity.

What most of us are practicing today is infact the Puranic religion of worshipping Gods and Goddesses. That is, dieities of our clans and other clans, which arose from an admixture of various tribes in the puranic period.

The term hindu to me is somewhat a misfit, as the term 'hindu' may or may not be equated with religions practiced by the present-day tribals. The term 'hindu' imo does not adequetely represent or describe the many religions within it.

Unfortunately, some sections can seek to claim that their religion alone belongs to 'hinduism'. So smarthas and present-day tribals may claim only they are hindus, though both may worship the same tribal icons and deities, but with disparate padhatis (practices) and codes of conduct. Then again, on this very forum theists behave as though atheism is not hinduism.

I would say, rejoice for as long as a system of beleif that does not hurt others, exists. Am more fascinated with the future of religion than the past these days...The future may be robots, with intelligence far more advanced than humans, who decide to enslave humans....what happens then...

 

[sangom]

Namaste Sravnaji,

"...Is the modern west a paragon of virtue? The truth would be a big no..."

I dont know your definition for virtue so I am taking my chance by a citing specific case of modern west (neither tb nor hindu, not even ancient indian/hindu): several couples in modern west are living/leading a happy/healthy/progressive family life without getting married (as per ancient or modern indian/hindu customs) without even taking/making vows and are setting a very good example to thier kids.

If you take enough trouble to look around you then you will find enough (atleast one) couples raised & married in india as per ancient(or modern)hinduism customs but leading a false/immoral(un-virtuous? mechanical?) life in the very heart of spiritual/holy lands of bharatha varsha. I guess these couples/cases are very specific cases ... like few (insignificant number of) bad apple amoung basket full of holy apples and can/will be rejected for comparision citing purva janma karma theory.

On what basis we the holy/spiritual lot of ancient hinduism are more virtuous/holy than the modern west?

Un-Virtuos modern west does not make ancient hinduism virtuos ... people have to be guaged by their actions/life-style but not by their affiliations.

Thanks,
Jai SiyaRaam

Shri Jai Siyaraam ji,

It is true that the west has its own morals or the lack of it. But it has become a lamentable habit of the hindus to "merely assume" a glorious past for themselves and go on finding fault with everything in/of/from the west thus trying to say 'mera hinduism mahan' or 'mera bharat mahaan'. The problem is that none of us - and that includes me too - have any adequate knowledge of our past and because our past is all in sanskrit texts, those are as alien to us as greek or latin.

For the sake of man and woman living according to their mutual consent, without a society-sanctioned marriage, you are tooting the virtues of ancient hinduism. But just look at the following from this post:

The incident in the mahAbhArata I had in mind is one that relates to the sages UddAlaka and his son Shvetaketu, which is quoted in J.Muir's book about Ancient India from Sanskrit texts
http://www.archive.org/download/orig...krit01muir.pdf

To quote him from pp 418-419 of the first volume:

212 This incident is alluded to in the Adip., section 122. It is there stated that in the olden time women were subject to no restraint, and incurred no blame for abandoning their husbands and cohabiting with anyone they pleased ... A stop was, however, put to this practice by Uddalaka Shvetaketu, whose indignation was on one occasion aroused by a Brahman taking his mother by the hand, and inviting her to go away with him, although his father, in whose presence this occurred, informed him that there was no reason for his displeasure, as the custom was one which had prevailed from time immemorial.

The verse in question occurs as follows in the ITX transliteration at:
ITRANS Text

mahAbhArata, Adi parva 114.13:
kruddha.n taM tu pitA dR^iShTvA shvetaketumuvAcha ha |
mA tAta kopa.n kArShIstvameSha dharmaH sanAtanaH || 13 ||

Kisari Mohan Ganguli's translation of the verses in context:
Translation of Mahabharata of Vyasa by Kisari Mohan Ganguli , Stories and Characters from Mahabharata, Mahabharatam in Telugu, Tamil, Kannada, Hindi..

"One day, in the presence of Swetaketu's father a Brahmana came and catching Swetaketu's mother by the hand, told her, 'Let us go.' Beholding his mother seized by the hand and taken away apparently by force, the son was greatly moved by wrath. Seeing his son indignant, Uddalaka addressed him and said, 'Be not angry. O son! This is the practice sanctioned by antiquity. The women of all orders in this world are free, O son; men in this matter, as regards their respective orders, act as kine.' The Rishi's son, Swetaketu, however, disapproved of the usage and established in the world the present practice as regards men and women."

Some brAhmaNa and strI indeed! I am reminded of the promiscuity shown (and proabably exhorted) in the TV serial 'Two and Half Men'.

 

[sravna]

First of all let me say that I bow my head in reverence to Shri Sangom for his intricate knowledge about many aspects of hinduism. In spite of what he says it is his humility that makes him say he is not so knowledgeable.

For a person like me who is in awe of the wisdom of ancient India, I am trying to reconcile that with the several facts cited here to show the not so pious nature of our ancestors. The same epics of ramayana and mahabaratha also feature extremely chaste and powerful women such as sita, ravana's wife , draupadi etc. These characters show women in a very dignified light, something ahead of its times for an early civilization. I am not as knowledgeable as Shri Sangom but I am sure there are enough ancient works that depict women in a very positive light, something that is unique to Indian culture if I am not wrong. It is in India that the moral aspect of a woman is highlighted something which you do not see in other culture.

 

[renuka]

Shri Jai Siyaraam ji,

It is true that the west has its own morals or the lack of it. But it has become a lamentable habit of the hindus to "merely assume" a glorious past for themselves and go on finding fault with everything in/of/from the west thus trying to say 'mera hinduism mahan' or 'mera bharat mahaan'. The problem is that none of us - and that includes me too - have any adequate knowledge of our past and because our past is all in sanskrit texts, those are as alien to us as greek or latin.

For the sake of man and woman living according to their mutual consent, without a society-sanctioned marriage, you are tooting the virtues of ancient hinduism. But just look at the following from this post:

The incident in the mahAbhArata I had in mind is one that relates to the sages UddAlaka and his son Shvetaketu, which is quoted in J.Muir's book about Ancient India from Sanskrit texts
http://www.archive.org/download/orig...krit01muir.pdf

To quote him from pp 418-419 of the first volume:

212 This incident is alluded to in the Adip., section 122. It is there stated that in the olden time women were subject to no restraint, and incurred no blame for abandoning their husbands and cohabiting with anyone they pleased ... A stop was, however, put to this practice by Uddalaka Shvetaketu, whose indignation was on one occasion aroused by a Brahman taking his mother by the hand, and inviting her to go away with him, although his father, in whose presence this occurred, informed him that there was no reason for his displeasure, as the custom was one which had prevailed from time immemorial.

The verse in question occurs as follows in the ITX transliteration at:
ITRANS Text

mahAbhArata, Adi parva 114.13:
kruddha.n taM tu pitA dR^iShTvA shvetaketumuvAcha ha |
mA tAta kopa.n kArShIstvameSha dharmaH sanAtanaH || 13 ||

Kisari Mohan Ganguli's translation of the verses in context:
Translation of Mahabharata of Vyasa by Kisari Mohan Ganguli , Stories and Characters from Mahabharata, Mahabharatam in Telugu, Tamil, Kannada, Hindi..

"One day, in the presence of Swetaketu's father a Brahmana came and catching Swetaketu's mother by the hand, told her, 'Let us go.' Beholding his mother seized by the hand and taken away apparently by force, the son was greatly moved by wrath. Seeing his son indignant, Uddalaka addressed him and said, 'Be not angry. O son! This is the practice sanctioned by antiquity. The women of all orders in this world are free, O son; men in this matter, as regards their respective orders, act as kine.' The Rishi's son, Swetaketu, however, disapproved of the usage and established in the world the present practice as regards men and women."

Some brAhmaNa and strI indeed! I am reminded of the promiscuity shown (and proabably exhorted) in the TV serial 'Two and Half Men'.

Wow!!! that means modern day code of conduct spoilt all the fun.
Sangom dear that way yesteryugas were really Glorious Yaar!!LOL!!!
No one is complaining..it makes life much easier..dont like someone just walk away by staging a kidnap etc..no hassle of court case,divorce etc.

 

[N.R.Ranganathan]

Sir,
It is a tall order to suggest to read all the books like upanishads, Gita and other
scriptures. As rightly said, a life time is not sufficient to finish reading.

I would suggest the books by sir S.Radhakrishnan and by sri D.S.Sarma.
Sarma's is a Bhavan's publication.

I have not understood the terms 'ancient' and 'modern' in respect of Hinduism.

 

[prasad1]

Actually before the British came there was no India, there was no humanity, or may be there was no human beings, there were wild animals roaming in the jungle.
The English brought us culture and showed us that we can be Humans. There was nothing like civilization, religions or anything. After the English left, Indians have invented this myth called Hinduism, have invented all this culture stories, no proof of anything. These Brahmins were basically wrote the stories.

Oh I forgot in between this interloper named Ghandhi came and messed up, We will forget him too, so what if the world over he is respected. We are the know all we will keep posting on every thread till you desi's accept our view.

Remember if you are Indian, hindu, brahmin you caused the misery for the entire humanity. Any atrocity committed in the world was a chance or caused by brahminism. The Astec, Mayas, or the Neanderthal disappearing was because of this Brahmin invasion.

Signed by the all knowing
AAAAAA, BBBBB, CCCC, DDDD, and maybe hhhh.

Any resemblance to any other person on this site is purely coincidental.

 

[sangom]

Sir,
It is a tall order to suggest to read all the books like upanishads, Gita and other
scriptures. As rightly said, a life time is not sufficient to finish reading.

I would suggest the books by sir S.Radhakrishnan and by sri D.S.Sarma.
Sarma's is a Bhavan's publication.

I have not understood the terms 'ancient' and 'modern' in respect of Hinduism.

Shri Ranganathan sir,

If anyone really wants to know authentically about 'ancient' and 'modern day' hinduisms, and since most 'believers' here in this forum repeatedly pooh-pooh (whenever it suits their intent) books by western scholars, I have suggested as above.

In case you have a broader outlook and are willing to consider the interpretations of western indologists also, without any preconceived ideas, there are many good books which will give a reasonably good account of hinduism through the millennia.

The problem with the mostly tabra group here is that they have grown up with all the advices and inputs from their elders, who themselves were similarly misinformed (and this has been going on for quite some generations, since when the more successful tabra families stopped sending their kids to the vedapatashalas and, instead, gave secular education and wanted those kids to gain entry into government jobs with salary, etc., and gradual but unmistakable aping of the white man and his practices has been going on for a long time, not only among tabras but also among the richer forward castes.) and we as a people, have lost touch with the real brahmin or ancient Indian (hindu) way of life. But we don't want to admit this and go forward; instead we prefer driving forward always looking at the rear (back) glass and eulogizing the path already gone as glorious!

It looks to me as if our forefathers were more pragmatic than the self-appointed guardians of hinduism/brahminism whom we find in this forum. in allowing the slide towards the western ways of living because they perhaps knew for certain that the strictly religious ways of hindu life had no substance and was like garlic - peel and peel and find a big NOTHING. But today, thanks to the IT, dot.com, etc., booms and the fact that our elders of the last few generations had wisely taken us towards English education from mere veda-learning by rote, many here are earning well or extremely well, they have most luxuries which SET and abundant money can supply, and because they could happily go abroad and settle down there - either themselves or with their children - these nouveau-riche people want to pose as if they are the saviours of hinduism.

 

[happyhindu]

The incident in the mahAbhArata I had in mind is one that relates to the sages UddAlaka and his son Shvetaketu, which is quoted in J.Muir's book about Ancient India from Sanskrit texts
http://www.archive.org/download/orig...krit01muir.pdf

To quote him from pp 418-419 of the first volume:

212 This incident is alluded to in the Adip., section 122. It is there stated that in the olden time women were subject to no restraint, and incurred no blame for abandoning their husbands and cohabiting with anyone they pleased ... A stop was, however, put to this practice by Uddalaka Shvetaketu, whose indignation was on one occasion aroused by a Brahman taking his mother by the hand, and inviting her to go away with him, although his father, in whose presence this occurred, informed him that there was no reason for his displeasure, as the custom was one which had prevailed from time immemorial.

The verse in question occurs as follows in the ITX transliteration at:
ITRANS Text

mahAbhArata, Adi parva 114.13:
kruddha.n taM tu pitA dR^iShTvA shvetaketumuvAcha ha |
mA tAta kopa.n kArShIstvameSha dharmaH sanAtanaH || 13 ||

Kisari Mohan Ganguli's translation of the verses in context:
Translation of Mahabharata of Vyasa by Kisari Mohan Ganguli , Stories and Characters from Mahabharata, Mahabharatam in Telugu, Tamil, Kannada, Hindi..

"One day, in the presence of Swetaketu's father a Brahmana came and catching Swetaketu's mother by the hand, told her, 'Let us go.' Beholding his mother seized by the hand and taken away apparently by force, the son was greatly moved by wrath. Seeing his son indignant, Uddalaka addressed him and said, 'Be not angry. O son! This is the practice sanctioned by antiquity. The women of all orders in this world are free, O son; men in this matter, as regards their respective orders, act as kine.' The Rishi's son, Swetaketu, however, disapproved of the usage and established in the world the present practice as regards men and women."

Some brAhmaNa and strI indeed! I am reminded of the promiscuity shown (and proabably exhorted) in the TV serial 'Two and Half Men'.

Dear Sir,

When reading about Svetaketu, i had come across this story. Used to think was not uddalaka rishi a brahmin? If so, then how could an other brahmin take away his wife for a tryst -- how could uddalaka allow it?

Then I read this and thot perhaps this atharva veda 5:17:8-9 verse answers my doubt. The verse conveys that even if a woman had 10 husbands and a brahmana seized her hand, then the brahmana would be her husband:

Even if ten former husbands—none a Brāhman—had espoused a dame,
And then a Brāhman took her hand, he is her husband, only he,
Not Vaisya, not Rājanya, no, the Brāhman is indeed her lord:
This Sūrya in his course proclaims to the Five Races of mankind.

Maybe those were days when the atharva brahmana was trying to assert his rights over all other classes of men (including the samaveda udgatrs, rigveda hotrs and yajurveda adhvaryus). And as the mightiest of all men/warriors, maybe the atharva brahmana had the right to all women (irrespective of whether they were wedded to other men). Maybe the women had no position to oppose perhaps, and simply had to oblige.

The upper castes taking women from lower castes for a tryst (with the women having to oblige) was a feature present even in colonial period india. Maybe svetaketu's mother had no say and simply had to oblige. Maybe Uddalaka rishi too had no say, and had to allow his wife to oblige the Brahmana seizing her hand.

Regards.

 

[jaisiyaraam]

Namaste Sangomji,

"...For the sake of man and woman living according to their mutual consent, without a society-sanctioned marriage, you are tooting the virtues of ancient hinduism..."

By "toot"ing if you mean that I am "cheer"ing ancient hinduism then I am sorry for misleading you.

All that I questioned Sravnaji is that why (& on what basis) he is deriding modern west? is it to glorify ancient hinduism? and/or blame modern west for the defects in modern hinduism?
Especially when the modern west, immune/unknown to glorious(holier than thou)ancient hinduism, is happily/healthily leading "family" life without any matrimonial funfair/vows and raising kids to be good citizens.

Thanks for your informative post.

Thanks,
Jai SiyaRaam