Defining Hindu

[MahaHrada]

No, I got you right. You were trying to argue that there was no archana, no Krishna, Ganesha, Shiva, etc in the early Vedic tradition, and as evidence you gave the example of the Nambhoothiri community. But the Nambhoothiri community does participate in all of those things, which refutes your position. You can argue that their endorsement of these practices is a "later" adaptation, but you have no evidence. Once again, you are just stating your opinions as if they are obvious facts.

There is no need to give evidence for the obvious, you can of course argue that there was temple and murti worship at a time when there yet existed no temples, that samsara and reincarnation are taught in the Vedas even when there is no trace of these doctrine to be found in the actual texts and oral tradition, that vedantic traditions, or bhakti movement and other syncretic medieveal sects existed even before their medieval or modern founders were born, and other such revisionist doctrines, that Ravana had 10 literal Heads when he lived on this planet as a monstrous demon, or Hanuman walked this earth as a literal talking Monkey shaped person and literally swallod up the sun or carried a complete mountain on his back through the air, that Kundalini is a snake living in the anus, you can of course belive in the puranic account of astronomy and geography, you can belive whatever you want, but in this case it is you that has to produce evidence that your unbelievable accounts could be true, it is not up to me to disprove absurdities.

As regards your accusation that my evidence for the nature of the customs and norms of the ancient vedic community are by example of the Nambudiri community this is plainly wrong. The evidence is of course the content of the ancient shrauta rituals as they are traditionally performend by the Nambudiri for the last 3000 years, to argue that because the Nambudiri also practice tantric murti pujas, mainly according to the late medieval keralese text the Tantrasamucchaya (15th.century) and similar compendiums like the slightly earlier Ishanashivagurudevapaddhati, means that these practices are as old as the vedic yagas and similarly a part of ancient vedic customs and norms is an absurd comment.

Also in this case you are of course free to belive in the absurd, if you want to belive that for instance the Nambudiri practise of "patala Nrsimha" according to Ishanashivagurudevapaddhati is as vedic and ancient as, for example the Somayaga or Aitiratha, it is you that must bring me evidence of texts and tradition that go back to vedas and samhitas, for this kind of worship, so you either put some flesh on these bones and name other sources than the medieveal Tantrasamucchaya and Ishanashivagurudevapaddhati and such compendiums for this type of worship or keep quiet and admit the obvious, that the practise of these tantras are later syncretic additions to Nambudiri culture.

[philosoraptor]

Again, let me just remind you that you have not proven your point. When the argument is that ancient shrauta ritualists had no concept of archana, Krishna-worship, Ganesha-worship, etc, then pointing to a community who perform these rituals but still engage in those other practices simply does not support your view. Yes, I realize, you will now argue that none of us are as intelligent as you because we do not endorse your "obvious" opinions. Usually, you either engage in vulgar sarcasm or just make comments of this nature, or simply change the subject when someone points out the inconsistency of your views, which I've come to take as your concession that you have nothing else to offer. If you have some other, real evidence to substantiate your version of history, I'm ready to hear it.

The vedAntic commentators from nimbArka to rAmAnuja to baladeva have all written elaborate commentaries basing their devotional systems of thought on the shruti. This is a fact. They spoke Sanskrit and lived and breathed the culture. You not only don't know Sanskrit, but your entire knowledge of shruti is based on what you read from the likes of Max Mueller and H.H. Wilson, and your bias towards neo-tantrik thinkers clearly makes you biased against vedAnta. All in all, you are just making arguments motivated by crass sectarianism, with little originality or insight.

[MahaHrada]

Again, let me just remind you that you have not proven your point. When the argument is that ancient shrauta ritualists had no concept of archana, Krishna-worship, Ganesha-worship,

Apparently you have no idea of the nambudiri keralese puja paddhatis their content, practises origin, neither do you know who composed them and at which dates they were composed, since these are the manuals that are used for the worship of Krishna, Ganesha, Nrisimha and so forth, you cannot give evidence for their early origin. I consider you a dead horse, also ad hominem remarks cannot save your face, and as you know the saying goes don´t flog a dead horse so out of my kindness and compassion i leave it at that.

[philosoraptor]

Apparently you have no idea of the nambudiri keralese puja paddhatis their content, practises origin, neither do you know who composed them and at which dates they were composed, since these are the manuals that are used for the worship of Krishna, Ganesha, Nrisimha and so forth, you cannot give evidence for their early origin. I consider you a dead horse, also ad hominem remarks cannot save your face, and as you know the saying goes don´t flog a dead horse so out of my kindness and compassion i leave it at that.

Now you are just being argumentative. It was your claim that the ancient shrauta tradition had no concept of these things, and it was your evidence that failed to substantiate that view. Now you are contradicting your earlier argument, for if you are implying that the worship manuals containing no mention of these things is evidence of their absence, then you are implying that the tradition is more homogeneous, in contrast to your earlier stated view that it was "syncretic."

I have a question for you, which maybe you might consider thinking about in all seriousness. If you believe Vaishnavism (to take one example) to be external to the ancient shrauta tradition (let's ignore all the Vishnu references in the Vedas just to indulge you here), and that their inclusion into the tradition is due to liberal syncretism, then why do we not similarly observe orthodox Namboothiris absorbing Jesus-worship into their traditions? We know for a fact that Namboothiris play an important role in the maintenance and worship of the Guruvayur Temple, and that the nArAyaNIyam, a summary of the bhAgavata purANa, was a major literary work of the nambhoothiris. So, why no nambhoothiri Jesus bhaktas? We have Nambhoothiri Vishnu-bhaktas. What's the difference here?

[MahaHrada]

Now you are just being argumentative. It was your claim that the ancient shrauta tradition had no concept of these things, and it was your evidence that failed to substantiate that view. Now you are contradicting your earlier argument, for if you are implying that the worship manuals containing no mention of these things is evidence of their absence, then you are implying that the tradition is more homogeneous, in contrast to your earlier stated view that it was "syncretic."

You already drove that car against the wall, and failed, why try that route again? Do you think anything eventually becomes the truth only if we repeat it long enough, or are you interested in finding out the truth about a matter?

I have already given evidence that the worship of Krishna, Ganesha etc. is done according to medieveal puja paddhatis and i namend the major sources, and therefore these practises as i wrote before are not part of the ancient vedic norms, so now it is up to you to prove and give me evidence and show me earlier sources of these syncretic Nambudiri practises.

I have a question for you, which maybe you might consider thinking about in all seriousness. If you believe Vaishnavism (to take one example) to be external to the ancient shrauta tradition (let's ignore all the Vishnu references in the Vedas just to indulge you here), and that their inclusion into the tradition is due to liberal syncretism, then why do we not similarly observe orthodox Namboothiris absorbing Jesus-worship into their traditions? We know for a fact that Namboothiris play an important role in the maintenance and worship of the Guruvayur Temple, and that the nArAyaNIyam, a summary of the bhAgavata purANa, was a major literary work of the nambhoothiris. So, why no nambhoothiri Jesus bhaktas? We have Nambhoothiri Vishnu-bhaktas. What's the difference here?

I don´t belive that reverence for Vishnu per se is outside the ancient vedic norms, what i belive is that modern Hinduism has assimilated non vedic influences to a differing degree and Vaishnavism is still in my opinion, among the diverse sectarian groups the one that obviously has retained many vedic norms, compared to shaivaism or shaktism for example.

Why no Jesus, this is very simple because the majority of the indian population is not christian, look at the hindu teachers that have gone to the west, where the majority population is christian, almost all of them have either incorporated Jesus in their cults, or at least payed lip service to him as a enlightened person of some sort. Similarly when the tiny vedic community spread all over india the majority population was following non vedic religions, they were tribals, shramanas, worshippers of shakti, yoni and linga, buddhists, jains, i don´t know what else, you name it.
This principle also works the other way around, since India is a hindu majority, many christians and even muslims follow some Hindu practices or take part in festivals, there has even been a very famous keralese mantravadin, who tamed Yakshinis, he was christian cleric, but had no problems to deposit the spirits in a chandi temple.

[philosoraptor]

Repeating unsubstantiated facts as if they are true is your MO, not mine.

I did not attempt to prove the antiquity of archana here. I was merely focusing on the logical foundation (if any) of your view that archana was a later, medieval practice. So far as I can see, your argument appears to be based on the premise that ancient shrauta ritualists did not engage in archa-vigraha worship, and that archana was based on medieval puja paddhatis. Except of course, the ancient shrauta tradition you mentioned did endorse temple worship, and medieval puja paddhatis are usually based on older traditions rooted in the Agamas. So again, you haven't articulated a very conclusive argument here. Moreover, your position requires that we ignore the multiple references to this form or worship in purANas, itihAsas, and multiple other smRiti texts, many of which are already mentioned in shrutis like chAndogya and bRihadAraNyaka upaniShads. Again, we have to subscribe to more untenable assumptions in order to accommodate your thinking, such as the idea that upaniShads are later to saMhitA-s, or that the purANa/itihAsa mentioned in the shruti is something other than what the broader Hindu tradition knows them to be. It would not be unfair to point out that your entire theory rests on assumptions which are not themselves proven. Now, if you follow your typical pattern, you should respond with something disparaging about how ridiculous purANic views of science, cosmology, etc are, which of course is not really the point here. The point here is in determining who or what speaks for the nature of the Vedic tradition. Since you have dispensed with the smRitis due to your sectarian opposition to them, you are now left with very indirect arguments at best, most imported wholesale from Western Indologists whom you paradoxically trust more than Neo-Vedantists despite both being funded by Western political interests.

Why no Jesus worship in the supposedly syncretic tradition of the Nabhoothiris? The answer is, they aren't as "syncretic" as you think. Vaishnavism has a Vedic basis, even if you just take "older" texts like the Rg veda. A similar argument could be made for Shiva-worship or Shakti-worship, but not for Jesus-worship. Thus, it is not the case that these ancient ritualists indiscriminately absorbed whatever was around them. Christianity is huge in Kerala, but the Nambhoothiri orthodoxy shows no signs of wholesale endorsement of Jesus-worship, and I would guess that, quite contrary to your stated theories of religious evolution, they will never do so even if threatened by political pressure. At the end of the day, contrary to your view that, "there was no Krishna, no ganesha, no temples" in the tradition except what was absorbed from outside influences, the reality is that absorption of truly "outside" influences is unheard of in the example you gave.

[MahaHrada]

Repeating unsubstantiated facts as if they are true is your MO, not mine.

Now that was a good one How about such stuff that you repeat as fact such as that literally a female bear can give birth to a human or was it the other way around? i don´t remember. Very little of what you desperately accuse me of, just to save your face, has anything to do with what i actually wrote.

I was merely focusing on the logical foundation (if any) of your view that archana was a later, medieval practice.

You did nothing like that because you, as i already said, lack the basic knowledge of the puja paddhatis of the Nambudiris and the sources on which they are based (if any) merely talking about unnamend "older agamas" is ridicolous, on which "older agama" for instance is the Ishanashivagurudevapaddhati based? Maybe it is based on that secret purana from the treta yuga, in which we also find the description of the nuclear bomb,the internet and airplanes,the biotechnology that explains how even a male bear can give birth to humans, which were stolen by the greedy western scientists and then these mlecchas pretended it was their own research? Come on don´t be shy cut and paste the youtube link. you won´t ? To shy? I´ll do it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K71W1vGZ1ME

[philosoraptor]

Now that was a good one How about such stuff that you repeat as fact such as that literally a female bear can give birth to a human or was it the other way around? i don´t remember. Very little of what you desperately accuse me of, just to save your face, has anything to do with what i actually wrote.

Well first of all, if you had actually read the posting for understanding, you would recall that I was arguing that the author intended us to believe in the supernatural events he described, not that they were merely elaborate metaphors for something else. Whether you believe in them or not, it does not change the fact that the author intended us to believe in shapechanging monkeys, flesh-eating demons, superstrong heroes, invisible devas, etc. etc. And pardon me for saying it, but once again, you're changing the subject - one of your distinctive telltail signs that you are losing the debate.

You did nothing like that because you, as i already said, lack the basic knowledge of the puja paddhatis of the Nambudiris and the sources on which they are based (if any) merely talking about unnamend "older agamas" is ridicolous, on which "older agama" for instance is the Ishanashivagurudevapaddhati based? Maybe it is based on that secret purana from the treta yuga, in which we also find the description of the nuclear bomb,the internet and airplanes,the biotechnology that explains how even a male bear can give birth to humans, which were stolen by the greedy western scientists and then these mlecchas pretended it was their own research? Come on don´t be shy cut and paste the youtube link. you won´t ? To shy? I´ll do it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K71W1vGZ1ME

Your derisive comments about purANas aside, you're obfuscating the issue. Whether the smRiti contains stories of supernatural events has no bearing on their authority to ancient Hindus. As I pointed out before, and as you have conveniently ignored, the Nambhoothiri mythos is based on events involving persons who are mentioned only in smRiti. Now you can acknowledge that, or you can live in denial (once again, not just a river in Egypt). But if they saw themselves as descendants of a community that benefitted from the actions of Parashuraama-avatAra, then that neatly refutes your contention that they only gave importance to veda and not smRiti. So, to amend your previously incorrect view, there was indeed Vishnu and dashAvatAra-s as far as this group of shrauta ritualists were/are concerned.

[MahaHrada]

I do not need to amend views or change opinions that i never expressed, the same goes of course for your assorted insults and accusations i do not have the time to spent and defend myself against all kind of obvious nonsense.

Since the majority of the content of your postings are misrepresenting or simply inventing opinions i never expressed, something that is called libel and slander among civilized people, there is almost nothing rational left in your postings i can respond to.

I can only repeat that even if the Nambudiri brahmins have preserved the practice of ancient shrauta rituals faithfully it does not mean that the tantric pujas they have equally well preserved, (following medieveal source texts), must be of the same antiquity.

I can also only repeat that in the ancient vedic shrauta rituals that have been carefully and secretly, preserved most of what is practised in modern Hinduism is missing and has developed or has been assimilated at a later date and, besides some vedic norms and customs, these tantras contains a considerable assimilation of non vedic practises, deities, customs and norms.

It is such a process that has been giving birth to the development of the medieveal religion we now call Hinduism. Tantric, agamic and puranic traditions which make up the majority of customs of modern Hinduism have very little in common with the traditional vedic religion.

[Omkara]

Shankaracharya was a Namboothiri Brahmin. Given his endorsement of temple worship, it is pointless to claim, as you do, that temple worship was assimilated by the Shrauta community in the 15th century.