namaskaram ,
please do not be depressed this is merely a conversation in which each is entitled to an opinion , were there no freedom of opinion , then that would be depressing .
Now onto ratikala. Also somewhat depressing to respond to, but less virulent than TatTvamAsi. It depresses me because have to wonder if she (for some reason I'm assuming its a woman) read the entire article. Her responses to me were longest, so this will be the longest section:
and on a small note , ....please excuse my humor , ....yes I am Female, .. small clue is the little symbol top page to the right next to the word Gender:
, ....and forgive my apparent sarcasm but are Hindus not familiar with Hindu names ?
Oh boy. Talk about starting off on the wrong foot. It was actually "Anglicized" Hinduism, not Anglican. Anglicanism is a sect of Christianity. Anglicization means the process of becoming more English. I don't see how pointing out that English culture influenced Indian culture entails being egoistic or engaging in over-analysis.
yes ther is a lot of getting of on the wrong foot here , .....
I qouted the OP who unfortunatly did say ......"Western/Anglican Hinduism".
now please before a fight ensues I merely responded to this which was prehaps a mistake in typing on the part of the OP ....and any such mistake is perfectly forgivable and I hope you will also forgive that it may have coloured my reply and reading of your article .....and no I did not read the entire article , I replied to the parts quoted as these were sited in continuation to another contentious post .....
which I assume you have read ?
however .....
....opening lines of the original post .....
The following is an article by Mr. Nick (who is a writer/member for/of the Hindu American Foundation). The article,
The Westernization of Hinduism and its Alienating Consequences, analyzes concerns of what he (who, BTW, is a half-White & half-Indian American of the Lokayata philosophy who self-identifies as a Hindu; just pointing it out to provide socio-cultural context) sees with
"Western/Anglican Hinduism". {/quote
I think it also wise to point out that if you are as posted above of Lokayata persuasion ? and I am Vaisnava , in which case we are about as far removed from each other phylosopicaly is is possible whilst remaining under the umbrella of Hinduism , therefore it is hardly likely that we will agree .
also please understand that if it is your wish to maintain Hindu unity , then please do not disrespect the Gita , which as a non theist you would not hold to be of devine origin in the way that we do .
Actually, the argument in the article was that the Gita (or its style of Hinduism) was promoted by orthodox Brahmins who were accorded a privileged role in the British administration, and later on, by members of the Bengal renaissance. I didn't explicitly talk about why the British promoted the Gita, but it wasn't wholly for the reasons you state. They also promoted it because it is an excellent text for a beginner in Sanskrit to read, and many Britishers wanted to learn Sanskrit. The Sanskrit is pretty simple compared to other texts, and its a short, interesting book. That probably contributed as much as any ideological reason.[/quote]
atanu ji had allready rightly pointed out that the Gita was allready highly reveared before any privilages were afforded to any Brahmins by the British administration ...
and with this fine comment I had allready agreed ....
As for the claim that it is 5000 years old, I've never seen any evidence to this effect but feel free to provide some evidence. But interpreting you charitably, assuming you just meant that the text was was written sometime in ancient Indian history--- I never claimed that the Gita was written in the colonial period, so I don't know how this fact is "overlooked" by me.
yes, ... as for the ''claim'' that ''the gita is 5000 years old'' ....please remember you are talking to a Vaisnava .....as you know the Bhagavad Gita is conscidered to be a discourse in its entirity between Sri Krsna and his deciple Arjuna , this Discourse took place at the end of Dvapara Yuga the whole discorse has been handed down oraly since that point in time untill it was commited into written its form , therefore regardless of which form we now hold it in (being that in written or oral form) it is now over 5000 years old .
I am sorry , .. but I do not and will not even entertain the thought of proving the existance of Sri Bhagavan or of the words spoken at Kurukshetra to a non theist as we do not have the same understanding ...if someone wants proof of Sri Krsnas existance then surrender is a nececary requirement .
in other words dont ask me for proof have the courage to ask Krsna himself .
I don't know what this has to do with English influence, but it is a worthy digression. We rely on evidence, not faith in the word of Sri Bhagavan in order to date texts. I don't have a problem with you relying on faith, but please don't call those who work with evidence "quasi-intellectual," or malign our methods, unless you can counter them with good reasons.
the evidence you may rely upon very different to the evidence that a devotee relys upon which is that of personal realisation withon the heart , ...and with all due respects you are perfectly entitled to rely upon your own methods providing you do not apply your methodology to other peoples texts , when the text it self is synonomous with a god you do not beleive in .
yes I will call these quasi interlectuals ''Quasi interlectuals'' as in my mind they take a divine discourse and study it as a mere litterary work . if you serch just for material evidence then all you will find is material evidence , ...search your heart by the means of surrender and you will find God .
I will counter nothing as our experience is so different to yours as to be incompattable .
It doesn't seem like you are very familiar with linguistics or historical research methods. The language in which something is written is a pretty good clue as to when it was written. If the linguistic forms which a text uses came into existence at a certain century, then obviously the text could not have been written (at least in that recension) before that century. But this isn't the only way we date texts. We also look for references to them in other texts which we have more reliable dating methods, look for events mentioned in the text, or look for other things in the text like types of building materials, tribes or nations mentioned, individuals, plants, astrological events, etc, which give us clues about the dates. Also, the Gita wasn't written once and then copied with precision. It is unlike the Vedas in this way. We have a much wider array of "recensions" of the Gita which vary. It is likely that the text was composed over a long time, starting perhaps as early as 500 or 600 BC, and ending by the time of the Gupta reign (300-400 AD).
I am sorely tempted to say ' Poppycock ' again ......please accept that is said in good humor
.....yes yes , I am familiar with these methods , but I do not nececarily have to agree with such methodology .
therefore this constitutes a veiw to which you subscribe , and one that I do not.....I am more concerned with assertaining the meaning of the Gita , and putting it into practice , therefore the eficacy of the instructions are proof enough for me as to their origin . how many scribes have rendered versions of it throughout time is only testiment to the reverence in which it was held .
To directly address your point-- in the Gita's case, we don't tend to rely heavily on linguistic analysis. We mostly date it by finding references to it in the Brahma Sutras and other texts, and by dating the rest of Mahabharata, which we can do with greater reliability using the aforementioned methods.
reliable according to your reasoning only ....
-------
Ok, have to put in a hard break here to avoid the word limit.[/quote]
likewise ....
