In the name of “indigenous philosophy” church propagating Brahminism

I really wonder what made you to invite me to speak on this subject because we have been critical of the Indian church particularly the Roman Catholic church.
Though the members of your church, meaning Christians, are almost 80% indigenous people— Dalits, Tribals and Backward Castes — your religious order being mostly upper castes has been misleading its followers by indoctrinating them in the alien Brahminical philosophy.
So, you have to bear with me, tolerate me for my criticism of this poisonous philosophy that has kept our people enslaved. Please note, India is not Aryan but anti-Aryan, if history is taken as our guide. I must have delivered scores of lectures in different parts of India to church leaders, written many books and published over 100 articles in Dalit Voice on this subject criticising the church leadership. But I am sorry to say the church leadership is not interested in listening to us.
This is because the church leadership is mostly upper caste and it wants to please Brahminical rulers by teaching philosophy ruling the country.
DALIT CHRISTIAN RESERVATION
The single most important example to prove this point is the CBCI (Catholic) and NCCI (Protestant) half-hearted approach to the question of reservation to Dalit Christians who form about 80% of the Indian Christian population.
However, I want to make it clear that we are fully aware of the great services of the church to Dalits which can be written only in letters of gold. (V.T. Rajshekar, Why Dalits Hate Hinduism?, DSA-2004).
Before elaborating the philosophical question that divides the church leadership from the laity, it is necessary that I place before you the country’s population statistics which are deliberately hidden from the public. (See table)
I

Brahmin 3% 15%.
Kshatriya & Vaishya 2%
Shudra 10%.
II
SC 20%, 65%
ST 10%
BC 35%
III
Muslim 15%, 20%.
Christian 2.5%
Sikh 2.5%.
Total 100%
India’s population is now put at about 1,110 millions which can be broadly divided into three segments.
The second segment comprising SC/ST/BCs is subjected to daily war and violence —not from Christians, not from Muslims, not from Sikhs but only from one section—the first one.
GROWING CHRISTIAN/ MUSLIM POPULATION
Particularly the Muslim and Christian population is growing daily and a day may come when they will overtake the rest. This is a welcome development.
A Backward Caste leader from Bangalore has written a book titled India on the Path of Islamisation.
Yet another point. Dalits are not facing any problem from the Muslim, Christian or Sikh. Our people are kicked, killed, burnt, raped and their little property destroyed only by the first segment which can be called Hindu.
India’s 10% Tribals and 35% BCs are also having the same enemy.
Even among the 15% Hindus, its 10% shudras equally hate the Aryan savarnas.
That means the villains are the Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas who together form just 5% of the population. They only can be called Hindu.
The so-called “sacred scriptures” are all produced by these 5% Hindus who alone are the pure Aryans and who, according to their own version, are not indigenous— but foreign-born. We really wonder how the Christian church, which once liberated our people, has fallen a prey to this alien Brahminical philosophy.This is the problem I want to place before you. I have brought with me three important philosophy books. None of it written by the victims of Hinduism but by the Hindus only and one by a world-famous German philosopher and a Nobel-laureate, Albert Schweitzer, Indian Thought & Its Development, (Wilco Edition, 1980). (2) History of Hindu Imperialism by Swami Dharma Thirtha, a Hindu monk (Nair) written in 1941 and (3) Arun Shourie, a Punjabi Brahmin, a top BJP leader and a cabinet minister under Vajpayee, titled Hinduism: Essence & Consequence (Vikas).
DEFECTS OF HINDUISM
All the three books need your close study because they are written by impartial scholars (two great Hindus and great admirers of Hinduism).
I am deliberately not quoting from Dr. Ambedkar because the Hindu rulers call him anti-Hindu.
Albert Schweitzer’s Germany had scores of philosophers headed by Nietzche, all admirers of Hinduism.
Schweitzer’s complaint against Brahminism, which is hiding under a new name (recently coined) Hinduism, is that it is “other worldly”. Everything is mithya (false). The Hindu should take no interest in this world.
What is shocking is that the Indian church religious leadership is influenced by this Hindu philosophy of “life negation” instead of the philosophy preached by the very founder of Christianity, Jesus Christ.
Christ founded his kingdom of god on this earth and asked Christians to love thy neighbours.
ARUN SHOURIE CRITICISES HINDUISM
But the Brahminical philosophy has no place for ethics but Jesus asked his people to take deep interest in this world attaching highest importance to ethics. Brahminism is other worldly because there is no room for ethics in it.
Christians are famous for their service to humanity. But take the much richer Brahmin temples like the Tirupati, Kashi, Puri. Do they undertake any service? They serve only themselves. Their jati.
This is because the Brahminical philosophy, as contained in their scriptures nowhere talks of serving the society. That is why no Brahmin institution serves the society like the church.
But here and there you may get some vague hints of ethics, service or some such thing but Arun Shourie, who was my editor when I was in the Indian Express and devoted several years to study the entire lot of “sacred scriptures”, says nowhere the Brahmin scriptures speak of service to humanity.
But these Brahminical scriptures running into thousands and thousands of pages are notorious for word-mongering. Those who have nothing to convey, say it in a forest of words.
The intention is to confuse, confound, mystify and frighten us.
GODS HATING EACH OTHER
The whole thing is so abstract. Absurd. Just a jungle of words without any meaning or significance.
Brahminical scriptures repeatedly say: “Everything is false”. If everything is false, why the Brahmin priests do not reject money which is also false?
What is very glaring is one god hating the other god. All their gods fight between themselves like we mortals. These Hindu gods like human beings are all worst womanisers and all heir goddesses are sexy like our film actresses.
The Hindus say god is one. If this is so, why they talk of 33 crore gods? If god is one and the only one with several names and forms and if he is indivisible, why this rival claims and conflicting salesmanship?
HINDUISM NOT A RELIGION
Shankara (or Shiva) is called the foremost of all gods. If god is one how could there be a ranking?
The entire “sacred scriptures” can be summed up as a book of law — not religion. A book of do’s and don’ts.
How can we Dalits, the original residents of India, find any relief in a such a law book?
In the book, History of God, Keren Armstrong, a Roman Catholic British nun, discusses only three religions Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
Why she did not include Hinduism?
Because Hinduism does not fit into a religion which needs a prophet, a god and a single, universally accepted holy book. Hinduism has none of it. So it is not a religion.
WHY DR. AMBEDKAR REJECTED HINDUISM
Hinduism is like that elephant and seven blind persons. All things to all men — chaotic, but entertaining, confusing to keep the slaves under permanent bondage without the slave being aware of it.
That is why Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, the Father of India, rejected Hinduism or Brahminism.
Brahmins attach lot of importance to sin. But any sin can be washed off if you bribe the Brahmin.
At the very entrance to every temple you can see a list of sins and the bribe money to wash off the sins.
No religion gives so much importance to faith. The Gita stresses faith again and again.
The faith in the scriptures and the guru should be unquestioned. But both are Brahmins.
But unquestioned faith is a fascist philosophy.
There is another important thing which the church leadership has not critically examined.
Whenever Hinduism is criticised for lack of ethics, its defenders quote Upanishads asking people to work. But what do they mean by this work?
What they mean by work is rituals, sacrifices. You do penance, fasting, sacrifice. Pay Rs. 1 lakh to Tirupati temple you will get moksha. Very simple. That is what Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhwacharya mean by action.
KRISHNA’S SEX SPORTS
Yet another beauty is both the saint and the sinner can quote from the same scriptures and defend their words and deeds. Such is the ambiguity of the scriptures which lends to any interpretation.
Look, Krishna’s sex acts are fully justified —though any other person doing it would have been dubbed a sex maniac.
The most obnoxious part of the scripture is the creation of the caste system and the high and the low. In the Gita, The God Krishna himself says he is the creator of the caste system — which is the principal cause of India’s continued fall.
We the Untouchables are its worst victim. That is why we rejected Hinduism.
Hindus talk of sarvejana sukhino bhavantu. How can everybody be happy when (15%) the upper castes are controlling all the power, wealth, its media and military might? Can the wolf and lamb co-exist? Sarvejana sukhino bhavantu is a dangerous philosophy to help the Brahminical Social Order.
MANU’S CONSTITUTION
Manu Dharma has made the Brahmin the ruler. But the constitution of India did not scrap it.
Look at the argument: The Brahman is omniscient because the scriptures have emanated from him. The scriptures are valid because they have emanated from an omniscient being. What fantastic argument.
Karma is another dangerous philosophy which has kept the Indians backward and unthinking. Karma is the curse of India’s fall.
The Karma philosophy helps the rich, meaning the upper castes, to remain rich and keep the SC/ST/BCs permanently poor and suffering.
The karma theory has killed the spirit of rebellion in India. That is why India never had any revolution.
Another big propaganda is “Hinduism is the most tolerant religion” in the world. But I was arrested four times for criticising it.
ARRESTED FOUR TIMES
But what is meant by this “Hindu tolerance” is it tolerates people eating meat, atheists and following any tradition — of course without questioning the Brahminical Social Order.
If you question the Brahminical order, then you can see the real face of the Hindu tolerance.
They killed M.K. Gandhi himself. And justified it quoting the very same scriptures.
When Christians embrace Untouchables, who are disgusted with the slavery inside Hinduism, they are arrested, their churches burnt. Does it not prove the naked intolerance and the fascist face of Hinduism?
How then do you say Hinduism is the “most tolerant religion in the world”?
Hindu India has become a vast intellectual wasteland because of Hinduism. It is killing its victims silently without the victim being aware of it.
NUNS NEGLECTED INSIDE CHURCH
Indigenous philosophy is opposed to everything that is Brahminism. That is how Budhism, Sikhism, Christianity, Islam found large followers.
The person who gave a big thrust to this indigenous philosophy is Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, the Father of India.
Right now India is witnessing a war between Brahminism and Ambed-karism and the victory will be ours. In this we need the support of the church, particularly the Catholics who constitute the country’s largest church.
We are more interested in the support of the religious women who are the most dedicated, selfless.
The religious order of women form a big majority inside the church but they are under the domination of the menfolk. The nuns have to defy the overlordship of the men and we will support you in your liberation struggle.
[Lecture on “Indigenous philosophising: Dalit perspective”. Catholic University, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore, on Sept.20, 2007]

RSS bid to swallow Budhism

Dalits are still struggling to understand the exact significance of the attempts of RSS to appropriate the Ambedkarite plank. It is wrong to consider that the "intuitive emotional distrust" of Ambedkarite masses will protect Dalits from such attempts. Let me try to explain my understanding of their strategy.
1. While evolving their "Hindutva plank" to make it appealing to Dalits, Hindutva has had to concede some ground to Dr. Ambedkar and the Dalit movement. I refer to the fact that Meera Nanda and Dattopant Thengdi admit that Dr. Ambedkar represents an unparalleled intellectual and philosophical challenge to Hindu culture, ignoring which is not an option at all.
2. That our Dalit movement has not yet managed to pose the above challenge adequately in practice by correctly following the prescribed medicines of the learned Doctor Ambedkar is a tragedy.
Currently Dalits get defined by their non-Hindu stances and not by the positive content of their own internal culture and values. Only by rigorous practice of their "cleaned-up" religions, will the right values emerge in the social life of Dalits. And only when these social values emerge, will Dalits become a self-sufficient culture, independent of and disinterested in Hinduism. When such a role model Budhist (and other rational anti-caste religions) society emerges in reality, comfortable with its past, present and future and actually starts impacting popular Indian culture through books, movies, TV-serials in a manner, which is fully independent of the "Hindu", that will be the real day when every Hindu will start wanting to be a Baudh.
RSS fears: That will be the master-stroke of Dr. Ambedkar. This is the fear of people like Dattopant. These fears might not come true, if Dalits focus on Hindu-hatred alone and do not practice the excellent religion bequeathed to us by Dr. Ambedkar. There is nothing that Dr. Ambedkar's legacy cannot give Dalits, if only they imbibe his legacy in thought, speech and action. It will bring social, economic and political power.
3. The risk of RSS succeeding in stealing the Ambedkarite plank is high and the implications can be drastic for the movement.
See the following article for example: http://www.hvk.org/articles/0500/53.html
There are a few other books about initiatives of SSM and the Dattopant Thengdi team of people. Some material is available online.
Corrupt Dalit leaders: RSS is systematically destroying the credibility of the corrupt leaders among Dalits by exposing them. I predict that this trend will only accelerate.
And if Dalits do not start practising Ambedkarite Budhism, I predict that it will not take long to see the fellows like Bhikuji Idate create a strong Ambedkarite Budhist contingent inside the RSS with some fancy theory to fit hitch them to the Hindutva bandwagon.
Once this happens, the radical independence of the Dalit “Budhist” plank from the Hindutva bandwagon will be lost. If even a few senior Dalit Budhist leaders get misguided into the RSS flock due to lack of social understanding, the dangers are massive. If this happens, the main reason why Dr. Ambedkar chose Budhism for Dalits (radical independence) will be lost. The Hindutva folks will get to say lot of things which will become increasingly difficult for Dalits to question and debate. Once this happens, if they set up a proper working religious structure for Ambedkarite Budhism, which the Baudha Jan Panchayat and the Baudha Mahasabha have failed to popularise in general, that can pose a significant challenge and misguide generations of Ambedkarites. That is the strategy of Hindutva.
They might steal thus our Ambedkarite legacy from right under our noses, because most Dalits are not rigorously practising it. The most important defence to stop them is to evolve our religious structure quickly and practice religion rigorously.

20 million dalits from Bangladesh threaten to embrace Islam

As a result of partition and "independence" of India, Pakistan is created and given to the Muslims as their homeland. Consequently, Hindus, who were original inhabitants of the territory demarcated and allotted to Pakistan, had to leave their ancestral home and take shelter in the new-born "independent" India. The process of migration of Hindus from West Pakistan to India was rapid at the very beginning and almost all the Hindus from W. Pakistan came to India before the constitution of India came into force. However, the "Hindus" of East Pakistan were reluctant at the initial stage of "independence" to leave their ancestral homeland and very few had come to India before the constitution was made. But they gradually changed their mind and started migrating to India believing their Hindu brethren in India. The migration of "Hindus" from East Pakistan continued for long in many phases. Both the "Hindus" and Muslims fought together to liberate East Bengal from the Punjabi-dominated Pakistan and finally with the aid of Indian troops East Bengal was liberated and Bangladesh came into existence. But the problems of "Hindus" were not solved. Of those who migrated from East Bengal (now Bangladesh), 90% are Untouchables and that is why they have not yet been granted Indian citizenship. They are over 20 millions. They had to leave their homeland thinking they are "Hindu". Had they embraced Islam, they could have lived peacefully in Bangladesh and as a governing class. Believing that they are Hindu they came to Hindustan and have become objects of Hindu tyranny. The Hindu rulers of India declared them as illegal migrants and not permitted to attain Indian citizenship. For the Bengali Untouchables it was a jump from frying pan into fire. I have said this in DV many times but Hindu the stone- heart does not melt.
The Hindu brothers of India are so hostile to our people that a Hindu organisation of Assam had challenged the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act 1983, in the Supreme Court. In 2003, the BJP Govt. brought a Bill to amend the Citizenship Act to deprive the Bengali migrants of East Bengal (now Bangladesh), who are Untouchables, the Indian citizenship. L.K. Advani initiated the Bill. Bengali Hindu leader Pranab Mukherjee supported it. This is how the Hindu leaders of India treated us as enemies.
The Supreme Court in its judgment on IMDT Act has poured petrol on the burning fire. The verdict on the is clearly anti-Dalit. The court has not deeply thought of the impact of its judgment on the mankind as a whole.
Over 20 millions of Bengali-speaking "Hindus" of Bengal origin have been made destitute, homeless gypsy. What offence these people have committed to mankind has never been explained by any of the authorities for which such a drastic action against them has been directed to be taken. The court makes over 20 million persons destitute for the sake of Hindu religion. Hindu religion has turned 20 million people to be destitutes and foreigners in India. If the govt. implements amended Citizenship Act and Supreme Court's direction to detect illegal migrants, these people of Bengal origin, who lost their land for the sake of political gains to a micro-minority of Hindu and Muslim communities, will lose their very natural rights as human beings. Hence if a community or class of people, who have already lost their ancestral homeland due to religious clash and partition of country as political solution are not granted citizenship of the country they took shelter in, to save their lives and religion, they will become outcast of the civilized humanity. They may turn to anarchy as a result of the thoughtless, arrogant and despotic enactment of parliament and merciless judgment of the Supreme Court. If the govt. sticks to the policy of depriving these millions of people, majority of whom are Dalits, from citizenship of India, they may revolt against it and endanger to Hindu religion itself. They will hold Hindu religion and Hindu rulers responsible for their distress. They may even renounce Hinduism and embrace Islam to gain support to establish their right.
DV May 1, 2005 p.22: "Conspiracy against Bengali Dalits: 2-crores facing genocide?".

संत कबीर वाणी

कबीर जब हम गावते, तब जाना गुरु नाहींअब गुरु दिल में देखिया, गावन को कछु नाहिं
संत शिरोमणि कबीरदास जी कहते हैं कि जब तक हम गाते रहे, तब तक हम गुरु को जान ही नहीं पाए, परन्तु अब हृदय में दर्शन पा लिया, तो गाने को कुछ नहीं रहा.
भावार्थ- संत कबीरदास जी के दोहों में बहुत बड़ा महत्वपूर्ण दर्शन मिलता है. समाज में कई ऐसे लोग हैं जो किन्हीं गुरु के पास या किसी मंदिर या किसी अन्य धार्मिक स्थान पर जाते है और फिर लोगों से वहाँ के महत्त्व का दर्शन बखान करते हैं. यह उनका ढोंग होता है. इसके अलावा कई गुरु ऐसे भी हैं जो धर्म ग्रंथों का बखान कर अपने ज्ञान तो बघारते हैं पर उस पर चलना तो दूर उस सत्य के मार्ग की तरफ झांकते तक नहीं है. ऐसे लोग भक्त नहीं होते बल्कि एक गायक की तरह होते हैं. जिसने भगवान् की भक्ति हृदय में धारण कर ली है तो उसे तत्वज्ञान मिल जाता है और वह इस तरह नहीं गाता. वह तो अपनी मस्ती में मस्त रहता है किसी के सामने अपने भक्ति का बखान नहीं करता.

संत तुकाराम

संत तुकाराम
बोले तैसा चाले, त्याची वंदावी पाउले.

What is meaning of Word "Hindu"?

"The word 'hindu' is a non-Indian word, it's origin is Persian/Arabic. It's original meaning is 'dog,' 'low life' or 'slave'."
"The word 'Hindu' is not found in any Hindu religious text or any other ancient writing. People who lived on the western side of Hindu Kush (killers of Hindus) mountains gave this name to the natives of India. The word Hindu means black, slave, robber, thief and a waylayer."
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Below are some quotes on the words "Hindu" and "Hinduism." These references are not intended as academic or scholarly proofs or arguments used to win a debate. Because they are only offered as a most general overview, source information is not included. It is also not intended that any of these quotes are necessarily more or less authoritative than others, but rather to provide enough discussion that it's easy for the reader to get a feel for the issue. It's easy to find many such references through internet searches and books. Through one's own research and reflection, each person can draw his or her own conclusions about the meanings and uses of the words "Hindu" and "Hinduism," as well as the words "Dharma" and "Sanatana Dharma."
QUOTES:
"The word 'Hindu' occurs nowhere in the classical scriptures of Hinduism. The ancestors of the present day Hindus did not identify themselves as Hindus."
"When Western scholars and Christian missionaries arrived on the scene, the Hindus found their faith tradition 'ism'-ized and its name became 'Hinduism'."
"That even an atheist may be called a Hindu is an example of the fact that Hinduism is far beyond a simple religious system, but actually an extremely diverse and complicated river of evolving philosophies and ancient traditions."
"The word Hindu is not a religious word. It is secular in origin. It is derived from the word Sindhu, which is the name of a major river that flows in the northwestern region of the Indian subcontinent. The ancient Greeks and Armenians used to refer the people living beyond the river Sindhu as Hindus and gradually the name stuck. When the Muslims came to the sub continent they called the people living in the region as Hindustanis to distinguish them from the foreign Muslims. Subsequently when the British established their rule, they started calling the local religions collectively under the name of Hinduism."
"Only 180 years ago Raja Ram Mohan Roy coined the word 'Hindu' to describe the huge variety of faiths and sects with similar but not identical philosophies, myths and rituals."
"[There was] no such thing as Hinduism before the British invented the holdall category in the early nineteenth century, and made India seem the home of a 'world religion' as organised and theologically coherent as Christianity and Islam. The concepts of a 'world religion' and 'religion' as we know them now, emerged during the late 18th and early 19th century, as objects of academic study, at a time of widespread secularisation in western Europe. The idea, as inspired by the Enlightenment, was to study religion as a set of beliefs, and to open it up to rational enquiry."
"According to the New Encyclopedia Britannica 20:581, 'Hinduism' was a name given in English language in the Nineteenth Century by the English people to the multiplicity of the beliefs and faiths of the people of the Indus land. The British writers in 1830 gave the word 'Hinduism' to be used as the common name for all the beliefs of the people of India excluding the Muslims and converted Christians."
"According to our ex-President [India] and scholar Dr S Radhakrishnan, the term 'Hindu' had originally a territorial and not credal significance. It implies residence in a well-defined geographical area."
"All scholars agree that the category 'Hinduism' is something created by Orientalists. This obviously does not exclude the existence of an Indian spiritual experience. But at a certain point it was decided to use this label, which during Colonialism became a flag for independence, and after that an attempt was made by the people of India to recognize themselves in a common religion."
"Surprisingly, though Hinduism is a very ancient religion, the word 'Hinduism', which today defines it and distinguishes it from the rest of the religions, is of much later origin. In ancient India you had either a yogi, a bhakta, a tantric, a sanyasi, a sankhya vadin, a vedantin, a lokayata, a rishi, a muni, a pandit, a pragna, a yogini, a devi, a swami, a Saivite, a Vaishnavite, a siddha or Buddha, but no Hindu."
"The Supreme Court [of India] in the course of deciding an appeal in an election petition, has interpreted the meaning of 'Hindutva' and 'Hinduism' as a "synonym of 'Indianisation' -- i.e. development of uniform culture by obliterating the differences between all all cultures co-existing in the country.' The unanimous judgement given by the three-judge bench consisting of Justices J.S. Verma, N.P. Singh and K. Venkataswami, on December 11, 1995, has quoted earlier Supreme Court judgements and opinions of Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, Dr. Toynbee and others in coming to the conclusion that Hinduism represented a way of life."
"The Supreme Court [of India] bench dealt with the meaning of the word 'Hindutva' or 'Hinduism' when used in election propaganda. The court came to the conclusion that the words 'Hinduism' or 'Hindutva' are not necessarily to be understood and construed narrowly, confined only to the strict Hindu religious practices unrelated to the culture and ethos of the People of India depicting the way of life of the Indian people. Unless the context of a speech indicates a contrary meaning or use, in the abstract, these terms are indicative more of a way of life of the Indian people. Unless the context of a speech indicates a contrary meaning or use, in the abstract, these terms are indicative more of a way of life of the Indian people and are not confined merely to describe persons practicing the Hindu religion as a faith. This clearly means that, by itself, the word 'Hinduism' or 'Hindutva' indicates the culture of the people of India as a whole, irrespective of whether they are Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Jews etc."
"The word 'Hinduism' was coined by European travelers and traders in the 16th century."
"It is interesting to note that the word Hindu is neither Sanskrit nor Dravidian and did not originate in India. It was not used by Indians in their descriptions or writings until the 17th century. If we go by the original definition of the word Hindu, any one who lives in the subcontinent is a Hindu and whatever religion he or she practices is Hinduism. The word Hindu is a secular word and literally translated it means Indian and the word Hinduism denotes any religion or religions that are practiced by the multitude of people living in the land beyond the river Indus."
"It is hard to define Hinduism, let alone defend it. This is the reason when someone asks the question, 'Who is a Hindu or what is Hinduism?' a variety of answers are given. The most appropriate answer perhaps is a long pause and then silence. The confusion that has been propagated in the religion over many centuries has made it prohibitive even to define the word Hinduism."
"Unfortunately Hinduism is represented as monolithic. However, there is no essential Hinduism, no single belief system, and no central authority."
"The Hidden Hindus... include at least 1-2 million non-Indian Americans (Caucasians, African-Americans, Hispanics, etc.) who practice Yoga, meditation, vegetarianism, believe in reincarnation and karma, study the Vedic scriptures, etc., but who –- despite the fact that they are practicing Sanatana Dharma -- will not call themselves 'Hindu', and do not understand that they are part of an ancient and living religious tradition. We need to do everything in our power to bring these two communities together, to bridge this gap."
"It is well known among scholars of South Asian religion that the word 'Hinduism' is a term of convenience--a blanket name for a wide variety of religious practices, beliefs and worldviews that some times have little common ground beyond their Indian origins. Ironically, Hinduism is not an indigenous word to any of the traditions it labels."
"There are legal pronouncements [in India] that Hindus are Indian citizens belonging to a religion born in India. This means Buddhists, Sikhs or Parsis, even those who did not recognize themselves as Hindus, are to be considered Hindus."
"It should be pointed out that the word 'Hindu' is not found in any of the classical writings of India. Nor can it be traced to the classical Indian languages, such as Sanskrit or Tamil. In fact, the word 'Hinduism' has absolutely no origins within India itself. Still, it persists, and traditions as diverse as Shaivism and Jainism, Shaktism and Vaishnavism, have been described as 'Hinduism.' This may work as a matter of convenience, but ultimately it is inaccurate."
"Hinduism has one of the most genetically and ethnically diverse body of adherents in the world. It is hard to classify Hinduism as a religion, as the framework, symbols, leaders and books of reference that make up a typical religion are not uniquely identified in the case of Hinduism. Most commonly it can be seen as a 'way of life' which gives rise to many civilized forms of religions. Hinduism, its religious doctrines, traditions and observances are very typical and inextricably linked to the culture and demographics of India."
"Using the overarching term 'Hinduism' for the many religions of India is comparable to ignoring the different religious orientations within each of the Western traditions, arbitrarily merging them under a single banner—'Semitism' (which, like 'Hinduism,' merely denotes geographical location). Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and other constitute the diverse religious traditions of the Western world. Just as the term Semitism is too broad and reductionistic to represent properly the unique religious manifestation of the great Western traditions, and just as it would be inappropriate to refer to all these traditions as one religion, the term Hinduism falls short."
"The word Hindu is also not mentioned in holy books, Upanishads, Shashtras and Valmiki Ramayan, Shatpath Brahmin Granth etc. And in these holy books there is not any word Hindus or sects or caste system, where as it is clearly mentioned in every chapter of thereof that there is only one God of the Universe."
"According to Jawaharlal Nehru, the earliest reference to the word 'Hindu' can be traced to a Tantrik book of the eighth century C.E., where the word means a people, and not the followers of a particular religion. The use of the word 'Hindu' in connection with a particular religion is of very late occurrence."
"If you examine ancient Indian history and religion, you will find that the word 'Hindu dharma' is not used to describe what is today called 'Hinduism'."
"The word Hindu is relatively modern and is derived from the word Sindhu which means red. The Arabs called the Sindhu river the Indus river since they could not pronounce the S-sound. Thus, the people west of the Sindhu river came to be known as the Hindus and the country got its name India. The original name for the country was Bharata Varsha - the land of Bharata, the king who ruled the country in ancient times. The true name of the religion is Sanatana Dharma. Sanatana means ancient and eternal. Dharma means moral duty. The word Sanatana Dharma connotes a Universal Way of Life for all living entities."
"'Hindu' means a person believing in, following or respecting the eternal values of life, ethical and spiritual, which have sprung up in Bharatkhand [India] and includes any person calling himself a Hindu."
"The word 'hindu' is a non-Indian word, it's origin is Persian/Arabic. It's original meaning is 'dog,' 'low life' or 'slave'."
"The word 'Hindu' means a liar, a slave, a black, an infidel, in short, a man possessed of every evil to be found in the world; while the term Arya means a pious, a learned, a noble, and a wise man, devoted to the true worship of the Eternal. With this explanation, I dare conclude that no man of common sense would like to be called a Hindu, when once he knows its meaning."
"It should be noted that the word 'Hindu' originally referred to any inhabitant of the Indian subcontinent, or Hind, not followers of the religion as it does now."
"If we see in the four thousand years worth of religious literature in India we cannot find a single reference to the word 'Hinduism' anywhere! 'Hinduism' is a word concocted by Europeans to refer to the myriad streams of religious faiths in the land of Hindustan."
"The word 'Hinduism' itself is a geographical term based upon the Sanskrit name for the great river that runs across the northern boundaries of India, known as the Sindhu."
"The word Hinduism is not found in the 'hindu' religion. In fact there is no such thing as the 'hindu' religion."
"The word 'Hinduism' was introduced in the 19th century to define the aggregate beliefs of the Arya, immigrants who left Central Asia in 1500 BC, and animist religions of native populations in India."
"The word 'Hindu' is not found in any Hindu religious text or any other ancient writing. People who lived on the western side of Hindu Kush (killers of Hindus) mountains gave this name to the natives of India. The word Hindu means black, slave, robber, thief and a waylayer."
"Until about 19th century, the term 'Hindu' implied a culture and ethnicity and not religion alone. When the British government started periodic census and established a legal system, need arose to define 'Hinduism' as a clearly-defined religion, along the lines of Christianity or Islam."
"The word 'Hinduism' originated about only 200-300 years ago."
"Beginning around 1000 AD, invading armies from the Middle East called the place beyond the Sindhu 'Hindustan' and the people who lived there the 'Hindus'"
"Today most Western scholars seem resigned to the inconclusiveness of the project of defining Hinduism. Some decline to use the word 'Hinduism' at all, or prefer to use it only in the plural, 'Hinduisms.'"
"At a very early date, Persian explorers entered the Indian subcontinent from the far Northwest. After they returned, they published chronicles. But due to the phonetics of their native Persian language, the 'S' of Sind became an aspirated 'H.' This is how the people of the Indus Valley came to be known generically as "Hindus" by the Persians. This flawed intonation inevitably stuck. And was later re-imported when the invading Moguls conquered India. Since they always referred to the locals as "Hindus," the term was adopted by the Indians themselves as a way of distinguishing native culture from that of the foreign Muslims."
"The word Hinduism was coined by the Muslim scholar Alberuni in the 11th century C.E."
"Various origins for the word 'Hinduism' have been suggested: It may be derived from an ancient inscription translated as: 'The country lying between the Himalayan mountain and Bindu Sarovara is known as Hindusthan by combination of the first letter 'hi' of 'Himalaya' and the last compound letter 'ndu' of the word `Bindu.' Bindu Sarovara is called the Cape Comorin sea in modern times."
Hinduism did not exist before 1830. It was created by the English colonialists in the 1830s. This remarkable circumstance is evidenced by the fact that none of the travelers who visited India before English rule used the word 'Hindu'.... This is amply borne out by the Encyclopedia Britannica, which states: "The term Hinduism ... [was] introduced in about 1830 by British writers." In other words, the founding father of 'Hinduism' is an Englishman!
"According to the Hindu Scholars, Hinduism is a misnomer and the religion ‘Hinduism’ should be either referred to as ‘Sanatana Dharma’, which means eternal religion, or as Vedic Dharma, meaning religion of the Vedas. According to Swami Vivekananda, the followers of this religion are referred to as Vendantists."
"The word Hinduism is an incorrect nomenclature, which was coined by the British. Thereafter, it has stuck due to the ignorance of its followers. The term 'ism' refers to an ideology that is to be propagated and by any method imposed on others for e.g. Marxism, socialism, communism, imperialism and capitalism but the Hindus have no such 'ism'. Hindus follow the continuum process of evolution; for the Hindus do not have any unidirectional ideology, therefore, in Hindu Dharma there is no place for any 'ism'. Hindus are democratic in approach, for each individual is free to adopt any philosophy or way to self-realization."
by Swami Jnaneshvara Bharati

Arjun Singh hints action against RSS-run schools

Cautioning people about institutions run by the RSS, HRD Minister Arjun Singh on Monday hinted at action against the Saraswati Shishu Mandir chain of schools run by the saffron outfit on the basis of a report of the Central Advisory Board for Education (CABE). Asking the people to beware of the `venom` injected into the society by the educational institutions run by the saffron brigade, he said "there is a report by CABE Committee on such institutions and we are looking into what can be done".