Too many Hindus online engage in the rhetoric -
"We are the last surviving pagan civilization"
Forgetting that Hinduism is v distinct in various ways from Greco-Roman paganism
Listing a few below
1. Our gods are "cosmopolitan" covering the whole subcontinent
2. Our tradition is deeply textual, with texts going back several thousand years. With critical editions drawn up, ensuring uniformity across the country
3. Our priestly class is cosmopolitan in orientation. With an affinity to the Sanskrit language that transcends localisms and geographic diversity
4. Our pilgrimages are "cosmopolitan" too. Kashi gets pilgrims from TN, from Gujarat, from Assam. So does Tirumala
5. Our religion is deeply "personal" and "devotional". Not merely focused on public ritual and sacrifice
In this respect, we have certain features more in common with parts of Christianity
"Bhakti" is unconditional. It stems from pure love. Not merely a "done thing"
6. Our religion is not purely based on stories of the divine. But has a quasi-historical core
The two itihAsas, where gods mingle with men, are in part historical. Deal with real historical personages
So religion is linked to the history of the land
7. Our country has preserved endogamous links to the ancient past
The descendants of the so-called "solar", "lunar" dynasty kings are still with us.
So are the descendants of specific sages who composed several Vedic hymns
The genetic link to the primordial past is preserved
You are getting emotional here...
I am not talking of hate in a general sense, which no doubt exists
Rather of the mainstream "western" view of paganism vs Hinduism
It's v v different
So the idea of states rights, championing localism etc, doesn't come naturally to Hindu conservatives
At least for Mahabharata, there is v likely a historical core
It is itihAsa, and recounts the fortunes of the kuru dynasty during an important phase in their history
But likely embellished a lot over centuries
Ramayana - less sure. It's a celebration of ideals
Carnatic music is deeply linked to the idea of intense personal devotion
Admire Nag's stance below
Having said that, there are secular needs and secular concerns as well in society
Music should engage with those needs as well to have a broad reach (w/o being atheistic)
Much of the SJW / atheistic tendencies in Carnatic music that we see is a reaction to a certain type of bhakti fundamentalism
Where it is declared that Carnatic music is about bhakti and bhakti only
To my mind, that's not helpful.
All of us, however devout, have needs that are more mundane
We have livelihoods, relationships, familial love, romantic love, personal triumphs, disappointments, tragedies
Music ought to engage with all of that too
By no means I am supporting the likes of TM Krishna, and his brand of politicized Carnatic music
I think Carnatic's music's Hindu roots and its strong affinity to religious life ought to be acknowledged by all its practitioners
But it can't be just that. There's more to life
Am no Carnatic music expert
But what I observe is a certain ossification. Where you keep singing the same old 18th cen devotional compositions (which are no doubt brilliant)
You don't have new compositions coming through addressing new themes
That's definitely a problem
I think in brahmanic circles, a new sampradAya doesn't become "legitimate" without a unique commentary on the brahma sUtras
shrI rAmAnuja distinguished ViśiṣṭādvaitaVedānta by authoring a distinctive commentary on both Brahma Sutras and Bhagavad Gita
When anyone attempts a "history" of India in the future, I'd like them to title their work -
"History and Memory"
Too many history books are only about "history" - what is demonstrably true
But it would be great to have a book that deals with "memory" too
(Contd..)
By Memory, one refers to that
"confused mass of ideas, emotions, words and images, often contradictory, argumentative and divisive" (borrowed from Robert Tombs)
So "history" can begin with conventional AIT hypotheses, mahAjanapadas, rise of Magadha, Mahapadmananda, Mauryas etc etc
But Memory can take a different route.
Discussing the purANic lineages.
The Chandra-vamsha, the Surya-vamsha
The figure of Veda Vyasa
Epic history
"Memory" can also include "hagiographic accounts"
How Shankara vanquished rival ideologies
His Digvijayas
The great stories around the bhakti saints of yore
The legends of Alwars and Nayanars
By demarcating "history" and "memory", and discussing them side by side, you get the best of both the worlds
You get the "official" incontrovertible facts.
But you also get the equally precious memory of the civilization
And yet no one can accuse you of mixing fact with fiction
To my mind, this is how "history" writing ought to be approached
Don't restrict yourself to "written records", "inscriptions", "manuscripts"
Expand on that and discuss what Indians think about their past
And yet don't cross the line and push "Memory" as "history" either
The idea / inspiration for this thread came from a favorite book of mine authored by the movie critic Andrew Sarris -
Who titled his fond recollection of the "Golden Age" -
"You Ain't Heard Nothin' Yet": The American Talking Film, History and Memory, 1927-1949@Vishnudasa_ tells me that "memory" literature is very common in Native american and African studies
Over there, it is because the cultures often lack written records altogether
In India, written records galore. Except that they are not "histories". Rather "memories" on Was referring to the brahminical synthesis achieved between 500 BCE & 500 CE
Systematization of the two epics
Emergence of major Vedantic works (Gita, Brahma Sutras)
Composition of all major purANas
Development of local devotional cults that were consistent with itihAsa/purANas
Not a huge fan of censorship
I read Romila Thapar, Guha and others in my teens.
They were not poor scholars, albeit v biased and prejudiced
But I was aware of their bias even while I read them. Didn't "convert" me to their viewpoint
Things were a LOT better in early 20th century
Several Indian historians who wrote on specific periods, specific regions
Very little interest in genuine historical / religious scholarship in India among RW crowd
Most people are into writing books that popularize / dumb down already popular traditions
Modern retelling of epic tales, purANic tales etc
Bland, dry scholarship - nobody's interested
There are no seminal contributions to understanding specific traditions, in readable English for a wider audience
If you want serious works on specific traditions / specific texts, you have to go to indological departments in the West
Nothing comes out in India sadly afaik
Sure there are several traditional scholars
Many of them are getting aged
But their medium is typically oral. In the form of upanyAsas
They don't usually write books. Let alone in English
Radical religiosity / radical conservatism can work even w.r.t. social values / habits
Some classic e.g. -
1. Christian missionaries making slavery unpalatable
2. Victorian prudes making sexual mores more conservative in 19th cen relative to 18th cen
@holland_tom you may be interested in this thread.
An account of paganism's decline and Christianity's rise b/w 2nd and 4th cen influenced by Peter Brown's reading
Would be great to hear your thoughts
https://t.co/3pzkBMk0D1
What the Roman Empire lacked was a class akin to the brAhmaNas in India, who could create a uniform and elaborate mythological framework, that people could relate to across the empire
Pagan religion remained stoutly particularist, without the cosmopolitan tendencies classical Hinduism of say the Gupta age possessed
Elite pagans did not see the problem of Christianity, as they were secure in their localized religious cultures
Marcus Aurelius, the Roman emperor invoked "Providentia Deorum" serenely
He wrote in late 2nd cen CE -However paganism still remained very significantly on the intellectual scene, long after Constantine's conversion
And it managed to convert back Julian, Constantine's nephew, back to Paganism.
Who was the emperor as well b/w 361 and 363 CE
(Julian the Apostate)
Julian's conversion back to Paganism, was not an arbitrary whim of a king
But one accomplished by pagan philosophers
To understand Julian's conversion, we have to go back to Porphyry of Tyre (232-303 CE), who wrote a stinging criticism of Christian His book "Philosophy from Oracles and Against the Christians" was banned by Christian Constantine!
Perhaps one of the earliest instances of a book being banned by the regal But Porphyry influenced deeply his colleague Iamblichus, another distinguished pagan
And it was Iamblichus's pupils who reconverted Julian
So Porphyry had his revenge on Constantine!
But Porphyry influenced deeply his colleague Iamblichus, another distinguished pagan
And it was Iamblichus's pupils who reconverted Julian
So Porphyry had his revenge on Constantine!
But Julian's conversion was an aberration. Christianity had come to stay
After Julian's death, his bodyguard successor Jovian turned the empire Christian again after military setbacks against the Persian This brings this somewhat disjointed thread to an end
Some key takeaways on the rise of Christianity -
1. Christian sense of community and uniformity struck a sharp contrast to pagan particularism and localism
2. Paganism lost the patronage of rich noblemen post 3rd cen
3. The "little peace of the church" in late 3rd cen contributed to Christianity's rise in a crucial period of its history
4. The cosmopolitanism of empire had as much to do with Christianity's rise as anything else!
....
@entropied
On CH Dr. Bharat Gupt said that there are many examples of destruction of pagan cultures by Abrahmaics but there's example of pagans reviving their original cultures.
Basically we are up against massive historical odds. H will have to be pioneers & trailblazers to win this.
