[Y-Indology] Indian kings' pantheism/Hinduism and Islam

[Guest guest]

At 07:54 14.06.01 +0100, you wrote:

>I seem to remember that KRSNadevarAya of Vijayanagara, a VaiSNava, had a

>mosque built for his Muslim mercenaries. I'm not sure that I would

>necessarily use the word "Pantheism" about this--more an attitude of

>diplomacy and courtesy towards all traditions.

>

>Dr Valerie J Roebuck

>Manchester, UK

>

> >The kings of India have generally, practised pantheism

>>- policy of respecting and supporting all the sects

>>and all the devas...

>

>>Are there more such examples? Thanks.

>

>

>

>

>

>indology

>

>

>

>Your use of is subject to

>

>

>

 

 

I would like to attach an observation here, and see how others think about

this: the position of Islam in South Asia.

 

A few days earlier, it was said that in the Nepalese monarchy many Urdu

terms are used - as a matter of regret.

 

While I understand such views, they seem to me indicative of a general

tendency to separate Islam out of the realm of South Asian

religions/ideologies, a tendency compounded by contemporary politics and

related rantings. But can we understand Hinduism at all without Islam, and

not only the contemporary one, but since many hundred years? Heesterman has

written about the crucial influence the Moghul culture had on Rajput

images, and I believe the whole developments of Hindu mystics can only be

understood in conjunction with Islamic ideas. Friedhelm Hardy writes in

"The religious culture of India: power, love and wisdom", p. 17, that he is

interested in "pre-islamic India" (I did not check the quotation, but this

is the meaning) a category which for him is not only cronological, but may

still be found. Whatever the other merits of Hardy's work, this view for me

is fundamentally flawed.

 

 

Lukas Werth

[Guest guest]

hi lucas,

forewarning: this is not inspired by hindu apologetic or nationalist

feelings. some of teh statements will appear biased, but please look

again, i am simply stating what can be verified. so please don't throw

sarcasm or adjectives at me.

 

> I would like to attach an observation here, and see how others think

about

> this: the position of Islam in South Asia.

>

> A few days earlier, it was said that in the Nepalese monarchy many

Urdu

> terms are used - as a matter of regret.

>

 

well, the indian penal code as depicted in the entire bollywood is

laden with urdu words. urdu as most know it is khaDi boli dialect

developed along side hindi which has sentence structure and grammar

very similar to hindi, except it has a doze of about 30% persian and

arabic words. there is even urdu news by teh state radio, along with

sanskrit, english, hindi and all other major languages of india.

 

 

> While I understand such views, they seem to me indicative of a

general

> tendency to separate Islam out of the realm of South Asian

> religions/ideologies, a tendency compounded by contemporary politics

and

 

if i can even speak without being labled with adjectives, it is not

teh case just with south asia. the trouble all over the world is

closely related to exclusiveness, and its strongest face is islam, be

it the taleban of afghanistan requiring hindus to wear yellow ribbons,

or violence in india's kashmir, or any major indian city coming to a

screeching halt due to riots (an example of jaipur being under curfew

for a week because two muslim sects fought over burial rights over a

cemetary, no hindus involved, both are muslims flavours, and yet they

being < 15% can hold an entire city ransom!) or the chechens, kosovo,

algeria, east timor. if you see violence, somehow, islam seems to be

linked. when they are in minority their claim is they are being

tortured, and when they are in majority they claim it is unislamic to

practise any other religion.

 

this religious sanction to violence in name of allah is what is being

misused in real life by political and social figures.

 

this has nothing to do with my being a hindu either. i have good

friends who are muslim. who are not yet influenced by the

social/political misleaders, who are in minority so can't practise all

of real koran (i am of course refering to kafir killing).

 

> related rantings. But can we understand Hinduism at all without

Islam, and

> not only the contemporary one, but since many hundred years?

 

if we really go technical, yes 'hinduism' can't be understood without

islam, for they coined the word! what is understood by the word

hinduism today, existed before any of the exclusive club-membership

kind of politically flavoured 'religions' started expanding. (my use

of these adjectives should not be taken to mean i am against an

average joe who follows these religions to fulfill his real need for

the divine.) hence, you will not find in hinduism anything like my god

and yours or any violence in their names. if you classify a religion

based on who your worship (like chiristianity and islam do) then in

that case hinduism is imply an umbrella group of worshippers of shiva,

ganesha, durga, kali, saraswati, gauri, vishnu, krishna, rama, hanuman

etc etc, and they are all different following similar belief systems.

in other words they are all democracies, automous yet similar laws.

i.e. followers can worship their own gods, yet they all have a common

understanding.

 

if you look at christianity or islam on the other hand and its minor

variations (which are exxagerated to make major divisions; one saying

you can pray to mary other saying you can't etc.) the various minor

divisions themselves are intolerant of themselves what to speak of

tolerance to other very different faiths? and their intolerance is not

merely of differing, and not eating or drinking with the other, but to

the extent that the pope has to call the protestants as wolves trying

to take away the sheep, and hence catholics should work harder in

'grabbing' the harvest! these are direct quotes of his highness, the

highest figure on the catholic church! you can't take his words

lightly. both christianity andislam and laden with bloody violence in

name of god, and they ahve both grown out of political motives than

godly needs.

 

 

Heesterman has

> written about the crucial influence the Moghul culture had on Rajput

> images, and I believe the whole developments of Hindu mystics can

only be

> understood in conjunction with Islamic ideas. Friedhelm Hardy writes

in

 

please give examples. yes persians had art. but was it due to their

being muslim? was the same art not there before they became muslim?

you can't call the greek and roman art as christian art since the two

were before christianity started, and yet today they are both

converted to christianity. you surely would call the apsaras and the

khajuraho as hindu art, and the stupa as maybe buddhist art, the

pagodas are chinese/japanese art (depending upon which culture you are

talking baout) or for that matter the greek art or roman art.

 

what has islam contributed to art? it has merely supressed all forms,

that is taking OUT a HUGE chunk from art! you can't even have

curtans with forms on it!! the only influence it has had over art of

other cultures is to supress them in a big way and add a few elements

like the arch or formless deisgns. but again are those inspired by

islam or were they there before islam surfaced?

 

the very reason taj mahal has become the symbol of india is because

all other truly indian/hindu arts forms are beyond comprehension to an

average tourist/person of the dictatorial faiths, because to

understand indian art (be it sculpture or dance or music) one has to

understand the symbolism behind it which permeates all of its works.

hence is not easy to appreciate hindu art by a bystander. yes you can

get an outer appreciation if it is sculpture, but music, dance and

paintings you really need to know the stories behind to appreciate

them. e.g. the apparent hand gestures of bharatnatyam are symbols for

vishnu, krishna, shiva, ganga etc. and animal symbols, it is a whole

vocabulary that one can't simply assume one knows.

 

 

as for the hindu mystic, are you talking about tulsi, kabir, rahim,

meera etc? there are two ways to look at your statement that islam may

have contributed to the hindu mysticism.

1. islamic torture and oppression and onslaught required hindu revival

at grass root levels.

2. inspired by islam's great mysticm, spirituality the hindus learnt

something?

 

if you take the 1st point, it is not islam's contribution to hinduism.

it would be similar to saying that nazi's contributed a lot to the

medical sciences by their human experiments. so do we thank them for

the contribution?

 

the second line would mean that hinduism didn't have mysticism before?

then i am speechless. we are on indology group, we all know about

upanishads, the seers, rishis, predating islam by millenia!

 

 

 

> "The religious culture of India: power, love and wisdom", p. 17,

that he is

> interested in "pre-islamic India" (I did not check the quotation,

but this

> is the meaning) a category which for him is not only cronological,

but may

> still be found. Whatever the other merits of Hardy's work, this view

for me

> is fundamentally flawed.

>

 

please clarify which view is flawed? i don't want to comment when i am

not sure what you meant.

 

thank you very much,

shashikant

[Guest guest]

> A few days earlier, it was said that in the Nepalese monarchy many

Urdu

> terms are used - as a matter of regret.

 

Beg to differ. None of those routinely labeled as fanatics and

fundamentalists on this list regretted the fact that Urdu terms are

used in Nepal's monarchy.

 

It was Professor Witzel of Harvard who offered a bait, by pointing to

an online radio broadcast where the Urdu terms were used. I don't

think he particularly regretted it, but he clearly taunted those

potential respondents who might regret it. It is interesting to watch

who has fallen for this, hook, line and sinker.

 

Let me just say that if bazaar gossip is what the academics on this

list want, bazaar gossip is what you will get. The rot that some

individuals may or may not have said on some other forum should not

leak into this list. That is, if you are keen to maintain a minimum

level of standards here. Apart from the adage about vidyA vinayena

zobhate, may I remind members of another thing? A cross-fertilization

from the "other list", where "everyone is a scholar", requires

carriers of pollen from here to there and from there to here. You can

look into the archives of this list and the other list(s), to identify

which list-members carry out this function most frequently.

 

Best regards,

Vidyasankar