Acknowledging Impositions & Understanding How to Counter Them: Anti-Hindu Encroachments

Note: The following should not be confused for Hindu apologetics. Pretend someone told you that 1+1=78, but you know for a fact that 1+1=2. Like that.

I was conversing with a Muslim rigorist IRL a few days ago. I was told a story about Brahma and Saraswati and Brahma trying to rape her and how she was his own daughter, and was questioned 1) how could a god that attempts to rape another goddess, let alone his own daughter, be worthy of worship?; and 2) how could Hindus believe in such a thing?

I countered with the following:


I was replied with a stern "Yes, Hindus have to believe in it. It's written in their scriptures."

When many Hindus encounter such questions, many of them fail to acknowledge, and often many of them just don't know, that "Hinduism" is often looked through the lens of the one engaging in polemical apologetics. For example, the person that asked me those two questions imposed their own epistemic and ontological realities as their basis. Apart from the inherent imperialistic undertones of such an imposition, I would like to assist Hindus here on RF---if they ever encounter such impositions IRL---on how to counter such scenarios.

This can be done quite simply:


Therefore, I answered question #1 with the following reiteration: I do not worship Brahma and neither do I believe in that story, yet I'm still a Hindu. Such a story is not a revelation, nor is it credal for it to be believed.

I noticed the person become agitated, and he quickly re-asked question #2.

Therefore, I answered question #2 with the following reiteration: since there is no central ecclesiastical organization, Hindus don't have to believe in such a story---and it's perfectly a-okay. I do not hold such a story to be a "revelation".

Then I said something that threw the person totally off guard:


... after throwing some strawmens here and there, the person decided to abruptly quit after egotistically saying "I'm right; you're wrong". But if any academics or scholars were around, they would have bought me a beer---that's how dope I was in telling the rigorist that 1+1 does not equal 78, it equals 2.

Try searching on American Hindutva if you want some really nutty stuff.

Vinayaka said:

Try searching on American Hindutva if you want some really nutty stuff.

Click to expand...

... I did. These were the first five results:

More dangerous than shariah: Hindutva | Washington Times Communities

https://digital.lib.washington.edu/...0/Wiker_washington_0250O_11298.pdf?sequence=1

A contrarian world: Hindutva Bigotry in America

Amardeep Singh: "Yankee Hindutva": What is it?

Scroll.in - News. Politics. Culture.

Yeah, it's incredibly nasty and ignorant stuff. It's out there. They make all sorts of connections that simply don't exist.

Vinayaka said:

Yeah, it's incredibly nasty and ignorant stuff. It's out there. They make all sorts of connections that simply don't exist.

Click to expand...

It's practically a sport, nowadays. And it never ceases to amaze me. Anyway, how do you [en-]counter such impositions IRL, V-dada?

EDIT: Actually, one of the articles from that link is a good read. I'd recommend it. Amardeep Singh, a Sikh and a professor, highlights the inconsistencies in anti-Hindutva circles.

Poeticus said:

It's practically a sport, nowadays. And it never ceases to amaze me. Anyway, how do you [en-]counter such impositions IRL, V-dada?

Click to expand...

I don't. Most people don't buy into it. On a personal level, I think we can all be reponsible citizens and just let it be known that we're okay people ... be neighbourly, etc. Hospitality is a duty.

RSS is the largest single charity in India, building schools, feeding people, etc. So if somebody ever said I or any of my friends was funneling money to Hindutva terrorists, I'd roll my eyes and ask for some verification. It's so far out there that it's almost impossible to believe people write that stuff.

Another thing I know some do is to not give them any press. So even us discussing it here is perhaps that.

Vinayaka said:

Another thing I know some do is to not give them any press. So even us discussing it here is perhaps that.

Click to expand...

B-b-b-but they are operating from a moral high ground. We h-h-h-have to listen to them. They k-k-k-k-know better than us. We are just i-i-i-idolatrous h-h-h-heathens, V-dada.

Poeticus said:

B-b-b-but they are operating from a moral high ground. We h-h-h-have to listen to them. They k-k-k-k-know better than us. We are just i-i-i-idolatrous h-h-h-heathens, V-dada.

Click to expand...

I've never personally encountered anyone quite like that. From what I hear, they generally retreat to a 'sorry, he's busy' behind a secretary.

Vinayaka said:

I've never personally encountered anyone quite like that. From what I hear, they generally retreat to a 'sorry, he's busy' behind a secretary.

Click to expand...

... yeah, that's a popular cop-out as well.

Good answers I think, and excellent topic.
I had a similar exchange on Facebook last week about Vishaya Dashami (sp?)
This person felt that she had to research it before she could wish someone a happy Vishaya Dashami and this was on an interfaith thread on a anti racism page. I tried to explain symbolism and that it's not meant to be taken literarily, but she countered with Hindus sticking metal objects in their skin.
Sigh

Maya

I would attempt to explain kavadi, but not expect much at all. It's an ancient penance, after all.

Poeticus said:

I was conversing with a Muslim rigorist IRL a few days ago. I was told a story about Brahma and Saraswati and Brahma trying to rape her and how she was his own daughter, and was questioned 1) how could a god that attempts to rape another goddess, let alone his own daughter, be worthy of worship?; and 2) how could Hindus believe in such a thing?

I countered with the following:

Am I supposed to take this story as the literal truth?
Am I in the wrong for not believing in such a [Puranic] story?​

I was replied with a stern "Yes, Hindus have to believe in it. It's written in their scriptures."

Click to expand...

Bold mine.
No, Poeticus, that is not correct. There is a reason why this story came up and why the worship of Prajapati was banned. If one does not look for reasons, one has to take all that is written in the scriptures as the 'Word of God', like what the people in Abrahamic religions do. I believe Hindus are better than that. Here is what Tilak ("Orion or the Antiquity of Vedas") has to say about it:

"The difference between the sidereal and the tropical year is 20.4 minutes, which causes the seasons to fall back nearly one lunar month in about Every two thousand years, if the sidereal solar year be taken as the standard of measurement. When these changes and corrections came to be noticed for the first time, they must have created a great surprise, and it was not till after one or two adjustments on this account were made that their true reason, the motion of the equinoxes, could have been discovered, Garga* tells us that if the sun were to turn to the north without reaching Dhanishtha, it foretold great calamity, and I am disposed to put a similar interpretation upon the story of Prajapati alias Yajna alias 'the year' (Sattra, Samvatsara), who, contrary to all expectations, moved backwards to his daughter Rohini."

* Garg quoted by Bhattotpala on Brihat Sanhita iii.1:
“Yadā nivartate~prāptah shrāvishthāmuttarāyane,
āshleshām dakshine~praptastadā vidyānmahābhayam.”

It happened at the time when Hindus changed the first asterism of the year from Mrigashiras (Orion) to Krittikas (Pleiades), i.e., at the time when Taittiriya Sanhita was written, sometime around 2,250 BC. Of course, I do not expect a Muslim rigorist to understand this, but I do expect that educated Hindus will accept it.

This is very much like what is mentioned in Taittiriya Aranyaka about the number of 'Adityas' (suns):

"But this explanation is open to the objection (actually raised by Vaishampâyana), that we shall have, on this theory, to assume the existence of thousands of suns as the characteristics of the seasons are so numerous. The Âranyaka admits, to a certain extent the force of this objection, but says - 'ashtau to vyavasitâh', meaning that the number eight is settled by the text of the scripture, and there is no further arguing about it. The Shatapatha Brâhmana, III, 1, 3, 3, explains the legend of Aditi somewhat on the same lines. It says that seven alone of Aditi’s sons are styled Devâh Âdityâh (the gods Âdityas) by men, and that the eighth Mârtânda was born undeveloped, whereupon the Âditya gods created man and other animals out of him. In two other passages of the Shatapath Brâhmana, VI, 1, 2, 8, and XI, 6, 3, 8, the number of dityas Âis, however, given as twelve. In the first (VI, 1, 2, 8) they are said to have sprung from twelve drops generated by Prâjapati and then placed in different regions (dikshu); while in second (XI, 6, 3, 8)*these twelve Âdityas are identified with the twelve months of the year. The number of Âdityas is also given as twelve in the Upanishads: while inthe post-Vedic literature they are everywhere said to be twelve, answering to the twelve months of the year."

The scriptures too, if read with an analytical mind, will yield many beautiful pearls.

I might add that presently we are one month behind the astronomical clock and the asterism at the beginning of the year has moved further back from Ashwini (Areitis) to Revati (Piscium). The New Year should begin in Chaitra instead of Vaishakha. Aroound 1,400 BC when Sage Vishwamitra suggested such a change, he was derided and the Trishanku story came up (although the changes he suggested were adopted in 600 AD by Varahamihir quietly). The Hindu Yajna calendar needs a change now. We are not doing it according to the Vedas. Since, you (Poeticus), are interested in Vedas, that is why I mention it.

Poeticus, Some days I wish that my Real life had more situations like this. It happened more earlier, at university,when I worked, etc. Now, with more maturity and understanding (supposedly) I might handle things better. These days I don't really see anyone but fellow Hindus.

But the situation of gross misconceptions about lots of things happens in varying degrees in many walks of life, not just religion. So yes it can be frustrating for any or all involved who are sitting in a situation they absolutely know is different than some fellow arrogant human is describing.

I remember a story my father told me about some wildlife biologist describing the nesting habits of a particular bird here in Alberta. Dad had observed these bird for 40 years or so, and the two stories didn't match. Dad thought the guy was an arrogant intellectual, and the wildlife guy probably thought Dad was just some silly old farmer. My money was on my father.

Vinayaka said:

But the situation of gross misconceptions about lots of things happens in varying degrees in many walks of life, not just religion. So yes it can be frustrating for any or all involved who are sitting in a situation they absolutely know is different than some fellow arrogant human is describing.

Click to expand...

It's like pigeon chess, but with some modifications: the one drowning in a notion of infallibility (in this case, the rigorist) isn't open to the responsibility of retraction; and the one attempting to correct imposing falsities is hindered by the rigorist's arrogance, taking dialogue that should be progressive nowhere.

Poeticus said:

It's like pigeon chess, but with some modifications: the one drowning in a notion of infallibility (in this case, the rigorist) isn't open to the responsibility of retraction; and the one attempting to correct imposing falsities is hindered by the rigorist's arrogance, taking dialogue that should be progressive nowhere.

Click to expand...

Yes that's about it. If we took some of our Hindu DIR topics over to general debate, it would surely happen. At least here (within the DIR) we can live in some sort of moderated peace.

Nice rebuttal OP but that story about Brahma is real?

Philomath said:

Nice rebuttal OP but that story about Brahma is real?

Click to expand...

Of course it's not real. But the Muslim person who brought it up was insisting that all Hindus should believe in it, because in his world, scripture is infallible. So he was projecting that because scripture is infallible to Muslims, so should it be to Hindus.

He was projecting one paradigm onto another. It's as illogical as saying, 'because I picked a plant that was poisonous, if you pick a plant, it will also be poisonous'.

I know of very few Hindus (none personally, to be exact) that think our scriptures are infallible.

So Sarasvati didn't marry Lord Brahma?