Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Primal · 09-25-2002, 04:27 PM

<a href="http://www.sulekha.com/column.asp?cid=245733-" target="_blank">http://www.sulekha.com/column.asp?cid=245733-</a> they just can't face the facts.

Toto · 09-25-2002, 04:57 PM

I think you mean this? But who can't face facts?

<a href="http://www.sulekha.com/column.asp?cid=245733" target="_blank">http://www.sulekha.com/column.asp?cid=245733</a>

Quote:

Our study begins with the main contents page for each of the religions. In some cases, the contents page contains, in quotes, a single highlighted statement about the religion. In the 2002 version of Encarta, these quotes are present for Hinduism, Buddhism and Judaism, and not for Christianity and Islam.

� Judaism: �The God of creation entered into a special relationship with the Jewish people at Sinai.�

� Buddhism: �Karma consists of a person's acts and their ethical consequence.�

� Hinduism: �Rama and Krishna are said to be avatars of Vishnu though they were originally human heroes.�

Note, that the one statement that was chosen about Hinduism is that which repudiates Hindu belief, while the statements for the other two religions reflect a balanced positive or neutral stance. Notice also the use of �said to be� in Hinduism while the statement on Judaism is presented in the editorial voice as a presentation of fact. To understand this representation, let us draw up a hypothetical quote on Christianity to parallel the quote on Hinduism.

� Christianity*: Jesus Christ is said to be the �Son of God� though he was just a human.

Irrespective of belief in the truth or falsity of this statement, or the parallel one in the case of Hinduism, when such a statement is the highlight of the commentary on a religion, it reflects a certain attitude about how the subject is approached.

Primal · 09-26-2002, 09:46 AM

Actually I read both articles in the encyclopedia; and I would be hard pressed to find any favoritism. It seems to me that the Hindu critics are more or less, finding what they are looking for via biased interpretation.

As for jesus being said to be the son of God, the Encyclopedia said:

Quote:

and Christians therefore call Jesus himself "Son of God."

<a href="http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761576315" target="_blank">http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761576315</a>
-The Christian article.

This can hardly be called an endorsement as much as a description of Xian belief.

Also it did raise this point:

Quote:

Almost all the information about Jesus himself and about early Christianity comes from those who claimed to be his followers. Because they wrote to persuade believers rather than to satisfy historical curiosity, this information often raises more questions than it answers, and no one has ever succeeded in harmonizing all of it into a coherent and completely satisfying chronological account. Because of the nature of these sources, it is impossible, except in a highly tentative way, to distinguish between the original teachings of Jesus and the developing teachings about Jesus in early Christian communities.

<a href="http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761555715" target="_blank">http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761555715</a>
- Hindu article

Again I think to an objective observer the review more or less found what it wanted to find more then what was actually being said. If anything I think the Encyclopedia handled both with kid gloves, and perhaps skimmed over the Hindu religion more then the Xian, most likely because Hinduism is in some ways more complex; it would be exceedingly difficult to list the Hindu pantheon and such.

I also think the author of the Xian article was wrong to say the French revolution was an anti-Xian movement; Robespierre was a Xian for example. But aside from my own criticisms of both articles; it would be diffucult for me to find favoritism shown if I didn't already have some firm beliefs on the issue.

[ September 26, 2002: Message edited by: Primal ]

[ September 26, 2002: Message edited by: Primal ]

[ September 26, 2002: Message edited by: Primal ]</p>

Dr. Jagan Mohan · 10-02-2002, 04:08 AM

As far as I am concerned, The article on Hinduism is full of errors, forget about bias!
I can bet to pick gross mistakes in every two lines. I can only dismiss the whole article as written by somebody who has never ever read Upanishads or the Brahmasutras. A real Pity!

Quoting the very first line: Hinduism, religion that originated in India and is still practiced by most of its inhabitants
What is the sense behind using the word 'still'?? can anyone explain? why not Hinduism, religion that originated in India and practiced by most of its inhabitants ? sans 'is still'??

Quote: The canon of Hinduism is basically defined by what people do rather than what they think.
In ordinary english, can anyone explain the sense of this sentence in the context? What is the word <a href="http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=canon" target="_blank">canon</a> doing there?

Quote: The ultimate canonical authority for all Hindus is the Vedas.
What about VeeraShaivites? They don't accept Vedas as the ultimate authority.. aren't they Hindus too?

Quote: the Mahabharata (about 200,000 lines long) constitutes a kind of encyclopedia or even a literature, and the Ramayana (more than 50,000 lines long) is comparable. Although it is therefore impossible to fix their dates
Why is it 'therefore' impossible to fix their dates? Is it because the epics are a kind of encyclopedia or maybe because they contain 200000 lines?

Quote: the creation of the universe, the destruction and re-creation of the universe
Xtian influence is showing through: The right Hindu words are 'manifestation of the universe, the dissolution of the universe and re-manifestation...'

Quote: Hindus believe that the universe is a great, enclosed sphere, a cosmic egg, within which are numerous concentric heavens, hells, oceans, and continents, with India at the center
Can't help laughing. Where did the Author get those information? and what's India doing there while India and the word itself is only half a century old!

Quote: Hindus may thus be divided into two groups: those who seek the sacred and profane rewards of this world (health, wealth, children, and a good rebirth), and those who seek release from the world.
That thus evades my understanding. The Goals of Life for a Hindu acc. to the Vedas are 1. Artha or rightfull livihood, business, commerce etc. 2. Kama or Sensual Pleasures, 3. Dharma or Righteous life and Duty AND subsequently MOKSHA not 'OR' Moksha.. as the author has wrongly understood! and yeah, Moskha means release NOT from the world, but release from Samsara, which are two different things for us! We are not wallowing for Heaven and saving our souls from damnation, We are Emancipating our souls for total freedom from the vicious cycle of pleasure and pain... there is a difference.

Quote: The worldly aspect of Hinduism {B}originally[/B] had three Vedas, three classes of society (varnas), three stages of life (ashramas), and three ???goals of a man (purusharthas), the goals or needs of women being seldom discussed in the ancient texts
'originally had'? and what about now?
THe goals and needs of Mankind is discussed in the scriptures. 'Manusha' means Mankind.. not Man. Time for you, Madam Author, to learn a little sanskrit maybe.
Or may be you will have to refer to Kamasutra, aslo an 'ancient text' for needs of women if thats what you find missing in the Scriptures!

I just can't go on reading that article, it gives me hiccups!

Quote from Kamasutra:
IN the beginning, the Lord of Beings created men and women, and in the form of commandments in one hundred thousand chapters laid down rules for regulating their existence with regard to Dharma,1 Artha,2 and Kama.3 Some of these commandments, namely those which treated of Dharma, were separately written by Swayambhu Manu; those that related to Artha were compiled by Brihaspati; and those that referred to Kama were expounded by Nandi, the follower of Mahadeva, in one thousand chapters.
ON THE ACQUISITION OF DHARMA, ARTHA AND KAMA
MAN, the period of whose life is one hundred years, should practise Dharma, Artha and Kama at different times and in such a manner that they may harmonize together and not clash in any way. He should acquire learning in his childhood, in his youth and middle age he should attend to Artha and Kama, and in his old age he should perform Dharma, and thus seek to gain Moksha, i.e. release from further transmigration. Or, on account of the uncertainty of life, he may practise them at times when they are enjoined to be practised. But one thing is to be noted, he should lead the life of a religious student until he finishes his education.

Maybe the Author can learn more about Hinduism from Kamasutra instead from her lecture notes.

Stupidity is inheritant in that article:
Quote: In addition to sanatana dharma, numerous attempts have been made to reconcile the two Hinduisms... in addition to what? and who has ever heard of 'Two hinduism' when Hinduism itself is a great collection of many religions??
Quote: understand (through jnana) / illusion (maya) /- Again showing off her lack of Sanskrit knowledge!

If you Mr. Primal think that we are 'looking for some favoritism', you are wrong.
My case is not about favoritism... its about stupidity in writing such an article.

[ October 02, 2002: Message edited by: Dr. Jagan Mohan ]</p>

09-25-2002, 04:27 PM	#1
Primal Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Marcos Posts: 551	Hindu prejudices against Encyclopedias <a href="http://www.sulekha.com/column.asp?cid=245733-" target="_blank">http://www.sulekha.com/column.asp?cid=245733-</a> they just can't face the facts.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-02-2002, 04:08 AM	#4
Dr. Jagan Mohan Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Presently on the 'move' :) Posts: 98	As far as I am concerned, The article on Hinduism is full of errors, forget about bias! I can bet to pick gross mistakes in every two lines. I can only dismiss the whole article as written by somebody who has never ever read Upanishads or the Brahmasutras. A real Pity! Quoting the very first line: Hinduism, religion that originated in India and is still practiced by most of its inhabitants What is the sense behind using the word 'still'?? can anyone explain? why not Hinduism, religion that originated in India and practiced by most of its inhabitants ? sans 'is still'?? Quote: The canon of Hinduism is basically defined by what people do rather than what they think. In ordinary english, can anyone explain the sense of this sentence in the context? What is the word <a href="http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=canon" target="_blank">canon</a> doing there? Quote: The ultimate canonical authority for all Hindus is the Vedas. What about VeeraShaivites? They don't accept Vedas as the ultimate authority.. aren't they Hindus too? Quote: the Mahabharata (about 200,000 lines long) constitutes a kind of encyclopedia or even a literature, and the Ramayana (more than 50,000 lines long) is comparable. Although it is therefore impossible to fix their dates Why is it 'therefore' impossible to fix their dates? Is it because the epics are a kind of encyclopedia or maybe because they contain 200000 lines? Quote: the creation of the universe, the destruction and re-creation of the universe Xtian influence is showing through: The right Hindu words are 'manifestation of the universe, the dissolution of the universe and re-manifestation...' Quote: Hindus believe that the universe is a great, enclosed sphere, a cosmic egg, within which are numerous concentric heavens, hells, oceans, and continents, with India at the center Can't help laughing. Where did the Author get those information? and what's India doing there while India and the word itself is only half a century old! Quote: Hindus may thus be divided into two groups: those who seek the sacred and profane rewards of this world (health, wealth, children, and a good rebirth), and those who seek release from the world. That thus evades my understanding. The Goals of Life for a Hindu acc. to the Vedas are 1. Artha or rightfull livihood, business, commerce etc. 2. Kama or Sensual Pleasures, 3. Dharma or Righteous life and Duty AND subsequently MOKSHA not 'OR' Moksha.. as the author has wrongly understood! and yeah, Moskha means release NOT from the world, but release from Samsara, which are two different things for us! We are not wallowing for Heaven and saving our souls from damnation, We are Emancipating our souls for total freedom from the vicious cycle of pleasure and pain... there is a difference. Quote: The worldly aspect of Hinduism {B}originally[/B] had three Vedas, three classes of society (varnas), three stages of life (ashramas), and three ???goals of a man (purusharthas), the goals or needs of women being seldom discussed in the ancient texts 'originally had'? and what about now? THe goals and needs of Mankind is discussed in the scriptures. 'Manusha' means Mankind.. not Man. Time for you, Madam Author, to learn a little sanskrit maybe. Or may be you will have to refer to Kamasutra, aslo an 'ancient text' for needs of women if thats what you find missing in the Scriptures! I just can't go on reading that article, it gives me hiccups! Quote from Kamasutra: IN the beginning, the Lord of Beings created men and women, and in the form of commandments in one hundred thousand chapters laid down rules for regulating their existence with regard to Dharma,1 Artha,2 and Kama.3 Some of these commandments, namely those which treated of Dharma, were separately written by Swayambhu Manu; those that related to Artha were compiled by Brihaspati; and those that referred to Kama were expounded by Nandi, the follower of Mahadeva, in one thousand chapters. ON THE ACQUISITION OF DHARMA, ARTHA AND KAMA MAN, the period of whose life is one hundred years, should practise Dharma, Artha and Kama at different times and in such a manner that they may harmonize together and not clash in any way. He should acquire learning in his childhood, in his youth and middle age he should attend to Artha and Kama, and in his old age he should perform Dharma, and thus seek to gain Moksha, i.e. release from further transmigration. Or, on account of the uncertainty of life, he may practise them at times when they are enjoined to be practised. But one thing is to be noted, he should lead the life of a religious student until he finishes his education. Maybe the Author can learn more about Hinduism from Kamasutra instead from her lecture notes. Stupidity is inheritant in that article: Quote: In addition to sanatana dharma, numerous attempts have been made to reconcile the two Hinduisms... in addition to what? and who has ever heard of 'Two hinduism' when Hinduism itself is a great collection of many religions?? Quote: understand (through jnana) / illusion (maya) /- Again showing off her lack of Sanskrit knowledge! If you Mr. Primal think that we are 'looking for some favoritism', you are wrong. My case is not about favoritism... its about stupidity in writing such an article. [ October 02, 2002: Message edited by: Dr. Jagan Mohan ]</p>

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.