I'm Vaibhav, 23, from Faridabad. I recently discovered this podcast through the footnotes of Accelerating India's Development and have been binge-watching the episodes. This one is particularly interesting since I find Indian history and religions fascinating. I've even recommended it to my mother to help her learn English (this is her account, as I don't sign in often). I have a question regarding this episode. While narrating the development of Hinduism, why does the author stop at Savarkar? There are subsequent movements like Ambedkarite Buddhism, which I see as a form of anti-Brahmanic Hinduism. Authors like Rajiv Patel and Rajendra Prasad Singh (whose works I’ve read in Hindi) argue that there was no Vedic religion in ancient India and that the country was predominantly Buddhist. They even claim that Brahmanism itself is only around 1,000 years old. Hindi UA-cam channels like Science Journey broadcast these narratives to millions. How legitimate are these claims? Are they based on genuine historical inquiry, or are they more of an ideological reinterpretation? I also feel the author could have discussed Ambedkar's writings on Hinduism and the Vedic tradition. Do you think Ambedkar was relying on the Christian missionary position in his analysis of Brahmanism and Buddhism? On another note, in the author's analysis of readership in India, I noticed he didn't consider 'shadow readers.' For instance, a friend of mine bought a tablet specifically for reading pirated books in formats like EPUB and PDF. Many young readers, who often cannot afford to buy every book, rely on pirated e-books shared through apps like Telegram and WhatsApp. While this might seem unethical since the reader isn't directly paying for the book, these readers often recommend books to others, potentially leading to future sales. In the long term, this can increase an author's popularity, especially in an attention-driven economy. Looking forward to your thoughts!
I hope you don't take this as an undue interference from my side, but as a student of history I would like to answer your question on the antiquity of Hinduism vis-a-vis Buddhism. The Buddhist Tripitakas are full of references to the Brahmanas and their Vedic Yajnas, and the Buddha himself was at one time a disciple of Munis who were propagating the Samkhya philosophy. The very concept of Buddhism being a Protestant religion is based on the existence of something older, which is of course the Vedic religion. As for how many people followed the Vedic path in contrast to the Buddhist, a clear demarcation between the two systems at the level of the masses never existed, not even for the kings. It only mattered for the Brahmana theologians and priests, and the Buddhist Acharyas or Shramanas. Kings were making patronage to both Shiva and Buddha, and so were common people. Vedic life cycle rituals coexisted with patronage to Sangha and Vihara.
Bhagavad Gita has always been a fundamental text of Hinduism that's why all schools of Vedanta have commented upon it. There is also Abhinava Gupta's Kashmir Shaivism commentary on it. Bhagavad Gita is the critique of the Purva Mimamsa school.
For all these Mallu and Tamil upper castes, South india means only Kerala and Tamil Nadu and southern parts of Karnataka, they conveniently exclude Telugu regions from History and intellectual discussions. Then wonder why Telugus don't subcribe under Dravidian identity.
"When we attempt to make sense of religion, we often overlook aspects like shamanism, spirit worship, sacrifice (human or animal), and a distinct view of evolution. Instead, we try to fit these complex concepts into a narrow framework, binding ourselves to a particular idea. This, in turn, influences how we perceive religion or any other concept, often leading to misconceptions." Book like The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, be a good stared, And there is no such thing we called god
The Saffronisation of Assam in the 1600s & Manipur in the 1700a is an example of appropriation of other religions, using trade, coercion etc, where the 'holy' Brahmins had their eye on East-Asian girls
I'm Vaibhav, 23, from Faridabad.
I recently discovered this podcast through the footnotes of Accelerating India's Development and have been binge-watching the episodes. This one is particularly interesting since I find Indian history and religions fascinating. I've even recommended it to my mother to help her learn English (this is her account, as I don't sign in often).
I have a question regarding this episode. While narrating the development of Hinduism, why does the author stop at Savarkar? There are subsequent movements like Ambedkarite Buddhism, which I see as a form of anti-Brahmanic Hinduism. Authors like Rajiv Patel and Rajendra Prasad Singh (whose works I’ve read in Hindi) argue that there was no Vedic religion in ancient India and that the country was predominantly Buddhist. They even claim that Brahmanism itself is only around 1,000 years old. Hindi UA-cam channels like Science Journey broadcast these narratives to millions.
How legitimate are these claims? Are they based on genuine historical inquiry, or are they more of an ideological reinterpretation? I also feel the author could have discussed Ambedkar's writings on Hinduism and the Vedic tradition. Do you think Ambedkar was relying on the Christian missionary position in his analysis of Brahmanism and Buddhism?
On another note, in the author's analysis of readership in India, I noticed he didn't consider 'shadow readers.' For instance, a friend of mine bought a tablet specifically for reading pirated books in formats like EPUB and PDF. Many young readers, who often cannot afford to buy every book, rely on pirated e-books shared through apps like Telegram and WhatsApp. While this might seem unethical since the reader isn't directly paying for the book, these readers often recommend books to others, potentially leading to future sales. In the long term, this can increase an author's popularity, especially in an attention-driven economy.
Looking forward to your thoughts!
I hope you don't take this as an undue interference from my side, but as a student of history I would like to answer your question on the antiquity of Hinduism vis-a-vis Buddhism. The Buddhist Tripitakas are full of references to the Brahmanas and their Vedic Yajnas, and the Buddha himself was at one time a disciple of Munis who were propagating the Samkhya philosophy. The very concept of Buddhism being a Protestant religion is based on the existence of something older, which is of course the Vedic religion. As for how many people followed the Vedic path in contrast to the Buddhist, a clear demarcation between the two systems at the level of the masses never existed, not even for the kings. It only mattered for the Brahmana theologians and priests, and the Buddhist Acharyas or Shramanas. Kings were making patronage to both Shiva and Buddha, and so were common people. Vedic life cycle rituals coexisted with patronage to Sangha and Vihara.
following
Bhagavad Gita has always been a fundamental text of Hinduism that's why all schools of Vedanta have commented upon it. There is also Abhinava Gupta's Kashmir Shaivism commentary on it.
Bhagavad Gita is the critique of the Purva Mimamsa school.
For all these Mallu and Tamil upper castes, South india means only Kerala and Tamil Nadu and southern parts of Karnataka, they conveniently exclude Telugu regions from History and intellectual discussions. Then wonder why Telugus don't subcribe under Dravidian identity.
.
"When we attempt to make sense of religion, we often overlook aspects like shamanism, spirit worship, sacrifice (human or animal), and a distinct view of evolution. Instead, we try to fit these complex concepts into a narrow framework, binding ourselves to a particular idea. This, in turn, influences how we perceive religion or any other concept, often leading to misconceptions." Book like The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, be a good stared,
And there is no such thing we called god
Just in time as I was considering buying Manu’s new book for December
I should read this new “Manu” smriti.
Manu shya
😂
What about separation of Religion-&-State which the West invented.
Naturally the Brahmins would be upset with this.
Manu referring to Devdutt’s talk means this episode must be recorded last week and bumped up in priority.
❤
why doesnt his all of logic and reasoning of missionaries doesnt applyu to Muslim invaders, they were nice and goras are Bad, LOL, pick a lane Pilla
.
45:30
1 3 6
The Saffronisation of Assam in the 1600s & Manipur in the 1700a is an example of appropriation of other religions, using trade, coercion etc,
where the 'holy' Brahmins had their eye on East-Asian girls
What a creepy thing to say