Re:How movies embraced Hinduism
by virtuabhi on Sunday December 28, 2014 @03:46AM
(#8805779)
This is the most ridiculous article you will ever read. The author has jumbled personal beliefs of one of the movie crew members, different works of different directors, and complete nonsense. Its title can as well be How movies have embraced Newton's Law (with examples of how action-and-reaction was observed when a guy hit another, and how did the actor slipping on ice did not stop).
Re:How movies embraced Hinduism
by omonra on Sunday December 28, 2014 @11:35AM
(#8806599)
Precisely how I felt.
I was reading and hoping to come across a quote from Nolan or Lucas saying how they were influenced by Hinduism and were bringing it to their movies.
Instead I got 'Hindus believed in something like this for thousands of years, so if Hollywood makes a movie that touches on this theme, it's due to Hinduism'.
I'd even be inclined to buy it if the ideas he mentioned were uniquely Hindu (like reincarnation) and not generic New-Age stuff that people all over may believe.
Re:How movies embraced Hinduism
by nnain on Sunday December 28, 2014 @05:42AM
(#8805959)
Never mind people. We are 1.25Bn people in India, free to speak whatever we wish to (hence so many fake godman's too). Such nonsense keeps coming up all the time. Noone takes it seriously. I'm kindof surprised though that it got published in The Guardian.
Re:How movies embraced Hinduism
by shripadk on Sunday December 28, 2014 @07:29AM
(#8806119)
Modern Hinduism is natural evolution of Buddhism and Jainism? Buddhism and Jainism branched out of Hinduism, not the other way round. Buddhism and Jainism are "relatively" new religions. Hinduism is older than even the Abrahamic religions.
Re:How movies embraced Hinduism
by shripadk on Tuesday December 30, 2014 @11:15PM
(#8818226)
Buddhism and Jainism are branches of Hinduism whether you like it or not. That has been documented in various scriptures, on stone carvings and even carvings within caves.
I can't help you if you don't want to be helped. Buddha's birth itself was predicted in all Hindu scriptures (see the 18 puranas) written ages before Gautama Buddha took birth.
Jainism is too new in comparison to even Buddhism. Please get your facts right.
Also note that the religions we practice today are quite different from those we practiced 1000, 2000 years ago, even if we give them the same "names" (the practitioners of 2000 years ago would have very different ideas about identity, however). /r/askhistorians is a good source on how religions tend to continuously branch and merge over time.
It is only in the modern age with global communication where fewer ideas of what a religion is have taken root (but there is still a lot of diversity).
Of course, if you are an adherent believer, the fact that religions evolve over time in often very radical ways might sound a bit heretical.
Re:How movies embraced Hinduism
by shripadk on Thursday January 01, 2015 @01:46AM
(#8822344)
"Also note that the religions we practice today are quite different from those we practiced 1000, 2000 years ago, even if we give them the same "names" (the practitioners of 2000 years ago would have very different ideas about identity, however). /r/askhistorians is a good source on how religions tend to continuously branch and merge over time."
This is not true. Especially in India. There are plenty of families that still practice and live according to scriptures that were in existence thousands of years ago, passed down through generations. Hinduism itself is not a religion. Hinduism is a collective of multiple religions within its fold that follow the Vedic philosophy. The core religion is Sanatana Dharma. The word Hindu itself is not Vedic and was used first by Persians and then by Moghuls who invaded Bharat and renamed it Hindustan.
Re:How movies embraced Hinduism
by shripadk on Thursday January 01, 2015 @01:32AM
(#8822328)
You haven't understood the crux of what I said. Buddhism and Jainism being branches of Sramana tradition is correct. The word Sramana itself originates from Taittiriya Aranyaka which is an annexure of the Vedas. Vedas are the basis for Hinduism.
Buddhism and Jainism are branches of Hinduism. Period. They are part of a group called Nastikas who don't believe in the Vedic rituals.
Re:How movies embraced Hinduism
by shripadk on Tuesday December 30, 2014 @11:19PM
(#8818232)
The Bhakti movement became mainstream after 11th century AD. From what little I know of Hinduism (btw i'm a Hindu), Hinduism came into existence way before any other religion did. It is in-fact the oldest surviving religion in the world.
Re:How movies embraced Hinduism
by Spooky23 on Sunday December 28, 2014 @11:46AM
(#8806635)
Star Wars didn't borrow ideas from Japan, it "borrowed" a Kurosawa samurai movie "the Hidden Fortress", added some aerial scenes inspired by "Midway" and did it in space.
Re:How movies embraced Hinduism
by giis on Sunday December 28, 2014 @10:09AM
(#8806398)
I don't why such articles come-up mixing personal religious belief and fancy Movies. If I'm not wrong the author of this article is from India and Hindu ? As someone who follow Hinduism I don't like to see such articles.
Re:How movies embraced Hinduism
by zabil on Sunday December 28, 2014 @11:16PM
(#8808524)
Ridiculous, badly written and of course contorted. I deeply apologize for people in my country who take pride in stealing credit for other people's work.
I was reading and hoping to come across a quote from Nolan or Lucas saying how they were influenced by Hinduism and were bringing it to their movies.
Instead I got 'Hindus believed in something like this for thousands of years, so if Hollywood makes a movie that touches on this theme, it's due to Hinduism'.
I'd even be inclined to buy it if the ideas he mentioned were uniquely Hindu (like reincarnation) and not generic New-Age stuff that people all over may believe.
The Dharmic "religions" -philosophies- are a group like the Abrahamic ones, and India is their Holy land.
For example, the first mentions of meditation are in Vedic literature and you can still hear Vedic hymns in temples.
Also, Bhakti movement origins are not that clear cut. There were similar but minor practices in the BCs.
I can't help you if you don't want to be helped. Buddha's birth itself was predicted in all Hindu scriptures (see the 18 puranas) written ages before Gautama Buddha took birth.
Jainism is too new in comparison to even Buddhism. Please get your facts right.
Also note that the religions we practice today are quite different from those we practiced 1000, 2000 years ago, even if we give them the same "names" (the practitioners of 2000 years ago would have very different ideas about identity, however). /r/askhistorians is a good source on how religions tend to continuously branch and merge over time.
It is only in the modern age with global communication where fewer ideas of what a religion is have taken root (but there is still a lot of diversity).
Of course, if you are an adherent believer, the fact that religions evolve over time in often very radical ways might sound a bit heretical.
This is not true. Especially in India. There are plenty of families that still practice and live according to scriptures that were in existence thousands of years ago, passed down through generations. Hinduism itself is not a religion. Hinduism is a collective of multiple religions within its fold that follow the Vedic philosophy. The core religion is Sanatana Dharma. The word Hindu itself is not Vedic and was used first by Persians and then by Moghuls who invaded Bharat and renamed it Hindustan.
Buddhism and Jainism are branches of Hinduism. Period. They are part of a group called Nastikas who don't believe in the Vedic rituals.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/16/opinion/sunday/caste-is-no...
In the original classification, Indians (of India) are Caucasian.
http://www.dawn.com/news/672000/pakistan-schools-teach-hindu...