How movies embraced Hinduism | Hacker News Reader

How movies embraced Hinduism

theguardian.com

42 pointswslh28 comments

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).

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.

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.

100 % agreed, not sure why they have written such a bad article

I heard Star Wars borrow a $hit tons of idea from Japanese culture, which leads me to believe it is more like some variant of Buddhism than Hinduism.

If you want something more specifically rooted in Japan maybe you should mention Shintoism, instead?

You do realize that Buddhism originated in India right ? Modern Hinduism is a natural evolution of Buddhism and Jainism.

The Dharmic "religions" -philosophies- are a group like the Abrahamic ones, and India is their Holy land.

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.

What do you think the Bhakti movement was ? You seriously don't believe that Dharmic "religions" are that static, now do you ?

They are not static but to say Hinduism originates from Buddhism and Jainism is just nonsensical.

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.

All I'm saying is that Hinduism, Buddhism & Jainism evolved from interactions with each other. This is a clique not a digraph.

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_Jainism

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Hinduism is a covert mask for Casteism.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/16/opinion/sunday/caste-is-no...

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.

Haha ridiculous, please tell me this article has been paid for by Hindu nationalists like RSS and their overlord, the PM of India, Mr. Modi.

It would be trivial for organizations like RSS to spread their ideas among a relatively fringe community..

Deleted comment

> by a Caucasian

In the original classification, Indians (of India) are Caucasian.

Hinduism: an inexhaustible, ever-reshapeable resource for Indian nationalism.

Why shouldn't the Indians have their own nationalism? Last time I checked India was a sovereign nation.

Also anti-nationalism

http://www.dawn.com/news/672000/pakistan-schools-teach-hindu...

So it's all a conspiracy?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com