
How movies embraced Hinduism - wslh
http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/dec/25/movies-embraced-hinduism
======
virtuabhi
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).

~~~
omonra
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.

------
nnain
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.

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

------
eva1984
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.

~~~
enupten
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.

~~~
shripadk
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.

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

~~~
cscurmudgeon
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.

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

~~~
shripadk
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.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_Jainism](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.

~~~
shripadk
"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.

------
giis
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.

------
known
Hinduism is a covert mask for Casteism.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/16/opinion/sunday/caste-is-
no...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/16/opinion/sunday/caste-is-not-
past.html)

------
zabil
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.

------
curiousDog
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.

~~~
z3phyr
It would be trivial for organizations like RSS to spread their ideas among a
relatively fringe community..

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

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

