veluthukaran

and non voilence on our side also encourages them to do more violence. and they also say, "you hindus are cowards."

-------------------

did they call gandhiji or satyagrahis cowards? do you feel so low of yourself that you would not like it if someone called you a coward? this kind of reasoning is childish to say the least.

is that not a lot nicer than islam?............

--------------------

no one here is questioning this. we all know what islam has done to bharat. we all know what islam is. problem is comparing hinduism to islam, there is no comparison, islam is not remotely on the same level, so you cannot hold islamic/arab standards to standards of the history of bharat. hindus are more tolerant than muslims, that is why we have mosques in ayodhya, but they have no temples in mecca! we cannot lower our standards. we have to outshine them. you place to much emphasis on being killed by islam. i would rather die than resort to their level, as any satyagrahi would. Truth always exists, even in the midst of UNtruth. Trust there will be a kalki avatar to right adharma. no one has control over this, best to stick to dharma and not get baited like a fish into emulating islamic practices of violence.

so you would argue invading Iraq made maerica safer. you would argue that there isn't a whole genreation of arab youth who are going to grow up hating america and want to join terrorist groups. you would argue that by killing iraqis the families would be grateful that at least they were set free?

90% of indians do not support war in iraq in polls. i see you have relegated yourself to that element that is losing its fad to day. bush's policies are not vedic, they're foolish and don't make america safer.

Had India fought british with weapons independence would have come much earlier than

gandhi.

-----------

yes, but we would have sunk to new low. it was said that violence is always last option and we know that india won independence thru nonviolence (fact), so saying we if we resorted to violence we could have been independent quicker is wrong because would not have been last opition. violence would only have made english man stay longer with their superior weapons.

also, do not view victories in black and white. gandhiji's influence spread the whole world. i and maadav would not be allowed to live in US and get good job if it were not for martin luther king jr. being influenced by gandhiji. all it takes is one ripple ---> big tide.

a protector or an asura is an asura too.

this is the same reason why the US said that those countries who support terrorists would be considered also the terrorists.

------------

you follow Bush? is Bush an authority on the vedas, or anything for that matter?

Why is Islam becoming a cancer in India, is it because of birth rates, conversions, or both? Why is there less conversions from Islam back to hindu then the opposite? These are questions we as Hindus need to address. What is your answer to this, to just kill them, or fight them? This does nothing to solve this problem. We would only be emulating Babar, mughals. We have to persuade muslims to rejoin hindu society by making it so that they will realize that islam is wrong religion and they are worse off for it. have to expose untruths in arab culture. you do this through education not violence. violence only hardens their resolve and makes them recruit more terrorists.

yes, india never really existed as one whole subcontinent state in its history under one authority. i agree that instead of partitioning into muslim state pakistan it would have been better had india been a league of nations (a la European Union) of language speaking states (not divided by religion). we could be economically tied together like the EU (which, coincidentally consists of states analagous to indian states with similar languages, etc...) and have joint cooperation for military. so there would be no weakness.

positive value is that states like kerala (my state) and states like punjab, assam (natural gas resources) would not be tied down by states like tamilnadu, UP, etc... and would be independent to shape their own kind of governments according to their cultural traditions. also would no thave to be run by corrupt officials.

there would be no conflict in kashmir, not conflict with pakistan (as there would be no pakistan), we would be more peaceful and more advanced, as those states that prosper will be emulated by other failing states.

keep in mind that this would never happen as pakistan and bangladesh would have to accept this and split up in to sindh, pathan land, baloch and reunificate west punjab with punjab and bangladesh would reunify with bengal.

' if you ask the brits why they quite india, they would say in your ear, "it was the possibility of mutny by the indian army."'

yes, did they say this in your ear? england left because they realized the truth that they don't belong there and maybe were embarassed in front of the world.

'gandhi lost against the muslims.'

yes we know you do not have high opinion of gandhiji. Gandhiji was not fighting the muslims to have lost against them. gandhiji was assasinated by RSS thugs who were jealous of him and prevented him finishing what he started. still, gandhiji's work was a success and is a reason why maadav is an engineer in the USA (because Martin Luther King was influenced by gandhiji). gandhiji did not fail and his positive ripple effect grows greater by the day. truly beyond his time...

'if he were born in saddam's rule, he would have never won over saddam. you can see that there is no gandhi like character in iraq or saudi arabia. same for hitler's rule.'

gandhiji could do little to help south african zulu people because their culture was too different to understand ahimsa. same goes for iraqi people. not a fault by gandhiji or his philosophy. again, gandhiji was a great mind, respected all over the world, but evidently not by a minority of hate filled people in his own country.

thank you

karna never said he was bramhin so how do you say he lied?

does it really matter if you are real or not? if we were justhe eternal one's dream, then would His dream be real, are dreams real? or only the eternal one's dreams?

thank you, theinstances i refer to take place in the war and the treacherous things done to defeat karna and the kauravas, and the weak reasonings krishna gives to justify them.

conciousnous does not imply you are real.

would maitreya be considered bodhisattva?

english should not be taught anymore, only regional dialects should be taught and science books should be translated,etc...

hindi is mother tongue of a few states, teh common man's tongue that is derivative of urdu, delhi languages.

islam is not a true religion. it is arab culture. borrowed philosophies from jewish christian religions and pieced together them with their own culture.

islam has entered india and we face problems because of it. violence can never solve this issue, as RSS thugs justifies, only can be solved through ahimsa. there should be debates again between bramhins and their mullahs. why not?

even though the means does not follow dharma? can anything be above dharma, even the supreme being? why? point me to sources. then prove your sources come from a being higher than ksri rishna, otherwise why would i be inclined to believe what sri krishna says, when all i have to rely on is Him himself.

yes i agree. though i would argue that afghanis are from persia, maybe somewhat mixed hindu. in either case they were tribals.

how do you know you are real?

who wrote the gita and how can you prove this without referencing to other religious texts in which author and accounts are real. my point is that hindu religion fails like other religions in that you need faith to believe in them.

varna mean color? i personally do not take caste as a negative thing, it is simply what you are and what your past lives has made you.

i am not arguing against varnas, only i ask what varnas are those of non-indians, because we are only ones on earth who accept this truth.

what varna would an persian who practices a quality life belong to if he does not believe in karma. egyptian civilization existed before hindu civilization, so would varnas apply to them?

i cannot reconcile your first comment. if you are bramhin you are bramhin. either you follow your dharma or you don't, in which case you would not be a good hindu. ksatriyas are the rulers, end of story.

he was not not a politician, these are lies spewed by RSS thugs. i think you need to learn more about your history. gandhiji freed us. he was a true hindu adn was the mahatma. he studied all religions and belonged to all religions but was a sanatana hindu to the death. lies!!!!!!!!!

happy onam, waiting for mahabali to return. if history is written by the victors, is it entirely possible that our view of the asuras is shaped by that of the devas? would this view be correct and how would you prove that, considering that the victors write history?

seems like LOTR have taken a lot out of mahabharata like the four yugas, at the end the transition to the age of man...interesting, comments?

would balaram or parasurama be considered real avatar of visnu, coming down to earth during a time of adharma? it feels like parasurama and balarama are not as significant as other visnu avatars.