Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. correction to: The swaminarayana temple in Gandhinanagr, not Ahmedabad, was attacked by terrorists.
  2. In the transliteration that occurs in going from Sanskrit to English characters, the extra "a" is needed. I think the extra "a" used to be actually pronounced in ancient Sanskrit, but I'm not totally sure on that one. Regardless, in Hindi/Sanskrit/etc., when these words are written there is an understood "a" sound after every consonant standing alone. Any modification to that "a" sound makes it into "aa,i,e," etc. etc. to the other vowel sounds. So writing the "m" sound in Hindi/Sanskrit/etc. necessarily requires you to write a "ma" sound and then go ahead and write another marking to silence the terminal "a". And that last step (silencing the terminal "a") is not usually done in writing (again, this may be because that "a" was actually pronounced in ancient Sanskrit very gently). This results in a transliteration which includes the terminal "a," and that is the proper way to write these words. (Correct me if I'm wrong, anyone...)
  3. You said, “non-Hindu children should be taught their own religion” while also asserting that, “ a UCC will result in egalitarianism of the Indian society as a whole; not particularly Hindu or Muslim society.” Here is the contradiction that I do not understand: you support that Indian society be more egalitarian (therefore supporting equal political, economic, social, and civil rights for all people) while also supporting teaching different religions to different children in school. My objection is, first, that it would not be practical to have Muslims learn of Islam, Christians learn of Christianity, Hindus of Hinduism, etc etc etc, all under the same schoolhouse while ALSO being equal to each child’s religious education. The religious beliefs of every child cannot possibly be met by every school—what of the atheists, the agnostics, the Wiccans? What of adivasis? What do you suppose these children would learn? Certainly it would not be egalitarian to not include them. My second objection is that teaching religion in school fundamentally is not secular. We’ve established there shouldn’t be different laws for different religions in a truly secular government (thus, institute the UCC), so why should there be government rules that fund the forcible teaching of different religions to different students? By keeping the government away from religion altogether, religion has more freedom to grow and prosper on its own merit, and government has the neutrality and biaslessness required to fairly and democratically run a diverse nation of many peoples and faiths. However, u err in the belief that religion is not to be taught systematically. All the scriptures are the guiding maps to the larger goal of realization. They are very important for the unrealized. No Hindu scriptures systematically teaches religion. Hinduism is fundamentally non-sytematic because so many different paths exist toward the truth that people can only be, like you said, guided by scripture. I don’t doubt that they are important for the unrealized, and never claimed to. My point is that Hinduism is a personal search for the truth—temples, scriptures, gurus, etc. all are secondary to this aspect of it being a personal search. What would you have the children be taught? Dvaitva or adviatva? Vaishnava or Shivaite scriptures? Too much religious diversity exists simply in Hinduism alone, not speaking of other religions, for a practical systematic teaching to occur. This is why it is better that children grow old enough to choose what they believe by their own judgment and be given the resources (from nongovernment organizations) to explore that spiritual path to their pleasing. it is also the age when if given the highest moral, ethical and metaphysical thoughts will make the child stand up in good stead throughout his lifetime. Are you saying that the teaching of his/her own personal religion will make the child of “highest moral, ethical, and metaphysical” standing? I thought you believed Islam to be a religion which is “making bad men out of” Muslims? When parents themselves are unaware of the ideals of Hinduism, then the only hope is the coming generation. Remember, “Child is the father of a man”. 99 out of 100 Hindus are unaware of the tenets of their religion. If Hindus are not aware of their religious heritage, it is not the fault or the responsibility of the government to educate them to that end. I don’t see why it would be. Such a callous attitude towards religion does not augur well for the country, which from time immemorial has been the fountainhead of spirituality in this world. In no time was it “the fountainhead of spirituality” by means of in-school teaching programs, now, was it? If it can survive 5000 years w/o government interrference (and even under government oppression, I don’t see the need for government involvement now, no matter how morally degraded you view society to becoming. This is because; they don’t know the value of religion, its importance in our lives. Moreover; they feel all religion is simply empty talk, a waste of time and energy.. Who are you to tell parents, “religion is valuble in YOUR life”? I think they have the right to decide how important they want religion to be in their own life and the lives of their children. The government should be neutral to this; let religion be important in your life if you wish, let it be not important if you wish. And if you do choose to have it important, then pick any religion and follow it freely to whatever extent you wish. Freedom of religion requires this. Moreover, in this era of cutthroat competition, further intensified by caste-based reservations, the essence is on clearing exams rather than gain any spiritual knowledge. Because spiritual knowledge will somehow relieve us of competition…??? Thus, teaching of Vedanta in schools throughout the land is the need of the hour. Nothing here points to the teaching of religion by the government. There is no reason why a non-government movement can gain ground on its own merit for teaching of the Vedanta if people really feel it is that important to their lives. And it’s your inherent folly to believe that the RSS tried to thrust Hindu religion upon non-Hindus. Citing cases where the RSS’s schools resulted in good scores on scientific exams doesn’t discount that they teach absurd theories and promote hatred against “foreigners”. I do not think anyone can seriously believe the RSS is an organization which views Muslims and Hindus as equals after hearing the inflamatory speeches of its proponents. Check out the documentary <u>Final Solution</u>. But if they cannot sing the Saraswati Vandana which is very secular to me or the Vande Mataram then they can walk out First, the Saraswati Vandana is by no means secular. Secular necessarily means “not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body;” and the Saraswati Vandana is full of “relations” to religion and specifically the Hindu religious body. The english translation of it: “May Goddess Saraswati, who is fair like the jasmine-colored moon, and whose pure white garland is like frosty dew drops; who is adorned in radiant white attire, on whose beautiful arm rests the veena, and whose throne is a white lotus; who is surrounded and respected by the Gods, protect me. May you fully remove my lethargy, sluggishness, and ignorance.” Just the first two words—referring to a goddess—make it blasphemous for Muslims and Christians. It is clearly Hindu. Vande Mataram is not completely void of a Hindu bias either, but much more suitable for being universal. I think it is absurdly wrong to say someone must be able to sing some song you personally value in order for them to live in the same country you do. This is the tolerance Hinduism teaches you? A version of history is created to turn the victims into villains and the destroyers into heroes. Some instances: 1. Aryan Invasion Theory propagation 2. Aryans were barbaric: no self-respecting Indian can adhere to such ludicrous statements 3. Aryans destroyed the Hararppan civilization I have personally chosen to stay away from the debate of the Aryan Invasion Theory; clearly the traditional theory is, at the very least, not entirely correct. But I feel more questions have to be answered before a conclusion void of doubt can be reached. According to [leftist historians led by Romila Thapar, Irfan Habib, & P.S. Sharma] the [Muslim] invaders came only for wealth and had nothing to do with the people, they converted none, they didn’t break idols, and they didn’t commit atrocities along with all kinds of nonsense. There is no mention that 75000 women committing mass sati along with Rani Padmini to escape the clutches of Alaudin Khilji! I agree with you to a certain extent in that Romila Thapar and etc may have their own agenda in their historical analysis, but I am not aware of enough details to conclusively make a stand on this issue. What I do agree with is that a bias in history is just as wrong whether it be leftist or rightist. Accusing the left of being biased does not relieve the right of the same crime. HOLY PLACED NAMED AFTER A BARBARIAN LIKE BABUR IS BLASPHEMY. AND THE HOLY PLACE I REFER TO IS A MOSQUE ITSELF. NO HOLY PLACE LIKE TEMPLE, MOSQUE, CHURCH should be named after a barbarian. If it is, then that place cannot be holy by any means Let’s look at that word, shall we? “Blasphemy.” Defined by Merriam-Webster as, “the crime of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God or a religion and its doctrines and writings and especially God as percieved by Christianity […]”. I do not agree that having a masjid named after Babar in the city of a Ram’s birth is blasphemy. Just because the city has that historical/religious significance means nothing in the whole city cant go against it? And of the temple—the temple hasn’t been renamed to an invader’s name: the temple, if it existed, has been completely destroyed and built over. But the point is not whether a temple existed there or not. The point is that two wrongs do not make a right. Rebuilding the Rama temple by destroying the Babri Masjid just because the latter came about in the same fashion does not mean it is the ethical, moral thing to do. You speak of barbarism with contempt, and justly so. Tell me: what happened in December 1992 in Ayodhya, was that not barbarism? I don’t see why not. You say you don’t want a holy area to have a masjid named after a barbarian—how do you like a temple that is going to be built due to the barbaric act that occurred in December 1992? Shouldn’t that be more appauling?—that a temple is being built which stands for Hinduism but which also originated by an act of barbarism? I find it appauling. How different are the men and women who tore down the Babri Masjid to build a temple from those Muslim invaders that tore down the Ram temple (if it existed there) to build the Babri Masjid? 6. The advent of the Islamic fanaticism in India was the cause of introduction of social evils like child marriage, purdah, women illiteracy and sati. I need not repeat that such details have been shelved in these books. Yes, I agree that Islamic fanaticism brought social evils to India. This is not to say, however, that Hinduism was chaste of social evils before the advent of the Muslim invasions. The caste system existed long before they came, and caste discrimination has existed for a long time. 7. Glorification of the Mughal Rule: No rule, not even the British did as much damage as the mughal rule […] 8. Next the chapter on Jahangir and Shah Jahan […] 9. Great centers of learning […] I’m not here to defend the Mughals. I’m just against the distortion of hisotry of any side, left or right. Why? Because Sri Aurobindo was a staunch critic of Gandhi;s philosophies. And I will prefer to believe a realized man than a man who was perennially confused. Aurbindo was a great man. So was Gandhi. Realized or not, Gandhi was a huge driving force toward the Indian independence, and this statement is supported by, if the phrase is not yet hackneyed, the ‘vast bulk of historical knowledge.’ But indeed my friend, Islam is monolithic in character. The religion is based on one book which further supplements as a law book. Islam is a monolithic religion, I agree. But that does not automatically make the Muslim community monolithic in nature because interpretation of the dogma creates sects and factions that disagree with each other. Any religion, which brings laws into its fold, is destined to be doomed. Laws are made by men, not by GOD. Further, they change with the vicissitudes of time. I agree with this statement; it is something that very much is a product of Hindu teaching. But you see, just because the Abrahamic religions disagree with this statement does not mean that we should not respect their belief to the extent that we are not harmed in doing so. By degrading the parts of their beliefs which do us no harm, however much we may see them as flawed or incorrect, we do nothing but show intolerance and hatred. Instead of admitting that the religion of Islam is in need of drastic reform, u are instead trying to circumvent this very question!. I agree that Islam needs reform to the extent that the interpretation that arises from Islam which leads to terrorism needs to be addressed by the Muslim community throughout the world and dealt with appropriately. As for the role of women & etc--the way to reform any society/culture/religion to be more liberal toward women and more open and tolerant is to introduce equal laws in a nation of diversity (to instigate equal interaction) as well as to promote equal education. This formula has worked wonders for the west over the last couple centuries, and there is no reason why it cannot be universally applicable. ->>Consensual, legal, constitution: all 3 words are very much within the domain of a democracy (of any kind!) Cannot find anything wrong with that.. The thing wrong with that isn’t the methods they’re using to have the temple built there, the wrong thing is that they even are pursing to have a temple built there in the first place. It was barbaric of them to bring down the masjid that stood there and it will be wrong to build a mandir in its place. . Yet, like any true follower of the Geeta, he stood by his statements and was prepared to resign over the matter. Hats off to him! A true follower of the Gita doesn’t go out of his way to gather support of rioters to bring down others’ places of worship. Advani is a criminal and should be imprisoned. ->> All acts of minority appeasement are inherently Anti National. Since 82% Hindus constitute India, therefore all nationalistic policies are Indirectly Pro Hindu and all anti nationalistic policies are Anti Hindu. […] ANYTHING NATIOANLISTIC -> PRO NATION -> PRO INDIA -> PRO Hindu So now anti-Hindu=anti-National? So does that mean not being Hindu makes you an anti-national? This is Hindutva defined. Creating a Hindu Nation. “All acts of minority appeasement” you say. HIV/AIDs victims are minorities, we shouldn’t fund research for their cure. The handicapped are minorities, we shouldn’t fund programs for their assistance. You are being a bigot when you say that minorities should be treated as second-class citizens; just as you do not appreciate minority appeasement, you should be against majority appeasement. The government is a government of ALL that live in India—Hindu, Muslim, Christian, etc. It’s laws should be fair to ALL. Being pro-Hindu does not make someone pro-India. Being pro-India does not mean someone has to be pro-Hindu or Hindu to begin with. ->>The BJP is not Anti Muslim. The BJP is bound to the RSS & VHP. This shows it looks out for Hindus’ interests; what Muslim organizations is it bound to that it would look out for Muslims’ interests? They are very clearly pushing an agenda to benefit Hindus and Hindus only: their reasons for supporting Ayodhya, the UCC, and Article 370 all would make the Hindu majority politically stronger and would be further steps for a Hindu Nation as idealized by the RSS. If the BJP were not anti-Muslim, they would not have supported Ayodhya. Simple as that. Show neutrality of government toward religion, and you can be seen as pro-Hindu, pro-Muslim, pro-Christian, etc. 1. Hinduism does not ask people to break mosques but it doesn’t say not to defend its places of worship. So the violent razing of the Babri Masjid was DEFENCE? Sir, I do believe it was nothing other than REVENGE. Apart from one mosque in Ayodhya, built by a Barbarian, not having any religious sanctity, was any other mosque touched during the BJP Regime? I will quote what u said “History happened. Live with it!” Other mosques touched by the BJP: the Gujarat Riots. Enough said. You are taking my quote of “History Happened” out of context. Here is what I had written: “So does this mean that every Mosque built before the British came should be torn down and a mandir built in its place? That's simply absurd. History happened. Live with it. You can't turn back time. All you can do is make things better in the present, and violently creating more distance between Hindus and Muslims isn't something that is making the country a better place to live in.” I was not saying that it was okay that the history happened; I was saying there is nothing you can do NOW to change what happened THEN; all you can do is try to prevent it again. Never will another temple be razed, in our hallowed land because the Muslims will have realized that such acts of terror will be returned in kind As long as the religious intolerance the RSS spreads continues, riots will occur and both masjids & mandirs will be razed. Revenge isn’t the solution to the Hindu-Muslim problem. Two wrongs don’t make a right. So, if the BJP is communal the congress is 100 times more communal. There’s no scale of communalism. Either you are or aren’t. The Congress simply had more time—they ruled longer than the BJP has—to incite riots. 3. Arming yourself with tridents and kerosene bombs? ->>The idea is so laughable. Why not arm oneself with revolvers, AK 47 and rocket launchers. They are more reliable to say the least I was making a reference to the Gujarat Riots, when Hindu rioters actually did arm themselves as such. If its policy on the Rama Janambhoomi issue has popular sentiment it cannot be helped. The popular sentiment was incited and grown by the BJP and then leeched off of. The BJP could very well have said, “we do not support this issue as popular as it may be because we believe in an India with Hindu-Muslim unity rather than discord.” There is no place for religious reservation is a secular country. Reservations of any kind occur to more quickly bring about equality in a nation—this is why there is affirmative action for blacks in America and why there are religious reservations and reservations based on caste in India. If you waited for the social fabric to change by itself to a more equal incarnation, without government inteference, you would be waiting for decades while people suffer all about. Hindu extremism can never be a national ideology via the UCC. There is no place for extremism in UCC. If the BJP equates Hinduism with Nationalism, as you do, then they surely equate anything that is Hindu as benificial to the nation. Who is to say that their UCC will not be biased against non-Hindus, “in the interest of the nation”? I fear the BJP’s UCC—because they have not necessarily specificed its details—will make all Indian citizens bound to a Hindu way of life, and will treat non-Hindus as second class citizens. ->>It is not. The fundamental rights are the same for all citizens irrespective of caste, creed, and religion in any democracy. This is not true in majoritarian democracy. Majoritarian democracy BY DEFINITION means that the majority can DEMOCRACTICALLY strip the minority of its rights. Terrorists have no cause; they kill to acheive their lustful paradise with abundant beautiful horis that allah made for those who die in the cause of Islam as explained by Mohammed in the Quran. You are wholly flawed in this statement. The very WORD ‘terrorist’ requires, by definition, “radical who employs terror as a political weapon”. And bin Laden has used terrorism as nothing more than a political weapon. His JUSTIFICATION for the use of terror was found in Islam, but the GOAL of his use of terror was found in politics. I Never used the word rejoice. And these people always criticize terrorists onditionally. So is that the answer to my question? I had asked, “are you now claiming that most of the 120 million Muslim men, women, and children living in India sympathetically rejoice at terrorist attacks?” Your answer is basically “yes” except using the word sympathize instead of “rejoice”, then? Think about that answer: you are saying one hundred twenty million people or more (that’s 12 crore individuals) are ALL sympathizers of bin Laden just because they are Muslim and he is Muslim. You cannot keep claiming that “they” (Muslims) are this or that; they are all innocent until proven guilty. But to that you responed, “You can prove guilty via two counts. One through direct evidence. The other via circumstantial evidence, which is whopping.” I do not think there is “whopping” circumstantial evidence that 120 million people living in India actively support terrorist acts. These people are normal people, just like you. They go to work and want their kids to be educated and love their family and friends. All Muslims are not inhuman. Dogma divides and nationalism unites. When nationalism itself becomes a dogma, it divides more than it unites. The RSS has done just this. Since, there is no concept of country in Islam, there can be no nationalism either. I don’t see how there isn’t a concept of country in Islam—they have very strict rules all which would allow them to govern their nations and they do so all over the middle east. Hence, the Muslim is always in a catch-22 situation; his dilemma of whether to be loyal to his country or to his religion. That’s a stereotype and you know it. It’s like saying all catholics are too loyal to the Vatican to be patriotic. This is not true for the vast majority of the people. By agreeing to a temple in the disputed site of Ayodhya, it might ingite a fire of brotherhood among Hindus and Muslims alike. But that seems like a distant dream. Muslims can’t just give up a mosque to have a temple built there. After all, they didn’t destroy the temple that apparently existed there—their ancestors did. Fighting today for the wrongs of the past is called revenge, and I do not think it very honorable to build a temple on the basis of revenge. Strength is life, weakness is death. Spiritually, compulsory disarmament has made us unmanly! Just like the story of the snake and the sage. We’re not animals (most of us). We do not need physical strength to be strong. Humankind is given the overpowering ability to learn and comprehend. Remember, it was the question of one mosque and for the greater good of the country it had to be brought down. It was a necessary act of evil. It was a natural consequence of the Muslim appeasement policies being carried out by the INC for 45 yrs (nay 90 if u take into consideration the pre-partition era) , and Hindus had lost all their reserves of patience First, the act was anything BUT <u>necessary</u>, but evil it was. Second, it was not <u>natural</u> for Hindus to go and destroy a Muslim mosque. To say that it was a natural consequence for Hindus to do an evil act as this is to say it is an act in natural harmony with Hinduism. This is not the case. The men and women who destroyed the Babri Masjid did not “loose their patience” and simply erupt onto the mosque without immediate cause. It was an organized, coordinated “erruption” of violence. The BJP & RSS actively took roles to this end, and still support their doing so. ->>Making the nation secular, means weakening religion. The countries of the west are not moved by religion but by Science and politics. Secularity does not mean weakened religion. Secularism means neutrality of the government toward religion. Why cannot you offer the freedom for the nation’s citizens to choose, as they have the right to do so living in a democracy, to be moved by religion or not? Secularism does this. Turning the nation into a religious powerhouse is equivalent to making a theocratic regime equivalent to the governments of Muslim nations (Pakistan, Iran, etc). Religion was not made to govern people in the way the modern nation-state requires. Religion was made so people have a way to govern THEMSELVES individually and individuals among each other. But India has from time immemorial been moved by religion and only religion and so shall it be. Hence, the ideas of religion merit a special place in India unlike the west and hence the concepts of western secularism cannot be applied to us. We were not secular ever and never shall we be Did India not keep being a religious nation under foreign rule for the last 1000 years? Did religion suddenly end with the advent of this foreign rule? If Hinduism can survive a thousand years of foreign rule without being the least bit shattered in its confidence and its splendor, I doubt it will suddenly fall apart under a truly secular government. Religion doesn’t just suddenly go away unless the people choose for it to. Secularism is not a threat to the prosperity of Hinduism. The true threat would be if people were forced to follow it (for otherwise be labled “anti-nationals”); it takes away religion’s credit of being self-sufficient. Can Hinduism not surivive without a government to sanction its place in society? Secularism and Hinduism may share the principle of alloting every individual the freedom to believe whatsoever he wishes to whatsoever extent he wishes. But I do not think that the BJP’s concept of “a Hindu nation” match up with secularism. They would not have torn down Babri in 1992, and would not have incited the riots of Gujarat in 2002 if they really believed anyone could practice their faith in a truly Hindu nation. THE QUESTION OF GANDHI I do not doubt Gandhi made mistakes, and neither does Gandhi himself. Aurobindo did too. This does not take away from all that both men accomplished. Caste based discrimination exists only in the remote villages. And there the benefits of the positive discrimination will never percolate. Regardless of the discrimination, there still exists a huge socioeconomic gap between the lower castes and upper ones. The point of the positive discrimination laws are to bridge this gap between both populations; after 50 years, this still has not resulted in a favorable outcome. Again, this is because the implementation is flawed, not the principle. These laws exist in foreign nations—affirmative action in the US, for example—and have proven to be effective over time if implemented correctly. 2. The very principle is absurd when a significant number of India’s 250 million BPL population are comprised of the higher caste including Brahmins. They don’t get any reservations. They do not get such reservations, true, but they do not face the discrimination that the lower castes do. They have an easier time getting jobs because they are not automatically deemed “dirty”. I will just pose you a simple question? Which religion has caused the most bloodshed in the history of mankind. The answer is Islam That does not refute the statement I made: fundamentalism & extremism exist in all religions because of interpretation. and not one word of condemnation escapes the lips of these muslim neighbors. They are all a bunch of fanatical hypocrites. Again, you are labling a whole population of millions of individuals with one title. This is simply absurd. Just as I cannot say, “all Hindus are against abortion,” I cannot say “all Muslims support Kashmiri terrorists. Both statements do not reflect the factionalism that exists in every society, every community. Mr. Geelanai […] is a member of the muslim elite teaching arabics in Zakir Hussain college; who publicly demands a free state of Azad Kashmir. Democracy allows for freedom of opinion. ->>Hindusim has NO anti scientific notions. Hinduism is itself a science; “THE SCIENCE OF REALIZATION”. Hinduism does not ask to believe in god; but to directly perceive god. To think that Hinduism has no anti-scientific notions is to be idealistic to what Hinduism is. I agree that Hinduism is “the science of realization,” I agree that it promotes a direct perception of the Truth (not necessarily “God”), but this does not mean that the practice of Hinduism over the centuries is completely void of notions and beliefs that blatantly contradict modern science. I will offer just one simple example: Time. Yes Hinduism promotes the belief of a regenerating universe, but it also supposes the idea that men existed in a civilized fashion millions of years ago (throughout the different yugas and etc). There is conclusive scientific evidence that human civilization begins not more than 5 to 6 thousand years ago, although humankind itself is much older. Show me a line of the Upanishads which is unscientific. The Upanishads are philosophical treatises, and I never claimed for them to be unscientific. I simply said, “Hinduism has lots of anti-scientific notions”. Our religion explains law of conservation of energy, matter energy interrelationship, wave and particle nature, etc. Not explicitly. There’s not Vedic scripture that goes out and sayd, “well the frequency of light times a constant (Plank’s) times an integer of quantization will give the Energy of that light”. And to say that the men who wrote the scriptures knew of wave-particle nature and quantum mechanics and etc. is simply absurd. Sure their ideas sound like echoes of modern physics, but that is all they remain. They are strictly philosophical treatises that deal with the atman and humanity, not abstract concepts as quantum mechanics. Becoming realized doesn’t mean you suddenly understand how to do quantum mechanics—it more so means that you have achieved an existance above this simple plane of existance. ->>Yes it does! An anti science religion is detrimental to the progress of the nation as a whole. It is not Islam being “anti-science” that is detrimental, it is the lack of education. This is what prompted the European Renisannce. In fact, if you look at the Middle Ages in Europe before the 1600s, you will notice that it was only because of the Muslim obsession with science and commerce that the teachings of ancient Greece and Rome were preserved through the ages. Muslim scientists and teachers and students reprinted these documents for the Arab world, while the original are now lost to history. Race pride at its highest indeed.I don’t see anything in here which highlights Gowalkar praising Hitler or espoused his persecution of Jews. The quote I presented was: “German race pride has now become the topic of the day. To keep up the purity of the race and its culture, Germany shocked the world by her purging the country of the Semitic races-the Jews. Race pride at its highest has been manifested here.” Somehow the ending part of the quote didn’t get pasted properly. The quote continues as so: “ontinues as such: “Germany has also shown how well-nigh impossible it is for Races and cultures, having differences going to the root, to be assimilated into one united whole, a good lesson for us in Hindusthan to learn and profit by”. Clearly, he thinks what happened in Germany under Hitler was something worth admiration and worth repitition in India. And Savarkar, the Hindu Mahasabha leader, declared that, “If we Hindus grow stronger in time Moslem friends ...will have to play the part of German Jews ->>Savarkar believed in a strong Hindu society and in the Hindutva ideology of one nation, one culture, one people, which meant no special provisions for any minority So beief in Hindutva excuses his belief that what Hitler did to the Jews Hindus should do to the Muslims? Until that day India is politically free but not spiritually free. India can only be free for spiritual experimentation if government is separated from religion. Some questions I posed earlier: 1. Appeasing Muslim extremists is wrong, but appeasing Hindu extremists is okay? 2. Are you saying that the BJP is pro-Hindu because they want to allow non-Kashmiris to move in and own land in Kashmir? 3. Is it not true that the BJP is the political wing of the RSS, the RSS hates non-Hindus, and therefore, the BJP is a tool for hating non-Hindus? 4. The question is not whether a temple stood at the Babri Masjid or not. The question is this: is the violent destruction of another’s place of worship something Rama would condone? 5. Something has to be old to “hold much water”? I’m curious—how old, then do you take the laws should be before they should actually hold enough water for you to consider them worthy of being laws? (In reference to: “(J) *** Firstly, the laws of the land have been framed just 50 yrs back by these same pseudosecularists of the INC. So they dont hold much water.” 6. What is wrong with making the nation secular? (Can Hinduism not propser under a secular government?) 7. Are you saying [Muslims] are both speaking in support of terrorist activities therefore making them terrorist-supporters, AND they’re being silent of terrorist activites therefore also making them terrorist-supporters? 8. How would you feel if your Hindu son/daughter went to a school where everyone prayed to Allah, and everyone was taught to thank Allah, and everyone was required to recite verses from the Koran—all because you lived in a country where you were the minority and Muslims were the majority? And also, let me take the time out to thank you for actually having the knowhow and will to debate on this forum. As much as we do disagree, I admit that not anyone else here seems to have demonstrated a will to actually debate the issues as much as you have, and that is very much admirable.
  4. Ekanshanand, Your use of the Bhagavad Gita's purports published by ISKON does not match up to the direct scriptural quotes in support of all-out ahimsa I provided above. The scriptures recognize that the killing of other living things is necessary for the survival of other living things; as such, ahimsa is taken to mean freedom from unnecessary killing. And what is this whole thread about, anyway? Are you all out to prove that Hinduism is against ahimsa? As for your question, "Imagine the war at kurukshetra in Mahabharat if Krishna said to Arjuna to lay down his gandhiva and preach non-violence. What would have happened?"--this has been addressed in "The Religious Tolerance Thread." My point there was to basically say, 'if you're asking me to imagine what it would be like having 1 Gandhian at Kurukshetra, I ask you to imagine what it would be like to have everyone at Kurukshetra be Gandhian: NO VIOLENCE.'
  5. Okay, so let’s look at what we have here; <u>1. How the BJP is pro-Hindu; your replies:</u> (A)The BJP supports the “propagation of the Hindu religion and culture in schools”. I have several objections to this statement. First and foremost, religion has no place in public schools whatsoever. Democratic practice throughout the world is yet to live up to this principle, I agree, but that need not relieve India of this duty. Teaching “Hindu religion and culture” to non-Hindu children would most certainly alienate them and create more separation by religion. Secondly, I absolutely believe that Hindu religion and culture is not something to be taught systematically but is something to be experienced. Of course a study of scriptures will enlighten the curiously-minded toward the specificiteis of the religion, and a guru can assist one more so toward that end; but institutional propagation of Hindu culture seems almost impossible. As such, the propagation of Hindu religion and culture necessarily falls on the parents and the family enviornment in general, and also to temples and other exclusively Hindu organizations—not public schools. Third, I would like to ask what exactly in terms of “Hindu religion and culture” the BJP plans to teach to the ever-susceptible population of pre-pubescent children. If the BJP supports the saffron flag wavers in their efforts to make Hindutva the rule of the land, then the debate of rewriting textbooks is absolutely absurd. Hindutva fanatics claim the textbooks have been whitewashed with false concepts and ideas. With that in mind, they have embarked to present their version of history: that Jesus Christ wandered the Himalayas and drew his inspiration from Hinduism; that a Hindu named Samundragupta built the Qutb Minar, originally known as Vishnu Sthambha; that the Taj Mahal was really a Hindu Temple known as Tejo-Mahalaya; that the Red Fort in Delhi was a Brahmin palace. Such absurdities are being taught at thousands of Vidhya Bharti schools run by the Hindutva cadres of the BJP and RSS. The RSS will not give up its zeal to rewrite history; as such, its political wing, the BJP, cannot be trusted to remain free of that zeal. In fact, the 1991 BJP victory in four states resulted in the government itself going out to stock books promoting such ideas into colleges and libraries. This is the Hindu “religion and culture” the BJP propagates?—to distort history and alienate foreigners so they can then destroy their mosques and burn their communities? My problem here isn’t that the BJP wants to clear up historical matters (for even Nehru funded research to re-examine Indian history in 1951), my problem is that in the process they are actively saffronizing Indian history with the obvious intention of glorifying Hinduism. Hinduism doesn’t need falsified history to be glorified. The fact is the that the vast bulk of historical evidence is in clear disagreement to the claims of these supposed historians; neither should their ideas be publicized into textbooks nor should they be accepted as definitively correct by the general community. But the debate over their claims need not even arise in the eyes of the hardline Hindutva propagandists—why even allow debate to exist when anyone suggesting disagreement can be automatically labled as “anti-Hindu,” “anti-nationalist,” “communist,” “Marxist,” etc? (B) The BJP refuses to “yield to the fanatical demands of the Muslims”. What fanatical demands is the BJP refusing to yield to, specifically (besides the moderately-important book-banning fiasco)? The implication is that you speak of the UCC, the AIMPLB’s connection with the Shah Bano case, etc. You must understand that the Muslim community is, once again, not a monolithic entity with one thought and one opinion. Women, especially, are all for discounting the influence the AIMPLB has on Muslim affairs. But the fanatical demands of Muslims aside, the BJP not only yields to but wholeheartedly embraces the fanatical demands of extremist Hindus, no? Why else would it’s current president, Advani, have been actively participating toward the destruction of the Babri masjid in 1992? Why else would its Election Manifesto of 1998 gloriously proclaim, “The BJP will explore all consensual, legal and constitutional means to facilitate the construction of Shri Ram Mandir at Ayodhya”? Just as the “pseudo-secularists” apparently “appease” Muslims for their votes, as you claim, the BJP seems to be appeasing Hindus for their votes—why else would they have so vigorously downplayed the Hindutva and Ayodhya agenda in the 2004 election? They used the bandwagon of Hindutva to sweep power and abandoned it when they no longer felt it was needed. But now, suddenly, in their time of need once again comes the hardline Hindutva votebank to leech off of until the next election victory. Another problem I have with this statement: how does not “appeasing Muslim demands” constitute a pro-Hindu attitude? It seems as if your philosophy is “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. © The BJP refuses to “appease Muslims” since they don’t agree to the ban of certain anti-Muslim books. Appeasing Muslim extremists is wrong, but appeasing Hindu extremists is okay? I feel that the appeasement of extremism in general is wrong—Hindu, Muslim, Christian, or any other type. Again, how does being anti-Muslim make the BJP pro-Hindu? (D) The BJP supports Article 370. So you’re saying that the BJP is pro-Hindu because they want to allow non-Kashmiris to move in and own land in Kashmir? I don’t see the logic. Supporting Article 370 may or may not be the best thing for India to do, but it certainly isn’t something that points to the BJP as pro-Hindu. (E) The BJP supports the UCC. The debate over the UCC is interesting. I agree with the BJP’s position that the UCC needs to be implemented, but not for the same reasons they do. What I find astonishing is the ever-apparent contradiction in the BJP’s support of both the UCC and the Ayodhya issue. They claim to want equality for all with the UCC, yet they support the destruction of Muslim masjids to build Hindu temples. They claim to want a truly secular nation with the implemenation of the UCC, yet at the same time promote the “propagation of Hindu religion and culture in schools” (not Muslim or Christian culture and religion?). This direct contradiction suggests that the BJP only supports implementing the UCC because it would further alienate the minority communities by making them “on their own” so to speak to deal with living in a Hindu-dominated nation. I support the UCC not because of religious and nationalistic ideology but because of a liberal commitment of equality of law for all. (F) The BJP is against giving citizenship to & supporting criminal Bangladeshi Muslim immigrants. This, again, shows nothing of how the BJP is pro-Hindu. The overall conclusion to your reply directed to my first question, “how is the BJP pro-Hindu” seems to point to one thing and one thing only: the BJP is pro-Hindutva. Why shouldn’t it be? Its foundation is rooted in the Hindutva ideology of the RSS; its existance, in fact, is directed as a mere puppet-organization for the RSS. Does being pro-Hindutva necessarily make them pro-Hindu? I don’t think so. The Hindutva movement should not be associated with Hinduism. It should be more properly termed a political tool; an ideology with which millions can be brainwashed and effectively be made into pawns for the sick recreation of the RSS. That’s not Hinduism. The Hinduism that I know doesn’t encourage me to go around bashing on other peoples’ religion and beliefs and heritage simply because they are different than me or because their ancestors abused my ancestors. The Hindusim I know doesn’t tell me to take pilgrimages to Ayodhya in order that I desecrate someone else’s place of worship and build my own on top. It doesn’t encourage me to arm myself with swords and tridents and kerosene bombs in order that I punish my Muslim neighbors for the wrongs their ancestors committed. Another issue I’d like to address is your constant use of the term “pseudo-secularist”. I agree with you in that the Congress is not being secularist by sticking to the UCC. But let it be clear that I am no pseudo-secularist. I do not see the Congress and its secular ideology as the ultimate hope of the Indian nation, but I do see it as the only comparable competitor for that title. As such, I do not see the RSS and its Hindutva ideology as the bane of Indian civilization, but I do see it as the only comparable competitor for that title. (And by RSS, I do mean all of the RSS—BJP, VHP, Bajrang Dal, etc.) <u>2. How the non-BJP parties are anti-Hindu; your replies:</u> (G) Congress allows for reservations in government & educational jobs for Muslims. Holding seats for Muslims means the government is anti-Hindu? Does this mean that funding research for curing AIDS means the government hates cancer patients? Does making laws to benefit the handicapped mean the government hates the non-handicapped? (H) All psuedo-secularists are against the BJP—they only want Muslim votebanks. We discussed this earlier. Just as “pseudo-secularists” want Muslim votebanks, the saffron flag-wavers want Hindu votebanks. Politicians are politicians. You can’t claim the BJP doesn’t want a votebank. You just like them because they appease you by agreeing to hate Muslims. The only thing you’ve proved with your answers to my questions it that the BJP hates Muslims: by (A) they want to have Hindu culture and religion be taught in schools, by (B) sure they don’t listen to Muslim extremists (which is good) but that’s only because they are too busy listening to Hindu extremists telling them to burn Muslim places of worship, by © they of course don’t appease Muslim extremists (which is also good) but this is only because they appease Hindu extremists, by (E) sure they support the UCC (which is good) but only because it distances Muslims away from the mainstream even more and makes it easier for them to listen to implement Hindu extremism as a national ideology, and by (F) sure they support deporting illegal immigrants who cause violence and wreak havoc in cities (which is good) but this is only because it’s a way to get rid of more Muslims (for Hindu rabble-rousers are freely roam the streets of Ayodhya knowing very well their very own BJP will come to their rescue and somehow get them their temple built). <u>3. Other issues brought up:</u> (A) You cannot equate the whites and blacks question since blacks were being discriminated & India’s ground realities are different & (B) A DEMOCRACY IS NOT MEANT FOR APPEASEMENT OF MINORITIES.......THE Laws of the land are same for all.....u cannot provide minorities with seperate provisons....we have the judiciary to look into matters of violation of human rights.... I’m not speaking of ground realities when I compare the discrimination of blacks in America to the “appeasement” of minorities in India—I’m speaking of principles. Democratic government is not simply the “rule of the majority” as you content. Majoritarian democracy is not the model of democracy with which are made most of the democracies in the world today, including India. Democracies tend to lean toward pluralist democratic theory: an interpretation of democracy in which government by the people is taken to mean government by people operating through competing interest groups. This necessarily requires the splitting of the duties of government into legislative, judicial, executive, etc, in order that people have more access to their government besides simple voting. Of course, no democracy is entirely pluralist or entirely majoritarian, and parliamentarian democracy is no expection. Note, however, that majoritarianism in democracy is notoriously recognized to be detrimental to minority rights. I’m sure you and hardline Hindutva supporters would be thrilled at the idea of discriminating against the minority and establishing a completely majoritarian democracy in India. © Blacks were always nationalistic Muslims are mostly antinationals.....they have been sympathsing with the kashmir militants, have openly sympathises with mass murderers like Osama in Lader.....and hence, i must tag the majority of muslims as anti nationals..... So you’re now claiming that most of the 120 million Muslim men, women, and children living in India sympathetically rejoice at terrorist attacks? You’ve managed, without explicit evidence, to automatically label the majority 120 million people to be against the nation they and their families live in. This is prejudiceness defined. Would you not agree that people everywhere in the world are always innocent until proven guilty? If you can’t label a single person “guilty before proven innocent,” you most necessarily cannot label 120 million people as so. (D) BJP DOESNT HATE NON HINDUS but it only asks for equality for all......no special priveleges or appeasement of muslims....U FORGOT THE BASIC TENENT OF A DEMOCRACY is MAJORITY RULES:) The BJP is the political wing of the RSS. The RSS hates non-Hindus. Therefore, the BJP is a tool for hating non-Hindus. As for the “basic tenent” of democracy being “majority rules,” taking even a beginning-level political science course will prove to you just how much more there is beind that simple statement. (E) U said "HISTORY HAPPENED, LIVE WITH IT!" So let me tell u "People who dont read history are destined to suffer for the repetition of its mistakes"....all the wrongs of the medieval past cannot be corrected, but some must be corrected to avoid repetition of them in future. I’m not asking you not to read history. I’m asking you to specifically live with the fact that the presence of non-Hindus in India is not going to go away. For example, newly freed black slaves were completely discriminated against by the majority of whites in the US for almost one hundred years before they were recognized as equal citizens. Sure there were white organizations screaming all along to send the blacks back to Africa after having been thoroughly exploited (kind of like how the Hindutva-folk wants an “India for Hindus”), but the more practical solution was to live in cooperation with the foreigners. (F) The question is a temple stood there in a city which is considered as the birthplace of Rama, and hence it is one of the most sacred of places for hindus.....Would, a temple built in Mecca, Medina or Jerusalem be acceptable to the people there??? NO.... Why dont the muslims realise the sentiments of the hindus......dont u think, that a sacrifice on their part, would build bridges between the 2 communities and unite the country........ The question is not whether a temple stood at the Babri Masjid or not. The question is this: is the violent destruction of another’s place of worship something Rama would condone? Ayodhya is not going to be any more sacred than it is now with or without a temple built where the Babri masjid stood. The middle ages have come and gone, and in the modern world no civilized society can view the razing of another’s place of worship to raise one’s own as civilized or honorable, much less acceptable, to the general interests of the people. “Why don’t the Muslims realize the sentiments of Hindus”—what sentiments do you speak of? The sentiment that there needs to be the violent destruction of any Muslim place of worship built near and/or atop a former Hindu temple? You can’t change history. All you can do is find a way to live the present so the atrocities of the past cannot be repeated. Creating a free, open, strong, and tolerant society—as most civilized, modern nations have done—is the first step to ensuring the survival in the long run; advocating internal factionalism with violence aforethought is absolutely deplorable and an abominable outgrowth of the freedom of thought Hinduism offers to its followers. (G) If the hindus had also become violent, the muslims who were in a minority would NOT have dared to commit those atrocities. I can’t believe you are actually advocating making Hindus violent to counteract Muslim violence. Violence doesn’t solve violence. Peace solves violence. Peace requires that both sides let the disputes of their ancestors remain in the past. (H) A 2nd point of gandhi;s antinational attitude was when during 1948, Pak. Rangers attacked Kashmir India decided to suspend the transfer of 500 crore rupees to Pakistan which was due to it....but again Gandhi went on a fast, and to pacify him the govt. transferred the money to Pakistan. “Gandhi’s anti-national attitude” is an absurd phrase. You’re claiming the very man who devoted his life so that India can be a free nation is an anti-national? By the way, it was 50 crore rs., not 500 crore. But that is besides the point. The point is that Mahatma Gandhi in no way acted as an “anti-national” when he advocated the peaceful resolution of all the problems between the two newly-created nations. To that end, he would fast. Nothing wrong with that. Also, realize that the 50 crore owed to Pakistan was a legitimate transaction which was only halted when Pakistani guerilla forces attacked on the Kashmir lines; I agree that the suspension of the payment was a necessary reply to the use of violence on their part, but I cannot say that Gandhi was wrong in protesting the suspension because his intention was noble. (I) *** U have conveniently ignored my position that reservation produces sub standard doctors, engineers,bureaucrats, educationalists, etc. Thus, i repeat when a quarter of our professionals will be of substandrad quality if will naturally be detrimental to our society and country *** The uneducated lower castes will never be able to make use of these benifits.....thus, my stance that education and only education will uplift the lower castes stands vindicated. I “ignored” your position on that issue with it being understood that your claim of “1% benificiaries” and “detrimental effect on all of society” contradicted each other. But because I have “not under[stood] [your] viewpoint,” let us examine this issue further. The problem with the current system of uplifting the lower castes is not the principle behind it but the implementation of that principle. There is little or no political will to ensure the proper upliftment of the castes—judicial, executive, or legislative. Election Manifestos throughout the years have boasted of making equality for all and uplifting the Scheduled Castes & Tribes, but you’d have a hard time convincing a Rajasthani Dalit today that he is better off than he was 50 years ago. Providing education, as you propose, cannot be the sole method at upliftment because this is simply not enough. In the eyes of those that fervently support the caste system, a well-educated Dalit doctor is still a Dalit; by that very fact the Dalit has a lesser opportunity to find a job equivalent to his education. A Human Rights Watch report in March 1999 demonstrates just how big of a problem prejudice & discrimination based on caste is: “Between 1994 and 1996, a total of 98,349 cases were registered with the police nationwide as crimes and atrocities against scheduled castes. Of these, 38,483 were registered under the Atrocities Act. A further 1,660 were for murder,2,814 for rape, and 13,671 for hurt. Given that Dalits are both reluctant and unable (for lack of police cooperation) to report crimes against themselves, the actual number of abuses is presumably much higher. While there are not yet official figures available on killings and attacks in 1997 and 1998, the latest wave of attacks described in this and other reports confirms that the violence has continued.” Forget “undeducated lower castes” ability to “make use of these benefits”—the problem is that the very-much educated upper castes seem to be hindering the ability of the lower castes to climb the ladder to socioeconomic equality. An Allahabad High Court judge, in 1998, had his chambers “purified by Ganga jal” because it had been occupied earlier by a Dalit. This is absolutely dispicable. Caste upliftment must come from both sides, and education is as important as affirmitive action toward those being raised. (J) *** Firstly, the laws of the land have been framed just 50 yrs back by these same pseudosecularists of the INC. So they dont hold much water. Something has to be old to “hold much water”? I’m curious—how old, then do you take the laws should be before they should actually hold enough water for you to consider them worthy of being laws? (K) India WAS NOT FOUNDED AS A SECULAR NATION....India in the past 5000 yrs was NOT SECULAR.....secularism means NOT CONCERNED WITH RELIGION......but the land of India has always been concerned with religion.......In 50 yrs, u cannot change 5000 yrs of our history...... First of all, India was founded as a secular nation because the Republic of India was only founded when the British left. India was not one nation in the “past 5000 years” but in fact was composed of various empires spanning various lengths of the subcontinent. Of course the “land of India has always been concerned with religion,” why would it not? It is even today, but not via a governmental body. (L) *** Even without being secular in the conventional sense, our religion is the all embracing one and hence, it never persecuted anyone in the name of religion......so we don’t need a tag of secularism from anyone when the tenets of our religion are based on acceptance, tolerance and respect, then WHY THE HELL DO U NEED TO INTRODUCE THE ALIEN TERM SECULARISM??? The whole point of the term secular is to institute the belief that no religion is higher or more worthy of respect than another. To have made India into a Hindu nation would most necessarily have not been secular in the sense of the word, regardless of how all-embracing and tolerant Hinduism is. Because in the end, Hinduism is still a religion, a faith, a set of beliefs. What is wrong with making the nation secular? (M) Indian Muslims have always actively sympathised with terrorists.....whether in Kashmir or America....so i have no sympathy for them....if they are NOT war mongers, then why dont they come forward and publicly denouce these terrorists.....SILENCE MEANS TACIT APPROVAL OF THEIR ACTIVITIES “Indian Muslims have always actively sympathised with terrorists” you say, but in the same paragraph you say that they are “approving” the activities of terrorists by their silence. How are they actively supporting terrorists by being silent? Active support implies, at the very least, speaking in support. So you’re saying they’re both speaking in support of terrorist activities therefore making them terrorist-supporters, AND they’re being silent of terrorist activites therefore also making them terrorist-supporters? Should they be silent and talk at the same time? I don’t understand. The fact that you parade around these labels of Indian Muslims “always actively sympath[izing] with terrorists” shows you are prejudiced. I need only ONE Indian Muslim who neither “actively” nor “always” nor “always actively” sympathizes with terrorists to disprove your statement, and I can supply you with dozens of people I know personally that do fit these categories. Due to your prejudiceness, you have single-handedly labled 120 million or more citizens of the Republic of India as traitors, conspirator, and silent terrorist-supporters. (N) ISLAM NOT A RELIGION OF PEACEhttp://www.integralworld.net/harris20.html The fundamental intolerance and fanaticism of Islam are an undeniable fact. They can readily be proven from a large number of Quranic verses. I will merely give the verse numbers, so you can check it for yourself. I don’t care for your opinion of Islam. (O) ALSO YOUR ASSERTION THAT FUNDAMENTALISM EXISTS IN EVERY RELIGION IS FALSE....Show me one hindu scripture which asks people to defend their religion by means of violence and any scripture which promises a lustful paradise to the shaheeds who die in the cause of religion..... My assertion that fundamentalism exists in every religion is not false. When I say “fundamentalism exists in every religion” I do not mean that it is condoned by the scriptures of every religion. As I explained earlier, fundamentalism and extremism results from the interpretation of scriptures. And as I explained earlier, an example of this is the Bhagavad Gita. Someone could easily interpret it as saying, “because it is your duty as a warrior, you should always defend your dharma by means of violence” and someone else can easily interpret it as saying, “one should always do their duty, even if it means doing violent acts you don’t want to do” etc. These two interpretations are only examples, and they would produce vastly different results if someone were to make it their day-to-day philosophy to follow one of these interpretations. (P) KASHMIRI PANDITS DEFENDING THEMSELVES VIA ARMY? Your statement is Ludicrous... Do u mean each armyman will protect one pandit apiece??? Where were the pseudosecularists when the ethnic cleansing was being carried out in Kashmir....why do the kashmiri muslims actively sympathise with the militants......WHY? In Kashmir, the pandits are minorities...why doesnt the govt. take care of them..........DO U HAVE ANY ANSWERS??? It is ludicrous that a civilized citizenry should defend itself by the army raised by its own government? You are implying that it is more civilized for the Kashmiri pandits to go out themselves to kill their Muslim neighbors just because the militants attacking them are also Muslim. (Q) ** India is under constant attack...if we were not, then why did we have to fight 4 wars with Pakistan including the recent one in Kargil My statement to which this response was directed implied that India is not under attack internally from its own Muslim community. (S) ** The ISI is plotting against the country....the recent attacks on Ayodhya and at Akashdham are testimony to this fact. ISI building terror camps in Bangladesh and Nepal. The ISI has nothing to do with India’s Muslims as far as I’m concerned. The ISI is a Pakistani body; operation of camps in Bangladesh and Nepal by the ISI does not imply anything about Indian Muslims. (T) My friend, u should do a study of the abrahamic faiths which will prove that all these religions are anti science Wasnt galileo persecuted by the christian church......and wasnt there such a hue and cry about darwin;s theory of evolution....THat is why ISLAM DOESNT BELIEVE MODERN SCIENCE because it knows that all the theories in QUran would crumble like a pack of cards I was being sarcastic, if you did not see so, when I said I was shocked to learn that a religion could be anti-science. Of course religion can be anti-science. Hinduism has lots of anti-scientific notions. Religion necessarily requires, to a certain extent, the belief in ideas beyond the scope of scientific investigation, so it is not surprising that Abrahamic faiths are notoriously in opposition to various scientific ideas. Galileo being persecuted by the Christian Church has nothing to do with Islam being “anti-science.” In fact, Islam being “anti-science” itself has nothing to do with this debate. What does it matter to you that someone’s beliefs discount science? Hinduism teaches you to accept that person’s belief as valid for him but maybe not valid for you. (U) I have been to madarsas and asked the children whether they receive any scientific education....the answer was a unanimous "NO" Again, what does it matter that Islam is anti-science or not anti-science? Do you go to Hindu temples with the clearcut intention of learning more in the field of biotechnology? (V) religion is NOT TAUGHT IN TEMPLES EITHER Where will children learn about religion but in SCHOOLS.... So you’re saying that because religion is not taught in temples, it must be taught in schools? Here’s a radical concept: lets leave temples to be the teachers of religion and schools to be the teachers of non-religious applications of the human mind. (W) U can teach children any subject under the sun, but when it comes to religion....it becomes xenophobia??? TEACHING VEDANTA WOULD MAKE PEOPLE XENOPHOBIACS, U ASK ME TO BELIEVE SUCH! How would you feel if your Hindu son/daughter went to a school where everyone prayed to Allah, and everyone was taught to thank Allah, and everyone was required to recite verses from the Koran—all because you lived in a country where you were the minority and Muslims were the majority? I’m not saying you’d be xenophobic to teach Vedanta in schools, I’m saying you’d be xenophobic to require non-Hindus to be learning Hindu ideals in their school. (X) IF someone doesnt want to learn of our democractic process, because he says he believes in anarchy.......can that be allowed Therefore compulsory religious education is a MUST......whether u believe in religion, a god or not is secondary..... The problem with “compulsary religious education” in public schools is that India’s minority population is sizable enough to matter. (Y) *** U Said "India is NOT FOR HINDUS".....i disagree....INdia, was, is, and will be the land of sanatana dharma and its followers.....muslims should either behave themselves or find some other suitable accomodation...... I cannot find the exact phrase “India is not for Hindus” anywhere in my previous post. I don't believe I said it. (Z) U have forgotten that the partition of India was solely on the basis of religion......Hence, millions of Hindus had to leave their homes in Pakistan....and become refugees in their own country........but again it was muslim appeasement by INC which allowed the muslims to stay back in such large numbers.........sheer hypocrisy of the highest degree Are you saying it was hypocritical for people of the INC advocating religious tolerance and cooperation to say, “you don’t have to leave this country just because you are Muslim”? Sounds quite consistent to me, nothing hypocritical there. (AA) WIth all due respect, Democracy is NOT ANTI RELIGION...COMMUNISM IS ANTI RELIGION......IN A DEMOCRACY>>> Majority rules Majority rules. Again with the majoritarian democratic philosophy. I suppose you wouldn’t mind it if . passed a law that prohibited women in the workplace. Majority rules, of course, and men are the majority. I suppose you’d be okay with laws that punish Dalits for trying to overcome their low birth. Majority rules! And non-Dalits are the majority. The fact of the matter is that India and most other democracies are more pluralist in nature than they are majoritarian. Majority does NOT rule, per se. The interest groups with the greatest influence rule. That may or may not be inclusive of the majority. (BB) *** U associate nationalism with jingoism...... Again shows your petty mindedness..... The RSS appreciated hitler;s organization skills which revived german industries after WWI......They dont appreciate his persecution of jews, either..... I associate nationalism with jingoism because the latter is the extreme manifestation of the former. You cannot claim that there is no relationship between the two. The RSS appreciated Hitler’s organizational skills? That’s a laughable attempt to hide the fact that the RSS itself took Mr. Golwalkar’s book “We or Our Nationhood Defined” out of circulation. Here is an excerpt: “German race pride has now become the topic of the day. To keep up the purity of the race and its culture, Germany shocked the world by her purging the country of the Semitic races-the Jews. Race pride at its highest has been manifested here.” And Savarkar, the Hindu Mahasabha leader, declared that, “If we Hindus grow stronger in time Moslem friends ...will have to play the part of German Jews”. Wow, they sure did love Hitler’s organizational skills. (CC) *** A person must first think about his mother.....For every Indian, India is his mother......his motherland....thus, we are committed to our duties of sacrifice and renunciation of the highest degree for her and her alone........and the religion of sanatana dharma is the lifeblood of our motherland....and we have to protect its pristine purities at all costs...... And by “every Indian” you mean “every Hindu,” no? You’ve already declared 120 million Indians to be haters of their own “mother,” and I suppose the Christian & other minorities are headed in the same direction. Protecting Sanatana Dharma doesn’t mean you disassemble the presence of Islam and/or other religions in India. Protecting Sanatana Dharma means you make it live in peace alongside other faiths and show the world how tolerant and accepting and praiseworthy our ancient religion is.
  6. Azygos, my questions directed to you were numbered as such: "1. First of all, what does it mean to be anti-Hindu? 2. Second of all, how do these other parties exhibit these qualities of being anti-Hindu? 3. And third, how does the BJP exibit the qualities of being pro-Hindu?" Let's see if you answered them in your post. -->My first question was, "What does it mean to be anti-Hindu?" Your answer(s): {{{ By Anti national i mean acts which are against India;s masses....and hinduism has been india;s identity.....it is becoming weaker day by day by casteist policies being played which are further dividing hindu society and the blatant appeasement of the minorties by the pseudsecularists. }}} The blatant appeasement of the minorities? Are you kidding me? Democratic government is DESIGNED so as to appease the minorities, BLATANTLY. Democratic government is designed so that the majority cannot just strip the minority of rights and protection. Whites in America were made "weaker" when the blacks were given full rights by the efforts of Martin Luther King Jr. By your logic, this would have been a bad thing--how dare the minorities make the majority weaker!! -->My second question was, "How do parties other than the BJP exhibit the qualities of being anti-Hindu?" Your answer(s): NONE. -->My third question was, "How does the BJP exhibit the qualities of being pro-Hindu?" Your answer(s): NOT VERY CLEAR, but here they are-- {{{The BJP IS AGAINST APPEASEMENT OF MUSLIMS AND FOR RIGHT REASON....why dont the muslims give up their ante regarding the ayodhya issue....everyone knows from time immemorial that the muslims invaders destroyed the temples and idols and used the material for the construction of mosques........that is why there is NOT EVEN 1 ancient hindu temple in INDIA....except those in Khajuraho which were inaccessible otherwise they too would have been destroyed...... The muslims insist on a BABRI MASJID inspite of knowing that babar was a BARBARIAN...i feel it is blasphemy to have a holy place associated with his name but these fanatic muslims wont understand that........}}} You make the following relevant claims: (A) the BJP is agains the appeasement of Muslims (B) Muslims should give up the Ayodhya issue because Muslim invaders destroyed temples and idols & used the materials to make Mosques © You feel that holy place associated with the name of a barbarian is blasphemy, but (C.1) Muslims do not understand that you feel the association of a holy place with a barbarian is blasphemy Let's begin with (A): Is this your only claim for why the BJP is pro-Hindu? So you're saying that because the BJP hates people that aren't Hindu, they therefore should be voted in to rule the country? Your claim (B) is very flawed. You only say Muslims should give up this issue because in the past Muslims destroyed Hindu temples and idols and built Mosques over them. So does this mean that every Mosque built before the British came should be torn down and a mandir built in its place? That's simply absurd. History happened. Live with it. You can't turn back time. All you can do is make things better in the present, and violently creating more distance between Hindus and Muslims isn't something that is making the country a better place to live in. Your statement © is very interesting. By 'a holy place' I'm sure you mean Ayodhya. But my disagreement comes in when you say, "I feel" it is blasphemy to associate Ayodhya with a barbarian. Hm. Just because you feel this, it must be true. Very interesting. Can you please provide me some scriptural documentation that says, "it is wrong to have a barbarian's mosque in the same city that birthed an avatar of Vishnu"? The claim (C.1) is even more interesting. Muslims do not understand that you feel ©. That has nothing to do with anything. Forget Muslims, I do not understand why you feel this. Please elaborate. Why is it wrong to have a mosque built by an invading barbarian in the same town that birtned Rama? Would it be okay if the mosque was on the city limits? How about if it was 5 miles out, is that okay? Lets continue, though. By the way, going on tangents is fine, but please do answer the questiones I posed to you in my earlier post (that is, the 3 questions I repeated above) fully and clearly. The other things, not dealing with these above questions are addressed with the following: {{{ Secondly, gandhi blackmailed everyone by going on those falsified fastes.....no going on a fast for religious purposes is NOT wrong but going on a fast solely to make people TOE your line...TO EXPLOIT THE GOODWILL THE NATION HAS BESTOWED ON U....is a crime..... }}} You make three assertions with this comment: (A) First you say that Gandhi's fasts were "falsified," (B) then you declare that going on a fast for religious purposes is "NOT wrong," and © lastly you conclude that Gandhi's "falsified" fasts were done to "EXPLOIT" the nation's goodwill. I disagree with you on both (A) and ©. Your first statement, (A), Gandhi's fasts were fake, has no solid proof behind the statement. Your statement ©, that these "falsified" fasts were done to exploit the goodwill of the nation, also does not hold ground. Gandhi equated his religion with nonviolence. So much so that the withdrew his participation in leading the Indian National Congress when he realized that the party viewed nonviolence not nearly as universally-applicibale as he did. If a man equates nonviolence with his religion, his way of fighting, I see nothing wrong with it because he hurts no one in doing this. If a riot breaks out in the middle of any city in the world, the government of that city comes in and stops the riot by FORCE. Has the government exploited the goodwill bestowed upon it by its constituency by using force against a rioting crowd of tax-paying citizens? No, of course not. As a government or individual in general may use violence to curb a riot, Gandhi (who detested violence in any use) used nonviolent fasting to curb the riots all about him. And he had every right to protest what was going on around him, for the senseless killing that occurs in riots has no place in civilized society. {{{ The caste system would naturally have eliminated with time but for the short sightedness of B R AMBEDKAR and others who introduced the element of positive discrimination which solely benifits 1% of these lowers castes and produces substandard professionals and educators which is highly detrimental to our society, our educational system and our country[.]}}} You make the claim that B.R. Ambedkar and others who advocated the positive discrimination system were shortsighted because (A) that their system benifits 1% of the lower castes, and (B) that their system hurts society in general by producing substandard graduates, and finally you assert © that all this could have been avoided because "caste system would naturally have eliminated [itself] with time." Regarding your statements (A) & (B), you are contradicting yourself. If this system benefits only 1% of lower castes as stated in (A), how can society be hurt to a very great extent as you imply in (B)? You cannot claim both that the system is "highly detrimental to our society, educational system, and country" while also claiming that it only effects 1% of lower castes. How much damage to society can these 1% effected by the system do to the country? Your statement © holds no ground whatsoever. What would have happened if history did not take the course it took to the present is anybody's guess, and nothing more than a guess. {{{ Now it is quite clear that unless the illiterate lower castes are educated, no progress can be made.....because only then will MORE INTER_CASTE MARRIAGES TAKE PLACE, and as more such marriages take place, naturally the progeny of such marriages will be of mixed caste.....and naturally they would never think of caste anyway.....inter caste marriages are a reality in Urban India and with further spread of education among the masses, the trend will be further towards intercaste marriaes }}} I agree with you that education is necessary. But this statement in no way denies that the current system is ALSO benificial toward a casteless India. {{{I REPEAT HINDUISM IS THE IDENTITY OF INDIA....for a person sitting in Chicago it is easy to make vile arguments regarding this statement........}}} You claim that (A) Hinduism is the identity of India, and that (B) someone sitting in Chicago can easily make vile arguments trying to discount (A) and claim that Hinduism is not the identity of India. As for (A): Hinduism is not the identity of India neither by law nor by population. Just because 80% of the people are Hindu does not mean the country must be a Hindu nation. India was founded as a secular nation, a land of freedom and free of religious persecution. India is a DEMOCRACY first, and democracies do not have their identities based on religion. By claiming that Hinduism is the identity of India, you are effectively contending that the nation ought to be viewed as a Hindu nation first, a democracy second. It doesn't work that way, buddy. If you identify a nation with a religion, what you've got yourself there is a theocracy or another sort of non-democratic form of government. As for your claim (B), that "a person sitting in Chicago" cannot see Hinduism as the identity of India, I do not see the logic. I will address this concern nonetheless in the response to your following claims: {{{my friend u are not aware with the ground realities....ISLAM IS AN ALIEN RELIGION....a religion of PLUNDER, FANTICISM AND MAYHEM....ALL MUSLIMS IN INDIA ARE CONVERTED HINDUS WHO WERE IN A MAJORITY CONVERTED BY THE SWORD.....i admit some lower castes did convert willingly and some under the influence of the sufi mystics but they were in a minority }}} Here, you make the following claims: (A) I am not aware of the ground realities [presumably because I am sitting in Chicago and you are in India] (B) the ground realities include (B.1) Islam is an alien religion, (B.2) Islam is a religion of plunder, fanaticism, and mayhem, (B.3) All Muslims in India are converted Hindus (B.3.a) The majority of the Hindus that converted were done so by the sword (B.3.b) Some low-caste Hindus converted willingly to Islam (B.3.c) Some Hindus converted under the influence of Sufi mystics First, let us address your claim (A) continued from above, that I am not aware of what is going on at ground zero: this statement has nothing to do with this discussion. I do not have to physically be at a location to have the right to debate that location's goings-on. If that were the case, then this entire forum, and many others on the internet, would become useless in the fact that discussions rage across the web by people from all over the world concerning issues from all across the planet. Perhaps hundreds of years ago physical location was a necessary component to hold an academic debate on a subject, but the modern age has relieved us of that necessity. Moving on to your other claims: (B.1): I agree with (B.1). Islam is an alien religion to India. This is a fact. (B.2): I do not agree with (B.2). You are being prejudiced, ignorant, and hypocritical when asserting that Islam is entirely violent. There are 120 million Muslims living in India, are you claiming that every single one of these individuals is a plundering war monger? Islam is not a monolithic entity. The Koran's different interpretations bring different Muslims to different conclusions in life. It is unfortunate that an interpretation could arise that is used to religiously justify the violent killing of others, but this happens in every religion. Hinduism included. For example, I look at the Gita in context as Krishna having used up all attempts at peace and finally giving Arjuna the go to violently destroy his enemies. Thus, peaceful means to resolution must be sought before resorting to violence. Others, view the Gita as Krishna saying to Arjuna to destroy the enemy violently at all times because dharma calls for it. Interpretation results in fundamentalism, and fundamentalism results in violence. (B.3), (B.3.a, b, c):I see no point to these claims. Who cares if Muslims are converted Hindus? That has nothing of importance to do with your "ground realities" that you claim I am not aware of. Another one of your claims, similar to (B.2) above, is: {{{For long this argument has been made that "islam is a beautiful religion of peace but it has been made corrupt by its followers who have misinterpreted it. The time has come for the world to know at large that although it has few of the greatest truths, it has too many passages inciting violence in allahs name....and PROMISING THE SENSUOUS HEAVEN TO THOSE WHO DIE IN THE CAUSE OF ISLAM....Look at their conception of heaven...."beautiful horis dancing to the tunes of lecherous men and all women turning into horis (Read whores) to satisfy the lust of these men....the only saving grace is her youth is eternal"....such hedonism....and u call it a pure religion???}}} Again, my response is simply this: fundamentalism exists in all religions. {{{Nowhere have MUSLIMS LIVED IN PEACE.....the incidents at WTC, NY, London, Egypt, Kashmir......prove otherwise.....}}} To begin with, I offer 120 million Muslims living in peace with their neighboring Hindus, Parsis, Shiks, Jews, and Christians in India. You cannot be seriously claiming that every single Muslim in the world is a bloodthristy human being. That's just absurd. {{{As Vivekananda said "Resistance for the householder, non resistance for the sanyasin"...and since the majority are householders including the government we have the right to resistance.....}}} May I ask, WHO ARE YOU RESISTING? Are the whole throngs of the 120 million Muslims in India running after you at this very moment with spears and clubs and bombs and weapons? I think you're inventing your own "ground realities" now. {{{Do u think it is fair to teach non violence to the kashmiri pandits or other victims of terrorism? It is like rubbing salt in their wounds.......is this the idea of a practical religon...the serenity of sanatana dharma is in its practicality....It can be the religion of the atheist, the agnostic, the saint and the sinner and lastly the believer........ To FIGHT to uphold righteousness is allowed by our religion as a last resort.......otherwise our religion would have been sheer hypocrisy, since an absolute religion of non violence is IMPRACTICAL....like true buddhism is almost an impractical religion...}}} I'm not asking them to be nonviolent towards the men attacking them, I am contending that they ought to LIVE in nonviolence, toleration, and peace. If an enemy attacks them, they have the right to self-defense. And they are defending themselves via the army. Nonviolence means that they personally do not go around killing their Muslim neighbors, as what occured in the 2002 Gujarat riots and many other riots in these last 50 years. {{{If we had been strong could the islamic barbarians conquered our motherland since the battle of tarain in 1192? Could they have raped and mamed millions of our women and children? could they have killed thousands of our ancestors? could they have destroyed EVERY TEMPLE IN NORTH INDIA UNDER THE SUN? LASTLY Could we have been subjuated by 3000 Odd britishers for 200 yrs?}}} This statement has no relevence to the present. Hindus in India are not under attack by anything but their own misconceptions. Look around you, there are foreigners in India and they are not going to go away. Stop complaining and live with it. If they violate the law, punish them. They're regular citizens living in a democracy just like you are. Let's go on: {{{Finally, in the name of secularism we are KILLING ourown religion.....the muslims can teach all about their prophet and anti hindu brainwashing agenda in the madardas (which btw dont teach any science subjects either......i have concrete information regarding this for islam is ANTI SCIENCE) but hindus cannot teach about their religion, about the geeta, about the Vedanta in our schools for according to the congress and the communists (leftists) it is COMMUNALISM....if teaching hindu religion is a crime, then all true hindus should embrace this crime......to die for this cause if need be....to renunciate our lives for this cause if need be....}}} I cannot help but simply laugh at your statement "i have concrete information regarding this for islam is ANTI SCIENCE." Islam is anti-science! Oh my oh my. Do provide us this "concrete information" you possess, good sir. I would have never thought that a religion could be anti-science! How simply shocking! Public schools are not Hindu temples. Madraasas are private institutions. If you want your kids to learn Hinduism at school, send them to a private Hindu school. For those of us that are not xenophobic, we are happy with our kids learning in an enviornment where they can learn to appreciate others' differences and rejoice in the similarities. A democratic society requires cooperation. {{{u petty people sitting in the west, can make all these . crappy comments on secularism without knowing any ground realities......ur attitude is entirely anti national......do u have the courage to PREACH SECULARISM TO UNCLE SAM......recenty america gave life sentence to an islamic cleric who advocated jihad on america......WHY DONT U GO AND FIGHT FOR THAT CLERIC...and others like him in USA....but how can u for america is your karta-dharta....u have already sold your souls to materialism and hence u dont have the right to impede in our affairs....we have to think of OUR ONLY COUNTRY....of our 5000 yr old civilization which today is at its NADIR...thanks to the Congress + the communists + the casteists and its votaries like u guys.....}}} Hm. There's so much bigotry, prejudice, and stupidity in these lines of yours that I am having a hard time keeping this an academic debate and not reverting to childish name-calling like you have already done /images/graemlins/smile.gif. Let's examine this; your relevant claims include the following: (A) I and other NRI's in the West are "petty people" (A.1) Because we are petty NRI's, we do not know the "ground realities" (A.1.a) Because we do not know the ground realities, we can make these "crappy comments" about secularism (B) Mine and other NRIs' attitudes are wholly "anti-national" © We NRIs do not have the courage to preach secularism to the US government (D) NRIs should go fight so that America does not jail an Islamic cleric preaching jihad (E) NRIs have "sold [our] souls to materialism" (E.1) Because we NRIs have "sold our souls to materialism" we have no right to interfere in Indians' affairs (F) Indians must think only of their own nation (G) Indian civilization is today at its nadir because of Congress, communists, casteists, and the supporters of these three such as the NRI community Let's go ahead and discount these, shall we? First, for your statement (A)--it shows how petty YOU are by even resorting to childish name-calling. Without the NRI community, India would be in more shambles than it is. This statement you cannot deny. For a simple example, look at the recent tsunami disaster. British NRIs alone raised 16.5 million British pounds in 24 hours of the disaster to give to various charities throughout India. Read the full article at http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/dec312004/f3.asp. This is just one example of countless many. As for (A.1), we already discussed this point in another one of your comments above. As for (A.1.a), if you have no real argument against my comments besides all of the above which I have individually addressed, then shut your mouth and get back to work instead of resorting to name-calling. Are you claiming in (B) that all NRIs want to see the destruction of India? That all NRIs are "anti-national"? As for ©, many of the the American NRI community's organizations are actively involved in making American laws more secular, and many organizations are not. Just like resident Indians do not share the same opinion on issues, non-resident Indians do as well. I can't believe I just said that, I feel like a teacher in elementary school. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif As for (D), I think my reply to © addressed this--NRIs aren't some sort of monolithic body sharing the same opinions on every matter. I'm not going to go fight for someone preaching hatred, and I am not doing so right now when I disagree with you. Moving on to (E) & (E.1), are you actually claiming that all NRIs are materialistic and all resident Indians are not? Your statement (E.1) implies that because NRIs have "sold" their souls to materialism, resident Indians are not materialistic. The fact of the matter is that neither are all NRIs materialistic and neither are all Indians non-materialistic. So stop claiming one or the other. NRIs have left India to give more opportunities to themselves and their children. It's as simple as that. And most, if not all, of them feel a strong connection to their motherland. As the old saying goes, "you can take a man out of India but you cannot take India out of man." We have every right to interfere in our homeland, just as much a right you do. Especially the dual-citizens among us. I agree with you about (F). Realize, though, that "India" does not mean "Hindus;" the fact of the matter is that India is a diverse land of diverse peoples who must learn to live in cooperation as many nations throughout the world have. Your claim (G) is another statement which you just throw out there without any basis of logical debate or argument whatsoever. I asked you to answer three questions in my last post, and you failed to thoroughly and consecutively and clearly and logically answer all three. Only after you answer these three questions from the previous post can your claim (G) be properly debated. {{{Hinduism is India;s soul....it is only religion which can unite INDIA;s fractured masses......it is only by religion through which INDIAN's got their self respect a 100 yrs back when Vivekananda preached the greatness of our religion, our ideals, our family values, of the chastity of our women in the West.......}}} Ground realities, my friend, ground realities. India is a democracy, not a theocracy. This issue was discussed above. {{{remember the passion of nationalism is still ignited in millions of Indians, and it is their renunciation which will take India and her religion of santana dharma to the ZENITH once again in the time to come......}}} You sound like a Nazi when you say that. BUt that's not surprising; the RSS does openly claim its appreciation and admiration of Hitler and his policies. Fierce nationalism lead to World War I, World War II, and other great catastrophes in history. Nationalism doesn't have to mean "lets hate everything not Indian, espeically anything non-Hindu which is in India or the world." Nationalism can easily mean "lets try to do everything we can to make ours a nation of peace and harmony and prosperity for all living here."
  7. Thank you, Guest, for your comment. It is also refreshing to hear an opinion, besides Ronak's, on this forum that does not bash on mine /images/graemlins/smile.gif
  8. Maadhav, I'm still waiting for your reply to my first post directed toward you on this thread, found here: http://www.hindu-religion.net/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=hinduism&Number=82400&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&vc=1
  9. {{{ *. Gandhi was NOT a realized man....refer to his autobiography.....he was a confused man........}}} I hope that you are not saying that because Gandhi was not a realized man, he therefore was a confused man. That would just be stupidity. Gandhi knew he wasn't "realized" and never claimed to be so. No one is claiming he is, either. He even discounted the title "Mahatma" which was given to him by Tagore. {{{ 5.Charkha chalao movement......what .....even tagore criticized gandhi on this issue......gandhi had no belief in science and industries which were the crying need of india at that time rather than charkha. }}} Oh my! /images/graemlins/shocked.gif If even Tagore criticized Gandhi on this issue, your argument must be right! How fallicious. {{{ 3. Blackmailing the nation by going on fasts to make the nation toe his line even when it was detrimental to the nation.}}} So you're saying whenever someone fasts for religious holidays, they're blackmailing God? Gandhi fasted in protest. I think everyone has a right to protest, but I'm sure you and your BJP goons wouldn't agree. /images/graemlins/smile.gif {{{ 1. Appeasement of MUSLIMS....we are paying for it till today}}} {{{* The upliftment of lower castes will take place though education not by positive discrimination or by fighting brahmins.............the brahmins deserve their credit ...they were the first to find all the metaphyscial truths and thus society bestowed some special privileges on them.......however with time, absolute power degraded brahmins and all those abbhorent crimes against the lower castes took place.......}}} Are you kidding me? The upliftment of lower castes? The goal isn't to "uplift" the lower castes, the goal is to make the modern incarnation of the caste system gone. The modern system is one that assigns caste based on birth, but this was not the original intention of the system. We should be looking at ways to remove the very fabric of this birth-based caste system, and the only way to do that is to create the social disorder made by the direct interaction of all castes alike. Sure, education would help--but not just the education of the lower castes. Our "friendly" upper castes need a lesson in their own scriptures and their own history. They need to stop being such bigots and prejudiced, malicious fanatics toward anyone "lower" than them. Once you see Indians of all castes living harmoniously in foreign countries, you realize how pointlessly flawed the system really is. The goal of "positive discrimination" is to synthetically create the enviornment necessary to remove caste barriers. {{{But the BJP is the best alternative we have....all of the other parties are anti hindu muslim appeasers anti national}}} All the other parties are anti-Hindu? Answer me this: 1. First of all, what does it mean to be anti-Hindu? 2. Second of all, how do these other parties exhibit these qualities of being anti-Hindu? 3. And third, how does the BJP exibit the qualities of being pro-Hindu? The ultimate question I must ask is this: being of such marked Hindu faith that you are, how can you tolerate political hatred toward religions you do not believe in? The government is a government of the whole NATION, and the nation--whether you like it or not--is not entirely Hindu. Hell, it's not entirely Indian. It is the goal of the RSS and Bajrang Dal and VHP to make the nation of diverse peoples one which only is tolerant of Hindus, and I believe that is fundamentally wrong. Hindus and Muslims live peacefully ALL OVER THE WORLD, except for certain areas in India and Pakistan. India was born secular and must remain so to ensure the government's neutrality toward religious practice and freedom. If you go around forcibly oppressing your religion on others, how different does that make you from Christian and Muslim missionaries (which I'm sure you detest)? As so, the government must not become some sort of domineering Hindu missionary.
  10. I read your article, but I see, if I may say so, M-I-N-I-M-A-L academic merit to it. The author cites NO sources. I'm just to take his word for it? This is how ignorance is propagated. If Gandhi's efforts to the independence were "minimal," at best, would the British have given up control if Gandhi never existed?
  11. What the hell is your problem, Maadhav? /images/graemlins/mad.gif You wanna battle it out with scriptures? That's fine with me. You may want to be sitting down for this one, I don't know if your fundamentalist heart is going to be able to handle gaining this knowledge /images/graemlins/grin.gif : Peace be the earth, peaceful the ether, peaceful heaven, peaceful the waters, peaceful the herbs, peaceful the trees. May all Gods bring me peace. May there be peace through these invocations of peace. With these invocations of peace which appease everything, I render peaceful whatever here is terrible, whatever here is cruel, whatever here is sinful. Let it become auspicious, let everything be beneficial to us.--Atharva Veda: X. 191. 4 Let your aims be common, and your hearts be of one accord, and all of you be of one mind, so you may live well together.--Rig Veda X . 191 The twice-born should endure high-handed criticism; he should insult none. While yet in his body, he should not pick enmity with anyone; he should not return anger with anger; decried, he should say a good word.--Dharma Shastras: VI. Nonviolence, truthfulness, nonstealing, purity, sense control--this, in brief, says Manu, is the dharma of all the four castes.--Dharma Shastras: X. One should never do that to another which one regards as injurious to one's own self. This, in brief, is the rule of dharma. Yielding to desire and acting differently, one becomes guilty of adharma. --Mahabharata XVIII:113.8. Those high-souled persons who desire beauty, faultlessness of limbs, long life, understanding, mental and physical strength and memory should abstain from acts of injury.--Mahabharata XVIII:115.8. <u>Ahimsa is the highest dharma. Ahimsa is the best tapas. Ahimsa is the greatest gift. Ahimsa is the highest self-control. Ahimsa is the highest sacrifice. Ahimsa is the highest power. Ahimsa is the highest friend. Ahimsa is the highest truth. Ahimsa is the highest teaching.</u>--Mahabharata XVIII:116.37-41. (OH MY! How are you handling this onslaught of Ahimsa, Maadhav?! /images/graemlins/shocked.gif I fear for your extremist heart!) It is the principle of the pure in heart never to injure others, even when they themselves have been hatefully injured.--Tiru Kural, Verse 312. If a man inflicts sorrow on another in the morning, sorrow will come to him unbidden in the afternoon.--Tiru Kural, Verse 319 What is virtuous conduct? It is never destroying life, for killing leads to every other sin.--Tirukural, Verse 321 Many are the lovely flowers of worship offered to the Guru, but none lovelier than non-killing. Respect for life is the <u>highest worship, the bright lamp, the sweet garland and unwavering devotion.</u>--Tirumantiram, Verse 197 May all beings look at me with a friendly eye. May I do likewise, and may we all look on each other with the eyes of a friend.--Yajur Veda: 36.18. The peace in the sky, the peace in the mid-air, the peace on earth, the peace in waters, the peace in plants, the peace in forest trees, the peace in all Gods, the peace in Brahman, the peace in all things, the peace in peace, may that peace come to me.-- Rig Veda X The Lord said, 'Fearlessness, purity of heart, steadfastness in knowledge and devotion, alms-giving, self-control and sacrifice, study of the scriptures, austerity and uprightness, <u>nonviolence</u>, truth, freedom from anger, renunciation, <u>tranquility</u>, aversion to slander,<u> compassion to all living beings</u>, freedom from covetousness,<u> gentleness, modesty, courage, patience, fortitude, purity and freedom from malice</u> and overweening conceit--these belong to him who is born to the heritage of the Gods, O Arjuna.'--Bhagavad Gita: Chapter 16
  12. {{{ There are a few major reasons why the brits quit Bharat. Besides gandhi was not alone. he has his army of brave cowards willing to die than to get strong and fight. }}} I don't deny these other reasons. If you had read the post you replied to, I mentioned that it took one Gandhi to raise an army of Gandhians which made India free. I also acknowledge it was not Gandhi alone that caused the independence, but you cannot doubt he had a lot to do with it. Gandhi failed to make India's Muslims nonviolent? There are 120 million Muslims in India. Are you trying to tell me that every single one of those is a violent, bloodthirsty human being? Good job citing some random "British politician or historian" whose name you do not "rememger" as your proof for your argument that munity caused the Indian independence. Very credible. Gandhi's "army of brave cowards" made the whole world turn their eyes toward the peaceful revolution that erupted in India. What the hell is a "brave coward" anyways? Can one get any more oxymoronic? It's a shame that you do not appreciate that people died by the hundreds in nonviolent efforts so that your precious "Vedic dharma, Vedic society, and [sic] the Vedic land" could be free of foreign rule. Oh, hey, by the by Maadhav--why don't you actually respond to the post I directed to you? I know the fundamentalist life has its calls, but taking some time out of all that busywork of hating and Gandhi-bashing to academically respond to my reply to your first post on this thread wouldn't hurt, would it? Here's another radical concept for y'all: love for Vedic dharma/society/land doesn't mean hate for anything non-Vedic.
  13. {{{ No, I'm saying bigotry should be returned with bigotry, respect with respect, love with love and such. You cannot expect Hindus to go and become tolerant toward adharmic people who openly question and riddicule Hindusm, could you? }}} "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." -Mahatma Gandhi. Why is it wrong to question Hinduism? I'll agree that it may be wrong to riddicule it, I agree with that, but certainly it cannot be wrong to question it. Questioning it is one of the freedoms that even we as Hindus are alloted. {{{ Knowing what to do and when to do is is vital in winning a battle - whether it is physical, mental or spiritual. Attacking without a plan (or proper knowledge) is stupidity, Not attacking at all (and take whatever comes in name of peace and blind tolerance) is cowardice. }}} That's great. But here's something absurdly radical: RELIGION DOESNT HAVE TO BE A "BATTLE". In fact, religion is anything but a battle for Hinduism--it's a journey that everyone takes toward the truth. Your use of words like "attacking" and "cowardice" should have no place in religious discussions. And I know what your reply is going to be--"But those Muslims! They attack! They hate!" You know what? That's great. If they attack you, go ahead and defend yourself. If they attack India, it's okay that India defend herself. But what the RSS and Bajrang Dal does is by no definition "defense" because they willingly go out on the offense to attack Muslims in the name of Hinduism. In any case, Muslims, just like Hindus, are not pawns in some sort of super-oiled machine out to destroy anything they view as different. There are 120 million or more Muslims living in India, and have been living for quite some time. Have the vast majority not shown that they are willing to live in peace? Of course there will be members who don't want to live in peace with others, but those kinds of people can be found in ALL religions. Even Hinduism! {{{ Wrong ... standing for one's own right IS NOT adharmic. Peace and Tolerance exists ONLY if BOTH SIDES give and take peacefully and with tolerance. That is not happening now (or since Islam comes to India). }}} I tend to disagree. There are millions of Muslims and Hindus living today in peace and tolerance of each other all over India. Only fundamentalist factions on either side go about screaming for each others' blood. {{{ You don't see the logic because you do not understand Dharma. [...] Matter a fact, each person who sees adharmic activities and choose to ignore it, thinking that to fight it is adharmic and therefore, should blindly follow some notion of peace and tolerance ARE adharmic themselves. }}} Wow, I could not have seen a more Christian viewpoint at some church gathering. Enlighten us, Sephiroth, what is dharma? What are adharmic activities? /images/graemlins/smirk.gif Does meat-eating count as adharmic? If so, then the vast majority of Hindus are guilty. {{{ Which means, if a Buddhist sees a Rapist trying to rape a woman and does nothing, foolishly thinking that it is the woman's Karma to suffer such, then the Buddhist is guilt of raping the woman as well as the rapist. }}} Like Krishna said, inaction is also a source of karma. I'm not saying we do not act. I'm saying we act with peace and tolerance, and that means we do so even in the face of violence and intolerance. Making yourself above your opposition is honorable and noble, in every sense of the word. Of course if you're under violent attack from anyone, you have the right to defend yourself, but this defense is in no way in opposition to LIVING in peace and tolerance.
  14. Krishnadasa, {{{ How can one say the sentense like "Similarly, all the purposes of the Vedas can be served to one who knows the purpose behind them." is similar to or same to the sentance like so unnecessary are the scriptures to someone who has seen the truth }}} I think you're not looking at it right. Prabhupada's translation says, "all the purposes of the Vedas can be served to someone"--that is, someone can be in the possession of ALL THE USES OF THE VEDAS--"who knows the purpose behind them". "Someone who has seen the truth" is someone who knows "the purposes behind [the Vedas]". So if you've seen the truth, you already have with you all the uses of the Vedas, and at that point, you personally do not need the Vedas anymore to study from (because you already have all that knowledge and more). {{{ And then this age of kali where the poeple in genaral ( including vaishnawa or brahmana) have very low memory, its very well needed to refer them now and then to lead correct and dharmic life, this is quite evident i believe }}} See this is the problem with Hindus today--they expect to be "led" to the truth. The truth isn't something anyone can be led to. The truth must be found by your very personal journey, maybe with assistance from scriptural sources. I'm sure you agree that in this kali age that you keep referring to, there is too much chance that the person who is "leading" another person to the truth is not actually a knower of truth himself. {{{ Scriptures are important even for vaishnawa, he leads his and others life using them , however the usage coud be tangible or intangible }}} Who says scriptures aren't important? My quote says scriptures are of no use to someone who has seen the truth, and the vast majority of people have NOT. Therefore, to these who are not knowers of the truth, scripture may be important. All this confusion on your part displays that either you never really thought hard about my quote and just took it at face value or that you are just not able to comprehend well. Whatever the case, pleace construct a decent argument before wasting all that space again. A+ for effort. /images/graemlins/grin.gif
  • Create New...