Azygos

Enough of this ISHKON NONSENSE....

 

the time has come for the deeds of this fanatical sect

to be known to one and all

 

1. Bhagavad Geeta as the words of Krishna -> And those beautiful words had been lost for ages. And who re-discovered them??? The advaitic Shankara.....

 

2. Prabhupara was a mediocre teacher at best....his commentary on geeta is full of errors...it seems he did not have a introductory knowledge of the sanskrit language

 

3. ISHKON has done more harm than good for India. It is associated with hindu fundamentalism all over the world. All they did were convert hedonist hippies, who were unfit for any kind of religion

 

4. Recently ISHKON had to settle sexual abuse case with 10 million $. You fools, learn something from the Ramakrishna Mission which does so much for social welfare. You people, dont do an ounce of good, and yet have the audacity to attack great teachers like Aurobindo, Vivekananda and Ramakrishna!!! Hypocrites, all of you......

 

 

 

 

STOP THIS NORTH INDIAN SOUTH INDIAN .

 

We are all indians first and indians last.....

 

Moreover, advaita is not shiva worship. Adiata is absolute monism, nonduality

 

 

Stop deciding who is greater Shiva or Vishnu. Have you

seen any of them yourself??? WHo are you to decide!!!

 

 

Read some different commentary of the geeta, not the one

by prabhupara!!!

 

I will recommended swami sivananda's version of the geeta

or any published by the ramakrishna mission [www.sriramakrishnamath.org]

 

Then you will clearly understand that Krishna asks NOT to surrender to him [or krishna the god] but to your own atman...which is the brahman...the absolute itself

 

Regards,

Saurav

I cannot say, if there is a definite meaning to existence, but one must strive to know about it. All the sensual pleasures in this world cannot satisfy our senses, and there is indeed something much higher than them.

 

->> In the long run, all desires can bring only misery, and it is better to shun them, especially sexual ones as they sex and spiritualy are incompatible.......I am myself trying and struggling....but one must set an ideal and work towards it

 

->> Working in a service organization, and serving the downtrodden is good for one's spiritual upliftment. If you truely have the desire, then definitely go ahead.

 

->> Also, you should continue to read spiritually potent readings.... i would definitely recommend to you the 'complete works of swami vivekananda -> http://www.ramakrishnavivekananda.info/

->> Works of Swami Rama Tirtha www.ramatirtha.com

->> Works of Swami Sivananda http://dlshq.org/download/download.htm

 

* Prayer and chanting is indeed helpful in the spiritual path but solely chanting "hare krishna" will not do, atleast it won't enlighten anyone except in the rarest of the rare cases.

* Karma (action), jyana (knowledge of discrimination) and meditation (raja yoga) are essential too

 

Regards,

Saurav

 

 

1.There is no subtle difference between the saint and the sinner. The former manifests a greater part of the divinity than the latter. Evil and good are like the two banks of a river. THe difference between the saint and the sinner is only in degree and NOT in Kind

 

2. THe law of Karma is not that easy to comprehend. There are various types of karma. That is why, i recommended you to read those lectures but you prefer to live with your preconceptions; within a fool's paradise.

-> The atman does not suffer but due to the effects of imbalance of material qualities or gunas of sattvas, tamas and rajas gets deluded into the belief of suffering. All the suffering and joy in this world, is due to maya...the magical power in creation, emanating from the brahman itself which creates the barriers of time, space and causation. When maya is transcended by yoga, then the apparent reality or delusion is lost, and man understands his real nature.

 

3. Nope, it doesnt work that way. Bharata in the ramayana even in his deathbed, was thinking about his beloved deer, so in his next life he became the deer itself. It is not that if u do, one good deed and one bad deed they will cancel out. You will have the fruit of the good deed and the fruit of the bad deed too. "EVERY CAUSE HAS AN EFFECT, EVERY EFFECT HAS A CAUSE". THis is the basic premise of the law of karma. But remember, the Geeta explicitly mentions Krishna asking Arjuna to forfeit the fruits of work, "work for work;s sake -> to NOT think of the results or the fruits of your action"....only then can karma become a valid path to realization.

 

Regards,

Saurav

 

 

 

 

Dear Donna,

 

Howsoever preposterous your posts might have proven to be, i would still request you to avoid unnecessary slander on any religion without even knowing its tenets.

 

The basis of Hinduism is not on idols, and niether on multiplicity of gods. The gods are the forms in which the bhaktas have seen them.

 

Sanatana dharma recognizes the fact, that all people are not in the same position to envisage the highest truth because of their past karma/samskaras which dictate their present state of intellect. THus, the forms of worship like rituals, idol worship, etc are as essential as the higher forms. Man moves not from error to truth, but from lower truth to higher truth

 

The problem with you, and your religion is you have a shopkeeper's attitude towards religion. You pray to god, and he showers you with gifts. You convert a 100 people and u get a ticket to the sensuous heaven. WHen the goals are so immoral, how can the means be anything but blatantly hedonistic

 

To a hindu, his religion is renunciation and love.

Thus say;s the geeta "work for work;s sake", "love for love's sake" and "duty for duty;s sake"

 

Hinduism;s final vedantic conclusion is Advaita which states that man is god. [some sects like the Vaishnavs believe in qualified monism, with god having both a personal and impersonal aspect]. However, all other religions, except Buddhism + certain judaism sects are merely dualistic religions. A creator god ruling over the hapless humans, he is niether benevolent but can be cruel like Jerovah of the old testament......He demands faith and torments the infidels in the fires of hell...

Sorry, but Hinduism prefers Not to believe in such illogical concepts where u have a creator god.

 

If such a religion satisfies you, so let be it. If the disparity in the world doesnt move you; and doesnt make you question the impartiality of your creator god; then let be it. THe fact of the matter is, you are yet NOT ready for the true religion -> for what else is religion but realization of the highest truth. But there is hope, for sanatana dharma beholds everyone as potentially divine and each will realize his divinity in the time to come.

 

Regards,

Saurav

 

 

To work the right u have but not to the fruits thereof -> follow this basic message of the geeta

 

There is nothing wrong in making money by following a rajasic life. But, the aim of life is self realization and not just materialism. Working hard to make money is good but just in case, you dont succeed in your endevour, dont lose heart. Perhaps, you are here to do infinitely greater things than the ordinary pursuits of money making

 

And finally, you and only you can make your own destiny.

 

You might also like to refer to the karma yoga lectures by Swami Vivekananda -> available online

http://www.ramakrishnavivekananda.info/vivekananda/complete_works.htm

 

Regards,

Saurav

The difference between other religions and Hinduism is, the goal of Hinduism is to directly perceive god or the absolute truth within this mortal frame as the only means of moksha.....

 

hence, hinduism might appear complex but the truth was never easy........

 

several gods.....because we need symbols....in this world encompasses with maya.....to describe anything we need 2 things; name and form [nama rupa[

 

Idol worship is a lower form of spirituality.....one must go higher and higher....transcend, the need for idols he must

 

However, dont make the mistake of neglecting symbols....from the cross in christianity , to facing the mecca while praying all are symbols

 

Hinduism has the concept of nirguna brahman. But it cannot be envisaged by the human mind. For every thought in mind, there is a form as its counterpart. Hence, the need for symbols

 

U are wrong to mention, that no idols have been found from harappa.....idols of bulls [nandi], etc have been found

Moreover, most ancient indian temples in North India were destroyed by the invaders [mostly by the islamic barbarians]

 

To get a better perspective of Hinduism, i would refer to you the lectures of Swami Vivekananda; especially his paper on Hinduism which he presented at the . of religions. Also refer to the lectures on Bhakti yoga [for the need for symbols], karma and gyana yoga

 

http://www.ramakrishnavivekananda.info/vivekananda/complete_works.htm

plz dont impose the theory of ahimsa on Hinduism.....the geeta explicitly mentions to fight to defend righteousness, but only as a last resort when all other measures of peace fail.

 

The aryan society did eat beef but later gave it up

The ramayana has explicit passages which mention eating of meat and drinking of wine

 

Finally, vegetarianism out of compassion for animals is excellent thought, but not out of dogma

 

Swami Vivekananda himself ate meat....and he was realized....so it is vaishnav myth that meat eaters are doomed......

 

 

The puranas mention a man can live for 10,000 yrs. The vedas mention a man can lives on an average for upto 100 yrs. Which to believe?

 

 

Chaitanya;s philosphy and what Krishna quotes are qualified monism. The problem is in within the realm of Maya, the brahman can be expressed only as dualistic or qualified monistic / visitadvaita

 

Man moves not from error to truth, but from lower truth to higher truth. hence, niether is dvaita or visitadvaita wrong but they are lower truths than the highest truth of advaita. The verses of Geeta are all about interpretation, depending upon the spiritual quotient of the aspirant there are no rules involved. Hence, Krishna;s teaches Arjuna to move from Dvaita -> Visitadvaita -> Advaita taking recourse of all yogas.

 

 

Reading bhagavad geeta as it is, without a good commentary is dangerous for beginners because there is great danger of misinterpreting the statements of Krishna.....

 

Sorry, you have reduced Hinduism to a dualistic religion like Christianity. THat is not the essence of Hinduism

The problem with all abrahamic faiths is if the existence of their founders like Jesus becomes disputed, the whole religion will fall flat. But in Hinduism, even if Krishna;s existence is belied, nothing will happen because the very basis of Hinduism is in its principles. There is no place for personalities.

 

but it is also gita who says that who

surrenders to krsna, leaving all other duties, he's saved.

->>here Sri Krishna assures us that if we want to go beyond all Dharmas (actions and endeavours to become Free), the desire that springs from the sattvik guna of Prakriti, the only recourse left to us is to seek God without the adjunct of Maya. This is Advaita, pure monism!

 

->>The important point to remember here is that as a concept, Sri Krishna preaches only Advaita, but as method - Yoga - to reach that level of Absolute Consciousness, to realize the Highest Truth in principle (the Tattva of it) one has to start with the worship of God with adjuncts of Maya -the personal God or Ishwara.

 

 

if you say that prabhupada is a dvaitist, you have not studied him enough to criticize.. maybe you have not opened a book

->> Any person who declares that freedom is only in believers of Krishna but not for others, who declares that jyana takes us merely to higher materialistic worlds, who declares that mayavadis are fools, who delcares that the highest goal is to be in brahmaloka seems to be a dualist and nothing more.

 

Read this article to clear some doubts

http://www.geocities.com/neovedanta/gitac.html

 

Regards,

Saurav

 

 

Swami Vivekananda has mentioned time and again to dump the puranas when they contradict the vedas......My point is when two things contradict each other, only one of them can be right. When the upanishads categorically mention there is no hell, the puranas by bringing in hells, contradict. Hence, Hinduism will become a religion of contradictions if we agree to both puranas and vedas.

Moreover, the vedas and upanishads are infallible. No person who doesnt believe in them is a Hindu. But, a Vaishnav and Shaivite can dispute over the several puranas and yet be Hindus at the same time. Also, upanishads are timeless while most puranas where written around 200 A.D.

The puranas were the exoteric path while the upanishads were the esoteric ones. Thus, upanishads will always be the primary scriptures and puranas as the secondary scriptures......

 

Hell fearing persons are no good to society because all they do is abuse the karma kanda part of the vedas. They are not constructive, their lives are either rajasic or tamasic. Only a person who does work for work;s sake, love for love;s sake, who believes in the brotherhood of all beings can be truely sattvic. And only the sattvic person can attain sat-chit-ananda.

 

 

Love conquers all fear.....

 

There is nothing to fear for we are all eternal beings.....

 

Why marry a muslim when you already love someone.....why endure a heartbreak when you can avoid it.......

Suppose, you marry a muslim and he isnt compatible with you, you will have to undergo silent suffering for a lifetime........Life will become a living hell.....

 

God cannot punish, he can only be benevolent......

 

If you really feel, you love him and the feelings are mutual and reciprocated by your bf, then do go ahead....life is not about living in fear......

Realize god with your husband, whom you can look to the ideal

 

Marriage is NOT a compromise until you want it to be one....It is a sacred act, not a means to satisfy lust....

it is a lifetime commitment and not mere investment......

 

However, do discuss all these problems with your bf and try to gauge his feelings on this issue. Only if the feelings of love are mutual, and not merely attraction is it worthwhile for you to make a sacrifice of this nature.

 

You dont need to convert to christianity to marry a christian. There are court marriages too.

 

I know this will not sound pleasant but let the laws of Islam go to hell....Islam would have been a very good religion but for the fact that its laws are still archaic. Laws are not made by god, they are made by men. And they change with the vicissitudes of time. Thus, the laws of Islam which did serve a purpose 1500 yrs ago are no longer valid in the modern day world.

 

Even in Hinduism, we had lawbooks like ManuSmriti but no longer they are followed because many of those laws are NO longer applicable to the modern day world.

 

 

 

 

 

The problem is you are interpreting the bhagavad geeta from prabhupara's viewpoint and it is in direct contradiction to the highest viewpoint. Karma will lead to the highest, so will gyana, so will bhakti...

 

Buddha was agnostic, yet he attained nirvana

 

Secondly, the path of the bhakti is very good only for the emotional type

For the active person -> karma

for the psychic -> raja

for the philosopher -> jyana

 

Since, no person is absolutely classifiable under any of these cateogires, following an amalgum of all 4 paths is the ideal

 

No dualist can attain nirvikalapa samadhi.....at that point man will stand on Krishna;s head according to Krishna himself.......

 

Dualism and qualified monism are lower truths than advaita....Prabhupara couldnt realize advaita but that doesnt mean Vivekananda, Ramana Maharshi, etc didnt realize it. Even brahmaloka will disappear when the true feeling of oneness is attained......

 

Also, Prabhupara;s idea that only those who surrender to Krishna will be saved is just a parallel of catholics who say those who surrender to jesus will be saved......this is the disadvantage with dualism because it is NOT all inclusive, all embracing like advaita

 

THe debate on dvaita and advaita i feel is immaterial.....if you feel dvaita is the highest stick to it, but i dont feel you have the right to point fingers at advaita before realizing nirvikalpa samadhi......

The religion of Hinduism is based on principles, not on personalities, not even is it based on Krishna.

 

Regards,

Saurav

 

Again, the hells are in puranas which are smritis and whenever they are in contradiction with the srutis, dump them!

They are only good as long as they agree with the srutis

 

Regards,

 

Saurav

 

 

There can be either god or you???

 

God is within you, the brahman is within you.....

 

Sri Krishna explicitly mentions in the geeta that karma

can lead to the highest.... the warrior who dies in the

battlefield can attain moksha

 

Gyana is not dry intellect....it is the knowledge of

discrimination....gyana is ALWAYS greater than bhakti

 

The path of bhakti is beautiful for one can enjoy god

in it. Yet, it will not the highest realization....

It can never serve the purpose of the agnostic

 

Hence, gyana is true merging of the atman with the

brahman.....it is only in the path of gyana that

maya....the power emanating from brahman which is the

root cause of time, space and causation, dissolves

Only when maya dissolves can the state of sat-chit-ananda

be acheived.

 

Prabhupara, great as he was, was ultimately a dualistic teacher

The final conclusion of vedanta is advaita....or absolute monism

Hence, Vivekananda;s assertion that all 3 paths of

dvaita, visitadvaita and advaita are true, and advaita is the highest truth is the fundamental truth which has to be realized.

A dualist can never attain the state of nirvikalpa samadhi

(absolute loss of body consciousness), hence he can never envisage the absolute true nature of brahman

 

Regards,

Saurav

 

Yes, if one wants to work the path of bhakti, then chanting is essential.

 

But in the path of karma and gyana it is not required

 

Even in raja yoga, ordinary chanting does not help.

 

Regards,

Saurav

 

But the question has merit for the kabbalah judaism is mystical, and to compare and contrast it with the mysticism of the upanishads would be interesting, indeed.

 

Regards,

Saurav

 

Nowhere in the vedas or the upanishads is there any concept of Hell......if there was a hell in Hinduism, then we are no better than the abrahamic faiths....a few vague concepts of heaven or higher materialistic worlds is there is the rigveda but the concept slowly is discarded in the upanishads....and the upanishads are the highest of the srutis...

Some smritis might have hell concept; i have not read much of the puranas but the puranas are secondary literature and whenever they come in conflict with the srutis (upanishads) they are to be discarded without much ado.

THus, you wont find one line of hell in the upanishads.

 

God niether rewards nor he punishes.......even in the dualistic frame

When we move onto visitadvaita and then advaita; the logic of heaven and hell becomes an absurdity of the highest degree. Unfortunatelty dualistic teachers try to engrain an imaginary concept of hell in hinduism, but the truth of the matter is hinduism has no hell.

 

 

 

 

Regards,

Saurav

 

I dont think you necessarily need beeds to chant. They are all symbols, and you dont need too many of them.

Chanting is generally beneficial when the guru initiates the disciple into a particular mantra.

Of course, you dont really need a guru until you are ready. "When the student is ready, the teacher wont be far away"

 

Regards,

Saurav

 

Well, Islam like any dualistic religion has its follies.

Like the concept of Hell......Hinduism and Buddhism dont have any concept of hell. God / Allah niether rewards nor he punishes. No one is doomed, niether the atheist nor the sinner nor the believer.

 

I dont know whether Quran disowns you, but allah or god wont disown you. He cant, because you have the divinity of god within you.......so go ahead if you feel your love is true.....all sacrificing....and renunciating.

 

Regards,

Saurav

 

 

 

My objection is, first, that it would not be practical to have Muslims learn of Islam, Christians learn of Christianity, Hindus of Hinduism, etc

Again, where there is a will, there is a way. There is nothing impractical about the issue

 

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?

So you are labeling children as born atheists? Sorry, rarely is a child a born atheist. However, I get your point. What if the children’s parents are infidels? My answer is simple; suppose the parents believe in anarchy or dictatorship? Even then, we have to teach about democratic ideals to our children. Secondly, parents have no right to thrust their nihilistic views on their children, as it is detrimental to their moral, ethical health. It doesn’t matter whether you are atheist or agnostic? Doesn’t matter, if the child has no faith. For the greater good of society these values have to be taught. Our thinking changes with the vicissitudes of time, hence it is natural that a child may follow other doctrines in the time to come.

 

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. The reasons are very much there. People don’t know the importance of religion because they have been too busy making money in this age of materialism. By the time, they realize its felt need they are too old to do anything worthwhile. If you feel the people are disinclined towards teaching of religion to their children; why not discuss this issue nationwide. I am confident that the Majority wants their children to be given religious education, if it is given free of cost at school level, without involving any hassles on their part.

 

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

 

How does teaching religion make a government biased? Treat religion as any other subject like social sciences. Neither does religious teaching impede democracy in any way. Hinduism does not need a label of merit from any institution. It is above all merit.

 

 

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?

Again, you err in your beliefs. I agree it is a personal search for the truth but without the maps one can be lost forever. The question is not what I will have the children be taught. The curriculum has to be universally acceptable. And ever since Vivekananda has proven the truth of all the 3 paths of Dvaita, Visitadvaita and advaita, there cannot be any problem about teaching of the scriptures. It is important to realize we are not here to make philosophers out of men. Only the BASICS of each vedantic path needs to be told. Just tell the children “These are the truths which the Aryan rishis found out, and you are most welcome to believe in the ones you relate most favourably too”. Along with that, we need to teach our children the epics of Ramayana and Mahabharata so they develop the necessary pride for their country’s cultural and religious heritage, which is nonpareil. ONLY WHEN THE INHERENT PRIDE IN BEING INDIAN IS THERE IN EVERY CHILD OF THIS COUNTRY CAN THIS NATION PROSPER. Hinduism is not about being judgmental as to this and only this is the absolute truth. All we need to tell the children is this is the possible truth which was found by our forefathers and they mention the following path to be followed for anyone else to realize the same. As a child grows older, he will develop the necessary intellect to discriminate between the various paths and choose the one he feels is right. Or he might decide not choose any path at all.

 

I thought you believed Islam to be a religion which is “making bad men out of” Muslims?

I stand by my statement regarding Islam. But it cannot be denied that Islam has some of the greatest truths too. Thus, deleting the objectionable passages (inciting violence against kafirs and promise of heaven, etc) and teaching the verses having merit is more rational. This is how the religion of Islam can be reformed to be a modern religion for the 21st century.

All religions including Islam ask people to follow a virtuous life. Although its my personal belief, its only Advaita which explains the reasons behind being virtuos.

"Man must love others become all those others are himself"

 

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

It is, indeed. The root cause of Hindus not being aware of their religious heritage is the secularization of our country. Hindus are not aware because they are not taught about their own religion. The result is they acquire all kinds of superstitions and beliefs. DO I NEED TO TELL YOU ABOUT THE ORIGINS OF MYTHS IN HINDUISM? Hinduism acquired its share of myth and superstition during the Islamic rule when Hindu teachers were not able to teach their countrymen of their own religion. Like, the degraded position of women in society; where they are told that Hinduism is antiwoman while the truth is Hinduism is the most androgynous religion, where both men are women are considered equal halves of the divine. Thus, Hindu people not knowing about their own religion; think about Hinduism as some degraded entity. And because any person who tries to teach religion is branded as communal, these myths are not dispelled from the minds of impressionable young minds. These lasting impressions can last for a lifetime and thus only contribute towards weakening of the religion of sanatana dharma.

When followers of the religion start harbouring doubts about the validity of their own religion, how can that religion be expected to survive??? Thus, the greatest danger against sanatana dharma is its drastic neglect by its own followers.

 

it can survive 5000 years w/o government interference 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 the basic problem with your thinking. You only want India to survive, and I want it to reach the pinnacles of the modern world. For 3000 yrs kings of India patronized the religion of sanatana dharma and that is why it flourished. But just as soon as Ashoka stopped the patronization of Hinduism and embraced Buddhism; the latter overran the entire religion of Hinduism. And now when the govt. distances from all religions (but maliciously supports Islam) the religion of Hinduism can only be weakened!

 

And for growth, one needs patriotism and nationalism of the highest degree. India can only be a united country when sanatana dharma rules………if we can unite the 80% of people following sanatana dharma then and only then will begin the renaissance of India. When people realize that although we might not be economically very strong but our spirituality is inimitable only then will develop among them the necessary pride and patriotism. Not before that! And I stand by my remarks about most Muslims being inherently antinational.

 

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 question is not who I am? The question is who are the parents to impose their non religious attributes on their children. The duty of the parents is to give children a good education, and that includes religious education. Our duty is not to produce decadent elite, but the highest morally, ethically, renunciating men and women. Once a child is an adult; he has every right to leave his religious fold, embrace nihilism, atheism, hedonism or any doctrine he wishes to, but before that he needs to be provided the truth of the ages, represented in sanatana dharma or the other religions.

 

Because spiritual knowledge will somehow relieve us of competition…???

Again it’s your lack of insight. Do you know quite a few students commit suicide or go in severe depression on not clearing competitive exams (especially in India). With spiritual knowledge, one realizes that the sole aim in life is not to earn big bucks, enjoy and be merry. If one doesn’t clear exams; there are other alternatives, which are equally good. All work is good; everyone is great in his own place. Disappears the feeling of inferiority and comes the feeling of equanimity. The aim of life is realization of the true nature of man; rather than getting caught in the rat race.

 

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?

I personally value??? This song has been valued for hundreds and thousands of years by India. And today reciting it becomes taboo. Because we have changed the inherent nature of our own motherland??? My question now is “If more than 90% students have no problem in reciting the song; then because of the remaining 10% we will destroy our own culture, our own sacred heritage of the past.

If a muslim boy has problems reciting the song; he can simply walk out from the assembly. No one is being forced to sing the song. But if 90% children want to sing the song; then they have every right to!

Tolerance does not mean SELF DESTRUCTION. And the destruction of the religious and cultural heritage of the past; in lieu of an alien secular heritage is the 1st step in the degradation of the nation.

 

 

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?

It was an act of necessary evil. If now any muslim tries to damage our temples; he will be served a strict reminder of what we are capable off.

Sometimes, to curb barbarism one has to be barbaric!

And why do you not understand my point…will a church named after Hitler be acceptable with the Christian community. Then how can, a mosque named after Babur be acceptable to the Muslims. How can they accept a mosque built by a barbarian in his name? Or is it they accept Babur as a hero; who destroyed the temples of the infidels!

 

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

The historical knowledge you talk off, has been doctored by a few British and congress leaning Historians along with Marxist historians. The truth of the matter is; Gandhi;s contribution in the freedom struggle was MODERATE. Clement Attlee remarked that the role of INC was MINIMAL.. The chief cause according to him why the British had to free India; was because the Indian Army was at the point of revolt; thanks to the efforts of Subhash Chandra Bose. I admit that it might not be the absolute truth but it must have some relative truth. I refuse to buy the theory that one man, howsoever great he may be, bought us freedom.

 

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

You cannot see the harm they are doing the country? By keeping 50% of their population comprising woman as illiterate and ignorant, making fundamentalists of their children, preventing their children from getting modern education, breeding like rabbits; are these innocuous beliefs in any sense of the word?

 

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

That can only occur with the installation of a UCC. And the congress government; in its ardent desire to appease the muslim votebank will never do so. The BJP is the only hope regarding this issue. Here I pose you a question? If the muslims have a sizeable elite women population who are not fundamentalist then why don’t they demand a UCC from the present congress government? What STOPS them? A person like Shabana Azmi who raised such a hue and cry about Gujarat never utters a word condemning the fatwas issued by the deoband ulema like the recent one forcing the female electoral candidates to observe purdah. Niether does Javed Akhtar, aren’t these guys who represent the muslim elite! A bunch of hypocrites, that’s what they are! The truth of the matter is the elite Muslim women in India take all possible steps to perpetuate Muslim patriarchy to satisfy their egos concerning the religion of Islam.

 

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.

Anti Hindu is anti national, not being Hindu doesn’t make one anti national. The question is not in being Hindu, but in framing and favouring policies, which are against the majority hindu population. HIV/AIDs victims are from every strata of society. Thus, we need to find their cure. If you reserve seats for Muslims, at the cost of economically downtrodden Hindus who vastly outnumber these Muslims; then you are being antiHindu and anti national at the same time.

 

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.

 

Affirmative action in America is not same as positive discrimination in India. Reservation of seats is not to the extent of upto 30% unlike India. Moreover, I don’t need to agree with the American viewpoint. We are knowledgeable enough to think of our own solutions; we don’t need a sanction from an American viewpoint!

Waiting for decades; yes we have been waiting for 5 decades and you yourself admitted it has not served any purpose. Reservations DO NOT bring about equality but only widens the gulf between the castes. This is again because you are not aware of the ground realities. I have talked to many Americans on this issue and they all unanimously condemn affirmative action. And the American education system is too smart; to allow it to get degraded by churning out substandard professionals.

 

The reason the lower castes continue to suffer in the villages is because of their decision to side with leaders like Mayawati who also play the worst kind of votebank politics. It is high time, they realize the folly of voting for illiterate, shortsighted leaders like Mayavati who are opportunists to the core, who are exploiting the dalit masses for their own vested interests.

 

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 .

 

What about the people who actually participated in 9/11 and 7/7 attacks? I mean the suicide bombers themselves. They were not playing political games, my friend; life is too precious to be sacrificed for political goals. Those bombers were guided by the verses in Quran, which promise the shaheeds the lustful paradise when they die defending their religion from infidels/kafirs.

 

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 .

 

I know; that my statement is too bold for comfort. But believe me the normal muslim people you talk about are in a minority atleast among the Muslim elite. I will give you a talisman. Pick up any Indian newspaper and go the letters to the editor section. Find letters by Muslims. They are always defending the wanton acts of terror via muslims; by calling on the plight of Muslims in Palestine, etc/ I am yet to find a single letter in recent yrs which unconditionally denounces these terrorists or their acts. And I read three national newspapers everyday

 

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

 

Yes the concept of the country gels well with them; only when the country is Islamic. India is not an Islamic country and kafirs or infidels dominate it. So how can the average muslim be nationalistic. He will rather be affirming his solidarity and brotherhood with his brothers on the Pakistan side. So why didn’t they go to Pakistan on partition? Financial reasons and nothing else. They wanted to have their cake and eat it too. Going to Pakistan would have meant foregoing their lands which was not acceptable to them. It is money, which makes the word go round; even religion takes secondary precedence during such instances.

 

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).

So India; a religious powerhouse since 1000 AD was a theocracy. Who gave u such ludicrous ideas! Havent u read Vivekananda;s address at the . of religions. Ours is the land, which offered shelter to the persecuted Jews and others through the ages. Every citizen has the right to choose his own religion but Hindus also have the right to propagate their own religion. Why are educational institutions of the minorities including the despicable madarsas not taxed while similar counterparts of Hindus are?

 

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

Hinduism not shattered the least bit? Indeed it has been weakened. Hindus are enervated today and it is because of the weakening of sanatana dharma. I mentioned before the innumerable myths, superstitions, sectarianism which arose in Hindu society, which became ultra-conservative during the foreign rule. Yes, religious goes away when people become unaware of their own religion. When they associate it with evils plaguing the society. When teaching religion becomes taboo, then religion is destined to be doomed.

 

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”.

Indeed, if the higher caste BPL families had jobs they wouldn’t be in this category, would they. Do you have any statistics indicating the caste distribution of 250 million BPL citizens in India?

Don’t time and again, tell me about US govt;s actions. Do you know about the levels of unemployment in India? That is not the case in America. Do you also know about the social security system in America, which is not existent in India? Affirmative action in America is NOT at the cost of the white masses, while that in India is at the cost of the higher castes.

I repeat, in cities I can clearly see only lower caste people who are economically and socially at par with higher castes, being benefited by the policies of positive discrimination.

 

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.

 

Sorry but this what the apparent truth seems like. In America, after 9/11 scores of Muslim groups came out in a symbolic show of support and solidarity with the American people. They denounced the terrorist’s acts in one voice, Unconditionally.

That is what I expect from the Indian Muslims and nothing less. And so far, it has not happened…. not even in one instance. What we get here are either 1) Complete silence 2) Muffled voices of some condemnation coupled with the reasons justifying those barbaric acts which are either the Kashmir cause, Anti Muslim policies followed by USA in Iraq, Israel’s occupation of Palestine, etc. So HOW TO INFER that these Muslims are peaceful by nature. Nothing in their actions support your view!

 

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.

 

That is because; Hinduism;s concept of evolution also includes the necessary concept of INVOLUTION. There can be no evolution without a precipitating involution.

Just like a tree cannot rise from a seed unless a previous tree was there for the seed to be existing.

To go with the notion; that Darwin’s theory are absolutely true is more of scientific superstition than rationality. Remember, in America they are now considering teaching the children “Intelligence Design Theory”

 

There’s not Vedic scripture that goes out and says, “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 .

 

The mathematical proofs are absent, I agree. But the Indians never felt the need to prove theories. The law of gravitation existed forever. Newton proved it in the 17th century but it doesn’t; mean that it didn’t exist before that. Hence, Indians discovered the principles behind these theories or atleast they were aware of the germ behind these theories but they never cared to prove their theories. You should know that Indians tried to find the oneness among all knowledge. Quantum mechanics and Vedanta philosophy can be both brought under one conclusion and I feel that someday in future it will be a reality.

 

It is not Islam being “anti-science” that is detrimental, it is the lack of education And where are they going to get that modern education? Madarsas???

It comes back to square one… Islam doesn’t allow teaching of Science.

Arabs preserved the knowledge. But they didn’t use it; that’s for sure

 

Can the Muslims give one good reason why they have been voting for the INC and other pseudosecularists for the last 50 yrs. What good has it brought them? The plight of the average Indian Muslim hasn’t improved for the past 50 yrs and neither will it improve by continuing voting for them. The Muslims of India need to come out of their delusion of persecution from the BJP before its too late. When they stop behaving as a votebank with a herd mentality (voting on the call of the fatwa issued by the mad mullahs), only then will all parties including BJP consider their welfare.

 

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”.

 

Now let me interpret it this way;

Germany tried to enforce their one culture theory on its Jewish population. But the results were a catastrophe. The experience of them is a reminder to us that to try to replicate that idea in Hindustan the same way would end in disaster. Hence, the one culture cannot be imposed on all but all groups should have the right to practice their own culture, their own way without hindrance from the government.

Now, what is wrong with his assertion?

 

 

So beief in Hindutva excuses his belief that what Hitler did to the Jews Hindus should do to the Muslims?

Savarkar;s ideology was Not perfect. If the great Mahatma can make blunders like not condemning the Moplah Rebellion and the Calcutta riots, why not a few mistaken words from Savarkar

 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS?

 

1. BJP incited the Gujarat riots?

A. No, it were the Muslim fanatics who burned to death 100 kar sevaks in the sabarmati express train.

2. Appeasement of any kind becomes wrong, the moment it becomes detrimental to a nation’s security, unity, economics, and liberty. Thus, Hindu appeasement is bad like Muslim appeasement. But except the issue of the mosque there have been no instances of Hindu appeasement while Muslims have been appeased for the last 90 yrs by the INC.

3. BJP and RSS have several ideological differences. For instance the RSS ideology believes in swadeshi, while BJP actively pursued a policy of disinvestment and globalization while in governance. Even at the moment, Advani and RSS have several differences. With time to come, BJP is likely to go its own way.

4. Rama would also NOT condone; the compulsory spiritual disarmament which led to destruction of his own temple. Don’t drag Rama into it. He doesn’t care about temples; but people do. Sometimes; to destroy barbarism you have to be barbaric yourself.

5. With the statement; I meant these laws had been framed by the pseudosecularists congressmen who didn’t have the consent of the people. They were NOT elected representative in the true sense of the word No referendum was done among the people of India on whether they wanted a HINDU RASHTRA OR NOT. India should have been secular if India remained undivided during independence. But since the representatives of the Muslims themselves opted for partition; when religion became the deciding factor regarding nationality what was the need for India to be secular. 99% of Hindus in Pakistan had to move into India; then why the hell did we allow the Muslims in India to stay back. Was not the INC answerable to the people? How could Nehru and Gandhi thrust their own principles of secularism on the nation without the consent of the masses? And let me remind me you time and again; that India was NOT secular at the time of independence. Indira Gandhi added this word to the preamble.

6. Can Hinduism not prosper under a secular government? The answer is NO. Atleast not under the Muslim appeasing INC government. We are spiritually not free because we cannot practice and teach our own religion to the masses. We cannot sing religious songs in schools. We cannot utter a word regarding religion in public schools. And this is preventing our children from knowing about our glorious heritage. And when we bring up a generation of Indians ignorant of the glories of their past, ignorant of the glory of sanatana dharma, then we only produce the same decadent elite which was left behind as a legacy of the British government. Without morals, without ethics, without renunciation, without any pride or patriotism! WHY IS RELIGION A TABOO SUBJECT? I only agree to that secularism which maintains all citizens as equal and having the freedom of right to practice any religion. And Hinduism has given that right to all from time immemorial Thus, the role of secularism is giving the right to practice a religion; not curbing the right to practice it. It is about giving the right to propagate one’s culture and heritage, not curbing it. Only when you realize this, will you realize the dangers of the practice of pseudosecularism to the spiritual freedom of India.

7. In a muslim country with all students chanting allah;s name; I should have the right to walk out from the assembly. I deserve the right as an individual not to sing such songs. But i have no right, to expect that the majority population will share my views and not sing such songs.

 

Regards,

Saurav

 

Hinduism is a science "the science of realization". Hence it does not seek conversion of faith......true conversion is "conversion of character"...

 

IN the advaita vedanta; there is only one final conclusion; man is god himself; everything else is apparent reality due to power of maya. Thus, logically everyone is a Hindu this way. FOrmal conversion is unnecessary except for performance of last rites if one so wishes.

 

Regards,

Saurav

 

Lets analyze your replies;

 

I have several objections to this statement. First and foremost, religion has no place in public schools whatsoever

->> Sorry, but it’s the lack of a distant vision. I stand by my statement

 

 

Teaching “Hindu religion and culture” to non-Hindu children would most certainly alienate them and create more separation by religion

->> You are right; it indeed might be the case. And hence, non-Hindu children should be taught their own religion. I thought, it was very elementary. Hinduism was never a missionary religion; it does not seek to convert people of other faiths into its own fold. We believe everyone has to work for his own salvation. We believe not in conversion of faith, but in conversion of character.

 

 

Secondly, I absolutely believe that Hindu religion and culture is not something to be taught systematically but is something to be experienced

->> The difference between sanatana dharma and other prophetic creeds is Hinduism does not ask us to believe in God but to directly perceive God. Thus, you are again right when u say that religion has to be realized. Your wonderful footnote from the Bhagavad-Gita also mentions “all scriptures are unnecessary for the realized”. 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. Childhood is the period where all these questions about life and death first arise. Though a child is an eternal optimist, and nothing attracts him more than trivial sensualities, 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. In modern day society where we are witnessing the alarming rise in juvenile delinquency cases among adolscents, the phenomenal increase in stress among them, addictions and loss of ethics/morals, along with host of non-communicable diseases never seen before in children it is only religious nourishment that can conquer these ills plaguing modern day society.

 

->>Also, why teach Freud and Jung in psychology to the exclusion of Patanjali and the Upanishads? If we teach anything related to Hinduism in schools, it becomes communalism!

 

The propagation of Hindu religion and culture necessarily falls on the parents and the family environment in general, and also to temples and other exclusively Hindu organizations—not public schools. -

 

>> 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. They have no idea about the concept of eternity of soul, have foolishly started believing in alien concepts of heaven and hell, don’t know why they are worshipping these idols, and cant name 5 sages of yesteryear. Leave alone the Sruti scriptures; they have no idea about even the smritis. A few months a middle aged woman, our neighbour mentions to me that Maha Shivratri is celebrated because it is the birthday of Lord Shiva. 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.

 

->>Parents are ready to enroll their children in all kinds of extra curricular activities but when it comes to religion; they shirk off. 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.. 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. Thus, teaching of Vedanta in schools throughout the land is the need of the hour. And following the age-old adage “if Mohammed won’t go to the mountain, the mountain will come to Mohammed” can do this

 

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.

 

->> The schools run by the Ramakrishna Mission, The Arya Samaj have consistency achieved the highest scholastic accolades. And they impart religious education along with secular education. Thus, your concept is stereotypical and mine is revolutionary.

->> And this might come as a jolt to u, but in schools run by the RSS throughout the country, more than 15 students have cleared the IIT entrance examinations last year. And this yr, a muslim girl studying in a RSS aided school in Delhi secured 95% marks in her CBSE XII exams. And it’s your inherent folly to believe that the RSS tried to thrust Hindu religion upon non-Hindus.

However, the madarsas with their persistence on anti science, are enervating young Muslim boys and girl which is detrimental to the nation as a whole. More on that later

 

I’m saying you’d be xenophobic to require non-Hindus to be learning Hindu ideals in their school -

>>By now the confusion must be clear. Hindu ideals are for Hindus only. But if they cannot sing the Saraswati Vandana which is very secular to me or the Vande Mataram then they can walk out

 

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.

 

->>I was avoiding bringing this topic on history rewriting. However, u have now compelled me to debate this issue too

 

that Jesus Christ wandered the Himalayas and drew his inspiration from Hinduism

->>There is indeed some merit in this statement. According to Paramhansa Yogananada, author “Autobiography of a yogi”, Jesus came to India, and attained enlightenment here before going to preach in the west.

 

You have sited a paltry 3 instances of RSS history rewriting which are indeed deplorable. But nothing can be more deplorable and more denigrating than the blatant history rewriting of these antinational pseudosecularists. The destruction of any civilization is always done through distorting its history. A version of history is created to turn the victims into villains and the destroyers into heroes.

Some instances

1. Propagation of the myth of the Aryan invasion theory : the main forces behind the Aryan invasion theory, and of education policy in general, was the conversion of Hindus to Christianity to make them accept British rule. According to the Aryan invasion theory, the Vedas and Sanskrit language were brought by these Indo-European invaders and not native to India. (This is now demolished by science and also the decipherment of the Harappan writing.)

2. Aryans were barbaric: no self respecting Indian can adhere to such ludicrous statements

3. Aryans destroyed the Harappan civilization: conclusively disproved.

4. The atrocities and barbaric acts of terror and mayhem unleashed upon India by the forces of Islamic terror led by Md. Qasim, Ghuri, Ghazni, the slave dynasty, Alaudin Khilji, Timur are unparallel in the annals of human civilization. They came for JIHAD-> total war against all including civilians. These barbarians massacred millions of Hindus, raped Hindu mothers and daughters and made them their slaves, destroyed every single Hindu temple in north and east India, plundered all the wealth of India, and last but not the least forcibly converted millions of Hindus by the sword.

5. And yet, these leftist historians led by Romila Thapar, Irfan Habib, P S Sharma have time and again distorted these truths. None of the history books authored by them (and followed by the CBSE board) mention these atrocities or wherever mentioned have been diluted beyond recognition by the naïve child. According to them the 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! Their very motive of attainment of the sensual heaven was pleasing Allah through their wanton acts of destruction of the idols of non believers. The very writings of the court poets of these conquerors are testimony to the fact. But here is what Babar himself says in his autobiography, the Baburnama. "Chanderi had been in the daru'l-harb [Hindu rule] for some years and held by Sanga's highest-ranking officer Meidini Rao, with four or five thousand infidels, but in 934 [1527-28], through the grace of God, I took it by force within a ghari or two, massacred the infidels, and brought it into the bosom of Islam." And when in a particularly happy mood, he wrote the following poem: For the sake of Islam I became a wanderer; I battled infidels and Hindus. I determined to become a martyr. Thank God I became a holy warrior. And what did he find interesting in India? "Hindustan," he wrote, "is a place of little charm.

The one nice aspect of Hindustan is it is a large country with lots of gold and money .In other words, he came to India attracted by loot. Hence, I stand by my statement that any 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

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.

7. Glorification of the Mughal Rule: No rule, not even the British did as much damage as the mughal rule. It was an era of dark ages of the Indian civilization, an age of nescience, decadence, superstition and fear. Yet, these historians have glorified this very age as the pinnacle of Indian civilization! The chapter on akbar is titled “Akbar the great”…akbar and great! To call a man great who had a harem of 5000 women, such hedonism of the highest degree and u call him great….The same Akbar who killed 50,000 unarmed Rajputs who had surrendered to him after the fall of Chittor….the same Akbar who forcibly married several Hindu princesses……his only saving grace was that he abolished the tax of jeziya on non muslims and founded the neutral religion of din-I-ilahi. Thus Akbar was more civilized when compared with his predecessors or successors but in no way was he great; neither in degree nor in kind.

8. Next the chapter on Jahangir and Shah Jahan is titled “The age of magnificence”. I would aptly rename it as “the age of decadence”

9. Great centers of learning like Nalanda, Vaishali, Sarnath, Vikramashila, Taksha-shila, and many more — they attracted students from all over Asia and the world. Following the Islamic invasion of India, all these centers were destroyed. In the centuries following, during the next eight hundred years, not a single university was established by any Muslim ruler. This was a Dark Age worse than what overtook Europe in the middle Ages.

10. Next the freedom struggle : The name of Sri Aurobindo who became the first extremist (read nationalist) president of the INC in 1910, Pune Session of the congress deleted. 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.

11. Bhagat Singh, Chandrashekhar Azad method;s were morally weak. What right do these third rate historians have to rate patriots who renounced their life for the cause of their motherland. Subhas Bose whom Clement Attlee described as the root cause of India;s independence was sidelined in favour of Nehru by who else, but these very false historians.

12. To the victor belong the spoils it is said. So does history. In more homely language, President Harry Truman said: "History is always written by the winner." By this he meant that the victorious side invariably seeks to impose a version of history that shows itself and its leaders in the most favorable light. The truth of this is reflected in the way history books were written after India gained independence. They dinned into the heads of impressionable young students that the Congress party and its leaders fought long and hard to free the country from European domination. In particular, our history books told us of the Herculean struggles of Mahatma Gandhi and Pandit Nehru without which India would have remained a British colony.

13. Just as ancient and medieval history have been distorted under Congress patronage, history of the Freedom Movement has also been dressed up to favor the Congress and the Communists. This distortion has the following three parts: (1) Building up the role of Gandhi and Nehru while suppressing the contribution of others, notably Subhas Bose. (2) Whitewashing Gandhi’s terrible blunder of supporting the Khilafat Movement and the atrocities of the Mopla Rebellion that followed. (3) Whitewashing the treachery of the Communists

 

->>But what else can be expected from these Marxist Historians whose deification of Marx, Stalin and Mao will put the counterparts of any theosophical religion to shame. And these very communists supported China against India during the 1962 war!

 

->>I admit the RSS is not the ideal for propagating Hindu ideology. Like u mentioned, those instances of mentioning Taj Mahal as a Hindu temple of yore are gratuitous indeed. The need of the hour is portrayal of truth and the only truth. There is no scope for fantasy in History of any kind.

 

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 indeed my friend, Islam is monolithic in character. The religion is based on one book which further supplements as a law book. 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.

 

->>Ahh…women in Islam? The very nature of the religion of Islam is ANTI WOMAN. Mohammed himself mentions that there are very few women in paradise and to always beware of women. No self-respecting woman in this civilized world should be Muslim.

 

->>Instead of admitting that the religion of Islam is in need of drastic reform, u are instead trying to circumvent this very question!. Remember, the question of women empowerment will not arise, until the laws to protect their rights of living with honour and dignity are already present. The very woman who are subject to discrimination accept their fate meekly by surrendering to the will of almighty Allah who made men to master women. When majority of muslim women in India are illiterate (much more than their Hindu counterparts) how on earth do u expect them to fight for their rights. There might be a few exceptions…but they will always remain exceptions rather than the rule

 

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

 

->>Consensual, legal, constitution: all 3 words are very much within the domain of a democracy (of any kind!)

Cannot find anything wrong with that..

->>This very man, Advani had the courage to highlight the secularist nature of Jinnah;s speech in Pakistan for which his own position among the Sangh parivar and the BJP reached its nadir. 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!

 

They used the bandwagon of Hindutva to sweep power and abandoned it when they no longer felt it was needed.

 

->>The ideology of Hindutva was never abandoned. But in a coalition government, the controversial issues of Ayodhya, Article 370 and UCC had to be sidelined. Moreover; the BJP never had a simple majority of its own; leave alone a 2/3rd majority, which is required for the necessary amendments to the constitution. Hence, these policies had to be put in the backburner for the greater good of the country. And the NDA led government was able to provide a first class government whose foreign policies (especially regarding Israel, USA and Pakistan), economic policies (of liberalization) were indeed nonpareil.

 

how does not “appeasing Muslim demands” constitute a pro-Hindu attitude

 

->>The only reason u cannot visualize it, is your lack of insight. 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

 

Again, how does being anti-Muslim make the BJP pro-Hindu?

 

->>The BJP is not Anti Muslim. It is against appeasement of Muslims. And since the appeasement policies hinder the growth of the country spiritually, economically, educationally, from the point of human rights these policies deserve to be dumped into the pits of hell from which they arose. May they return from whence they came!!!

ANYTHING NATIOANLISTIC -> PRO NATION -> PRO INDIA -> PRO Hindu

 

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.

 

->>Oh, the shibboleths of you self-acclaimed messiahs of peace are so alike.

Your statements don’t make sense to me, and this is why;

1. Hinduism does not ask people to break mosques but it doesn’t say not to defend its places of worship. And all the time, the cacophony all pseudosecularists and u too emit is the BJP destroys mosques. 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!” And Mark my words “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”

2. The only other evidence u can present to me about BJP’s Anti Muslim leanings are the Gujarat Riots. But those very riots were triggered by the mass murder of 100 train bound innocent Hindus by some fanatical Muslims. And more than 300 Hindus were themselves killed in these riots during crossfire. True, around 1000 muslims were killed, the majority of them being innocent of the crime. But let me remind u that Hindu Muslim riots have taken place earlier also…..in Bhagalpur in Bihar under a congress regime. And they were incited by Mr. Rajiv Gandhi. This is evident from Mrs. Sonia Gandhi;s conduct in Bihar, where her reversal of stand over President’s Rule led to massacres of innocent people about which she had nothing to say.. I do not know what made her change her stand on Bihar overnight. I don’t know why she and her followers never bothered to visit the victims of the tragedy And this very man called Rajiv Gandhi incited the 1984 Sikh Riots against which the Gujarat Riots will pale in comparison. So, if the BJP is communal the congress is 100 times more communal. And because you don’t agree you are also communal in a broader sense. The difference between the fanatics of VHP and you is only in degree and not in kind.

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

 

Question on Hindu appeasement : The BJP has never appeased Hindus. If its policy on the Rama Janambhoomi issue has popular sentiment it cannot be helped. But the congress has gone against fundamental principles; of “Freedom of speech and expression” by banning anti muslim books which have been written by creditable authors. If Islam cannot see constructive criticism then is it the fault of the Hindus?

 

 

The BJP is against giving citizenship to & supporting criminal Bangladeshi Muslim immigrants.

 

->>But it does depict the anti national character of the congress party. To put the security of the entire country in peril at the cost of maintaining its Muslim vote bank! An insecure and unstable nation is a bane for all Hindus of India. And I have proved that nationalism is pro Hindu.

 

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?

 

->>All your sophistry is in vain. If the same reservation was made for Brahmins below poverty line it would have decried by the congress and its votaries like you as communalization of politics.

There is no place for religious reservation is a secular country.

 

I support the UCC not because of religious and nationalistic ideology but because of a liberal commitment of equality of law for all .

 

->>Again, depicts your lack of insight into the need for UCC. You have contradicted yourself time and again and this statement is no exception. Don’t u realize that India is a country of massive cultural and regional diversity. Among Hindus, there are innumerable castes, and subcastes, and regional diversities. Naturally, the customs, the mores and the laws vary from region to region. Hence, a UCC will result in egalitarianism of the Indian society as a whole; not particularly Hindu or Muslim society. Hindu extremism can never be a national ideology via the UCC. There is no place for extremism in UCC. If someone believes in such pipedreams let him do so

 

Note, however, that majoritarianism in democracy is notoriously recognized to be detrimental to minority rights

->>It is not. The fundamental rights are the same for all citizens irrespective of caste, creed, and religion in any democracy.

 

 

So you’re now claiming that most of the 120 million Muslim men, women, and children living in India sympathetically rejoice at terrorist attacks

 

->>I Never used the word rejoice. And these people always criticize terrorists onditionally. WHen Osama killed millions the most liberal of them would say "yes he is bad but look at the cause of this! the cause is US support for ISRAEL;s actions on palestine"... 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.

->>Hence, such conditional apologies hold no water. The denouncement of such acts of inhuman terror has to be UNCONDITIONAL.

 

Would you not agree that people everywhere in the world are always innocent until proven guilty

 

->>You can prove guilty via two counts. One through direct evidence. The other via circumstantial evidence, which is whopping

 

BUT NOW LET ME COME TO THE BROADER QUESTION OF WHY ISLAM AND NATIONALISM ARE POLES APART

Islam has often been glorified as advocating the brotherhood of man. Yes, it does but in a very narrow sense of the word. It advocates brotherhood among all Muslims, but all non muslims are labeled Kafirs or Non believers who are destined to rot in hell. Dogma divides and nationalism unites. Since, there is no concept of country in Islam, there can be no nationalism either. Instead, we find Indian muslims shrieking hoarse for the rights of fellow muslims in Palestine, Europe, USA and defending their grotesque acts of terror. Hence, the Muslim is always in a catch-22 situation; his dilemma of whether to be loyal to his country or to his religion.

 

 

The more practical solution was to live in cooperation with the foreigners

 

->>Sorry, I have to rephrase this statement of yours. “The more practical solution is for foreigners to live in co-operation with the natives”.

 

Why don’t the Muslims realize the sentiments of Hindus”—what sentiments do you speak of?

 

->>I speak of the sentiments of persecution and intolerance which the ancestors of the these very muslims inflicted on our Hindu forefathers. 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.

 

All you can do is find a way to live the present so the atrocities of the past cannot be repeated

 

->>Indeed, that is what the BJP has done. Strength is life, weakness is death. Spiritually, compulsory disarmament has made us unmanly! Just like the story of the snake and the sage. “A snake comes in contact with a sage. The sage asks the snake to follow a life of ahimsa. The snake agrees and the sage departs. But when the sage returns after few days he finds the snake battered by the villagers and close to death. The snake said he followed his principle. The sage replied ‘But u could have always hissed!” And never will anyone mistake our ahimsa for weakness. 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

 

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

 

->>I don’t care about sense of the word as secularism is a western term with no Indian counterpart. And let me remind you, that the word secularism was NOT there in our original preamble but was later inserted by the Ex-Pm Indira Gandhi. What else can u expect from a bird-brained woman who signed the dubious Simla Accord.

 

->>Making the nation secular, means weakening religion. The countries of the west are not moved by religion but by Science and politics. 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……

 

Here I quote Sri Aurobindo ;

 

When therefore it is said that India shall rise,

it is Sanatana Dharma that shall rise.

When it is said that India shall be great,

it is Sanatana Dharma that shall be great.

When it is said that India shall expand and extend itself,

it is Sanatana Dharma that shall expand and extend itself

all over the world.

It is for the Dharma and by the Dharma that India exists

 

THE QUESTION OF GANDHI

 

As Karl Popper once observed: "If our civilization is to survive, we must break with the habit of deference to great men. Great men make great mistakes”

 

Instead of leading a national movement, Gandhi started a gigantic non-cooperation movement in support of something called the Khilafat.

 

Most history books today mention the 1920 Non-Cooperation Movement, but barely note what gave rise to it — the Khilafat. As a result, most Indians believe that the Non-Cooperation Movement was the first great struggle for freedom launched by the Congress under Gandhi’s leadership. It was nothing of the sort. It was a movement in support of the theocratic goals of the Khilafat: in fact, it was called the ‘ Khilafat Non-Cooperation Movement’ . Its aim was to persuade the British to restore the Sultan of Turkey who had lost his empire following the First World War. This is an important point: the Khilafat Non-Cooperation Movement had no national goals. Its demand was not freedom for India, but the restoration of a discredited theocratic ruler in far away Turkey whom the Turks themselves didn’t want. And strangely, Gandhi and the Congress supported this irrelevant goal to the extent even of suspending Swaraj! If anything, it was anti-national.. The Turks themselves under Kemal Ataturk eventually drove their Sultan into exile..

 

By no stretch of the imagination can the Khilafat be regarded an issue affecting the nation or Swaraj. In return for his support for the Khilafat, Gandhi obtained, or thought he obtained Muslim support for launching his nationwide nonviolent non-cooperation movement. In order to get their support, Gandhi went on to redefine Swaraj to mean support for the Khilafat. In his words:

 

"To the Musalmans Swaraj means, as it must, India's ability to deal effectively with the Khilafat question. ... It is impossible not to sympathise with this attitude. ... I would gladly ask for the postponement of the Swaraj activity if we could advance the interest of the Khilafat."

 

So Swaraj, which previously meant self-rule, became transformed overnight into support for the Khilafat — to restore the Sultan of Turkey! Let us not forget that the Congress, only a year earlier, had adopted Swaraj (as independence) as its goal. Yet, Gandhi was telling the nation that the restoration of the Sultan of Turkey — whom the Turks themselves eventually kicked out — was more important for him than Indian independence! The result was a ‘jihad’ by Muslim leaders against the British that was later turned against the Hindus. It led to the death of tens of thousands of innocent people all over India. It was particularly virulent in Kerala where it is known as the Moplah Rebellion which is known for its sheer brutality on women. But what can u expect from the majority of muslims who look down upon women as an object of lust gratification.

 

And Swaraj as the goal did not return to the Congress until 1929. In other words, Gandhi and the Congress gave up the cause of freedom in support of a faraway theocratic institution called the Caliphate. How can this be called nationalism? And how can its leaders — including Gandhi — be called ‘national’ leaders?

 

And even Md. Ali Jinnah, was against the Khilafat movement.

 

As I just remarked, Swaraj returned to the Congress agenda only in 1929, leading to the Civil Disobedience Movement in 1930. It was a similar story with the Civil Disobedience Movement also. After the magnificent promise of the Dandi Salt March — organized mainly by Sardar Patel — Gandhi abandoned his followers in midstream in return for the Gandhi-Irwin Pact. Here is what happened though history books today seldom present the true facts.

 

2. This very man Gandhi who walked his principles of ahimsa was so stubborn and arrogant about his principles; he was so self-righteous that without mincing words; his was a dictatorial attitude of the highest degree. Aren’t u aware of the millions of Hindus who were killed in the riots in Calcutta during partition. Who is to blame but Gandhi?

 

4. He labeled Bhagat Singh, Azad and others as terrorists. The perpetuators of the Moplah Rebellion were not criminals but he had the audacity to call these great freedom fighters as terrorists.

 

5. And finally a Mahatma is a man who has renounced the world. What did Mr Gandhi renounce in his life. After enjoying marital bliss for 20 yrs and after having four children he decided to take the vow of Brahmacharya at the age of 37 when possibly he was drained of all vigour. Infact, at that moment he even advocated the concept of brahmacharya. The hypocrisy of the man is too well evident now, first he enjoyed all lustful desires and then goes on to become a self conferred saint. If he was so uncomfortable with the tag of Mahatma he should have rejected it that very moment instead of hanging it around his neck like the dead albatross!

 

 

 

THE CASTE QUESTION

 

 

The problem with the current system of uplifting the lower castes is not the principle behind it but the implementation of that principle

->>1.The principle is the primary problem, hence its implementation will remain a utopian dream. For the basic principle that lower castes are being discriminated in cities is absolutely false. I live in Delhi and I can assure you that there is not a single case of caste based discrimination. And this is the case with all major cities and majority of suburbs. Caste based discrimination exists only in the remote villages. And there the benefits of the positive discrimination will never percolate.

 

->>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.

 

->>3. In the extremely competitive Indian education system of competitive exams, merit should be the only criteria. Thousands of higher castes students who for no fault of theirs; except that perhaps few of their forefathers had committed some atrocities against the lower castes; are rejected inspite of securing much higher marks than their sc/st counterparts. This only creates a sense of disillusionment against the system and discrimination, which further widens the rift between the castes in society.

 

->>4.The statistics you mentioned have not much value. For 2814 rape cases are nothing in a country where every day more than 10 women are raped. And secondly dalits not reporting cases to police is a thing evident only in villages, not in cities and suburbs. I am aware of the ground realities and you are not. Isolated incidents (high court judge instance) should be brushed aside rather than extrapolated as a generalization.

 

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

 

->>Hence; chuck off this system, which has not borne fruit in 50 yrs by your own admission

Dalit doctors can find a job much easily than a higher caste doctor because reservations exist even in the post graduation arena. A well educated Dalit doctor abused the positive discrimination system; hence he is looked down upon. If that very dalit doctor had cleared the pre-med exams on merit, the scenario would have been entirely different.

And who will like to get treated by a substandard doctor? Will you???

 

 

As I explained earlier, fundamentalism and extremism results from the interpretation of scriptures

 

->>I will just pose you a simple question? Which religion has caused the most bloodshed in the history of mankind. The answer is Islam.

 

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.

 

->>The muslim neighbors are hand in glove with the terrorists. Or else why will the terrorists selectively cleanse Hindus only? And why do the muslim neighbors never publicly denounce these so called militants. No, pandits are too weak to fight their muslim neighbors. And as soon as one innocent muslim neighbor is killed accidentally by armymen; a hue and cry, innumerable rallies and protest come out in support of the deceased. All human rights organization start pulverizing these armymen who are sacrificing their lives for the country. But let a hundred hindus be killed; and not one word of condemnation escapes the lips of these muslim neighbors. They are all a bunch of fanatical hypocrites.

 

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 .

 

->>But with whose help does the ISI plot their targets. Like in the attack on .; the involvement of four muslims was highlighted and one Mr. Geelanai escaped because of lack of concrete evidence whom the court held “very suspicious behaviour”. And he is a member of the muslim elite teaching arabics in Zakir Hussain college; who publicly demands a free state of Azad Kashmir.

 

Hinduism has lots of anti-scientific notions. Religion necessarily requires, to a certain extent, the belief in ideas beyond the scope of scientific investigation

 

->>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.

->>Many of the stories of the puranas have a deeper metaphysical explanation which are all scientific. And anyway the puranas are all secondary. Show me a line of the Upanishads which is unscientific. Our religion explains law of conservation of energy, matter energy interrelationship, wave and particle nature, etc. Max Planck was a self conferred Vedantist. And Michael Faraday was highly impressed by Vivekananda. The latter had asked him to research the matter energy relationship but Faraday failed while Einstein succeeded.

 

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? Again, what does it matter that Islam is anti-science or not anti-science

 

->>Yes it does! An anti science religion is detrimental to the progress of the nation as a whole.

1. Many muslims have notions that polio drops will make females infertile and men impotent. And hence, we are still short of eradicating polio

2. Muslims refuse to use Oral contraceptives, condoms because it is against their religion. And their fertility rate refuses to go down.

3. By refusing to study science, they don’t get jobs -> no jobs -> poverty, illiteracy ignorance -> back to square one. A vicious circle is envisaged

4. Refuse antenatal care for their women by male doctors. High incidents of MMR and IMR.

5. Concept of Purdah is detrimental both to mother and child.

 

->>Europe in 1600-1700 fought against the antiscience ethics of Christianity and only when science won did industrial revolution come up in Europe to achieve prosperity and the high standards of living.

 

“ 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

 

->>Race pride at its highest indeed.I don’t see anything in here which highlights Gowalkar praising Hitler or espoused his persecution of Jews.

 

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

And his book “The first war of independence” influenced millions of Indians and brought into them a deep sense of nationalistic pride.

And this freedom fighter spent 14 yrs in Kalapani (the jails of Andaman). Niether Nehru, nor Gandhi can claim any such Sacrifice. Bose and many other nationalistic leaders looked upon Savarkar as there ideal and his concept of Akhanda Bharat was supreme unlike the congressmen who had no qualms in diving the country for their lust for power.

 

THE SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM:

It is NOT that Muslims are bad. They are like any other people but it their religion which is making bad men out of them. And they ought to denounce it now for their present and future.

The muslims need to be retold that they are all converted Hindus and they are most welcome to come back to their original religious fold. Especially the muslim women; who have for centuries been exploited by their men in the name of Islam. The only other alternative is reform of the religion of Islam which is indeed a more dangerous proposition as it will incur the wrath of the mad mullahs who are the guardians of their book.

Until that day dawns, when this ageless and timeless Sanatana Dharma is enshrined as the national ideology and the foundation of nationalism, regardless of which political party is in power, India is an incomplete nation. The sages have done their work. It is for us, the ordinary people — and especially the leaders — to heed their call and build this spiritual nation. Until that day India is politically free but not spiritually free.

Jimbo, before defending Gandhi learn to spell him right:)

 

Unfortunately your basic premise that the war of mahabharata has no signifance in modern day world is grossly incorrect.

The danger has never been so grave from the forces of darkness as it is now, represented by the islamic terror spreading its tentacles throughout the world, being further strengthened by the coterie of islam apologists, along with the effete self conferred messiahs of peace, who never understood the fundamental meaning of the geeta.

True, our civilization has survived the vicissitudes of time unlike the romans, the greeks, the arabs. But it is your folly to imagine that it is solely because of non violence

* The indian civilization has never persecuted or conquered any lands, the greatness of which is nonpareil in the annals of human civilization.

* Chastity is the bedrock of any civilization. It is this quality which has preserved the framework of our civilization since its inception.

* Strength : it was the innate strength of the Aryans which made them successfully resist invasion after invasion from the barbarians of the west.

 

Around 1000 AD when we started losing the quality of strength and because of the abuse of the caste system,our nation was subjuated first by the barbaric mughals and then by the decadent english, the price of which we are having to pay till today, by being still labelled as a third world country lagging behind in all respects. It is high time, we imbibe the true meaning of the geeta within our hearts and souls, for the renaissance of modern India as a prosperous, developed modern day nation even while maintaining our eternal fountains of spirituality

 

Regards,

Saurav