Gandhi and hinduism.

[veluthukaran 0]

i read that he believed in brahman only, and regarded epics as stories only, purpose to express a philosophy only, not to be taken seriously. please tell me i am wrong.

[maadhav 0]

he was a jain at heart, not a hindu,

but posed as hindu to further his political agenda.

 

he did not study koran and hadith,

and so never knew how barbsaric islam is.

 

he was politician first, and not a mahatma per prabhupada.

 

[veluthukaran 0]

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

[Guest guest]

He was a sanadhani hindu whose ideals were right upto a point of time,but went outdated later.He naively believed that by showing love jinnah can be won over.He believed that by supporting the khilafat movement unconditionally,muslims will abstain voluntarily from eating beef.

 

He was a naive politician who won when he faced an enemy who played by rules like british.But he wasnt prepared to face a sly fox like jinnah.I dont deny that he had a mammoth role in liberating india.But he did one great service to India unwittingly.He seperated India.Imagine an india with bangladesh and pakistan.Pseudo secularism would have been at its peak then.

[Guest guest]

Priya vaishnava

 

I back each and every word of you. U hit the nail right on the head.

[maadhav 0]

me too priya vaishnava.

 

gandhi won agains the british becaue the brits wwre not muslims. besides, if you ask the brits why they quite india, they would say in your ear, "it was the possibility of mutny by the indian army."

 

gandhi lost against the muslims.

 

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

 

 

[Guest guest]

Yes Gandhi believed that the epics are mythology and contain allegories that teach high principles to live by. Although he believed in Brahman he referrred to it as 'Krishna'. He wrote an article called 'the Krishna of my conception' where he explained his beliefs on God which I think is included in his commentary on the gita. He was shocked when Gita scholars questionsed his interpretation and disagreed with his views. He interpreted Gita his way which was like advaitic but with the devotionalism.

 

There were a number of other well known Hindus who thought that the epics were just stories and that Brahman was the only true concept of God, such as S Radhakrishnan, Raja Ram Mohan Roy and Swami Vivekananda.

[veluthukaran 0]

thank you

[veluthukaran 0]

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

 

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

 

'gandhi lost against the muslims.'

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[maadhav 0]

<< Gandhiji was not fighting the muslims >>

 

what is the wisdom is saying that the invaded islam that says the hindus need to be killed or converted even by force is something to be kept in the vedic land?

or, what is the wisdom in allowing the cancer cells to breed in your own body?

 

an asura must be killed, per the vedas.

if anyone comes in in the way to protect the asura,

then he must be killed too.

 

a protector or an asura is an asura too.

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

 

sure, non violence is a virtue, but it is not an absolute principle in hinduism. even the buddhist countries who say it is, keep army and police force. This proves non violence is not absolute.

 

the hindus would use all possible non violent ways first to make bharat free from the invaded ideologies. the last way is always open if the situation demands it.

 

in any country or society, those who fight are always a small number or minority. 250M americans do not fight in iraq an afghanistan. karbig was was not foughtr by 800M indians. buth those who fight, fight for the countgry or for the whole society.

 

gita/krishna does not say that by fighting in that way you would go to hell.

 

 

[veluthukaran 0]

a protector or an asura is an asura too.

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

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

 

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

[Guest guest]

British left since their empire was bankrupt after second world war and Indian independence movement under Gandhi(not forgeting others) became strong.No qualms on that.

 

"gandhiji was assasinated by RSS thugs who were jealous of him and prevented him finishing what he started"

 

Has anyone proved connections between RSS and Gandhi assasination?Even the assasinator of Kennedy,lee harvey oswald spent some time in moscow.Nobody accused kennedy murderer with KGB.I would like to mention first that I dont support killing of people,whoever they may be,because of ideological reasons.That is wrong.What godse did was wrong.But he was ready to pay for his act and he paid with his life.

 

But i have to mention the situation in which this murder happened.After independence Gandhi put himself in the place of a spiritual godfather of both India and pakistan.But pakistan treated him like . and he failed to recognize the reality.His principled stand of considering pakistanis as erring sons and himself as forgiving father,threw him into wild delusions which forced him to quixotic behavior.

 

The climax for all this happened when he started fasting when India refused to give pakistan its share of money from RBI.Nehru correctly predicted that if that money was given,pakistan will wage a war with India.BUt Gandhi went on fast for 21 days and refused to hear anything nehru would say.IN end after gandhi's life was under threat nehru gave the money to pakistan.The reward came in the form of Indo-pak war in 1948 for kashmir.

 

I dont call Gandhi pro muslim.He was naive,very naive to be in politics.He supported kilafat movement,forgeting that it was the khalifs who caused murderous attacks and rape of india for centuries.

 

Calling RSS to be jealous of Gandhi shows how bigoted you are.Gandhi's methods will work under people who play by rules like british.It was also not his original invention.When moors islamised spain,christians reconquered spain and it was christianised again under sword.Entire villages were burnt and terror ruled.

 

The story of zorashtrian persia becoming islamic is a tale of tears and agony.But on the contrary shankara converted the entire bharatvarsha from jains and buddhists in 32 years by ahimsa alone."Ahimsa and truth are as old as hills.I did not invent them" said gandhi himself.They are part of hindu dharma.

 

Hinduism doesnt preach to get blows and chant "ram,ram".It says "as a ksathriya do your duty,kill the adahrma".It was sages who set up empires to fight adharma.Swami vidhyaranya sankaracharya set up vijaya nagara empire to fight sultans.Swami samartha ramdoss set up maratha empire to fight moguls.Had India fought british with weapons independence would have come much earlier than gandhi.

[veluthukaran 0]

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

gandhi.

-----------

 

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

 

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

[Guest guest]

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

 

no, but his logic/rationale in that matter atleast is not un-vedic.

 

 

[veluthukaran 0]

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

 

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

[cdrbvn 0]

Our reformers want to do away with varna dharma so as to make Hinduism no different from other faiths.

 

BUT GANDHI BELIEVED IN HINDUISM BUT OPPOSED THE UNTOUCHABILITY WHICH WAS A SOCIAL EVIL DURING HIS TIME.

SRI NARAYANA GURU AND HIS TEACHINGS

Sir,

In Kerala the birthplace of the famous religious reformer Sri Narayana Guru, where his 150 years of birth is being celebrated by the organization he established. Many political leaders address meetings remembering the teachings of this famous Guru. What they are after is not the real upliftment of the lower castes but their own upliftment in the society. Is it possible for the present day leaders to achieve what they really think? Are the teachings of Sri Narayana Guru, One god, one religion and one caste, can be followed by all in the present Hindu religion? Has the aim for which he established the organization is achieved? What is actually happening there is different? The lower castes like scheduled tribes continue to be treated in the same way they were during the time of the Guru. It is the politicians who are rewarding the people who are running the organization with power for votes. His followers are not achieving the real ideals for which many reformers fought?

 

Our reformers want to do away with Varna dharma so as to make Hinduism no different from other faiths.

Sri narayana guru fought the domination of upper castes in the places of worship and their treatment as untouchables in the society. No one actually understood the reasons for this state at that time. Everyone praised the guru in his efforts for getting equal rights in places of worship. Even Mahatma Gandhi was fighting the social evil untouchability, which was prevalent during that time. What were the reasons for this no one went in to the real cause of it. They blamed only the Brahmins for all this evils and thought if they can eliminate the cast called Brahmins then all untouchables will get their rights. No reformer can think on this line and achieve the desired aim. If so then the society will not progress further but will only pave the way for total destruction of the human race as it is. It is true that Brahmins were also to be blamed for all this. They left their basic job of learning the vedas and teaching it to others. Others followed suit and it resulted in chaos, which we are facing to day. By creating a society free of caste and religion can the ideals for which these reformers fought can be achieved?

 

Vedas are the basic for our creation and sustenance. All religious practices came from that. All religions came from it. Even Buddha was not against vedas but he was against sacrifices, which were followed by the people. Even now this has not stopped and people still believe in them. If we forget this and stop-learning vedas then there is no way these reformers can achieve what is actually needed for the society. For this we do require some one who can continue to do the job of learning the vedas and continue in the society. If we think that every one can learn the vedas then we must do it and prove it. The aim of reformers should be to provide ways for progress of a society and not neglect of one particular class.

 

 

IN HINDUISM for many centuries the society was classified in to four groups of people according to the various duties they were required to perform for the betterment of society. This way of living was followed by the people for generations and there was no problem for the people as they were living happily doing their hereditary jobs. In India before the advent of foreigners, the practice of following the hereditary jobs was in practice. The kings who were the rulers of a particular area were able to look after the need of all. This included the Brahmins, Ksatriyas and other groups. The advent of foreigners and the exploitation by them brought an end to the age-old traditional way of living and lead to the degeneration of the society as a whole. Now we have people who are talking about the upliftment of lower class, jobs for all and so on. Is it possible to for them to provide jobs for all in the present system? The answer is no. Why?

 

If we look at ourselves how we were living before say thousand years and how we are living now we will find the answers for this. The Indian society though encompasses a vast area of Indian subcontinent, was primarily following one religion that is Hinduism. This religion is older than all other religions, which came later. It was a way of living for all rather than a religion. In that though it was divided by various groups the final aim of all was same. Mukti or moksha for this world. The division of society based on jobs was a healthy system, which was accepted by all in the system. By abandoning it saying it is not required for the present day modern living lead to all evils, which is plaguing the present system. Until unless we revive the age-old Varna system and follow it religiously, we will not be able to provide the jobs and other privileges we are promising to all can be achieved.

 

The tall claims by all the present day politicians and various religious organizations that they can provide all what they are promising in various meeting are only to fool the people. The real welfare can come only if the society is willing to change itself from the west and start believing in our own religious beliefs and the system, which was there before ages. Will it happen in the near future?

" I have often shown the distinction between Varnasrama and untouchability. I have defended the one as a rational, scientific, fact and condemned the other as an excrescence and unmitigated evil . . . . I do regard Varnasrama as healthy division of work based on birth . . . . Varnasrama, in my opinion, was not conceived in any narrow spirit. On the contrary, it gave the labourer, the Sudra, the same status as the thinker, the Brahmin. It provided for the accentuation of merit and elimination of demerit, and it transformed human ambition from the general worldly sphere to the permanent and the spiritual. The aim of the Brahmin and Sudra was common -moksa of Self-realisation, not realisation of fame, riches and power. "

- From My Varnashrama Dharma by M. K. Gandhi.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

It's congress propoganda to say that Independence with weapons would have resulted in chaos and instability.USA took weapons to get independence.It got it in 1775 after 3 years of war.India went ahimsa way.It got it in 1947.And that too after losing sri lanka,Burma,pakistan and bangladesh.

 

What superior weapons did english men have?At no point of time there were more than 10,000 british in India.Had everyone become vanchi iyer and hit british wherever they saw them,with whatever they had,Independence would have been much earlier.

 

Bush is doing what India should be doing.His war on terrorism,will create lots of unrest initially.Many fringe elements will join terrorist groups initially.But they cant do much except sporadical bombings and killing of tourists.

 

Bush's doctrine is influenced by Israel's.The current ratio of jews to palestine killings is 1:25.For every jew killed in bombings,israel attacks with rockets on the entire neighbourhood of terrorists.The entire family of bomber is wiped out.This makes people jump up and down in anger,but end result is creation of new bombers is stopped.People who are ready to lose their entire family only take up bombings,and that number is decreasing day by day.

 

palestines are wearing out.No education,no jobs,no lands,no water they are hit hard on where it hurts.All arab world jumps up and down.Isreal does what its doing for years.So its a much safe place now.

 

Israeli athelets were assasinated in Munich in 1972.every single terrorist who did that was assasinated by mossad,along with his family.They have long memory.What happened to hijackers of Indian airlines plane?They live safely.

 

Bush's war will make america a safer place in future,even though with a short term upraisal in terrorism is inevitable.It might even cost Bush his chair.He is fighting the war for India.Had america not arrived as the villain,usama now will be sending alqueda into kashmir.Instead his disciples are dying in europe and usa.

 

Somebody has to bell the cat.Bush has done it.May krishna bless him in this dharmayudha.

[Guest guest]

{"It was sages who set up empires to fight adharma."}

 

That's right, which may I add was when the Indian/Hindus were most successful. Let's not forget how Chanakya helped Chandragupta Maurya to fight against the Greek invaders.

Too bad that tradition has now died and leftist methods took over.

[Guest guest]

Here are some useful quotes by Gandhi about his views on Hinduism. It is useful to counter those who try to make out he wasn't a true Hindu but a Jain. He may have taken Ahimsa to Jainist extremes, but that was only 'his experiment' and obviously not suitable for all of us.

 

http://www.atributetohinduism.com/quotes1_20.htm#Q20

 

M.K Gandhi :-

 

"I am a Hindu because it is Hinduism which makes the world worth living."

 

"I am unable to identify with orthodox Christianity. I must tell you in all humility that Hinduism, as I know it, entirely satisfies my soul, fills my whole being, and I find solace in the Bhagavad Gita and the Upanishads that I miss even in the Sermon on the Mount....I must confess to you that when doubts haunt me, when disappointments stare me in the face, and when I see not one ray of light on the horizon I turn to the Bhagavad Gita, and find a verse to comfort me; and I immediately begin to smile in the midst of overwhelming sorrow. My life has been full of external tragedies and if they have not left any visible and indelible effect on me, I owe it to the teachings of the Bhagavad Gita."

[maadhav 0]

and gandhi did not say a single word about the barbaric acts of islam and barbaric teachings of islam.

his love for telling the truth vanished in that instance.

 

his followers told all the lie history to a couple of generations in india's schools. still that fabricated history books are not removed from the education system.

 

it is time to tell the true history.

 

[Guest guest]

{and gandhi did not say a single word about the barbaric acts of islam and barbaric teachings of islam.

his love for telling the truth vanished in that instance.}

 

That is very true and unfortunate. He couldn't have been truly secular if he didn't tell the truth just because it may anger some minorities. This is a problem with many Hindus - they try to appease muslims to win respect from them...while the muslims continue to spit at Hindus. I don't associate with people like that.

 

{his followers told all the lie history to a couple of generations in india's schools. still that fabricated history books are not removed from the education system.}

 

That's also true as their is a leftist-bend in the educational/academic system of India. This was more to do with Nehru's views, rather than Gandhi.

 

It's hard to tell the true history now because the false history has more or less been 'accepted' by pseudo-intellectuals who have a very low opinion on Hinduism. Plus the fact that Hindu has been inert and lazy for far too long doesn't help things. Hindus didn't take effective action before and now they are paying for it. Everytime you try to put another angle to Indian history you're accused of being an extremist or fanatic. But why not question a history that was written by the British with their own agenda? As well as those weak Indians who think you'll win friends by appeasement?

 

[Guest guest]

last week I had a very interesting discussion with my music teacher about gandhiji.

 

he said that gandhiji was killed by a radical/extremist hindu. after the lesson I went to him and askes him why was that hindu RADICAL. then he said ," do you think he isn´t a extremist while he killed gandhi?" I said no. He was shocked but he couldn´t bring any single counter argument.

 

I my view gandhiji is/was a flop. just as in schools the teachers have the responsability about their students, a leader has to take the responsability of what is happening in the country.a good leader has to chose a good successor.

(just like in mahabharata, duryodhan was not a good king)

 

gandhiji never supported other organisations(HRA etc.).

he only said that he doesn´t believe in violence.

 

an other interesting thing is that he needed always support of two women to walk.

 

links about nathuram godse:

 

http://ngodse.tripod.com/

http://www.hinduunity.org/saffrontigers/Nathuram.htm

 

interview with gopal godse:

 

http://ngodse.tripod.com/godse14feb2000.htm

 

 

hare krishna

 

 

[Guest guest]

I wonder why Gandhi is being discussed in a Hindu forum. That man was not a Hindu. If being a Hindu means to feel guilty about your beliefs or to feel inferior to those with white skin, Id rather not be associated with that despite being a Hindu myself. In the Gita it says that you must stand up and fight against adharma. Is not occupying and ruling someone else's country and oppressing it's citizens wrong? There is a reason why Hindus are laughed at in the West. We can't even protect our land, our religion, our culture yet we boast of our tolerance. Fair enough being tolerant is one thing and a complete pushover quite another. Where has this mindset got us? The number of Hindu people being well-informed and well-rounded individuals is dwindling.

Yes India was granted independence, but at a greater price than it was worth. The whole British de-colonisation was a slap in the faces of all Hindus. It wasn't granted on a silver platter. Did Hindus get their motherland back - NO!...rather a secular nation where anyone practicing Hinduism feels guilty for the minorities. Muslims got their own country plus the right to remain in India - DOES THAT SEEM FAIR? Gandhi had a hand in this - his ideology spreads into Indian politics today where Sikhs are now demanding their separate nation despite there being no restrictions on the practice of the Sikh religion in India. Look at Hindus in India today, they are second class citizens in their own home.

[Guest guest]

Why was Gandhi Killed?