can the hindus trust musharaf's these words?

[maadhav 0]

please read the below article from a paper,

and the final para specifically, what musharaf says now.

 

--------

Militants face Musharraf's ire

 

PTI [ THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2004 10:18:26 PM ]

(Source: timesofindia.indiatimes.com)

 

ISLAMABAD: Ahead of his visit to the US, President Pervez Musharraf on Thursday strongly criticised the militant organisations, saying they have no place in Pakistan.

 

Lashing out at the militant groups bearing the names of Islamic armies, he said "all Sipas, Jesh and Lashkars have no place in the country as there are already Pakistan armed forces and these outfits cannot co-exist with them."

 

His remarks at an inter-religious conference here were seen as a direct reference to some of the banned Pakistan-based militant outfits like Jaish-e-Muhammad, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Lashkar-e-Jhangivi and Sepha-e-Sehba.

 

Musharraf also charged some 'madrasas' in the country, specially those in the borders with Afghanistan, with preaching extremism. He, however, said a vast majority of madrasas is rendering service in the cause of humanity.

 

His remarks came ahead of his visit to US to take part in the UN General Assembly session in New York during which he is scheduled to meet Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, US President George W Bush and several other world leaders.

 

Musharraf also said suicide bombing being resorted to by many Islamic militants is "unislamic and wrong"

 

"Islam is a great religion. We Muslims consider it to be the greatest religion of the world. But unfortunately, while the West has not understood our great religion, we on the other side do not practice what we preach. We do not practice real values of Islam unfortunately," he said.

 

"There is a conflict in what we speak, what we say and what we think in the head and heart. We need to remove that conflict. No person can be converted or made to follow through force."

=====

 

musharaf now says:

 

"There is a conflict in what we speak, what we say and what we think in the head and heart. We need to remove that conflict. No person can be converted or made to follow through force."

 

for the first time he spoke the truth.

we hindus were telling the world he was not telling the truth, but no one listened. now, does the world and india has any reason to believe musharaf is a changed man?

 

if yes, how log will he remain changed - good man?

 

why he cahnged (if he really changed)?

 

did not i say many times here that islam respects brute force? he saw brute force and he came to senses, (i hope he came.)

 

does this not give a clear clue as to how to solve india's islam problem if nothing else works?

 

[veluthukaran 0]

first of all, who is to say when all nonviolent solutions have been carried out?

 

no, hindus cannot trust musharraf. same with pakistanis. when was the last election in pakistan? how has pakistan/bangladesh prospered since partition?

 

for once, i finally understand what you are saying though. the middle east respects brute force and violence, because that is their foundation. the question is, are you personally willing to be the perpetrator of the violence "necessary" to squash islam out of bharat, or would you instead sit back while others do it for you? and who would these people of action be? ksatriyas or some other group? who would lead them? ksatriyas or some other group?

 

that said, violent solutions never worked in bharat. Mughals could not convert all of Bharat. Arabs could not convert all of Bharat. British could not maintain control of all of Bharat and were embarassed out of it. RSS tactics never worked in bharat because fighting against muslims were carried out by sudras, not ksatriyas, lead by brahmins, not ksatriyas. this is the truth, speaking as a hindu born and raised in US, but my view might be different from yours.

 

nonviolent solutions have always worked, perhaps not right away, but always. and a muslim did not assasinate gandhiji, so you cannot say he failed with the muslims.

 

The Gita According to Gandhiji:

http://members.aol.com/jajnsn/

[veluthukaran 0]

Anasaktiyogaga

(Introduction)

http://members.aol.com/jajnsn/anasa.html

 

7. Now about the message of the Gita.

 

8. Even in 1888-89, when I first became acquainted with the Gita, I felt that it was not a historical work, but that, under the guise of physical warfare, it described the duel that perpetually went on in the hearts mankind, and that physical warfare was brought in merely to make the description of the internal duel more alluring. This preliminary intuition became more confirmed on a closer study of religion and the Gita. A study of the Mahabharata gave it added confirmation. I do not regard the Mahabharata as a historical work in the accepted sense. The Adiparva contains powerful evidence in support of my opinion. By ascribing to the chief actors superhuman or subhuman origins, the great Vyasa made short work the history of kings and their peoples. The persons therein described may be historical, but the author of the Mahabharata has used them merely to drive home his religious theme.

 

9. The author of the Mahabharata has not established the necessity of physical warfare; on the contrary he has proved its futility. He has made the victors shed tears of sorrow and repentance, and has left them nothing but a legacy of miseries.

 

10. In this great work the Gita is the crown. Its second chapter, instead of teaching the rules of physical warfare, tells us how a perfected man is to be known. In the characteristics of the perfected man of the Gita, I do not see any to correspond to physical warfare. Its whole design is inconsistent with the rules of conduct governing the relations between warring parties.

 

11. Krishna of the Gita is perfection and right knowledge personified; but the picture is imaginary. That does not mean that Krishna, the adored of his people, never lived. But perfection is imagined. The idea of a perfect incarnation is an aftergrowth.

 

12. In Hinduism, incarnation is ascribed to one who has performed some extraordinary service of mankind. All embodied life is in reality an incarnation of God, but it is not usual to consider every living being an incarnation. Future generations pay this homage to one who, in his own generation, has been extraordinarily religious in his conduct. I can see nothing wrong in this procedure; it takes nothing from God's greatness, and there is no violence done to Truth. There is an Urdu saying which means, "Adam is not God but he is a spark of the Divine." And therefore he who is the most religiously behaved has most of the divine spark in him. It is in accordance with this train of thought that Krishna enjoys, in Hinduism, the status of the most perfect incarnation.

 

13. This belief in incarnation is a testimony of man's lofty spiritual ambition. Man is not at peace with himself til he has become like unto God. The endeavour to reach this state is the supreme, the only ambition worth having. And this is self-realization. This self-realization is the subject of the Gita, as it is of all scriptures. But its author surely did not write it to establish that doctrine. The object of the Gita appears to me to be that of showing the most excellent way to attain self-realization. That which is to be found, more or less clearly, spread out here and there in Hindu religious books, has been brought out in the clearest possible language in the Gita even at the risk of repetition.

 

14. That matchless remedy is renunciation of fruits of action.

 

15. This is the centre round which the Gita is woven. This renunciation is the central sun, round which devotion, knowledge and the rest revolve like planets. The body has been likened to a prison. There must be action where there is body. Not one embodied being is exempted from labour. And yet all religions proclaim that it is possible for man, by treating the body as the temple of God, to attain freedom. Every action is tainted, be it ever so trivial. How can the body be made the temple of God? In other words how can one be free from action, i.e. from the taint of sin? The Gita has answered the question in decisive language: "By desireless action; by renouncing fruits of action; by dedicating all activities to God, i.e., by surrendering oneself to Him body and soul."

 

16. But desirelessness or renunciation does not come for the mere talking about it. It is not attained by intellectual feat. It is attainable only by a constant heart-churn. Right knowledge is necessary for attaining renunciation. Learned men possess a knowledge of a kind. They may recite the Vedas from memory, yet they may be steeped in self-indulgence. In order that knowledge may not run riot, the author of the Gita has insisted on devotion accompanying it and has given it the first place. Knowledge without devotion will be like a misfire. Therefore, says the Gita, "Have devotion, and knowledge will follow." This devotion is not mere lip worship, it is a wrestling with death. Hence, the Gita's assessment of the devotee's quality is similar to that of the sage.

 

17. Thus the devotion required by the Gita is no soft-hearted effusiveness. It certainly is not blind faith. The devotion of the Gita has the least to do with the externals. A devotee may use, if he likes, rosaries, forehead marks, make offerings, but these things are no test of his devotion. He is the devotee who is jealous of none, who is a fount of mercy, who is without egotism, who is selfless, who treats alike cold and heat, happiness and misery, who is ever forgiving, who is always contented, whose resolutions are firm, who has dedicated mind and soul to God, who causes no dread, who is not afraid of others, who is free from exultation, sorrow and fear, who is pure, who is versed in action and yet remains unaffected by it, who renounces all fruit, good or bad, who treats friend and foe alike, who is untouched by respect or disrespect, who is not puffed up by praise, who does not go under when people speak ill of him who loves silence and solitude, who has a disciplined reason. Such devotion is inconsistent with the existence at the same time of strong attachments.

 

18. We thus see that to be a real devotee is to realize oneself. Self-realization is not something apart. One rupee can purchase for us poison or nectar, but knowledge or devotion cannot buy us salvation or bondage. These are not media of exchange. They are themselves the thing we want. In other words, if the means and the end are not identical, they are almost so. The extreme of means is salvation. Salvation of the Gita is perfect peace.

 

19. But such knowledge and devotion, to be true, have to stand the test of renunciation of fruits of action. Mere knowledge of right and wrong will not make one fit for salvation. According to common notions, a mere learned man will pass as a pandit. He need not perform any service. He will regard as bondage even to lift a little lota. Where one test of knowledge is non-liability for service, there is no room for such mundane work as the lifting of a lota.

 

20. Or take bhakti. The popular notion of bhakti is soft-heartedness, telling beads and the like, and disdaining to do even a loving service, least the telling of beads etc. might be interrupted. This bhakti, therefore, leaves the rosary only for eating, drinking and the like, never for grinding corn or nursing patients.

 

21. But the Gita says: No one has attained his goal without action. Even men like Janaka attained salvation through action. If even I were lazily to cease working, the world would not perish. How much more necessary then for the people at large to engage in action.

 

22. While on the one hand it is beyond dispute that all action binds, on the other hand it is equally true that all living beings have to do some work, whether they will or no. Here all activity, whether mental or physical is to be included in the term action. Then how is one to be free from the bondage of action, even though he may be acting? The manner in which the Gita has solved the problem is to my knowledge unique. The Gita says: 'Do your allotted work but renounce its fruit--be detached and work--have no desire for reward and work.'

 

This is the unmistakable teaching of the Gita. He who gives up action falls. He who gives up only the reward rises. But renunciation of fruit in no way means indifference to the result. In regard to every action one must know the result that is expected to follow, the means thereto, and the capacity for it. He, who, being thus equipped, is without desire for the result and is yet wholly engrossed in the due fulfillment of the task before him is said to have renounced the fruits of his action.

 

23. Again let no one consider renunciation to mean want of fruit for the renouncer. The Gita reading does not warrant such a meaning. Renunciation means absence of hankering after fruit. As a matter of fact, he who renounces reaps a thousandfold. The renunciation of the Gita is the acid test of faith. He who is ever brooding over result often loses nerve in the performance of his duty. He becomes impatient and then gives vent to anger and begins to do unworthy things; he jumps from action to action never remaining faithful to any. He who broods over results is like a man given to objects of senses; he is ever distracted, he says goodbye to all scruples, everything is right in his estimation and he therefore resorts to means fair and foul to attain his end.

 

24. From the bitter experiences of desire for fruit the author of the Gita discovered the path of renunciation of fruit and put it before the world in a most convincing manner. The common belief is that religion is always opposed to material good. "One cannot act religiously in mercantile and such other matters. There is no place for religion in such pursuits; religion is only for attainment of salvation," we here many worldly-wise people say. In my opinion the author of the Gita has dispelled this delusion. He has drawn no line of demarcation between salvation and worldly pursuits. On the contrary he has shown that religion must rule even our worldly pursuits. I have felt that the Gita teaches us that what cannot be followed out in day-to-day practice cannot be called religion. Thus, according to the Gita, all acts that are incapable of being performed without attachment are taboo. This golden rule saves mankind from many a pitfall. According to this interpretation murder, lying, dissoluteness and the like must be regarded as sinful and therefore taboo. Man's life then becomes simple, and from that simpleness springs peace.

 

25. Thinking along these lines, I have felt that in trying to enforce in one's life the central teaching of the Gita, one is bound to follow Truth and ahimsa. When there is no desire for fruit, there is no temptation for untruth or himsa. Take any instance of untruth or violence, and it will be found that at its back was the desire to attain the cherished end. But it may be freely admitted that the Gita was not written to establish ahimsa. It was an accepted and primary duty even before the Gita age. The Gita had to deliver the message of renunciation of fruit. This is clearly brought out as early as the second chapter.

 

26. But if the Gita believed in ahimsa or it was included in desirelessness, why did the author take a warlike illustration? When the Gita was written, although people believed in ahimsa, wars were not only not taboo, but nobody observed the contradiction between them and ahimsa.

 

27. In assessing the implications of renunciation of fruit, we are not required to probe the mind of the author of the Gita as to his limitations of ahimsa and the like. Because a poet puts a particular truth before the world, it does not necessarily follow that he has known or worked out all its great consequences or that having done so, he is able always to express them fully. In this perhaps lies the greatness of the poem and the poet. A poet's meaning is limitless. Like man, the meaning of great writings suffers evolution. On examining the history of languages, we noticed that the meaning of important words has changed or expanded. This is true of the Gita. The author has himself extended the meanings of some of the current words. We are able to discover this even on superficial examination. It is possible that, in the age prior to that of the Gita, offering of animals as sacrifice was permissible. But there is not a trace of it in the sacrifice in the Gita sense. In the Gita continuous concentration on God is the king of sacrifices. The third chapter seems to show that sacrifice chiefly means body-labour for service. The third and fourth chapters read together will use other meanings for sacrifice, but never animal-sacrifice. Similarly has the meaning of the word sannyasa undergone, in the Gita, a transformation. The sannyasa of the Gita will not tolerate complete cessation of all activity. The sannyasa of the Gita is all work and yet no work. Thus the author of the Gita, by extending meanings of words, has taught us to imitate him. Let it be granted, that according to the letter of the Gita it is possible to say that warfare is consistent with renunciation of fruit. But after forty years' unremitting endeavor fully to enforce the teaching of the Gita in my own life, I have in all humility felt that perfect renunciation is impossible without perfect observance of ahimsa in every shape and form.

 

28. The Gita is not an aphoristic work; it is a great religious poem. The deeper you dive into it, the richer the meanings you get. It being meant for the people at large, there is pleasing repetition. With every age the important words will carry new and expanding meanings. But its central teaching will never vary. The teacher is at liberty to extract from this treasure any meaning he likes so as to enable him to enforce in his life the central teaching.

 

29. Nor is the Gita a collection of Do's and Dont's. What is lawful for one may be unlawful for another. What may be permissible at one time, or in one place, may not be so at another time, and in another place. Desire for fruit is the only universal prohibition. Desirelessness is obligatory.

 

30. The Gita has sung the praises of Knowledge, but it is beyond the mere intellect; it is essentially addressed to the heart and capable of being understood by the heart. Therefore the Gita is not for those who have no faith. The author makes Krishna say:

 

"Do not entrust this treasure to him who is without sacrifice, without devotion, without the desire for this teaching and who denies Me. On the other hand, those who will give this precious treasure to My devotees will, by the fact of this service, assuredly reach me. And those who, being free from malice, will with faith absorb this teaching, shall, having attained freedom, live where people of true merit go after death.

 

[Guest guest]

You have not understood Musharraf.He speaks the truth

 

all Sipas, Jesh and Lashkars have no place in the country as there are already Pakistan armed forces and these outfits cannot co-exist with them."

Meaning:All these outfits have no place in pakistan.They should operate in India.

 

Musharraf also charged some 'madrasas' in the country, specially those in the borders with Afghanistan, with preaching extremism.

 

That is an appreciation.

He, however, said a vast majority of madrasas is rendering service in the cause of humanity.

 

He is asking those madarassas to learn from Afghan bordered madarassas.

 

Musharraf also said suicide bombing being resorted to by many Islamic militants is "unislamic and wrong"

 

THis is a result of dipping number of suicide bombers.That condition is now relaxed.Like how Palestine ran out of suicide bombers.

 

"Islam is a great religion. We Muslims consider it to be the greatest religion of the world"

 

Only "we" consider it as so.

 

"we on the other side do not practice what we preach. We do not practice real values of Islam unfortunately,"

Got the message jaish,lashkar?Practice the real values.

 

"No person can be converted or made to follow through

force"

He is trying to make Pakistani's believe that USA wont extract favours from him in washington.

 

Musharraf has spoken the truth.We have to believe him.

[maadhav 0]

<< the question is, are you personally willing to be the perpetrator of the violence "necessary" to squash islam out of bharat, or would you instead sit back while others do it for you? and who would these people of action be? ksatriyas or some other group? who would lead them? ksatriyas or some other group? >>

 

krishna in gita says that we should try shama, dama, and bheda first (there is always some time limit.) if it does not work, then danda (violence) is the way. now why a hindu should reject krishna's works an accept any one else's word?

 

what is the wisdom in gandhi's decision to allow the muslims to live in india after the partition?

 

how can you say non violence achieved something when the partition was chosen to aviod violene but could not?

 

why did gandhi never read koran and hadith to find it is not compatible with gita?

 

why did he did not believe jinnah when jinna said islam is not compatible with hinduism?

 

why he an his followers undertook the useless and self destructive mission of mixing these two incompatible ideologies on the vedic land?

who suffered becaue of this? we the hindus.

who lost? we the hindus.

 

<< violent solutions never worked in bharat. >>

 

did arjun loose in the war?

did rama loose in the war?

why does vishnu carry shankh, chakra, gadaa, and padma?

 

<< violence did not work>> ? ??

then why we hindus suffered for 1000 years form the islam invaders? did not the violence work for these barbarins?

was krishna a fool when he advised arjun to fight?

 

the thing to understand is that violence is a tactic, a tool. suras and asuras both can use it. asuras are not willing to use any tactic other than violence. we suras ought to use it as the last resort. if we wont, we are doomed, and our cultre is doomed.

 

if the violence caused the hindu ancestors of the muslims of bharat to accept islam (unwillingly) (which was a change in wrong direction) then why the violence cannot work to help these musilms to just give up islam in bharat (a change in right direction)?

 

<< Mughals could not convert all of Bharat. >>

 

do you like to be ruled by them again?

are you taking any pride that your and my ancestors were ruled over by the mugals?

is not mughals' control over our land and lives for some centuries their success and our failure? is it not hindus' loss?

 

even you are now failing to understand krishna and his message even when mugals' sword is not on your neck.

 

<< Arabs could not convert all of Bharat. British could not maintain control of all of Bharat and were embarassed out of it. >>

 

is that something to be proud of?

(how proud we are that they ruled over us!!?)

is there nothing to be learned from these experiences?

do we not have our own hindu intersts?

were we fine and are fine in dealing with teh invaders?

 

<< nonviolent solutions have always worked, perhaps not right away, but always. >>

 

again, was krishna a fool when he advised arjun to fight?

 

what did gandhi accomplish other than a permanent enemy at the border? do you like that accomplishment?

 

<< and a muslim did not assasinate gandhiji, >>

 

why should they? gandhi was working to serve muslim interests not hindu interests.

 

<< so you cannot say he failed with the muslims. >>

 

he did not fail to serve muslim interests in bharat.

he failes to serve the hindu interest in hindustan.

so it is obvious an intelligent hindu shot him.

nathuram was not a terrorist.

he loved hinduism, the hindus, and hindustan a lot more than many, and he know what the hindu interest ought to be.

please take some time to understand him.

 

self destructive thinking, words and actions cannot serve self interest.

true hindu intersts are not suicidal, if you undestand them.

 

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Jai Ganesh

 

Re

(Musharraf has spoken the truth.We have to believe him.)

 

How can we? it was him who was plotting Kargil while we were talking peace.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

[Guest guest]

<Mughals could not convert all of Bharat>

 

Maybe it is impossible. But we are about to loose a state to them. Peoples in Kerala are converting to Islam.80% of them are hindus.how to save this state from them? They will be satisfied to conquer a state in India,altough after they got Pakistan and Afghanistan. Majority of muslims are keep growing in the state.

[veluthukaran 0]

your information is off, i have been to kerala many times. There is no conversion movement over there, mostly everyone is peaceful and there is no need to convert anyone, though there is conversion of dalits to chrisitianity (this should be stopped, but we need the laws to do this!), but definitely not msulim religion. kerala is a peaceful place with tolerance. only now, bjp is trying to enter into kerala to cause troubles. i pray they leave god's country that parasurama created. we were fine when marxists were in control. your percentage is off too, more like 60% hindu and rest chrisitans and muslims mix.

 

 

[Guest guest]

about 50% hindus, 26% muslims and 24% christians in kerala.

[veluthukaran 0]

 

nathuram was not a terrorist.

he loved hinduism, the hindus, and hindustan a lot more than many, and he know what the hindu interest ought to be.

please take some time to understand him.

 

 

loved more than gandhiji? this is too funny... kills a human being that did no harm to any other and justify it by saying he loves hindus. i'm sure all of bharat is thankful for him, and if not, it is clear that majority of bharat are fools for not wanting a nathuram holiday. with all respect, this is your opinion only...and you are in the minority.

 

 

gandhi was working to serve muslim interests not hindu interests.

 

 

yes, gandhiji was anti-hindu...he was secretly a muslim. he even secretly wanted great britain to keep control of bharat and was a hindrance to the people's movement to home rule. i think you and people like you have jealously of gandhiji. this serves no purpose.

 

 

again, was krishna a fool when he advised arjun to fight?

 

 

Sri Krsna is not a fool and He can do whatever he wants because he is Supreme God. members of RSS do not speak for Sri Krsna and do not have this characteristic. therefore we must rely on ahimsa, and ahimsa means using violence if there is absolutely no other way to stop violence. again read:

 

Anasaktiyogaga

(Introduction)

http://members.aol.com/jajnsn/anasa.html

 

7. Now about the message of the Gita.

 

8. Even in 1888-89, when I first became acquainted with the Gita, I felt that it was not a historical work, but that, under the guise of physical warfare, it described the duel that perpetually went on in the hearts mankind, and that physical warfare was brought in merely to make the description of the internal duel more alluring. This preliminary intuition became more confirmed on a closer study of religion and the Gita. A study of the Mahabharata gave it added confirmation. I do not regard the Mahabharata as a historical work in the accepted sense. The Adiparva contains powerful evidence in support of my opinion. By ascribing to the chief actors superhuman or subhuman origins, the great Vyasa made short work the history of kings and their peoples. The persons therein described may be historical, but the author of the Mahabharata has used them merely to drive home his religious theme.

 

9. The author of the Mahabharata has not established the necessity of physical warfare; on the contrary he has proved its futility. He has made the victors shed tears of sorrow and repentance, and has left them nothing but a legacy of miseries.

 

10. In this great work the Gita is the crown. Its second chapter, instead of teaching the rules of physical warfare, tells us how a perfected man is to be known. In the characteristics of the perfected man of the Gita, I do not see any to correspond to physical warfare. Its whole design is inconsistent with the rules of conduct governing the relations between warring parties.

 

 

 

what did gandhi accomplish other than a permanent enemy at the border? do you like that accomplishment?

 

 

 

you are allowed to be engineer (does this fulfill your svadharma?) in USA because Martin Luther King Jr. was influenced by Gandhiji. I am allowed to study medicine for same reasons. i like this accomplishment.

 

 

is that something to be proud of?

(how proud we are that they ruled over us!!?)

 

 

I have no pride. you misinterpreted. Muslims way is violence, but their violence did not accomplish their objective in Bharat, to convert all of Bharat (failure of Islam and Muslims). Look at Muslims everywhere and their situation. Look at failure in Pakistan/Bangladesh. Look at how they are made to suffer and no one helps them. It is their karma. Bangladeshis now leave their country because no jobs. they are failures.

 

 

 

is there nothing to be learned from these experiences?

 

 

yes, don't repeat their mistakes.

 

 

do we not have our own hindu intersts?

 

 

we do not have interests. we only do what pleases Sri Krsna.

 

were we fine and are fine in dealing with teh invaders?

 

 

yes, we will lose lives. when they harm us and we do not retaliate. a satyagrahi understands this. bharat must find a way to fund ashrams to create more satyagrahis.

 

if the violence caused the hindu ancestors of the muslims of bharat to accept islam (unwillingly) (which was a change in wrong direction) then why the violence cannot work to help these musilms to just give up islam in bharat (a change in right direction)?

 

 

violence begets violence, you should know that. ahimsa means doing no harm, this means that you can use violence as a last resort to prevent a greater violence.

 

 

then why we hindus suffered for 1000 years form the islam invaders? did not the violence work for these barbarins?

 

 

 

we hindus are better off than muslims in the world. violence did not work for them. their religion will deteriorate because it is UnTruth. Their people will destroy themselves. Look how they fight and suffer, that's all they do. we are better off than them. violence got them nothing but more people to share their suffering.

 

please do not go down path of sharing their suffering by going down to their level.

 

 

did arjun loose in the war?

did rama loose in the war?

 

 

you mention very special people under very special circumstances.

 

 

now why a hindu should reject krishna's works an accept any one else's word?

 

 

people have different interpretations, only way to know who is right is to meet sri krsna Himself by moksa. How many life cycles before you meet Him? since as an engineer you work for a boss/supervisor and not sri krsna alone, i can only assume you are sudra and not bhramin, meaning many life cyles after me.

 

who lost?

 

 

the muslims in general. the pakistanis who have no identity. the arab youth whose future is to blow themselves up. the bangladeshis who have no job. and the hindus who would follow in their footsteps...

 

only Sri Krsna wins.

 

 

 

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

 

A lot of devotees joined Freedom fighters of Gandhiji. So there influence must have helped him. {was in India after all where else are the vaishnava at that time lol}.

 

Fall of British empire was bound to happen. I once heard devotee say, Roman empire 'fell. {some others} Gengas Khan empire 'fell. {some others I cannot remember} anyway point is Vedic Empire is still going. So there you go

[maadhav 0]

<< In reply to:

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

nathuram was not a terrorist.

he loved hinduism, the hindus, and hindustan a lot more than many, and he know what the hindu interest ought to be.

please take some time to understand him.

---------

 

loved more than gandhiji? this is too funny... kills a human being that did no harm to any other and justify it by saying he loves hindus. i'm sure all of bharat is thankful for him, and if not, it is clear that majority of bharat are fools for not wanting a nathuram holiday. with all respect, this is your opinion only...and you are in the minority. >>

 

prove nathuram did not love hinduism andhindustan and the vedic dharma.

 

<< In reply to:

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

gandhi was working to serve muslim interests not hindu interests.

--

yes, gandhiji was anti-hindu...he was secretly a muslim. he even secretly wanted great britain to keep control of bharat and was a hindrance to the people's movement to home rule. i think you and people like you have jealously of gandhiji. this serves no purpose. >>

 

despite the fact that gandhi had some saintly characteristics, he still was a politican first, not a saint or a dharma guru. his failure to keep bharat undivided,and failrue to make muslims non violent and appreciate of hinduism are very serious, and i cannot lok up at him. his followers run an anti hindu government and briberies, none cares for dharma and rashtra, almost all are selfish and greedy. sho what respec he and his followers deserve?

 

<< In reply to:

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

again, was krishna a fool when he advised arjun to fight?

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

 

Sri Krsna is not a fool and He can do whatever he wants because he is Supreme God. members of RSS do not speak for Sri Krsna and do not have this characteristic. >>

 

i am saying that all the hindus need to listen to krishna and live per gita.

 

<< therefore we must rely on ahimsa, >>

 

no, we must rely on krishna's messge. else krishna and gita are useless,a nd if we treat gita useless, then we are ot hindus.

 

<< and ahimsa means using violence if there is absolutely no other way to stop violence. >>

 

no. ahimsa means to stop adharma and adharmis from harming dharmis and the vedic people, and do violence if so necessary to control or kill adharmis and asuras.

 

<< again read:

 

Anasaktiyogaga

(Introduction)

http://members.aol.com/jajnsn/anasa.html >>

 

sorry i have no interest to read what gandhi says about gita. he is not an aacharya, or a dharma guru.

 

<< In reply to:

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

what did gandhi accomplish other than a permanent enemy at the border? do you like that accomplishment?

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

 

you are allowed to be engineer (does this fulfill your svadharma?) in USA because Martin Luther King Jr. was influenced by Gandhiji. I am allowed to study medicine for same reasons. i like this accomplishment. >>

 

you think you are allowed to study medicine in USA, and that is gandhi's accomplishment. sure you can think so. that is your freedom. i have no reason to think that way.

you totally ignored the ignored to comment on the partition and the permanent enemy at the border and teh enemy ideology left within hindustan. but suppose that were an accomplishment, then 99% of the students from india should be in USA for study and jobs. in contrast only a very neglibiel frqction of a percent of the youths are here.

 

besides, an engineering or medical degree or job is not any accomplishment for me. i am a hindu. so figure what is of value to me. if you can just undersand my poins, then that is my accomplishment. but i cannot expect all to be able to understand me or all to say they understood me. some just lie.

 

<< In reply to:

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

is that something to be proud of?

(how proud we are that they ruled over us!!?)

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

 

I have no pride. you misinterpreted. Muslims way is violence, but their violence did not accomplish their objective in Bharat, to convert all of Bharat (failure of Islam and Muslims). >>

 

they got the vedic land and they destroyed thousands of temples and killed millions of hindus and burnt many vedic libraries, and you are saying they did not accomplish islam's goal? and why you think islam has given up in bharat? when i see/hear arguments like you do from the hindus, that worries me that islam will one day take over hindustan amd the hindus. do you want it to happen?

 

<< Look at Muslims everywhere and their situation. Look at failure in Pakistan/Bangladesh. Look at how they are made to suffer >>

 

who made them suffer? gandhi and gandhians want the hindus to suffer and the hindus to die. did you play any part in their suffering? besides, suppose some of them are suffering their karma, but why focus on it? why not focus on the fact that some others are making the hindus and the whole world sufffer? and what you want to do about it?

 

<< and no one helps them. >>

 

you are helping by pacifying the hindus and the kshatriyas. you are preaching nonviolence against the asuras. are you doing it free or are paid for?

 

<< It is their karma. Bangladeshis now leave their country because no jobs. they are failures. >>

 

and why we need to suffer from their karma?

and where does krishan says, "just sit back and relax no matter what the asuras do to you, you family, and country ,and dharma. their karma will take care of them.

you just love them and let the hindus die by their karma?

do not do anything more than a stone does.

 

<< In reply to:

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

is there nothing to be learned from these experiences?

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

 

yes, don't repeat their mistakes. >>

 

no man, you missed the whole point of gita.

they want islam all over the world and all people muslims only. now, tell me in which country the spread of islam is decreasing or muslim polulation is decreasing? none to my knowledge. so they are achirving their goal. they are progressing, and it is unfortunate that the hindus are not waking up.

 

have you not heard, "god helps those who help themselves (her dharma)"? krishna is our gread adviser, not our security servant.

 

<< In reply to:

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

do we not have our own hindu intersts?

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

 

we do not have interests. >>

 

they why are you wasting time here?

you hare no interest.

 

<< we only do what pleases Sri Krsna. >>

 

and controlling the asuras and adharma on the vedic land does please krishna. krishna even allows violence as the ast resort. why then are you going against his word?

are you a hindu really?

 

<< In reply to:

---------

were we fine and are fine in dealing with teh invaders?

 

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

 

yes, we will lose lives. when they harm us and we do not retaliate. >>

 

sorry, krishna did not say this to arjun.

so, thehindus have no reason to follow gandhi.

gandhi was not god.

 

now some one argued that krishna's that advice to arjun is good for that moment of time only and not good any more.

this argument essentially says that gita is useless, and so hinduism is useless. there is nothing to learn from gita. this is very anti vedic. gita would not have been reveared and read as god's word till now since 5000+ years if it did not give answers as to how to live our lives in any place or in any time or situation.

 

so, never think gandhi above krishna.

 

 

<< sayagrahi understands this. bharat must find a way to fund ashrams to create more satyagrahis. >>

 

yes, but only th satyagrahi kshatriyas who know when to fight and do violence if necessary for the prot4ction of dharma and rashtra and self. no ashram shoud produce any more gandhis. else islam will win inhindustan.

 

<< In reply to:

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

if the violence caused the hindu ancestors of the muslims of bharat to accept islam (unwillingly) (which was a change in wrong direction) then why the violence cannot work to help these musilms to just give up islam in bharat (a change in right direction)?

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

 

violence begets violence, you should know that. >>

 

and gandhi's ahimsa did not beget non violence in the muslims. we lost land and temples and lives.

 

<< ahimsa means doing no harm, this means that you can use violence as a last resort to prevent a greater violence. >>

 

when hindus get killed or when their temples get destroyed, then it is not violence, and when a hindu hits a barbric muslim, then it is violence? that is how you define violence?

 

why you think all the hindus shoudl be without any of their interests related to dharma and rashtra? you said you hae no intereest. sad. but hindus have their interests for dharm and rashtra. now you will say such hindus are minority. okay, but why you believe that majority is always right and thinks the truth? slaves were a minority. were they wrong in demanding freedom?

 

<< In reply to:

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

then why we hindus suffered for 1000 years form the islam invaders? did not the violence work for these barbarins?

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

 

<< hindus are better off than muslims in the world. >>

 

so, why shoud we forget teh islam injustice and suffering caused to us?

 

<< violence did not work for them. >>

 

it did, and will work unless you and us hindus wake up.

 

<< their religion will deteriorate because it is UnTruth. >>

 

you need to replace a prominent mulla in bharat.

and go preach in mosques. else, no use of talking you here.

 

<< Their people will destroy themselves. Look how they fight and suffer, that's all they do. we are better off than them. violence got them nothing but more people to share their suffering. >>

 

never worry what they suffer. why you allow your self and your people and your land to suffer becaue of them?

 

<< please do not go down path of sharing their suffering by going down to their level. >>

 

arjun did not fall by fighting kauravas.

when tornado comes, stay out of the way if you cannot help.

 

<< In reply to:

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

did arjun loose in the war?

did rama loose in the war?

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

 

<< you mention very special people under very special circumstances. >>

 

so gita and ramayan has nothing you can learn to solve islam problem? if so, you are not a hindu and so should not advise any hindu how to solve hindu problems.

 

<< In reply to:

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

now why a hindu should reject krishna's works an accept any one else's word?

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

 

<< people have different interpretations, only way to know who is right is to meet sri krsna Himself by moksa. >>

 

no. why did krishna has recommended guru parampara?

 

"evam paramparaa praaptam.. " - gita.

are you saying the vedic sampradaysa and their gurus and their teachings are a total waste?

i begin to doubt if you really are a hindu.

 

<< How many life cycles before you meet Him? >>

 

i meet him every day through gita, millions of hindus do the same. tell me, how many times you meet gandhi? why not you say gandhi's message was good for that moment only and there is no need to listen him any more? instead you are saying such a thing for krishna?

 

<< since as an engineer you work for a boss/supervisor and not sri krsna alone, >>

 

krishna knows for whom i am working, and i am happy about it. you cannot know it.

 

<< i can only assume you are sudra and not bhramin, >>

 

thank you. i fail to understand why you a 'brahmana' fail to understand gita. are you also thinking that only you brahmana have the monopoly to preach and onne other?

 

<< meaning many life cyles after me. >>

 

i want to take several births to solve islam problem in bharat. so, either you join me or stary out of the way please. in case you happen to reach krishna before me in vaikuntha, he probaly will ask you, "hey, what are you dong here?"

 

at least we are in agreement that islam is a problem for us and all.

 

<< In reply to:

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

who lost?

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

 

<< the muslims in general. the pakistanis who have no identity. the arab youth whose future is to blow themselves up. the bangladeshis who have no job. >>

 

why totally hide what we hindus suffered and due to what?

 

<<and the hindus who would follow in their footsteps... >>

 

not in their foot setps that go to macca and madina only,

but in the direction krishna gives in gita.

 

<< only Sri Krsna wins. >>

 

yes, and you can loose if you do not listen to him and act accordingly.

 

dear hindus, please wake up for dharma and rashtra.

namaskar!

[sampath 0]

Hi vel are you a tamilian?

 

Anyway Gandhi gave 30% of land to 15% of population.That too what sort of land?land that is fertile with 5 rivers.Can anybody talk dharma with pakistan?He harmed India by this single act of his.See what Israel is offering palestenians?It is occupying the fertile lands,water resources and giving dry land to palestenians.Learn from them man

[sampath 0]

And I dont support gandhis killing.He would have been exposed had he not been killed.Now he became god.Hes a good man but out of touch with reality.And I thank god that he refused to be PM of India.He would have given whole kashmir to pakistan and said "Its my dharma,of giving the best to my brother"Congress people will be crying "yes sir" and supporting him then.