Vedic garden and Vedic goal

[maadhav 0]

The vedic culture is based on

accepting the vedas as the authority

and living per vedas.

 

A vedic society has four varnas as desigened by krishna,

and each verna has equal right and means to realize god or go to haven.

 

Each varna respects other varnas and takes care of them,

any internal strife, like a family fued, is either because of ignorance, or becasue some one did malpractice dharma. Such internal fueds should not be taken as an excuse to totally throw away the vedic social system.

 

A society is like a garden.

what grows in it depends upon

what is the fertilizer,

what seeds are put in it and how,

and how it is taken care of.

 

The vedic society is like a garden

that gives peace and spiritual upliftment to all.

 

In contrast, the Islam garden produces thorns, and poisonous leaves and fruits that cause terror and ashanti every whare.

 

Now the goal of the vedic garden is that all could go to god or haven. But the garden/the society/the culture has to be maintained in a country to make it happen. the maintenance of this garden is every vedic persons' responsibility which can be carried out unitedly.

 

no garden, no fruit, no flowers.

 

Thus, the vedic people need to stay united to preserve and flourish the vedic culture in a secure vedic land - Bharat.

 

Many vedic people interpret the sanatana dharma as just a matter of personal practice. They think, "if i do this sadhana or yoga or something, i will get god ahd haven. i do not care for others." This kind of faulty selfish thinking keeps them disunited against the ant-vedic people who want to destroy the vedic culture entirely. Such selfish hindus, even if they personally progress spiritually , they fail to contribute anything towards the maintenance and protection of the vedic garden. consequently their own future genertions could not have the vedic garden in which they grew.

 

therefore, the vedic people have two main duties:

 

1) To maintain and protect the vedic garden in their own homeland. This duty is more important than the second.

 

2) Practice the vedic dharma as they choose.

 

So, please pray that no yogi, swami, sanyasi, sadhu, or aacharya will act selfishly only for his personal attainment of god or haven. Personal sadhana can wait, if the garden needs care, protection and maintenance, and growth.

 

now i have one queston:

 

if the barbarias have forced their barbaric ideologies upon others and caused a lot of misery, why not a civil dharmic ideology be forced on the barbarians?

 

Just as a loving mother forces her sick child to drink a bitter medicine, a civil group can force civil ideology upon a sick barbaric group/person. Now, a hindu never want to do it, as it is against gita's word. but when the problem is right in your own home country due to the invaded barbaric ideology, i see noghing wrong in doing so in the most civil ways, but all ways should be kept open to do the right thing. when a barbian who relies on the weapons and violence knows that the civil opponent will not do violence, he feels secure and strong and know he will surely win. therefore, kshatriya solution must be kept ready when negotiating in civil ways with the barbarians.

 

may the vedic garden grow and flourish in bharat and the world.

 

[Guest guest]

Many vedic people interpret the sanatana dharma as just a matter of personal practice. They think, "if i do this sadhana or yoga or something, i will get god ahd haven. i do not care for others."

 

you are right... but you are attemping to cheat us saying that this has to do with joining hindu fanaticism and nationalism

 

"So, please pray that no yogi, swami, sanyasi, sadhu, or aacharya will act selfishly only for his personal attainment of god or haven. Personal sadhana can wait, if the garden needs care, protection and maintenance, and growth."

 

actually you are an anti vedic, adharmi, anti hindu.... you do not believe in the purity and vision of spiritual leaders, acharyas, saints and you are suggesting something to them. Who are you? Narada Muni? Krsna?

 

do not bother..

 

[maadhav 0]

pick a good username and we can talk.

many anti-vedics say the same as you said.

 

muslims are expert in using kafirs' resurces, infrastructure, and kafir scriptures against the kafirs. see wht thy did in 9/11. kafirs' plane, kafir's gas, kafir's everything, and kaafir's target. similary they delude Hindus quoting Hindu scriptures agaisnt the Hindus so that they do not unite.

 

the idea that all kind of nationalism is bad is faulty.

 

per krishna, in gita, there are suras and there are asuras.

suras have their nationalis, which is quite different from asura's nationalism. without a nation, you are no one, like the jews were for 2000+ pears.

 

a nation is nothng but a place of yoru own

where you can do your own thing - yoga practice including chanting or sankirtana. if you do not like nationalism, then you do not like any nation, and so tehn you need to live out of all nations where no nation rules.

if you chosoe to liev in a nation, then you agree to support that nation and nationalism, a sentiment that keeps all united to protect that nation.

 

unless you can give detailed analysis why vedic nationalism is just as bad as germany's nationalism, or US's nationalism (which they call it americanism,) my argument that hindu nationalism is desirable and not a bad thing at all.

 

when all good flowers unite to make sure no thornes grow in their garden, then that gardenism=natninalism is not bad at all, compard to the natninalism of weeds and thorny plants who want to invade and take over all the rose gardens.

 

<< you are right... but you are attemping to cheat us saying that this has to do with joining hindu fanaticism and nationalism >>

 

you have contradiction in the above.

take a position based on truth.

 

[Sephiroth 0]

You don't know the old saying - Hell is paved by good intentions?

 

if the barbarias have forced their barbaric ideologies upon others and caused a lot of misery, why not a civil dharmic ideology be forced on the barbarians?

 

Dharmic ideology become adharmic when you use the same method barbarians used against us on them. And don't go thinking God will be pleased if you do such, He will not.

 

If your enemy hates you, it is his choice to hate you. However, if you hate him back for his hatred of you, it is not his choice, it will be yours. That doesn't mean you have to love the suckers either. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

 

For now, concentrate in educating your youngsters about ways of Dharma. Strenght them first so they will not astray. Everything else will fall into place, God willing.

[maadhav 0]

it is hard to disagree with your point.

so i would not disagree. thanks.

 

our hindu ways are different than the barbarians', but our vedic way is not the way of dying. our way is not to give more value to the barbarians' lives then our own.

there is a limit to our tolerance, per dharma.

krishna has said it in gita.

 

at one time sanatana/vedic dharma was all over the world.

so there was no nationalism because there was only one nation- the earth. in the last 2-3 thousand years a couple of anti-vedic ideologies grew, and the vedic people lost influence in most part of the world. what ever is left, is left in Bharat now. so, the vedic world/nation has shrunk to vedic bharat. but even there, anti-vedic forces are causing havoc to vedic culture.

 

some advocate that all nationalisms are bad.

they forget that vedic nationalism is not bad.

it was there all over the world once.

the knowledge of krishna spread all over the world from Bharat, for the vedic culture.

 

no one will disagree that one has absolute right to fully control what happens in one's house (that is not adharmic), and one also has right to protect one's house against the invaders. this is called "housalism".

 

under the rights and ideology of housalism, asuras will do adharmic things within their own house. but suras will do dharmic things in their house. housalism means protecting the house against enemies, and intruders, and exercising the freedom of choice and action within the house.

 

the same concept, when extended to a group of people living in a country, is called nationalism. so, there is asuric nationalism, e. g. pakistan, bangaldesh, hitler's germany, Saddam's iraq,etc. but there is good nationalism called vedic nationalism (actually it is universalism).

 

suras/devotees do satsanga. they raise devotee communities.

so, bharat is a nation of satsangis, devotees, yogis, and nation of thousands of devotee communities.

if the freedom to do satsanga, moorti pooja, various yogas, etc. is not permitted by anti-vedics, then it is a problem there. so, that freedom to live per a chosen vedic path must be maintained and protected in a country where the vedic culture is born.

 

to tag vedic nationalism as bad, is a grave mistake out of lack of full understanding.

 

what are the sentiments of a vedic nationalist?

"i love this vedic culture and dharma. i love this various vedic people doing their yogas and sadhans. i will protect this vedic society living in this vedic land against the anti-vedic invaders and ieologies, so that these vedic peope and their future generations can conitue doing their own sadhanas. i will spread this culture where it is received well and in friendly manner. i will welcome any migrant from outside who is friendly to the vedic culture." i do not see anything wrong with this sentiment.

 

hope this clear the point.

 

[Guest guest]

"many anti-vedics say the same as you said."

 

the true antivedic is you suggesting to say to acharyas what has to be their behaviour

 

bhagavad gita says "tad viddhi pranipatena...", surrender to a guru because he sees the truth, and you're suggesting to make guru surrender to yourself

 

please... do not attempt to destroy sanatana dharma

[Guest guest]

must understand that there is a transcendental way to fight evil. There is no need to take extreme positions. Take islam, for instance. A guy like Ghandi would take the position that islam can do whatever it wants, and we as Hindus must practice ahimsa at all costs. He turns ahimsa, a relative principle, into an absolute truth, and asks people to follow it no matter what. That is one extreme and needless to say, a disastrous one, because one should never confuse the relative with the absolute. Besides, inaction binds and karma is accumulated.

 

Then there are others who want revenge. They hate islam for what it did to them and they hate all muslims indiscriminately. That's another extreme, where hatred becomes the sole cause for action. Again, karma is accumuated because action based on base impulses is wrong action. And wrong action binds as much as inaction.

 

The way of the Gita transcends these two extremes, in that it doesn't advocate inaction or action based on desire but right action based swabhava. Such action is called Swadharma. Which means, one should fight evil not because one hates it (because action based on human reactions and impulses like hate, fear etc. would be wrong action), but because it happens to be the right thing to do. In other words, fight the enemy but do not hate him. This attitude wouldn't make the Hindus pacifist cowards, but it wouldn't make them as blood-thirsty as Muslims or Christians either. The gita teaches how to go beyond both inaction and wrong action, and perform swadharma or right action, transcendental action.

 

Apply this to the Hindu-Muslim situation. Hindus should fight Islam because it's an evil ideology, not because they hate or fear it. Any action born of such impulses would accumulate karma. But since inaction is out of question because that too accumulates karma, one should act (in this case, fight) from the trascendental position, leaving aside both wrong action and inaction. This is the teaching of the gita. Unfortunately, Hindus either choose one extreme, inaction as glorified by Ghanhi and his minions, or wrong action as advocated by the hotheaded fanatics. Both of them bind. Swadharma doesn't, it burns all karma, so even if you act forever, even if you indulge in apparently brutal acts, you'll be free of karma. This is what Hindus must do, let them renounce inaction but let them act in such a way they don't incur sin.

[maadhav 0]

nothing disagreable about what you said.

what you said is: love islam but fight and get it out of the vedic land.

 

you can love islam only after screening out some things.

now, when one knows what islam has done to the vedic culture, there does not remain any motive to love it.

it is as difficult for one to love islam

as it is to love a barbarian who raped one's mother in the middle of the street in broad day.

 

hindus are the victims of islam.

so, if these victims cannot love islam (even if they try),

then it is not big of a sin. no hindu should think like,

"first i will spend some time to love islam, and then only i will fight islam with flowers and smiles." because more you wait more difficult it will get to fight and win.

so, the right way is to fight and win ever if you could not love islam. after that you do dharma karma to null any sin/bad karma that might have occured. there are vedic processes to get free of any sins.

 

also, if you find a combra in your home approaching your todler, i think that you will kill the cobra as soon as possible, even when you know that killing is sin, because not killing it is a bigger sin under the situation.

 

remember that i am talking about islam ideology, not the followers of it.

 

some deluded say that islam is also good because ramakrishna parama hamsa practiced it and attained the same god.

they forget that he did not do jeehad, neither he went to mecca. additionally, there is no muslims who even thinks of getting god by the way ramakrishna did. muslims follow mullas in mosques and madresas, not ramakrishna. ramakrishna matha preachers do not go in mosques to preach ramakrishna version of islam, nor will the mosques allow them to preach there.

 

also, rememer that when yudhisThir knew that thousands of jivas can get peace if he lives in hell, then he said that he would rather prefer to live in hell. this is sacrifice for the benefit of many.

 

[Sephiroth 0]

what you said is: love islam but fight and get it out of the vedic land.

 

I don't think Dvaitan said love Islam. I think he said don't act with hatred because it produced bad karma and attachment.

[Guest guest]

Seph is right. I never said 'love islam'. Both love and hate are human reactions and ought to be abandoned. fight but fight without these impulses. That's all I said. I never once mentioned that we should love and fight.

[maadhav 0]

correct.

 

however i understood as this:

 

"don't act with hatred" => act with love => love islam.

 

it is true that hating is not good,

but it is also true that some things are difficult to not hate for many people.

 

i know, there is a middle position between love and hate, that is not love and not hate.

 

when the ocean did not give way to rama to ago attack lanka even after rama did request and offered gifts, rama did get angry, and immediately varun dev appeared bowing donw to rama. so, even a little bit of anger by 30-40% of the 1B hindus coulg get result fast, im my view. Even a show of anger is enough when done with unity. actually, gandhi got pissed off by the stubern/angry demand by the muslims for pakistan in 1947.

 

so, hindus should not give up the show of anger towards any asura. stay calm within, but show a great anger at adharmis, and be ready to act if necessary.

 

[Sephiroth 0]

however i understood as this:

 

"don't act with hatred" => act with love => love islam.

 

So you think just because someone don't hate you, they love you? Yare yare ... which means just about every women in the world who meet you, probably in love with you, huh?

 

Hatred is a bad karma action, love is a good karma but both are attachments. What Dvaitan say is (and its according to Sri krishna also) Act without attachments.

 

You do not hate or allow hatred to be in your heart - No attachment.

You do not love or allow love for your enemy to exist in your heart - No attachment also.

You do what is righteous in No attachment mode - for God's sake and not your own (Love or Hate) sake.

 

I think this is what Dvaitan trying to say, I maybe wrong also. He can confirm it.

 

Take a butcher for example. Are you going to say he kills goat, sheep, cows and chicken because he hates them?

 

Take a doctor for example. Are you going to say that he saves lives (by performing surgery and such) because he loves others?

 

No ... they do what is required by their profession without attaching themselves to their actions.

[Guest guest]

You're correct. You've understood the gita very well.

[maadhav 0]

i agree, i made an error.

you and Dvaitan are very vigilant.

I am glad you are here.

feel free to corret me any time if i err.

 

we all need to be vigilant for posts that are purposely made to delude/confuse the hindus or defame or deform/misrepresent Hinduism.

 

[Sephiroth 0]

i agree, i made an error.

you and Dvaitan are very vigilant.

I am glad you are here.

feel free to corret me any time if i err.

 

I don't see an error, I just see another person with different point of view.

 

Best way for this is to discuss other people's views and come with best possible solutions, rather than try and solve the problem by landing a plane into a building like Muslims did.