As a young NRI who sees that far too often, I concur wholeheartedly. Many of the most fanatical RSS/VHP types dabble in the same sort of "headless chicken, top 10 things great about Hinduism" gibberish that fanatical Evangelicals, who look like complete and close-minded fools claim as their mainstay. These are some of the people that taught a generation of young Indians far, far away from India (including myself) that Hinduism promotes the caste system and that we worship cows. Now tell, me... is it Christianity or Islam that is responsible for the rot within?
1) till 1965 RSS participated in Republic Day Parads
2) A B Bajpeyee and L K Advani are staunch RSS Ideologues and Swayamsevak Themselves
3) N Modi, whose state is growing at 14% per annum is an RSS swaymsevak.
4) the Vice President of India Bhairosinh Shekhawat is Swaymsevak of RSS
5) Dr. Raman Singh - CM of C'garh is RSS Swayamsevak
6) Anant Kumar - Ex Civil Aviatin minister is RSS Swayamsevak
many other politicians, statesman, GoI officers too are RSS men.
Alok_N wrote:
Hindu gods are allegorical, i.e., they represent the translation of a concept into a story ...
Jaylal wrote:That our religion, which is hardly a religion, gives weight to the view that God is not Gods nor is it God, but rather, more of a concept... a unifying theory than it is something of shape and form.
IOW, bullshit.
Don't say that abhischekcc.
The viewpoints that you religion generates can be more an you can encompass. I believe you are being unfair. You can say you don't understand what they are saying. I believe that you don't
I believe that you are trying to protray a Hindu concept of God similar to Allah or Jehovah, but what Alok and Jaylal are going on about is beyond that.
Have patience. Do not do a "bullshit" on opinions.
Murugan wrote:
1) till 1965 RSS participated in Republic Day Parads
2) A B Bajpeyee and L K Advani are staunch RSS Ideologues and Swayamsevak Themselves
3) N Modi, whose state is growing at 14% per annum is an RSS swaymsevak.
4) the Vice President of India Bhairosinh Shekhawat is Swaymsevak of RSS
5) Dr. Raman Singh - CM of C'garh is RSS Swayamsevak
6) Anant Kumar - Ex Civil Aviatin minister is RSS Swayamsevak
many other politicians, statesman, GoI officers too are RSS men.
(nothing to do with relgion thread as such)
How come all these stalwarts are unable to counter the psy-ops that is being used to tar them?
I am not against them - but I laugh at their pathetic inability to project an image of themselves other than the one they have gained.
They need to work on that and not carry on as if it doesn't matter. It does matter. I wonder if they do not have the PR strength to change things- or worse they do not have the insight to see why that may be important.
Though OT, this is regarding RSS stalwarts' inability especially in Media Management.
May recall LKA's statement that BJP is in the news for all wrong reasons.
They have their own machinery but it is very low profile and they have not tried to cash in on their positive activities in natural calamities, war, social upliftment and even hindu jagran as they call awakening of Hindus.
Organizer and Panchjanya are not that famous in media circuit.
Shiv:
I know what they are saying. I held such beliefs some years ago. But I have become more practical now.
I mean, if you take a truly want a materialist concept of god, then god is simply some neurons firing at each other. So, god is nothing more than electro-chemical signal in the central nervous system. And is physically indistinguishable from atheism.
What I am saying is, we Hindus intellectualise our weaknesses and hope our enemies will not notice. It does not matter how many different opinions we are willing to tolerate, if our tolerance is see as a weakness (by jehadis) or stupidity to exploit (by missionaries).
It is this inability to call a spade a bloody shovel that is the root of a Hindu's moral turpitude and unwillingness to defend ourselves. I mean, just take a look at the posts RSS on this very thread. How effete they are. I can confirm there infirmity because I know a few myself.
------
Sorry if I took shots at some members. But I have become increasingly unable to swallow waffling as intellectual curiousity.
I can confirm there infirmity because I know a few myself.
though inept and unable to handle media especially the DDMs, they have done very well as far as politics is concerned.
6 years of political life at centre in power, though they had to share.
Punjab, Bihar, Orissa, Rajasthan, C'garh, MP, Gujarat, Karnatak, Uttarakhand they are presently ruling independently or jointly. all states are very important for a political career. This is not a Joke
RSS was establishedin 1925 and became politically active in 80s. in 26 years they have gone a long way.
DDM always ignore this in the name of secularity, CONSTANTLY INSULTING people OF THESE STATE and country who brought hindu forces in power.
You have it wrong. I don't know whether Darwin said it but according to Theory of Evolution, present day monkeys and humans had the same ancestor in the distant past and not that our fourfathers[sic] were monkeys.
You have it wrong. I don't know whether Darwin said it but according to Theory of Evolution, present day monkeys and humans had the same ancestor in the distant past and not that our fourfathers[sic] were monkeys.
.Ahem....... I do not wish to go into hair splitting semantics but for the sake of the discussion isnt ancestor~four fathers .
In page 1 of this thread, Arun_S had invited inputs defining Dharma vis a vis Religion. I am tempted to present a copy of a letter I wrote to my grand daughter in performance of my duty of transmitting traditional knowledge on her turning 16. I request the forum members to please remember that though I may not have fully succeeded in my efforts, the aim of the letter was to present the essentials of Dharma (as I know them) to a 16 year old. Therefore, if one finds over-simplification one would know why it is so. Here goes
*********************
My Dear
Very soon you will be sixteen years old. We have been told by our ancient seers that a child should be cuddled and petted for the first five years and then be brought up under strict discipline for the next ten years. For you we have followed these injunctions quite well. Now, when you attain your 16th year, the seers tell us, you deserve to be treated as a friend. I welcome you into my closest circle of friends. On this occasion, I must offer you a gift. What better gift can I offer you than the wisdom that I have inherited from my forefathers? You are my grand child, the fittest person to receive the most precious gift that I have received in inheritance: the freedom to be myself!
What is this freedom to be your self? What is that? We live in a society where from all sides we are bound by rules and regulations, law and order, conventions and taboos. We have peer pressures and parental pressures to behave in a defined manner. We have career priorities and the inner urge to ‘succeed’ in life. We have competitions and the need to survive in a rat race where the laggard will only be trodden upon. In such a society, where is the scope for ‘being yourself’? Well, my dear, I have news for you. You have had the luck to be born into a culture that has the knowledge of Dharma and the knowledge of Dharma gives you the unbridled freedom to be yourself. Nay. The knowledge of Dharma encourages you to discover who you are and then it gives you the freedom to be yourself.
Dharma? Isn’t that Religion? Oh Dadu! I am only sixteen. Isn’t it too early to bother about such things? If that is the question in your mind then I can say that the answer is No and NO. Dharma is NOT religion. Religion deals with divinity and faith and a code of conduct for life. Dharma does not deal with any of these. By definition, dharma means property, as in attribute. Surprised? It is the property (dharma) of light to permit vision and the dharma of fire is to heat and singe. It is the dharma of wind to flow and to carry heat and to carry scent. It is the dharma of the mother to tend to her children and to protect them and it is the dharma of a child to love respect and seek succor from the mother. When we think in an Indian language we use dharma in this sense effortlessly. However, when we think in English and use the Sanskrit word Dharma, we tend to confuse it with religion because the English language does not have a proper translation for Dharma.
So, if I ask any one, ‘what is your dharma?’ and s/he replies that s/he is a Christian or a Moslem or a ‘Hindu’, s/he will be in serious error. If I ask that same question to you, you will have to first identify your primary condition. Then, if you tell me that primarily you are a human being, what would your dharma be? Can it be any thing other than ‘humanism’? Can your dharma be any different from another person who also considers himself or herself primarily as a human being? Notice how ‘dharma’ is independent of how you pray or do not pray, how you dress, how you greet another person, how you choose your food or how you want your body to be treated after you are dead. Those are mere social customs and usages. Those have nothing to do with dharma. And yes, it is not too early at 16 to inquire about the knowledge of dharma as you would have to use that knowledge constantly from that age to grow into what you ultimately will become.
As you may have noticed, dharma cannot be uniformly applied to all persons. The dharma of a child is somewhat different from that of a mother. The dharma of a soldier is quite different from that of a scientist just as the dharma of a poet is unlikely to be the same as the dharma for a butcher. More importantly, the same person may have more than one dharma at the same time. The king who must perform Raj-dharma or the dharma of a king may also be a father needing to perform Pitr-dharma (the dharma of a father) and a son who needs to perform putra-dharma (the dharma of a son) at the same time. Often times there are conflicts between the dictates of those dharma and the person has to compromise. This is called a ‘Dharma Sankata’ or a conflict of dharma. However the person is not able to deny the existence of the multiplicity of dharma that he is subjected to. The wind carries heat and it caries scent, it caries dust and it carries fallen leaves all at the same time.
Now we come to the difficult bit. What constitutes dharma? How does one know what the dharma of a human being is or should be? This is truly a difficult question. It is so difficult that Manu, the chronicler of our social laws, shied away from defining dharma. Instead, he listed a set of indicative traits that a person who follows dharma aught to have. This list is rather interesting. I will record it for you so that you may see it and have a chance to critique it if you disagree with Manu.
First let’s get the text.
DHRITI, KSHAMA, DAMAH, ASTYEYA,
SHAUCHA, INDRYIA-NIGRAHA
DHEE, VIDYA, SATYAM, AKRODHA
--- These are the ten indicators of a person performing dharma
Next, let’s get the meanings:
1. Dhriti is your ability to identify what in you own opinion makes you what you are and your ability to stick to them. These are your own fundamental values selected and maintained by you. You may have learnt of these values from your parents or teachers or friends, you may have learnt of these values from reading of books or from hearing others speak, or you may have set up these values through your own judgment of right and wrong. These values are not immutable. You may want, from time to time, to change one or more values as you grow older and wiser. But, for any given moment, the values you hold must be unquestioningly acknowledged as your own values and be practiced by you; as otherwise, you would cease to remain your own self by your own reckoning. Dhriti therefore means – literally – your ability to hold on to your own fundamental values.
2. Kshama, in modern Indian languages, means forgiveness. However in old Sanskrit it carried a different meaning. The word is derived from the root Ksham which means power and ability. (You may be familiar with other words derived from the same root where the meanings have not transmuted as much, such as kshamata meaning ability or power, saksham meaning a person who is able, aksham meaning a person who is unable to perform and so on) In the context of dharma, kshama would mean your ability to achieve your objective with tenacity and persistence without passing on the blame for any temporary failure or impediment to any one else’s performance or to your own perceived inability to perform well.
3. When you have a clear objective and a vision for yourself, and you develop tenacity and perseverance to enhance your power, you are likely to face one problem. You might become intoxicated with your own power. This is a common pitfall. In our scriptures, this problem of intoxication with ones own power is identified by the name ‘MADAH’. Madah detracts from your ability to be just and fair. Therefore, Madah is an impediment to dharma. DAMAH is the reverse of MADAH. DAMAH is your ability to control MADAH. If you want to follow dharma, you will have to develop DAMAH.
4. ASTYEYA is about recognition of property rights. When one is powerful, it is always tempting to usurp other people’s property. If you succumb to such a temptation you would be unjust and unfair. Therefore, to practice dharma, you will have to refrain from usurping others property rights. Theft, pilferage etc are not accepted within the behavior limits of dharma. Astyeya in the present context is therefore your ability to refrain from theft and such other misdemeanor.
5. SHAUCHA means cleanliness. The cleanliness here refers to the body, the mind, the environment and the thought process. It is not possible to perform dharma with an unclean body or unclean mind or in unclean surroundings or with unclean thoughts. SHAUCHA in our context therefore means your ability to cleanse and permanently keep clean you body, your mind, your surroundings and your thoughts.
6. INDRIYA-NIGRAHA is a complex concept but is easy to understand if you begin with the basics. Human beings have five INDRIYA or sensory organs: that of sight, sound, smell, taste and touch. These organs provide you with information necessary for the functioning of your mind and body. These organs are also programmed to initiate bodily function through movement of muscles or release of chemicals in the bloodstream whenever any relevant information is recorded by any of the sensors. For example, the pupils of your eyes will contract if the ambient light is too bright, your muscles will react if you are pricked by a pin, you will be filled with fear, joy, excitement, apprehension or desire as the sensory organs receive appropriate signals. Thus, not only are the INDRIYA organs useful to you for your day to day life, they are also very powerful instruments. Because the INDRIYA are powerful, they are sometimes able to overwhelm you with information or instinctive reaction. You may thus be overcome by fear, delirious with joy, unsteady by excitement, stupefied by apprehension, unstable by desire and so on if you do not have an appropriate mechanism to filter and control the inputs from the INDRIYA. To ensure avoidance of improper behavior under the influence of an overdose of INDRIYA activity, you will need to develop a filter and control system. The prefix NI indicates a negative while the root verb GRAHA means to accept. INDRIYA-NIGRAHA therefore means your ability to shut out or not to take in the information and related instinctive reactions from the INDRIYA at your own choosing. To practice dharma, you must remain the master of your own actions. You cannot yield control even to your own INDRIYA. Therefore, you must develop INDRIYA-NIGRAHA.
7. DHEE is your intellectual analytical ability. All your actions, other than instinctive reactions, are caused by your desire to act based on your evaluation of available information. If you are unable to analyze the available information then you may act incorrectly and thus go against Dharma. If you wish to remain within the ambit of Dharma, you will have to constantly try to sharpen your analytical ability.
8. VIDYA is loosely translated as knowledge + ability + skill. But more accurately, VIDYA is your ability to identify, store, index and retrieve information from a knowledge base. If you have a task to perform and you know how to do it efficiently and you can command your physical and mental skills to perform the task well, you have the Vidya required for the task. A performer of Dharma will never act without Vidya, since that may cause the task being performed non-optimally. Ergo, if you wish to remain within the bounds of Dharma, you would have to learn the required Vidya for each and every task you are required to perform. In our current context then, VIDYA denotes your ability to gather all the required knowledge, skill and expertise for any task that you may have to perform.
9. SATYAM is the Truth. It goes without saying that to stay within the bounds of Dharma one would have to discern between truth and untruth. Funnily though, truth has the habit of being inconsistent as it is heavily dependent upon contextual environment. Then again, the extent of contextual environment enlarges with the expansion of your own knowledge base. In the current context then, SATYAM would denote your ability to discern between truth and untruth, consistent with the current limit of the contextual environment. For this to happen, you will have to call upon your Dhee and Vidya to function at their best.
10. Krodha is anger. AKRODHA is therefore non-anger. Now why is control over anger so necessary for performing acts of Dharma? The answer is straight forward. As an emotion, anger releases chemicals in the blood stream that inhibit the functioning of your brain. Your judgment and analytical abilities are impaired. Your actions under the influence of anger will positively be sub-optimal. Therefore, you must have the ability to control your anger if you wish to remain within Dharma.
Interesting this list certainly is. However, it has a few peculiar characteristics that need to be noticed.
Firstly, it looks like a ‘to do’ list rather than a ‘how to do what must be done’ manual. It tells you what attributes you are likely to be in possession of if you manage to remain within the ambit of Dharma in your actions but it does not tell you how to acquire these attributes. I wish it did, it would then be easier to tread the path of Dharma more confidently. But the fact is that it does not do so. We shall need to debate as to why Manu chose to be reticent.
Secondly, there is an undertone in the list that implies that if you wish to remain firmly within the bounds of Dharma, you shall have to become mentally, physically and intellectually strong. Indeed, if you manage to acquire all the abilities listed, you can hardly remain a doormat! At the same time, you are constantly cautioned not to become a bully. (Remember the need for DAMAH ASTYEYA and AKRODHA?). Thus, with unspoken words, Manu has painted a picture of a follower of Dharma who is strong, compassionate, just, equitable and wise. This picture is supposed to be your role model if you wish to follow Dharma.
Thirdly, Manu makes no mention here of Divinity, Prayers, Rituals and Social codes. He makes no mention of any Messengers of God or of any Holy Book. He does not talk of fasts and sacrifices. Indeed, he does not even talk of your soul! He deals with Dharma solely in terms of your ability and actions as a human being. To remain within the ambit of Dharma, you may or may not even believe in GOD. Are you surprised? If you do believe in GOD, then where within the list will you fit HIM in? The answer is of course easy. He can only be a part of your Dhriti because you consider His presence to be an essential part of your own being. If you do not believe in GOD, even that fact will have to be a part of your Dhriti.
It seems to me that Dharma actually revolves only around your actions. As a matter of fact, this whole process of following Dharma is called Dharma Aacharan or walking through Dharma. The individual actions taken by any individual is called Karma. Like many other Sanskrit words transported into English, the meaning of the word karma has also got distorted. Karma is the exportation of your energy and effort affecting your environment. To be called your karma, an action must originate through your own efforts. It also must have some effect either on the environment or on the people around you. You can perform karma through three methods – by your body, by your mind and by your speech. If you can make sure that the effects of your karma on other people and on the environment are benign or uplifting then you may be pretty sure that your karma is within dharma. Hey.. but karma is a big subject by itself and we must not get side-tracked from our quest of understanding what Dharma is. Let us get back to our subject.
We were wondering a little while ago as to why Manu has not provided us with a how to do manual or even a simple definition of Dharma. We find no direct answers from his book. However, it is possible that he thought it would be better for us if we found the ways and means to tread the path of Dharma by our own efforts. Then, we would automatically know what dharma is; no one else would have to define it for us! Of course there were many other sages who have attempted to define or explain Dharma. Some of them fell upon its word meaning and declared that Dharma is nothing but your inherent property. Others defined it differently, some in a very complex manner and some others more simply. One of the more simple definitions was that dharma is something that lets you live and grow. I some how feel that it would really be best for us if we could find our own meaning and definition for dharma. Let us see if we can reconcile the check-list given by Manu with what the other rishis have said. Your own abilities and knowledge are of course a part of your own property or qualitative attribute. To that extent, if I say your dharma is your property, and Manu says that if you follow Dharma you are likely to develop such abilities, then there seems to be no conflict. From fundamental knowledge of physics we know that properties of a matter are determined by its atomic arrangements. Tempering of steel through heat and cold makes it stronger. The arrangements atoms in a mass of carbon dictate whether the matter will be a chunk of coal or a piece of diamond. The properties of matter thus can change from within. What Manu and others are trying to tell us is that if we consciously perform our karma within the bounds of dharma, our properties will change for the better. May be, we shall turn into a piece of diamond from a chunk of coal?
Now let us see if we could tweak the list a bit and convert it into some sort of Ten Commandments! Being a grand father, converting comments in to commands come easy to me.
1. Be conscious about your fundamental values and stick to them
2. Be tenacious and persevering: whatever be the impediments, stick to your goals
3. Do not be vainglorious. Guard against the intoxicating influence of power and self-importance.
4. Do not usurp other people’s property (and rights).
5. Be clean in body mind thought and surroundings.
6. Always be in control of your actions. Do not succumb to misleading sensual inputs.
7. Consciously and constantly sharpen your intellect and your analytical ability.
8. Learn all the skills and gather all the knowledge required to perform any and every task you have to perform.
9. Stick to the truth to the best of your judgmental ability.
10. Keep your anger subdued.
There. That sounds much simpler. It is almost do-able with a little bit of effort. Is that not so? It almost sounds like a script from a management course of a B-School; as if Dharma is in reality a part of the management sciences. But wait. Do not jump too fast. There are loose ends still dangling that need to be tied up before we proceed further.
Let us begin at the very beginning. As Maria said, it is a very good place to start. It is all very well for a grandfather to advise you to be conscious about your fundamental values; how on earth do you begin to identify them? Well, our ancient seers are there to offer you some help. Human life, they have said, consists of a number of well defined stages. Firstly, there is infancy. They named it as shaishava, the stage of being a shishu or an infant. At this stage you are totally at the mercy of the adults around you. You can just about breathe, drink and grow. You do not need to bother about your fundamental values here. Your inborn instinct is good enough. Next you pass through childhood or baalya, the stage of being a little boy (a Baalak) or a little girl (a Baalikaa). Even at this stage you are not required to look for your fundamental values. You are still dependent upon the adults around you. Your instinct teaches you to observe and learn the basic facts of life. You need to eat at regular intervals or else you will feel hungry. You must not eat when you are already full or else you will fall sick. Do not touch fire, it will singe you. If you feel cold, covering your body will help. Such like and many other facts will be noted by you and will be recorded in your knowledge base without your conscious effort. The adults around you will variously tempt you, cajole you, induce you or even bully you to learn many other things. The more you get such adult help, easier it will be for you to learn the essential skills and knowledge for life. You are not yet called upon to plan your own life.
Life however gets a little tougher as you get into 16. You enter a stage of transition. In Indian expression, you enter kaishore, the stage of being a kishor or a kishori. There is no exact English word for this stage, though some people call it young adulthood. In this stage of transition, you are called upon to transform yourself from a dependent child to an independent adult. To start with, of course you are not yet independent. But emotionally and physically certain changes take place in your mind and body that force you to reconstruct your relationships with others around you. You look somewhat different and you feel somewhat different. Slowly you realize that the others are treating you with a little difference too. You realize that you are slowly becoming a person. Not yet an adult, but a person all the same. It sets you thinking or at least should set you thinking: who am I? For the first time in your life you feel the need to define yourself. You are not yet an adult. The reference platform for defining yourself naturally turns towards the most important adults in your life so far. I am a daughter to my parents, you say tentatively, and immediately the penny drops. Does being a daughter to my parents entail some responsibility on my part? The quest for your fundamental values begins here. What do I have to do to be good daughter to my parents? See how easily you get enmeshed in karma in the search of your fundamental values. What do I have to be to be a good daughter to my parents translates unconsciously to what do I have to do to be one! This unconscious, subconscious, semi conscious and then conscious assumption of responsibility is the beginning of your journey to adulthood. This behavioral metamorphosis is the hallmark of the transition that kaishore is all about. As you go along in your journey into adulthood you realize that you are playing many roles on this stage of life all at the same time. You are a student in a school. The scripture says: chhaatraanaam adhyanam tapah – for students, the most sacred endeavor is to study diligently. Viola! Another fundamental value relevant to your current status gets recognized. You have a younger brother. ‘My brother needs some guidance in his current state of boyhood learning and growing,’ –you judge. ‘I think I shall try to be his friendly guide’ – you decide. Bingo. You have set yourself another task that you think needs to be done. Now, you shall have to become a competent and friendly guide to a pre-teen boy! Thus it goes on. You define a role for yourself or you realize that there is a role you are already enacting in real life. You then search for the values attached to that role and attempt to attain those values because you want to perform every role, be it assumed by you or imposed upon you, to perfection. This process of assumption of responsibility, of recognizing the roles you play, of realizing the implications of the events around you slowly generates the personality that you shall assume as a person in adult life. This conscious adult person within the society is named a Vyakti in Indian philosophy. The person or the vyakti has three identifiable strands to his/her personality or inner self. The first part hankers after truth and knowledge. This part of the inner self is called Sat. The second part of the inner self hankers after justice, betterment, equality and freedom, all based on logic. This part of the inner self is called Chit. The third part of the inner self is attached to joy. It loves art and culture. It wants to enjoy dancing and music, it relishes a novel or a painting, and it freaks out on good food and drinks. It wishes to meet with friends and walk in the hills. In short, it identifies with unbounded joy. This element is Aananda. A well rounded personality has a well balanced mixture of these three strands – Sat Chit Aananda – in the inner self or the Antaraatma. This inclusion of Aananda as a recognizable desirable inescapable part of a personality sets the Indian way of life apart from many other philosophies that sometimes consider enjoyment as sinful.
Let us digest this mouthful that might need some chewing. Firstly, as a young adult, a Kishori, you are in the process of becoming a person. This process is a natural progression that will happen to you whether you like it or not. You have however, the power to influence the kind or person that you shall ultimately become, by your own deliberate actions, which is sometimes called your karma. Secondly, you have a broad choice to utilize the powers that you are born with to influence the growth process to become what you want to be or let the nature and the environment take its own course and take you wherever the social current drifts you, soaking you with whatever the values are that are present around you. In that case, you might not know while you are growing whether you are heading towards a cesspool or a sweet water lake. Step one is therefore to decide whether you are ready to make a choice about the values of life while you are in the process of growing into adulthood. If you do, it will be your step1A into Dharma: Identification of your Dhriti. Then Step 1B will be your effort to stay within the values you have selected. We have just seen that the persona of a vyakti has three strands: Sat Chit and Aananda. You will need to choose the colour and the texture and the strength, and the taste and the aroma of each of the strands that you would like to have in the weave and waft of your persona, if you choose to choose and act that is. Please note carefully that I am not leading you into any one set of values. The values that you choose, if you decide to choose any values at all, must be totally your choice. That is the essence of this freedom to be yourself that I was talking about.
I think that by now I have gathered for you a workable set of tools to potter around with Dhriti if you so desire, except for one little thing hiding in one corner: your interaction with Divinity. Do you believe in God? It is a personal question that you may be prompted to ask yourself. If you do, how do you perceive Him? If you do not, then what prompts you disbelieve? These are a set of questions that have been debated over thousands of years with no final answers. Our ancient seers concluded that this is a question that can be answered only by an individual to him or herself. Logically, there can be two answers: Yes I believe in God, and No, I do not believe in the existence of anything called God. There is of course a possible third option: “Do not ask me that question, I am not prepared to bother my self to find an answer.â€
Negi:
I am not splitting semantics either.
However, there is a difference between saying:
- Human ancestors were monkeys and
- present day humans and monkeys share the same ancestor.
This common ancestor has been termed primate, not monkey.
Your statement "human ancestors were monkeys" would imply that
(a) ancestor and descendant are existing in the same present epoch. How is this possible?
(b) It should be possible to evolve more humans out of monkeys. Again, a wrong implication. Humans and monkeys share the same ancestor, that's all. But aeons ago, the tree branched and now they are two different branches.
Our DNA does indeed contain genes that are of terrestrial origin, it's just that these genes have not been identified. Indeed, the gene that predisposes people to heart-disease, for example has also not yet been identified. On the second point, it is the 1% that makes all the difference. As there are 20,000 genes in the roundworm, human DNA contains between 25,000 and 65,000 genes (depending on who you ask) so even 1% is somewhere between 250 and 650 genes that are different from chimpazees. The same several hundred genes that have no readily identifiable evolutionary heritage in primates, are open to interpretation, especially as a few have been implicated in our ability to speak (i.e., plasmid injection/ mutation in FOXP2). On the 3rd point: That present-day genetics has not yet discovered evidence that supports Sitchin's theories is simply because no self-respecting geneticist would threaten their reputation by publishing any papers that support such a theory.
Sitchin counters that the human genes "do not have the required predecessors on the genomic evolutionary tree" and that they could originate with genetic engineering.
I'd read Fritjof Capra's 'Tao of Physics' and 'Uncommon wisdom' some yrs ago and remain suitably swayed. Hinduism has phenomenal, perhaps unqiue insights in this regard, no doubt. Also, attempts to define dharma etc can fill reams of text.
My concern (paranoia?) isn't about the inherent greatness of Hindu thought etc, but more practically and specifically about the question:
"What part of Indic/Hinduism's greatness enables it to successfully defend itself against organized and focused assaults from within (marxists, assorted commies and secular-fundamentalists etc) and without (EJs, the assorted mujahids, tableeghs etc)"? Is there any such element in there at all or is it just hope triumphing over experience? Are we hoping to 'develop immunity' down the line?
After seeing what happened to the (dare I say it) *superior* moral, cultural and artistic heights attained by the Persian and Gandhara civilizations, by that in present day BD and Indonesia as compared to what defeated and supplanted them, can we really presume that Indic culture and religion in the Indic heartland are immune? I'll admit I am afraid (paranoid?) about Indism's chances. For all the lofty words of denunciation I've heard against 'bleaters and whiners' about attempts to defend (protect?) Hinduism (even if clumsy or miguided) against an == treatment with the likes of cults, ignorance, apartheid, fascism and pogroms et al, am yet to hear articulated how and why Hinduism will survive the next 2 centuries of organized Abhrahamic targeting of the homeland? More fundamentally, does it matter if Hinduism survives? Won't India survive w/o Hinduism? Isn't BRF about India's interests, not Hinduism's? And so on.
Would be interested in knowing what forumites think about these preliminary (and admittedly not very articulately) phrased questions. But hopefully, the gist of this line of questioning will have carried across.
/
Disclaimer: Not intended to offend anybody. If anything said in this post seriously steps on sensitive toes, pls lemme know, shall edit it out.
Have a nice day.
Last edited by vsudhir on 14 Mar 2007 18:43, edited 1 time in total.
That man, although recognised as a great Jewish scholar, has only one point agenda in life, and that is to prove that Jews are superior to other humans, as they are the product of genetic engineering by aliens who mixed their 'superior' genes with those of the neanderthals to produce homo sapiens. And then goes around saying the gods mentioned in old testament are really aliens.
He says that one of the proof of such nonsense is the staff of Mercury (the one with 2 intertwined snakes) is proof of the fact that the aliens knew genetic manipulation. Since the 2 intertwined snakes resemble the intertwined double helix of DNA.
He even says that the aliens travel in a comet called Nibiru that visits the earth every 3300-3900 years and each such visit coincides with either a great advancement in humanity or a great destruction. At the hands of the aliens of course. I suppose he wants to say that Jews will be safe from such destruction as they have a covenant with the 'gods'.
abhishek let's not delve into the details, that might be his agenda. But the main feature is that there are indeed large grey areas in the genetic map which do not belong to any ape-origins.
I believe that is where religion, Gods etc come in...though someone else may have some other reason for explaining such aberrations. In any case let's just keep our minds open in this regard, that's all I wanted to say as far as our present topic is concerned.
Sunoor Singh wrote:Negi:
I am not splitting semantics either.
However, there is a difference between saying:
- Human ancestors were monkeys and
- present day humans and monkeys share the same ancestor.
This common ancestor has been termed primate, not monkey.
Again termed being the operative word.
Your statement "human ancestors were monkeys" would imply that
(a) ancestor and descendant are existing in the same present epoch. How is this possible?
I dont know Mr. Darwin says that difference being he calls it a primate eh.
(b) It should be possible to evolve more humans out of monkeys. Again, a wrong implication. Humans and monkeys share the same ancestor, that's all. But aeons ago, the tree branched and now they are two different branches.
Yeah and this tree stopped growing when Darwin discovered it.
shiv wrote:I wonder if they do not have the PR strength to change things- or worse they do not have the insight to see why that may be important.
Some things to point to here.
The RSS, has by and large made a conscious decision to shun ideological talk and focus on "action" on the ground instead and hence very few of their group organizations are focused on the propagation of ideology or focused on refuting foreign ideologies. This is a fact often overlooked inspite of the charge against them by DDM and foreign media of being Hindu ideologues. In reality, if they are, then they are fairly weak in this area.
There are several critics of the RSS led by Sita Ram Goel, Koenrad Elst and other VOI authors, who have charged the RSS with exactly, what Shiv describes above.
In defense, the RSS and especially the BJP say that the realities and contemporary history of modern India went severely against any serious attempt by Hindutva based groupings to propogate Hindutva ideology in the PC and minority appeasement mentality based Indian polity.
In order to understand the hesitation of the RSS, one has to understand certain historical events, such as the banning of the RSS in India after Gandhi's assassination and the cumulative effects of foreign rule in India along with the severe economic and social deprivation amongst the Indian people and also the specific type of manipulative electoral politics in India.
Do the RSS and related organizations realize the need to better manage the PR and importantly are they doing it. I have not found a convincing enough yes answer, yet.
vsudhir wrote: After seeing what happened to the (dare I say it) *superior* moral, cultural and artistic heights attained by the Persian and Gandhara civilizations, by that in present day BD and Indonesia as compared to what defeated and supplanted them, can we really presume that Indic culture and religion in the Indic heartland are immune?
That's precisely the point. While we waffle about good, holy, tolerant, and spiritual Hinduism is, the half-cults are taking over. And they don't the same respect to our gods that we give to theirs. Why the **** should the burden of peace fall on Hindus again?
I'll admit I am afraid (paranoid?) about Indism's chances. For all the lofty words of denunciation I've heard against 'bleaters and whiners' about attempts to defend (protect?) Hinduism (even if clumsy or miguided) against an == treatment with the likes of cults, ignorance, apartheid, fascism and pogroms et al, am yet to hear articulated how and why Hinduism will survive the next 2 centuries of organized Abhrahamic targeting of the homeland? More fundamentally, does it matter if Hinduism survives? Won't India survive w/o Hinduism? Isn't BRF about India's interests, not Hinduism's? And so on.
India without Hinduism is not India. Its as simple as that. Hindu interests are national interests and national interests are Hindu interests.
If this truth is not clear as the Ladakh sky, then there is no point to the rest of the debate.
Why does pakistan attract so much bile on this forum? And why does China not attract it so much, despite the fact that China has done more to hurt India's interests? Because pakistan is a state of mind which this nation has fought for the past 14 centuries.
So when do people get to discuss the Islamism and EJs? All I am seeing are multiple definitions of Hinduism and genetic theory. Net result is that the two important issues to Indian interests are getting a back seat if not off the truck all together.
ramana, just two pages and we need to sit in judgement?...atleast let it complete its run of 9. Islamism and EJ threads used to get a life once in two days until someone stirred a hornet's nest in the latter.
India without Hinduism is not India. Its as simple as that. Hindu interests are national interests and national interests are Hindu interests.
Can you put that in context of the only Christian-majority state of India?
1. Are Indian interests, by definition, inimical to it?
2. Can it not exist in a Hindu-dominated India?
3. Was their struggle justified all-along?
Last edited by Sunoor Singh on 14 Mar 2007 19:31, edited 1 time in total.
I am watching the river flow as Kgoan put it ... but when I see pieces of "bullshit" and "intellectual waffling" floating in that river, it is difficult to watch ...
this thread started with the premise that the debate will not degenerate into ad hominem attacks ... I am perfectly capable of respomding in kind, but rather I will ask yuou to justify your views beyond "Oh, I used to believe that as well" ...
if you are suggesting that in the minds of believers Hindu gods are physical entities, I don't disagree with you ... however, if your claim is universal, i.e., such gods existed for about 14 billion years before some folks in India "discovered" them, then please at least attempt an argument for why that is true ...
ramana wrote:So when do people get to discuss the Islamism and EJs? All I am seeing are multiple definitions of Hinduism and genetic theory. Net result is that the two important issues to Indian interests are getting a back seat if not off the truck all together.
Is this thread really working?
Please be patient with me and this thread. There is method in my madness.
Someone has to start posting things about Islamism and/or Evanjihadism. Someone has to get the ball rolling. In the meantime I would request patience.
I have a reason for starting off this thread and I will repeat it here.
Our "specialized threads" brought in information but failed to throw any light on how the socio religious aspects of Islam or Christianity impinge on the religion and culture in India.
An absense of analysis of that aspect makes the collection of information on Islamism and Evanjihadism meaningless after a point. As far as I could see, I was observing people making dire warnings of threats with no inkling whatsoever about what could be done and what mechanisms toabsorb, cope, tolerate, submit or oppose Islamism or evanjihadism within Indian society.
No discussion of that can be meaningful without exploring how the dominant religion/culture Hinduism relates to people in India. It is strange that people speak of the Church doing such sociological studies. But BRF has avoided the topic. It is important to watste a few threads thrashing out how people see Hinduism. Only after that can we get an idea of where people are coming from when they view Islamism or evanjihadism and react to them.
It is naive to believe that all Hindus see things through the same prism. That would be true only if Hindu thought was rigid and restricted. It is not and so we have people disgareeing with each other all the time, and they disagree on how much of a threat is posed by islamism/EJ.
Any "ballpark idea" of what effect EJ/Islamism are going to have can only come from getting a wide spectrum of opinions on how Hindus see their own religion.
Any "responses" or "predictions" can come only after that.
Last edited by shiv on 14 Mar 2007 19:36, edited 3 times in total.
Alok_N, In this new prestroika, the Islamism thread which dealt with the more immediate issue got shaeedized. Its one of the five threads I read regularly.
I'll admit I am afraid (paranoid?) about Indism's chances. For all the lofty words of denunciation I've heard against 'bleaters and whiners' about attempts to defend (protect?) Hinduism (even if clumsy or miguided) against an == treatment with the likes of cults, ignorance, apartheid, fascism and pogroms et al, am yet to hear articulated how and why Hinduism will survive the next 2 centuries of organized Abhrahamic targeting of the homeland? More fundamentally, does it matter if Hinduism survives? Won't India survive w/o Hinduism? Isn't BRF about India's interests, not Hinduism's? And so on.
India without Hinduism is not India. Its as simple as that. Hindu interests are national interests and national interests are Hindu interests.
If this truth is not clear as the Ladakh sky, then there is no point to the rest of the debate.
This is the essence of the thread and probably BRF even if one may not agree completely with it.
If Hindus cannot be protected then India cannot be protected.
Modernism in the last 50 years had confused the debate in the minds of the Indian people.
ramana wrote:So when do people get to discuss the Islamism and EJs? All I am seeing are multiple definitions of Hinduism and genetic theory. Net result is that the two important issues to Indian interests are getting a back seat if not off the truck all together.
Is this thread really working?
Is it surprising, that multiple definitions are coming out?
Perhaps one day we will realize the severe limitations and boundations that organizations like RSS contend with.
To challenge them to gear up to the level of Islamists and EJ's PR and propaganda blitz means one is assuming that somehow the complexity of Indic religio-cultural framework could be simplified into "One Book" framework overnight.
_______________________________
A second line of thought...some members here take pride in strength and vitality of Hinduism.
Closer scrutiny presents a different picture. Hindus/Indic religious communities have lost territories over centuries, great masses of people have converted to escape religious persecution of the invaders, precious texts and literary artifacts have been lost.
Even among the surviving communities the rituals have undergone changes or abominable practices have been added to cope with the invaders.
So the lie that we have endured handsomely has been propagated to placate a restive majority at crucial moments and it has served the purpose of breeding a sense of complacency among the majority.
If someone likes to discuss I'll take forward this line of thought in IF.
________________________________
Last edited by SRoy on 14 Mar 2007 20:06, edited 4 times in total.
I am delighted that Jaylal has started off such a discussion.
Jaylal, while I certainly empathize with your experiences and thoughts, and commend your having acquired an excellent knowledge of Hinduism, I would invite you to burnish that knowledge with a few refinements.
Let me state these in the context of learning, say, engineering.
1. Please recognize that religions are about the beliefs of people, evolved through their experiences and the experiences passed down through their ancestors. As such, there is much that you will not find in the "excellent knowledge" of scriptures, Vedas, poetry etc. that is crucial to how the Believers perceive themselves and their religion.
2. Just as a fresh engineering graduate with a 4.0GPA has an excellent "knowledge" of engineering. But I would not trust such a person to solve a problem without close supervision, if the results had to be applied to a practical situation.
3. Please don't take this as criticism - just a pointer that acquiring knowledge is like rising higher in a hot-air balloon. You get to realize that there is more and more to seen the higher and higher you go, and your link to reality is rather tenuous and can be blown up in an instant.
4. So I would suggest that you take a bit of time to ease up and see what those old, fat men (the ones u describe so politely as "middle-aged") are doing, taking such nonsense. Are you REALLY a whole lot smarter than them? Do they not succeed in relating to people of other cultures less than you do? Maybe if you check, you may find that that guy sitting covered in a saffron shawl with ash all over his balding forehead, is an engineering PhD who made $Billions in the Real Estate market, and owns a few companies. Did he get there without SOME understanding of the world?
5. Or that other guy who speaks with Oooo! Such a Third World accent! - maybe that's a professor of mathematics, who has edited a whole series of volumes containing the essence of research on Hinduism.
6. Or maybe that you and your classmates were taught a very filtered version of what India and Indians are all about, and hence have grown up with as much, if not a whole lot worse, set of prejudices that they have. Some of the things I see you taking for granted as "historical truths" are, well, not so true.
7. For sure, if you ask any of those old fellas, they will tell you that they are completely without prejudice, totally welcoming of other cultures and religions. Proof? I bet you that 70% of the offspring of those old folks, are married to ppl of NOT Indian or Hindu descent.
In fact, a huge motivating force of some of the most "extreme" sounding of these people is that they see themselves as having been too busy being "assimilated" and "all-inclusive" and "successful and modern" and giving their kids a "first-class education", and hence having failed totally (this is their perception, not mine) to convey to their kids what is REALLY important. THIS is what they are reacting to, as they realize that time is limited, that there is not any more "a whole world to discover, all the time in the world to do it in".
But, I am certainly glad you are here.
**************************************************
On a related note, when I was even littler than I am now, I was taught a certain English saying:
There is not much merit in the lamb declaring vegetarianism, when the wolf is of a different persuasion
You will see this when you think of the 1960s India declaring its ultra-pure commitment to NonViolence and Peaceful Use of Atomic Energy - while the Chinese and the Pakis were figuring out how to threaten us with hydrogen bombs.
Perhaps these sorts of historical experiences color the thinking of those "middle-aged" stupid folks?
But, hey, GLAD that you are out there, so that there is nothing to worry about for India or Hinduism. After all, there's 800 million of us, and rising.
Last edited by enqyoobOLD on 14 Mar 2007 20:31, edited 1 time in total.
>>Even among the surviving communities the rituals have undergone changes or abominable practices have been added to cope with the invaders.
SRoy what are those ?? I know of some like marriage ceremonies in North India only take place during night time whereas in South India they take place in broad daylight. Some say that this change took place during mughal time.
Last edited by Raju on 14 Mar 2007 20:15, edited 1 time in total.
Can you put that in context of the only Christian-majority state of India?
Factual error there. IIRC, all of 3 states - meghalaya, Mizoram and nagaland are Christian-majority states.
Raju,
>>abominable practices have been added to cope with the invaders.
SRoy what are those ?? I know of some like marriage ceremonies in North India only take place during night time whereas in South India they take place in broad daylight. Some say that this change took place during mughal time.
Child marriage too got a fillip due to the Mughal invasion. I got no proof of this assertion at this time, though.
SRoy wrote:
A second line of thought...some members here take pride in strength and vitality of Hinduism.
Closer scrutiny presents a different picture. Hindus/Indic religious communities have lost territories over centuries, great masses of people have converted to escape religious persecution of the invaders, precious texts and literary artifacts have been lost.
Even among the surviving communities the rituals have undergone changes or abominable practices have been added to cope with the invaders.
So the lie that we have endured handsomely has been propagated to placate a restive majority at crucial moments and it has served the purpose of breeding a sense of complacency among the majority.
If someone likes to discuss I'll take forward this line of thought in IF.
________________________________
Raju wrote:>>Even among the surviving communities the rituals have undergone changes or abominable practices have been added to cope with the invaders.
SRoy what are those ?? I know of some like marriage ceremonies in North India only take place during night time whereas in South India they take place in broad daylight. Some say that this change took place during mughal time.
Raju,
Things like being forced to conduct marriages in night is in variance with classical prescription beside being humiliating. Also, the nonsense like Purdah, which is again a product of the middle ages, is a great fact to revile modern day Hinduism.
I'll catch up with you later...
Last edited by SRoy on 14 Mar 2007 20:48, edited 3 times in total.
I would like to have a separate thread for Islamism while Islam and its impact on India be discussed here. Will wait a few days to see the dust settled.
I have no specific objection to a separate islamism thread.
I see the religion thread's raisin dieter as follows and let me use a medical/biological analogy that I am most comfortable with.
Suppose you want to check the effect of radiation on some living organisms, there are two possible sets of experiments you can do
1) Expose a single species to radiation and check the effects
2) Expose multiple species - eg humans, horses, cockroaches, whales, whatever to radiation and see the effect on each.
If Hindus had only one rigid view of life and religion, the experiment of "radiation" (Islamism/Evangelism) on Hindus would be like experiment number one above
But I believe that Hindus have innumerable streams of thought processes that could possibly be classified as one of maybe ten different varieties (like multiple species). The reaction of each of these groups to "radiation" (Islam/Evangelism) will be different.
Ultimately what survives depends on the adaptive power of those exposed.
We make a serious error (as probably some political parties do too) in branding all Hindus as having a single Islam like rigid thought process. They do not. One size does not fit all. That probaly troubles EJ/islam just as much as anyone else.
We have not even defined the various groups of thought streams that Hindus use to react to islam/EJ
How can we then even begin to predict what will happen or what will be done and by whom?
We need a thread to document those thought streams for starters.
As an "aside" based on thoughts provoked by my own previous post, I want to point out that big shots like Vivekananda were able to recognise the wide diversity among Hindus in India but was still able to pinpoint the common skein that links all.
Political parties like the BJP and even worse, the Shiv Sena are far far faar below this ideal. So far down that I suspect the ideological bosses do not themselves have a grasp of the width of Hindu thought processes and are trying to restrict it to what their smallish minds can encompass. Which seems to me to be "not much"
But then again - I am comparing Vivekananda with the likes of Balls Thakre. My mistake.
shiv wrote:
But then again - I am comparing Vivekananda with the likes of Balls Thakre. My mistake.
Yes. Do not compare Vivekananda. Political parties after Independence are distorted version of the national movements and have no resemblance.
Shiv Sena are more a reaction to changes happening due to stagnation in the critical years of 70s-80s.
Debates of socialism, nationalism did not change much due to single party rule of 70s-80s.
.Ahem....... I do not wish to go into hair splitting semantics but for the sake of the discussion isnt ancestor~four fathers .
and each such visit coincides with either a great advancement in humanity or a great destruction. At the hands of the aliens of course. I suppose he wants to say that Jews will be safe from such destruction as they have a covenant with the 'gods'.
