Posted: 30 Mar 2007 00:40
Sandeep, given how swiftly and completely the fires of 80s extinguished, I agree, it seems people deep in their hearts knew.
Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
https://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/
good article.. but hopefully we continue in the same spirit to read his answers to many questions.. or the better answers we are seeking for countering western -izations.RajeshG wrote:Translations, or Travesty of Traditions
by Prof S N Balagangadhara
Tiny URL : http://tinyurl.com/ys8jnl
Destroy the Family structure , Destroy the Society thus Destroy the Dharma . By political, monetary patronage gain the critical mass and apply the right blow at right juncture. This is a slow poisoning and weakning .S.Valkan wrote:Abhijit wrote: Those who have unflinching faith are at the least risk of conversion.
I will make a digression, and rake up an example of someone from THIS forum,- Vick.
He claims he has a Hindu mother, and a Christian father, and he chose Christianity over Hinduism.
There could be several reasons for his decision, but the one most likely is that - as a child - his mother could NOT satisfactorily answer his questions about Hindu deities and rituals, while his Christian father ( or the church leaders ) could about theirs.
[quote.
Well if you want to address something to me, you better take my name. It would be more, how should I put this, ... appropriate.S.Valkan wrote:If anyone here is adamant that "Bheda" and "BhedaBheda" are the pinnacles of their logical conclusions, or that they are sanguine that the "experience" of Ananda lies BEYOND Ananta, etc, so be it.
So, you see. I have not claimed anand as BEYOND anant. Yet you assumed that that is what I did.When union if agya chakra and sahatrara takes place, the yogi experiences anant. This state is also identical to Dharana.
And the continuation of this state is anand. And this state is also called Samadhi, the eighth stage of Ashtanga Yog.
excuse me, but I have!SaiK wrote:I also don't see Valkans, Kumars, Aloks et al deriving to some commandments for Cs and Ds, so that they can take ownerships of hinduism in those commanding spirits.
This Dvaita vs Advitha and calling each other indefensible by the other has to end. With the globalized world and predatory sociopolitical movement the Indian social groups created by these two Vedantic philosphy which does not accept the other historically has to end. We have to create a unifying umbrella to make sure that all the social groups are not divided due to philosophical differences.S.Valkan wrote:
I have even given a short example of Advaita logic from First Principles, WITHOUT the need for scriptures, in an earlier post, because many here had requested it.
I have no intention of going into another flurry of posts proving why Dvaita and Vishistadvaita concepts are logically indefensible.
They have their own place in the rung of spiritual growth, and are necessary - as Hinduism sees it - for people of different Adhikaritvam ( competency ).
Dvaita school referred to as "prachchhanna târkika"; tongue-in-cheek appellate was allegedly affixed by some followers of Advaita, who were piqued at being called "prachchhanna bauddha" (disguised Buddhists). This latter designation was used because of the great similarity between Buddhism and Advaita (both schools do not accept the reality of the universe, both deny that the Creator is an eternal real, etc.). In turn, Advaitins labeled devotees of Srimad Âchârya as "prachchhanna târkika" (disguised logicians) because of the latters' use of logic to show that Advaita is inconsistent.
Why think of "counter attack" ?SaiK wrote:I think we need to set our mission objectives for this counter attack..
VEDA means Knowledge, especially the Knowledge of Parbrahm. Any Holy Scripture which impart this right Knowledge can be called Veda.SBajwa wrote:Thanks S.Valkan.
People do! but economics do not. Punjab in 80's was never a religious issue., but an economic one. Did you see the current issue over SYL canal between Haryana (Ruled by Congress) and Punjab (Akalis and BJP)?by Kumar
Re: the sikh priest "JS Vedanti", every time I saw his name in the news, I used to wonder whether people realize the inner similarities, especially during the 80s.
You misunderstood the concept.Acharya wrote:This Dvaita vs Advitha and calling each other indefensible by the other has to end.
Sorry for moving from the thread, but you are from both the sampradhaya- I guess you have to believe in 1 of the 2. Anyway while i belive in Vaishnavism I guess both belive in the same scriptures and the acrimonious debate should end. But to counter the EJ's who just pour scorn calling us stone worshippers, the concepts of Vaishnavism , Advaita, Shivism etc should be clearly explained as many common hindus don't seem to have any idea about what thier religion is about.Acharya
BRFite
This Dvaita vs Advitha and calling each other indefensible by the other has to end.
BTW I come from both the sampradhaya.
Thank you. I wanted somebody to point this out and hence I said both the schools of thought.Aditya Vikrams wrote:
Sorry for moving from the thread, but you are from both the sampradhaya- I guess you have to believe in 1 of the 2. Anyway while i belive in Vaishnavism I guess both belive in the same scriptures and the acrimonious debate should end.
I still get nightmares about it ... just kiddingS.Valkan wrote:The answer, after about 5 months of discussion ( and Alok N has the best memory of it ), was that Dvaita depends on Sensory Perception, and Advaita on Pure Logic.
So be it.abhischekcc wrote:It seems to me that you are unable to connect an intellectual description with a experiential one, and are limited to intellectual conception. I suggest you do some Tratak to gain insight.
At any rate Gyan yog and Vedanta are incomplete philosophies, because they do not have a fully practical side to it. One cannot experience the truth, as expounded by these philosophies, without taking the help of other more practical schools like Yog or Tantra.
At the risk of sounding repetitively moronic, why does it matter that in your opinion millions of Hindus don't 'seem' to have any idea of what their religion is? For 99 % of the christians christianity boils down to the following simple things:many common hindus don't seem to have any idea about what thier religion is about.
Don't worry. I have no intention of an encore.Alok_N wrote:
my 10 point program above is child's play compared to that mother of all debates ... I should have saved it ...
the *real* debate can only start when battlions start moving ...
I think that the A,B, C classification has gone way far beyond what was intended in that example ...SaiK wrote:Alok Ji, those commandments are perfect for Bs., and those veering As.
Two reasons.Abhijit wrote: At the risk of sounding repetitively moronic, why does it matter that in your opinion millions of Hindus don't 'seem' to have any idea of what their religion is?
Is that conjecture based on premonition, or factual evidence ?99% of Hindus do follow this routine and remain Hindus and will remain Hindus
forget millions ... let's start by asking how many Hindus here on this board will characterize themselves as belonging to that 4-point description ...Abhijit wrote:For millions of Hindus Hinduism boils down to:
- going to temple, carrying out personal rituals, donating to temples money that may be expropriated for purposes we know nothing about
- blindly believing in the supremacy of Hindu thought and philosophy and not caring for justification of actions ranging from angelic to demonic
- impotently moaning about the continued attack on their faith by various entities real or imagined
- faithfully believing that their actions in this life were predetermined by a previous life or will have effect on the next life.
99% of Hindus do follow this routine and remain Hindus and will remain Hindus even if they can't link their rituals to dvaita or advaita or whatever.
Question to the gurus.Of all the dharmic religions why did only sikhism made a determined effort to move away from Hinduism.Buddhists and jains also dont consider themselves Hindus,but unlike sikhs they did not resort to voilence islam style.Is it something to do with islamic influence of sikhism or is it to do with khalsa thing within sikhism.If its islam thing,then is it an example of oxymoron considering that sikhism was born as a bhakti Hindu sect reaction against islam but today at least some sikhs of khalistani type try to mould it into a islamic copy cat with gurus becoming "prophets" and bhakti sikhism becoming "monotheistic" sikhism ! and if its the khalsa thing that led to sikhism developing seperatist tendencies then again how do we explain that khalsa order was developed as a reaction to islamic imperialism but today khalistani sikhs are moulding it as an reaction to imagined "Hindu fascism" ! is there any effort from the sikhs to reclaim back this distorted image from the khalistani types using sikh religious scriptures ?Kumar wrote:All dharmic religions (hinduism, sikhism, buddhism, jainism) have a strong similarity in the core, even though exteriors show variations.
when js vendanti was appointed as akal thakt,the seperatist lobby of akali dal of simranjit singh mann made a hue and cry about j.s.vedanti's "hindu" name origins and demanded him to be sacked.and the suprising thing was vedanti bowed to the pressure and had a special press conferance to prove how "devoute sikh" he was and how proud he was to be a sikh and as if devote sikh means anti-hindu, he started abusing "castist and brahmanical" hinduism !Kumar wrote:the sikh priest "JS Vedanti", every time I saw his name in the news, I used to wonder whether people realize the inner similarities, especially during the 80s.
According to at least one BRF-er, it makes the IWH and the non-IWJshiv wrote:
.......does this make the Idol Worshipping Hindu
a) a violent reactionary?
b) a Hindu fundamentalist?
c) a Hindu revivalist?
d) an enemy of secularism?
Very true. Without any exposure to sanskrit stotras or high brow analysis seen here even a simpleton like me was able to appreciate all this before entering college. I am really surprised at the ignorance of more esteemed BRFites in such philosophical matters.IMO, every kid born in India (or, elsewhere for that matter) is perfectly capable of employing Logic to appreciate philosophy ... all that the kid needs is a proper education in the 3 R's and then a decent exposure to science ...
No! Sikhs resort to violence of Krishna, Ramchandara and Prithvi style., i.e Instead of Jihad it is Dharam Yuddh.Buddhists and jains also dont consider themselves Hindus,but unlike sikhs they did not resort to voilence islam style.
Yes indeed.SBajwa wrote:No! Sikhs resort to violence of Krishna, Ramchandara and Prithvi style., i.e Instead of Jihad it is Dharam Yuddh.Buddhists and jains also dont consider themselves Hindus,but unlike sikhs they did not resort to voilence islam style.
link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KPS_Gill"Democracy and liberalism are not a sufficient defence and this is a fact that the ideologues of ‘freedom’ need, equally, to comprehend. There is a fatal flaw in the liberal mind. Having established, in structure and form [though seldom in substance], a system of governance that corresponds to its conception of democracy, it feels that nothing more needs to be done. The ‘Truths’ of the liberal ideology are, as the American Declaration on the Rights of Man expresses it, ‘Self Evident’. They require no proof, no reiteration, and no defence - certainly no defence by force of arms. Once democracy [or even the ritual of quinquinneal elections] is established, according to liberal mythology, the mystical ‘invisible hand’ keeps everything in place; the ‘superior wisdom of the masses’ ensures order and justice...
This is just so much rubbish. As we should know after living with falsehoods for fifty years now. Truth does not triumph; unless it has champions to propound it, unless it has armies to defend it."
Punjab: The Knights of Falsehood
Dharam Yudh is NOT jihad.Jihad is fighting for religion while Dharma Yudh is for fighting so that the laws of universe are not disturbed.When you equate Dharma with religion, you are making a grave error .SBajwa wrote:No! Sikhs resort to violence of Krishna, Ramchandara and Prithvi style., i.e Instead of Jihad it is Dharam Yuddh.Buddhists and jains also dont consider themselves Hindus,but unlike sikhs they did not resort to voilence islam style.
So in your opinion the ritualistic celebration of 99% Hindus is gullibility? I detect an insecurity in your argument that maybe YOU do not feel that the way most of the Hindus observe their faith is logically defensible against the onslaught of 'logical' EJ'ism.1) Gullible sections of Hindus are at the wrong end of the 'conversion' stick, and the conversion attempt(s) is(are) specifically tailored around the nature of their gullibility.
2) If you don't understand the value of a golden egg in your pocket, what difference does it make to you if someone offers to exchange it for an edible poultry egg ?
What factual evidence? Are you asking for factual evidence for a prognosis of future? Sounds illogical to me. But for the sake of argument, it is my conjecture, premonition and belief (faith). Christians are not the only ones with a monopoly on faith.99% of Hindus do follow this routine and remain Hindus and will remain Hindus
Is that conjecture based on premonition, or factual evidence ?
Maybe it is my limited sample but I have yet to come across a Hindu who confessed that his/her belief in the superiority of Hindu philosophy is somehow weaker than Christians. I am yet to meet a hindu who cliamed that christian or muslim belief system is superior to Hindu system. There was a rev. Tilak who converted in the late 19th century. but he couldn't convert anybody other than his wife - and ironically his wife converted as she considered it her Dharma to convert. Have I met people who have converted ? yes. I am also aware that there is a vast swathe of so-called weaker sections in various NE states, Ap etc. who have converted. It is my belief and studied opinon that those conversions took place as a result of disenchantment and enticement - not because of weakness of Hindu thought.let's start by asking how many Hindus here on this board will characterize themselves as belonging to that 4-point description ...
I freely admit that valcan's knowledge is outstanding in the subject and I have absolutely no fundas in this regard. I too have a very high regard for what he has written. For your info, I do consider myself to be one of those hindus that follow the 4 point program i mentioned. That does not preclude me from respecting those who have a much higher understanding of Hindu philosophy.let's give credit to other humans that they do indeed have minds capable of contemplation ...
you may not have been one of them, but what I saw on this thread was a deep appreciation of Valkan's effort ...
if folks are 4-pointers, why would they pay attention to any of it?
Rony,Rony wrote:Dharam Yudh is NOT jihad.Jihad is fighting for religion while Dharma Yudh is for fighting so that the laws of universe are not disturbed.When you equate Dharma with religion, you are making a grave error .SBajwa wrote: No! Sikhs resort to violence of Krishna, Ramchandara and Prithvi style., i.e Instead of Jihad it is Dharam Yuddh.
Can you explain what do you mean by "voilence of krishna ,ramachandra and prithvi stye" !
Kumar, I am in no way want to hurt sikh sentiments.Since we are having a religion debate, i was curious to know the reasons for why did some people in the 80s hijacked sikhism and converted it into a islamic copycat ? is that sikhism has something inbuilt in its philosphy or theology that allowed it to be hijacked the way it happened or is it something else.Kumar wrote:Rony, please let the 80s be. However traumatic that period may have been, the actual number of deaths was miniscule, and only a small number of people were involved in actual violence. It can't be compared to a jihad, even by the longest streatch of the imagination. No lasting damage has been done to sikhism, hinduism or India. In fact going by recent elections, sikhs and hindus have voted together for many candidates.
There is no problem if some sikhs want to keep distance and seperate identity from hinduism,but the problem arises when they use voilence to do that and in the process denigrate Hinduism to prove their seperateness.isntn that what happened in the past? How can you explain the moulding of sikhism into a islamic copy cat by khalistanis with all the prophets and eveything ! It is not outsiders who are trying to equate sikh to islamic behaviour,its the sikhs themselves of khalistani bent who are doing it.Do you meant to say that khalistanis are not sikhs ?Prem wrote: What is the problem If Some Sikhs want to keep distance and separate identity and you cannot equate Khalistani political movement with the essence of Sikh Dharma. Equating the conduct of a Sikh to Islamic behaviour is great error of judgement and very unthoughtful remark.
Rony, please look up the role of Zia-ul-Haq (a true bred Asura IMO) during that period. It was Pakistan govt which was the power behind a lot of disgruntled sikh youth who resorted to violence. It wasn't a simple sikh versus hindu affair. A large part of it was Zia-ul-Haq's scheme to avenge 1971 defeat by turning the sikhs against India.Rony wrote: Kumar, I am in no way want to hurt sikh sentiments.Since we are having a religion debate, i was curious to know the reasons for why did some people in the 80s hijacked sikhism and converted it into a islamic copycat ? is that sikhism has something inbuilt in its philosphy or theology that allowed it to be hijacked the way it happened or is it something else.
Abhijit wrote:Maybe it is my limited sample but I have yet to come across a Hindu who confessed that his/her belief in the superiority of Hindu philosophy is somehow weaker than Christians.
My reference for assigning % is empirical and mixed with historical. For over a thousand years the Hindu Dharma was under attack but survived within the borders of present day India with over 80% retention rate. I do not believe that it did so based on a spiritual knowledge disseminated to the masses - if you can prove otherwise, I will revise my theories. It survived on ritualistic observances by 99% (that percentage again!) of its followers. When it was under attack from Buddhism through a logical discourse, the great Shankaracharya rescued it with Valcan-like wisdom and knowledge. Today's challenge is not based on logic and philosophy - it is commercial and sociopolitical in nature. So I continue to believe that it needs to be fought with the right tool - a dissemination of the supreme truth as understood by Valcans of the world is imho not the way to fight this battle.even in response to Valkan above, you have injected the 99% when all he said was the "gullible section" ...
don't we need to be a bit more considered about assiigning percentages?