Religion Thread - 6
Posted: 30 Mar 2007 06:40
Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
https://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/
Assuming that there is a threat from Islamism and evanjihadism it is important to define that threat in terms of where it is occurring and what sort of threat it is.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.
Valkan wrote:Actually the words Anantam and Anandam are identical,- Anantam Eva Anandam.
'Unhappiness' is caused by some limitations imposed upon you.
If only you were not limited by money and resources, you could obtain all the goodies that would make you happy.
If only you were not limited physically by space-time, you could do all the things that would make you happy anywhere anytime.
So, Anantam is Anandam.
An irreversibly large numbers of Hindus have taken up the rational thought processes and cold logic of modern science.Again, please do not mistake me. I am neither attacking the swamis nor denigrating the role of Gurus in the Indian traditions. I just want you to start reflecting critically about your own answers and suggest that our problems do not know of easy solutions. We need hard labor today to even make sense of why we need Gurus or who can qualify for this. The Gurus of the twenty-first century world will not be mere 'Sanyasins', who know Sanskrit or have studied the Upanishads all their lives. We need a new breed that is at home in the modern world and has used the best scientific theories in the market place to make the Indian traditions their own. Such is the requirement for keeping our traditions alive and vibrant today.
Continuing from my own post..shiv wrote: too many Hindus are unable to say why they are doing what they are doing. The loss of reason and the loss of rationale in the mists of time is a loss that must be stemmed and it can only be stemmed by those of us who miss it.
The vast majority do not miss it and continue to do it "because our elders did it". But while they do it they come under adverse criticism for junk knowledge as illustrated in the article.
Is the dropping of turbans by Sikhs a loss?
Job 1:6 says that and so does Job 38:7. We are all the sons & daughters of God as ultimately we all belong to him. The word “sonâ€rongsheng wrote:christian god's character is very interesting. Christian god's sons including Satan and christian god have similar tastes. Example :--
job 1.6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... &version=9;
Hmmm I thought christian god only had one son. I guess not.
Shiv, I think that Sikhism flourished most strongly during the anti-Moghul period, when society was hoping for people to step forward and fight off the oppressor. Then later on, when the war is over, society yawns and says they have no need of such services anymore, and expects them to pack it in.shiv wrote:Is the dropping of turbans by Sikhs a loss?
Similarly, is the dropping of some customs by Hindus to reflect life today a loss?
After all, look at what we ask of Islamists. We ask them to change out of their fossilized belief. We ask them to drop their silly demand for women to wear port-a tents. We ask Evanjihadis to "eschew" their core beliefs.
How can we then start getting anxious about the very movement and evolution that we ask others to embrace?
Could it actually be that the success of islamism and the faith of Evanjihadis lies in their fossilization? Their resistance to change and their dogged refusal to move with times?
If that is the case - the fault does not lie with them for succeeding, but the fault lies among Hindus and Sikhs for a failure of their belief.
Would people who see a threat to Hindus please answer these questions.
BTW there is a definite pattern to the way the Thali is arranged. I need to look up books on Hindu food customs.If he, for example, asks someone - why is the food placed in this particular order and served in that order on the plantain leaf at a Hindu ceremonial meal and repeatedly gets a dismissable answer like "it is our tradition" he is likely to reject it as rubbish and relegate to history one more hallmark of Hindu tradition.
That still is the practice in rural Bengal as well. We still follow it when in our ancestral place.SaiK wrote: --
PS:
btw, just reminded me of thali.. in the old days we were served sitting on the floor made out of cow-dung.. dried, redone periodically. Once this old SD man came to me and said.. do you know why we did (some do even now without knowing) circle water around the leaf (banana leaf - i guess i am talking South Indian tradition.. i am not sure about this in NI) that is filled with food.
I said, religious practice. He said, you are partly true.. but there is science behind it. Answer: dried cow-dung, when sprinkled with water gives rise to methane.. and it wards off ants and insects away from the leaf served with food.
I said .. wow!~.. perhaps we have more wows, and that we need to search and identify before we drop traditions and customs. as long as we document it, and we do symbolize such traditions is good enough. may be it is not necessary to do that if one sits on a chair & dining table.
He said.. if we lose that tradition, how are we to highlight our past.. our culture is full of practices like this.. we have lost at least 70% of it already. hence, many people resort to do this blindly, without reasoning.. since they don't have time, or forgotten to get enlightened.
If a person cannot explain a tradition, is it the fault of the tradition or is it a problem with the person explaining it? Doesn't it behoove for the person asking the question to find the right person to answer certain things? This reminds me of Narendranath's search leading to Ramakrishna.shiv wrote: If he, for example, asks someone - why is the food placed in this particular order and served in that order on the plantain leaf at a Hindu ceremonial meal and repeatedly gets a dismissable answer like "it is our tradition" he is likely to reject it as rubbish and relegate to history one more hallmark of Hindu tradition.
I don't see the logical reasoning behind God being present within urine, excreta, a bag of chips, a monitor, a pen, a car or a human being. If God was present within everything, then God should be present within man as well and then it is no wonder that why man in his depravity claims no responsibility for his actions, because God must be present within everything and thus God is the one who is at fault now! God must be present in Evanjehadis too and thus God is the reason why the social fabric of India is being undermined & destroyed. No wonder the EJs have free reign in India! We live in some fantasy world!S.Valkan wrote:Like I said many times before, if you feel my proofs are "irrational", I would love to see a refutation LOGICALLY.
If the Bible claims that idols are dumb and they have no breath in them, then that is what it is and I am standing by it. I have consistently claimed that the Bible is a matter of faith, but that faith cannot be force fed to anyone. Now you are entitled to believe – and you have clearly stated so – that the scripture does not provide sufficient proof that the Judeo-Christian "God" does not breathe. Then in your logical world, it surely must beS.Valkan wrote:I did not make the claim that idols were "dumb", or that they didn't have "breath" in them, while simultaneously upholding the claim of a "living God" in the Christian tradition. You quoted it as part of your scriptural claims as to why idolatry is "wrong". In a logical discourse, if you claim something/someone as "living" while castigating the other as "dead", there has to be a logical justification. Since you accept that neither you, nor your scripture can provide sufficient proof of "breath" by the Judeo-Christian "God", the biblical argument of why idolatry is wrong is itself refuted.
That is where faith comes in. You, however, want to apply logic to it. However faith & logic don't go together. Can we logically explain how much & why we love our parents? Our children? Our spouse? Not everything can be explained logically, especially God.S.Valkan wrote:It makes a statement with NO qualifications whatsoever, correct?
SIGH! God certainly created urine & excreta, but He is not present in it. Does a shoe become part of a shoemaker, after it has been built? The shoe did originate from the shoemaker, but the shoemaker does not live within the shoe. In the same way, urine and excreta are part of the "all things" that did originate from God, but God does not live within them. That is NOT the definition of omni-presence. Is this amply clear to you now?S.Valkan wrote: Romans 11:36 “For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen." Please read that sentence again. It is YOUR scripture. Surely "all things" does include urine, excreta, saliva, semen, blood and drugs. So, urine and excreta are OF (ORIGINATES FROM) your "God". And they are sustained BY your "God". Also, they return TO your "God". Surely one can't deny that millions of species have been passing urine and excreta for the last so many millions of years( or about a few thousand years if you stick to the literal words of the Bible). All that urine and excreta must have originated from your "God" and must have returned to your "God", and form part of your "God" by now. So, YOUR scripture itself sustains the view that excreta and urine are part of your "God". So, why should "God" being present in urine and excreta seem irrational to you ?
Without meaning to hurt you - I would like to point out that I will not accept this as an answer because the probem is worse than you imagine.disha wrote:If a person cannot explain a tradition, is it the fault of the tradition or is it a problem with the person explaining it?shiv wrote: If he, for example, asks someone - why is the food placed in this particular order and served in that order on the plantain leaf at a Hindu ceremonial meal and repeatedly gets a dismissable answer like "it is our tradition" he is likely to reject it as rubbish and relegate to history one more hallmark of Hindu tradition.
With all due respects - you are absolutely wrong. Look at the choos [shoes] from Jimmy Choos. Because of the shoemaker which lives in every shoe that makes it priceless!Rakesh wrote:The shoe did originate from the shoemaker, but the shoemaker does not live within the shoe
No rebellion.ramana wrote:Shiv, What you are rebelling against is mimamsa or ritualistic practices.
BTW there is a definite pattern to the way the Thali is arranged. I need to look up books on Hindu food customs.If he, for example, asks someone - why is the food placed in this particular order and served in that order on the plantain leaf at a Hindu ceremonial meal and repeatedly gets a dismissable answer like "it is our tradition" he is likely to reject it as rubbish and relegate to history one more hallmark of Hindu tradition.
Interesting question. Let me try to figure out a solution by the negative way - that is, by first determiningshiv wrote:Is it possible at all that the inexorable movement, change and flexibility that Hindu society displays is perceived as "deterioration"?
So can Jimmy Choo shoes laugh, cry, be sad, get angry just like Jimmy Choo? Come on, be realistic But £300 for a pair of shoes? That is extortion! I guess wealth is all relative.disha wrote:With all due respects - you are absolutely wrong. Look at the choos [shoes] from Jimmy Choos. Because of the shoemaker which lives in every shoe that makes it priceless! Just like some people see divinity in hair, blood and bones.
Jimmy Choo
People see divinity in many things, but that does not make it divine. In Exodus 32, the Israelites made a molten calf and then began worshipping it. Now we all know what happened to them. It is ironic, that what did not have a form destroyed a so-called diety that did have a form. The molten calf could not save the people that worshipped it, from the real God.disha wrote:Just like some people see divinity in hair, blood and bones. Just like that in shoes. Just like some people see divinity in shrouds, same for shoes.
So Hindus are answerable to all and sundry while others can carry on whatever they like under a blanket definition of "faith"?shiv wrote: I am lamenting what has already occurred and pointing out an urgent need to refuel knowledge banks about why Hindus live their lives the way they do. I learned from my parents and grandparents. Will your grandchildren learn from their grandparents? Will they learn mindless ritual that they cannot defend, or will they learn understanding of those same rituals and be in a position to impart wisdom?
No hurt taken. What is the point in discussion if the discussion cannot be kept objective?shiv wrote:Without meaning to hurt you - I would like to point out that I will not accept this as an answer because the probem is worse than you imagine.
That is indeed the case. Though I would like to point out that following traditions and rituals is present in all cultures. Indian or not. And for some traditions there is no explanation even in western cultures. However for most of them they do.shiv wrote:By all means validate what I have said and gain your own experience. But I fear that my own experience is unlikely to be very far wrong.
Well, if religion is crap, then I insist that all religions are equally crap, and no religion should be consider more crappy than anotherRakesh wrote:
Richard Dawkins believes that the world will be better off without religion. The Wiki link you provided does say that. If Christianity is nonsense to Richard Dawkins, then I am sure he feels the same about Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, etc. Thus all religions are just a bunch of crap and a waste of time. How many takers do we have on the forum, who are willing to support Mr Dawkins on this?
Oh common! $450 shoes is for the poor/down trodden. The real wealthy should have $2500 ones and no two same for the same day. And definitely different for every new day. It is not extortion, if it is, it would not have been sold out! This choos are just priced right!Rakesh wrote: So can Jimmy Choo shoes laugh, cry, be sad, get angry just like Jimmy Choo? Come on, be realistic But £300 for a pair of shoes? That is extortion! I guess wealth is all relative.
True. Just like some see divinity in the idol of a poor bloke who is hung by nails on a wooden cross.Rakesh wrote: People see divinity in many things, but that does not make it divine.
Sigh!SRoy wrote:Shiv, you'll be surprised to know I sat down in the marriage pandal in a Western suit. Nobody could give me a convincing reason as why I need to wear uncut/unsitched garments (Most Hindus of north India are not aware of this custom....though I found some folks from Himachal and Uttrakhand aware of it and following it.). It was a sort of public scene.
That was the reason in my casedisha wrote: Ofcourse in a modern age, I would not want to wear say a dhoti. Not because I am ashamed of it, but I do not want to put others to shame when the dhoti I wear will fall apart because of my lack of experience. And the cycle repeats. Though I have heard that nowadays they have dhoti-pants - should try that one.
Rakesh,Rakesh wrote: People see divinity in many things, but that does not make it divine. In Exodus 32, the Israelites made a molten calf and then began worshipping it. Now we all know what happened to them. It is ironic, that what did not have a form destroyed a so-called diety that did have a form. The molten calf could not save the people that worshipped it, from the real God.
I choose to take the attitude that this is not enough.SRoy wrote: They simply have no case to comment. It is our custom. We exercise enough judgment and freedom to follow whatever suits us. Period.