harbans wrote:Rajesh Ji, lets not spin this. First you say there is an Islamic Truth, Hindu Truth. You yourself make that distinction. Before that you mention value systems but only in context to a civilization. Sorry but it's apparent you are making the same mistake that the Islamic or Christist makes. You did the ==, not me.
On the contrary, I agree there is a "Satya" independent of our beliefs, something we should all strive for, but that is my belief as a Hindu. A Muslim may have a different definition of Truth.
Actually you're the one doing an "==", because you are saying Hindus and Muslims have the same idea of what "Truth" is!
harbans wrote:As for Islam, how are you certain all it's adherents do believe truly in it's every word. Why does Islam use fear then as a means to keep it's flock together. I gave you the examples last post that just mouthing inanities like Allah is merciful and compassionate in every second verse does not cut much ice on Islam being either a Merciful or compassionate religion too for that matter for example. As for Islam it is 1/6th of humanity. I have traveled most of the globe, nowhere do i find people equating Islam with either Mercy, Compassion, Peace or Truth. I don't consider opinions emerging from Islamic states valid as fear is a factor why Truth is not much prevalent.
You don't have to convince me of that. That is common knowledge here! But if I brought this up in some form, then it must mean something other than what you are addressing!
After all "Maya" is everywhere! Right? So yes, delusion is a highly probable occurrence.
I understand Rajesh Ji you don't have much faith in Truth standing for itself and needing a prop from Bharatiya or Hindu civilization. But i do know that yes removing Maya requires pursuit of Truth. Truth is not some single dimensional entity that is to be mouthed with inanity and hey presto all is OK and hunky dory. It requires application. Some Truths are bitter and will emerge. However from it's pursuit and application will emerge solutions and a better society.
There was a joke by Khushwant Singh (yes I used to be a fan of his, long time ago). He was invited to "Bhojan" once by a Bengali, and he went there hoping for some lavish meal, but all he got was some prayers! He later understood that the Bengali gentleman meant "Bhajan"!
So even though all humans understand the concept of Food, there was still some misunderstanding.
What I am trying to tell you, but you are obstinately ignoring is that you need to write down what concept of Truth you are talking about when you include it in some list of "value labels".
So whereas Truth may stand on its own, the concept of Truth you are referring to needs explanation. Such explanation you are willing to give me in abundance, in fact more than I need, but you are refusing to qualify the concept of Truth you propose in the list of "value labels" which should become part of the Constitution according to you.
Well isn't it a Hindu Truth, as also expressed by you above, that Truth is independent of one's beliefs, independent of Hindu or Muslim?
No it is not a HINDU truth. It is a universal one. It will always be there irrespective of whether Hinduism exists or does not. Gravity is not a Newtonian truth. It will be there irrespective whether Newton discovered it or not, or whether it was discovered itself or not.
This is the kind of misunderstanding I speak of. Sure Gravity is independent of Newton's discovery of it. But if Newton had not called it Gravity, today the word Gravity could have meant something different - it could have meant perhaps that your Chicken curry needs a little thickening!
Newton's formulations helped us understand what he meant by the word "Gravity" and how the phenomenon is to be understood.
You on the other hand refuse to qualify your "value labels"!
If the girl had been Muslim and her rapists Hindu, you would have seen that Assram and all Muslims would have been looking at the incident very differently. Would the "disgust" and "outpouring of grief" then have been offshoots of some dogma or some value? And if it were because of value, why the difference in reactions?
The question is moot. The outrage had little to do with the fact that one perpetrator was a Muslim. The outrage is addressed to making all Indian women safer on our streets..so why the hypothetical strawman communal dimension to the outrage?
Of course the question is moot! The discussion is not about the case. You brought it up!The discussion is whether your list of "value labels" are immune to misinterpretation and misrepresentation depending on the cultural background of the reader.
And I say, that that is not the case!
Truth is not only a function of your honest pursuit of it, but also a function of how much the universe is willing to lay open to you!
So in our rush to idealism, let's not forget that too!
Incorrect. Truth is NOT= f(x)+f(y)/f(z). The best pursuit of Truth is an honest approach. That is what is expected of GoI institutions in whatever sphere policy making to running the state whatever. It's institutions must reflect honestly the best value systems.
See how you talk about things without context! And without context, how harmful quotes and labels can be!
Truth being a function, was said in another context, that of the OIT Thread. So I ask you straight away - please state the truth about India's history - about the "Aryans", "Vedics", "how big India was", "when did migrations take place", etc. Don't give me some answer that you don't know. Can you tell me with absolute certainty that you can give me the Truth about any question I have, say about the past! Can you tell me with absolute certainty that such a "Truthful" answer is available or will be available.
If you cannot give me the Truth on that, then what is the need for the above bhashan about "Truth is NOT= f(x)+f(y)/f(z)."
Some answers the universe will not give us, especially about the past! THAT is the TRUTH, that you can't find the TRUTH about everything. And just by repeating Truth, Truth, Truth like a mantra, it doesn't mean it would solve any problems.
I'll leave it here. If in so much writing I could not convey the point that I do not oppose "Truth" but am just criticizing your context-free use of the word "Truth" without any further elaboration, how it is to be understood, e.g. in the context of some Indian texts, or in context of how some community understands the word, then I probably will not succeed in further posts either. You made it a discussion about Truth and its relevance, which is rather a moot point, as that is hardly something I or anybody would disagree with.
Just as you say "secularism" and "socialism" in our Constiution have been abused, tomorrow some Islamic regime in India can use the word "Truth" in the Constitution as well to ram Islam down our throats saying we have to accept the "Truth" about Allah, otherwise we are all wajib-e-cutlet! Then your protestations about "Well that is not how I meant it" would not cut much ice!