Indian Interests

[harbans]

The people who deviated from the underlying Vedic principles are labeled Asuras and are defeated....I will call Hinduism = Vedicism from this point

I think maybe the seers who penned the Upanishads too don't come under Ramay's HIndutva..Asura's right eh? :

Believing falsely that the rites and sacrifices of the Vedas are the highest these fools do not understand that other way (knowledge of the Self), so having enjoyed the temporary fruits of heaven they re-enter this world or a lower one.’
Mundaka Upanishad I 2.5-10

That is the main reason why Sri Krishna had to re-establish vedic/Hindu preeminence thru his Gitopadesa.

And here is Shri Krishna:

Yea! those who learn
The threefold Veds, who drink the Soma-wine,
Purge sins, pay sacrifice- from Me they earn
Passage to Swarga; where the meats divine
Of great gods feed them in high Indra's heaven.
Yet they, when that prodigious joy is o'er,
Paradise spent, and wage for merits given,
Come to the world of death and change once more.
They had their recompense! they stored their treasure,
Following the threefold Scripture and its writ;

and more from Shri Krishna:

“The purity of Yog is to pass
Beyond the Sabdabrahm, the spoken Ved.” (Bg. Chapter 6)

So how do you spin that now unless you disown the Upanishad seers and Krishna himself? Well the Hindutvadi's have already done that by claiming boorishly all around that Hare Krishna bhakts are not HIndu's in the 'real sense'. Talk about narrowing Bharat, you guys are the best bet really..

[RamaY]

^ see that is the problem with you.

I don't blame individuals. Don't impost your prejudices on me. What next, I am propagating genocide

I blame the underlying ideologies. For me when Pakistanis convert to Hinduism, they become dharmics and brothers. When an Indian converts to Abrahamic faith he becomes Adharmic.

Is it dharmic to convert to a monotheistic, exclusivist ideology like Abrahamic ideologies, secularism, liberalism and communism etc?

I asked you pointed questions.
1. Are you happy if Pakistanis accept your dharmic code as their constipation while remaining Islamic?
2. Are you happy if some virtual SouthTNs accept your dharmic code as their constipation and want to separate from Indian union?
3. Are you happy if Hindus accept your dharmic code but remain Hindus? Then how do you ensure that their Hinduismic traits of lying, cheating and dishonesty do not come out at the wrong time?

What is your dharmic code? How do you ensure it is followed in all times and spaces? How do you ensure that you have four-witnesses? What is your retribution towards Adharmics? How do you handle the inherent contradictions between underlying isms and your dharmic code? Can a Muslim/Christian be loyal to dharmic code while being a Muslim/Christian? What about Taquiyya and Tawariya? What about Jesus as the only god? What about religious conversions? What about saving souls?

How is your idea/demand different from the million isms we have see in human history? Does it tolerate other isms? If it doesn't how is it dharmic to begin with (love, passion and safety for all?)

What is the underlying spirituality for your dharmic world? Does it accept the uniqueness of underlying consciousness? If the consciousness is universal then how can a dharmic be different from Adharmic when their consciousness is one and same? How do you handle this (supposed) contradiction?

[RamaY]

Moorkhatva has no limits.

It is idiotic to talk about Upanishads when talking about a society that is filled with human interactions that are guided by egos.

Upanishad dharma applies only when all the individuals involved in the transaction are at the god-realization levels.

How will you punish a rapist based on Upanishads, when they say the consciousness is universal and everything else is illusion?

All the Vedic/Hindu social rules are to encourage and facilitate individuals to reach that upanishad levels of consciousness. But until they reach that levels, the interactions are judged based on varna-Asrama dharma rules.

[harbans]

For me when Pakistanis convert to Hinduism, they become dharmics and brothers.

Plain nonsense! Ram Singh the rapist was HIndu. Was he Dharmic? Are all Hindu's Dharmic? I posted this before, but like a stuck record with only one single minded obsession you keep repeating the same thing over and out. Nothing in the world ensures a Hindu is automatically a Dharmic.

[harbans]

All the Vedic/Hindu social rules are to encourage and facilitate individuals to reach that upanishad levels of consciousness. But until they reach that levels, the interactions are judged based on varna-Asrama dharma rules.

So since your HIndu/ HIndutva is stuck at Varna, Ashrama levels and not at God Realization, then why blame Buddhists, Jains or who so ever if they practice penance and meditation and come to whatever realization? They are certainly then way above you both in Dharmic sense and God realization. Since you're stuck at the bottom of the heap how can you even comment on them?

[RamaY]

For me when Pakistanis convert to Hinduism, they become dharmics and brothers.

Plain nonsense! Ram Singh the rapist was HIndu. Was he Dharmic? Are all Hindu's Dharmic? I posted this before, but like a stuck record with only one single minded obsession you keep repeating the same thing over and out. Nothing in the world ensures a Hindu is automatically a Dharmic.

I am repeating same thing again and again and you are posting new revelation after revelation

How silly that you don't know the difference between the code of conduct and the non-conformists of that code and you want to come up with a dharmic code?

Do you expect there will be no non-conformists in your lala-hadharmic land?

Go back to your teacher and unlearn everything. Even better do your purushartha nischya first.

[harbans]

It is idiotic to talk about Upanishads when talking about a society that is filled with human interactions that are guided by egos.

Right, that Hindutva society is so idiotic and egoistic, it is idiotic to talk about the Upanishads. Talk about the Sheikchili sitting with a saw on that branch...

[RamaY]

All the Vedic/Hindu social rules are to encourage and facilitate individuals to reach that upanishad levels of consciousness. But until they reach that levels, the interactions are judged based on varna-Asrama dharma rules.

So since your HIndu/ HIndutva is stuck at Varna, Ashrama levels and not at God Realization, then why blame Buddhists, Jains or who so ever if they practice penance and meditation and come to whatever realization? They are certainly then way above you both in Dharmic sense and God realization. Since you're stuck at the bottom of the heap how can you even comment on them?

Whatever realization is as dangerous as no realization at all. Even rapists get some realization when they hurt Jyothi. Even drug addicts get some realization. Every individual has some realization at every point of time.

How do you know they are CERTAINLY above me in dharmic/god realization? Is that your realization?

What is the point of your realization when you cannot uplift the bottom of heaps? Or do you want to work with only the top of the sh1t-heap only

How does it matter if you are working at to the top or bottom when you are working with heap?

[RamaY]

It is idiotic to talk about Upanishads when talking about a society that is filled with human interactions that are guided by egos.

Right, that Hindutva society is so idiotic and egoistic, it is idiotic to talk about the Upanishads. Talk about the Sheikchili sitting with a saw on that branch...

That is called Kalidasa option in Bharatiya lore. Ooops we hate Hindus and Bharat onlee. We want to build a Sheikchilli society onlee

[RajeshA]

you do take up certain points from my responses, but somehow you ignore the rest of the post, as if they did not have any valid criticism of your position.

Rajesh Ji, no i don't even say something and you go to that and ask me my reactions to that. I know you prefer quick fix scheme kind of solutions. However, my point was not to write a Constitution here and defend it. Answer as truthfully in Yes or No to these.

1. That the GoI has been faithful to it's constitution. That of aspects of Socialism and Secularism.

harbans ji,

to be frank, I think people have only a vague idea what "Socialism" and "Secularism" comprises. Was "Licence Raj" an integral part of Socialism? Are "Hajj Subsidies" and "Government Management of Temple Finances" part of "Secularism"?

If one looks at the idealized notions of Socialism and Secularism, they sound okay, but I don't think GoI has really lived up to those idealized notions. So No!

2. People are outrage because they 'feel': This is not proper Socialism or proper secularism.

Depends on what outrage we are talking about!

Hindus may be outraged, but somehow we don't know how to channel that outrage, so there is hardly any outward manifestation of it. So there is little outward outrage among the Hindus against how GoI has implemented Secularism. Perhaps because we are not fully bought in by secularism as an ideal either, so why consider it an ideal either. As for other communities, they don't have much to complain about.

As far as socialism is concerned, again I don't know of any demonstrations, unless one considers "Anti-Reservation Demonstrations" a part of it. But were there demonstrations against Licence Raj?

So No!

3. People are outraged because the GoI and it's institutions is/are not truthful/ honest in matters.

Yes!

But that speaks more about the people in the Government.

4. Truth and Honesty in approach to the consumer/ people is not an imperative in any way on the GoI or it's institutions.

There is actually a "Right to Information", so if the information is not too personal or concerns national security, GoI should be able to provide the citizen with information.

That however doesn't encompass how GoI takes decisions and based on what factors. And mostly they will fudge and not give too much information.

We have Ministers, officials who do not give press interviews (especially not on subjects that concern the citizen). Yes they make press statements, but that is not allowing themselves to be grilled. Nor do out politicians hold "town-hall meetings" or have televised open Q&A. Even Putin has taken questions from viewers. During elections they don't talk on subjects of concern or have election debates.

Basically the leaders have a moral duty to be truthful and honest to the public and not deceive them. So it is an imperative but there is some leeway which politicians all over the world use.

But since Right to Information is there, one could say Truth and Honesty is also expected by law, as far as the the law covers.

So Nes!

5. But people want Truth and honesty in the way GoI and it's Institutions approach them.

Of course!

Now you will say NO to any of the above only if you want to argue for argument sake. Ministers, PMs, MPs don't even give proper media briefings. Transparency is close to zero. Don't you feel that some value systems are much needed in prominence in our core charter that somehow are drilled, ingrained at least in our politicians in the first place? When one can make perfectly greedy corporates and personnel heads mouthing safety as an ingrained value system and holding them accountable for charter violations and as a result improve the set up, don't you think the same can be done with a Government set up? Or any kind of suggestion here should be shot down as long as it does not carry the mandatory Hindutva in the clauses.

Basically a Lie, a Theft is only that what gets caught, otherwise it is not! That is how politicians think about it. No amount of Constitutional provisions would motivate them to think differently.

What would motivate them differently is if they have had a different shiksha since childhood and a different guidance by the parents. If the society takes the lead in inculcating such values, then these values would be there, otherwise not.

So citizens have to ensure that they send the right people to leadership positions.

Another thing that would motivate them is if the citizens have installed a good accountability system in place. But some nice value labels in the Constitution would not change the politicians.

[RajeshA]

harbans ji,

a) I know you don't have anything against Hindu-ism.

b) I also know that you mean it well when you speak of having a Dharmic code as a guiding principle for India.

c) I also know that you speak of a Dharmic code and not a Hindu code because you wish to include as many communities into the consensus as possible, communities that do not call themselves Hindus, and that is your primary driver.

d) I also know that you think that by calling for and advocating a Hindu code you would end up alienating many communities, who would not jump into the wagon.

Having said that I think your way of going about it is not productive. The Dharmic code needs to be instilled at the level of society and the Government should encourage its inculcation, through education, through media, through building of icons, through example, etc.

Only an enlightened society would send the right people to represent them.

However I see the problem as something else, and that is deracination.

1. Deracination takes away the feeling of belonging.
2. Lack of Belonging takes away the sense of responsibility.
3. Lack of Responsibility leads to what we see today.
4. Lack of Belonging also takes away the need to follow any Group Code of Conduct.

[harbans]

A must read for ALL: Shantanu Bhagawat in ToI: Do read FULL..

Then came the 42nd Amendment which said “no amendment could be questioned ‘in any court on any ground’”. This was the amendment that inserted the words “socialism” and “secularism” in the Preamble to the Constitution. Although the Janata Party repealed several of these provisions of the 42nd Amendment in 1977, it retained the words “socialism” and “secularism”. Since then, every political party in India – and every elected representative - has to swear to uphold “socialism” in India. Interestingly, neither of these terms have been defined anywhere in the Constitution. Even more interestingly, Dr Ambedkar was clearly opposed to both of these. Socialism because it would be akin to “destroying democracy altogether” by denying people the right to change the way any society must be organized depending on "time and circumstances". And "secular" since the Constitution did allow "different treatment to various communities”.

The story of how the Constitution & ideals of the republic have been systematically subverted –

http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.co ... nstitution

[Atri]

Moorkhatva has no limits.

It is idiotic to talk about Upanishads when talking about a society that is filled with human interactions that are guided by egos.

Upanishad dharma applies only when all the individuals involved in the transaction are at the god-realization levels.

How will you punish a rapist based on Upanishads, when they say the consciousness is universal and everything else is illusion?

All the Vedic/Hindu social rules are to encourage and facilitate individuals to reach that upanishad levels of consciousness. But until they reach that levels, the interactions are judged based on varna-Asrama dharma rules.

fantastic..

Dharma is inherently secular (if you pardon me), because artha and moksha are segregated. When discussing about dharma and artha, it is folly to quote moksha-shastras. It would be wise to quote various arthashastras and danda-shastras (our modern constitution is incumbent danda-shaastra). For example, it would be great if there could be a quote from Apastambha, shanti-parva, manu smriti, naarada-sanhita, IPC and other codes from our incumbent constitution and thoughts of our strategists, social, military and political leaders and visionaries. For example, thoughts of Deen Dayal Upadhyay are worth studying here.

dharma is eternal and natural for every entity in this entire existence. since we are talking about artha, talking about anything beyond Sanskriti (civilization) is outside the scope of inquiry. Similarly, Talking of any shaastra which deals family issues and then inwards (individual-mind-intellect-ego etc) also fall outside the scope.

artha deals only with community-jaati-samaaja-raajya-raashtra-sanskriti.. there are many egos beyond these on both ends. Dharma segregates them. hence it is inherently secular (separation of religion and state - the crude simplification by westerners).

1. Satyam (Truth)
2. Dhrti (patience)
3. Ks’ama (forgiveness)
4. Dhama (self-control)
5. Shaoca (cleanliness)
6. Dhii (benevolent intellect)
7. Vidya (knowledge)
8. Karuna (Compassion).
9. Samatha (Equality)

The ten characteristics of a Dharmik are as follows and in this order..

१. धृति - DhRti - Patience
२. क्षमा - Kshamaa - Forgiveness
३. दम - Dama - Self control (i.e. control over mind, intellect and ego - Mana-buddhi-ahamkaara (मन/बुद्धी/अहंकार)
४. अस्तेय - Astéya - Non-stealing - no corruption
५. शौच - Shaucha - Cleanliness (of actions by all egos) - This is what Gandhiji called Saadhana Shuchita (साधन शुचिता) - Cleanlines of means
६. इन्द्रियनिग्रह - Control over 5 organs and desires they are associated with (Shabda-Sparsha-Roopa-Rasa-Gandha शब्द/स्पर्श/रूप/रस/गंध)
७. धी - Dhee - A good memory and reservoir of information
८. विद्या - Vidya - Knowledge to use the above mentioned vast reservoir of memories and information timely and appropriately
९. सत्य - Truth
१०. अक्रोध - Non-involvement/Staying emotionally neutral towards and unaffected by the decisions being taken. To use modern lingo - being professional.

These are ten Lakshanas of Dharma. There is no place for Karunaa (करुणा) and Samaanata (समानता) in this. Dharma and adharma cannot be equal. devas and asuras cannot be equal. It is adharmik to show karuna towards asura and asuratva, however meek he/it may be. There is no place for emotions like Karunaa in affairs of Artha.

[RajeshA]

1. Satyam (Truth)
2. Dhrti (patience)
3. Ks’ama (forgiveness)
4. Dhama (self-control)
5. Shaoca (cleanliness)
6. Dhii (benevolent intellect)
7. Vidya (knowledge)
8. Karuna (Compassion).
9. Samatha (Equality)

The ten characteristics of a Dharmik are as follows and in this order..

१. धृति - DhRti - Patience
२. क्षमा - Kshamaa - Forgiveness
३. दम - Dama - Self control (i.e. control over mind, intellect and ego - Mana-buddhi-ahamkaara (मन/बुद्धी/अहंकार)
४. अस्तेय - Astéya - Non-stealing - no corruption
५. शौच - Shaucha - Cleanliness (of actions by all egos) - This is what Gandhiji called Saadhana Shuchita (साधन शुचिता) - Cleanlines of means
६. इन्द्रियनिग्रह - Control over 5 organs and desires they are associated with (Shabda-Sparsha-Roopa-Rasa-Gandha शब्द/स्पर्श/रूप/रस/गंध)
७. धी - Dhee - A good memory and reservoir of information
८. विद्या - Vidya - Knowledge to use the above mentioned vast reservoir of memories and information timely and appropriately
९. सत्य - Truth
१०. अक्रोध - Non-involvement/Staying emotionally neutral towards and unaffected by the decisions being taken. To use modern lingo - being professional.

These are ten Lakshanas of Dharma.

Atri garu,

thanks for the clarification on the Dharmik Lakshanas! Just for the record the above list of 9 was from harbans ji.

There is no place for Karunaa (करुणा) and Samaanata (समानता) in this. Dharma and adharma cannot be equal. devas and asuras cannot be equal. It is adharmik to show karuna towards asura and asuratva, however meek he/it may be. There is no place for emotions like Karunaa in affairs of Artha.

Jai ho!

Not just Karunaa (करुणा) and Samaanata (समानता) have to be pondered upon but also DhRti (धृति) - Patience and Kshamaa (क्षमा) - Forgiveness should be used with prejudice. There should also be no DhRti w.r.t. to Adharma, for otherwise it only grows, nor should Kshamaa be forthcoming unless there is sincere Paschaataap (regret) and Sudhraav (reform) on the part of the Adharmik.

Atri garu,
could you provide a link to where you may have written about the Dharma of a Rashtra?

[Altair]

I have a question to learned folks

Can a decisive war with Pakistan( Supported by 3.5) unite India fro the next century or would it be a disaster for Hinduism?

Thanks in Advance

Altair

[RajeshA]

Can a decisive war with Pakistan

What is meant by "a decisive war"?

[Altair]

Can a decisive war with Pakistan

What is meant by "a decisive war"?

Expected Outcome: There will be no entity called Pakistan post war. ( Eg: East Pakistan does not exist post '71)

[Altair]

NAC members tried to save Kasab!!
Aruna Roy and Harsh Mandar sought mercy from president.

If this does not make blood boil what will?

Traitors like above influencing critical decisions in the country will create conditions of Pre-Independence freedom fighters like Bose, Bagha Jatin class. Secret societies like Anushilan Samiti, Jugantar will emerge in India if they have not already.

[Sanku]

http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.co ... nstitution

On Republic Day, Remembering Assaults on Freedom & Subversion of the Constitution..

Can you guess the date of the first such assault? It was during the reign of Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first Prime Minister. Moving an amendment that would be the first step in curbing free speech in India, he passed laws that would make “contempt of court, defamation and incitement to an offense” punishable offences. That was in 1951 - barely a year after the Constitution came into force. Several decades later, the tradition continues. The latest in these attempts was the amendment to IT Act 2000. It was passed along with several other bills on the last day of the winter session of Parliament in 2008 in seven minutes flat! Part of this act is Section 66A.

Did you know that the records of the Shah Commission, “which dug into the misdeeds committed during the emergency” and held 100 meetings, examining more than 48,000 papers, are missing? Did you know that “no one found guilty by the Shah Commission has been punished”? Did you know that a government officer whom the Shah Commission had declared “unfit to hold any public office which demands an attitude of fair play and consideration for others..” actually became India’s Chief Election Commissioner?

Then came the 42nd Amendment which said “no amendment could be questioned ‘in any court on any ground’”. This was the amendment that inserted the words “socialism” and “secularism” in the Preamble to the Constitution. Although the Janata Party repealed several of these provisions of the 42nd Amendment in 1977, it retained the words “socialism” and “secularism”. Since then, every political party in India – and every elected representative - has to swear to uphold “socialism” in India. Interestingly, neither of these terms have been defined anywhere in the Constitution. Even more interestingly, Dr Ambedkar was clearly opposed to both of these. Socialism because it would be akin to “destroying democracy altogether” by denying people the right to change the way any society must be organized depending on "time and circumstances". And "secular" since the Constitution did allow "different treatment to various communities”.

[member_20317]

Can a decisive war with Pakistan

Expected Outcome: There will be no entity called Pakistan post war. ( Eg: East Pakistan does not exist post '71)

Altari ji, can you expect the same outcome in all circumstances and in all times.

Things change and they change fast enough. There may actually come a time where the scenario you put up, too can be beneficial compared to the next reasonably expected outcome. In all cases it would serve our case well if we are in control instead of Pakis and 3.5. If knowing fully well & with clear ability to face the consequences, India decides not to take up the fight despite all and gravest of provocation that is also good.

Control being different from laze and hyperventilation, amongst other things. Control is also not dependent on perfect information.

Hope this helped. Baaki you are wise enough.

[RajeshA]

Can a decisive war with Pakistan

What is meant by "a decisive war"?

Expected Outcome: There will be no entity called Pakistan post war. ( Eg: East Pakistan does not exist post '71)

Not enough to be called decisive. Borders have no relevance to Jihadis.

[johneeG]

Expected Outcome: There will be no entity called Pakistan post war. ( Eg: East Pakistan does not exist post '71)

Not enough to be called decisive. Borders have no relevance to Jihadis.

+108. It is not just the existence of pak, but the very idea and ideology that gave birth to pak that is inimical to Hindus.

Non-existence of paki nation is one of the first steps in defeating the idea and ideology that gave birth to pak.

---

NAC members tried to save Kasab!!
Aruna Roy and Harsh Mandar sought mercy from president.

If this does not make blood boil what will?

Traitors like above influencing critical decisions in the country will create conditions of Pre-Independence freedom fighters like Bose, Bagha Jatin class. Secret societies like Anushilan Samiti, Jugantar will emerge in India if they have not already.

Aruna Roy is supposedly a mentor of Arvind Kejriwal. Prashant Bhushan's stand on Kashmir and Naxals is known.

So, fake 'freedom fighters' will be propped up to act as pressure valve and to oust the hardcore guys who can then be neutralized. Interestingly, congress was started by brit exactly for this purpose.

---

All the Vedic/Hindu social rules are to encourage and facilitate individuals to reach that upanishad levels of consciousness. But until they reach that levels, the interactions are judged based on varna-Asrama dharma rules.

So since your HIndu/ HIndutva is stuck at Varna, Ashrama levels and not at God Realization, then why blame Buddhists, Jains or who so ever if they practice penance and meditation and come to whatever realization? They are certainly then way above you both in Dharmic sense and God realization. Since you're stuck at the bottom of the heap how can you even comment on them?

The difference between Hinduism and other creeds('dharmic' or otherwise) is that they have a single 'solution' that they try to foist upon all of humanity. All the non-creeds come up with a one size fits all philosophy. A single book, a single prophet(or saviour or guru or avatar) will guide all of the humanity.

In Hinduism, on the other hand, there is something called: adhikara(competence/qualification). Based on the seeker's(saadhaka's) adhikara(competence/qualification), there are different solutions. One size does not fit all.

Most people are in basic level only. For such people, the path of karma has been prescribed. Karma means rituals, rites, duties as prescribed in shastras(vedas and associated scriptures).

There is also another path of bhakti(devotion). Those who cannot perform karma for some reason can take up bhakti marga. Even those who perform karma can use bhakti to make their karma more impactful.

Finally, there is a gyana marga. This marga is called Raja Marga. It is a straight-forward to realization. Realization of self/Atma == realization of God/Goddess/Universal/Brahman. But, it is the most difficult of methods. It is reserved for only the most advanced saadhakas(seekers).

In the following post, I try to explain why gyana marga is not suitable to all saadhakas.

Oh, I left out a juicy bit. My brother's question - "if this 'Brahman' is so important to Hinduism, how come there are no temples for this 'Brahman,' even after so many thousand years? See how stupid Hindus are?" What would your answer be to my brother, Murugan? Do you think your view of SD could convince him any better than I could?

I don't know whether the answer would convince him but regardless:

Aham brahmasmi ----------------- I am Brahman.
Tat tvam asi --------------------- It(Brahman) is you.
Ayam atma brahma --------------- This self is Brahman i.e. self(Atma) and Brahman are same.
Prajnanam brahman -------------- Brahman is supreme Consciousness-Knowledge.
Ekam evadvitiyam brahma --------- Brahman is one, without a second
Sarvam khalvidam brahma --------- All of this is brahman
Brahma satyam jagan mithya ------- Brahman is eternal(real); the world is temporary(illusory)
satyam jnanam anantam brahma ---- Brahman is eternal(true), knowledge(consciousness) and infinite.

Brahman is Sat(Ever existent), Chit(Consciousness) and Ananda(Bliss).

Brahman is formless and qualityless.

yato vAcho nivartante aprApya manasA saha
Neither words nor mind can reach it i.e. Brahman is beyond description and imagination.

Such a Brahman cannot be loved or hated, praised or condemned, worshiped or disregarded. It is beyond all of this. Yet, all exists because of it. Just as without Sunlight one cannot see anything. But Sun is unaffected by everything.

As you can see, no one is capable of worshipping such a Brahman(in temple or outside). The only way is to realise Brahman as self(Atma).

There is method for this realisation: Since Brahman cannot be directly described, or imagined. A negative method is employed in analysis. It involves, a careful analysis while disqualifying(rejecting) everything which is not Brahman. This is the famous 'Neti Neti' approach. Neti means not this. Here, everything that is not Brahman is rejected. Brahman cannot be seen, touched, tasted, heard, or smelled. So, everything that can be seen, touched, tasted, heard or smelled is rejected(Neti). So on the analysis continues until everything that is not Brahman is rejected. So, what is left unrejected must be Brahman.
Eg: If you boil the salt-water, all the water will evaporate and you will be left with salt.

As you can see, this is a very difficult approach. This approach is called Jnana Marga(Path of Knowledge). It is unfeasible for ordinary folk. And spirituality would become a domain of few select elites.

So, to facilitate everyone, Brahman(the formless, infinite, eternal being) acquired forms, performed some Leelas, exhibited qualities. Essentially, Brahman which is unaccessible to people has now become accessible. The people can meditate on these beautiful divine forms, imagine these leelas, understand these qualities. People can worship these forms and chant the names. It is these various forms that have temples.

There are various such forms: Sri Rama, Sri Krishna, Shiva, Vishnu, Parvati, Lalitha, Surya, Ganapati, Subrahmanya...etc. All of these forms are Brahman.
Several ponds and rivers may exist. But all of them are water.

Ramakrishna Paramahamsa gave an example(I don't know if I remember correctly):
Water does not have a shape. Similarly, Brahman is formless. But to aid the people, Brahman obtained forms. Just as water condenses into an ice crystal(which has a form). This is Karuna(Compassion) of the God(s).

The people can worship these forms and be benefited. This is Bhakti(Devotion).

Then, once devotee has acquired enough maturity, he realises that the forms, he worshiped are nothing but Brahman. This is similar to ice melting to liquid and then to steam. This is Jnana(Realisation-Knowledge).

----
The forms acquired by Brahman are not similar to our forms. Brahman has acquired forms by the power of Maya which is in its control. While Jeevas(Ordinary mortals) are in the grip of Maya, Brahman controls Maya.

The Leelas are not similar to our actions. Our actions are Karmas, while actions of God/Goddess are Leelas because they are not bound by their actions unlike us.

In short, God(s)/Goddess(es) are absolutely independent and free. Unlike us. By worshiping their forms, chanting their names, meditating on them, we can benefit.

At somepoint, we will acquire to the maturity to implement the 'Neti, Neti' method to reject everything but Brahman. Then, we will 'know' Brahman. Such a person is called 'Brahmavit'.

Brahmavit Brahma eva bhavati.
One who knows Brahman becomes Brahman.
(Corollary: Only Brahman can know Brahman)

Link

But, there is no Moksha(liberation from cycle of birth and death) without Gyana.

What is the impediment in acquiring the Gyana?
One's vasanas(impressions).

A karma(action) has two reactions:
a) a result of the action
b) a mental impression on the doer of the action.

If a karma(action) is repeatedly performed, than the doer of that karma(action) becomes habituated to the karma(action). Roughly, this mental habit/obsession is called vasana. Strictly speaking, vasana is a mental impression in the doer of any passive or active karma(action).

These mental impressions(vasanas) propel people to act in a certain manner. They manifest as desire, anger, ...etc. Mental impressions(vasanas) can be both 'good' and 'bad', just like habits can be 'good' and 'bad'.

The ultimate step is to remove all vasanas(mental impressions), so that the mind is free from all bondage of past actions(and associated mental impressions).

How to stop vasanas(mental impressions)?
All mental impressions(vasanas) manifest as karma(actions). If you are habituated to smoking, then that habit will force you to smoke. How to stop it? By not indulging in smoking anymore. Similarly, to stop mental impressions, one will have to stop indulging in the associated karmas(actions).

But, all vasanas(mental impressions) cannot be stopped in one go. Attempting such a thing can be counter-productive, generally. A heavy chain-smoker cannot quit smoking suddenly.

What to do then?
To quit smoking in a phased manner. Slowly, in a calibrated manner, cut down on the number of smokes. Similarly, slowly and in a calibrated manner, one will have to reduce the vasanas(mental impressions) by control of sensory organs(Indriya nigraha).

For this purpose, Ashramas have been designated. Brahmacharya(bachelorhood), Grihastha(marriage), vanaprastha(retirement), sanyasa(renounciation) are the four ashrama(stages) which gradually 'de-addict' a person from his vasanas(mental impressions).

Once the person is free of mental impressions(vasanas), and has cultivated vairagya(detachment for the pleasures of life and after-life), then the person is ready for gyana marga(path of knowledge).

This is the structure of Hinduism. The essential goal is to take everyone to Moksha(liberation). But the method is not always same because different people have different needs, desires and temperaments.

Hinduism is comprehensive set that contains all the valid methods. All the other 'religions' in the world have directly/indirectly taken one or some of these Hindu methods and created a new creed.

If you have not understood why, you have made much use of your time on BR. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism_a ... ifferences Do you believe Khushwant Singh or Mcleod? KS is almost 100 years old and has been alive for almost a one third of the existence of the Khalsa 1699.

Sikhism is the latest refinement of Dharma. In most progressive systems, newer iterations tend to be a more appropriate and relevant version than the old. This cycle will hopefully continue.

I don't subscribe to the simplistic view that the latest is the best version. There are several factors that can give rise to the newer versions and make them popular. Just because a newer version has come into existence, does not mean it is better than the previous version. If a system has already attained the maximum peak, then the newer iteration can only be inferior. As far as I am concerned, Hinduism(along with the Vedantic part) is the zenith of philosophy, spirituality, Dharma and religion. All other versions(dharmic or otherwise) are inferior to Hinduism.

Anyway, even the claim that Sikhism is the latest 'refinement' of Dharma is debatable. There are several more 'Gurus' who keep manifesting with their messages and 'refinements'. The latest 'Guru', that I can think of, is Satya Sai Baba. Maybe there is a more newer 'refinement' than him. So, according to your theory, Satya Sai's version must be superior to all the previous iterations.

I think this whole business of the latest is best is silly. A better method is to investigate the pro and cons of each ideology/philosophy regardless of their antiquity.

The wiki link that you provided enumerates the differences between Sikhism and Hinduism. I could not see how sikhism was any better than Hinduism from that link. That link also has some mis-info.

For example:
the link claims that "Sikhs do not believe that going on pilgrimages or bathing at holy rivers will give you mukti (salvation) but only meditation on the naam (name) of Waheguru will." It needs to be clearly mentioned that going to pilgrimages or bathing at holy rivers is not the only way to Mukti/Moksha(Liberation) according to Hinduism. Chanting the names of Gods/Goddesses, worshipping them, doing good karma like Dana(charity), Tapa(Austerity), Yoga, ...etc also lead to eventual liberation. As Bhagavad Gita clearly explains, there are 3 ways:
a) Karma Marga: Ritualistic Approach,
b) Bhakti Marga: Devotional Approach,
c) Gyana Marga: Philosophical Approach.

And then, there is Yoga which enables one to increase the physical and mental abilities which will enable a seeker to better practice one of the above 3 methods.

Anyway, the Advaita Vedanta firmly proclaims that Moksha can be attained only through Gyana.

Similarly, each of the points mentioned can be countered.

------

If one accepts that that Sikhism has its roots in Hinduism, then Sikhism just happens to be one more. It is neither the first, nor is it likely to be the last. Many branches have sprung forth from Hinduism. These branches have emphasized a certain aspect and have rejected some other concepts. For example, Arya Samaj.

Each such branch believes that they have 'refined' Hinduism. But it is simple their mistake. They have taken the concepts that are agreeable to them and rejected the others. Just because the other concepts did not find favour with them, does not mean that they are inferior or irrelevant. Hinduism contains all the various concepts that all the multitude of humanity need. As there are diverse human beings with diverse needs, Hinduism contains all the diverse concepts to help them. Each person or group is free to pick the concept that they think suits them. But it does not mean that other concepts are discarded. The whole is better than the parts. The branches will wither away, if they are not connected to the tree.

---
Harbans,
it seems clear to me that you have a problem with Hinduism, and not just the term 'Hinduism'. The whole debate on the origin of the term 'Hinduism' was merely a strawman. You real intention is to deny the very existence of Hinduism(or Santana Dharma). You are saying that there are only various schools/communities/castes/philosophies, but no Hinduism/Sanatana Dharma. You do not even acknowledge that these schools/communities/castes/philosophies themselves proclaim that they are part of Hinduism/Sanatana Dharma.

When it was pointed out to you that Hinduism/Sanatana Dharma was a clear definition, you retorted that this definition will not be acceptable to other 'Dharmic strands'. I replied that whether it is acceptable to others('dharmic' or otherwise) is of no concern. I also said that all indic religions can work with each other to defend themselves from the onslaught of non-indic religions because of the common interests.

You ignored all that and continue to question the existence of 'Hinduism' using all sorts of disingenuous logic. At the same time you are propping up 'Dharma'. I have repeatedly asked you which 'Dharma' you are referring to. You did not give a straight-forward answer.

So, instead of this cloak and dagger stuff, why not cut to the chase?! I think that when you talk of 'Dharma', you refer to Sikhism. Am I right?

You are essentially saying that there is no Hinduism, only 'dharmic strands' and they must reject the label of Hinduism/Sanatana Dharma and form a new union under the label of 'Dharma'. Of course, the existence of Hinduism/Sanatana Dharma is a hindrance to this new project, so Hinduism/Sanatana Dharma would have to be denied/taken out, right?!

[Altair]

Expected Outcome: There will be no entity called Pakistan post war. ( Eg: East Pakistan does not exist post '71)

Not enough to be called decisive. Borders have no relevance to Jihadis.

Agreed.
But existence of Pakistan itself is single biggest malefic factor (say a Tumor) for us. How do we suppose we treat patient without removing Pakistan(tumor)?

[RajeshA]

Altair ji,

just for the information of lurkers, there is a whole thread on how to deal with Pakistan. "Managing Pakistan's failure" Thread.

I'll answer it there.

[Arjun]

Harbans,
it seems clear to me that you have a problem with Hinduism, and not just the term 'Hinduism'. The whole debate on the origin of the term 'Hinduism' was merely a strawman. You real intention is to deny the very existence of Hinduism(or Santana Dharma). You are saying that there are only various schools/communities/castes/philosophies, but no Hinduism/Sanatana Dharma. You do not even acknowledge that these schools/communities/castes/philosophies themselves proclaim that they are part of Hinduism/Sanatana Dharma.

When it was pointed out to you that Hinduism/Sanatana Dharma was a clear definition, you retorted that this definition will not be acceptable to other 'Dharmic strands'. I replied that whether it is acceptable to others('dharmic' or otherwise) is of no concern. I also said that all indic religions can work with each other to defend themselves from the onslaught of non-indic religions because of the common interests.

You ignored all that and continue to question the existence of 'Hinduism' using all sorts of disingenuous logic. At the same time you are propping up 'Dharma'. I have repeatedly asked you which 'Dharma' you are referring to. You did not give a straight-forward answer.

So, instead of this cloak and dagger stuff, why not cut to the chase?! I think that when you talk of 'Dharma', you refer to Sikhism. Am I right?

You are essentially saying that there is no Hinduism, only 'dharmic strands' and they must reject the label of Hinduism/Sanatana Dharma and form a new union under the label of 'Dharma'. Of course, the existence of Hinduism/Sanatana Dharma is a hindrance to this new project, so Hinduism/Sanatana Dharma would have to be denied/taken out, right?!

JohneeG, I am sure Harbans will be replying to you - but I think you are very far from the mark in your analysis of Harbans ji's agenda and reference to Sikhism etc.

My sense is that he is focused on defining the difference between Dharmics and Abrahamics in terms of fundamental values that are important to either side. And that, he believes, is a good way of clearly enunciating how the 'other' is different and completely unlike Dharmics in basic values. Once you define the difference in terms of values rather than rituals or customs - the ability to convey the difference to others and propagate your point of view is considerably enhanced. That is his basic objective.

In this, I am in 100% agreement with Harbans. I agree with the entire thought process of the above paragraph. What India needs is to define something which is the equivalent of 'American values'. These values would be defined in completely a-religious terms, ie they would not refer to any religion at all (just like American values don't directly reference Christian values). However, the values should be such that they are clearly derivable from liberal Hindu / Dharmic values - exactly the same as secularism as a value is derived from a Christian context and history and is clearly redundant when applied to non-dogmatic religions such as Hinduism.

Only through such an exercise can any civilization have hope of spreading and propagating core values across the globe.

However, I think the final values that he comes up with (Truth, Equality and Compassion) don't quite achieve what seems to be the intended aim. The values need to be far more explicit in their 'othering'. Sapeksha Dharma, ie respect or tolerance offered to another Panth only when they make it mutual, OR Respect for Indigenous Culture (which is another value which can be Universal) I think are much better choices...Harbans ji's thought process is exactly what is required today and his bringing the topic of core values up is highly admirable - but the final selection of values need more consideration.

[RajeshA]

The values need to be far more explicit in their 'othering'. Sapeksha Dharma, ie respect or tolerance offered to another Panth only when they make it mutual, OR Respect for Indigenous Culture (which is another value which can be Universal) I think are much better choices

Respect for Native Culture is the "value" we are looking for.

[harbans]

You are essentially saying that there is no Hinduism, only 'dharmic strands' and they must reject the label of Hinduism/Sanatana Dharma and form a new union under the label of 'Dharma'.

No. I put forward a simple preposition that of putting Value systems under which the GoI functions in perspective and constant reminder by intensity of focus in the preamble itself. It is another issue whether there is context to them or not. That is another discussion. I am not interested in a long winding post on definitions of Hinduism here wrt my preposition.

If Hindutvadi's feel value systems don't matter primarily, but what matters is 'Hindu' interests then you are going to be questioned what how exactly you define Hindu. I asked that before in another thread and i got all different answers. You said irrespective of what others say your version is correct. Another says Vedicism=Hinduism. Another says common the common Hindu is riddled with ego problems. That Upanishads is beyond them and for the common Hindu moksha is not a goal. Then there are people who will want Manu Smriti and other dharma shastra's in. First decide and then put forward your POV. There is no point in 5 different people putting different objections based on their interpretations of Hinduism to my basic preposition.

It's one thing putting forward reasoning to oppose insertion/ giving more import to value systems in the preamble. It is fine also discussing what values to give import to if at all. It is another to just barge into that discussion with Hindutva blaring. Then also bear with the inevitable questioning what sort of Govt and COnstitution will a HIndu State have? Will people agree? Will HIndu's agree? Can it be vague and open ended as it will be with so many differing versions? So if you want to drive an agenda and push it forward then also accept questioning that agenda.

Nepal was a Hindu State, yet it was the poorest and fell easily to Maoists. So why did that Hindu state fall? Oh let me guess Johnee G, their version of Hinduism was different. So please do let me know when you definitely decide what a Hindu state will stand for exactly. At the minimum tell the core principles. What they are. There is no point in writing a 300 line sanskritised treatise here trying to explain your version. Put your version of a Hindu state constitutional charter in 10 lines or 5. Core principles. That would help.

[harbans]

My sense is that he is focused on defining the difference between Dharmics and Abrahamics in terms of fundamental values that are important to either side. And that, he believes, is a good way of clearly enunciating how the 'other' is different and completely unlike Dharmics in basic values. Once you define the difference in terms of values rather than rituals or customs - the ability to convey the difference to others and propagate your point of view is considerably enhanced. That is his basic objective.

These values would be defined in completely a-religious terms, ie they would not refer to any religion at all (just like American values don't directly reference Christian values). However, the values should be such that they are clearly derivable from liberal Hindu / Dharmic values

Excellently put Arjun Ji! Today neither Indians not outsider know what we stand for. And those that don;t stand for something will fall for anything. The most rootless are our leaders. The only rootedness their idealism lies in is Secularism, Socialism. The excesses of these we are witnessing today. IMHO the best way and step forward was to clearly define what we stand for. What values we cherish. I took most of the values i stated from BG and other Dharmic texts.

[RajeshA]

harbans ji,

Atri garu has given a good response to your proposal. Please look at it.

[RajeshA]

I asked that before in another thread and i got all different answers. You said irrespective of what others say your version is correct. Another says Vedicism=Hinduism. Another says common the common Hindu is riddled with ego problems. That Upanishads is beyond them and for the common Hindu moksha is not a goal. Then there are people who will want Manu Smriti and other dharma shastra's in. First decide and then put forward your POV. There is no point in 5 different people putting different objections based on their interpretations of Hinduism to my basic preposition.

This is unfair.

What would you like to have? What do you expect - Someone to say, here is the Book, here is the Prophet, here are the five Principles?

It is up to you to make an integral whole of the various definitions you have received! However if you see contrary claims, then you can of course protest!

[harbans]

It is up to you to make an integral whole of the various definitions you have received!

Apologies Rajesh ji, if we are discussing core charters or preambles, suggesting 5 different versions a 100 stanza each doesn't really cut much ice either as preambles or core charters. They've got to be much more definitive and precise. On top there is a whole lot that i could go question there, but that would go OT to what i was proposing and lead discussions elsewhere. Would not help really.

[Sagar G]

King of Victimhood: Shah Rukh Khan bites the hand that fed him by Venky Vembu

Of Punjabi bhangra-pop artist Daler Mehendi, it was famously said that he built an entire entertainment career on the strength of just five nifty dance moves.

Much the same can be said of actor Shah Rukh Khan. A man of at best middling histrionic capabilities, he has fashioned a far more phenomenally successful career on the strength of far less discernible talent. More importantly, he was embraced by a generation of Indians who were evidently so swayed by his looks (or whatever else they saw in him) that they readily overlooked his vacuous performances, blessed him with fame and fortune – and even went on to crown him ‘King Khan’.

At the peak of his career, Shah Rukh was spoken of in the same breath as the Shahenshah of Bollywood, Amitabh Bachchan. That comparison may have been valid in terms of the box-office appeal that both held, but a certain indefinable element of classy refinement that Bachchan exuded even when the cameras were not whirring remained forever out of reach of SRK.

In his eternal quest to be the ageless Peter Pan of Bollywood, Shah Rukh appears not to have come to terms with the fact that while once he may have commanded a forgiving fan following, he is well past his prime. Like the Norma Desmond character that Gloria Swanson essayed in Billy Wilder’s Sunset Boulevard, he is only clinging on to the memories of a happier day when the arclights were turned on him and the adulation of fans enveloped him in a warm, glowing embrace.

So, by every verifiable metric, it’s fair to say that Shah Rukh Khan has enjoyed more success – and earned more fame and fortune and fan-love – than he arguably deserves. Which is why it’s difficult to account for the victimhood chip – rooted in his identity as a Muslim – that he bears on his shoulders.

In an interview that he gave to an overseas publication, Shah Rukh Khan is quoted as saying that he “sometimes become(s) the indvertent object of political leaders who choose to make me a symbol of all that they think is wrong and unpatriotic about Muslims in India.”

There have been occasions, he said, when he had been accused of “bearing allegiance to our neighbouring nation rather than my own country – even though I am an Indian, whose father fought for India’s freedom.”

Oh, cry me a river, Shah Rukh. Millions upon millions of fans in India made you who you are – without pausing even to reflect once on your religious identity. In an earlier time, a Muhammad Yousuf Khan may have felt the need to rechristen himself Dilip Kumar to give himself a better shot at survival in Bollywood, but cinema fans in India today are truly blind to the religious identity of their stars; if anything, today, going by the number of Khans in Bollywood’s top-bracket, the Khan surname has something of a premium appeal, even though many of them, with some rare exceptions like Aamir Khan, bring at best mediocre acting talent to the screen.

It’s true, of course, that your films have had their problems with Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray, who kicked up a shindig by protesting against your film My Name Is Khan on specious grounds. But then you aren’t the only person – or even the only person in Bollywood – to have faced the Shiv Sena’s politically motivated ire. And while it’s of course true that every such instance of intimidation of the entertainment industry deserves to be condemned, you – of all privileged people – shouldn’t be seeking refuge in Muslim victimhood. More than most others, you always had access to sympathetic media treatment – and the unstinted support of everyone who spoke up in your defence (and even provided security cover for screenings of your film). And, by the way, have you given voice to a word of solidarity for Kamal Haasan, whose film Vishwaroopam too currently faces criminal intimidation from others like you who are feeding off Muslim victimhood?

Heck, even when you made a colossal ass of yourself by getting into inebriated fights with fellow-stars in Bollywood – or even just a lowly security guard at Wankhede Stadium who was merely doing his job – you’ve had media divas offering you therapy sessions on their studio couches to present your side of the matter, such as it is. Not many others get the chance to redeem themselves after such exceptionally boorish conduct.

In any case, My Name Is Khan was itself premised on a sense of victimhood – and we haven’t exactly forgotten how you milked your brief but propitiously timed detention at a US airport about that time to market your film. And to think that unlike what happens to countless other plebeians in similar situations, the Indian government scrambled to get US immigration authorities to let you off because, of course, you are a superstar. And you complain today – to an overseas publication – that you’re being targeted for being a Muslim?

It was your Bollywood fame (and fortune) that gave you another foothold – in the IPL Cricket League – and, of course, with it came yet more fame, but also the critical attention of countless fans. Cricket and Bollywood are two of the biggest ‘religions’ in India, about which virtually everyone has an opinion, and you’ve got a giant footprint in both the spheres. So, get used to the fact that you will get a lot of criticism, just as you’ve got a lot of undeserved fan-love, particularly when you go against the grain of the prevalent national mood and argue for having Pakistani cricketers play in the IPL League.

So, grow up, Shah Rukh, and learn to take it on the chin like a man. Don’t bite the hand that fed you – and made you who you are – by running off to an overseas publication and crying your heart out, thereby providing the space for low-life terrorists like Hafiz Saeed to take potshots at India.

India may not be a paradise – not by a long shot – but, as writer Patrick French observed at the Jaipur Literature Festival, you only have to look around India’s neighbourhood – including the “neighbouring country” you couldn’t even name in your interview – and ask yourself where else you would rather live…

[RamaY]

Ten Traditional yamas
The ten traditional yamas are:[4][unreliable source?] [1]
Ahimsa (अहिंसा): Nonviolence. Abstinence from injury that arises out of love for all, harmlessness, the not causing of pain to any living creature in thought, word, or deed at any time. This and Satya (सत्य) are the "main" yama. The other eight are there in support of its accomplishment.
Satya (सत्य): truthfulness, word and thought in conformity with the facts, honesty.
Asteya (अस्तेय): non-stealing, non-coveting, non-entering into debt.
Brahmacharya(ब्रह्मचर्य): being constantly aware of the universe, immersed in divinity, divine conduct, continence, celibate when single, faithfulness when married.
Kshama (क्षमा): patience, releasing time, functioning in the now.
Dhriti(धृति): steadfastness, overcoming non-perseverance, fear, and indecision; seeing each task through to completion.
Daya (दया): compassion; conquering callous, cruel and insensitive feelings toward all beings.
Arjava (अर्जव): honesty, straightforwardness, renouncing deception and wrongdoing.
Mitahara (मितहार): moderate appetite, neither eating too much nor too little; nor consuming meat, fish, shellfish, fowl or eggs.
Shaucha (शौच): purity, avoidance of impurity in body, mind and speech. (Note: Patanjali's Yoga Sutras list Shaucha as the first of the Niyamas.)

The ten traditional Niyamas are:
Hri: remorse, being modest and showing shame for misdeeds;
Santosha: contentment; being satisfied with the resources at hand - therefore not desiring more;
Dana: giving, without thought of reward;
Astikya: faith, believing firmly in the teacher, the teachings and the path to enlightenment;
Ishvarapujana: worship of the Lord, the cultivation of devotion through daily worship and meditation, the return to the source;
Siddhanta shravana: scriptural listening, studying the teachings and listening to the wise of one's lineage;
Mati: cognition, developing a spiritual will and intellect with the guru's guidance;
Vrata: sacred vows, fulfilling religious vows, rules and observances faithfully;
Japa: recitation, chanting mantras daily;
Tapas: the endurance of the opposites; hunger and thirst, heat and cold, standing and sitting etc.
In Patanjali's Yoga Sutras, the Niyamas are the second limb of the eight limbs of Raja Yoga.
They are found in the Sadhana Pada Verse 32 as:
Shaucha: cleanliness of thought, mind and body. Traditionally, this item is listed under Yama; this word means purity.
Santosha: happy satisfaction; good contentment.
Tapas: spiritual effort; austerity.
Svādhyāya: self study, study to know more about God and the soul, which leads to introspection on a greater awakening to the soul and God within.
Ishvarapranidhana: surrender to God.

As we can see above, all the Dharmic codes mentioned by various members are part of Yama/Niyama in Patanjali's Astanga Yoga. Given that these are mere starting points of Astanga Yoga, we can safely deduce that these are mere first steps in the long journey towards the goal of "Asamprajnata Samadhi" (superconscious) where the individual is achieving the Upanishadic awareness.

Observance of Yama and Niayama gives an individual the necessary "clarity of thought" in observance of Dharma. Dharma being contextual (Asrama, Varna/Social-Role, Kaala, Desa, Apad and so on) the individual needs a strong self-awareness and clarity of thought to be Dharmic when the multi-dimensional social world throws interesting challenges.

Then how is Dharma defined? Dharma is defined from the foundations of the culture/civilization (what we call iSM) when it is made suitable to the contemporary times. That is why Bharat has seen so many Dharma sastras. The shape and direction of a civilizational dharma completely depends on the culture/iSM of the underlying society. If the underlying ism is Tamasic then the Dharma too will be Tamasic. If the underlying ism is Satvic then the Dharma that born out of that civilization will be Satvic.

If people want we can map almost all these points to any iSM, say Islam. Then how come the end goals of Hindusim (Yoga is a Veda-approved Darshana) differ so much from Islam? How come a non-Vedic Darshana like Buddhism found so much common with Hinduism? This is something for members to ponder.

The challenges we are facing are nothing new.

When Rama went behind Viswamitra he came across Tataki, Maricha and Subahu in lower Himalayan region. Entire Dandakaranya was controlled by Khara & Dushana. Entire Asuric war machine is supported and inspired by Ravana in Lanka. Rama did not kill Tataki and claim his goal achieved now that GV is devoid of Asuricness. He didn't partition Bharat so Dandakaranya is separated from GYS vally so a new India is devoid of Asuras. He went all the way to the root of the problem and killed Ravana. How he strategized his vision is the story of Ramayana. Once he killed Ravana and his Asuric MIC he established Vibheeshana only on the basis of Dharma and nothing else. The result was that Vibheeshana's descendants stood on the side of Dharma even as far as MB war.

Similarly when Krishna was faced with similar conundrum, he didn't stop with relocating and settling in Dwaraka. He step by step facilitated the Rajasuya by Pandavas and took the fight to its logical conclusion. Even here, the dharmic descendants of Krishna's opponents (Naraka, Jarasandha etc.,) all stood on Pandava's side in MB war.

Compare this with the outcomes the architects of India accepted. They let go of Burma. They pushed Pakistan away saying the rest of India is Secular (Pls.Note: Not Dharmic. For them Dharma is not compatible with Secularism or Secularism is more paramount than Dharma). They made Pakistan our enemy (Are they referring to the geographical entity or population group or the people of different ideology/iSM?). And we call these gentlemen Maha-Atmaas, Fathers of the Nation. How silly the idea of India must be, unless, unless, we all decided that Hinduism is a foregone ideology and we all converted to secularism.

Finally the age old adage is "Be a Roman when in in Rome". So there is nothing wrong in asking for "Be Bharatiya when in Bharat". The idea of India is an artificial, unnecessary and bankrupt compromise.

[ramana]

Guys this thread is not to discuss ancient Hindu ideas but current modern day Indian interests.

Thanks, ramana

[RamaY]

Ramanji, if you dont mind can we have this discussion for few more days. We can move the unrelated posts to other places once we reach the objective?

Secondly I also think it is pertinent (and important) for people to read various ideas/thoughts in public forum. I think this will help shape the discussions/debates in wider public fora and media.

Just a request, I will leave the decision to moderators.

[ramana]

No. You all can post in GDF. No more additional work for admins to clean up threads.

Thanks, ramana

[ramana]

X-post....

^^ Good article. Wasnt sure where to post it:
Vishwaroopam:Why the onus of secularism falls on Muslims too

on-Tamil characters speaking Tamil, or any other Indian language for that matter, is not new in Indian commercial cinema. We have heard the entire senior brass of Indian Army or civil servants in Delhi speak in Tamil. These are inherently flawed situations that audiences don’t object to. Everybody does it, and everybody has to do it.

However, Coimbatore and Madurai are not figments of anybody’s imagination.

In Coimbatore (1998) 50 people died and 200 injured in a series of blasts across 11 places while in Madurai, a low intensity bomb went off in 2012. Since 2010, there were at lest six incidents of bombs exploding or being detected in the city. Even if Omar’s claim of connections to these two places in Vishwaroopam are taken at face value, it actually rules out an Indian terror design at these places and indicates a foreign hand.

The main objections of the groups protesting against the movie are that it stereotyped Indian Muslims as terrorists.

Did it?

The movie is not about Indian Muslims, it is about Taliban and Al-Qaeda. The rogues or terrorists in the movie are the Taliban and the Jihadi networks dominated by the Afghanis. If at all anybody has suffered an image issue, it should be the Taliban and not Indians.

Then as summarised in an article on twocircles.net , there are obvious charges about the beard, the salwar kameez, speaking in Urdu, evoking the name of Allah etc. But we have seen and heard this many times before – not from Vishwaroopam, but routinely from the Islamic militants’ propaganda materials themselves. Are those incensed by Vishwaroopam saying that Taliban and Al-Qaeda don’t kill people in the name of a religion? And their terror-propaganda materials don’t exist?

The article also refers to Muslim names being commonly being misused in Indian films: “And the most of the characters that portray the role of underworld mafias are shown as Muslims. And these characters definitely say “Assalamalikum” and “Masha Allah” and indulge in killing, extortion, drugs smuggling and women trafficking.”

Yes, it’s true; but they originate from media reports on smuggling, distribution of counterfeit notes from Pakistan, sending recruits to Pakistan for training and fighting in Kashmir, and sometimes even spying for ISI. Most often, these reports are sourced to the government, the police, the NIA etc.

The mere presence of the organisations, that have either been noted for past radical behaviour or have morphed out of organisations of disrepute, is a serious cause of worry. For instance, the march in Thiruvananthapuram – where the movie was running to packed houses peacefully – as well as in other locations in Kerala, was Popular Front of India (PFI), which according to the Kerala government had connections with SIMI (Students Islamic Movement of India), an oragnisation banned by the Centre.

The state government had reportedly said that its activity was a threat to national unity and security. Its activists have been allegedly involved in the hand-chopping of a college professor for a controversial question paper that the latter had set. The former Kerala chief minister and CPM leader VS Achuthanandan had charged that the PFI had plans to Islamise the state over a period of twenty years.

Similarly, the TMMK in Tamil Nadu, which in fact triggered the trail of events against the movie, had also been alleged to have had links to SIMI, and its leaders had been arrested in connection with the Coimabatore blasts.

The fear of minorities, of intimidation and marginalisation by the majority, is real and needs to be sincerely addressed, but that is where the Constitution and the State have instituted safeguards. In addition, the Indian citizenry has demonstrated remarkable and consistent responsibility in protecting the interests of minorities and maintaining at least a minimum standard of secularism.

However, the irresponsible and violent acts that exploit and misinterpret the idea of secularism, that too by groups and individuals with a questionable intent, can only vitiate the atmosphere. They have to be defeated with utmost political and social resolve.

Secularism is not about protecting the fundamentalisation of one faith or the other. It is also not about stifling free speech, whether by Kamal Haasan or MF Hussain.

Secularism is everybody’s responsibility.

[Prem]

India internally instituionalizing Islamist Interests calls for changing the name of this thread to Bharti Interests. India that is Islam cannot be called Bharat.

[Sushupti]

Of course "secular" schools are exempted from it. Squeeze Hinduism out of young, encourage minority religions to flourish and grow.

NAC advices schools to avoid religious spaces

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/308 ... gious.html

[devesh]

Of course "secular" schools are exempted from it.

NAC advices schools to avoid religious spaces

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/308 ... gious.html

what I find conspicuous on BRF is that the defenders of JLN's legacy, who go so far as to threaten "deadly" violence in their "neck of the woods" if anyone questions the said and associated legacies (like the Constitution), do not even make patronizing, cursory replies to blatantly "constitutional" moves like the above. why is that? after all, the above is a clear legacy of JLN's India, is it not? what possible intellectual gimmickry can they come up with, that says the above was not what JLN intended?

there is a resounding silence. so many times I have asked the fierce defenders to come forward and proudly defend the "constitutional" moves, yet, they respond only with total silence, forever consistent in their inconsistency.