The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

[harbans]

I hjave earlier [1] [2] on explained why they cannot play with definitions. Same way we cannot decide that we are not doing Shirk.

It is a water-tight case!

In my opinion Rajesh ji it is hardly a watertight case. Islam is completely built upon the notion that it offers no intermediaries between Allah and the worshipper. There idol smashing comes from that very inbuilt belief. And here you are defining Dharma in a way that they will laugh at you and say, we are the real Dharmics and you are the fools that worship Idols according to your own definitions. C'mon, think just a little more about this.

With this Islamics will hardly become Dharmics but confused Hindu's will end up Islamics.

[Prem]

I hjave earlier [1] [2] on explained why they cannot play with definitions. Same way we cannot decide that we are not doing Shirk.It is a water-tight case!

\
with this Islamics will hardly become Dharmics but confused Hindu's will end up Islamics.

IMHO, there is no need and space left for dialogue or negotiations when the mortal threat of past horrendous centuries is now being revived by our very own people. Efforts should be clearly only in the remedial realm. Discussion and Dialogue grant locus standi and utterly unnecessary.
Right in front of our eyes, Bharatvarsh is being clearly driven toward o the same old danger , with medieval enemy known for its genocidal achievements. Us Vs Them will do us real good at this juncture. To them their and to us ours and end of the chapter. Let there be referendum among the Hindus, Sikhs, Jain and Buddhist etc of India to decide the nature of Nation and constitution.Islam can freely operate within the parameters of the Soil value based guidelines and if it find this intrusive , be allowed to move over to the land allocated exclusively for it in 47.

[RajeshA]

I hjave earlier [1] [2] on explained why they cannot play with definitions. Same way we cannot decide that we are not doing Shirk.

It is a water-tight case!

In my opinion Rajesh ji it is hardly a watertight case. Islam is completely built upon the notion that it offers no intermediaries between Allah and the worshipper.

So now you have erased Muhammad completely out of Islam! Nice one, harbans ji. The Islam everybody knows however is something differen!

[Pranav]

Then why Muslim British do not do their basic duty towards their nation?

But in India, there are also many instances of "Hindus" working against the interests of the nation.

One needs a positive national theme which everybody can align with, and achievable goals which everybody can aspire for.

Perhaps Muslims in the US are less disaffected than in the UK.

[RamaY]

^ Hope so.

The question is about Muslim minorities. No point ==ing with Hindus.

US doesn't offer the same freedoms as UK does when it comes to Islamists.

So the solution seem to facilitate Muslims while treating Islamists with iron hand?

[brihaspati]

It is a lie on the part of Islamism, to say that Islamism does not have idol-icon worship. Or that there ar eno intermediaries.

The kaba stone is declared in certain ahadith - to be slated to grow face/eyes and wings and fly away before the Islamic "acpocalypse". Moreover, Gabriel delivers a majority of the revelations not the supreme authority - to even the founder.

[brihaspati]

Pranav ji,

Such all round capability is indeed admirable, but do you think, that in the natural process of individual evolution, a person may, at different stages, be more adapted for some roles than for others. And is it not inevitable that individuals will specialize as per inherent strengths and weaknesses?

True, it might not be feasible for everyone to the same degree. But so is every spiritual ambition in every religious tradition. Even after knowing that all humans will not have identical predispositions - all, religions, including Islam- propose hierarchies of spiritual advancement. But they never give up the ideal. I am taking this(all round) also as an ideal.

If you define "truth" like how you defined "Sanatana Dharma" - as an inherent property of the universe, then it is indeed something to be sought after. There is a human urge for a better and better understanding of the universe. But in normal use the English word is quite limited in its meaning.

Its the limitation of language I try to draw attention to. So, yes, the "truth" is as per my view, an underlying, not necessarily self-evident one.

[Pranav]

^ Hope so.

The question is about Muslim minorities. No point ==ing with Hindus.

Fine, as long as it is understood that formal affiliation with some belief system or another is only one of the factors when it comes to understanding attitudes of individuals to the nation.

The scalpel must be wielded with with due care, because by focusing indiscriminately on broad categories and tarring all kinds of people with a broad brush, we strengthen the identities we would prefer to dissolve. We have to give people an escape route from narrow identities, not chain them to those identities.

[harbans]

So now you have erased Muhammad completely out of Islam! Nice one, harbans ji. The Islam everybody knows however is something differen!

Rajesh Ji, Mohammed is not considered an intermediary in Islam. Allat, Uzza, Manat were considered in Al Najm 53: 19-22 at one time as intermediaries. This was revealed to Mohammed. Then lots of people were happy that Mohammed has acceded to accept that intermediaries are allowed and became Muslims. Afterwards Mohammed said that those verses which said Allat, Uzza, Manat can be intermediaries was given by the Devil. So these verses were deleted. These were the 'Satanic' verses. Except for the very brief period where it was revealed that these 3 goddesses can be considered intermediaries to the revocation of any intermediary between the Muslim and Allah, Islam has been very clear that it does not sanction intermediaries. MOhammed is not considered an intermediary to God, as much as you consider the Bible, Gita, Guru to be one who helps atma unite with supreme.

So snap out of that, you've been starting threads on understanding Islam, yet you make these kind of statements. So in short..your definition certainly puts Muslims in the Dharmic fold, but keep tens of millions of Hindu's who worship idols out of it. Can you just check which side of the branch you are sitting on before sawing it off?

[Rudradev]

"Mohammed rasool ullah" means "Mohammed is the messenger of Allah." Not Allah, but the messenger of Allah. "Messenger" in most languages is synonymous with "intermediary". If Islam did not use an intermediary between humans and divinity there would be no reason to revere Mohammed as "rasool ullah" at all. His entire status in Islam, arises from being a self-proclaimed intermediary between divinity and humanity. This cannot be wished away by some obscure reference to a purged hadith.

Meanwhile, Murtis do not fall under the definition of "self-proclaimed" intermediary. Which murti has proclaimed ITSELF to be a required intermediary in order for Hindus to achieve experiential unity with the divine? It is an object of devotion that some Hindus use in ritualistic worship, and some Hindus never use at all; therefore, neither "required" nor "self-proclaimed".

The definition stands watertight, QED.

Anybody who considers that the Atma has intrinsic capacity for direct access to the Supreme, without requiring the intervention of any self-proclaimed intermediary, is a Dharmic.

[harbans]

Actually the Intermediary is well accepted by most Hindu's.

Gurukrapa he kevalam shishyaparammangalam for example says only by the grace of the Guru only can the disciple attain the ultimate spiritual benefaction.

From the Bhagavatam, Jadbharat reveals to king Rahugan:
"O Rahugan! One cannot attain knowledge of Atma and Paramatma by performing penance, sacrifices, renunciation, Vedic study or worshipping deities of water, fire or the sun. But when the dust from the feet of a satpurush (God-realized Guru) sprinkles on our heads, then we can surely attain this knowledge."

Treading the path to God-realization by one's own efforts is likened by the Katha Upanishad as walking on a razor's edge. Adi Shankaracharya echoes a similar injunction: "If a person, despite possessing: a handsome, disease-free body, fame, a mountain of wealth, and even if he has studied the Vedas and all other scriptures, and has himself composed many scriptures, but has not surrendered himself at the feet of a Guru, then he has achieved nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing."

Yet Islam is very clear on this front. No intermediaries allowed. And except for that very brief period where 'Satan' revealed the Al Najm Chap 53 verses, which was soon revoked by Mohammed, Islam has been absolutely clear in it's doctrine that intermediaries are not accepted.

So Rajesh Ji's definitive formulation of:

Anybody who considers that the Atma has intrinsic capacity for direct access to the Supreme, without requiring the intervention of any self-proclaimed intermediary, is a Dharmic.

keeps most real Dharmics out of the definition, but all Islamists fit the definition to boot.

[harbans]

And more:

Guru Govind donu khade, kisko laagu paay,
Balihari Gurudevaki jinhe Govind diyo bataay.

The Guru and Govind -God, are present before me, to whom shall I bow down first? Glory to the Guru since he showed me Govind.

Apart from guiding the aspirant on the path to God-realization, the Guru throws light on the profound meanings of the vast array of scriptural knowledge. Hence the Mundaka Upanishad calls such a Guru "Shrotriya" - knower of the true meanings of the scriptures. Adi Shankaracharya forbids an aspirant in endeavoring to decipher the meanings without a Guru. In his commentary of the Mundaka Upanishad, he says: "Even if one possesses knowledge of the scriptures, he should not attempt to delve into their meanings by himself. He should obtain the knowledge of Brahman only through the Guru."

In their treatises, other Acharyas, such as Ramanuj and Nimbark have considered the Guru mandatory in God-realization.

Shvetashvatara Upanishad (6/23) :
Advocates worship to the Guru in the same manner as the deity - God, to attain all there is to attain on the path of God-realization:

Yasya deve para bhaktir yatha deve tatha gurau |
Tasyaite kathitaa hi arthaaha prakashante mahatmanaha ||

Bhagavad Gita (4/34) :
The disciple should humbly pose questions to the Guru and please him by serving him. He will then impart the knowledge of God, so ordain the wise sages.

[Rudradev]

The difference between "necessary" and "sufficient" is intuitively obvious to most people.

For Hindus, accepting and devoutly following sadhana from a guru-paramparaa is sufficient to experience unity with the divine, but it is by no means a necessary condition for the capacity of atma to experience unity with the divine. In fact, the ultimate function of a guru is to remove the disciple's dependence on intermediaries so that the disciple may experience unity with the divine directly:

The Guru's mission appears to be two-fold. The first and most important concern of the Guru is to awaken, elevate and transform the seeker. The second and final purpose of the Guru is paradoxically to help the disciple seeker to transcend this state of complete dependence on the Master, which dependence the Guru himself had taken such pains to foster. The final spurt of realizing his true identity with God is exclusively the Seeker's job.

In Islam the intermediary is absolutely necessary, and remains necessary throughout the life of a Muslim. One cannot be a Muslim without accepting that Mohammed was Allah's sole and only intermediary. Mohammed does not elevate other Muslims to a level where they can seek the realization of Allah without him. Mohammed is, in fact the last and final prophet of Allah. Contesting any of these claims is outrightly blasphemous to Islam.

Therefore, for Hindus, the Guru is sufficient but not necessary. For Muslims, the self-proclaimed intermediary Mohammed is necessary as a permanent, life-long affair, and any doubt in this necessity amounts to blasphemy.

The definition stands.

[harbans]

Goswami Tulsidas reiterates this idea in the Ramayan, and in the Bhagwatam, God Himself says,
"Those who are devoted to my Saint are dearer to Me than those who are directly devoted to Me."

In fact, the word "Guru" means the one who dispels the darkness of material ignorance ('gu'), and the one who introduces the light of God's love in a disciple's heart ('ru').

There's tons and tons of evidence that Hindu or Dharmic texts allow and exalt intermediaries that show the way to the Param. That is an intermediary.

Yet in Islam it is very clear that Allah has revealed to Mohammed that no intermediaries are allowed between him and Muslims. Whereas Guru's/ Hindu texts so many say that the the intermediary the Guru is the way.

So according to Rajesh ji's definition Islaimists are Dharmic, and Hindu's/ Dharmics are not. No the definiton falls flat Rudra Ji. It won't stand your twists and spin.

[Pranav]

In fact, in Islam it is a serious heresy to claim direct contact with Allah. Muhammad is supposed to be the final messenger from Allah. This is called the doctrine of "Khatm-e-Nabuwwat" or something like that. It is in pursuance of this doctrine that the Ahmedis are being slaughtered ... they claim that their founder was also a messenger from Allah.

[Pranav]

A fundamental concept in Dharma is realization of oneness with the Supreme Reality. A Guru helps the disciple along, but the ultimate goal for every individual is direct union and direct experience.

[Rudradev]

Harbans ji, you can hastily google a thousand quotes about "Guru" and spout them out of context. It doesn't do your argument one bit of good, because you don't have an argument at all.

Intrinsic capacity of Atma for unity with the divine is the only thing the Guru relies on, when helping a seeker to realize his own unity with the divine. If Sanatan Dharma did not consider Atma to have intrinsic capacity for direct access to the Supreme, as Rajesh-ji's definition says... then there would be nothing a Guru could do, to help his disciple achieve that unity. Clearly you have no idea what a Guru is, if you think he is an intermediary like Mohammed or the Church.

On the other hand, any Muslim who says Mohammed is not required as an intermediary to realize Allah will immediately find himself in front of a Shariah court. Your persistent denial of this is laughable. In fact, the Persian mystic Mansur-al-Hallaj was executed for the statement "Ana-i-haqq" ("I am the truth"), because he was claiming that he could directly experience unity with the ultimate reality, the divine, without Mohammed as an intermediary.

With you it seems the word "intermediary", like the word "truth", is something to be given whatever meaning you please.

[harbans]

Rudra ji, everyone references through some search engine now and that is a good thing. So cut that rhetoric that pervades through most of what you wrote above.

Intermediary:

2. something that acts as a medium or means

i

Rajesh Ji's definition of Dharma:

Anybody who considers that the Atma has intrinsic capacity for direct access to the Supreme, without requiring the intervention of any self-proclaimed intermediary, is a Dharmic.

The Guru is a means of facilitating. Thus according to definitions of 'Intermediary' prevalent ( you can take up a dictionary since using search engines is hasty and averse to you) the Guru who reveals the context or facilitates is the intermediary.

Meanwhile, Islamists believe and yes they have hard history on claiming loudly that no Intermeidaries are allowed in Islam. Much more so than Hindu texts as i have shown through numerous google references show.

So if you want this definition to hold your above RHETORIC will be out smashed by the likes of Zakir Naik. And that is what i am saying they will claim they are the real Dharmics of this land, while the intermediary acknowledgers are these cow piss drinking Hindu's.

It doesn't matter if you or a dozen people here indulge in all sorts of rhetoric and claim it stands. You'll be proved wrong down the line. And yes the Brh U definition of Dharma=Truth as one and same is the closest one can get. But one has to evolve a bit to start believing in that. That is my take and i do gravitate towards that definition.

[member_20317]

Guru == Prophet is a standard hand waving technique. Unfortunately that is not going to help.

Guru cannot grant and Guru cannot take away. Guru can only help essentially with the directions. The force in that direction is to be directed only by the Shishya. Despite this the last mile still needs to be covered by the Shishya himself. Thus the help is worthwhile only when the Shishya is prepared to exploit it. The selection parameters of Shishya is such that he is almost a guru himself. Furthermore the Parents are the first guru. Now all these are observed facts that were so to say, canonized by Hindus. And all The only reason guru is advised is because on his own the Shishya can get himself deluded if he is not prepared well in the first place. Again an observed fact. If Hindus give up these practices then that should prove that Hindus rely on intermediaries.

Besides Sanaka, Sanatana, Sanandana, Sanatkumara, Yagyavalkya, Ratnakara, Dhruva, Prahlada, Nachiket, Hanuman, Eklavya and the sons of Suryadev had something in common w.r.t. their kind of Guru they had. Only dharmics allow for the possibility of self-study.

Still ahead the question of a intermediary arises is when there is something to be given/granted. The unmasking that Hindus have to do can only be of something that is already part of the self.

Now if Zannat can be had without the Prophet/Book/Clergy then sure Abrahmics do not require an intermediary. If sombody can be an abrahmic without saying rather denouncing the kalima/creed then sure it proves that Abrahmics do not require an intermediary.

Furthermore the direct link RajeshA ji is talking about is with the Absolute not with some Grumpy, Old, Red neck.

[devesh]

harbans ji,

your moronic quotes and and attempts to do == are amusing, at best. even a novice at matters of logic and intuition knows instinctively that the exclusive clauses claiming "ownership of God" that exist in the Abrahamic systems have no corresponding counterparts in Sanatana Dharma. the very absence of an overarching centralized theological Order which seeks to impose certain non-negotiable "rules" on the Hindus, is all the evidence of the difference between the Hindu and the Abrahamic. your understanding is either clouded by deliberate misrepresentation or by delusional ideas.

[devesh]

it's interesting that Zakir Naik is being brought up. the reason that the Naik types seem to get away with extraordinarily reconstructed imaginations is b/c the opponents among the Hindus dare not question the actual scripture of the Islamics. while Naik has no such problem, the Hindu opponents do not dare to question the very basis of the religion itself: deluded by the idea that the "religion" is not wrong, but only the "interpretation".

If Zakir Naik brings up the issue of "intermediary", the simplest repudiation by the Hindu is the existence of rigid, highly formalized/entry-regulated, thoroughly-"cleaned"-of-dissent Mullah/theologian hierarchies within Islam. There is simply no counterpart to this among the Hindus. NONE AT ALL. so, perhaps harbans ji should address the real issue and not put up straw-men to be taken down? perhaps, the reluctance to take up the real weaknesses of the Hindu is a suggestion of the true intent of this so called "debate"?

[RajeshA]

harbans ji,

thank you your interest.

Your confidence in Zakir Naik seems to be great. I too think he is a good orator. But why do you think he is such an effective orator?

One reason is because Hindus have difficulty in defining ourselves, understandably so, and thus others take advantage of this ambiguity, lack of clarity and complexity to give their own spin and start defining and thus maligning us.

So even though the freedom, the individuality, the multiplicity of options, multi-level semantics, cultural richness is a strength of Sanatan Dharma, there is an urgent need for rhetorical clarity when dealing with the detractors of Hindus.

Rhetorical clarity requires a concise definition of the central theme of one's beliefs and at the same time a hard demarcation from the others. If one can claim implicit superiority over the other based on this central theme, all the better.

Intermediary: 2. something that acts as a medium or means

Isn't it disingenuous of you to pick one word out of the definition and simply use that at the total. It is an established pattern that you like to use terms out of context. Why don't you qualify the term with context?!

The context is created by words like
"access", "requirement", "intervention", "self-proclaimed", etc.

"self-proclaimed":
The intermediary has to be a conscious being (e.g. human) for it to be able to 'self-proclaim'.

- Is a Murti a conscious being (if it is being considered as an idol)?

- I also can't get my head around to understanding how a Guru can be an intermediary?

• Does the Guru provide you with any guarantee of access to the Supreme, were one to follow his guidance?
• Does the Guru provide you with any communication channel to the Supreme?
• Does the Guru ever claim to know the opinion of the Supreme on any given matter at any given time?
• Does the Guru ever claim any privileged access to the Supreme for himself?

One could say, a Guru is perhaps an intermediary between you and your potential to activate your intrinsic capacity and realize its full potential, and that too if the Shishya is willing to invest in this process.

There is also no requirement of having a Guru in order to realize one's intrinsic capacity.

harbans ji,

you always believe what you want to believe, logic be damned. And if you want to believe that you don't like the definition, because you don't want to push out Christians from Dharmic identity and this is the way to go about it, then please continue to believe what you want.

I think you are more interested in ameliorating any potential for hurt Christian sensitivities for being called Adharmic (not meaning adharmic), than you are interested in demarcating Dharmics from the Islamics and if that requires you to rubbish a good definition for "Dharmics" then why not?

Zakir Naiks and so on are all straw-man arguments!

[Prem]

harbans ji,
your moronic quotes and and attempts to do == are amusing, at best. even a novice at matters of logic and intuition knows instinctively that the exclusive clauses claiming "ownership of God" that exist in the Abrahamic systems have no corresponding counterparts in Sanatana Dharma. the very absence of an overarching centralized theological Order which seeks to impose certain non-negotiable "rules" on the Hindus, is all the evidence of the difference between the Hindu and the Abrahamic. your understanding is either clouded by deliberate misrepresentation or by delusional ideas.

East Or West, Them Vs Us , will do us Best.
Devesh , Harbans Sir is old hand he knows. It is wise to not to fall in the trap of defining, clarifying Muhammad and his doctrine. Lets not grant the room for Chichi in the tent to Taqiya using Camel.Beliefs/ Rasool/Nabi and Guru/Gyan /Knowledge are contradictory things like Blindness and Vision. Nabi Promise Nabhi Neha while Guru Gives Gobind Gyan .
The soil originated social ,religious, spiritual, philosophical values and guidelines from our own civilization's experience stretching back to the first conscious,intelligent species of mankind have no reason to accommodate or compromise with contradictory values from neither land.

[RajeshA]

From the Bhagavatam, Jadbharat reveals to king Rahugan:
"O Rahugan! One cannot attain knowledge of Atma and Paramatma by performing penance, sacrifices, renunciation, Vedic study or worshipping deities of water, fire or the sun. But when the dust from the feet of a satpurush (God-realized Guru) sprinkles on our heads, then we can surely attain this knowledge."

Treading the path to God-realization by one's own efforts is likened by the Katha Upanishad as walking on a razor's edge. Adi Shankaracharya echoes a similar injunction: "If a person, despite possessing: a handsome, disease-free body, fame, a mountain of wealth, and even if he has studied the Vedas and all other scriptures, and has himself composed many scriptures, but has not surrendered himself at the feet of a Guru, then he has achieved nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing."

Sitting at the feet of the Guru, comes directly from the concept of Upaniṣad, which can be translated to "sitting down near". So references to dust from the feet of a Guru means just that - getting education from a Guru, but of course high respect is also inferred. The more Self/God-realized the Guru, the better he will be able to guide. Also common sense.

What is being emphasized here is however that the format of Q/A with the Guru and lessons from the Guru are key to activating one's intrinsic capacity to access the Supreme. That is why other forms of study and efforts are being shown to be inferior. This is a statement on pedagogical efficiency.

It does not pose the Guru as intermediary between Self and Supreme at all.

[Pranav]

definition of Dharma=Truth as one and same is the closest one can get

If you are using this to define what the word "truth" means to you, then that's ok, because there already is a good definition of Dharma, i.e., "that which leads to ultimate bliss or Moksha for entire world", in the words of Rishi Kanaada.

[RajeshA]

Cross-posting a post by Carl from "Islamism & Islamophobia Abroad - News & Analysis" Thread

Published on Feb 04, 2013
By Warren Cole Smith
The Muslim Future of Europe: World Magazine

According to this weekend’s New York Times, France now has about six million Muslims out of a total population of 65 million. The overwhelming majority of them are immigrants, or the children of immigrants, but about 100,000 French Muslims are converts. Muslim organizations put the number as high as 200,000. In France (as here in the United States) the country’s prison system has become fertile ground for Muslims. The Times article estimates about a third of France’s prison population is made up of practicing Muslims. Though many of the converts are former Roman Catholics, they say they are not reacting to Catholicism or Christianity so much as to secularism. Hassen Chalghoumi, an imam in a Paris suburb, said, France’s official secularism “breeds spiritual emptiness.” He added, “Secularism has become antireligious. Therefore, it has created an opposite phenomenon. It has allowed people to discover Islam.”

Something similar is also at work in India.

[harbans]

harbans ji,

you always believe what you want to believe, logic be damned.

Rajesh Ji, i have been on this now for a long time before you realized that Dharma is what unites. Just a day after hence of that realization you start framing definitives of Dharma. So how much real thought have you actually put into this matter.

Have you and the others that are wah wah'ing you across every U Turn you have made so far even read the differences the Wahabbi's have with Shia/ Sufi's on the role of intermediaries. Say you put that definition, and i too wah wah it. And it catches on. When the real debates start all round, the Zakir Naiks will be ripping new ones for assorted people tying themselves in knots trying to explain how Guru's are not intermediary in the same sense as Mohammed. Now i can read that both sides will come out with various points. The confusion does not end with your definition, it amplifies it a hundred fold. And by your definition you are supposed to end confusion not create more. But yes you will end up creating more, as you hardly have put any thought behind the effort. That clearly shows up.

Not only i am not wrong here, i am logically on the spot.

FIVE PILLARS
Islam is based on five pillars.

One
To declare ”There is no deity but God, and Muhammad is the messenger of God.” Islam is based primarily on the holy book for Muslims: the Quran (the word of God), and secondarily on the authentic sunnah (the example of the prophet).

Note: The ulema (Islamic scholars) have historically played an important role as leaders in Muslim societies and in explaining (called tafsir ) the Quran and the sunnah (life and example) of the Prophet. Of themselves, however, they do not have the authority to forgive or to define right (halal) or wrong (haram). Rather they help elucidate concepts and define principles. There is no priesthood in Islam. A Muslim does not have to have any “intermediary” between himself and God.

Understand Islam

You guys talk Purva Paksha and all that jazz and yet you make such horrendous and stupid blunders! The only context you are comfortable is probably twisted ones to just somehow shove your POV down everyone's throat. That is not going to happen anytime soon and you won;t have many takers down that line for sure, just a rabid congregation making people detest even the term Dharma. If you had the capacity to introspect you'd have realized that your definition is cause for more added confusion than clearing it. But i don't expect that really anytime soon.

[harbans]

This is in the Koran itself:

"Say, 'He is Allah, the One;
Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
He begets not, and neither is He begotten;
And there is nothing that can be compared to Him."
Qur'an 112:1-4

In Muslim understanding, God is beyond our sight and understanding, yet at the same time "nearer to us than our jugular vein" (Qur'an 50:16). Muslims pray directly to God, with no intermediary, and seek guidance from Him alone, because "...Allah knows well the secrets of your hearts" (Qur'an 5:7).

"When My servants ask thee concerning Me,
I am indeed close (to them).
I respond to the prayer of every suppliant
when he calls on Me.
Let them also, with a will,
Listen to My call, and believe in Me,
that they may walk in the right way."
Qur'an 2:186

Now how do you spin and twist all this away? Lie, say the above is out of context? Name call? What? Or do something that makes sense, acknowledge that your definition is not enough to separate the Dharmic from the Adharmic. That it creates more confusion and in that definition it rightfully gives Muslims specially the Wahabbi's a clear mandate to be called Dharmics (by your definition).

[RajeshA]

You guys talk Purva Paksha and all that jazz and yet you make such horrendous and stupid blunders! The only context you are comfortable is probably twisted ones to just somehow shove your POV down everyone's throat. That is not going to happen anytime soon and you won;t have many takers down that line for sure, just a rabid congregation making people detest even the term Dharma. If you had the capacity to introspect you'd have realized that your definition is cause for more added confusion than clearing it. But i don't expect that really anytime soon.

No Zakir Naik, Dr. Tahir-ul-Qadri Sahib chalenge kya?

Is the Prophet Muhammad PBUH an Intermediary Between Man & Allah ?

[RajeshA]

Constitutional Agenda

Any Reform of Constitution of India to better capture the aspirations of Bharatiyas should refer to Dharma as explained in the Dharmic traditions as the inspirational foundation of the Bharatiya Rashtra. The Dharmic traditions should be referred to individually by name: Sanatan Dharma, Bauddh Dharma, Jain Dharma, & Sikh Dharma as well collectively as Dharmic traditions.

Preamble to the Constitution of India

Suggestion:

WE, THE PEOPLE OF BHARAT, that is India, having solemnly resolved

to constitute Bharat into a DHARMIC REPUBLIC inspired by DHARMA as espoused in the Dharmic traditions: Sanatan Dharma, Bauddh Dharma, Jain Dharma and Sikh Dharma, and our history

to empower ALL its citizens to realize their intrinsic capacity to pursue happiness by facilitating their pursuit with freedom, knowledge, skills, opportunity and conducive environment and by encouraging and recognizing their merit,

to secure justice and liberty of thought and expression for ALL,

to continue the enrichment and prosperity of the Bharatiya Civilization and

to promote the unity, integrity, security and environmental health of the nation

....

do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.

Satyameva Jayate!

Added Later: "and our history", "freedom"

[Atri]

Rajesh garu Nice work. I will live in this Bhaarat with much more pride.

Vande Mataram.

One suggestion. आस्तिकमत (Aastikamata), बौद्धमत (bauddhamata), जैनमत (Jainamata), गुरुमत (Gurumata aka Sikhism) are the indic names for what u referred to as dharma in preamble. All these constitute Sanaatana Dharma. I would recommend to make these changes. This is how India views concept of religion.

[harbans]

Rajesh Ji, intercession/ Tawassul is a debated subject in Islam. Shia's and many groups advocate intercession to some extent. Others are dead against it. Qadri i think is Shia. IIRC he also had some fatwa on him for being Gumrahi (Aberration from the norm). I have pointed to you that there are large numbers of Muslims that do believe in a direct communion with God without intermediaries. In fact that is so strong in most muslims they consider Idols as intermediaries, some graves as intermediaries and so on and avoid them. Thus basing your definition that Dharma requires no intermediaries between God and Human you are endorsing a major Islamic claim among a large section of it's adherents and wrt Idols and others all. Meanwhile with the Islamic Tawassul definition Idol=intermediary, most Hindu's would fall in the intermediary category according to all muslims. So when you definte Dharma that way you put in all muslims as Dharmics and most Hindu's as Adharmic.

[harbans]

I don't think anybody in power really gives a rat's ass about what principles are enshrined in the Preamble.

Now now...who is going about framing Preambles and Principles in a Dharmic Constitution..all in the course of a few hours.

[RajeshA]

Constitutional Agenda

Atri garu,

thanks for these suggestions. I would be happy to make the changes. However terms such as Aastikmat and Gurumat though perfectly logical are still quite rare or at least I have not come across these before. I would of course defer to you on this matter.

Suggestion v.0.0.3:

WE, THE PEOPLE OF BHARAT, that is India, having solemnly resolved

to constitute Bharat into a DHARMIC REPUBLIC inspired by SANAATANA DHARMA as espoused in the Dharmic traditions: Aastikamata (आस्तिकमत), Bauddhamata (बौद्धमत), Jainamata (जैनमत), Gurumata aka Sikhism (गुरुमत), and our history

to empower ALL its citizens to realize their intrinsic capacity to pursue happiness by facilitating their pursuit with freedom, knowledge, skills, opportunity and conducive environment and by encouraging and recognizing their merit,

to secure justice and liberty of thought and expression for ALL,

to continue the enrichment and prosperity of the Bharatiya Civilization and

to promote the unity, integrity, security and environmental health of the nation

....

do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.

Satyameva Jayate!

Added Later: the Indic names of the various religious paths, changed DHARMA to SANAATANA DHARMA

[Rudradev]

Harbans ji simple question only. Why is your overwhelming concern, when defining Dharma, to accommodate the external representations of Dharma from an explicitly Islamist lens? Do we need (or should we allow) the deliberate misinterpretations of Zakir Naik to define Dharma for us? If for you "Dharma == Truth" then how can you yourself allow the definition of Dharma to be dictated by the lies of an avowedly Adharmic person? Have at least that much courage in your convictions- otherwise you are no different from a Nehruvian Accommodationist.

Moreover, if for you "Dharma ==Truth" then I am surprised to find you according privilege to the Quranic interpretation of "intermediaries" in characterizing Dharma. Do you believe that the Quran speaks the Truth about Mohammed not being an intermediary? If so, is the Quran "Dharmic" per your definition?

[RajeshA]

harbans ji,

the debate in Islam on Tawassul is chiefly about "addressing" Allah, and not about "access to" Allah.

"addressing" is a procedural issue. It relates to prayers.

"access to" is a systematic issue. It relates to achieving the goal of the religious path.

The difference is like between watching the moon from earth and landing on the moon! Tawassul is about "should we use glasses to watch the moon?", "access to the Supreme" is about "implementing a Moon landing".

[Prem]

Harbans ji,
Do Dharmics have to concede that Muhamad's Allah is same as the Parbrahm or Waheguru or Shunya? The saying , deeds and actions of Muhamad as per instruction from his "allah" dont match the creteria. The Goodhood as known and understood by Indians is millions of light years away from the godhood of Muhamadan doctrine. IMHO, the claim and comparison tantamounts to falsehood and utterly irrelevant except that Indians need to clean their home of such elements and agents of Non Indian power centres inimical to us.

[Prem]

Constitutional Agenda
Satyameva Jayate![/color][/b]

Shastar Shaastar Sangam
Vijayte!!

[harbans]

Rudra Ji wrote:

Harbans ji simple question only. Why is your overwhelming concern, when defining Dharma, to accommodate the external representations of Dharma from an explicitly Islamist lens? Do we need (or should we allow) the deliberate misinterpretations of Zakir Naik to define Dharma for us? If for you "Dharma == Truth" then how can you yourself allow the definition of Dharma to be dictated by the lies of an avowedly Adharmic person? Have at least that much courage in your convictions- otherwise you are no different from a Nehruvian Accommodationist.

Moreover, if for you "Dharma ==Truth" then I am surprised to find you according privilege to the Quranic interpretation of "intermediaries" in characterizing Dharma. Do you believe that the Quran speaks the Truth about Mohammed not being an intermediary? If so, is the Quran "Dharmic" per your definition?

Rudra Ji wrote (a few days ago):

He qualifies it as "truth" based on some notion of what Dharma teaches. The Muslim has an entirely different idea of what qualifies as "truth". To a Muslim the truth is "La Illaha Illillah, Mohammed Rasool Ullah". When Harbans ji offers "Truth" as a parameter for defining Indian interests he is doing something as fundamentally useless as taking a handful of air, claiming it as his own and offering it to you as a gift.

Nice, so a few days back when i say Truth through the Dharmic lens above you counter me through the Islamist Truth lens. And now when on the question of Intermediary i do the same from the Islamic context of Intermediary, there is a problem..? What do you call that except Hypocrisy Rudra Ji?

[harbans]

Do Dharmics have to concede that Muhamad's Allah is same as the Parbrahm or Waheguru or Shunya? The saying , deeds and actions of Muhamad as per instruction from his "allah" dont match the creteria.

Of course they don't match Jhujar Ji. I know that well. Rajesh Ji is trying to give a definition of Dharma exactly 3 hours after he discovered it that is flawed and frayed with creating confusion. His aim is to differentiate the Dharma from the Adharmic with that definition. That differentiation fails because it creates more confusion than it clears. Most Dharmics at this stage don;t believe Allah is different. They go by the Rig Veda, Sages call the same God by different names. So Islamic transgressions are blamed mostly on misinterpretation than a flawed Allah.