![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)
Watch video: http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/news/v ... ory/275528
There are a few points to remember:Arjun wrote:I do.RamaY wrote:Who wants/needs the label Secularism and not Hinduism, even though in practice both provide same religious freedoms to all Bharatiyas? Why?
Because the underlying need is to propagate the core values of the Indic civilization - rather than to spread the nomenclature. In fact by stressing on the nomenclature that identifies itself with a particular 'religion' you are preventing the spread of the underlying idea.
The West has carved out 'Secularism' and 'Western Civilization' as concepts that are distinct from Christianity - even though these are ultimately derived from the latter. Why ? - because these are marketed as Universal values that other cultures need to subscribe to. India needs to have its own version of Universal values that are distinct from Hinduism as a religion.
The need therefore is to resist the current hijack of the meaning of Secularism away from the underlying spirit in which it was intended. Or alternatively to come up with another Universalist nomenclature that is not linked to Hinduism as a 'religion', though it might be marketed as strongly linked to Indic civilization.
Good to see an Indic version of boarding school in India, wish the parents and children going there a huge success. It takes a lot of emotional investment to send children to study away from home.RamaY wrote:Future Chanakyas and Chandragupta will come from here
Watch video: http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/news/v ... ory/275528
I agree. Dharma and Sanskriti are meant to be Universal concepts - and are perhaps Indic equivalents of Western Values and Western Civilization respectively.RajeshA wrote:There are a few points to remember:
1) Bharat has had a long history of propagating Sanatan Dharma throughout Asia and may be beyond. Southeast Asia is still testimony to that. So history does not bear witness that we need to somehow "secularize" our Dharma and Sanskriti.
2) Our Sanskriti and Dharma may not be considered as "religion" at all, and so whatever need the West felt for this "secularization" may not be there for us.
3) The alternative political philosophies that came up in West as replacements for religion, e.g. "secularism" were also to some extent a reaction to the fact that the Gentiles in the West could not entirely own up "Christianity". Christianity was itself a West Asian "Semitic" ideology that undermined European native cultures. One finds hints of such feelings in National Socialism movement.
4) "Marxism", "Secularism" and all other ideologies produced in the West have failed miserably. The fact that Europe despite its "secular" values is seeing itself being overrun by Islam is evidence that these European frameworks are ineffective.
5) One of Bharat's best selling points is in fact that our systems form a continuity to the very birth of civilization itself. It is a system of evolution. The difference is between respecting "Nature", a product of organic evolution, and "Genetically Modified Foods", a product of technological revolutions.
I would translate Sanskriti as ~culture and Sabhyata as ~civilization.Arjun wrote:I agree. Dharma and Sanskriti are meant to be Universal concepts - and are perhaps Indic equivalents of Western Values and Western Civilization respectively.
I actually hate using the word "Hinduism" because it is actually a European discipline of study on the faiths of the Hindus, and thus full of their biases and prejudices. The problem is that the Hindus have invested too much into this term, which they shouldn't have.Arjun wrote:My problem with RamaY's proposal was that he was proposing to substitute Secularism for Hinduism. I am saying the marketing should be of Dharma and Sanskriti as Universal concepts that go beyond Hinduism, though obviously derived from Indic civilization.
I would rephrase RamaY's question as "why do we need Secularism when we have tenets of Dharma and Sanskriti that address the same needs". And to this, my answer would be - we don't.
We should make an effort to use always Sanskrit-derived terms, terms which come from our own traditions, and even in English use them as non-translatables. Only upon inquiry and insistence should we try and give the English equivalent and that too in a qualified manner. (e.g. using '~').Arjun wrote:Though Secularism as nomenclature can still be used as the English translation for some of these concepts.
I too have a request to make of you!Theo_Fidel wrote:I see a lot of complaints but no crux of the matter.
No alternative is being offered that I can see.
If you want a religion based state why not come out and say so.
There is nothing wrong in advocating for one.
Whatever Secularism one proposes, it ultimately is defined through some rejection of "religion" in some aspect of life or another. So in order to define Secularism, you need to give a definition of "religion". Only then one can know what is to be rejected in that aspect of life.Theo_Fidel wrote:I’m usually careful to use the term faith. I’m not sure that is what you want however.
It seems you want to take one step beyond faith.
What I would say is there can be no agreement and there is no way to decide the issue once one resorts to faith.
Going by this logic, one could say all secularists, many of them could be religious minorities but marxists too, are free to retreat to places where they find higher secularism, or even with their co-religionists.Theo_Fidel wrote:All are free to withdraw from the secular state and retreat to vaanvas where they can build their own 'more perfect' society. In fact many have tried and many will keep trying. It does not even matter what the state does or does not do.
At the risk of being a broken record, "The state shall not establish a religion."
It is also called "whining" and "lamentation". The message is: Don't talk about it. We don't really have good answers.RajeshA wrote:It is interesting that the word "complaint" is becoming the most popular way of hand-waving by the "seculars"!
Secularism = Christianity without Church.JE Menon wrote:Three pages in can someone define secularism and pseudo-secularism... Come on now, lets chase our tails. Be sure to introduce some mysterious one liners about how "they" want this and "they" are doing that...
Does that mean that Secularism is an unproductive pursuit and we should let it be and get back to Hindutva as Bharat was? If yes I agree with you!Theo_Fidel wrote:Good luck guys. Have fun.
The west has been secular for 400 years and they are still arguing over what it means. Or even if they are truly secular. And what the place of God/god is ...
Yes too much seems to be negotiable! There is no need to establish Religion. It suffices if "Secularism" allows predatory religions to spread and expand. When they are strong enough they can themselves establish State Religion! Then Secularism would not be needed any more!Theo_Fidel wrote:The only agreed upon rule for secularism is, “The state shall establish no Religion.”
All else appears to be negotiable. Do what works is what folks have done beyond that.
Not so fast!viv wrote:RajeshA gave definitions and constitutional secularism == panth nirpekshta --- religion/sect 'blindness' seems pretty good and we already have that.
Panths are not founded by prophets. In fact Panths are not even founded by Avatars. Neither Rama nor Krishna founded their own "Panth".Panthan (meaning "path" in Sanskrit) is the term used for several religious traditions in India. A panth is founded by a guru or an acharya, and is often led by scholars or senior practitioners of the tradition.
I am basically asking for a complete state embrace of Bharatiya Sanskriti (products) and Bharatiya Sabhyata (process).Agnimitra wrote:If RajeshA ji is suggesting state support for "managed" Indic traditions, then I am against that.
If RajeshA ji is making the distinction between "managed" and "unmanaged" traditions, and suggesting state support only for the latter, then I concur.
I don't think "managed" dharmas should receive active state support. State can provide an overarching policy framework that, say, encourages faith-based initiatives, etc., but those should be available to any faith. However, the state can neutralize the unfair advantage that non-Indian "managed" religions have over native ones, by a reciprocity arrangement - if you won't allow XYX religions to proselytize in your country, then I won't allow you to fund madrassahs ni mine; or, one can limit foreign funding for NGOs involved in conversion work, etc. That's all.RajeshA wrote:I think even "managed" Indic traditions should receive support in the way of amenities for lodging, travel, sanitation, assembly and security but also courtesy towards the Gurujan!
____________________Administrative Policy
Practically speaking, how to engineer the optimal dynamics between Managed and Unmanaged solution? Simply by preventing or countering the necessary things that a wrapped, bundled and strings-tied managed solution needs to deploy and survive. In this regard, the "neti neti" process is relevant in terms of self-definition, as an individual or as a civilization.
It would then be an interesting exercise to jot down how governmental policy can incorporate Dharmic ethics by being an able System Administrator with sound policy on the kinds of Managed and Unmanaged solutions that can be deployed in the system, as well as the relative order in which they are deployed.
As a guideline, a truly secular government cannot extend active support to Managed solutions, though it may have a policy of, say, incentivizing faith-based initiatives applicable to all. However, the government can actively ensure that all Managed solutions have a level playing field. Native Managed solutions must be protected from Managed solutions with wealthy and powerful foreign vendors and priesthoods. E.g., a principle of reciprocity can be introduced - if your country will not allow XYZ to be deployed in your environment, we cannot allow you to sponsor the deployment of ABC in our environment. Or, a low ceiling on foreign-funding to NGO's active in deployment of Managed solutions can be set by governmental policy.
However, a truly secular government can and must define its value system in Dharmic terms, in terms of its overall worldview. This worldview has, for instance, been talked about at length by India's Constitutional fathers such as Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. The revitalization of certain Dharmic memes in the mainstream are an important part of this. E.g., Dr. Ambedkar was a vigorous advocate of Sanskritization. [See 'Sanskrit 2.0 and Diversity Policy - 1'].
The government also has a responsibility to ensure that the 'PH value' of the Indic solvent remains Dharmic. That means not just in name but in actual values. Practically, that means that all pseudo-'Dharmic' impostor memes in our society need to be broken down, especially when they have outlasted their legitimate purpose and usefulness. That means any structures or forms that are obsessed with reinforcing the need for their "wrapper" - the fixed integrity of their priesthood, bodies and cultural exclusivity based on being legatees of some past vendor.
viv wrote:RajeshA gave definitions and constitutional secularism == panth nirpekshta --- religion/sect 'blindness' seems pretty good and we already have that.
RajeshA wrote:Panths are not founded by prophets. In fact Panths are not even founded by Avatars. Neither Rama nor Krishna founded their own "Panth".Panthan (meaning "path" in Sanskrit) is the term used for several religious traditions in India. A panth is founded by a guru or an acharya, and is often led by scholars or senior practitioners of the tradition.
Should one even use the term Dharma-Nirpekshta, that would only make matters worse for Islam and Christianity because they would have to prove that they are Dharmic!
Well I have requested many to define religion and its the scope so that one can be more clear about secularism! However there seems to be some inexplicable silence on it.viv wrote:I took your definition as equivalent to Dharma Nirpekshta where Dharma colloquially is taken equivalent to religion.
My only grievance against Secularism is that it is stopping Bharat from asserting itself as a strong independent civilizational pole in the world!viv wrote:But the basic point is if the grievance is some specific issues then the issues need to be fixed rather than lament how the nirpekshta is defined. The constitution states it is religion blind. The governance is not exactly and pains some. So only the latter is the issue. Isn't one aspect of praise to Modi that he has not favoured any particular religion nor put any down?
Why should the banning of slaughter of one particular animal be a source of national crisis? Pigs are not slaughtered [supposedly] in several countries. Those nations are not collapsing. If a certain subpopulation becomes extinct simply because it cannot slaughter cows in a modern India with many alternatives for proteins - then there is something very very wrong with the similar banning of slaughter of pigs in other countries too.nachiket wrote:How will this Hindu State be different from the current Indian state? Specifically, what parts of the current constitution will be removed and what new clauses added?
It is not possible for people to support such a state unless they know how it will impact their daily lives. For example, will cow slaughter be completely banned throughout the country?
Who makes the determination whether a particular religion is Dharmik or Adharmik?If any religion is not Adharmic, it has nothing to fear, and this is so the case irrespective of whether the religion is Indic or not.
Almost every modern state follows religious values - the more sophisticated ones, simply label the religiously sourced values as secular ones. The British and north-western European "secularism" is primarily post-medieval editing of Christian values.Supratik wrote:2. A religious state has not worked in the modern age. Yes, SA and Iran have a lot of money to spread around but I don't consider them to be successful states and I don't think beyond a point they will be successful.RamaY wrote:
1. Why a Hindu state is not necessary?
2. Why a Hindu state is not desirable?
Maybe this hesitation comes from the propagandized devaluation and resulting lack of confidence in the "Hindu"?But more importantly, it is no. 1. I don't think we are in a situation where a declared Hindu state is going to bring any advantages.
This is not to say everything is OK. We need to have safeguards in place.
Impossible from pure "secularism" - because this pseudo-secularism is based on concrete religious memes.But more importantly make the existence of pseudo-secularism untenable in India.
If we accept that "Hindu state" is a "diversion" - this is exactly what the Nehruvian Marxists want : they want us to accept that the idea is irrelevant. For they know very well, that once that idea takes root, it will be more immune to pseudo-secularism than it is now. Marxists were very much aware of the Christian roots of their creed. Look at Engels's writings in German Social democracy phase, and Marx on the 1948 uprisings.I think this "Hindu state" idea is diverting attention from real issues. It is just an ammunition for Nehruvian Marxists to perpetuate their agenda.
This automatic dissemination thing might not be supported by evidence. It seems to have been more successful piggybacking on the expansive power of Indian empires.Once, "secular" India becomes successful it is automatically going to radiate dharmic ideas to the rest of the world. Just like it used to do many centuries back. This is why no matter how economically well-off China becomes beyond a point it is not going to radiate new ideas unless it goes back to its roots.
RamaY ji,RamaY wrote:Vivji
1. If the only Nirapekshata is constitutional Nirapekshata, what is the need for adding "Secular" word to the preamble of the constitution and now the socio-political intellectual debates that the "idea of India" is Secular democratic nation?
2. How could all the governments since 1947 go wrong in implementing that constitutional Nirapekshata? Does it mean all these govts are unconstitutional in their governance? How could so many people from different ideologies go wrong?
3. I can and will define the difference between Hindu and Christian Nirapekshata as we go (I already gave some insight into it)
Nobody is forcing people to post in this thread. If anyone thinks this is whine thread they can ignore this thread.
Thanks
ah Amit ji,amit wrote:Brihaspati ji, why don't you define what true Secularism is? You don't need to write a thesis a couple of sentence would do.
On the other hand you could also clear the air by saying the Secularism per se is a bad word and should not have a place in India. That would also suffice.
You see any one of the two options above would clear the air here and then I'm sure the discussion could be more focused instead of being one of a dog chasing its tail as someone wrote.
If the government is continuously "bending" this way or that - then it might not be an accident. It could be related to the very concept of "secularism" as it means to the government [whatever that means]- which is simply from that apparent standpoint, a preference hierarchy of religions to protect and allow resources to grow.viv wrote:Bji and you are making the same mistake. RajeshA gave definitions and constitutional secularism == panth nirpekshta --- religion/sect 'blindness' seems pretty good and we already have that. The government for different reasons may bend this way or that (like no tax on 'minority' temple or schools) but we do have a good definition and a respected document (Bharatiya Sanvidhan). With that there is hardly and discussion required other than list the issues that are bothersome. So it is not secularism that is boon or bane - it is the areas where it is not applied fully or properly.JE Menon wrote:you see nobody wants to take a stab at defining secularism, just like no one wants to take a stab at defining Hinduism...
In short, no one wants to foreclose optionsBaniyas one and all, and I love it... Keep going.
Boon or Bane
Splitting hairs to sub-atomic level. With every split, we are getting closer and closer and closer... We are getting closer to the truth right?
Madhava's carbon atoms spread over a bit of the solar system at least by now must be resonating with that life memory imprint.
They will immediately cite the "nationalist Muslims" who stayed back. This comes out of the careful amnesia and avoiding studying the standard historical evidence of Islamic clergy to keep institutional presence among sympathetic non-Muslim powers and regions. Also the amnesia about the comments made by some of the "nationalist Muslims" regarding their dream of having the "entire" subcontinent under Islam one-day, and the official reasons given by the Ulema sitting in UP who "opposed" Partition - the same reason, that this Partition would make it difficult for the eventual Islamization of the whole - or delay the process.Surasena wrote:They "assimilated" so well that less than 70 years ago they demanded and got their own country in an ocean of Hindu blood while the oh so secular "founding father" JLN watched on with non chalance or talked about air bombing Hindus.
Some "assimilation".
If this is assimilation, one wonders what refusal to assimilate would mean in some peoples make believe world.
Did the USA give up 1/3rd of its land for a Muslim nation without population exchange & genocide of white Christians?Theo_Fidel wrote:Bji,
How can you change what some fool organization thinks. You can not fund it or avoid its message. Beyond that society has to be robust enough to deal with these things. You want to seal everything into a hermetic bubble where nothing bad is said or done. You want to censor what folks say or believe, when the reality is we can only deal with actions.
This is a secularism thread yet even this place has turned into a relentless whine about Christian this or that. Is Hinduism really that fragile? In my experience not so. The Catholics constantly try to convert Protestants, the pentecostals try to poach every person they can, the mormons try to convert everyone, the hare-krishna crowd are every where with their tracts, one of my cousins now follows someone called Adi-Da, incredibly I had a buddhist who tried to suck me in at a karate meet of all things. We all put up with this constant drone. The USA/UK is now 1% Hindu and rising. Everyone is adjusting. Why this constant kola-vari.
Theo_Fidel ji,Theo_Fidel wrote:Can you post the crux of the idea here and why you think that will work. I must warn you that you are up against a system that does not discriminate on the basis of Identity, vison, agenda or proposition. None of them matter.
In my view, one could translate these terms approximately as Sanskriti ~ culture and Sabhyata ~ civilization. Sanskriti is the product. Sabhyata is the process.amit wrote:Since we are charting new territory by manufacturing new definitions one would certainly like to know what is meant by "Bharatiya Sabhyata"? Is that code language for Hindu proselytizing activities? Or does it mean a literal translation of Sabhyata that is culture?RajeshA wrote:Secularism not only does not allow us to project Bharatiya Sabhyata with it full soft power across the world, but it also smothers our huge reserve of soft-power - our Sanskriti with time at home by denying any state support to it.
Bharatiya Sabhyata does not need to try to fit itself into some neat homogenized box. The gradual fusion of Bharat's various people and their customs and culture is the story of Bharatiya Sabhyata. The beauty of Bharatiya Sanskriti is that the various streams merged to become part of the overall Bharatiya Sanskriti through a process of sturdy philosophical blending and mythological interweaving and as such there was harmony. If there wasn't then the philosophers, our Gurus and Acharyas, our national integrators have pursued the process until there was. Adivasis and their culture are part of the Sanskriti we call ours, we call Bharatiya.amit wrote:If it is the latter, then question arises is what is Bharatiya culture if not an amalgamation of various cultures of people who have come to India over the centuries and settled here and assimilated? Is the tribal dances of Advasis in Orissa - who are some of the oldest inhabitants of the Indian subcontinent the true representation of Indian culture? Or is it Bharat Natayam or is it Ghazals? Are Hindi films which are popular all over the world a representation of Indian culture? (I once saw a Amitabh-Rajesh movie while cruising down the Nile!).
I hope the above Rashtra-Sabhyata-Sanskriti model was able to answer your questions.amit wrote:But the more important question is, who gets to decide what represents true Bharatiya Sabhyata and what doesn't? Who has the final say and why? And even if we were to decide that only Hindus - that is those who haven't been tainted by pesuo-secularism - get to decide what Sabhyata represents true Bharatiya Sabhyata, is there a full consensus on this? And if there is who is this group? Remember one problem here is that Hinduism unlike Christianity or Isam is a very decentralised religion and every single Hindu has power to decide.
Postscript: The fallacy that I see here is that the same deductive Western style reasoning that is being criticised is being used to fine tune what represents true Bharatiya Sabhyata. The same for Secularism where everybody knows what a pesudo-secularist is but nobody seem to able to agree on what true Secularism is.
Basically Sabhyata would imbibe external cultural content wholesale, making it part of the overall Sanskriti, when the external entity (area, people) have been integrated into the Sabhyata definition.amit wrote:But then as you said, Sabhyata is not a static concept, rather it is something which is constantly evolving and imbibing new concepts and moulding them into one whole, much like how a protozoa ingests its food and makes it a part of itself. Rather than becoming like the food it eats.RajeshA wrote:I hope the above Rashtra-Sabhyata-Sanskriti model was able to answer your questions.
Secularism as it is today understood, it is founded in British India where there was allegedly equal distance from the British masters to their subjects both of Bharatiya Sabhyata and Islamic Civilization, in other words to Hindus and Muslims.amit wrote:However, all that is moot. If we accept that Sabhyata that we have today has elements - benign ones as you say - that it has incorporated from outside influences, then, coming back to your original point which I pointed out, how does Secularism not allow us to project Bharatiya Sabyata with its full soft power across the world?
Again it all boils down to what we mean by Secularism.
Those not pledged to Bharatiya Sabhyata should have no voice in determining Bharat's past, present or future!Theo_Fidel wrote:As I said lets stop beating around the bush folks and say what you want.
You are correct! I am proposing disenfranchisement. Everything in the world requires qualification. If one is not qualified, how can one demand being franchised.Theo_Fidel wrote:But I'm assuming some sort of dis-enfrancising people is being proposed. What you are saying is my way or the highway.
India is Bharat. Period.PART I
THE UNION AND ITS TERRITORY
- Name and territory of the Union.—
- India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.
- The States and the territories thereof shall be as specified in the First Schedule.
- The territory of India shall comprise—
- the territories of the States;
- the Union territories specified in the First Schedule; and
- such other territories as may be acquired.
amit ji,amit wrote:Rajesh ji,RajeshA wrote:The Macaulayite education and system as well as the ghetto isolation is what is stopping this immersion! Once the immersion is there, only then one can look into it whether the hardware is still infected or whether the virus has been quarantined.
Infected hardware don't get a veto on this.
Interesting concept and use of simile.
But I wonder, who is going to supervise, conduct as well as monitor this "immersion" process? Are you thinking of some kind of Religious Police, er, I mean Dharmic Police/Supervisor force? What is going to be the measure of this immersion process and its progress? I take it will be a process driven with Ahimsa but what if the Abramanic religions respond to this Dharmic way with violence? What then?
For the sake of your (and other's) vision of Dharmic Secularism, I really think you'd need a Minority Affairs Minister who will have to work in close collaboration with a Religious Affairs Ministers - and both would need to have Cabinet Rank to ensure smooth decision taking. Only then we can have true Secularism.
And since this can't be a overnight affair (in fact I would humbly suggest it would be a decades long affair) how will we conduct the country in the interim?
And there's the small matter of dealing with the tainted Bharatiyas who have been brainwashed by the Christianist version of Secularism. A rocky road ahead. Many miles to go before we can sleep...
In short who will be the technicians who first ensure the hardware is disinfected and will then monitor the hardware to ensure it is no longer affected? Once unaffected who is going to install the firewall to ensure no future infection of the vulnerable hardware?
So many issues that need to be addressed!
RajeshA: a humble suggestion to you and others. For most people, words like the above dont carry any meaning. Add to it other words like Hindutva, Indic etc. The level of knowledge of Sanskrit amongst the average Indian is pretty low. I know Rajiv Malhotra believes that many Sanskrit words lose their essence in the English translation. I dont doubt that, having learnt Sanskrit for several years.RajeshA wrote: I would translate Sanskriti as ~culture and Sabhyata as ~civilization.
devesh ji,devesh wrote:the greatest "assurance" that Secularists have is in "official data". the rules and definition of what is "official data" are also set by the Secularists in India. this is also the greatest weakness that anybody who doesn't subscribe to the regime sponsored kow-towing to certain religions has. after going through several posts over the past few pages, it looks like Hindus are damned to remain inactive until disaster strikes. to be honest, this is not a whine from me. it's a simple observation: there is too much dissent and no common unifying program or agenda. even the very existence of the common threat seems to be lost on most people. nothing can be done in this atmosphere. whatever will be done...will only come after the blinds are forcefully ripped off.
Fully agree with the sentiment.Atri wrote:Start considering India as motherland and revered land and one becomes Hindu.. Nothing else matters.
This is in itself, secularism. Anyone who considers himself as above, he irrespective of his personal spiritual path is a Hindu. And only such Hindus should be allowed to bear offices and allowed to Vote.
I was under the impression that all these subjects taught in Indian schools today under some heading or the other. For example, when I was in school, we did learn Itihasas (M Bharatha and M. Bhagawata) in Telugu under Tikkana, Potana, some parts of history again in Telugu (under Srinatha) and Ramayana in Hindi from Tulasi Das. It would be impossible to understand the beauty of the poetry of Tikkana etc. unless the students have some inkling of the story (in case of the Itihasas) and Srinatha unless students have some inkling of historical events that are being described. Somehow we picked those up along the way - I can't say how but it seemed to have happened. Of course, some things else had to suffer - like intensive Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, and Biology. IIT JEE requires knowledge of the first three in lot more depth than what was in the state vernacular syllabus, where as for JIPMER, AIIMS, Vellore, or other Med Entrance tests, the latter three.RajeshA wrote:Bharatiya Sanskriti Studies
<snip>
- Sanskrit
- Bharatiya Philosophy,
- Dharma,
- Bharatiya Mythology,
- Itihaas (Ramayana, Mahabharata, Puranas),
...
3. Acceptance of Rashtra founded on Raj DharmaRajeshA wrote:Considering Bharat as motherland and revered land can only happen if Indians go through intellectual and emotional immersion into Bharatiya Sanksriti and Bharatiya Sabhyata.
Intellectual immersion can be ensured through a school education program which gives one sufficient logic training and knowledge to withstand all brainwashing attempts from Western, Islamic or Sinic sources. One's intellect needs to be coated with slickly oil in such a way, that Islam, Western Universalism, Marxism, Post-Modernism, Consumerism, Fascism, Macaulayism, Dhimmiism, etc. have severe difficulty to get any foothold on the individual's intellect. Education should anchor one to the Bharatiya Sabhyata.
Emotional immersion may come or may not come, one cannot really control it.
Without a successful examination in Bharatiya Sabhyata and Sanskriti nobody should be considered as having passed 12th class or be accepted in higher education in India.
That would ensure that nobody not immersed can apply for any decent job in India.
Secondly only those who have passed the examination and taken a pledge to protect Bharatiya Sabhyata, Bharatiya Sanskriti and Bharatiya Rashtra should be given the right to vote or to stand as candidate!
Closed economic opportunities and loss of political power would be sufficient incentive for people to make Bharat their motherland and revered land.
We all know that Adi Samkara lived before Islamic invasions into Bharat both based on western-dating as well as Indic-dating (which puts the date many centuries before the western-dating).The significance to the Mangalsutra was first given by Adi Shankara in his famous book Soundarya Lahari. According to Hindu cultural ethos, mangalsutra symbolizes the inseparable bond between a husband and a wife. During the wedding ceremony, the bridegroom ties the mangalsutra to the neck of the bride uttering- “May you live long by wearing this sacred Mangalsutra, the reason of my life”. Married women are entitled to wear Mangalsutra throughout their life as it is believed that the practice enhances the well-being of her husband and family. It is also considered that the mangalsutra protects the marriage from any evil. Three knots symbolize three different aspects of a married woman - the first knot represents her obedience to her husband, the second to his parents and the third represents her respect for God.
One book I specifically remember is "ksheera sAgaram" (about the Milky Way - our galaxy). Another book I read (may be by some other author or is it in the same book - do not remember now) which described in detail all the nucleo-chemical reactions that take place in different kinds of stars. Another v.v. famous scientist - Jayant Narlikar - has written SF books in the same vein as his colleague (his adviser?) Fred Hoyle. Both were nominated for a Nobel a couple of times for their work on the origins of the universe. One book of Narlikar I remember is "Black Holes and White Holes".RamaY wrote:^ True.
Especially Sri Mahidhara wrote some wonderful science books in the field of astronomy etc.
I think the need of the hour is to come up with a private university that provides quality Indic education while offering exceptional scientific education/temperament.
This is a 500-1000 crore enterprise.
Theo_Fidel ji,Theo_Fidel wrote:These very much are blasphemy type laws.
Censor your thoughts and words and we will come in later and decide if what you said was kosher or not.
There is a reason there are severe restriction on a secular state from taking such actions.
Thanks for the interesting anecdotes.Theo_Fidel wrote:You are kidding right. Have you been to a recent election rally.RajeshA wrote:What I am asking for is the Rashtra to stop propaganda of religiously sanctioned violence and hatred upon the Hindus.
I was at one in 1996 or 1997 by the BJP in S.TN. About 1/3 the attendees were Christian per my estimate.
The speaker was from somewhere in the north and was pouring scorn on Christians of every make and stripe.
Folks scratched their heads, hindu relatives apologized to us, we all went and had some toddy later.
If you go to ThiMuKa rallies often times you will realize that a few hundred attendees are Brahmins. When KK goes off
on his ‘destroy the brahman’ rants we look at each other apologize to our Brahmin friends and move on.
I have often said that there is a deliberate and well funded effort to destroy relations between Hindu & Christian.
Probably the 2 most closely linked and inter-married groups in India. One must question who gains from this.
I can’t even imagine what goes on in those RSS type rallies but I’m sure muslims come for some special treatment.
The problem is that a siege mentality has been created in various communities - some due to the foreign invasions and ideological impositions on Indians and some due to the reactive violence due to aggrievement. This siege mentality is activating reptilian responses in various communities.It is not possible to communicate with the reptilian brain. This part of the brain is concerned only with self preservation, and perceive security as a zero-sum game in most circumstances. Its impulse is to grab power, its favored method of dealing with others is violence, and it finds solace in controlled hierarchies (either the hierarchy is imposed on others, or the person accepts the hierarchy imposed by the others).
Yes I do believe ALL foreign funding for religious activities in India has to stop. There should be NO funding of even "Hindu" causes in India, because even these can be hijacked. All funding for religious activities should be generated in India itself through legitimate means.Theo_Fidel wrote:As long as you are focused on foreign money, should we ban all the non-citizen NRI’s from sending money to their
Pet political cause all over India. How about the money someone like ISKCON raises in the US.
Last year the temple my wife goes to raiseD $200,000 for a religious rally somewhere in CI for which we contributed.
Should that be illegal.
Yes we have to live next to each other, in peace and friendship. That is why it is important that the "Secular" political parties are not allowed to misrepresent the demands of the Bharatiyas. That is why it is important that these demands not be ignored and muzzled. If that happens, then everything would start going into the reptilian brain behavior and peace would be a casualty.Theo_Fidel wrote:This is India, people put up with a lot without complaining.
Ultimately we have to live next to each other and share the same toilet the next day.
All the frustration is taken out in extreme posturing and political point scoring.
Next day we all go to the same toddy shop.
The Partition of India was a huge act of violence. I don't mean simply on the individuals. I mean it on the body of our civilization. The little acts of violence here and there are nothing compared to that scale of violence, where our mother was torn into three. That is a lesson on violence that we cannot forget.Theo_Fidel wrote:That said violence must stop.
And if the state does not intervene it is a governance issue and failure of governance.
Attack the state for being lazy and incompetent all you want.
Don’t attack its allegiance.
It must be recognized that the religious commandment-philosophy of jihad is a very refined tool, indeed. It is not merely a childish, "irrational" eccentricity. Communist anarchists have a secret admiration for the ability of Islamist elites to mobilize "Koran rage" demonstrations across the planet. As the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is reported to have said, "If one can ride the Ego like a well-trained and blinkered horse, one will reach the goal very swiftly."
And that is true. But it is the other ingredients of training and of being human that make the difference between whether one is riding a horse or a tiger. Separating the means and the end is a big part of sanity. If Service is the end, then Conflict is only a means. In terms of varna, the kshatriya must always be trained to be strictly subordinate to the brāhmana limb of consciousness or society; never the other way around.
As per Swami Dayananda Saraswati's commentary (Arya Samaj), the Vedas say that a Complete Man (Arya) is one who has the following abilities:
1. Domesticate animals (and the animal within) to perform constructive works for nation-building,
2. Cook a delicious meal from a balanced assortment of natural ingredients for a mainly lacto-vegetarian diet,
3. Use weapons expertly in battle - not in rage, but channeled with the clinical intention of killing or repulsing the enemy who hates him,
4. Know the science and art of music, especially for Vedic chants.
This is very true. Bharateeyam has to develop its War culture in all its variegated forms. That includes the subculture of cavalier sacrifice, of subterfuge, of asymmetric attack, annihilation-without-reservation, etc. This also includes a war-cult cast in the mould of religion. This will not endanger the system too much because it is grounded in panentheistic worldview. Its utility is as in one thorn to remove another. The memes are already there, they just need to be reactivated and developed.RajeshA wrote:Since Dharma-Yuddha cannot compromise on success and its strategy and tactics have to be based on the nature of the pathogen, we cannot restrict the kind of tactics one may use! Nor can we say that Dharma-Yuddha cannot be expansive in nature, for after all Puruṣa is universal. So I don't think we should necessarily be looking for differences with Islamic Jihad in this respect.
Only the philosophical approach of Dharma-Yuddha should be its one big constant!
Self-Immolation or any other form of suicide is not to be condoned. However the strength of conviction of this monk is worthy of respect. He has focussed our attention on to the fact that cow-slaughter, i.e. slaughter of bos indicus, is against the culture and sensibilities of Bharatiya Sabhyata!Colombo, May 25 (TruthDive): In the sacred city of Kandy, where remains of Buddha were kept in the Temple of Tooth, a Sri Lankan Buddhist monk committed self-immolation today opposing cow slaughter.
Reports said that the monk identified as B. Indarathana Thero of Kahawatta expressed concern over slaughter of cattle and all of a sudden committed self-immolation dousing him with gasoline and set ablaze near the entrance of the temple Sri Dalada Maligawa .
The man was immediately rushed to hospital by policemen who doused the flame. The monk who set himself ablaze was transferred to Colombo National Hospital with 90 percent burn injuries. Police are looking for the man who gave the monk petrol to set on fire.
According to eyewitness, a few minutes before setting himself ablaze, the Sri Lankan monk raised a huge hue and cry protesting the slaughter of cattle. Sources said in wake of the celebration of Wesak, which marks the occasion with two days of holidays in Sri Lanka the monk protested against the slaughter of cattle.
A group of animal rights in Sri Lanka have been earlier protesting against meat eating seeking a ban, but went futile.. Following a protest by a number of Buddhists and their supporters, who even staged a rally to boycott halal-slaughtered meat as well as other products that carry a halal certificate, came the protest in the island.
Though eating meat has been common in Buddhist culture, killing animals is a sin according to the religion, said Sagarika Rajakarunanayake of Sathva Mithra. “At the same time taking one’s life is also not right,” said the social activist adding that this is also an evidence of many people displeased over the cruelty to animals.
The monks warned Buddhists not to eat food prepared according to Islamic rites. Since 2009, over 110 Tibetans have set themselves ablaze demonstrating against the Chinese domination in their homeland.
Atri garu,Atri wrote:True..RajeshA wrote:I think regional satraps are getting stronger in India. Whereas Third Front would be more of an arrangement of regional satraps coming together, choosing their own leader, and then ruling Delhi, in BJP too power has moved to the Chief Ministers of various BJP ruled states.
Those sitting in Delhi would have ever less chances of deciding the constitution of the governments in Delhi.
What puts the breaks on this new evolution is the dynasty. When the dynasty goes, the whole glue keeping UPA together also vanishes. UPA is in fact the Third Front without the dynasty.
What Third Front would of course lack is a process of deciding who should be the leader who forms a government, and the lack of an overall organization too would hamper a cooperative climate among the various constituents of the Third Front.
In this case the BJP has a distinct advantage - ideology, organization.
Another difference would be that Third Front is a post-poll understanding, whereas in BJP it would be a pre-poll decision.
BJP becomes unassailable if it can increase its presence around the country, where it could get 220 seats in any election.
There has to be a careful engineering of the process where the power slowly shifts from capital to provinces. One has to be careful if one is determined to save the integrity of nation-state. Else Mao like war is an available option. But consensus throughout the political spectrum of India is that ROI should not unravel as power shifts.
I have tried to address this issue on deracination thread (with inputs from others, especially ShauryaT ji)..
One of the key features to ensure a federal structure whilst keeping ROI intact is that the new satraps are bound together by a common thread. For BJP, Hindutva (with all its soft and hard interpretations) is that thread. It may be so that the thread is not very well defined and hence not strong yet (especially the economic aspects of Hindutva). But the Nawab-esque satraps of mughal-british DIEnasty have to be thrown out of this equation. Else ROI won't remain one. This transition has to happen smoothly.
The Indic federation made up of PIF regional satraps is the preferred endgame. The Non-PIF satraps have to be eliminated.