Sachin wrote:BTW, in the commie heaven of Kerala, especially in FaceBook a story is going round - a famous astrologer in commie land has predicted that the swearing-in time is not auspicious, and the chap leading the ministry might have a risk of life. BTW, this post was made in a group which claims to have "atheists and rational thinkers" in it
.
I have a theory that the places which had the greatest rigidity in the society became commie. In such a scenario, the people tried to be clever by changing superficially but keeping the the things same underneath. So, many upper castes dominate even in the commie world. Infact, since the caste is not even acknowledged officially, it becomes much worst. The same applies to converts out of Hindhuism to X-ism.
I think only Hindhuism provides a mechanism to handle these things like: astrology, caste-system(or clan-system or class). Hindhuism provides a mechanism to harmonize by balancing different views.
SwamyG wrote:Cosmo_R, Abhijit and all other Sanyasin supporting rationale....
I knew somebody will bring that rationale. My answer is this depiction which I know you know what it is.... Sure there are hazar freedom fighters who left their families for greater cause. A simple invitation to a ceremony is not betraying the cause nor diluting it. A Sanyasin if does not have wordly connections should not even be on the PM seat. And a saynsain would treat family and friends alike. So inviting all but the family is something that I cannot digest.
But, why should it matter to others whether he invites his family or not? Why should you or me be concerned about his family? Whether he invites his family or not, is between him and his family, no? Why should you or me poke our nose into their affairs?
I think all the invitees have been invited as public supporters not as private friends. Sallu is a public supporter.
I think NaMo will also be trying to do some balancing act without any major departure from his previous behaviour. So far, he did not invite his family on such occassions. But, this seems like a major event and perhaps, the family would be expecting atleast an invitation. So, he'll consider both these things and arrive at a compromise depending on his inclination.
I don't mind if he invites his family and I am not disappointed if he does not invite his family. In a way, it is good, if he keeps his family out of state affairs. One of the major attractions of Modi has been that he is not into nepotism unlike other politicians.
I personally think that the family should be invited. However, there is a danger of it starting a chain of events and expectations within the family.
SwamyG wrote:KLNMurthy:
OT - As per my remembering the story by elders and general acceptance is that it was Draupadi that who laughed. But I have read translations where it is noted that Bhima and servants who laughed. I think ISKCON books say the "Queens" laughed (which includes Draupadi), and Yuddhistra tried to control them, and Krsna suggested Yuddhistra to allow the fun.
I agree with you the point is Duryodhana felt insulted. It does not matter who laughed at him - Bhima, Arjuna or Draupadi (or hazar other queens).
And we know the end result of the war, if Pakistan (and Sharif) knee jerks at the slightest remark as an insult and as a posture of aggressive India, then it is they who are at a loss.
The goal of this SAARC leaders invitation seems uncanny to Yuddhistra inviting everyone to Indraprastha. The party that feels insulted and cheated will perish. Scary and a fascinating chess move (or should I say dice game)?
Even before that incident, Dhuryodhana had already tried to assassinate the Paandavas along with their mother. So, his enmity has nothing to do with that incident. Even if Dhraupadhi did laugh, disrobing sister-in-law in a public assembly is inexcusable. Dhuryodhana himself doesn't seem to offer this excuse at all. It just seems like a modern trend to justify Dhuryodhana's action by citing that Dhraupadhi laughed.
Kati wrote:
let's not dwell into Mahabharata as it has many many angles to look at it. From a social-class-angle, it is a saga of working class people eventually dominating the ruling (royal) class. The real winner in Mahabharata is Queen Satyavati (from Nishad community - socially lower class) - who ensured that her lineage gets hold of the throne, and the royal class gets weakened through fratricidal fighting. This is a research topic among social scientists. The actual lesson of mahabharata is Srimad Bhagavad gita. However, to impart the wisdom of Gita, the rest of the mahabharata story has been woven nicely around the contemporary social class-struggle, where Sri krishna, being from the Yadava community played the most significant role in weakening the royal class through the epic battle. .... (Just sharing another angle of research).
This seems like a commie interpretation to fit the whole narrative into a class struggle. Why would Sathyavathi be a winner in the war if her own descendents were killed in the war?
Now that I reread your post, the thought occurs to me is 'the war was fought by everyone not just royalty.' I maybe wrong on this, I would have to check MB.
Anyway, why would Krushna want to weaken royal class? How can royal class be weakened if Yuddhishtira becomes the Emperor? Wouldn't it have been much better to let the Paandavas also die, if the idea was to weaken the royal class? If Paandavas had also died, then Krushna could have become an Emperor Himself and thus Yadhavas could have become the new royalty. Eventually, the Yadhavas also died according to MB.
Rahul M wrote:swamy saar, I did not want to comment on this issue but your post forces me to.
kati ji has posted about Modi's RKM links in some thread, forgot which.
having interacted and observed RKM monks (old and young) from close quarters over a long time, his relation with family is EXACTLY how an RKM sannyasi interacts with family. they maintain close, if occasional ties with parents, especially mothers. but nothing more than exchanging pleasantries in case of other relatives, siblings included.
I wont be surprised if it comes out that he accepted sannyas at some point of time but kept his original name for public life. his interactions with his "purvashram" follow the same model. that article did note that he has mentioned that he would pen his relation with RKM in the future.
it is a complete mistake to judge him by the standards of a family man. he is anything but.
we need to throw away all our popular wisdom and think of the man from what we know. even bibek debroy says he is a follower of SV and vedanta. his life so far is exactly like one a sannyasi following karma-yog would lead.
It seems according to Sanyasa rites, mother still deserves respect even after Sanyasa. Aadhi Shankara's cremation of his mother was controversial even in his days. There is a story that some people objected to Shankara cremating his mother after becoming a Sanyasi. So, Shankara had to cremate his mother in the backyard. Then, he cursed that the people of that land will suffer similar fate and that they will have to bury their dead in their backyards(or something similar).
