Bharat Rakshak

Shivji,

On the political front do you think there is an alternative? If BJP/RSS are crap, what is the alternative at the moment? Sorry but fact of the matter is that BJP as a party had the right sort of ideas but until they used the Ram Janmabhoomi movement nobody would vote for them.

It may be easy to blame the politicians and hate them but winning an election is their raison d'etre and we have to be give them that.

Why is BJP/RSS considered good for the Hindus? One of the biggest achievements of the BJP government was to stop taking all "aid" from the West - essentially that was money going into all sorts of conversion acivities. A large number of anti India activities were stopped by that government. And that was for the good of Hindus and most importantly for India.

Mind you, RSS's philosophy is not against the Muslims/Christians - as long as Indian Muslims/Christians are ready to accept Indian culture and ethos, ready to accept Lord Ram as a great Indian (if not a God), ready to worship "mother" India - RSS won't have any problems. In fact, one of the key areas which the RSS is working towards is integrating Muslims with the mainstream - however this is a very SLOW process and not necessraily easy - I personally know of Muslims participating in RSS Shakhas, Bachat Gats etc but having to keep low for fear of repraisals from their own community. And mind you, RSS does not expect them to convert to Hinduism.

The problem happens if I turn into a "true believer" - then my basic belief would be that idol worshippers are kufr and need to be annhilated.

sadler:

http://www.crystalinks.com/indiastronomy.html

SaiK, Thanks for so many valuable information links. Now I understand grand failure of Indian education for not teaching me anything about my heritage.

******BOT Allert***********

Shiv/BRAdmins:

This is off-topic post, but I am posting it here since this thread is grabbing lots of eyeballs. Of late I am seeing bots registering themselves and posting messages with urls points to virus/adwares etc. Please sanitize the user registration policy with auto-generated image confimation to deter bot registration.

For eg. look at all the posts by a new user Stertard: http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/search ... r=Stertard

saumitra_j wrote:Shivji,

On the political front do you think there is an alternative? If BJP/RSS are crap, what is the alternative at the moment? Sorry but fact of the matter is that BJP as a party had the right sort of ideas but until they used the Ram Janmabhoomi movement nobody would vote for them.

It may be easy to blame the politicians and hate them but winning an election is their raison d'etre and we have to be give them that.

Why is BJP/RSS considered good for the Hindus? One of the biggest achievements of the BJP government was to stop taking all "aid" from the West - essentially that was money going into all sorts of conversion acivities. A large number of anti India activities were stopped by that government. And that was for the good of Hindus and most importantly for India.

Mind you, RSS's philosophy is not against the Muslims/Christians - as long as Indian Muslims/Christians are ready to accept Indian culture and ethos, ready to accept Lord Ram as a great Indian (if not a God), ready to worship "mother" India - RSS won't have any problems. In fact, one of the key areas which the RSS is working towards is integrating Muslims with the mainstream - however this is a very SLOW process and not necessraily easy - I personally know of Muslims participating in RSS Shakhas, Bachat Gats etc but having to keep low for fear of repraisals from their own community. And mind you, RSS does not expect them to convert to Hinduism.

The problem happens if I turn into a "true believer" - then my basic belief would be that idol worshippers are kufr and need to be annhilated.

Gosh, are you a real live RSS? I mean, I know Brother Kakkaji is, but he doesn't count because of him working in an ivory tower in the US and everything.

I wished Repugnicans in the US would wear brown baggy shorts and march like you guys. But they are so decripit they would insist on wearing support hosiery with their shorts. Varicose veins ya know? And I'm afraid they couldn't march too far for fear of having angina pain. But still, it's a kewel idea.

So, do you guys have like secret meetings? Can somebody like me attend?

TSJones, sure you can attain the meetings and you don't have to wear your white bed sheet mask to bless us poor injus. We do understand the symbolism disappeared but thinking is SHAME HONLY.
Seriously, why is that when a conservative Christian republican talks about role of his faith in public life its accepted, but when a SRDE Hindu says exactly same he/she is labeled as fanatic?

[quote]http://www.freelawanswer.com/law/3333-3 ... nswer.html The Sanskrit term he used for gravity, 'gurutvÄ

Accepting donations, for "Southern Haute Couture". [ie. Glory Suits, Pale White Horses and Fiery crosses].

Vick wrote:

Arun_S wrote:Who gave the Christians the bigoted right to superiority vis a vis Hinduism to ask such question?

I'm not sure what question you're talking about. My question? A specific question from Christians?

Christians believe what we believe and Hindus believe what Hindus believe. Why would Hindus feel insulted that Christians believe something and vice versa?

Keep your beliefs to yourself and there is no problem. Hindus are not inviting you or missionaries to share their beliefs. India is the land of Snatan Dharm and we the inheriter of ancient Dharma intend to keep her this way. This is not only our right but duty also.

shiv wrote:V. Sundaram's comments on the new coins

< massive rant follows - pliss excuse >

It is a tactical blunder to curse Sonia and Manmohan. That party has a lot of Hindus supporting it for some reason. It is better to find out what those reasons are rather than alleging that all those supporters are dhimmis and morons. It seems to me that Hindus of India can be classified this way into two groups.

a) Dhimmis and morons - UPA supporters
b) Morons alone - BJP supporters

First of all STOP lumping several hundred million Hindus into the trashcan by continuously cursing Manmohan and Sonia.

Your massive rant has a massive problem

What if the Dhimmis from group (a) left their dhimmitude, joined the morons from (b) and voted together? A combined group of morons would make things different and easier for the party they vote. Maybe they won't look moronic either.

Your massive rant is a reflection of frustration, that the morons are not following your way. Sorry, you've lost the race. These non-dhimmi morons started their march in massive number 20-30 years ago. The intellectuals have started late.

These morons are ready to march in streets, get lathicharged, spend nights in lockups, lose their careers and livelihood. We armchair experts won't risk that much.

The IAS officer did a good job of spreading the word. You want more. Fine. Why don't you file a PIL then? That'll settle the issue.

Vishy_mulay wrote: No one here is against Christ or his teaching ...

excuse me, but I am ...

I have serious concerns with the christian belief system ... I am willing to debate this with Vick, Rakesh, Calvin, TSJ or anyone else ... it is my view that severe misinformation is being peddled by this "faith" ...

http://www.infinityfoundation.com/manda ... ameset.htm

http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/arti ... hy108.html

Alokji, I think you mean Pauline Christianity. Or am I missing something?

I don't really know the difference between pauline and shauline ...

I have serious disregard for the fundamental axioms of a system of belief that runs against reality ...

many here, and elsewhere, feel obliged to "let them be" in their own delusions ... I, however, wish to call to question the silliness embodied in the system ...

Well let me rephrase the question. What you think about Judaism as a faith?

the gauntlet is out there in plain view ... if Vick or anyone else wishes to pick it up, I will be happy to launch into my critical analysis ...

Vishy_mulay wrote:Well let me rephrase the question. What you think about Judaism as a faith?

equally clueless, but better score in manners ... Sadler-ji is welcome to debate my characterization ...

http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9404/bigbang.html Burbidge does say something that is true, however. He favors the steady-state hypothesis and claims his view supports Hinduism and not Christianity. That is correct, because a steady-state theory of the universe, were it to be true, would provide some support for the endless cycles taught by Hinduism. The big bang theory is significant evidence against Hinduism.

I guess there is skewed thought here in this link, that presents partial thoughts. The endless cycles does not defy and deny the "big bang theory", well proven by the "bharat ek khoj" presentation of rig vedic sloka that says it all big bang happened, per 6000-1x000 years of rishi consciousness and neti neti debates.

...

I have problems with the Christian belief system too. Because those beliefs do not seem consistent nor logical. I mean I can understand 'faith' being beyond logic but I would expect 'faith' to be consistent - logically - with itself. On one hand Rakesh claims a complete faith in Biblical inerrancy but I presume he doesn't condone slavery or homophobia or misogyny or myriad other practices that bible seems to accept or condone but are anathema to most of the current world.

saumitra_j wrote:Shivji,

On the political front do you think there is an alternative? If BJP/RSS are crap, what is the alternative at the moment? Sorry but fact of the matter is that BJP as a party had the right sort of ideas but until they used the Ram Janmabhoomi movement nobody would vote for them.

A perfectly valid question to a person who has been ranting like I have been.

I see it as follows.

The "Hindu parties" may be the "only representative" but they are not wholly right and are partly wrong. It is being suggested that their being "partly right" is good enough because they are the only representative.

I would like to point out that the Congress and UPA alliance parties are not wholly wrong - but that only means that the are at least partly correct.

By supporting the BJP (who are partly wrong) we are "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" in a sense by rejecting those aspects of Congress/UPA policy which are "partly right"

Where are the BJP partly wrong? Where are the Cong/UPA partly right? After all the latter parties have SOME support and not merely 12% (or 14% 0r 15%) Muslims and 2% (or 4% or 6%) Christians.

It is worth checking out where those parties are wrong and right before rejecting them outright on the basis of arguments I have heard. I see no move whatsoever to credit the Cong/UPA with any intelligence and no move to credit their supporters with any sense, while I see total support being mooted by the BJP despite a constant stream of own goals by them with regard to publicity.

The BJP certainly has had better intra-party democracy than the sycophancy driven Congress. the BJP has claimed to stand by honesty rather than corruption.

But the BJP cannot muster the image that is required in this day and age.

The Indian today looks for a leader who can stand out and can APPEAR to stand out and walk as an equal among all those great admired firangis. This is actually a very simple PR trick but the Hindus dogeddly fail to perform the most simple and superficial PR trick because the BJP are represented by the average dehati Manoj Kumar Indian holding on to the 1950-1960s patriot image and is unable to portray the "Modern India" image that Rajiv Gandhi or Rahul Gandhi could provide.

Indsead I find BJP and its supporters clutching at laughable straws saying "tejo mahalaya" and "Cross on coin is Christian" thinking that the average Indian - the street salesman who is earning notes and spending notes to buy a cellphone is going to get his chaddi in a big twist about 2 buck coins.

Hindus who worry about Hinduism and other Hindus need to get a life and see which way people are moving. Those moving people are Hindus mostly and it is important to remain connected with them.

The average Indian has kicked the Congess in the pants too - and made them "coalition partners" out of a party that always used to refuse coalitions. The Indian will speak and continue to speak at election time.

Abhijit wrote:I have problems with the Christian belief system too. Because those beliefs do not seem consistent nor logical. I mean I can understand 'faith' being beyond logic but I would expect 'faith' to be consistent - logically - with itself. On one hand Rakesh claims a complete faith in Biblical inerrancy but I presume he doesn't condone slavery or homophobia or misogyny or myriad other practices that bible seems to accept or condone but are anathema to most of the current world.

Abhijit, there are glaring examples of homophobia, misogny, slavery and a myriad of other practices that occur in the Bible. But please illustrate the verses where you see God condoning it. Perhaps I can help in clearing a few doubts. Thanks.

SRoy wrote:
Your massive rant is a reflection of frustration, that the morons are not following your way. Sorry, you've lost the race. These non-dhimmi morons started their march in massive number 20-30 years ago. The intellectuals have started late.

These morons are ready to march in streets, get lathicharged, spend nights in lockups, lose their careers and livelihood. We armchair experts won't risk that much.

The IAS officer did a good job of spreading the word. You want more. Fine. Why don't you file a PIL then? That'll settle the issue.

The IAS officer may or may not have done a good job and I am frustrated at the non issues that the so called Hindu parties are getting seeking support for,

If they work, my frustration won't have any basis or reason to survive will it? I will merely have to say - "Oh I was wrong"

My frustration stems from the sneaking suspicion that I might be right and not wrong. If I am right the morons will continue their mindless caterwaul from their prisons and under lathis while the dhimmis collect numbers and continue their march.

Being wrong is not a problem from my viewpoint. Being right is the big worry.

I see nothing in your reassuring post that I might be wrong. If time proves that I am wrong I am OK with that.

shiv wrote: But the BJP cannot muster the image that is required in this day and age.

The Indian today looks for a leader who can stand out and can APPEAR to stand out and walk as an equal among all those great admired firangis. This is actually a very simple PR trick but the Hindus dogeddly fail to perform the most simple and superficial PR trick because the BJP are represented by the average dehati Manoj Kumar Indian holding on to the 1950-1960s patriot image and is unable to portray the "Modern India" image that Rajiv Gandhi or Rahul Gandhi could provide.

Ah the joys of dhimmitude

WR to previous post/thread

Regarding Caste system and question whether one can become a brahmin:

Bhagvad Gita
13th verse in ch 4 where the LK tells Arjuna –

Chaturvarnyam maya srishtam
Gunakarma vibhagashah

Krishna refers to the four varnas, saying explicitly that they were created on the basis of guna (nature, aptitude, character) and karma (work, action, occupation). He does not at all refer to birth as the basis for the fourfold division, which is only a division of labour where each one follows an occupation based on aptitude or natural inclination. Far from support to the caste system, K M Panikkar considers it as constituting a devastating attack on caste based on birth.8 Kane says that if Krishna wanted to make birth as the basis of his division of labour, he could easily have said ‘jati-karma-vibhagashah’ or ‘janma-karma-vibhagashah’, instead of ‘guna-karma-vibhagashah’ as actually stated [Kane 1990:1635-36]. He pointed out clearly to ‘guna’. This is also consistent with what Krishna replied to Arjuna’s specific question in Uttaragita.

Once this is clear, it follows that the dharma referred to in the other two verses (II 31, and XVIII 47) also is based on guna and not birth. In the Mahabharata war, persons not born as kshatriyas also participated in the war as per their inclination, svabhava or guna. So there was nothing casteist in Krishna’s asking Arjuna to fight like a kshatriya. Similarly, the advice to follow one’s own svadharma only means that one has to follow one’s aptitude and qualities, and see where one’s comparative advantage lies. A talented person may be able to perform many tasks better than others, but she cannot afford to do so, and she would achieve more by concentrating on where her comparative advantage lies. The principle of comparative advantage, instead of absolute advantage, is followed in international trade between countries. What Krishna advocated was to ask us to follow the more scientific and practical principle of comparative advantage as that would maximise social as well as individual welfare. There is nothing casteist about his advice. Comparative advantage here can also be taken in the dynamic sense, of potential that can be realised, and not in terms of present or actual guna in a static sense.

***

The idea that all human beings are equal before god irrespective of caste and that all are entitled to receive his light comes out clearly from the following:

Rucham no dhehi brahmaneshu
Rucham rajasu naskridhi |
Rucham vishveshu shudreshu
Mayi dhehi rucha rucham ||

–Taittiriya Samhita V 7.6 3-4
Put light in our brahmanas, put it in our chiefs (kings),
(put) light in vaishyas and shudras, put light in me by your light.10

***

It may sound surprising to critics of Hinduism but is a fact that Hindu scriptures have backed liberalism and humanism by undermining birth, upholding character and basic worth of persons as being more important. Mahabharata makes this point very strongly, to an extent that it reflects a revolt against the caste system based on birth:

Na kulam vrittahinasya
Pramanamiti me matihi /
Anteshwapij jatanam
Vrittameva vishishyate //
– Mahabharata, Udyoga Parva, Ch 34, v 41.
It means:

High birth can be no certificate for a person of no character. But persons with good character can distinguish themselves irrespective of low birth.

Mahabharata emphasises the same point again elsewhere too:

Yastu Shudro dame satye
dharme cha satatotthitah /
tam brahmanamaham manye
vritten hi bhavet dvijah //
– Mahabharata, Vanaparva, Ch 216, vs 14-15.
It means:

That shudra who is ever engaged in self-control, truth and righteousness, I regard him a brahmin. One is a twice-born by conduct alone.11

Uttaragita, which is also a dialogue between Krishna and Arjuna, makes the same point. When Arjuna specifically asks Krishna how varna is determined, he replies:

Na jatih karanam tata
gunah kalyanakaranam /
Vritasthamapi chandalam
tam devah brahmanam viduh //
It means:

Birth is not the cause, my friend; it is virtues, which are the cause of welfare. Even a Chandala observing the vow is considered a brahmana by the gods.12

Regarding vedas being incomplete:

the vedas have never been claimed to be complete.

vedanta is not end of veda but the juice extract of so many scriptures after many hot debate in forums.

vedas were supposed to be ever expanding like universe.

***

becase vedas were expanding the 'sub caste' system of brahmins(=who studies veda) came into existence

Initially there were rigvedi, yajurvedi brahmins. aft samveda trivedis (=branch of brahmins who were made responsible to study samveda, the third veda) came into being.

After atharvaveda Chaturvedis(tharva veda being the fourth ved) were segregated so that the tradition of expanding, preserving and teaching the veda go on uninterrupted.

Guna Karma vibhagasha...

Vishy_mulay wrote:Rakesh, I was asking about 101 myth book because it came highly recommended from someone who understand and practices Christianity. We had same semantic talk about being in science and having faith. The book actually try to decipher the Divine nature of Bible by pointing that the stories in Bible are universal and can be found in many mythological stories from Egypt, Mesopotamia, Greek and Roman cultures. My friend's stand was even if Bible is proven to be a collection of stories and not Divine, he believes in greater good the concept of Faith brings. Faith and Consciousness are twin support system for moral living. I think we should also have discussion on what moral living means but may be some other time and place. (In the context of relative interpretation of what is moral and immoral).

Romans 10:17 "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

So you see my stand Vishy? If I knew every riddle in the Bible, then I would be God. There are questions in the Bible, that I don't have answers to and probably never will. My faith says the Bible is true and the Bible has been under attack from skeptics ever since it came about. To an outsider however my faith is viewed as... (and I quote Alok_N here), "faith is a neurological disorder." You may call it something similar. I truly must be mad

Vishy_mulay wrote:Another thing which I want to ask is about Christ, he was a reformer of Judaism and never intended to form new religion. My understanding is that the present day Christianity is mostly Pauline Christianity and has nothing to do with original message which was only for Chosen people and not for gentiles. I was told that modern day Church structure is based on Roman model with exception of Pagan Gods being replaced by Holy Trinity. Is it true?

Christ certainly did not start a new religion, but he did say that he was the Son of God. The followers of Judaism are still waiting for their messiah to arrive. That in itself illustrates the clear doctrinal difference between Christianity and Judaism. Thus a new faith being born was bound to happen. The next question one can ask here is the following;

Q. So if one can reach heaven only through Jesus Christ, then what happened to the people that walked before Him? How can they go to hell for someone they never even heard about?

A. Abraham, Moses & Elijah are all examples of individuals that walked & talked with God and obeyed his commandments and are now in heaven. But none of these three ever met Christ, during their life on earth. To understand that contradiction, we go here...

Exodus 19:5 "Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine."

Deuteronomy 7:7-8 "The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people: But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt."

Deuteronomy 14:2 "For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God, and the LORD hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth."

Prior to the arrival of Christ, yes there have been people that went to heaven as they were God's chosen people. Those verses above are crystal clear proof of that. Now we can sit here and argue semantics, by asking how could God choose only the Jews as his chosen people and not even my ancestors (prior to the arrival of St Thomas in Kerala). If I knew the answer to that question, I could also solve the problem of world hunger! [Added Later: Now I am contradicting my ownself. I did clearly state that my ancestors are in hell. I stand corrected]. But Christ changed all that. The Jews are no longer the priveleged people that they once were. The Gospel is now universal. I am not trying to be cruel or put anybody's religion down. But if you want to understand why I believe thus, then that is your answer. You are more than welcome to call it the ravings of a deranged individual and I am perfectly fine with that.

The Roman Catholic Church is basically Roman Paganism. The Romans replaced their Gods with the God of the Bible, but still preserved a large part of Roman Paganism. Purgatory, Praying to Dead Saints, etc does have ties to pagan culture that prevailed Rome in that era. So what you were told is indeed true. Now if you ask a hardcore Catholic that, he will tell you what I just stated is heresy.

Vishy_mulay wrote:I was trying to understand the concept of Holy Trinity. I was told its like Indic Trinity (Creator, Sustainer and Destroyer) but apparently thats not the case. Can you recommend good source where I can understand the concept better.

I am not an expert on Hinduism to comment on the similarity between the Triune God of the Bible and the Indic Trinity. But to get an understanding of the Former, please click on the link below;

Is the Trinity Biblical?

Abhijit, there are glaring examples of homophobia, misogny, slavery and a myriad of other practices that occur in the Bible. But please illustrate the verses where you see God condoning it. Perhaps I can help in clearing a few doubts. Thanks.

Rakesh, homophobia is pervasive in bible. The entire story or sodom and the destruction of sodom was due to homosuxuality.
Leviticus 20:13
'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
There are many other examples of bible's distaste with homosexuality.
Now in the current world, we don't care one way or another and treat people's sexuality as a personal matter.
Misogyny:
Ephesians 5:22 (Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.)
Peter 3:1-6 (Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;)
Opposition to female priests in Catholicism
Slavery:
Leviticus 25:44-46
Exodus 21:7-11
Ephesians 6:5
In general during biblical times, slavery was an accepted practice and has not been condemned explicitly or implicitly in bible anywhere. In fact the entire American South before and during the Civil War thumped the bible as the greatest testament to the practice of slavery. Baptists preachers regularly held services to bless the Southern armies and claimed that they were doing God's deed.

One-stop church for all faiths

Kollam (Kerala): It's hard to miss the quaint building in Neendakara. The board outside calls it the Latin Catholic church. But on the steeple is a giant 'Om', not the cross. Inside, the walls are plastered with images from Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, Jainism, and even Zoroastrianism. You have just stepped into a laboratory on religious amity, where people from all faiths are welcome.

The Neendakara church, now called the Jagat Jyoti Mandir, is a cross between a church and a temple. So after the Sunday mass, the devotees stay back for M.S. Subbalakshmi's mellifluous 'bhajans'.

"We wanted to set an example. It wasn't easy but we are slowly gaining acceptability," said Father Romance Anthony. Initially, the Christians had thought it was a ploy to dilute their religion while the Hindus had thought the church was trying to convert poor fisherfolk.

"Most of the Vedas do not pertain to any religion. Symbols like 'Om' transcend all barriers and aren't confined to any particular section," explained Father Anthony as he sat cross-legged listening to the bhajans.

When the Changeover took place recently, skeptics dismissed it as a temporary affair. But they were proved wrong. "Initially we were reluctant to attend the church. But the best part is that we all are equals here," said Francis Jacob, a devotee.

Ramesh Babu
[email protected]
HT

Rakesh wrote:The Romans replaced their Gods with the God of the Bible, but still preserved a large part of Roman Paganism. Purgatory, Praying to Dead Saints, etc does have ties to pagan culture that prevailed Rome in that era. So what you were told is indeed true. Now if you ask a hardcore Catholic that, he will tell you what I just stated is heresy.

Try saying that to an Orthodox Christian. Guys will go ballistic. I don't know if any of you have been to an Orthodox Church. Let me tell you the number of pictures in there and the kissing of icons, the profusion of incense, spraying of water, etc. is strongly reminiscent of Yindoo traditions... only the pictures, though heavily stylised, are different...

Of course, if you tell the Orthodox guys that they are like the Roman Catholics, phew one would be in for another verbal bollocking!!!

Power my friends, power is the name of this game! The "born again" dudes just want a slice of this power and pelf (no harm in that), and of course the older traditions just won't have it... They have the money and power and want to keep it. The Benny Hinn types have very little currency in the Orthodox World, and the methods used to block such evanjihadi tactics are something to be learned from...

I've seen any number of Mormons looking lost and forlorn wandering around the streets in the part of the world where I live... Meanwhile, Yoga classes are sprouting in backyards!!! I'm sure that it is only a matter of time before a new "Christian Yoga" emerges, if it hasn't already

JE Menon wrote:Try saying that to an Orthodox Christian. Guys will go ballistic. I don't know if any of you have been to an Orthodox Church. Let me tell you the number of pictures in there and the kissing of icons, the profusion of incense, spraying of water, etc. is strongly reminiscent of Yindoo traditions... only the pictures, though heavily stylised, are different...

You are speaking to someone born into the Orthodox Christian faith. I thought you knew that

KrishnaK wrote:

shiv wrote: But the BJP cannot muster the image that is required in this day and age.

The Indian today looks for a leader who can stand out and can APPEAR to stand out and walk as an equal among all those great admired firangis. This is actually a very simple PR trick but the Hindus dogeddly fail to perform the most simple and superficial PR trick because the BJP are represented by the average dehati Manoj Kumar Indian holding on to the 1950-1960s patriot image and is unable to portray the "Modern India" image that Rajiv Gandhi or Rahul Gandhi could provide.

Ah the joys of dhimmitude

Not joys.

Facts which "Hindus" protecting the faith are unwilling to accept. Someone spoke of frustration - and I am sure this dhimmitude frustrates them. It is not someting transient that can be wiped off by unlikely and funny stories of pre-Islamic Hindu architectural glory in Agra

My dhimmitude is a reflection of the dhimmitude of many Hindus. They are however safe - because the Hindus who are trying to" Protect them" - as someone said - will go to jail and get beaten by lathis trying to reclaim tejo mahalaya and two rupee coins. The dhimmis will live on as dhimmis.

More on that in my next post.

Abhijit wrote:Leviticus 20:13 "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." There are many other examples of bible's distaste with homosexuality. Now in the current world, we don't care one way or another and treat people's sexuality as a personal matter.

So how is the Bible condoning this? Homosexuality is a sin as per the Bible, it does not condone that and the verse you provided proves that. One can also argue that molesting children is also the preference of some people. Does that make it right? Should we now send our children to get molested, just because it gets someone all hot & bothered? In the same way, the Bible does not agree with homosexuality.

Abhijit wrote:Ephesians 5:22-24 (Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.)

The word submit is not used in a derogatory tone here. The Lord is not derogatory to His children, but yet His children submit to him. Do you not listen to the advice of your parents when they tell you something? The word submit is used in that sense. Not in the sense of, "Come here you slut, get on your knees and from now on whore, you will only do to what I tell you to! Do you understand that Bitch?"

Also do read Ephesians 5:26 (as that is equally important), "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it. That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word." How did you miss that?

Abhijit wrote:1 Peter 3:1-6 (Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;)

Abhijit there is no Peter 3: 1-6. There is 1 Peter and 2 Peter. They are individual books. These verses you are referring to is actually 1 Peter 3: 1-6. This is more for the reader who would like to verify the verses we are quoting, than for you and me.

As for that verse, once again you are taking the term subjection literally. Also please read 1 Peter 3:7 which says, "Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered."

You cannot take every word in the Bible literally. Here is a classic example. 1 Corinthians 1:25 "Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men."

Can we now assume that God is foolish and weak?

Abhijit wrote:Opposition to female priests in Catholicism

I don't agree with any hierarchial, priestly system. That question is irrelevant to me.

Abhijit wrote:Slavery:
Leviticus 25:44-46
Exodus 21:7-11
Ephesians 6:5

In general during biblical times, slavery was an accepted practice and has not been condemned explicitly or implicitly in bible anywhere.

Abhijit, when Cain killed Abel (the first few chapters in the Book of Genesis) God did not condone that. Yet that occurred, so now that is God's fault? Why are we blaming God for the foolishness of man?

It is ironic that you quoted Leviticus 25:46, as God himself says in that verse "...but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour." It does not get more explicit than that! But I see your point in the distinction between bondmen/bondmaids and children of Israel. Please refer to my point in Exodus 21 (below) for further clarification.

Abhijit, I think you need to read Ephesians 6:1-10 and please focus on verses 6 - 10 really, really carefully. The first 10 verses in that chapter deals with obedience. Verses 1-3 is about the obedience of children, verse 4 is about the obligation of fathers to their children, verses 5 - 8 is about the obedience of servants to their masters and verses 9 - 10 is about the obligation of masters to their servants. Everyone has their role.

Exodus 21, yes God did say all of that. But when these rules were being given to the Jews...you have to go back into a time & place when Jewish society was largely patriarchal. Man was the head of the house and he owned slaves. To change that society in an instant, would be akin to disaster. Jewish society would crumble and Moses would be lynched, as he was the one bringing the laws of God to the Jewish people. This is a long story in itself and I will need to start another post altogether to explain this in more detail.

You cannot pick and choose from the Bible and then say, that they don't seem consistent nor logical. You need to understand in what context the message is being said. This is why many of the anti-Bible books out there take a verse from here & a verse from there and them claim the Bible is full of holes.

I end with Romans 10:17 "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

shiv wrote: My frustration stems from the sneaking suspicion that I might be right and not wrong. If I am right the morons will continue their mindless caterwaul from their prisons and under lathis while the dhimmis collect numbers and continue their march.

Being wrong is not a problem from my viewpoint. Being right is the big worry.

I see nothing in your reassuring post that I might be wrong. If time proves that I am wrong I am OK with that.

Shiv,

I appreciate what you are saying. IIRC, my first post in the initial version of this thread the said the same thing.
However, my perspective is different. Your take is that the morons are hurting a greater cause. I'll ask the following.

Who gave them the platform?
How they have come to be the arbitrators of the agenda?
What prevents the elite and the intellectual classes from taking the center stage and steering the agenda?

Is it that our elite and intellectual classes have internalized anti Hindu psy ops and are unable to take a rational stand in face of EJ's and Islamist's propaganda onslaught? They are totally FUBAR.

That leaves a tiny band of jingoes like us. I'll try my luck with the morons any day. Atleast my intent is in sync with them if not the means. The dhimmis on other hand do not even consider my intent to be worthy and justified.

[quote]Swami Vivekananda and the Will to Heroism

The great Hindu lion-heart, Swami Vivekananda:

Notwithstanding his remarkable undertakings, however, Vivekananda found himself in a similarly difficult position as other neo-Hindu leaders of his day were. How to make sense of the ancient ways of Hinduism, and hopefully preserve Hinduism, in the face of the overwhelming onslaught of modernity? Despite some positive contributions by Vivekananda and other neo-Hindus in attempting to formulate a Hindu response to the challenge of modernity, that response was often made at the expense of authentic Hindu teachings. Vivekananda, along with the other leaders of the neo-Hindu movement, felt it was necessary to both water down the authentic Hinduism of their ancestors, and to adopt such foreign ideas as Radical Universalism, with the hope of gaining the approval of the European masters they found ruling over them.

This is how Romain Rolland describes the man:

“His pre-eminent characteristic was kingliness. He was a born king and nobody ever came near him either in India or America without paying homage to his majesty.â€

No Rakesh... I didn't know that

Calvin wrote:Shiv: It is not clear why you are choosing to stereotype Hindus in this sweeping fashion. What are you getting at?

I left this question for the end because I think this is the most difficult question to answer - but I'll give it a shot.

Hindus have a grievance against the way history and people of other faiths have treated them. I do not dispute that fact and fully support the need to redress grievances and remove the reputation that has been imposed.

But, it appears to me that the grievance extends beyond mere injustice, murder and subjugation, as if that was itself not enough.

I am told that injustice is being done to Hindus in such a manner that they do not themselves realize when injustice is done to them. I am told that things are happening, and Hindus are sitting back thinking all is well, but in reality all is NOT well, and the things that are happening are a continued body blow aimed at Hindus and Hinduism.

I am willing to accept this as well, with the rider that if injustice is being done to Hindus and they do not realize it, the possibility exists that they are either

a) not being subjected to injustice at all, or

b) they are naive and unthinking, and have perhaps been brainwashed into thinking that all is well when they are actually being taken advantage of.

When a person is told that he is being subjected to injustice but he does not feel it - he may want to ask "Why do I feel no injustice being done"

If the reply to this is "You feel no injustice because you have been brainwashed" it marks the beginning of a credibility issue. Few people will accept outright that they are NOT feeling something because they have been brainwashed (dhimmified) into not feeling it. The storyline is a weak one and needs explanation. (I feel no sorrow today - "I have been brainwashed into feeling that way" etc)

That explaining of how a Hindu may have been brainwashed is something that has to be told with care if it is to be believed because it is such an unbelievable and preposterous thing for a person to hear - even if it is true. At the best of times it is difficult to explain this concept to anyone or get him to believe it.

But instead of taking adequate care to explain how this brainwashing may have occurred, if the person who claims that other Hindus are brainwashed starts coming up with incredible examples of how Hindus are being assaulted under their very noses with stories about two rupee coins and Tejo Mahalaya (a Hindu structure being passed off as Islamic) then the person who is being accused of being a dhimmi will start thinking that this is a joke and that the person making the claims about two rupee coins and tejo mahalaya is actually the person who is trying to brainwash him. He wonders if the other person may have brainwashed himself.

Worse that that - if a person is really a dhimmi and you are trying to win him over with all your sob stories about how Hindus are being screwed left right and center - and the dhimmi expresses doubts and you get really angry with him - as has happened on this forum - the Hindu puts the dhimmi off forever. He loses an ally because he is unable to convince a potential ally that he is being brainwashed despite his best efforts at coin and tejo mahalaya stories and angry accusations of dhimmitude. The idea of being able to manage without a large number of dhimmi Hindu allies is the story of political suicide for Hindus. The great strength of evangelists is their lack of anger and great patience with those who do not believe them. That patience is absent from the Hindus whose voices I hear mocking and lampooning other Hindus about their dhimmitude. These are serious self goals of the worst degree. To me it betrays the lack of even minimal people-handling skills among the folks who claim to be "protecting Hindus"

Methinks that the people who want to protect my faith are barking up all the wrong trees and using faulty tactics at that. My faith in myself and my own way of Hindu life remains untouched, but I can no longer see these joke-making non-dhimmis as people who have the potential to lead my people anywhere. Their talk just doesn't cut it.

A question that arises to me is if there is a Hindu pulse" - a stream of thought or a skein that will appeal to all Hindus. I don't know the answer to that but I have looked for answers in collective Hindu behaviour after religion related political paroxysms in India.

It seems to me that Hindus in India are willing to take a lot but every so often they react massively, after which they spend a period of repentance and many never excuse themselves for allowing an excess to occur. If an act performed by Hindus is generally perceived by people as wrong - then many Hindus follow a long course of repentance or self punishment where they feel that they must pay in some way for the wrong committed.

After Babri Masjid was demolished - I have seen and still see two streams of thought - sometimes mentioned by the same people at different times. One stream of thought says "Yes - the Masjid was built on sacred ground in the holy city of Ayodhya and deserved to be demolished" and another stream of thought feels guilt that a structure was demolished by uncontrolled mob action. In India you cannot get an outright condemnation or outright praise of the event.

The same dual thought process holds true for the riot after Hindu pilgrims returning from Ayodhya were burnt alive in train by a Muslim mob. As far as I can see Hindus feel both satisfaction that Hindus showed Muslims their place, as well as guilt about the mob action. Both thought processes exist and can be seen in various media from time to time.

The point I am trying to make is that the "Hindu pulse", if any, will exist somewhere between the two extreme thought processes that have been expresssed after the two above events (and perhaps countless others). Any relatively stable entity (such as Hindu society) cannot be judged by its extremes. Hindus are neither murderers of Muslims and Christians nor complete and permanently repentant dhimmis.

It is likely that he "pulse" of Hindus lies in that middle region and the party or person who finds that pulse will determine the future of Hindus as their leader.

Right now the BJP has the pulse in some places, the Congress in other places, and nobody at all in still other places.

SRoy wrote: Who gave them the platform?
How they have come to be the arbitrators of the agenda?
What prevents the elite and the intellectual classes from taking the center stage and steering the agenda?.

I believe they will - given time. But whom Hindus will support in future (in terms of political parties) will depend on who reads them right and who reads them best.

I believe Hindu society may well be in celebration mode at this point in time and are nowhere near mourning mode or paranoia mode. Things have never looked so good for Hindus in such large numbers for centuries. The Hindus is doing his own thing and is quite happy and does not want any party to upset his applecart.

Political parties stand warned.

The stereotyping of Hindus in the West today, and examples of stereotyping in the past will all earn their rewards in due course. The Hindu will buck and be a dhimmi and provide a Hudaibiya smile at jibes as long as it is convenient to his personal well being. But slights will earn rebuff when power comes - and the process of gaining that power is appearing unstoppable at this point in time.

But by and large Indians, not, as Hindus or people of any particular faith, see that there remain many things to do within India and have a constant tendency to avoid costly conflict if at all possible. it is well worth remembering that is conflict of any sort is sought to be provoked. They tend to be short, very bloody, and lead to prolonged periods of atonement. Breaking out of these cycles - if at all possible, might be a step away from the norm.

My mistake.
Shiv's last post cleared a lot of stuff.
This post is now unnecessary.

Tks.

how nice !

vsudhir wrote: Keep aside the 'tejo mahalaya' etc strawmen for a moment

This is the best idea I have heard about the issue.

vsudhir wrote: What happens if even after the vast majority of Hindus come to know these things and still opt for continued Dhimmitude and decline?

It's possible. The people who claim that Hinduism is their heritage will have died out and Hinduism will go the way of so many extinct thoughts and ideas.

OTOH it might not. But a lot depends on whether Hindus really understand what they have or not and what to do with it.

What do Hindus have that makes Hindu heritage worth preserving? What is the best way of preserving what is there.

I am asking these questions again - but I notice that threads on which Hindus and Hindu thoughts are discussed (on other fora) tend to move off in many different directions just like this one so I will keep asking those questions again and again and again till I, or someone has some answer.