Bharat Rakshak

Acharya wrote:This is a good sociology case study. They have created the appropriate social response after a person convert to create a political, identity social group.

The major factor making difference is $ coming from abroad . GOI control our temple money.

Eventually EJ activites will lead to the breakdown of family structure,deteremental for Indian social make up. This will make social enginnering job very easy. Operation IRAQ by another name , disrupt, divide and destroy is very subtle form of aggression.

Then, lets assume EJ win the game, Indians will be converting to miracle boasted EJ type Christian Morality. In the end both Converts and non converts will loose and India goes down to the tube .

del

Mrig Trishna, we already have the essense but looking for it in outwardly because of Avidya, ignornace .Dont need no God .

IIRC, this was explained by Patanjali in Yogasutra.... termed "God/ ishwar" as a vidhi - tool

Also, in a different manner by Buddha, which is IMO incorrectly interpreted as Atheism

Adrija wrote:There I differ from you

Understandable. Hardly defensible, however.

S Valkan, happy to take this offline if you so prefer........ there are innumerable examples (Mira, Ramana Maharishi, Chaitanya mahaprabhu, etc).......... if Shankara says so, its good enough for me, you are welcome to term it whatever makes you comfortable

Prem wrote:Then, lets assume EJ win the game, Indians will be converting to miracle boasted EJ type Christian Morality.

The good question to ask is what leads to this conversion.

The example given in this forum of "miracle" as the cause is because the concerned person was ignorant of his medical prognosis, and had the innate need for ascribing a causal agency for his recovery.

Ultimately, it is about one of three things:

1) physical need ( converts believe they will get more money, education, healthcare )

2) emotional need ( converts believe they will be able to boost their social status and make a clean break from the past "injustice" )

3) ignorance ( wooden Christ floats on water, stone Krishna sinks - "MIRACLE" !, steroid-infused "holy water" from the Church cures disease but Ganga-jal doesn't,- "MIRACLE" ! , etc ).

Now, all of these stem from ignorance too.

Those that convert, and those that exacerbate the caste-based problems are steeped in some element of ignorance.

And the cure for even this is knowledge/education.

what kind of knowledge/ educaiton exactly are you referring to?

being 100% educated did not prevent S Korea from Christianity becmoning the largest religion within one generation

Adrija wrote:There I differ from you

Adrija, there is no difference . Bhakti is Yuga Dharma and Gyan Marg is Snatan, for all the Yugas. Eventually Bhakti also leads to Gyan. Check the symbolism of Kali cutting her own head for the sake of aspirant.

Alok,

I think what you are doing is pointing out the difference between philsophy and theology - you are asking for are philosophy departments that are grounded in ancient Indian philosophy/thought, rather than promotion of Hindu divinity/theology and religious practice.

When people speak of ancient Greek philosophy, it is separate from Greek religion, yet tied to it through a shared context.

One of the ways in which people find a place to dig in is by making particular figures and schools of thought recognisable.

Aristotle, Plato and Socrates are names that many of even the most un-curious and ill-educated at least recognise as ancient philosophers. The somewhat better educated remember the nature and evolution of philosophical ideas and debate between different schools.

Modern concepts of public education in the west do not put much weight on teaching religion, but there remains a tradition of imparting the Greek and Roman classics - philosophy, history and art because they are such important underpinning of our societies and particularly progress in science and consultative government.

Prem, I am aware of that, just want to point out that the route to AWARENESS (gyan) can either be intellectual or emotional (bhakti)... there is no right or wrong/ better or worse, simply what one suits the individual concerned

Non- judgement of others (and their paths) is an essential component of gyan

S.Valkan wrote:
Ultimately, it is about one of three things:

1) physical need ( converts believe they will get more money, education, healthcare )

2) emotional need ( converts believe they will be able to boost their social status and make a clean break from the past "injustice" )

3) ignorance ( wooden Christ floats on water, stone Krishna sinks - "MIRACLE" !, steroid-infused "holy water" from the Church cures disease but Ganga-jal doesn't,- "MIRACLE" ! , etc ).

Now, all of these stem from ignorance too.

4) Snub (strategic conversion by SC's as a snub to the rest esp the backward castes who are now mimicking and exceeding by far what the upper castes did earlier)

Johann, the current terms of our public discourse do not allow us to do that. Anything in Sanskrit, or from ancient India, evne if on secular subjects is termed religious/ Hindu.

In fact, someday you should read a good translation of the hymns which are enunciated at the time of the fire ceremony in marriages... eminently sensible (and secular) advice on getting along with your spouse, nary a reference to God

Adrija wrote:there are innumerable examples (Mira, Ramana Maharishi, Chaitanya mahaprabhu, etc)..........

The classic misconception.

To have Jnana ( understanding ) of the reality, you don't need "vidya".

It is introspective knowledge.

Who says Mira and Ramana Maharshi didn't have that "spark" come to them in a moment of intuition ?

As for Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, he was a highly reputed Vedanta scholar of his time.

And what makes you assume that that intiution cannot come from Bhakti?

Ah well, never mind... useless to discuss if one refuses to get off a high horse

I split off the following from the previous post because its about this specifically

Adrija wrote:Johann, the current terms of our public discourse do not allow us to do that. Anything in Sanskrit, or from ancient India, evne if on secular subjects is termed religious/ Hindu.

In fact, someday you should read a good translation of the hymns which are enunciated at the time of the fire ceremony in marriages... eminently sensible (and secular) advice on getting along with your spouse, nary a reference to God

It should certainly be possible to do the same in Indian colleges and schools - to provide at least the framework of the history and traditions of Indian thought without necessarily taking it from a theological or religious angle that would violate the obligations of a publicly-funded institution.

Although it mostly semantic, it would make more sense to present it as ancient Indian civilisation's thought/history/culture, and therefore belonging to all rather than Hindu, and belonging to the majority and therefore avoid the endless politicised battles over what belongs to whom, and who is imposing religion on whom, etc.

Being taught who Aryabhatta was arguing with over what will not necessarily lead to increased Hindu textual literalism or increased politicisation or militancy over symbolic religious issues like Ayodhya or cow slaughter - in fact grounding in the diversity of the traditions of ancient Hindu/Indian debate and the strengths of its achievements could be just the innoculation against ill-defined sense of insecurity and the strong emotional reactions that come from it.

Remaking Hindus in to a new mold is not the same thing as familarising all Indians in the intellectual history and interaction of the many Indic traditions.

The core flaw of Hindutva or the tradition of political Hinduism founded by Savarkar is that it incorporates an envy of Islam's ruthlesness and insularity, and Islamism's ability to mobilise communities.

Rather than building on Hinduism's strengths, it tries in its toned down and limited fashion to borrow Islam's strength - the party line, and the intrinsic reliance on physical intimidation by other believers to prevent the flock from straying from it.

While Hindus like *all* human beings are capable of such behaviour, it is not part of Hindu philosophical tradition, and political Hinduism's attempt to incorporate it is self-defeating.

Savarkar wanted to create a 'new' Hindu, one who imitated the fierce sense of communal religious defence against the outsider in-built in to Islam while incorporating Western scientific, corporate and political dynamism.

It all starts with a belief that you dont have what it takes to survive.

Islam and Islamism is NOT going to inherit the earth.

Evangelical Christianity's challenge to Hinduism is quite different from that of Islam, but they are not going to win over India, let alone the world.

It all starts with a belief that you dont have what it takes to survive.

So do you suggest that Indian society do nothing?

Evangelical Christianity's challenge to Hinduism is quite different from that of Islam, but they are not going to win over India, let alone the world.

Care to expand? Both interfere, on foreign considerations, with a person's right to decide for himself/ herself

Adrija wrote:what kind of knowledge/ educaiton exactly are you referring to?

being 100% educated did not prevent S Korea from turning majority Christian from Buddhist within one generation

A closely held erroneous belief that you have no facts for. But I do:

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/fa ... nt/ks.html

No affiliation 49%?


Who exactly are they fooling?

Even if one assumes that to be correct, is it not a fact that Christian conversions are a recent (post WW-II) phenomenon? Even 26% from 0 is quite a growth....

Suspiciously coinciding with American presence there, eh?

Anyways, would it be okay if I say "became the largest religion within one generation?"

Yes, I believe its called ancestor worship. Perhaps you've heard of it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancestor_worship

Toes, where in the Wikipedia article does it say that this is what accounts for the balance ~49% in S Korea?

Adrija,

Buddhism was never the majority religion in Korea, China, Vietnam and Japan although it became a significant minority.

Confucianist values which dominated in those societies saw all religion as a threat to the power of the ruler and the state, and consequently discouraged them.

So what emerged was a society where people had very eclectic beliefs without necessarily strong affiliations to any one group/religion.

However when the state weakens or disappears there the resulting vacuum usually results in a spurt of religious growth.

Thailand, Sinahlese kingdoms in Sri Lanka, Khmer, Lao, Tibet, Burman & Shan kingdoms, Sikkim, etc on the other hand were not influenced by Confucian values, produced Buddhist majority societies whose inhabitants proved highly resistant to conversion in colonial and post-colonial periods.

Reading this thread, it seems to me that this is not a religion thread because
(a) it is only about Hinduism. Religion is a generic word for all religions.
(b) Hinduism is not a religion - some participants here say. Since English language doesnt have a word to describe "dharma", therefore the practice of Hinduism was named religion because this is what it corresponded with in "those" days.

I suggest that this thread be renamed to Hindu Dharma Discussions because effectively this is what it has turned into. If this was a religion thread we would have discussions of all religions. But we have no religion represented here.

Adrija wrote:

It all starts with a belief that you dont have what it takes to survive.

So do you suggest that Indian society do nothing?

Of course not - change and adaptiveness are not only essential but they are some of Hinduism's hallmarks.

I am only saying Savarkar & cos admiration for and attempt to match and model Islam and Islamism's ultimately self-destructive behaviour and organisation is not the solution, it just creates more problems.

There were similar problems with attempts in medieval Spain, Portugal and Russia where they tried to behave in the same way as the Muslim conquerors - the Caliphate, the Almovids and the Almohads. They conquered territory but ultimately found themselves bypassed by those who didnt fall for the same trap of narrow religious horizons and politically powerful religion dominating the system.

Evangelical Christianity's challenge to Hinduism is quite different from that of Islam, but they are not going to win over India, let alone the world.

Care to expand? Both interfere, on foreign considerations, with a person's right to decide for himself/ herself[/quote][/quote]

The ultimate source of friction between Muslim and other communities and others living either beside or within each other is that Islam literally dominates every aspect of life making it fundamentally political and competitive with the state, and also that Islam creates a 1-way barrier based on the threat of physical force.

You dont need a 'Hindu state' or a 'Christian state' to keep Islam's in-built tendencies in check.

While evangelical Christianity's desire to persuade people to convert is alien and irritating to Hindus, the real source of friction today is fear among many Hindus that Christianity's ways are some how more effective - that in the end they will steal the majority of Hindus and others away.

That gives too much credit to Christianity's state in the world today, and too little to those of Dharmic religions.