Religion Thread 1

shaardula · Post by **shaardula** » 14 Mar 2007 21:19

well, this is a religion thread but still this man presents one line thinking on religion and spirituality in general.

specifically, i want to bring to attention the video 'Spiritual Con' in this page http://ugkrishnamurti.org/ug/ug_video/index.html

in beginning of this video there is an interesting talk about ramana, then once UG enters, 'what is happening? , koochonDi koochonDi, disgusting baasturds, zen masters, institutionalized meditation, jokers, they were all products of buddha',

http://www.ugkrishnamurti.org/ug/ug_vid ... ualcon.ram

but UG's style is really discussion for a flavour check out these for some extremely lively and passionate discussions at http://ugkrishnamurti.org/ug/ug_video/index.html

No Such Thing As Unconditioned Mind
I don't Know
What Do You Want?

(first three in the short videos list)

i think it is better to hear him talk than read his works or read about him from others.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Mar 2007 21:25

Acharya wrote:
shiv wrote:
But then again - I am comparing Vivekananda with the likes of Balls Thakre. My mistake.
Yes. Do not compare Vivekananda. .

Call it semantics if you like, but unless we compare what we have with Vivekananda we will not understand the real degree of trash we are living with.

It is up to us to raise the bar - we cannot expect the incumbent political buffoons to do anything sensible. No wonder Hindus are reduced to hand-wringing whinery when faced with questions of Islamism or EJ.

I see a lot of effort going into bringing down those who are considered psec parties - but not much effort to call the bluff of the blinkered Hindutva buffoons.

Only when Indians realise that our political future must come from intelligent thinkers that WE must generate and produce will we start making some headway.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 14 Mar 2007 21:29

shiv wrote:
I see a lot of effort going into bringing down those who are considered psec parties - but not much effort to call the bluff of the blinkered Hindutva buffoons.

Because there is no alternative. This is the same argument some Psec have started saying that since there is no good one why dont we dissolve the nation state of India itself.

This can go on like this.
The key here is that the debate has been distorted and the terms of the debate is under the influence of psec group including mindshare, media and money.
It has been going on for a long time(40 years)that majority of Indians are not even aware of it and are living in a distorted world view due to fake media news.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Mar 2007 21:54

Acharya wrote: Because there is no alternative.

Let us agree to disagree.

The alternatives are there - but do not have a public voice. Yet.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 14 Mar 2007 22:03

shiv wrote:
The alternatives are there - but do not have a public voice. Yet.

When the media and political power is freed from the vested interested then the voice will be heard in the public. Then I will agree with you that we can be critical of all parties.

shaardula · Post by **shaardula** » 14 Mar 2007 22:12

then basically, you are saying that it should never be done.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Mar 2007 22:14

Acharya wrote:
shiv wrote:
The alternatives are there - but do not have a public voice. Yet.
When the media and political power is freed from the vested interested then the voice will be heard in the public. Then I will agree with you that we can be critical of all parties.

Let us agree to disagree. i do not want to make any further comments- but I do not think you are right. The parties and their functionaries are small men and the reality in India is the people on the ground and what they are saying and doing.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 14 Mar 2007 22:15

I will join the criticism but not with psec crowd who are under the foreign political influence.

That is the difference I am talking about.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Mar 2007 22:22

Acharya wrote:I will join the criticism but not with psec crowd who are under the foreign political influence.

That is the difference I am talking about.

That is your prerogative. But this is the weak spot of all parties in India. they cannot be seen to do what the other party does and therefore must blindly stand against any pposing party stand.

If a "foreign influence" wants to easily influence the Hindutva parties - they will tweak the psec parties in a way that makes the hindutva parties behave the way they want. The hindutvadis then keep scoring self goals as they have been doing for years if not decades. The hindutvadi parties are loking like buffoons from where I stand - jokers who can only attract adverse international media attention without really helping to unite Indians.

If you, as an individual with a free will wants to toe that reactive party line and support it just because the psec parties did something, that is your prerogative.

Luckily most Indians on the ground are not bound down by the party line and the desperate need to oppse the psec parties whose actions can be controlled to get the desired knee jerk from Hindutva parties.

On BRF I believe we have to move and think outside party lines and cross party lines as individuals. if we cannot do that BRF becomes a boring clone of the newspapers and their news of the buffoonery of the first hand control of psec and the reactive second hand control of the hindutvadis by the "phoren hand".

Raju · Post by **Raju** » 14 Mar 2007 22:25

Acharya the media is only reflecting what people on the ground think, their room for manipulation only exists in highlighting certain affairs more than others. They cannot manipulate opinions. the vast majority of people in this coutry might turn out to be psec to some degree.

The only media manipulation that I have seen is viewing the Indian expatriate experience with Rose-tinted lens, and giving over-emphasis to the views of the white west and craving for validation from the west....this goes for both printed and AV media. It reflects a deeper problem.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 14 Mar 2007 22:36

This thing has been debated for long. I am not the only one.
There are forums such as this have debated this for many years.
This particular debate is here

I am not against this or that. I am for India and all things about India. I look for national view point more than anything. There are bafoons in every party but I am looking for foreign political influence only. And there is a big influence here.

vsudhir · Post by **vsudhir** » 14 Mar 2007 22:38

deleted.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 14 Mar 2007 22:47

Raju wrote:

The only media manipulation that I have seen is viewing the Indian expatriate experience with Rose-tinted lens, and giving over-emphasis to the views of the white west and craving for validation from the west....this goes for both printed and AV media. It reflects a deeper problem.

This is what I am talking. This has gone too far that world view of the average Indian has been distorted.

Sadler · Post by **Sadler** » 14 Mar 2007 23:12

Acharya wrote: If Hindus cannot be protected then India cannot be protected.

A Giant Thumbs Up. I could not agree more. Very glad to know that there are folks like you out there. Best wishes.

Sadler · Post by **Sadler** » 14 Mar 2007 23:16

enqyoob wrote: There is not much merit in the lamb declaring vegetarianism, when the wolf is of a different persuasion

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 14 Mar 2007 23:19

Acharya wrote:
Raju wrote:

The only media manipulation that I have seen is viewing the Indian expatriate experience with Rose-tinted lens, and giving over-emphasis to the views of the white west and craving for validation from the west....this goes for both printed and AV media. It reflects a deeper problem.
This is what I am talking. This has gone too far that world view of the average Indian has been distorted.

is it not a reflection of a social failure in effectively laying the layers on top of the foundations, so as to ensure the emphasis is carried through the lens. lens distortion should change the fundamental fabric unless, the fabric is soft and vulnerable.

one can't keep blaming the students, if the teacher though has tremendous knowledge fails to impart the education. summarizing and coming to the point is very thing missing, and effectively saying the failures are in the very own setup that allows itself to be distorted.

lets me clear the lens.. otherwise.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 14 Mar 2007 23:22

Thank you Abhi Bushan for posting the letter, I found it very interesting as I never really understood the tenets of Dharma.

Best Wishes.

Sadler · Post by **Sadler** » 14 Mar 2007 23:24

ISM vs ITY

ism â€“ noun a distinctive doctrine, theory, system, or practice: This is the age of isms

-ity - a suffix used to form abstract nouns expressing state or condition: jollity; civility; Latinity.

As you can tell, a certain religion has given itself the suffix of "ity" whereas all other reglions are "isms."

May i impose upon the members here to not refer to their own religion as an ism. Instead, the use of "hindu faith" or "hindu religion" is more appropriate, even if it makes for onerous typing.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 14 Mar 2007 23:30

Alok_N had noted this in a related (now closed I think) thread.

>>earlier, I had tried to base this debate on the concept of the age of scientific clarity ... is there really no sympathy for that POV? ... are folks really that callous about scientific advances and how they are applicable to the regime of theology/religion/spiritualism? ...

It would be nice if we could ponder publicly on this please. It is an abundantly demonstrated reality that advances in scientific knowledge have rendered many (if not most) religious notions (of pretty much all religions) utterly irrelevant to our day to day existence. Today, we seek tangible evidence for the most mundane of things. Yet we seek to simply "believe" in a god or gods without any scientifically verifiable evidence whatsovever... Does it compute? What is the reason for that faith? And how much do we need it today? Is such blind faith necessary to behave ethically and in a socially responsible way?

Abhijit · Post by **Abhijit** » 14 Mar 2007 23:33

If Hindus cannot be protected then India cannot be protected.

This is quite evident. The problem that I have (and I suspect Shiv is alluding to) is what is the meaning of 'Hindus cannot be protected'? Is there a coherent dissertation on the meaning of what is it that makes Hindus feel unprotected? Do we (as SRoy did) go back a few millenia and say that since the ancient borders of sanatan dharma have been constricted and has resulted into a loss of territory (several million sq. km) and adherents (all those pashtuns, baluchs, bangla deshis, pakis) and thereby it is on the decline? Or do we stick to post 1947 and point out the massive conversion in NE states, AP and other hotspots of EJ's? Or do we include the plight of KP's and their forced eviction from J & K and resultant apathy of the rest of the Hindus to their plight? Do we mourn the loss of BJP in national politics as a sign of oncoming electoral massacre of Hindus which will result into a loss of protection for Hindus? What exactly is the list that will demonstrate or enumerate the points that resulted into or will result into a loss of protection for Hindus?

Sadler · Post by **Sadler** » 14 Mar 2007 23:35

Another request is to not include christianism or islam(ism) as "Abrahamic" faiths. They are not.

Abraham had only one faith: that of the hebrews. Thank you.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 14 Mar 2007 23:37

Acharya wrote: If Hindus cannot be protected then India cannot be protected.

When I say this to others, they keep saying:

what about the other people in India? What about the Parsis, the Jews, the muslims, christians who have become part of India? Shouldn't we talk about India as a whole. which is not just Hindu's but all these other religions aswell? You want a Hindutva ideology which will probably split the country up or evict Christians or Muslims from the country (i.e Instability)? When BJP was in power they caused so many hindu muslim problems in areas? etc etc.....

these are the type of responses made by AIDMK/DMK types.

Sadler · Post by **Sadler** » 14 Mar 2007 23:38

Abhijit wrote: .......and point out the massive conversion in NE states, AP and other hotspots of EJ's?

You state that as if it were a fact. And yet, Calvin called me a fool and worse for essentially stating the same thing. Huh?

Sadler · Post by **Sadler** » 14 Mar 2007 23:39

X-posted from the misnamed xenophobia thread.

vsudhir wrote: If Hinduism withstand impromptu verbal and organized financial assaults from the Abrahamics , it *deserves to die*.

Not quite sure when the followers of Abraham assaulted the Hindu faith. Care to elaborate?

If by "Abrahamics" you mean the later christian and islamic faiths, then i would respectfully request you to disabuse yourself of the CANARD that Abraham, our prophet and the prophet of the Jews" had anything to do with christianism and islam(ism).

Both religions have shameless sought to piggback on to the Hebrew faith. The first to do so were the early christians (again, make a distinction from JC, although JC did use Hebrew scriptures) and them mohammad himself. What is worse is that Jews themselves, for various reasons, do not force this issue. As i mentioned once, this forcible piggybacking of christianism onto the Hebrew religion was the seminal cause of christian anti-semitism as the presence/existence of a single jew meant that he/she could challenge the theft of the hebrew religion, and by association its scriptures and 3,000 yr old history, by christians. The vatican clearly recognized this and was at the forefront of wiping our the Jewish faith/people.

About islam, the less said the better. Suffice to say that Abraham would have choked on his challah had he realized that one day he would be associated with such evil and malevolence.

To wit:

(1) There is only one Abrahamic faith, and it is the faith of Abraham or the Hebrew faith.

(2) Regardless of the association with Abraham that christianism and islam(ism) tries to force upon the Jewish faith, Abraham was a Jew as was Moses and neither they or any other Jewish prophet (or G_d) had anything to do with christianism or islamism.

(3) Unless you can substantiate an assault upon the Hindu faith by Jews, kindly delete (or clarify) your objectionable comment above.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 14 Mar 2007 23:39

Sadler wrote:
Acharya wrote: If Hindus cannot be protected then India cannot be protected.
A Giant Thumbs Up. I could not agree more. Very glad to know that there are folks like you out there. Best wishes.

Thank you for the encouraging words.
Not only this concept has to be built in but the minorities in India has to be made to understand this concept for greater good of the country.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 14 Mar 2007 23:45

http://flonnet.com/stories/20070323001107400.htm
The RSS ideology is characterised by an emphasis on `cultural nationalism'. This book brings out the resemblances between the Hindutva ideology and fascism, between Hindutva's coupling of communalism with nationalism and Hitler's combining of the idea of a `pure Aryan race' with German nationalism. Like Fascists in Italy, Hindutva forces have penetrated the administrative apparatus in India; in the style of Mussolini, they operate through all available social platforms linked to religion, art and politics.

<-----cause/effect----->

As we see the ascendance of a single global power, which is asserting and imposing its economic and political agenda, there is a proliferation of identity politics across the globe. The rise of the Skinheads and the Christian Right in the United States are manifestations of the process that seeks to block the journey towards liberty, equality and community. It is no coincidence that whenever colonial powers are dominant, they bring in only material changes while changes relating to social transformation are put on the backburner.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 14 Mar 2007 23:49

JE Menon wrote: Alok_N had noted this in a related (now closed I think) thread.

>>earlier, I had tried to base this debate on the concept of the age of scientific clarity ... is there really no sympathy for that POV? ... are folks really that callous about scientific advances and how they are applicable to the regime of theology/religion/spiritualism? ...

It would be nice if we could ponder publicly on this please. It is an abundantly demonstrated reality that advances in scientific knowledge have rendered many (if not most) religious notions (of pretty much all religions) utterly irrelevant to our day to day existence. Today, we seek tangible evidence for the most mundane of things.

Yet we seek to simply "believe" in a god or gods without any scientifically verifiable evidence whatsovever... Does it compute?

What is the reason for that faith? And how much do we need it today? Is such blind faith necessary to behave ethically and in a socially responsible way?

The number of things we rely on religion to explain has shrunk drastically thanks to science - but they are mostly physical/chemical/biological processes.

The human condition remains another matter entirely.

95% of people find no comfort in the 'rationalist' answers why bad things happen to good people and vice versa, or what the higher purpose of life is. Rationalism does not take away the pain of the human condition.

Being told that random chance took away their children, that they are merely vehicles for selfish genes, etc, negates the value we like to attach to our own existance and self-consciousness. It also provides little strength when facing challenges that seem overwhelming to the individual.

Religion also provides a value structure that humans as social creatures crave both for themselves, and for the next generation. It helps them make choices and create some sense of predictability in terms of governing others behaviour.

Comfort, social order and a source of personal spiritual strength may one day all be provided by entirely humanist philosophies that dont involve supernatural entities, but we are far from that point.

In short there are universal human needs that so far religion caters to better than other candidates.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 14 Mar 2007 23:51

shyamd wrote:
Acharya wrote: If Hindus cannot be protected then India cannot be protected.
When I say this to others, they keep saying:

what about the other people in India? What about the Parsis, the Jews, the muslims, christians who have become part of India? Shouldn't we talk about India as a whole. which is not just Hindu's but all these other religions aswell? You want a Hindutva ideology which will probably split the country up or evict Christians or Muslims from the country (i.e Instability)? When BJP was in power they caused so many hindu muslim problems in areas? etc etc.....

these are the type of responses made by AIDMK/DMK types.

This is due to indoctrination and the terms of the debate under the control of the psec. This is an example of what I am talking about in the previous posts.

Sadler · Post by **Sadler** » 14 Mar 2007 23:53

Acharya wrote:
Thank you for the encouraging words.
Not only this concept has to be built in but the minorities in India has to be made to understand this concept for greater good of the country.

I agree. However the fear being expressed is that this somehow infringes upon the religious rights of other faiths. The expressions of such fears constitute sanctimonious hypocrisy on the part of the naysayers because evangelization itself, in its most fundamental sense, infringes the rights of the targetted religion. That is of course then dubiously swept up under the freedom of religion carpet.

Taking the examples of Jews in India. Jews have had a very long presence in India. Some say from the time of Solomon himself.

Pause to allow myself to be truly amazed.

Jews maintained their own ethnic/religious practices (perhaps incorporating some local ones as well). They remained observant jews. Did not force their religion upon others. In turn, they had complete freedom to practise their religion without fear or persecution. Isn't that amazing. The only land in the world where they could do that for two millenia. And they remained productive citizens of a largely hindu country. At peace with its native religions: Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, and Sikh.

So, the fact that they were minorities and had religious customs (monotheistic) so vastly different from that practiced natively did not imply that they had to abrogate their identity as Jews. And no one is asking christians to do this either. Rather it is christians, from outside and within, who are not satisfied with this generous state of affairs. What they want is to convert all of India (and yes, it includes the remnants of the Jews still in India) to christianism. And therein lies the fundamental source of conflict.

Lets be clear on one thing: Were it not for the EJs, we would not even be having this discussion right now. This discussion is reactionary, in reaction to the vile assault by by the rapacious wolves (quoting PPII here) EJs upon the the hindu "sheep" as it were.

Raju · Post by **Raju** » 15 Mar 2007 00:00

This is due to indoctrination and the terms of the debate under the control of the psec.

Acharya, from whom do the Hindus need protection ?

If Hindus cannot be protected then India cannot be protected.

SRoy · Post by **SRoy** » 15 Mar 2007 00:07

Abhijit wrote:
If Hindus cannot be protected then India cannot be protected.
This is quite evident. The problem that I have (and I suspect Shiv is alluding to) is what is the meaning of 'Hindus cannot be protected'? Is there a coherent dissertation on the meaning of what is it that makes Hindus feel unprotected? Do we (as SRoy did) go back a few millenia and say that since the ancient borders of sanatan dharma have been constricted and has resulted into a loss of territory (several million sq. km) and adherents (all those pashtuns, baluchs, bangla deshis, pakis) and thereby it is on the decline? Or do we stick to post 1947 and point out the massive conversion in NE states, AP and other hotspots of EJ's? Or do we include the plight of KP's and their forced eviction from J & K and resultant apathy of the rest of the Hindus to their plight? Do we mourn the loss of BJP in national politics as a sign of oncoming electoral massacre of Hindus which will result into a loss of protection for Hindus? {BJP bit is of no consequence IMHO} What exactly is the list that will demonstrate or enumerate the points that resulted into or will result into a loss of protection for Hindus?

Abhijit,

Off topic...BJP seems to be in a resurgent mode currently.

Anyway, is it inappropriate if club all the points presented by you to bolster my case that Hinduism is in decline?

Historical events like the Bhakti movement and later day icons like Ramakrishna Paramhansa, Vivekananda, Aurobindo, Swami Dayanand etc. were able to halt the slide momentarily.

It is not just about territories. Decline is more insidious and it has been happening bit by bit. Some big event like exodus of KP gets noticed, smaller ones are not.

Local cultures have undergone changes. It will be too difficult to list them here, because we do not even have references from the mainstream academia and media. They've chosen to suppress many things.

To start with (I'll gather as much as possible) I'll cite two instances from Bengal. The Bengali calendar is different from the Saka calendar and the change was imposed by outsiders. The result is a bizarre situation, wherein we celebrate all seasonal festivals a day ahead of the other Hindu communities.

Second example is the vanishing folk culture due to changing demographics. The Bengali folk music (Baul) is not tolerated among the Muslim communities. Ironically during earlier times they had the protection of the Hindu zamindars. But now, in absence of local/rural patronage and a govt. that is too supportive of the Islamic fundamentalist, the Baul minstrels are a rare sight. If you take into account that the Bauls are an integral part of Vaishnavite tradition from Shri Chaitanya's time in rural Bengal, then one can imagine the loss to the local Hindu community.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 15 Mar 2007 00:12

Abhijit wrote:
If Hindus cannot be protected then India cannot be protected.
This is quite evident. The problem that I have (and I suspect Shiv is alluding to) is what is the meaning of 'Hindus cannot be protected'? Is there a coherent dissertation on the meaning of what is it that makes Hindus feel unprotected? Do we (as SRoy did) go back a few millenia and say that since the ancient borders of sanatan dharma have been constricted and has resulted into a loss of territory (several million sq. km) and adherents (all those pashtuns, baluchs, bangla deshis, pakis) and thereby it is on the decline? Or do we stick to post 1947 and point out the massive conversion in NE states, AP and other hotspots of EJ's? Or do we include the plight of KP's and their forced eviction from J & K and resultant apathy of the rest of the Hindus to their plight? Do we mourn the loss of BJP in national politics as a sign of oncoming electoral massacre of Hindus which will result into a loss of protection for Hindus? What exactly is the list that will demonstrate or enumerate the points that resulted into or will result into a loss of protection for Hindus?

It is the sense of security and control over their way of worship and way of life which constitutes the core of Hindu well being.
Control, protection and propagation of the civilizational identity of Hindus determines the well being of the Hindus.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 15 Mar 2007 00:13

I am slowly starting to see a "Hindu's cannot be protected, India cannot be protected" but in a limited context. In the sense of the North East situation where 1000's of muslim Bangladeshi's have moved to India. Which is causing political problems. Soon, there will be a Greater Bangladesh movement or something, citing this is now muslim "homeland" etc.

But where else can this apply to? But I can also see this in a secular view, where, it is neither in the interest of anyone in India for this to happen. i.e national security of Indians.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 15 Mar 2007 00:20

Raju wrote:

Acharya, from whom do the Hindus need protection ?

If Hindus cannot be protected then India cannot be protected.

Protection is needed from encroachment on the borders, for freedom to express their way of life , to have political representation and unequal assault on conversion by EJs and predatory islamism.

pradeepe · Post by **pradeepe** » 15 Mar 2007 00:20

Johann wrote:
JE Menon wrote: Alok_N had noted this in a related (now closed I think) thread.

>>earlier, I had tried to base this debate on the concept of the age of scientific clarity ... is there really no sympathy for that POV? ... are folks really that callous about scientific advances and how they are applicable to the regime of theology/religion/spiritualism? ...

It would be nice if we could ponder publicly on this please. It is an abundantly demonstrated reality that advances in scientific knowledge have rendered many (if not most) religious notions (of pretty much all religions) utterly irrelevant to our day to day existence. Today, we seek tangible evidence for the most mundane of things.

Yet we seek to simply "believe" in a god or gods without any scientifically verifiable evidence whatsovever... Does it compute?

What is the reason for that faith? And how much do we need it today? Is such blind faith necessary to behave ethically and in a socially responsible way?
The number of things we rely on religion to explain has shrunk drastically thanks to science - but they are mostly physical/chemical/biological processes.

The human condition remains another matter entirely.

95% of people find no comfort in the 'rationalist' answers why bad things happen to good people and vice versa, or what the higher purpose of life is. Rationalism does not take away the pain of the human condition.

Being told that random chance took away their children, that they are merely vehicles for selfish genes, etc, negates the value we like to attach to our own existance and self-consciousness. It also provides little strength when facing challenges that seem overwhelming to the individual.

Religion also provides a value structure that humans as social creatures crave both for themselves, and for the next generation. It helps them make choices and create some sense of predictability in terms of governing others behaviour.

Comfort, social order and a source of personal spiritual strength may one day all be provided by entirely humanist philosophies that dont involve supernatural entities, but we are far from that point.

In short there are universal human needs that so far religion caters to better than other candidates.

Well put. Thanks for eloquently stating what I was struggling with. May I also suggest a possible simple conjecture that religion or its early forms however they might have been, were borne not out of the need to explain these more physical/biological/chemical pheomonon, but a more fundamental question of humankind its purpose and such. That is happened is also not a surprise.

Saying scientific advances does away from the need for religion doesnt seem to be right IMO. Apologies if I misread that as the thrust. Scientific reasoning(as advanced as the age it was being applied in) was again IMHO the bed rock for serious religious thought.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 15 Mar 2007 00:23

Both religions have shameless sought to piggback on to the Hebrew faith. The first to do so were the early christians (again, make a distinction from JC, although JC did use Hebrew scriptures) and them mohammad himself. What is worse is that Jews themselves, for various reasons, do not force this issue. As i mentioned once, this forcible piggybacking of christianism onto the Hebrew religion was the seminal cause of christian anti-semitism as the presence/existence of a single jew meant that he/she could challenge the theft of the hebrew religion, and by association its scriptures and 3,000 yr old history, by christians. The vatican clearly recognized this and was at the forefront of wiping our the Jewish faith/people.

Let me be clear about this, to Christians, following the Old Testament will not necessarily get anybody salvation. You can follow the Ten Commandments to the very letter but it won't necessarily get you salvation either. To a Christian, there is only one way to salvation that is through Christ alone.

So you can call Christians thieves of Jewish history, or "Abrahamics" whatever that is, or don't call us anything at all, but Christians acknowledge only one way to salvation: through Christ. Abraham won't get the job done. Paul was very clear about this in bringing the Gentiles to Christ.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 15 Mar 2007 00:25

SRoy wrote:
Local cultures have undergone changes. It will be too difficult to list them here, because we do not even have references from the mainstream academia and media. They've chosen to suppress many things.

To start with (I'll gather as much as possible) I'll cite two instances from Bengal. The Bengali calendar is different from the Saka calendar and the change was imposed by outsiders. The result is a bizarre situation, wherein we celebrate all seasonal festivals a day ahead of the other Hindu communities.

By using political control they are working on social engineering which suppresses the information on local cultures, traditions and history. This is being done on a massive scale.

bala · Post by **bala** » 15 Mar 2007 00:25

Protection: Yes. An example would help. Hindu are wont to having processions of their myriad Gods in public, with priests chanting, devotees following and everyone having "Darshan" along the way. The festival of the Elephant God Ganesha was threatened when the procession happened to stray into a neighborhood predominantly with people of the Muslim faith. The constitution does not prevent entry nor does it state that the opposing faith has any right to prevent such processions. But this happened and the ensuing law & order problems caused the state govt to clamp down arbitrarily a ban on processions of Hindu gods in the neighborhood.

Another example: In the hindu holy city of Udipi, where Lord Krishna is venerated, temple that existed for several hundreds of years has a new neighbor - a brand new Mosque right next to the temple. There have been several clashes amongst the believers of both faiths. Hindus carefully avoid the streets next to the Mosque.

Alok_N · Post by **Alok_N** » 15 Mar 2007 00:30

Thanks, JEM ...

one thing to bring into perspective is how morality has found a suitable alternative in ethics but science is not an appealing replacement for faith ...

in the days when religious texts were written, there was no concept of a "constitution of a nation" ... the religious texts provided the outline of a civilization ... they laid down the parameters of model behaviour expected of its citizens ...

today we have other documents like the constitution and penal code for that purpose ... one doesn't need the fear of "retribution by god" in order to be civilized ... in that role, ethical behaviour is no different from moral behaviour ...

in other instances, ethical behaviour is superiour to a moral one because it has egalitarian principles built into it ... for example, it would treat issues like gay marriage and abortion in a more equitable fashion ...

surely, India would have been a much stronger country today if it had embraced ethical behaviour and not got mired in moral dilemmas ... (I have been following the issue of stray dogs in Bangalore ... the debate there is precisely ethics versus morality) ...

ok, on to faith ...

IMO, the purpose of religious faith is to satisfy humanity's curiousity and/or insecurity about its own existence ... it is the only vehicle (unlike science) that can provide 100% satisfaction in this department ...

the critical question of human mortality drives the quest ... the question of death admits three simple solutions: zero, linear and cyclic ...

science prefers zero, christianity/islam prefer linear, while hindu/buddhist thought usually picks a cyclic answer ...

there is no strong evidence for any of the three, but all empirical evidence is loaded in favor of the scientific view that death is a termination of all activity considered to be parts of life ...

science, ultimately, fails to satisfy human curiosity because it has no final answers ... at the same time, logical attempts at deriving meaning for humanity reach conclusions that only cause despair ... meaninglessness is an existential minefield that humanity is not ready to enter ...

in that context, is it fair to adhere to concepts such as enlightenment, nirvana, rapture, rebirth, heaven, hell, "72" etc etc?

IMO, in the final analysis, an individual's response to insecurity and meaninglessness is what defines his faith ... at a personal level, that would not be an issue because one can not legislate/regulate what is inside someone's head ... similarly, indoctrination of children can not be avoided ...

troubles arise when the insecurity is exploited by organized religion ... if an organization offers solutions that it can not demonstrate, it needs to be examined very seriously ... this is where science has to play a role ...

even though science has no ultimate answer, it can very easily verify or debunk the claims of anyone ... for example, anyone propagating the concept of "hell" should be dealt with as severely as any case of blackmail in a criminal court ... similarly, promises of heaven should be examined as a possible marketing fraud ...

why can't India be the first civilized country to pass such laws?

(more later)

Abhijit · Post by **Abhijit** » 15 Mar 2007 00:34

SRoy:
SRoy, thanks for taking the effort to articulate what you feel are the indicators of a decline of Hindu Dharma.

It is not just about territories. Decline is more insidious and it has been happening bit by bit. Some big event like exodus of KP gets noticed, smaller ones are not.

I am afraid this is vague and (putting myself in the shoes of a skeptic) alarmist/unconvincing. You have listed two instances of this creeping decline but I beg to differ on both counts.

The Bengali calendar is different from the Saka calendar and the change was imposed by outsiders

I fail to see why it is a problem. Among Maharastrians there is a small minority of Brahmins who still use what is called 'tilak panchang' - a calendar crated by iirc Lokmanya Tilak. My own next door neighbors did that for a long time and probably still do. The rest of the Maharastra uses 'Nirnaysagar panchang' which is mostly in tune with the rest of the Hindu calendar. So my neighbors used to have several Hindu festivals celebrated on days that were at variance from our festival days. I never felt (nor did the neighbors) that this dichotomy resulted in somehow a weakening of faith (I actually enjoyed it because we had sweets twice instead of once but that it OT). If Bengal uses a calendar that is at odds with the rest of the country I am at a loss to understand why it results into a weakening of Hindu Dharma of either the Bengalis or the rest of the country. I would actually point out to the extraordinary flexibility of the dharma that lets you do that.

the vanishing folks culture due to changing demographics. The Bengali folk music (Baul) is not tolerated among the Muslim communities. Ironically during earlier times they had the protection of the Hindu zamindars. But now, in absence of local/rural patronage and a govt. that is too supportive of the Islamic fundamentalist, the Baul minstrels are a rare sight

This IMHO is an even more tenuous example. There is a plethora of Indian local arts and crafts that do not enjoy even widespread local patronage. If Baul is not tolerated among Muslims, is there a state-sponsored suppression of this art in collusion with opposing Muslims? If there is then we may have a case for decline of Hindu Dharma. When the coronation of Shivaji Maharaj was done in 1672, Sant Ramdas (at least apocryphally) penned the following lines 'udand jahale pani, snaan sandhya karavaya, japtap anushthane' Loosely translated, when a Hindu king was coroneted for the first time in a millennium in Maharashtra, the people felt relieved that now there was no dearth of water to carry out their dharmic rituals. If the state actively suppresses the observance of Hindu rituals and Hindu arts and crafts then we have a case of decline of Hindu Dharma. If private patronage for certain arts is lacking then you might make a case for a decline of the local culture (in this case Bengali) but not IMHO that of a decline of Hindu Dharma. I guess it comes back to Shiv's original question. What is Hindu Dharma that we are mourning the decline of?
Sorry for the long reply, but we must articulate and defend what we feel is this decline with coherent arguments if we need to formulate an appropriate response.