To,
Dear Friends
I came across this article written by Shashi Tharoor. I though it is well written but that the contents are open to different interpretations. I wondered what you think and would be grateful if you could spare a few minutes of your time for posting a considered comment on all or any portion(s) of his views - appreciation, rejection, personal thoughts arising from...whatever. Every genuinely felt comment is appreciated. I have edited out some examples to cut down on length. Tharoor is now MOS External Affairs.
Hindu Fundamentals Are Under Attack.
(Originally published in the Times of India, September 29, 2008)
There are basically two kinds of politics in our country: the politics of division and the politics of unity. The former is by far the more popular, as politicians seek to slice and dice the electorate into ever-smaller configurations of caste, language and religion, the better to appeal to such particularist identities in the quest for votes. But what has happened in recent weeks in Orissa, and then in parts of Karnataka, and that threatens to be unleashed again in tribal districts of Gujarat, is a new low in our political life. The attacks on Christian families, the vandalism of their places of worship, the ................, have nothing to do with religious beliefs - .......... They are instead part of a contemptible political project whose closest equivalent can in fact be found in the "Indian Mujahideen" bomb blasts in Delhi.......... actions are anti-national; both aim to divide the country by polarising people along their religious identities; and both hope to profit politically ................
We must not let either set of terrorists prevail.
The murderous mobs of Orissa sought to kill Christians and destroy ............ 'you do not belong here'. What have we come to that a land that has been a haven of tolerance for religious minorities throughout its history should have sunk so low? India's is a civilisation that, over millennia, has offered refuge and, more important, religious and cultural freedom, to Jews, .............. Indians today whose ancestors were Christian well before any European discovered Christianity (and before the forebearers of many of today's Hindu chauvinists were even conscious of themselves as Hindus). The India where the wail of the muezzin routinely blends with the chant of mantras ...............But there is also the India that pulled down the Babri Masjid, that conducted the pogrom in Gujarat and that now unleashes its hatred on the 2% of our population who are Christians.
As a believing Hindu, I am ashamed of what is being done by people claiming to be acting in the name of my faith. I have always prided myself on belonging to a religion ............ Hindu fundamentalism is a contradiction in terms, since Hinduism is a religion without fundamentals; there is no such thing as a Hindu heresy. How dare a bunch of goondas shrink the soaring majesty of the Vedas and the Upanishads to the petty bigotry of their brand of identity politics? Why should any Hindu allow them to diminish Hinduism to the raucous self-glorification of the football hooligan, ............... reduce it to a chauvinist rampage?
Hinduism, with its openness, its ............, is one religion ...........is not the Hindutva spewed in hate-filled diatribes by communal politicians. It is, instead, the Hinduism of Swami Vivekananda, who, at Chicago's World Parliament of Religions in 1893, articulated best the liberal humanism that lies at the heart of his (and my) creed. Vivekananda asserted that Hinduism stood for "both tolerance and universal acceptance. We believe not only in universal toleration, but we accept all religions as true." .......... Vivekananda's vision - summarised in the credo Sarva Dharma Sambhava - is, in fact, the kind of Hinduism practised by the vast majority of Hindus, whose instinctive acceptance of other faiths and forms of worship has long been the vital hallmark of Indianness.
Vivekananda made no distinction between the actions of Hindus as a people (the grant of asylum, for instance) and their actions as a religious community (tolerance of other faiths): for him, the distinction was irrelevant because Hinduism was as much a civilisation as a set of religious beliefs. .............
It is sad that this assertion of Vivekananda's is being contradicted in the streets by those who claim to be reviving his faith in his name. "The Hindu militant," Amartya Sen has observed, presents India as "a country of unquestioning idolaters, delirious fanatics, belligerent devotees, and religious murderers." To discriminate against another, to attack another, to kill another, to destroy another's place of worship, is not part of the Hindu dharma so magnificently preached by Vivekananda. Why are the voices of Hindu religious leaders not being raised in defence of these fundamentals of Hinduism?
Trackback(0)
TrackBack URI for this entry
Comments (171)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Raju, 2009-07-07 08:41:18
Dear Deshika,
This discussion would be have been uninteresting without emotional investment by you, Kaushal, Karigar, Pradip, Mogambo, Partha, Arjun, Krishna Kirti Dasji, Dwai and others.
It will be good if some original work can be done in the area of networking and integration of Hindus for education and creating ‘community feeling’. Going forward say from 10 years from now Hindus in India and others counties will be very much connected by internet and other digital links. As a phase I of the project for education and creating ‘community feeling’ we could think about Hindu community web portal used exclusively for networking and integration of Hindus in a chosen city. Yes, Medha is doing work in this area but I am thinking about focus only on networking and integration of Hindus in one city.
We all know integration and networking is not easy and time consuming activity and educating ourselves and community is even harder. Internet based networking and integration is good start but it will not be able to displace or substitute traditional person-to-person connections. Phase I of the project can be followed by Phase II of person-to-person contact for education of Hindus in a given city by various Hindu yoga organizations.
It will be good if we can generate additional implementation details. Then either Medha can implement it in a city or share the information with competent and non-political organization that has access to resources say like The Infinity Foundation http://www.infinityfoundation.com/ for implementation. Third option is say Medha and The Infinity Foundation join hands for implementation.
It is OK with me if there is consensus that we have enough details to start work or take a break and visit this topic later under different discussion thread.
Regards,
Rajendra
Note: Here is an interesting article
LinkedIn v freemasons - Joining the club
http://www.economist.com/busin...D=13914661
-
- +0
-
-
written by Deshika.N.Kumar, 2009-07-07 03:52:58
Dear Rajput, this gets better and better! I like very much your emphasis on collective endeavour. As you say this is an evolving discussion and as is often said two [ten!] heads are better than one! Possibly some of the others are, like me trying to figure out what it is that is suddenly on the plate!
I totally agree with you when you seem to say that people’s affiliations are not problematical but any inclination to politicise issues or get aggressive can devastate a project. Since most people here are not used to thinking of ramifications in this area, I think your different criterion was the possible cause of all that heartache. But if you didn’t have this criterion we would not have the product we are now talking about! So.... probably Shivji stepped in to allow Brahma space for a new creation! And we need to thank both Kaushal and you.
The relevance of the quote from Sharma’s article is too self evident for further comment. As an aside, I don’t quite agree with Radhakrishnan’s wording in the para, “ All Vedic Gods coalesced ..... with one supreme Reality” though I agree with what he is trying to say. Since you are into Raj yoga, I will leave you to meditate on the conundrum!!!
Rgds/
I totally agree with you when you seem to say that people’s affiliations are not problematical but any inclination to politicise issues or get aggressive can devastate a project. Since most people here are not used to thinking of ramifications in this area, I think your different criterion was the possible cause of all that heartache. But if you didn’t have this criterion we would not have the product we are now talking about! So.... probably Shivji stepped in to allow Brahma space for a new creation! And we need to thank both Kaushal and you.
The relevance of the quote from Sharma’s article is too self evident for further comment. As an aside, I don’t quite agree with Radhakrishnan’s wording in the para, “ All Vedic Gods coalesced ..... with one supreme Reality” though I agree with what he is trying to say. Since you are into Raj yoga, I will leave you to meditate on the conundrum!!!
Rgds/
-
- +0
-
-
written by Raju, 2009-07-04 12:14:51
Dear Partha and Deshika,
Thanks for feedback. You have raised important questions of tailoring product (type of music, type of yoga etc) with target market (membership requirements, age group etc) and other questions on implementation details.
I had observed that many Hindu communities are not connected with Hindu yoga organizations and unfortunately even interaction between Hindu yoga organization say between Art of Living and Chinmaya Mission is very limited. However it was only during TMJ forum discussions I came up with this idea of Hindu integration and networking organization. I had not thought about it earlier. This is part of an open and evolving discussion on TMJ hence open for modification by all members of TMJ. It will be good if we could make it an implementable idea product. Then any one will be able to take it for implantation to one’s best abilities and/or come up with a body for implementation.
At present many details like architecture, design, actual implantation plan, funding, working, and details of role of this Hindu integration and networking organization needs to be worked out. I had listed only things that came to my mind. In my view IT could play a big role in the working this type of organization but emphasis should be on human-to-human interaction. I had used examples from software industry mainly to make case for new type of Hindu grassroots organization.
I believe this type organization should be open for all Hindus and also irrespective of their political association or philosophical affiliation. Only requirement should be to keep politics and violence out of working of this organization otherwise it will not succeed. Hinduism is the oldest religion because it has been constantly innovating and evolving without compromising on the core concepts. Here is an example that shows innovation and integration at philosophical level:
All Vedic Gods coalesced into the one absolute reality of Brahman in Upanishad. Later on during the spread of Hinduism in Indian subcontinent all local and tribal Gods were subordinated to Brahman of which they were regarded as aspects. These new Hindu gods were elevated and identified with one supreme Reality.
(Adapted from The Hindu View of Life. By Radhakrishnan, Sarvepalli)
Earlier during expansion of Hinduism in India puranas, temple, pilgrimage places etc were used in education, integration and networking to create spiritual culture. Now many things have changed - technology has changed, society is becoming more materialistic and individualistic. Man is still looking for broadly accepted principles and techniques of spirituality that gives purpose and meaning beyond the necessities of daily existence. Hence we need new methods for education, integration and networking to practice Hinduism in the changing world. Hinduism does not believe in forcing the pace of development hence role of the organization is more as facilitator, enabler, and simply establishing connection between Hindu yoga organization and unconnected communities like that of broker connecting potential consumer of service to service provider.
I may not have answered all the questions but continued discussions and participation by members will make this clear for all of us. It is a collective endeavor.
Regards
Rajendra
Note: Here is the paragraph from Sri Arvind Sharma’s article
“Western attempts at defining Hinduism followed two distinct courses: one moved in the direction of identifying it with Brahmanism (through caste) and the other in the direction of identifying it with spirituality in general (through ‘Hindu tolerance’). They reflect perhaps the Enlightenment and the Romantic Movement at play respectively, on the onomastic theatre of ‘Hinduism.’ It is not often realised that one of the major concerns of V.D. Savarkar in evolving the concept of Hindutva was to avoid the political fall-out of an excessively narrow definition of Hinduism (in his view), which had the unhappy consequence of excluding the Buddhists, the Sikhs, and the Jains from the Hindu community (1969:106). By comparison, Gandhi did not have much trouble with their inclusion within or exclusion from Hinduism because from the point of view of the spiritual interpretation of Hinduism, which he espoused, this was immaterial. All religions shared in this spirituality in common with Hinduism, irrespective of whether they could formally be labelled Hindu or not. For instance, when S. Radhakrishnan posed the question: “What is your religion?” in 1936, Mahatma Gandhi replied: “My religion is Hinduism which, for me, is Religion of Humanity and includes the best of all the religions known to me” (Radhakrishnan and Muirhead 1936:2).”
Ref: On Hindu, Hindustan, Hinduism and Hindutva
By Arvind Sharma, Numen, Volume 49, Number 1, 2002, pp. 1-36(36)
This is good article one may want to purchase it online or read at local university library.
Thanks for feedback. You have raised important questions of tailoring product (type of music, type of yoga etc) with target market (membership requirements, age group etc) and other questions on implementation details.
I had observed that many Hindu communities are not connected with Hindu yoga organizations and unfortunately even interaction between Hindu yoga organization say between Art of Living and Chinmaya Mission is very limited. However it was only during TMJ forum discussions I came up with this idea of Hindu integration and networking organization. I had not thought about it earlier. This is part of an open and evolving discussion on TMJ hence open for modification by all members of TMJ. It will be good if we could make it an implementable idea product. Then any one will be able to take it for implantation to one’s best abilities and/or come up with a body for implementation.
At present many details like architecture, design, actual implantation plan, funding, working, and details of role of this Hindu integration and networking organization needs to be worked out. I had listed only things that came to my mind. In my view IT could play a big role in the working this type of organization but emphasis should be on human-to-human interaction. I had used examples from software industry mainly to make case for new type of Hindu grassroots organization.
I believe this type organization should be open for all Hindus and also irrespective of their political association or philosophical affiliation. Only requirement should be to keep politics and violence out of working of this organization otherwise it will not succeed. Hinduism is the oldest religion because it has been constantly innovating and evolving without compromising on the core concepts. Here is an example that shows innovation and integration at philosophical level:
All Vedic Gods coalesced into the one absolute reality of Brahman in Upanishad. Later on during the spread of Hinduism in Indian subcontinent all local and tribal Gods were subordinated to Brahman of which they were regarded as aspects. These new Hindu gods were elevated and identified with one supreme Reality.
(Adapted from The Hindu View of Life. By Radhakrishnan, Sarvepalli)
Earlier during expansion of Hinduism in India puranas, temple, pilgrimage places etc were used in education, integration and networking to create spiritual culture. Now many things have changed - technology has changed, society is becoming more materialistic and individualistic. Man is still looking for broadly accepted principles and techniques of spirituality that gives purpose and meaning beyond the necessities of daily existence. Hence we need new methods for education, integration and networking to practice Hinduism in the changing world. Hinduism does not believe in forcing the pace of development hence role of the organization is more as facilitator, enabler, and simply establishing connection between Hindu yoga organization and unconnected communities like that of broker connecting potential consumer of service to service provider.
I may not have answered all the questions but continued discussions and participation by members will make this clear for all of us. It is a collective endeavor.
Regards
Rajendra
Note: Here is the paragraph from Sri Arvind Sharma’s article
“Western attempts at defining Hinduism followed two distinct courses: one moved in the direction of identifying it with Brahmanism (through caste) and the other in the direction of identifying it with spirituality in general (through ‘Hindu tolerance’). They reflect perhaps the Enlightenment and the Romantic Movement at play respectively, on the onomastic theatre of ‘Hinduism.’ It is not often realised that one of the major concerns of V.D. Savarkar in evolving the concept of Hindutva was to avoid the political fall-out of an excessively narrow definition of Hinduism (in his view), which had the unhappy consequence of excluding the Buddhists, the Sikhs, and the Jains from the Hindu community (1969:106). By comparison, Gandhi did not have much trouble with their inclusion within or exclusion from Hinduism because from the point of view of the spiritual interpretation of Hinduism, which he espoused, this was immaterial. All religions shared in this spirituality in common with Hinduism, irrespective of whether they could formally be labelled Hindu or not. For instance, when S. Radhakrishnan posed the question: “What is your religion?” in 1936, Mahatma Gandhi replied: “My religion is Hinduism which, for me, is Religion of Humanity and includes the best of all the religions known to me” (Radhakrishnan and Muirhead 1936:2).”
Ref: On Hindu, Hindustan, Hinduism and Hindutva
By Arvind Sharma, Numen, Volume 49, Number 1, 2002, pp. 1-36(36)
This is good article one may want to purchase it online or read at local university library.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Deshika.N.Kumar, 2009-07-04 04:09:11
Partha, you have thrown in a most important point, for funding could well be the Waterloo for any Hinduism related plans – apart from comparatively small individual efforts done on a ‘free weekend’ so to say. Most hindus donate to secular or Abrahamic organisations, so...... and there are no equivalents of the say, Templeton Foundation.
Perhaps the next question before us as discussants is therefore, what are the possible sources of funds for ‘Hindu’ projects?
Perhaps the next question before us as discussants is therefore, what are the possible sources of funds for ‘Hindu’ projects?
-
- +0
-
-
written by Deshika.N.Kumar, 2009-07-04 04:08:36
Rajput, this is fantastic! Clearly you strive for clarity leaving no stone unturned on the way. We need reactions from IT people – “Dear Admin”, I hope you are listening! – but the first part of your concept plan is clear enough as are some of your design parameters and bits of your architectural guidelines. Here I hope that some others will add their bits and/ or reject/ dissect and rebuild where they can. You meanwhile need to get into some of the details you have left out. For instance, the role of the ‘broker’: is s/he primarily an administrator or is the role more active? What are the kinds of information that s/he needs to get and pass on to others? .......... What are the resources that yoga organisations/ others in the network need, ie, what are we talking of when we use that term? Also you mention HCINO in one town/city. My guess is that you have something unexplored at the back of your mind which is confusing us – and you. Also a community consists of individuals with physical, mental etc needs also, so if we need to generate a ‘community’ feeling at some level the other needs also need to be looked into.
At a different level this means that the ‘basic assumptions’ needs to be thought out very much more carefully. As I see it bhajans/ kirtans sessions exist but are not satisfying the under 50s and are rejected outright by the 40yr-. Also trying to carry out karma in a material world that requires skills/visions often diametrically opposite to the Hindu ethos is the point at which most urban converts have felt the push factor (here in addition to the Church, think of the Soka Gakai – Ikeda’s ‘chanting’ groups - as a starting point for generating ideas). Again, personally I am not comfortable with the generalised use of the word ‘spiritual’. It draws visions of ‘other worldly’ and I think your administrator(s) and broker(s) for instance had better be well grounded else the whole will collapse like the tent that killed Tuglaq before he entered Delhi (I think it was Nizammudin who forsaw that one!). Also how does one ensure that only Hindus join, that is of course if that is what we want. Again, if we make philosophical basis an entry requirement we automatically leave out those who are not (or do not see themselves as) philosophically inclined. More colloquially, the ‘doers’ (those with karma/ bhakti inclinations) get left out.
At a total tangent – if it helps clarification could you give a paraphrase of the Sharma reference (the Radhakrishnan ones are excellent). At the cost of sounding like a broken record: My health has meant that my capacity to read and write is now extremely limited as is my total output per day, though clearly I have improved considerably from the almost zero I had reached! This has also given me a good understanding of the needs of those who are not habitual ‘readers’ either for lack of time/ ..... / ability/..
Before I stop I want to add that at a personal level this write up has ‘restored’ me! Thank you. I had almost decided that after many years I had misjudged [someone’s] interests; which – as you can imagine - didn’t do anything for my morale!
At a different level this means that the ‘basic assumptions’ needs to be thought out very much more carefully. As I see it bhajans/ kirtans sessions exist but are not satisfying the under 50s and are rejected outright by the 40yr-. Also trying to carry out karma in a material world that requires skills/visions often diametrically opposite to the Hindu ethos is the point at which most urban converts have felt the push factor (here in addition to the Church, think of the Soka Gakai – Ikeda’s ‘chanting’ groups - as a starting point for generating ideas). Again, personally I am not comfortable with the generalised use of the word ‘spiritual’. It draws visions of ‘other worldly’ and I think your administrator(s) and broker(s) for instance had better be well grounded else the whole will collapse like the tent that killed Tuglaq before he entered Delhi (I think it was Nizammudin who forsaw that one!). Also how does one ensure that only Hindus join, that is of course if that is what we want. Again, if we make philosophical basis an entry requirement we automatically leave out those who are not (or do not see themselves as) philosophically inclined. More colloquially, the ‘doers’ (those with karma/ bhakti inclinations) get left out.
At a total tangent – if it helps clarification could you give a paraphrase of the Sharma reference (the Radhakrishnan ones are excellent). At the cost of sounding like a broken record: My health has meant that my capacity to read and write is now extremely limited as is my total output per day, though clearly I have improved considerably from the almost zero I had reached! This has also given me a good understanding of the needs of those who are not habitual ‘readers’ either for lack of time/ ..... / ability/..
Before I stop I want to add that at a personal level this write up has ‘restored’ me! Thank you. I had almost decided that after many years I had misjudged [someone’s] interests; which – as you can imagine - didn’t do anything for my morale!
-
- +0
-
-
written by P. Desikan, 2009-07-03 19:45:26
Dear Raju,
I have not commented on your self-evolving discussion in the Tharoor article discussion, as I was meanwhile admiring your non-violent persevering in the basics of your stand.
The way You describe the proposal, it appears to me that you are all set to launch the movement yourself. Good friends may be permitted to give you two suggestions.
1.Just as you would allow membership to all shades of Hindu thought, you should perhaps not refuse it to persons just because they have a political disposition, provided they have the good of Hindu/Vedantic/Oriental thought in mind.
2.Make sure of availability of adequate funds right at the beginning, so that its growth is assured.
All the very best!
Warm regards. Partha.
I have not commented on your self-evolving discussion in the Tharoor article discussion, as I was meanwhile admiring your non-violent persevering in the basics of your stand.
The way You describe the proposal, it appears to me that you are all set to launch the movement yourself. Good friends may be permitted to give you two suggestions.
1.Just as you would allow membership to all shades of Hindu thought, you should perhaps not refuse it to persons just because they have a political disposition, provided they have the good of Hindu/Vedantic/Oriental thought in mind.
2.Make sure of availability of adequate funds right at the beginning, so that its growth is assured.
All the very best!
Warm regards. Partha.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Raju, 2009-07-03 11:21:21
HUMAN NETWORK EFFECT
Challenge
There is a need for a new method for increasing ‘community feeling’ that bypasses obstacle of birth based caste system.
Assumption
Community feeling will happen automatically when people are connected and involved in meaningful, useful and enjoyable activates i.e. learning (Jnana yoga), health & spiritual practices (Raj-yoga), community service (Bhakti yoga), community singing/ spiritual music (think Sam Veda chanting, bhajan, kirtan etc) through out their life while doing their duties (Karma yoga) in this material world.
Proposed Idea
What we need is a new type of grassroots Hindu Community Integration and Networking Organizations (HCINO) that is more than the sum of Google, Facebook and Twitter to become new masters of human network effect (see note 1) of Hindu Community Human Internet World (HCHIW).
HCINO will be leveraging existing systems like Google, connecting to others like social network of Facebook and always in touch with everyone like Twitter. HCINO is only integration & networking organization. Hence it will not alter anyone’s concept of Hinduism and also keep in mind one’s work &/or school schedules.
Concept
HCINO will create, build and maintain new types of Hindu network. Basic concept is that HCINO will first connect to various yoga organizations (see note2) and communities that are currently not connected to yoga organizations. After this it will play a role of broker for connection between yoga organizations and importantly broker connection between unconnected communities to yoga organizations. This will not only exponentially leverage resources of existing yoga organization but also encourage spiritual entrepreneurship to start new Hindu yoga organizations. To further leverage Hindu network there can be more than one HCINO in a town or city. All HCINO in one city will be connected to HCINOs from neighboring cities.
HCINO will not only fulfill objective of creating community feeling for an individual but will also create a new Hindu human Internet communities to address any issue.
Requirements for HCINO
-Self-evolving
-Self-correcting
-Continuous focus on spirituality
-Focus on continuous learning
-Continued involvement
-Continued growth
-Accommodate different Hindu cultures and different ways of expression.
Architecture Guidelines
-Keep politics and aggressive forces out for sustainability
-Plan horizon say next 200 years
-Focus on spiritual Hinduism (see note3)
-Integration of a person in the community should be at Hindu philosophical level
-Integration is a continues and all year long process
-Need internal self correcting, self evolving mechanism and procedures
-Organzation should be open and democratic in nature
-For expansion to many countries there should be no territorial component in the definition of Hinduism.
Design Parameters
-Should not favor connection to any type of organization
-Address all types of modern life styles
-Start involvement of kids at an early age
-Should be able to do trouble shooting
-Always in touch with stake holders
-Should not change definitions/concept of Hinduism
-No direct or indirect connection to any political party
-No association with organization that has ties to a political party
Development
-To be determined
Prototype/Pilot Program Details
-To be determined
Full scale implementation
-To be planned based on cost and funding
Future
-Connection to hospitals, schools and other non-yoga organizations like Alcoholics Anonymous may be added after careful thinking and planning.
Conclusion
Embrace the concept of networked world of open source systems like software world. It is time for Microsoftic elements of Hindu to move to sanyasaram. (Here I am referring to thought process and not people. Legacy organizations cannot achieve network effect by creating/adding more departments.) Twenty-first century’s Hindu Renaissance will be based on gunas definition of caste and not on the one based on birth.
Notes:
1. The power of the community is enhanced through the network effect produced as resources link to each other with the value determined by Metcalfe's law. Metcalfe's law states that the value of a telecommunications network is proportional to the square of the number of connected users of the system (n2).
2. Following is a sample of various Hindu yoga organizations along with short definition of every yoga path.
* Karma yoga
Normally means action motivated only by a sense of duty, without any concern for the results. If one acts on the notions that Brahman is the real actor; then there is no
question of being attached to results of one’s action.
- ???
* Bhakti yoga
Bhakti Yoga is defined as, selfless service to others in the name of love to one’s personal Brahman (God). In this yoga power of love is used for self-transcendence.
-Social organization like Anandwan started by Late Sri Baba Amte for leprosy patients
-Various Krishna Consciousness organizations
* Jnana Yoga
This is the yoga of the illuminated intellect (wisdom) of Brahman.
-Sri Ramakrishna Math and Mission centers
-Chinmaya Mission centers
* Raja Yoga
Raja yoga is based on self-illuminating power of Brahman.
-Art of Living founded by Sri Sri Ravi Shankar
-Yoga camps by Swami Ramdev Baba
-Transcendental Meditation started by Sri Mahesh Yogi
3. Hinduism
Radhakrishnan famously described Hinduism thus: “Hinduism is more a way of life than a form of thought. While it gives absolute liberty in the world of thought it enjoins a strict code of practice. The theist and the atheist, the skeptic and the agnostic may all be Hindu if they accept Hindu system of culture and life. Hinduism insists not on religious conformity but on spiritual and ethical outlook in life.” (Page 55)
Hinduism is a movement, not a position, a process not a result; a growing tradition, not a fixed revelations (Page 91).
Religion is not correct belief but righteous living (Page 37).
Ref: The Hindu View of Life.
By Radhakrishnan, Sarvepalli, New York: Macmillan 1957
For instance, when S. Radhakrishnan posed the question: “What is your religion?” in 1936, Mahatma Gandhi replied: “My religion is Hinduism which, for me, is Religion of Humanity and includes the best of all the religions known to me”
Ref: On Hindu, Hindustan, Hinduism and Hindutva
By Arvind Sharma, Numen, Volume 49, Number 1, 2002, pp. 1-36(36)
Challenge
There is a need for a new method for increasing ‘community feeling’ that bypasses obstacle of birth based caste system.
Assumption
Community feeling will happen automatically when people are connected and involved in meaningful, useful and enjoyable activates i.e. learning (Jnana yoga), health & spiritual practices (Raj-yoga), community service (Bhakti yoga), community singing/ spiritual music (think Sam Veda chanting, bhajan, kirtan etc) through out their life while doing their duties (Karma yoga) in this material world.
Proposed Idea
What we need is a new type of grassroots Hindu Community Integration and Networking Organizations (HCINO) that is more than the sum of Google, Facebook and Twitter to become new masters of human network effect (see note 1) of Hindu Community Human Internet World (HCHIW).
HCINO will be leveraging existing systems like Google, connecting to others like social network of Facebook and always in touch with everyone like Twitter. HCINO is only integration & networking organization. Hence it will not alter anyone’s concept of Hinduism and also keep in mind one’s work &/or school schedules.
Concept
HCINO will create, build and maintain new types of Hindu network. Basic concept is that HCINO will first connect to various yoga organizations (see note2) and communities that are currently not connected to yoga organizations. After this it will play a role of broker for connection between yoga organizations and importantly broker connection between unconnected communities to yoga organizations. This will not only exponentially leverage resources of existing yoga organization but also encourage spiritual entrepreneurship to start new Hindu yoga organizations. To further leverage Hindu network there can be more than one HCINO in a town or city. All HCINO in one city will be connected to HCINOs from neighboring cities.
HCINO will not only fulfill objective of creating community feeling for an individual but will also create a new Hindu human Internet communities to address any issue.
Requirements for HCINO
-Self-evolving
-Self-correcting
-Continuous focus on spirituality
-Focus on continuous learning
-Continued involvement
-Continued growth
-Accommodate different Hindu cultures and different ways of expression.
Architecture Guidelines
-Keep politics and aggressive forces out for sustainability
-Plan horizon say next 200 years
-Focus on spiritual Hinduism (see note3)
-Integration of a person in the community should be at Hindu philosophical level
-Integration is a continues and all year long process
-Need internal self correcting, self evolving mechanism and procedures
-Organzation should be open and democratic in nature
-For expansion to many countries there should be no territorial component in the definition of Hinduism.
Design Parameters
-Should not favor connection to any type of organization
-Address all types of modern life styles
-Start involvement of kids at an early age
-Should be able to do trouble shooting
-Always in touch with stake holders
-Should not change definitions/concept of Hinduism
-No direct or indirect connection to any political party
-No association with organization that has ties to a political party
Development
-To be determined
Prototype/Pilot Program Details
-To be determined
Full scale implementation
-To be planned based on cost and funding
Future
-Connection to hospitals, schools and other non-yoga organizations like Alcoholics Anonymous may be added after careful thinking and planning.
Conclusion
Embrace the concept of networked world of open source systems like software world. It is time for Microsoftic elements of Hindu to move to sanyasaram. (Here I am referring to thought process and not people. Legacy organizations cannot achieve network effect by creating/adding more departments.) Twenty-first century’s Hindu Renaissance will be based on gunas definition of caste and not on the one based on birth.
Notes:
1. The power of the community is enhanced through the network effect produced as resources link to each other with the value determined by Metcalfe's law. Metcalfe's law states that the value of a telecommunications network is proportional to the square of the number of connected users of the system (n2).
2. Following is a sample of various Hindu yoga organizations along with short definition of every yoga path.
* Karma yoga
Normally means action motivated only by a sense of duty, without any concern for the results. If one acts on the notions that Brahman is the real actor; then there is no
question of being attached to results of one’s action.
- ???
* Bhakti yoga
Bhakti Yoga is defined as, selfless service to others in the name of love to one’s personal Brahman (God). In this yoga power of love is used for self-transcendence.
-Social organization like Anandwan started by Late Sri Baba Amte for leprosy patients
-Various Krishna Consciousness organizations
* Jnana Yoga
This is the yoga of the illuminated intellect (wisdom) of Brahman.
-Sri Ramakrishna Math and Mission centers
-Chinmaya Mission centers
* Raja Yoga
Raja yoga is based on self-illuminating power of Brahman.
-Art of Living founded by Sri Sri Ravi Shankar
-Yoga camps by Swami Ramdev Baba
-Transcendental Meditation started by Sri Mahesh Yogi
3. Hinduism
Radhakrishnan famously described Hinduism thus: “Hinduism is more a way of life than a form of thought. While it gives absolute liberty in the world of thought it enjoins a strict code of practice. The theist and the atheist, the skeptic and the agnostic may all be Hindu if they accept Hindu system of culture and life. Hinduism insists not on religious conformity but on spiritual and ethical outlook in life.” (Page 55)
Hinduism is a movement, not a position, a process not a result; a growing tradition, not a fixed revelations (Page 91).
Religion is not correct belief but righteous living (Page 37).
Ref: The Hindu View of Life.
By Radhakrishnan, Sarvepalli, New York: Macmillan 1957
For instance, when S. Radhakrishnan posed the question: “What is your religion?” in 1936, Mahatma Gandhi replied: “My religion is Hinduism which, for me, is Religion of Humanity and includes the best of all the religions known to me”
Ref: On Hindu, Hindustan, Hinduism and Hindutva
By Arvind Sharma, Numen, Volume 49, Number 1, 2002, pp. 1-36(36)
-
- +0
-
-
written by Krishna Kirti Das, 2009-07-02 11:04:33
Deshika, Karigar and others, namaskara.
I'm going to have to withdraw temporarily from discussion. As I write this, I'm trying to get from the U.S. to New Delhi--going for a marriage. I will be in ND from the 4th through the 7th or 8th, and once again on the 12th of July before I return to the U.S. If any of you live in Delhi and would like to meet up with me, here is my temporary phone number while I'm in India: +91 971-794-8825. I'm not there yet, but my wife is, and she will answer the phone. I certainly would like to meet some of you in person.
All the best, Krishna Kirti Das
p.s. you can also email me at krishnakirti-at-samprajna-dot-org
I'm going to have to withdraw temporarily from discussion. As I write this, I'm trying to get from the U.S. to New Delhi--going for a marriage. I will be in ND from the 4th through the 7th or 8th, and once again on the 12th of July before I return to the U.S. If any of you live in Delhi and would like to meet up with me, here is my temporary phone number while I'm in India: +91 971-794-8825. I'm not there yet, but my wife is, and she will answer the phone. I certainly would like to meet some of you in person.
All the best, Krishna Kirti Das
p.s. you can also email me at krishnakirti-at-samprajna-dot-org
-
- +0
-
-
written by Deshika.N.Kumar, 2009-07-02 05:12:34
Rajput, Great! You’ve managed to hit on tangibles and are also on track for solutions. It seems our train is moving!
Community Feeling. Thought you had a good point lurking somewhere! But you need to refine it (Like KKD is refining his ideas). It is now important to think about the means by which Abrahamics create this feeling and then see whether, how and in what form etc they can be extended to Hindus. Since we have DALIT Christians and High Caste Christians I frankly cannot understand the claim that community feeling arises because casteism is eliminated. I personally think the centrality of the concept of ‘communal prayer’ helps enormously. And as you push me to set your train off I am thinking it must also be nice to have kids education/ own hospitalisation, free or highly subsidised and know that you can get admission any time; know possible jobs avenues will open up if one needs them, etc Oh! I have also heard of sums of money being given for daughters’ weddings together with one / two sets of gold ornaments (this from foreigners who ‘aimed at charity to help the poor’).....
I do like this train of thought but it needs a lot of expansion still.
PS. While I am totally with you in the need for increasing ‘community feeling’ and would definitely like you to explore this area because I don’t think it has been systematically done from this angle, I would also like you to keep in mind that Hindus have a different culture and therefore different ways of expression. Eg, 2-3yrs ago I met a woman who was doing her PhD thesis on ‘The lack of bonding between Hindu children and parents – the Hindu mother’s inability to love her child’. I am reasonably sure no Hindu would (can) agree!
Caste. Before I start a note to all ‘STATUTORY WARNING’ : “Henceforth anyone who breezes in on this subject in without factoring in contents of ‘Tharoor’ discussion, please be prepared to first deal with an open sack of ground cayenne pepper” !!!
You have mentioned a series of media reports. Firstly I have slowly realised that if one were to depend on our newspapers for knowledge then we need to believe that only Dalits and minorities get raped/ beaten/.... – CAN that be true? This and the other example would appear to support Partha’s unsubstantiated point on the biased role of the media. Perhaps you need to follow up a few instances carefully – I know I do – since no one has given us more information.
I had mentioned the discrimination faced by the poor. I have reason to believe that when viewed for the most essential causal factor what is usually highlighted as atrocities against Dalits has stronger links with economic factors. In fact it is probable that when colonial researchers first got involved in the Indian scene they automatically transplanted the framework of a rigid and reasonably cruel hierarchy – the norm in their own countries at the time – onto the ‘caste system’, without trying to understand the nuances of this ‘system’. Also I know that though there were famines/crop failures etc from what I understand (and here I am on more shaky ground – perhaps Kaushal can help) the Raja’s ‘dharma’ was to open his granaries, and ..... I know at least till a few decades back any poor person who had not earned that day could go to the temple for an evening meal.
Effectively the economic hierarchy in its ugliest forms seems to have been much less observable in India, so ‘caste’ ...... Later the govt itself was British and responsible for economic well being so it was obviously not in their interest to talk of economic discrimination! Post independence all research in secular India follows the frameworks they have made. The Marxist framework most commonly used does factor in economics however, since the Marxist themselves are not about to assist Hindus, when these things happen economic realities are no one’s concern and remain outside everyone’s thinking. Recently I find an increasing number of studies on Hindus by other Indians (Hinduism and women; RSS.....) so there is likely to be even more confusion in the days ahead. (That is why I thought KKD’s basic idea of focussing on the humanistic sciences a very good one).
Temple entry: I have tried to point out to you that realities are not necessarily what they seem; that each culture has/ had its own understandings and forms. Also that........ and that............ From here on I leave you to do your own studying and thinking. Perhaps some of the others will wander by or perhaps write articles that illuminate this aspect or .......... Actually I think Narsemonu could have given us some insights into this issue but unfortunately she did not come by.
I am afraid I find it extremely difficult to write such long posts and/ or concentrate so long on anyone subject/ individual query in my present state of health. Apart from hoping that it will give the others thinking points even though the subject matter is for them ‘old hat’, I realise that your basic problem is that you have only recently begun to feel that there is the possibility of a reality different from what is normally presented, that you are trying hard to understand it better because you realise that there is something that needs to be understood in dimensions other than those you are familiar with. This is in part because all you have read has not mentioned matters this way. I wish I could guide you to some literature or some people who can fill you in but.................. Perhaps you need to sound out people like Pradipda, KKD, Karigar, Kaushal, Dlahiri ...... .......
Remember it will take time. However, now that you are clearer and more focussed in your thoughts, learning – and therefore sharing – will become easier and move faster
best wishes with your endeavours!
Community Feeling. Thought you had a good point lurking somewhere! But you need to refine it (Like KKD is refining his ideas). It is now important to think about the means by which Abrahamics create this feeling and then see whether, how and in what form etc they can be extended to Hindus. Since we have DALIT Christians and High Caste Christians I frankly cannot understand the claim that community feeling arises because casteism is eliminated. I personally think the centrality of the concept of ‘communal prayer’ helps enormously. And as you push me to set your train off I am thinking it must also be nice to have kids education/ own hospitalisation, free or highly subsidised and know that you can get admission any time; know possible jobs avenues will open up if one needs them, etc Oh! I have also heard of sums of money being given for daughters’ weddings together with one / two sets of gold ornaments (this from foreigners who ‘aimed at charity to help the poor’).....
I do like this train of thought but it needs a lot of expansion still.
PS. While I am totally with you in the need for increasing ‘community feeling’ and would definitely like you to explore this area because I don’t think it has been systematically done from this angle, I would also like you to keep in mind that Hindus have a different culture and therefore different ways of expression. Eg, 2-3yrs ago I met a woman who was doing her PhD thesis on ‘The lack of bonding between Hindu children and parents – the Hindu mother’s inability to love her child’. I am reasonably sure no Hindu would (can) agree!
Caste. Before I start a note to all ‘STATUTORY WARNING’ : “Henceforth anyone who breezes in on this subject in without factoring in contents of ‘Tharoor’ discussion, please be prepared to first deal with an open sack of ground cayenne pepper” !!!
You have mentioned a series of media reports. Firstly I have slowly realised that if one were to depend on our newspapers for knowledge then we need to believe that only Dalits and minorities get raped/ beaten/.... – CAN that be true? This and the other example would appear to support Partha’s unsubstantiated point on the biased role of the media. Perhaps you need to follow up a few instances carefully – I know I do – since no one has given us more information.
I had mentioned the discrimination faced by the poor. I have reason to believe that when viewed for the most essential causal factor what is usually highlighted as atrocities against Dalits has stronger links with economic factors. In fact it is probable that when colonial researchers first got involved in the Indian scene they automatically transplanted the framework of a rigid and reasonably cruel hierarchy – the norm in their own countries at the time – onto the ‘caste system’, without trying to understand the nuances of this ‘system’. Also I know that though there were famines/crop failures etc from what I understand (and here I am on more shaky ground – perhaps Kaushal can help) the Raja’s ‘dharma’ was to open his granaries, and ..... I know at least till a few decades back any poor person who had not earned that day could go to the temple for an evening meal.
Effectively the economic hierarchy in its ugliest forms seems to have been much less observable in India, so ‘caste’ ...... Later the govt itself was British and responsible for economic well being so it was obviously not in their interest to talk of economic discrimination! Post independence all research in secular India follows the frameworks they have made. The Marxist framework most commonly used does factor in economics however, since the Marxist themselves are not about to assist Hindus, when these things happen economic realities are no one’s concern and remain outside everyone’s thinking. Recently I find an increasing number of studies on Hindus by other Indians (Hinduism and women; RSS.....) so there is likely to be even more confusion in the days ahead. (That is why I thought KKD’s basic idea of focussing on the humanistic sciences a very good one).
Temple entry: I have tried to point out to you that realities are not necessarily what they seem; that each culture has/ had its own understandings and forms. Also that........ and that............ From here on I leave you to do your own studying and thinking. Perhaps some of the others will wander by or perhaps write articles that illuminate this aspect or .......... Actually I think Narsemonu could have given us some insights into this issue but unfortunately she did not come by.
I am afraid I find it extremely difficult to write such long posts and/ or concentrate so long on anyone subject/ individual query in my present state of health. Apart from hoping that it will give the others thinking points even though the subject matter is for them ‘old hat’, I realise that your basic problem is that you have only recently begun to feel that there is the possibility of a reality different from what is normally presented, that you are trying hard to understand it better because you realise that there is something that needs to be understood in dimensions other than those you are familiar with. This is in part because all you have read has not mentioned matters this way. I wish I could guide you to some literature or some people who can fill you in but.................. Perhaps you need to sound out people like Pradipda, KKD, Karigar, Kaushal, Dlahiri ...... .......
Remember it will take time. However, now that you are clearer and more focussed in your thoughts, learning – and therefore sharing – will become easier and move faster
best wishes with your endeavours!
-
- +0
-
-
written by Deshika.N.Kumar, 2009-07-02 05:11:14
Dear Pradipda,
Brilliance shines! What I find even more exciting is that the month’s discussion may end up in an almost tangible product! That in effect TMJ played the role of a tiny think tank (ch KKD). Wow!
We need to think it through somewhat, though. The ‘Tharoor’ discussion so far seems to indicate that the route to textbooks may itself be blocked. So maybe the goal post itself will have to be changed (personally I don’t see this as a major problem or an immediate one). Also before becoming a candidate for inclusion this interpretation must not only become well known but it also needs to be well accepted. Maybe there could be an initial paper that argues in favour of this view point as against some of the other well known interpretations...... Perhaps that could look at the same shlokas in various BG interpretations historical and more modern – Chinmayanand, Tilak...... Madhavacharya, ....... And that could be discussed and refined, and ........ Another line could be to find others like Yudhishtra in the Mahabharat ..... OR perhaps those should be parallel lines of investigation though done separately in time perhaps, OR..... Maybe some Medhavis who would like to assist you by doing some research in this area and ..... and...
You’ve set the lead and possibly the pace, sir!
Ps Thanks for the refs.
KKD Thanks for understanding (and posting immediately). Maybe if you think along my comments and the discussions in yours, this and other threads then, as I finish MCing if you still think I can be useful we can look at the ideas in whatever forms they have taken by that time. Seems you have had a hand in catalysing some action!
Brilliance shines! What I find even more exciting is that the month’s discussion may end up in an almost tangible product! That in effect TMJ played the role of a tiny think tank (ch KKD). Wow!
We need to think it through somewhat, though. The ‘Tharoor’ discussion so far seems to indicate that the route to textbooks may itself be blocked. So maybe the goal post itself will have to be changed (personally I don’t see this as a major problem or an immediate one). Also before becoming a candidate for inclusion this interpretation must not only become well known but it also needs to be well accepted. Maybe there could be an initial paper that argues in favour of this view point as against some of the other well known interpretations...... Perhaps that could look at the same shlokas in various BG interpretations historical and more modern – Chinmayanand, Tilak...... Madhavacharya, ....... And that could be discussed and refined, and ........ Another line could be to find others like Yudhishtra in the Mahabharat ..... OR perhaps those should be parallel lines of investigation though done separately in time perhaps, OR..... Maybe some Medhavis who would like to assist you by doing some research in this area and ..... and...
You’ve set the lead and possibly the pace, sir!
Ps Thanks for the refs.
KKD Thanks for understanding (and posting immediately). Maybe if you think along my comments and the discussions in yours, this and other threads then, as I finish MCing if you still think I can be useful we can look at the ideas in whatever forms they have taken by that time. Seems you have had a hand in catalysing some action!
-
- +0
-
-
written by Dr. Pradip Gangopadh, 2009-07-01 08:52:15
One quick step would be to include views like Yudhisthir (check my article,"interesting
shlokas in Mahabharata) and Tapasyananda in textbooks so that they are known. Even medhavis
here do not know about this interpretation. So how can one expect ordinary people in India
to know about it?
shlokas in Mahabharata) and Tapasyananda in textbooks so that they are known. Even medhavis
here do not know about this interpretation. So how can one expect ordinary people in India
to know about it?
-
- +0
-
-
written by Raju, 2009-07-01 08:19:01
Dear Deshika,
It is very good that Hindu organizations have disassociated from the groups responsible for the 'goondaism'. My personal preference is for organizations that do not have any baggage and are non-political in nature.
Social needs
My view of social needs in simple words is feeling of belonging to a community. Do whatever needs to be done to make low caste and Dalits feel part of the community. I believe there should not be any violence if social work is done.
If I read news of about various states like Maharashta, Rajasthan, UP, Bihar and others states in India I find at least one news every week about low caste/dalit issues. Here are some news item excerpts - Dalits are even today denied entries in temple in some small towns; killing of four Dalits in Khairlanji in Maharashtra was in news for a long time, access to water is still an issue in some villages and small towns for low caste Hindus & Dalits while it is not issue for others. All such things add up and create a feeling that one is not part Hinduism.
Looks like Hindus did not learn even after Meenakshipuram incident in the 1980s.
Mass conversion in T.N. village
http://www.hinduonnet.com/2001...300007.htm
Dalits were denied entry into Puri temple till 2006. I had read some where that small makeshift stone temples under the tree that we see outside many towns and villages in India were created by low caste Hindus for worship of Gods as this was the only option for them. Things have improved but low caste Hindus and Dalits still have memories and strong emotions of things that they had to go through.
I hear that even today in southern India for reasons of purity higher caste say subordinate will not eat food at his boss’s house if he/she happens to be of lower caste. Is it true?
In my view media is very powerful only when news matches the reality. I am stating this because my personal observations also matched with some of the news about Dalits and low caste Hindus. I do not know of any Hindu cultural-political organizations that are doing work in eradication of caste or related work. I know it is not easy work. If caste is weakness of Hindu society then we should see many Hindu organizations doing work in this area. I have heard that unity in the Hindu society at cultural and political level with current birth based caste divisions still intact is meaningless for majority of Hindus. This is reality. In my view it is important to address this issue as low caste and Dalits Hindus constitutes over 50% of Hindu population. Moreover one’s weakness is others strength from worldly perspective.
Rubber Meets the Road
I believe Bhakti movement started by Sri Ramanuja and others softened the blow of caste. This helped greatly in saving Hinduism. Now things needs to be taken to the next level based on the correct interpretation of Srimad Bhagavad-Gita. This will help in addressing root cause of caste division and subsequently social needs of low caste & Dalits.
Thanks Pradip for bringing us Tapasyananda’s commentary. Challenge is how does one translate say Tapasyananda’s view on caste into actionable items for an organization? Sri Karigar, Arjun, Pradip and others may have some ideas how to achieve this in the framework of Hindu traditions. There could be some intermediate measures one could come up until the problem is resolved completely.
Regards,
It is very good that Hindu organizations have disassociated from the groups responsible for the 'goondaism'. My personal preference is for organizations that do not have any baggage and are non-political in nature.
Social needs
My view of social needs in simple words is feeling of belonging to a community. Do whatever needs to be done to make low caste and Dalits feel part of the community. I believe there should not be any violence if social work is done.
If I read news of about various states like Maharashta, Rajasthan, UP, Bihar and others states in India I find at least one news every week about low caste/dalit issues. Here are some news item excerpts - Dalits are even today denied entries in temple in some small towns; killing of four Dalits in Khairlanji in Maharashtra was in news for a long time, access to water is still an issue in some villages and small towns for low caste Hindus & Dalits while it is not issue for others. All such things add up and create a feeling that one is not part Hinduism.
Looks like Hindus did not learn even after Meenakshipuram incident in the 1980s.
Mass conversion in T.N. village
http://www.hinduonnet.com/2001...300007.htm
Dalits were denied entry into Puri temple till 2006. I had read some where that small makeshift stone temples under the tree that we see outside many towns and villages in India were created by low caste Hindus for worship of Gods as this was the only option for them. Things have improved but low caste Hindus and Dalits still have memories and strong emotions of things that they had to go through.
I hear that even today in southern India for reasons of purity higher caste say subordinate will not eat food at his boss’s house if he/she happens to be of lower caste. Is it true?
In my view media is very powerful only when news matches the reality. I am stating this because my personal observations also matched with some of the news about Dalits and low caste Hindus. I do not know of any Hindu cultural-political organizations that are doing work in eradication of caste or related work. I know it is not easy work. If caste is weakness of Hindu society then we should see many Hindu organizations doing work in this area. I have heard that unity in the Hindu society at cultural and political level with current birth based caste divisions still intact is meaningless for majority of Hindus. This is reality. In my view it is important to address this issue as low caste and Dalits Hindus constitutes over 50% of Hindu population. Moreover one’s weakness is others strength from worldly perspective.
Rubber Meets the Road
I believe Bhakti movement started by Sri Ramanuja and others softened the blow of caste. This helped greatly in saving Hinduism. Now things needs to be taken to the next level based on the correct interpretation of Srimad Bhagavad-Gita. This will help in addressing root cause of caste division and subsequently social needs of low caste & Dalits.
Thanks Pradip for bringing us Tapasyananda’s commentary. Challenge is how does one translate say Tapasyananda’s view on caste into actionable items for an organization? Sri Karigar, Arjun, Pradip and others may have some ideas how to achieve this in the framework of Hindu traditions. There could be some intermediate measures one could come up until the problem is resolved completely.
Regards,
-
- +0
-
-
written by Dr. Pradip Gangopadh, 2009-07-01 07:16:56
Dear Deshika,
Yes, Swami Tapasyananda was a swami of the Ramakrishna order. I have posted excerpts of
his commentary from his translation of the Gita. I like his translation of the Gita and
commentary.
Regards
Pradip da
Yes, Swami Tapasyananda was a swami of the Ramakrishna order. I have posted excerpts of
his commentary from his translation of the Gita. I like his translation of the Gita and
commentary.
Regards
Pradip da
-
- +0
-
-
written by Krishna Kirti Das, 2009-07-01 04:25:26
Dear Deshika-ji (@ 2009-07-01 00:10:05)
OK.
I think you need to recognise that as MC I am here to facilitate discussion not to hog space – which is why I referred you to Arya , Karigar, et al and any discussion they may initiate(they could of course have left for greener pastures but that does not take away from the diktat of my role!).
OK.
-
- +0
-
-
written by P. Desikan, 2009-07-01 01:17:47
Deshika,
You do not have to feel sorry for what you have not done. I was only pointing out to the appearance of new blogs which could carry forward related ideas and you can join with slightly different roles and responsibilities.
You are right that you had to continue the discussion patiently in view of some solid contributions coming in later and are quite appropriately relieved to come out of the Tharoor platform now when there is time and space for taking a deep breath.
My reflections on some of us choosing to only air views on subjects where we find better activity skills already available in other people, just happen to be my reflections. You do not have to agree. Perhaps you have the makings of a good politician yourself plus activist to boot. All the very best to your efforts!
Congratulations on a difficult job conscientiously carried out!
Warm regards. Partha
You do not have to feel sorry for what you have not done. I was only pointing out to the appearance of new blogs which could carry forward related ideas and you can join with slightly different roles and responsibilities.
You are right that you had to continue the discussion patiently in view of some solid contributions coming in later and are quite appropriately relieved to come out of the Tharoor platform now when there is time and space for taking a deep breath.
My reflections on some of us choosing to only air views on subjects where we find better activity skills already available in other people, just happen to be my reflections. You do not have to agree. Perhaps you have the makings of a good politician yourself plus activist to boot. All the very best to your efforts!
Congratulations on a difficult job conscientiously carried out!
Warm regards. Partha
-
- +0
-
-
written by Deshika.N.Kumar, 2009-07-01 00:13:56
Partha, I am sorry it seems to you that I am ignoring others’ work. Actually as Dwai knows I have connectivity problems so though I have been across to his article a number of times I get a blank page each time. As for KKD’s article the last couple of times I got there it was bereft of comments. I did however get to his main site and read the article. I am very glad that there are more indepth discussions in progress on these issues and hope that some of the other important issues that have come up will also be taken up by someone in due course.
As for doing something – in the light of the hue and cry earlier in the discussion this was only an attempt to list a few things so that individuals could then have a starting point to think of what , if anything could be their individual area of focus and possible involvement at some point. Indians and more especially Hindus tend to leave others to do whatever has to be done. Rahul Gandhi has recently tried to change this through his repeated exhortations that ‘more people should join politics’. I very much liked Arya’s attempt to think at least one step beyond and was trying to help get it to a point where just about anyone could add his/her two penny bit . But nothing lost. No one is any the worse off – if the status quo is fine by those Hindus who are not already part of one of the specialised organisation you seem to indicate exist, then its OK by me.
KKD since as Partha has indicated you are already following up the threads you opened up as part of the discussion on your paper then in fact it may be a good point for me to wind up the Tharoor related discussion – in terms of my personal involvement. AS some of the discussants know, I have wanted to do so for a while but stayed put as some of you came by so that I could help push your ideas forward. Closing shop because the issues are being taken up elsewhere absolves me of all feelings of guilt! Thanks!
As for doing something – in the light of the hue and cry earlier in the discussion this was only an attempt to list a few things so that individuals could then have a starting point to think of what , if anything could be their individual area of focus and possible involvement at some point. Indians and more especially Hindus tend to leave others to do whatever has to be done. Rahul Gandhi has recently tried to change this through his repeated exhortations that ‘more people should join politics’. I very much liked Arya’s attempt to think at least one step beyond and was trying to help get it to a point where just about anyone could add his/her two penny bit . But nothing lost. No one is any the worse off – if the status quo is fine by those Hindus who are not already part of one of the specialised organisation you seem to indicate exist, then its OK by me.
KKD since as Partha has indicated you are already following up the threads you opened up as part of the discussion on your paper then in fact it may be a good point for me to wind up the Tharoor related discussion – in terms of my personal involvement. AS some of the discussants know, I have wanted to do so for a while but stayed put as some of you came by so that I could help push your ideas forward. Closing shop because the issues are being taken up elsewhere absolves me of all feelings of guilt! Thanks!
-
- +0
-
-
written by Deshika.N.Kumar, 2009-07-01 00:10:05
Dear Pradipda, Thanks for the very quick response! I have for yrs been on the lookout for documentation for what has seemed to me the only way of understanding the contents of these verses. From the name I assume Swamiji is (was) linked to the RK Mission but would appreciate confirmation. Meanwhile I will also go through your article – because that provides the link back with ‘the scriptures’. Must admit your post has left me feeling very relaxed, apart from what its contribution to the discussion and other discussants! Thank you.
KKD: I would first like to repeat that we appreciate very much the thinking that lies behind and goes into your posts (including the attempts to link documentation with observations). But I think you need to recognise that as MC I am here to facilitate discussion not to hog space – which is why I referred you to Arya , Karigar, et al and any discussion they may initiate(they could of course have left for greener pastures but that does not take away from the diktat of my role!). However I do recognise that you have many parts of more than one picture, so I will make a few quick (what I hope will be) facilitating comments and move out. They should be read in conjunction with gangP’s posts.
-I agree in the principle that Hindus need to work on the humanistic sciences and also to your basic methodology. But I think of it as an absolute that Hindus need to work on for themselves. For like anyone else “Westerners” need the self affirming models that arise out of their own ‘civilisation’ (ch: the birth of Marxism – yr post)
-Your example of Marxism clarifies a lot. However in and of itself I think it is not relevant in the Indian context since unlike in America, Marxism as an ideology is acceptable to the Indian polity – apart from which (on the surface) the writings arising from it appear to give answers for what Indians consider their ‘underbelly’, ie the caste system.
-I think perhaps your idea of a (?)Hindu ‘think tank’ (somewhat lost in the whole) is what is required and needs to be developed – like your idea of the ‘religious entrepreneurs’!
-M zeal. You may find it more useful to get back to Arjun Bhagat’s post with his description of a leader using Gandhi as an example; and then reread my post from which you took the original quote.
-Pan-Hindu: My apologies. My sentence should have read, “ your repeated(underlying) suggestions that there is nothing pan-Hindu”. I like your insightful link with social values; with modern vs traditional and the genesis of ‘modern’ – Moornam has not dropped by but I know he too has been thinking about these matters.
Going against my own opening statement I digress for a moment: (13- 15yrs) years back an old Muslim farmer – turban, beard, mehndi et al - offered me a roti (one would have need an iron stomach to digest that one!) and chair with the request that I listen to him. He gave me a very insightful discourse on an episode in the Ramayana and then wagged his finger at me as he launched onto his main point. To paraphrase (in his style): All this business of Muslims vs Hindus vs caste vs Dalits vs...... are not issues but rather a political ploy for people to gain and get power for personal gain. In fact the problem is ‘western social values’. Soon women will wear next to nothing and even that all fitting [body hugging outerwear] and men/ women will want to kiss on the streets; and..... and.... “Yeh hamari sabhyata ki baat heh”. Rajput too (in a different context) has brought up the social factor but we are awaiting details.
As for a sectoral rather than pan-Hindu response to Christianity – friend, the discussion so far has made it clear that you don’t need to wait for it, you are currently faced with a situation which purports to spring from it!!! The Tharoor’s/ Amartya Sen’s of this world are (?see themselves as) the ultimate advaitins who follow the ‘politics of unity’ and are totally against all the Hindus who follow the ‘politics of division’.
Who is right? If as you appear to suggest, there is no pan-Hindu core (?doctines) that make for a unified response then I would suggest that any discussion on proselytisation is a non-starter and this discussion has been a waste of time. If Hinduism has no definite form then what is it that the other religions are supposed to accommodate/ stop interfering with/......? If there are no foundations and no defining characteristics then apparently like any other form of paganism it has outlived its usefulness and, the secularists are right in their attempts and strategies to help it die a (un)natural death.
KKD: I would first like to repeat that we appreciate very much the thinking that lies behind and goes into your posts (including the attempts to link documentation with observations). But I think you need to recognise that as MC I am here to facilitate discussion not to hog space – which is why I referred you to Arya , Karigar, et al and any discussion they may initiate(they could of course have left for greener pastures but that does not take away from the diktat of my role!). However I do recognise that you have many parts of more than one picture, so I will make a few quick (what I hope will be) facilitating comments and move out. They should be read in conjunction with gangP’s posts.
-I agree in the principle that Hindus need to work on the humanistic sciences and also to your basic methodology. But I think of it as an absolute that Hindus need to work on for themselves. For like anyone else “Westerners” need the self affirming models that arise out of their own ‘civilisation’ (ch: the birth of Marxism – yr post)
-Your example of Marxism clarifies a lot. However in and of itself I think it is not relevant in the Indian context since unlike in America, Marxism as an ideology is acceptable to the Indian polity – apart from which (on the surface) the writings arising from it appear to give answers for what Indians consider their ‘underbelly’, ie the caste system.
-I think perhaps your idea of a (?)Hindu ‘think tank’ (somewhat lost in the whole) is what is required and needs to be developed – like your idea of the ‘religious entrepreneurs’!
-M zeal. You may find it more useful to get back to Arjun Bhagat’s post with his description of a leader using Gandhi as an example; and then reread my post from which you took the original quote.
-Pan-Hindu: My apologies. My sentence should have read, “ your repeated(underlying) suggestions that there is nothing pan-Hindu”. I like your insightful link with social values; with modern vs traditional and the genesis of ‘modern’ – Moornam has not dropped by but I know he too has been thinking about these matters.
Going against my own opening statement I digress for a moment: (13- 15yrs) years back an old Muslim farmer – turban, beard, mehndi et al - offered me a roti (one would have need an iron stomach to digest that one!) and chair with the request that I listen to him. He gave me a very insightful discourse on an episode in the Ramayana and then wagged his finger at me as he launched onto his main point. To paraphrase (in his style): All this business of Muslims vs Hindus vs caste vs Dalits vs...... are not issues but rather a political ploy for people to gain and get power for personal gain. In fact the problem is ‘western social values’. Soon women will wear next to nothing and even that all fitting [body hugging outerwear] and men/ women will want to kiss on the streets; and..... and.... “Yeh hamari sabhyata ki baat heh”. Rajput too (in a different context) has brought up the social factor but we are awaiting details.
As for a sectoral rather than pan-Hindu response to Christianity – friend, the discussion so far has made it clear that you don’t need to wait for it, you are currently faced with a situation which purports to spring from it!!! The Tharoor’s/ Amartya Sen’s of this world are (?see themselves as) the ultimate advaitins who follow the ‘politics of unity’ and are totally against all the Hindus who follow the ‘politics of division’.
Who is right? If as you appear to suggest, there is no pan-Hindu core (?doctines) that make for a unified response then I would suggest that any discussion on proselytisation is a non-starter and this discussion has been a waste of time. If Hinduism has no definite form then what is it that the other religions are supposed to accommodate/ stop interfering with/......? If there are no foundations and no defining characteristics then apparently like any other form of paganism it has outlived its usefulness and, the secularists are right in their attempts and strategies to help it die a (un)natural death.
-
- +0
-
-
written by P. Desikan, 2009-06-30 17:56:25
Dear Deshika,
1. Most of us would agree that we are unable to read a newspaper or view a news channel that is free of bias, especially political bias. Whoever is behind the paper or the channel in the main, will generate and maintain the bias, overtly or subtly.
2. On the subject whether conversions from other beliefs or no belief into Hinduism have ever taken place, or whether they were/are permitted to take place, I am sorry that I am unable to track for you the author of the url which I quoted, but you do have his views. You would do well to join the comments section of KK Das's latest blog which is substantially dealing with this subject and make your contributions.
3. Similarly on the subject of discriminations of different kinds and how to overcome them, Dwai's recent video blog opens up comment avenues.
4. In the course of our discussions, some of us get to throw up good ideas and may even reach the periphery of some activity level, but as KK Das points out, there are dedicated organizations meant for specific activities and some of us who are already be involved in such organizations, can of course go on from the ideas to some level of activity. I do not need to repeat after KKDas that these activities need dedicated specialized skills, time and money. Thanks for the enlightenment Krishna.
Warm regards. Partha
1. Most of us would agree that we are unable to read a newspaper or view a news channel that is free of bias, especially political bias. Whoever is behind the paper or the channel in the main, will generate and maintain the bias, overtly or subtly.
2. On the subject whether conversions from other beliefs or no belief into Hinduism have ever taken place, or whether they were/are permitted to take place, I am sorry that I am unable to track for you the author of the url which I quoted, but you do have his views. You would do well to join the comments section of KK Das's latest blog which is substantially dealing with this subject and make your contributions.
3. Similarly on the subject of discriminations of different kinds and how to overcome them, Dwai's recent video blog opens up comment avenues.
4. In the course of our discussions, some of us get to throw up good ideas and may even reach the periphery of some activity level, but as KK Das points out, there are dedicated organizations meant for specific activities and some of us who are already be involved in such organizations, can of course go on from the ideas to some level of activity. I do not need to repeat after KKDas that these activities need dedicated specialized skills, time and money. Thanks for the enlightenment Krishna.
Warm regards. Partha
-
- +0
-
-
written by Krishna Kirti Das, 2009-06-30 13:26:34
Dear Deshika-ji (@ 2009-06-30 07:07:36), Namaste!
I would be obliged. In fact, this is one of the reasons myself and some others have created a U.S.-based non-profit org (http://samprajna.org) in order to better expedite such kinds of analysis and planning. A discussion group like this is a good forum for bouncing ideas of each other and testing them, but to be really effective the good ideas have to be more carefully studied and thought out at a higher level.
To give some better idea of what I mean by higher level, let's take the idea I put forward in one of my last posts that the humanistic sciences are the soft underbelly of the Western academic hegemony. If that is true (and we would like to conduct further analysis to confirm this theory and the extent to which it may be true), then we can start to develop a political strategy to help combat it.
For example, Marxism, a Western ideology, is very influential in India. At least two states (Bengal and Kerela) have Marxist governments, and the CPI is the third-largest political party in India. Aside from political parties, it so happens that social science research in India is heavily weighted towards a Marxist theoretical perspective. Furthermore, the Govt. of India itself heavily funds social science research. The Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR) recognizes 27 national social science research institutes, all of whom receive substantial government funding. Since social science research in India is likely weighted towards Marxist perspectives, and since the Government of India gives substantial support to social science work, a considerable amount of Marxist influence within India is directly sponsored with government funding. Given that there is a plausible, substantial link between the use of government funds and the influence of Marxism, we can begin thinking of a political approach to reducing the influence of Marxism in India.
Taking this as a starting point, many here will probably recognize here a the beginnings of a project plan. To begin with, we have an idea that seems plausible that needs to be further tested. The questions are significantly empirical, or at least can be plausibly operationalized. For example, how much money does the government spend on social science research every year? To what extent are social scientists employed by the government or who receive government funding Marxists? I don't have figures for either of these questions (yet :-), and part of the reason is that this information in India is not easily available. But in the U.S. for example, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics, the U.S. government employs 40% of all sociologists in America (that is, all sociologists who are employed as sociologists). That gives us reason to believe that the Indian Government might also have a similarly large market share of the social science research market. More importantly, it gives us a reason to actually commit money and manpower to finding out the answer.
To find out the answer, it will take at least one person experienced in the field and who likely has enough expertise in the social sciences and the political connections to get the answers from the institutions who have this information. Otherwise, it might take a team of people who together have the combined qualifications necessary to get the answers. And you would have to probably at some point count on paying someone for their services in this regard. From this, we can create the details of the personal we would need to draft or hire, and this will be the basis for estimating the material costs and human resource costs for the project.
After you get some preliminary answers, then you can decide whether developing a political plan to reduce the influence of Marxism by restricting government funds to social science institutions is feasible. Another political option is possibly dismantling some of these institutions. For example, if we find out that the government in fact only sponsors 20 sociologists either directly or indirectly, and only perhaps 10 - 15% of them are likely to be Marxist-leaning, then we can scrap the plan and move on to exploring some other plan. But if the figures are sufficiently substantial, then a political plan can be developed further.
After that, presuming the project plan passes feasibility tests, there is the question of making the argument--making it substantial enough in depth and in breadth. Then there is targeting the right people--politicians, business leaders, other social intellectuals and elites--targeting them with the right message at the right time and, in effect, eventually selling the idea to the political class (right now, that will be the BJP) that defunding some of the research institutions that receive government funds will undermine Marxist influence in India.
As I'm sure you all can tell, exploring, developing, and selling an idea like this to the political class is not a trivial undertaking. It requires substantial time, effort, funding, and intelligence. And lots of personal contacts, too. But that's what think tanks do.
That's fine. Forums like this are good for bouncing ideas off each other, so we can see which ideas are well thought out and which others less so.
I think that is significantly a function of the fact that Hinduism itself means many things to many different people.
If you don't mind, could you please repost only that specific section of your previous post? I'm requesting this for my own sake and better understanding.
Well, I think the term "religious entrepreneur" captures what some key religious leaders of the future will be. There will be elements of religious reform, and there will be elements of experimenting with new ways of broadcasting religion, suitable to ever-changing time, place, people, and circumstances. In this respect, conducting a religious revival is much like growing a business.
This is something I don't think I've said but perhaps mistakenly gave that impression. There are some significant pan-Hindu precepts and issues we all share and can work meaningfully together on. In terms of theology, one specific area that I think can serve as a strong pan-Hindu glue is varnashram-dharma. Whether one is an advaitin, smarta, Vaishnava, or whatever, to me it seems that there already exists considerable agreement on what varnashram is. The disagreements on varnashram will not be along lines of various sects but along lines of tradition and modernity, with modernity more or less being somewhat of a reflection of Western social values. On other issues, however, I don't think a pan-Hindu concensus is possible. I think for example that a pan-Hindu response to Christian doctrine is not possible because on core issues of doctrine there is wide divergence and disagreement amongst many of the Hindu sects. But responses to Christian doctrine can come from specific sects themselves, and that will further any pan-Hindu cause.
All the best,
KKD, Before going on, you seem to have done quite a bit of thinking on what needs to be done. It would be nice if you share with Arya, Karigar and Arjun who are exploring this area (for the potential religious entrepreneurs??!!)
I would be obliged. In fact, this is one of the reasons myself and some others have created a U.S.-based non-profit org (http://samprajna.org) in order to better expedite such kinds of analysis and planning. A discussion group like this is a good forum for bouncing ideas of each other and testing them, but to be really effective the good ideas have to be more carefully studied and thought out at a higher level.
To give some better idea of what I mean by higher level, let's take the idea I put forward in one of my last posts that the humanistic sciences are the soft underbelly of the Western academic hegemony. If that is true (and we would like to conduct further analysis to confirm this theory and the extent to which it may be true), then we can start to develop a political strategy to help combat it.
For example, Marxism, a Western ideology, is very influential in India. At least two states (Bengal and Kerela) have Marxist governments, and the CPI is the third-largest political party in India. Aside from political parties, it so happens that social science research in India is heavily weighted towards a Marxist theoretical perspective. Furthermore, the Govt. of India itself heavily funds social science research. The Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR) recognizes 27 national social science research institutes, all of whom receive substantial government funding. Since social science research in India is likely weighted towards Marxist perspectives, and since the Government of India gives substantial support to social science work, a considerable amount of Marxist influence within India is directly sponsored with government funding. Given that there is a plausible, substantial link between the use of government funds and the influence of Marxism, we can begin thinking of a political approach to reducing the influence of Marxism in India.
Taking this as a starting point, many here will probably recognize here a the beginnings of a project plan. To begin with, we have an idea that seems plausible that needs to be further tested. The questions are significantly empirical, or at least can be plausibly operationalized. For example, how much money does the government spend on social science research every year? To what extent are social scientists employed by the government or who receive government funding Marxists? I don't have figures for either of these questions (yet :-), and part of the reason is that this information in India is not easily available. But in the U.S. for example, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics, the U.S. government employs 40% of all sociologists in America (that is, all sociologists who are employed as sociologists). That gives us reason to believe that the Indian Government might also have a similarly large market share of the social science research market. More importantly, it gives us a reason to actually commit money and manpower to finding out the answer.
To find out the answer, it will take at least one person experienced in the field and who likely has enough expertise in the social sciences and the political connections to get the answers from the institutions who have this information. Otherwise, it might take a team of people who together have the combined qualifications necessary to get the answers. And you would have to probably at some point count on paying someone for their services in this regard. From this, we can create the details of the personal we would need to draft or hire, and this will be the basis for estimating the material costs and human resource costs for the project.
After you get some preliminary answers, then you can decide whether developing a political plan to reduce the influence of Marxism by restricting government funds to social science institutions is feasible. Another political option is possibly dismantling some of these institutions. For example, if we find out that the government in fact only sponsors 20 sociologists either directly or indirectly, and only perhaps 10 - 15% of them are likely to be Marxist-leaning, then we can scrap the plan and move on to exploring some other plan. But if the figures are sufficiently substantial, then a political plan can be developed further.
After that, presuming the project plan passes feasibility tests, there is the question of making the argument--making it substantial enough in depth and in breadth. Then there is targeting the right people--politicians, business leaders, other social intellectuals and elites--targeting them with the right message at the right time and, in effect, eventually selling the idea to the political class (right now, that will be the BJP) that defunding some of the research institutions that receive government funds will undermine Marxist influence in India.
As I'm sure you all can tell, exploring, developing, and selling an idea like this to the political class is not a trivial undertaking. It requires substantial time, effort, funding, and intelligence. And lots of personal contacts, too. But that's what think tanks do.
Missionaries and their work: I particularly like your example and the fact that you put it in. It clarifies a lot. there can be no doubt that proximity is almost a prerequisite especially among the 'uneducated' (today, with the internet and google ads, there are also other means among the educated). I don't think we have any intrinsic disagreement, it is just that I am perhaps trying to move towards the roots which by definition are more underground.
That's fine. Forums like this are good for bouncing ideas off each other, so we can see which ideas are well thought out and which others less so.
Also perhaps as the discussion seems to be highlighting, terms/ phrases with which one is familiar don't necessarily have the same connotation for everyone.
I think that is significantly a function of the fact that Hinduism itself means many things to many different people.
M. Zeal: I have to the best of my ability at the moment mentioned the major factors that provide the zeal for missionary work in my earlier post.
If you don't mind, could you please repost only that specific section of your previous post? I'm requesting this for my own sake and better understanding.
Education: You have thrown up some good points - and perhaps the use of the term (which you seem to have coined!!) 'religious entrepreneurs' would be somewhat more realistic - needs more thinking.
Well, I think the term "religious entrepreneur" captures what some key religious leaders of the future will be. There will be elements of religious reform, and there will be elements of experimenting with new ways of broadcasting religion, suitable to ever-changing time, place, people, and circumstances. In this respect, conducting a religious revival is much like growing a business.
I think the point on which I am not sure is your repeated statement that there is nothing pan-Hindu.
This is something I don't think I've said but perhaps mistakenly gave that impression. There are some significant pan-Hindu precepts and issues we all share and can work meaningfully together on. In terms of theology, one specific area that I think can serve as a strong pan-Hindu glue is varnashram-dharma. Whether one is an advaitin, smarta, Vaishnava, or whatever, to me it seems that there already exists considerable agreement on what varnashram is. The disagreements on varnashram will not be along lines of various sects but along lines of tradition and modernity, with modernity more or less being somewhat of a reflection of Western social values. On other issues, however, I don't think a pan-Hindu concensus is possible. I think for example that a pan-Hindu response to Christian doctrine is not possible because on core issues of doctrine there is wide divergence and disagreement amongst many of the Hindu sects. But responses to Christian doctrine can come from specific sects themselves, and that will further any pan-Hindu cause.
All the best,
-
- +0
-
-
written by Deshika.N.Kumar, 2009-06-30 08:42:35
Medha Sevaks, a call! perhaps you'd like to join Arya et al in identifying the areas that (potential) non-political leaders (?and workers!) should work on? Devagura any ideas for those who are not able/ interested in writing long papers?
Medhavis, sorry! my last post should read: discrimination due to economic/ financial position vs that (apparently) because of the caste system.
Rajput: Your observation on the social needs of the poor being primary target is very interesting. Could you pls elaborate somewhat on these needs? Also, I appreciate very much that you are willing to think over what I said.
"Unfortunately this label is stuck because some moral policing acts by some Hindu organizations and some associated social pressure and/or violence"
Actually not - which is partially why I posted Tharoor's article! Looking at various newspapers at the time I found that most (?all) Hindu organisations disassociated from the group responsible for the 'goondaism'. The observer from the NCW in her report also said it was (I don't recall te judgement but something on the lines of 'hooliganism') and was dismissed almost immediately for her efforts.The label 'Talibanisation of Hinduism' was given by Renuka Choudhary - at the time a Union Minister from the Congress party - who jumped into the fray at about this time. And the entire media seemed to take it up gleefully! I was so struck by the entire episode that ....
Partha, was this the kind of thing you had in mind when you talked of politician media links? Is this common? One has often heard that news is blacked out but........ What are some of the other ramifications?........? ........?
Kaushal, As Rajput implied, the lines you quoted said it all. I hope all the subsequent (and earlier) posts have at least indicated to you that others may have similar concerns, expressed differently.
Medhavis, sorry! my last post should read: discrimination due to economic/ financial position vs that (apparently) because of the caste system.
Rajput: Your observation on the social needs of the poor being primary target is very interesting. Could you pls elaborate somewhat on these needs? Also, I appreciate very much that you are willing to think over what I said.
"Unfortunately this label is stuck because some moral policing acts by some Hindu organizations and some associated social pressure and/or violence"
Actually not - which is partially why I posted Tharoor's article! Looking at various newspapers at the time I found that most (?all) Hindu organisations disassociated from the group responsible for the 'goondaism'. The observer from the NCW in her report also said it was (I don't recall te judgement but something on the lines of 'hooliganism') and was dismissed almost immediately for her efforts.The label 'Talibanisation of Hinduism' was given by Renuka Choudhary - at the time a Union Minister from the Congress party - who jumped into the fray at about this time. And the entire media seemed to take it up gleefully! I was so struck by the entire episode that ....
Partha, was this the kind of thing you had in mind when you talked of politician media links? Is this common? One has often heard that news is blacked out but........ What are some of the other ramifications?........? ........?
Kaushal, As Rajput implied, the lines you quoted said it all. I hope all the subsequent (and earlier) posts have at least indicated to you that others may have similar concerns, expressed differently.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Dr. Pradip Gangopadh, 2009-06-30 07:43:13
gangP, The take from Swami Tapasyanand is interesting - so I'll leave the others to take it up. But at some point could you please post the ref so that I can read the entire commentary? Thanks.
Dear Deshika,
I am giving below some of Tapasyananda's comments on Varna. Tapasyananda's position is
similar to Yudhisthir's position described in Mahabharata which is given in the article on
Mahabharata given in my column.
gangp
1.
According to the aptitudes resulting from the dispositions of Nature (Gunas)
and works, the social order of fourfold division (CHATURVARNYA) has been
created by Me. Though I am their originator, know Me to not an agent but the
spirit unchanging. (Gita 4.13)
Commentary by Swami Tapasyananda:
Caturvarnya or the social order of fourfold division is NOT the caste system,
which is a system of social grouping solely based on birth. Brahmana,
Ksatriya, Vaisya and Sudra, as conceived in the Vedas, is a division based
on the natural constitution of man arising from the dominance of Sattva,
Rajas, and Tamas, the constituents of Nature (Gunas), as also the duties
they are fit to perform according to aptitudes arising from their
constitution. They are mere CHARACTER TYPES. In this context, the reference
to chaturvarnya is meant not to single out any particular society, but to
generalize about the institution of society among men. Just as He is the
author of the order of nature, so is He the author of the order of society
among men also.
2.
O great hero! The duties of Brahmanas, Ksatriyas, Vaisyas, and also of
Sudras, have been divided according to the qualities born of their nature.
(Gita 18.41)
Commentary by Swami Tapasyananda:
A great doctrine of the social philosophy of ancient India, regarding the
fourfold class system, is here propounded. There has been no doctrine so much
misapplied, misunderstood, and misrepresented as this doctrine. The four
Varnas of Brahmana, Ksatriya, Vaisya, and Sudra are today and for a long time
past understood as four hereditary castes. But the Varnas as understood by the
best Indian thinkers, are not caste based on birth in particular groups, but
character types based on the domination of the Sattvika, Rajasika and Tamasika
elements entering into the constitution of their body-mind, and this is
determined by their evolution in their past lives. At least such is the Gita
view. To have identified character types with endogamous social groups is
nothing but an aberration. It is in regard to the fourfold class based on
character that the Lord says in 4.13 Caturvarnyam maya srstam - the order of
four classes is My creation. Here also he speaks of duties pertaining to them
as born of the constituents of Nature forming their body-mind.
These four character types are universal all over the world and the prosperity
of a society will depend on the man of the right nature and character being
put to the right type of duty. For the individuals also doing the duty that
is natural to his psycho-physical constitution is the way of higher evolution.
3.
By being devoted to one's own natural duty, man attains to spiritual
competency. Now hear how devotion to one's own natural duty generates
spiritual competency.(Gita 18.45)
Commentary by Swami Tapasyananda:
This great verse of the Gita links man's social duties with spiritual
discipline. By cultivating a special attitude towards work, work is turned
into worship, and the distance between the shrine room and the work-spot
disappears. This philosophy is based upon a fundamental faith that this world
and the progress of life in it are all under the guidance of Supreme
Intelligence, who is the master of it all, and whose will is expressed in all
its movements. If man has got this faith, man ceases to be self-centered. He
comes to view himself as a worker of God, and all that he does comes to be
done with a sense of dedication to Him. Such work, as accrues to one according
to one's nature and is done with a spirit of dedication, is called Svadharma,
one's natural duty. This outlook on one's work makes a man free from
corruption and negligence, and induces him to put his best effort into his
work. If an attitude of this type were accepted in a society as a whole, it
will be the best social philosophy, besides being a spiritual doctrine. It
will secure the social good as also bring about the individual's spiritual
evolution.
A natural objection to this way of understanding chaturvarnya is that all
commentators understand the four Varnas as endogamous groups called castes,
and their natural duty (svadharma) of theirs as the profession that was
traditionally and scripturally alloted to those groups under the four
distinctive names. Such interpretations of the Gita were given at a time
when these endogamous caste groups were a recognized feature of Indian
society, and thinkers considered birth in a group as tantamount to character
type. The mistake of such identification was obvious to many thinkers of the
past. So some of them have made some kinds of amends for it by admitting that
if great disparity in quality is found in the actual quality of a Ksatriya
with the traditionally ascribed qualities, he can become a Brahmana. But all
rationality seems to have been neutralised by the very strong prejudice in
favour of endogamy.
What the Lord speaks of here as chaturvarnya should never be identified with
castes, because the Varna is said to be solely dependent on character formed
by the Gunas of Prakriti. It is only an ideal grouping based on psychological
principle and not on rigid hereditary basis.
Besides the Gita is a universal Gospel addressed to all mankind, for all
time, and not merely to the Indian society of a particular age. In no part
of the world except in India, caste system strictly based on birth seems to
have existed. Loose castes there have been but not rigid castes. So the old
commentators have done great injustice to Sri Krishna in watering down the
significance of his message as relevant only to members of the rigid Indian
social system.
The only practical way of applying the Gita teaching in this respect today is
to consider the duty to which one is called, as one's svadharma. Strictly
Svadharma is work according to one's nature. But until an ideal and efficient
social system comes into vogue, it may not be possible to give every one a
work for which he is suited by his character type. What could be done for
today, if one's duty is not according to one's nature, is to change it for
a more suitable one, considering the former as Paradharma, the duty of
another type of character. But today most men are found seeking not a duty
temperamentally suitable for them, but what will bring them maximum income.
When a duty is valued solely for the income it fetches, it ceases to be a
pursuit of a Dharma or spiritual value. Receiving remuneration for services
is unavoidable for man in the world, but what is unspiritual is to value
the work only for its remuneration, forgetting that the work he does is an
offering to God, irrespective of the remuneration he gets.
4.
One's own duty, even if without excellence (i.e. inferior in the scale of
worldy values), is more meritorious spiritually than the apparently
well-performed duty of another. For no sin is incurred by one doing works
ordained according to one's nature, (that is, in consonance with one's own
natural evolution.) GITA 18.47
Commentary by Swami Tapasyananda:
This verse, which was easy for our ancients to understand, pose great
difficulty for us today. So long as Varna was identifies with endogamous
caste, and valid texts ascribed particular works to each caste (18.41-45),
it was easy to find one's Svadharma. But, as already pointed out, the wording
of the Gita about Caturvanya, except as interpreted by old commentators, does
not by itself mean endogamous castes, but the four psychological types. If
this is accepted, Svadharma would mean only work that springs out of one's
nature and therefore adopted to one's natural development.
Dear Deshika,
I am giving below some of Tapasyananda's comments on Varna. Tapasyananda's position is
similar to Yudhisthir's position described in Mahabharata which is given in the article on
Mahabharata given in my column.
gangp
1.
According to the aptitudes resulting from the dispositions of Nature (Gunas)
and works, the social order of fourfold division (CHATURVARNYA) has been
created by Me. Though I am their originator, know Me to not an agent but the
spirit unchanging. (Gita 4.13)
Commentary by Swami Tapasyananda:
Caturvarnya or the social order of fourfold division is NOT the caste system,
which is a system of social grouping solely based on birth. Brahmana,
Ksatriya, Vaisya and Sudra, as conceived in the Vedas, is a division based
on the natural constitution of man arising from the dominance of Sattva,
Rajas, and Tamas, the constituents of Nature (Gunas), as also the duties
they are fit to perform according to aptitudes arising from their
constitution. They are mere CHARACTER TYPES. In this context, the reference
to chaturvarnya is meant not to single out any particular society, but to
generalize about the institution of society among men. Just as He is the
author of the order of nature, so is He the author of the order of society
among men also.
2.
O great hero! The duties of Brahmanas, Ksatriyas, Vaisyas, and also of
Sudras, have been divided according to the qualities born of their nature.
(Gita 18.41)
Commentary by Swami Tapasyananda:
A great doctrine of the social philosophy of ancient India, regarding the
fourfold class system, is here propounded. There has been no doctrine so much
misapplied, misunderstood, and misrepresented as this doctrine. The four
Varnas of Brahmana, Ksatriya, Vaisya, and Sudra are today and for a long time
past understood as four hereditary castes. But the Varnas as understood by the
best Indian thinkers, are not caste based on birth in particular groups, but
character types based on the domination of the Sattvika, Rajasika and Tamasika
elements entering into the constitution of their body-mind, and this is
determined by their evolution in their past lives. At least such is the Gita
view. To have identified character types with endogamous social groups is
nothing but an aberration. It is in regard to the fourfold class based on
character that the Lord says in 4.13 Caturvarnyam maya srstam - the order of
four classes is My creation. Here also he speaks of duties pertaining to them
as born of the constituents of Nature forming their body-mind.
These four character types are universal all over the world and the prosperity
of a society will depend on the man of the right nature and character being
put to the right type of duty. For the individuals also doing the duty that
is natural to his psycho-physical constitution is the way of higher evolution.
3.
By being devoted to one's own natural duty, man attains to spiritual
competency. Now hear how devotion to one's own natural duty generates
spiritual competency.(Gita 18.45)
Commentary by Swami Tapasyananda:
This great verse of the Gita links man's social duties with spiritual
discipline. By cultivating a special attitude towards work, work is turned
into worship, and the distance between the shrine room and the work-spot
disappears. This philosophy is based upon a fundamental faith that this world
and the progress of life in it are all under the guidance of Supreme
Intelligence, who is the master of it all, and whose will is expressed in all
its movements. If man has got this faith, man ceases to be self-centered. He
comes to view himself as a worker of God, and all that he does comes to be
done with a sense of dedication to Him. Such work, as accrues to one according
to one's nature and is done with a spirit of dedication, is called Svadharma,
one's natural duty. This outlook on one's work makes a man free from
corruption and negligence, and induces him to put his best effort into his
work. If an attitude of this type were accepted in a society as a whole, it
will be the best social philosophy, besides being a spiritual doctrine. It
will secure the social good as also bring about the individual's spiritual
evolution.
A natural objection to this way of understanding chaturvarnya is that all
commentators understand the four Varnas as endogamous groups called castes,
and their natural duty (svadharma) of theirs as the profession that was
traditionally and scripturally alloted to those groups under the four
distinctive names. Such interpretations of the Gita were given at a time
when these endogamous caste groups were a recognized feature of Indian
society, and thinkers considered birth in a group as tantamount to character
type. The mistake of such identification was obvious to many thinkers of the
past. So some of them have made some kinds of amends for it by admitting that
if great disparity in quality is found in the actual quality of a Ksatriya
with the traditionally ascribed qualities, he can become a Brahmana. But all
rationality seems to have been neutralised by the very strong prejudice in
favour of endogamy.
What the Lord speaks of here as chaturvarnya should never be identified with
castes, because the Varna is said to be solely dependent on character formed
by the Gunas of Prakriti. It is only an ideal grouping based on psychological
principle and not on rigid hereditary basis.
Besides the Gita is a universal Gospel addressed to all mankind, for all
time, and not merely to the Indian society of a particular age. In no part
of the world except in India, caste system strictly based on birth seems to
have existed. Loose castes there have been but not rigid castes. So the old
commentators have done great injustice to Sri Krishna in watering down the
significance of his message as relevant only to members of the rigid Indian
social system.
The only practical way of applying the Gita teaching in this respect today is
to consider the duty to which one is called, as one's svadharma. Strictly
Svadharma is work according to one's nature. But until an ideal and efficient
social system comes into vogue, it may not be possible to give every one a
work for which he is suited by his character type. What could be done for
today, if one's duty is not according to one's nature, is to change it for
a more suitable one, considering the former as Paradharma, the duty of
another type of character. But today most men are found seeking not a duty
temperamentally suitable for them, but what will bring them maximum income.
When a duty is valued solely for the income it fetches, it ceases to be a
pursuit of a Dharma or spiritual value. Receiving remuneration for services
is unavoidable for man in the world, but what is unspiritual is to value
the work only for its remuneration, forgetting that the work he does is an
offering to God, irrespective of the remuneration he gets.
4.
One's own duty, even if without excellence (i.e. inferior in the scale of
worldy values), is more meritorious spiritually than the apparently
well-performed duty of another. For no sin is incurred by one doing works
ordained according to one's nature, (that is, in consonance with one's own
natural evolution.) GITA 18.47
Commentary by Swami Tapasyananda:
This verse, which was easy for our ancients to understand, pose great
difficulty for us today. So long as Varna was identifies with endogamous
caste, and valid texts ascribed particular works to each caste (18.41-45),
it was easy to find one's Svadharma. But, as already pointed out, the wording
of the Gita about Caturvanya, except as interpreted by old commentators, does
not by itself mean endogamous castes, but the four psychological types. If
this is accepted, Svadharma would mean only work that springs out of one's
nature and therefore adopted to one's natural development.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Deshika.N.Kumar, 2009-06-30 07:07:36
Dear Medhavis who are not discussants, we are missing you! Also I do hope some of you will share your thoughts on the discrimination - resulting from money - vs that from caste. It is in my post to Rajput but was actually for anyone who would care to comment.
Partha, the url you posted was full of light. Thankyou. Would you know whether it is possible to track down the author?
gangP, The take from Swami Tapasyanand is interesting - so I'll leave the others to take it up. But at some point could you please post the ref so that I can read the entire commentary? Thanks.
KKD, Before going on, you seem to have done quite a bit of thinking on what needs to be done. It would be nice if you share with Arya, Karigar and Arjun who are exploring this area (for the potential religious entrepreneurs??!!)
Missionaries and their work: I particularly like your example and the fact that you put it in. It clarifies a lot. there can be no doubt that proximity is almost a prerequisite especially among the 'uneducated' (today, with the internet and google ads, there are also other means among the educated). I don't think we have any intrinsic disagreement, it is just that I am perhaps trying to move towards the roots which by definition are more underground. Also perhaps as the discussion seems to be highlighting, terms/ phrases with which one is familiar don't necessarily have the same connotation for everyone.
M. Zeal: I have to the best of my ability at the moment mentioned the major factors that provide the zeal for missionary work in my earlier post.
Education: You have thrown up some good points - and perhaps the use of the term (which you seem to have coined!!) 'religious entrepreneurs' would be somewhat more realistic - needs more thinking.
I think the point on which I am not sure is your repeated statement that there is nothing pan-Hindu. Going back to your example (and I really like your recourse to them!) I agree that there is a lot of difference between the Vaishanavas and Advaitins (we've recently been immersed in some of the fallout!) but ........
Possibly Pradipda and Karigar, Dwai (and .....? ?) could throw more light on this.. ?
Partha, the url you posted was full of light. Thankyou. Would you know whether it is possible to track down the author?
gangP, The take from Swami Tapasyanand is interesting - so I'll leave the others to take it up. But at some point could you please post the ref so that I can read the entire commentary? Thanks.
KKD, Before going on, you seem to have done quite a bit of thinking on what needs to be done. It would be nice if you share with Arya, Karigar and Arjun who are exploring this area (for the potential religious entrepreneurs??!!)
Missionaries and their work: I particularly like your example and the fact that you put it in. It clarifies a lot. there can be no doubt that proximity is almost a prerequisite especially among the 'uneducated' (today, with the internet and google ads, there are also other means among the educated). I don't think we have any intrinsic disagreement, it is just that I am perhaps trying to move towards the roots which by definition are more underground. Also perhaps as the discussion seems to be highlighting, terms/ phrases with which one is familiar don't necessarily have the same connotation for everyone.
M. Zeal: I have to the best of my ability at the moment mentioned the major factors that provide the zeal for missionary work in my earlier post.
Education: You have thrown up some good points - and perhaps the use of the term (which you seem to have coined!!) 'religious entrepreneurs' would be somewhat more realistic - needs more thinking.
I think the point on which I am not sure is your repeated statement that there is nothing pan-Hindu. Going back to your example (and I really like your recourse to them!) I agree that there is a lot of difference between the Vaishanavas and Advaitins (we've recently been immersed in some of the fallout!) but ........
Possibly Pradipda and Karigar, Dwai (and .....? ?) could throw more light on this.. ?
-
- +0
-
-
written by Raju, 2009-06-30 06:01:05
Dear Deshika,
You have made some important points. I will reflect on these.
1. Talibanisation
I agree there is no organized force trying to lead everyone back to (non existent) fundamentalist doctrines like the ones we see in the neighborhoods of India. Unfortunately this label is stuck because some moral policing acts by some Hindu organizations and some associated social pressure and/or violence.
2. Caste
Based on my limited observation I can say that economic lives of most of the low caste Hindus who convert to other religion does not change. Yet this happens, perhaps their social needs are fulfilled in other religion. I don’t know why Hindu society cannot address this simple need?
I will also think about the challenges that you have listed.
Regards,
You have made some important points. I will reflect on these.
1. Talibanisation
I agree there is no organized force trying to lead everyone back to (non existent) fundamentalist doctrines like the ones we see in the neighborhoods of India. Unfortunately this label is stuck because some moral policing acts by some Hindu organizations and some associated social pressure and/or violence.
2. Caste
Based on my limited observation I can say that economic lives of most of the low caste Hindus who convert to other religion does not change. Yet this happens, perhaps their social needs are fulfilled in other religion. I don’t know why Hindu society cannot address this simple need?
I will also think about the challenges that you have listed.
Regards,
-
- +0
-
-
written by Krishna Kirti Das, 2009-06-29 11:20:44
Deshika-ji (@ 2009-06-28 07:03:52), Namaste!
Of course, you are right about not confusing sva-dharma and "christian 'welfare work'". And you are also right about nuances in the meaning of sva-dharma that do not map to Christian thought. As long as we treat the concept of sva-dharma as being peculiar to Hindu thought and practice, it may not necessarily be a good idea to use it. As you point out, it may create confusion.
Yet it seems to me that a problem we sometimes have in analyzing the Christian position (the Christian "other"), is that Christians are sometimes regarded as radically different from Hindus when it is more likely that they are not so different after all. For example, I find that the notion that Hindus have a sva-dharma and Christians don't, though true, nevertheless appears to mask the reality that there is, in fact, a Christian way of life--a way of living that must be understood in the sense, as you describe it, as something like living and breathing. At least in terms of ontology, it appears to me that making such a distinction between Hindus and Christians can problematize rather than clarify analyses.
Nevertheless, we do seem to agree that there is such a thing as a Christian way of life, a Christian "nature", if you will. And this suggests that a change in terminology might help future analyses. Sva-dharma is based on sva-bhava, or one's intrinsic nature. Without sva-bhava there can be no sva-dharma. Sva-bhava itself is a product of the three gunas--sattva, raja, and tamah (goodness, passion, and ignorance). All living beings have a nature that rests on these three modes. Therefore the three gunas should be the starting point for all kinds of humanistic investigation. In the 17th chapter of the Gita, Arjuna asks Krishna what is the situation of those who do not follow the Vedas but follow some other kinds of religious principles not mentioned in the Vedas. Arjuna asks whether they are sattvic, rajasic, or tamasic. Krishna answers Arjuna by elucidating a taxonomic description of the various kinds of behavior, thinking, world view, perferred foods, etc. as they relate to the three gunas. The advantage of starting from the point of the three gunas (or, in more depth, employing the metaphysical system of sankhya) is that we have a unified approach that can be used as easily in analyzing the Christian, the Muslim, or any other person or group as it can be used in analyzing Hindus.
Yes, and this is where keeping an analysis at the level of Hindu culture starts producing diminishing returns. In advancing a particular "Hindu approach", the question then becomes "Whose Hinduism?" Depending on the sect, what to speak of time, place, and circumstance, "seva" will mean very different things. For example, the gulf between Vaishnava and Advaitins on the notion of seva is wide and deep, with Vaishnavas seeing seva as an end in itself and Advaitins seeing seva as a means to some other end. Ditto for charity. Analyzing notions such as seva are best done at the level of particular sects and their corresponding doctrines.
Yes! And this explains why Christian theologians regard Marxism as a Christian heresy. Marxism (surprise surprise!) has inherited this Christian idea that the haves should share with the have nots. Indeed, Marxist class-conflict theory is premised on this perspective. What Marx did was remove God from the picture and posited a humanistic, economic explanation for man's material experiences.
Certainly.
Yes, they were, but there is also a hierarchy of values which controls what kinds of charitable projects get emphasized. Mundane educational institutions and hospitals are emphasized as charitable projects when the civilizational mood is more worldly. After all, if mukti and bhakti are regarded as most important, then there will correspondingly be less emphasis on worldly education or on prolonging one's lifetime, or on improving the quality of one's material circumstances.
I do not see Christian welfare work fundamentally as a means to an end. Instead, I see Christian welfare work as following from a fundamental Christian doctrine, which is "Love Thy Neighbor." Christians engage in welfare work because it is in their eyes a divine edict. How Christians love their neighbors is through welfare work as we see it today.
It so happens that welfare work as the expression of "Love Thy Neighbor" is conducive to missionary work. Welfare work necessarily brings one in contact with others. It provides opportunities to create relationships. Relationships create opportunities for one to hear about the beliefs of others. Hearing about others' beliefs creates opportunities for one to adopt them. More opportunities for conversion means more converts.
What do you consider the fundamental requirements for missionary work?
I still think that when the details are considered, association with others (sanga sanjayate kama) is the primary means by which people convert. Hospitals, for example, are conducive to Christian missionary work because that is where people encounter Christians. For example, one Christian official remarked as follows about hospitals:
"In a 1923 report to Rome gleefully titled 'The Spiritual Advantages of Famine and Cholera,' the Archbishop of Pondicherry related how a famine had 'wrought miracles' in a local hospital where 'baptismal water flows in streams, and starving little tots fly in masses to heaven.' A hospital is a 'ready-made congregation,' the report contended, where there is 'no need to go into the ... hedges and compel them to "come in."' Thanks to infection, they 'send each other.'" (Qtd. from "Sins of the Missionaries", by Stephen Welch)
Christians regard welfare work as a powerful means of forging relationships with others and, hence, creating favorable conditions for their conversion. Because doing welfare work directly supports an important commandment and because it supports efforts to fulfil other commandments, Christians devote much effort and resources to welfare work. Interestingly enough, Communists also regard association as an important means of getting others to become Communists (hence, their empahsis on education). Within Hinduism, the Vaishnava sects at least generally consider association with others to be very important if not the most important vector for a person's emancipation. Other Hindu sects, however, may give more emphasis to personal endeavor in pursuit of mukti. Nevertheless, the principle emboddied in the statement sangat-sanjayate kama seems to point to a necessary principle underlying conversion.
Best regards,
1.I think I would not confuse sva-dharma and christian 'welfare work' per se, but you are right in that giving in 'charity' is part of what it means to be a Christian.
Of course, you are right about not confusing sva-dharma and "christian 'welfare work'". And you are also right about nuances in the meaning of sva-dharma that do not map to Christian thought. As long as we treat the concept of sva-dharma as being peculiar to Hindu thought and practice, it may not necessarily be a good idea to use it. As you point out, it may create confusion.
Yet it seems to me that a problem we sometimes have in analyzing the Christian position (the Christian "other"), is that Christians are sometimes regarded as radically different from Hindus when it is more likely that they are not so different after all. For example, I find that the notion that Hindus have a sva-dharma and Christians don't, though true, nevertheless appears to mask the reality that there is, in fact, a Christian way of life--a way of living that must be understood in the sense, as you describe it, as something like living and breathing. At least in terms of ontology, it appears to me that making such a distinction between Hindus and Christians can problematize rather than clarify analyses.
Nevertheless, we do seem to agree that there is such a thing as a Christian way of life, a Christian "nature", if you will. And this suggests that a change in terminology might help future analyses. Sva-dharma is based on sva-bhava, or one's intrinsic nature. Without sva-bhava there can be no sva-dharma. Sva-bhava itself is a product of the three gunas--sattva, raja, and tamah (goodness, passion, and ignorance). All living beings have a nature that rests on these three modes. Therefore the three gunas should be the starting point for all kinds of humanistic investigation. In the 17th chapter of the Gita, Arjuna asks Krishna what is the situation of those who do not follow the Vedas but follow some other kinds of religious principles not mentioned in the Vedas. Arjuna asks whether they are sattvic, rajasic, or tamasic. Krishna answers Arjuna by elucidating a taxonomic description of the various kinds of behavior, thinking, world view, perferred foods, etc. as they relate to the three gunas. The advantage of starting from the point of the three gunas (or, in more depth, employing the metaphysical system of sankhya) is that we have a unified approach that can be used as easily in analyzing the Christian, the Muslim, or any other person or group as it can be used in analyzing Hindus.
Seva has many additional connotations - Hindus are not a monolithic group and charity perse is also given greater importance as a form of sva-dharma in some forms.
Yes, and this is where keeping an analysis at the level of Hindu culture starts producing diminishing returns. In advancing a particular "Hindu approach", the question then becomes "Whose Hinduism?" Depending on the sect, what to speak of time, place, and circumstance, "seva" will mean very different things. For example, the gulf between Vaishnava and Advaitins on the notion of seva is wide and deep, with Vaishnavas seeing seva as an end in itself and Advaitins seeing seva as a means to some other end. Ditto for charity. Analyzing notions such as seva are best done at the level of particular sects and their corresponding doctrines.
I would also say that christian charity has the in-built heirarchy which recognises that those who have (money) should share with the 'have nots';
Yes! And this explains why Christian theologians regard Marxism as a Christian heresy. Marxism (surprise surprise!) has inherited this Christian idea that the haves should share with the have nots. Indeed, Marxist class-conflict theory is premised on this perspective. What Marx did was remove God from the picture and posited a humanistic, economic explanation for man's material experiences.
while sva-dharma is more sort of part of everyday life - like breathing - with the inbuilt recognition that different people will have different responses to the same situation (breaths taken/ minute can be different even in the same person at different times!!).
Certainly.
We also need to recognise that setting up educational institutions and hospitals were earlier very much a part of Hindu 'welfare work' in North India at any rate.
Yes, they were, but there is also a hierarchy of values which controls what kinds of charitable projects get emphasized. Mundane educational institutions and hospitals are emphasized as charitable projects when the civilizational mood is more worldly. After all, if mukti and bhakti are regarded as most important, then there will correspondingly be less emphasis on worldly education or on prolonging one's lifetime, or on improving the quality of one's material circumstances.
2.When it comes to institutionalised welfare work in Christianity it is based on those with 'missionary zeal'. Most of them are doing it for the love of Christ. There is a goal and marks beyond the immediate person helped. And it is the same zeal that would like to see the soul harvested since that is at the end of the day good for all three - Christ's work, personal marks and the soul saved. the work is in fact another 'Crusade'.
I do not see Christian welfare work fundamentally as a means to an end. Instead, I see Christian welfare work as following from a fundamental Christian doctrine, which is "Love Thy Neighbor." Christians engage in welfare work because it is in their eyes a divine edict. How Christians love their neighbors is through welfare work as we see it today.
It so happens that welfare work as the expression of "Love Thy Neighbor" is conducive to missionary work. Welfare work necessarily brings one in contact with others. It provides opportunities to create relationships. Relationships create opportunities for one to hear about the beliefs of others. Hearing about others' beliefs creates opportunities for one to adopt them. More opportunities for conversion means more converts.
The missionary zeal cannot reach the same level among Hindus because they lack two of the fundamental requirements for the mission!
What do you consider the fundamental requirements for missionary work?
3. On the part of the recipient of welfare, I imagine conversion is much more than a factor of proximity. At a fundamental level this is probably not just as simple as "sangat sanjayate kama" ....... and education perse is unlikely to solve the problem.
I still think that when the details are considered, association with others (sanga sanjayate kama) is the primary means by which people convert. Hospitals, for example, are conducive to Christian missionary work because that is where people encounter Christians. For example, one Christian official remarked as follows about hospitals:
"In a 1923 report to Rome gleefully titled 'The Spiritual Advantages of Famine and Cholera,' the Archbishop of Pondicherry related how a famine had 'wrought miracles' in a local hospital where 'baptismal water flows in streams, and starving little tots fly in masses to heaven.' A hospital is a 'ready-made congregation,' the report contended, where there is 'no need to go into the ... hedges and compel them to "come in."' Thanks to infection, they 'send each other.'" (Qtd. from "Sins of the Missionaries", by Stephen Welch)
Christians regard welfare work as a powerful means of forging relationships with others and, hence, creating favorable conditions for their conversion. Because doing welfare work directly supports an important commandment and because it supports efforts to fulfil other commandments, Christians devote much effort and resources to welfare work. Interestingly enough, Communists also regard association as an important means of getting others to become Communists (hence, their empahsis on education). Within Hinduism, the Vaishnava sects at least generally consider association with others to be very important if not the most important vector for a person's emancipation. Other Hindu sects, however, may give more emphasis to personal endeavor in pursuit of mukti. Nevertheless, the principle emboddied in the statement sangat-sanjayate kama seems to point to a necessary principle underlying conversion.
Best regards,
-
- +0
-
-
written by Dr. Pradip Gangopadh, 2009-06-29 11:00:00
The usual understanding of the Gita verse:
One's own duty, even if without excellence (i.e. inferior in the scale of
worldy values), is more meritorious spiritually than the apparently
well-performed duty of another. For no sin is incurred by one doing works ordained according to one's nature, (that is, in consonance with one's own
natural evolution.) GITA 18.47
in terms of various castes seems doubtful. This verse, which was easy for our ancients to understand, pose great difficulty for us today. So long as Varna was identifies with endogamous caste, and valid texts ascribed particular works to each caste (18.41-45),
it was easy to find one's Svadharma. But, the wording of the Gita about Caturvanya, except as interpreted by old commentators, does not by itself mean endogamous castes, but the four psychological types. If this is accepted, Svadharma would mean only work that springs out of one's nature and therefore adopted to one's natural development.
Such an interpretation would also make Hinduism a world system while the narrow interpretation of the old commentators made Hinduism a regional system.(adapated from
Swami Tapasyananda's commentary).
One's own duty, even if without excellence (i.e. inferior in the scale of
worldy values), is more meritorious spiritually than the apparently
well-performed duty of another. For no sin is incurred by one doing works ordained according to one's nature, (that is, in consonance with one's own
natural evolution.) GITA 18.47
in terms of various castes seems doubtful. This verse, which was easy for our ancients to understand, pose great difficulty for us today. So long as Varna was identifies with endogamous caste, and valid texts ascribed particular works to each caste (18.41-45),
it was easy to find one's Svadharma. But, the wording of the Gita about Caturvanya, except as interpreted by old commentators, does not by itself mean endogamous castes, but the four psychological types. If this is accepted, Svadharma would mean only work that springs out of one's nature and therefore adopted to one's natural development.
Such an interpretation would also make Hinduism a world system while the narrow interpretation of the old commentators made Hinduism a regional system.(adapated from
Swami Tapasyananda's commentary).
-
- +0
-
-
written by Krishna Kirti Das, 2009-06-29 10:58:57
Dear Deshika-ji (@ 2009-06-28 04:31:31), Namaste!
I think religious entrepreneurship will determine the form of that education. I don't think we need to deal too much with the details here, because the details won't be clear until someone actually sets out to set up an educational initiative.
Nevertheless, I believe that a successful educational initiative is likely to have some of these features:
1) Particular Hindu sects will implement educational programs. This is because only at this level is it possible to articulate a coherent world view. A coherent pan-Hindu articulation of such a world view is not possible. For example, both Advaitins and Vaishnavas are Hindu, but they have deep differences about the nature of the absolute truth. Their core doctrines will consequently influence their ethics, methods, and curriculum.
2) These sects will develop polemical literature that--point-for-point--attacks Christian and Muslim religious doctrine (see point 3 about dealing with Western culture and secularism). The fact is that in the last few hundred years, Hinduism in general has not produced any new important theological works. It so happens that some of the most important theological works within Hinduism are polemical. Much of Shankaracharya's works were dedicated to defeating the doctrines of various other sects. Ramanujacharya's first order of business in his Sri Bhashya was refuting Shankaracharya. The scholarly followers of Madhvacharya to this day are trained to defeat Advaitin doctrines. But to this day, no Hindu sect has produced such polemical works directed against either Christianity or Islam.
3) Hindu sects or other Hindu intellectual enrepreneurs will introduce analytical methodologies specifically created for challenging Western hegemony in the humanities and humanistic sciences (sociology, psychology, economics, etc).
Although the West is the "Other", it is a critically wounded "other." Pretty much since the Western Industrial Revolution (and particularly since the latter half of the 20th century), Western society has been a post-Christian society, which today shows significant signs of decay. For the past 90 years, Western society has been guided significantly by the humanistic sciences, but Western society is in a deep state of turmoil. Divorce in Western countries is widespread. Furthermore, illegitimacy is not only widespread but is also socially acceptable. According to the U.S. center for disease control [references can be supplied on request], 40% of all children born in the U.S. are born to unmarried women. Some European contries have higher rates of out-of-wedlock birth. Most of these births are to women who are over the age of majority.
European countries in particular are depopulating and resorting to immigration to shore up the deficits in their workforce and tax bases. However, on account of immigration and considerably higher fertility rates among predominantly Muslim immigrants, fears of an Islamicized Europe are no longer fringe concerns among Western intellectuals. In France, for example, the Muslim population is estimated to be between 7 - 10% ofthe entire population. That population differential continues to change in favor of the Muslim demographic.
In short, Western civilization is an existential mess. Its family structure is in an advanced stage of decay, and it is not able to replace its core populations, who are responsible for upholding Western ideals. Significantly, the humanistic sciences have played a large role in guiding Western society toward its current state of social and familial decay. The humanistic sciences are therefore the soft-underbelly of Western intellectual hegemony. Just for the sake of self-preservation, if not for the sake of challenging Western intellectual hegemony, Hindu sects and Hindu intellectual entrepreneurs will find it in their best of interests to develop methodologies that can challenge Western humanistic science.
Whatever the form of successful future Hindu educational initiatives, they are likely to be implemented by particular Hindu sects rather than by pan-Hindu institutions, they are likely to produce polemical literature against Christian and Islamic doctrine, and they are also likely to try to challenge the Western academic hegemony in the humanities and humanistic sciences.
Best regards,
I think both your main points vis this thread, ie those on 'the culture's self-determinants' and education, are extremely important. But I am not sure about the 'form' of action as suggested. perhaps if you start with expanding on 'education' keeping in mind the culture, it will be easier to understand the possibilities as you see them. Names can always been given later if required.
I think religious entrepreneurship will determine the form of that education. I don't think we need to deal too much with the details here, because the details won't be clear until someone actually sets out to set up an educational initiative.
Nevertheless, I believe that a successful educational initiative is likely to have some of these features:
1) Particular Hindu sects will implement educational programs. This is because only at this level is it possible to articulate a coherent world view. A coherent pan-Hindu articulation of such a world view is not possible. For example, both Advaitins and Vaishnavas are Hindu, but they have deep differences about the nature of the absolute truth. Their core doctrines will consequently influence their ethics, methods, and curriculum.
2) These sects will develop polemical literature that--point-for-point--attacks Christian and Muslim religious doctrine (see point 3 about dealing with Western culture and secularism). The fact is that in the last few hundred years, Hinduism in general has not produced any new important theological works. It so happens that some of the most important theological works within Hinduism are polemical. Much of Shankaracharya's works were dedicated to defeating the doctrines of various other sects. Ramanujacharya's first order of business in his Sri Bhashya was refuting Shankaracharya. The scholarly followers of Madhvacharya to this day are trained to defeat Advaitin doctrines. But to this day, no Hindu sect has produced such polemical works directed against either Christianity or Islam.
3) Hindu sects or other Hindu intellectual enrepreneurs will introduce analytical methodologies specifically created for challenging Western hegemony in the humanities and humanistic sciences (sociology, psychology, economics, etc).
Although the West is the "Other", it is a critically wounded "other." Pretty much since the Western Industrial Revolution (and particularly since the latter half of the 20th century), Western society has been a post-Christian society, which today shows significant signs of decay. For the past 90 years, Western society has been guided significantly by the humanistic sciences, but Western society is in a deep state of turmoil. Divorce in Western countries is widespread. Furthermore, illegitimacy is not only widespread but is also socially acceptable. According to the U.S. center for disease control [references can be supplied on request], 40% of all children born in the U.S. are born to unmarried women. Some European contries have higher rates of out-of-wedlock birth. Most of these births are to women who are over the age of majority.
European countries in particular are depopulating and resorting to immigration to shore up the deficits in their workforce and tax bases. However, on account of immigration and considerably higher fertility rates among predominantly Muslim immigrants, fears of an Islamicized Europe are no longer fringe concerns among Western intellectuals. In France, for example, the Muslim population is estimated to be between 7 - 10% ofthe entire population. That population differential continues to change in favor of the Muslim demographic.
In short, Western civilization is an existential mess. Its family structure is in an advanced stage of decay, and it is not able to replace its core populations, who are responsible for upholding Western ideals. Significantly, the humanistic sciences have played a large role in guiding Western society toward its current state of social and familial decay. The humanistic sciences are therefore the soft-underbelly of Western intellectual hegemony. Just for the sake of self-preservation, if not for the sake of challenging Western intellectual hegemony, Hindu sects and Hindu intellectual entrepreneurs will find it in their best of interests to develop methodologies that can challenge Western humanistic science.
Whatever the form of successful future Hindu educational initiatives, they are likely to be implemented by particular Hindu sects rather than by pan-Hindu institutions, they are likely to produce polemical literature against Christian and Islamic doctrine, and they are also likely to try to challenge the Western academic hegemony in the humanities and humanistic sciences.
Best regards,
-
- +0
-
-
written by Krishna Kirti Das, 2009-06-29 10:51:12
Arjunbhagat-ji (@ 2009-06-27 23:57:16) Namaste!
Very briefly (and pls pardon me for not supplying references right now), it seems to me that education is the high battleground. It is the Siachen Glacier of this conflict. Lifting people out of poverty actually isn't very effective. Education, on the other hand, is key to people's hearts. Take for example the record of the Communist Party in Bengal in lifting people out of poverty. Their record is dismal. However, the Communists are very active in educating people. To use a Marxist term, on account of "ideology," the poor don't turn against the Communist goverment. Instead, they continue to give their allegiance to the CPI. Because the communists are very active in the field of education, they essentially train people to view their own circumstances as a consequence of something other than the CPI's dismal performance. The idea is that people acquire a particular kind of consciousness by coming into contact with others already oriented toward that consciousness. Contact with others with the right consciousness has been the centerpiece of communist "preaching" strategy. It also happens to be central various Hindu processes of achieving enlightenment.
In this regard, I often think about the Chanakya TV series. I think a brahminical renaissance would be something like how Chanakya through his efforts raised and trained a strong, moral kshatriya class who drove the Greeks out of India and replaced an effete monarchy. However, the renaissance I imagine would be different in that it would be more spiritual and religious than political. This is not to say that politics will not play an important role. Still, I believe politics' role would be secondary to the spiritual renaissance. Of course, I'm just speculating. Yet I think that kind of future is difficult to conceive of without the help of art and literature.
Best regards,
I am intrigued by your suggestion of how education can become the point of the spear in our response to the Other. I look forward to reading your fleshed out article on this.
Very briefly (and pls pardon me for not supplying references right now), it seems to me that education is the high battleground. It is the Siachen Glacier of this conflict. Lifting people out of poverty actually isn't very effective. Education, on the other hand, is key to people's hearts. Take for example the record of the Communist Party in Bengal in lifting people out of poverty. Their record is dismal. However, the Communists are very active in educating people. To use a Marxist term, on account of "ideology," the poor don't turn against the Communist goverment. Instead, they continue to give their allegiance to the CPI. Because the communists are very active in the field of education, they essentially train people to view their own circumstances as a consequence of something other than the CPI's dismal performance. The idea is that people acquire a particular kind of consciousness by coming into contact with others already oriented toward that consciousness. Contact with others with the right consciousness has been the centerpiece of communist "preaching" strategy. It also happens to be central various Hindu processes of achieving enlightenment.
I did not quite understand what exactly you mean when you talk about “a brahminical renaissance” within Hinduism. Since the word is so loaded and has so many different connotations, could you expound on what you are suggesting there?
In this regard, I often think about the Chanakya TV series. I think a brahminical renaissance would be something like how Chanakya through his efforts raised and trained a strong, moral kshatriya class who drove the Greeks out of India and replaced an effete monarchy. However, the renaissance I imagine would be different in that it would be more spiritual and religious than political. This is not to say that politics will not play an important role. Still, I believe politics' role would be secondary to the spiritual renaissance. Of course, I'm just speculating. Yet I think that kind of future is difficult to conceive of without the help of art and literature.
Best regards,
-
- +0
-
-
written by Krishna Kirti Das, 2009-06-29 10:44:47
Karigar-ji (@ 2009-06-27 17:09:37), Namaste!
I was also thinking of this verse when I wrote my previous comment.
What you say about the struggle to subsist as a poor brahmana is true. I believe that one important reason for lack of a brahminical culture is that many no longer think it is important. Poverty is not a bad think in itself, but destitution is. Usually when we talk about poverty we mean destitue poverty, and then we tend to conflate all other levels of poverty with destitution. So people today believe that the good life is a function of material acquisition, and those who might otherwise be inclined to a live a brahminical life have to face the prospect of a life of poverty that is likely to slide into destitution. Brahminical culture depends on a generally shared spirit of charity, and people in general seem not to be as charitable as they used to be.
It seems to me that another reason people aren't taking up a more spiritual path is that the top religious leaders aren't encouraging it much. Respect is there for it still, but success in material acquisition is what seems to be given the most encouragement. Gandhi-ji, of course, himself adopted a very renounced life. But more on the brahminical model was Chanakya Pundit. Although the prime minister for Maharaja Chandragupta, he did not accept a salary from him. Instead Chanakya depended on charity and the biksha collected by disciples. I don't see much in the way of encouragement for that way of life coming from the top down.
I believe that a third reason for lack of brahminical culture begins with the abuse of brahminical privilege. When privileges accorded to the brahmana caste were misused by some members of that caste, the entire caste itself in many areas of India fell into disrepute. In many cases, the respect that continued to be accorded to brahmanas was given begrudgingly. Anti-brahmana movements sprung up in many places. This is not to say that all brahmanas had brought widespread disrepute upon their caste. Indeed, it takes only a handful of people's misbehavior to discredit the entire community. It could be the case that anti-brahmana movements were partly a result of brahmana communities failing to rein in their misbehaving elements.
There are undoubtedly other factors weighing against a revival of brahminical culture. Nevertheless, a culture of materialism, a lack of encouragement from top religious leaders, and the past, unchecked misbehavior of some in the brahmana community seem to be some of the important circumstances that must be overcome before a brahminical renaissance is possible.
I believe that the economic renaissance could either help or hurt a potential brahminical renaissance. The economic renaissance is giving some Hindus confidence that they are not a backward people. (Other Hindus never had this negative self-image.) In that sense, economic progress is freeing minds. However, economic progress comes at the cost of encouraging a more materialistic mentality throughout society. The more materialistic society becomes, the more difficult it is to revive a culture of renunctiation. In that case, only after prolonged economic success will successive generations become disgusted with the pursuit of material goods.
Given that Hindu civilization continues to exist, I think this swinging from materialism to spiritualism in Hindu civilization is inevitable. However, the danger lies in possible events that could all of a sudden end the possibility of a civilization revitalizing itself. Civilizations do sometimes die, without possibility of revival.
Best regards,
Like in Gita Sri Krishna advises to do one's own dharma however imperfectly is better than doing others' however perfectly...
I was also thinking of this verse when I wrote my previous comment.
But it is quite a difficult path today, as the brahmin (or brahmin minded person, the same thing essentially) is faced with an either-or choice, between struggling financially to teach dharmically, vs jumping ship towards a Western(ized) education which is the road to riches & success...
What you say about the struggle to subsist as a poor brahmana is true. I believe that one important reason for lack of a brahminical culture is that many no longer think it is important. Poverty is not a bad think in itself, but destitution is. Usually when we talk about poverty we mean destitue poverty, and then we tend to conflate all other levels of poverty with destitution. So people today believe that the good life is a function of material acquisition, and those who might otherwise be inclined to a live a brahminical life have to face the prospect of a life of poverty that is likely to slide into destitution. Brahminical culture depends on a generally shared spirit of charity, and people in general seem not to be as charitable as they used to be.
It seems to me that another reason people aren't taking up a more spiritual path is that the top religious leaders aren't encouraging it much. Respect is there for it still, but success in material acquisition is what seems to be given the most encouragement. Gandhi-ji, of course, himself adopted a very renounced life. But more on the brahminical model was Chanakya Pundit. Although the prime minister for Maharaja Chandragupta, he did not accept a salary from him. Instead Chanakya depended on charity and the biksha collected by disciples. I don't see much in the way of encouragement for that way of life coming from the top down.
I believe that a third reason for lack of brahminical culture begins with the abuse of brahminical privilege. When privileges accorded to the brahmana caste were misused by some members of that caste, the entire caste itself in many areas of India fell into disrepute. In many cases, the respect that continued to be accorded to brahmanas was given begrudgingly. Anti-brahmana movements sprung up in many places. This is not to say that all brahmanas had brought widespread disrepute upon their caste. Indeed, it takes only a handful of people's misbehavior to discredit the entire community. It could be the case that anti-brahmana movements were partly a result of brahmana communities failing to rein in their misbehaving elements.
There are undoubtedly other factors weighing against a revival of brahminical culture. Nevertheless, a culture of materialism, a lack of encouragement from top religious leaders, and the past, unchecked misbehavior of some in the brahmana community seem to be some of the important circumstances that must be overcome before a brahminical renaissance is possible.
Perhaps India's economic renaissance will change things somewhat, but I wonder how much...
I believe that the economic renaissance could either help or hurt a potential brahminical renaissance. The economic renaissance is giving some Hindus confidence that they are not a backward people. (Other Hindus never had this negative self-image.) In that sense, economic progress is freeing minds. However, economic progress comes at the cost of encouraging a more materialistic mentality throughout society. The more materialistic society becomes, the more difficult it is to revive a culture of renunctiation. In that case, only after prolonged economic success will successive generations become disgusted with the pursuit of material goods.
Given that Hindu civilization continues to exist, I think this swinging from materialism to spiritualism in Hindu civilization is inevitable. However, the danger lies in possible events that could all of a sudden end the possibility of a civilization revitalizing itself. Civilizations do sometimes die, without possibility of revival.
Best regards,
-
- +0
-
-
written by Deshika.N.Kumar, 2009-06-29 05:36:47
Rajput, I think you have now made a few things clearer and folks can take them up. Itake up a few which yu may like to reflect on further (perhaps you missed out some of the points made by others) and /or you and other Medhavis may like to take up:
1.Talibanisation:
If you look through the earlier posts you will find that no one on this forum condones violence. But recall that every criminal - including Kasab who was caught in the act - has a right to defence. And in exercising that right on behalf of the extremists we were trying to understand what creates them. We came up with a number of external factors, you possibly have added - but unfortunately not expanded upon enough for us to understand - that there could also be internal factors like...... (I was hoping you would give us some insights on this)
I personally think 'Talibanisation' in this context is 'smart', emotive language but cannot be used to describe/explain a situation wherein there is no organised force trying to lead everyone back to (non existent) fundamentalist doctrines. Based on the discussions so far I would suggest that there is a lot of bottled up anger among Hindus - which found an outlet at Babri Masjid/ Godhra etc. Anger is almost always against the 'other'. To expect all these Hindus to always keep their anger under check simply because Hindus discovered the the forms of yoga is I think asking for the moon (?universe) on a plate.
The words 'fringe elements' which has reapeatedly been used for those in the other cases you list suggests a few odd bods who act off thier own volition. Somebody gets up and tries to murder his grandmother - you cannot hold his entire extended family responsible! But maybe both descriptions are not quite correct so maybe you can come up with a more appropriate one???.
d.When it comes to defending Ram Setu/ or related sites in defence of Hinduism I think you have not read my post to Arjunbhagat. In fact he has decided to ponder over what I have said - admitting very candidly that he had not recognised the existence of those factors. Maybe you would also like to think about it??
2.I do like your bit on the 'frontal attack on Hindutva'!! And perhaps you are right about politics. But again I think somewhere we are forgettig that at the bottom line Hindus are first human beings and then Hindus. So to expect those who call themselves Hindu to stay out of politics unless they join a different party is kind of funny! And to my mind history/ geography perse are no indicators of teh quality of work - which to me (we could differ on this) is the first determinant of a 'good' organisation. Quality is more determined by what/ how/ etc things are done.
Now, I would appreciate very much if you read my first point - in all its sections - carefully and try and think how politics and dharma can have a successful marriage. For I think somewhere you possibly do have some underlying point which could be useful.
3.Caste: I agree something must be done to further soften the outlines. But I think before any discussion on this matter we need to think of matters like:
- It is becoming increasingly clear that the rigidity and some of the heirarchy of the caste system was in fact a gift of the governance facilitating practices of those who ruled the country preindependance and got further reinforced through 'vote bank politics' later.
-Now a days a lot of people are making their living through things like footwear, ladies handbags, fur coats (ie high end, value added goods) packaging of meat etc. If caste was as much of a reality as is made out - cobblers should have been kings! Instead most of them are finding it difficult to make ends meet.
There are so many other points one could raise. More important especially if you are practicing Raj Yoga, is to try and think through these labels.
3a,At the same time I would like you and others on TMJ to think of an extremely cruel form of discrimination against human beings - that based on money power. The need to sell kids into bonded labour because you cannot feed them, the need to break stones for highways because there is no work available to give you that one roti at night; the need for ten people to huddle around a fire because they can at least make that one today and the temp is down to -2C; ----- while others are buying airplanes for a spouse who intheir 'circle' of friends try to decide between the merits of spa 'a' which costs Rs50,000/- and spa 'b' which costs Rs65,000/- for one hour of relaxation; or those who cannot do without their cruise in Alaska/ European summer villa/......
To add insult to injury, organisations like CRY then send people to "collect money for kids whose parents are so cruel that they make them work for 100/- a day". To build your own image by further downgrading those who are suffering hell-on-earth and cannot speak for themselves anyway.....
When it comes to absolutes in the ugliness of discrimination with all its attendent cruelty, I submit that India has achieved more in half a century than that which (by everyone else's reckoning) (apparently) the Hindus managed to achieve in more than fifty! Maybe, as a group of people on TMJ, we need to think about why this form of discrimination is considered laudable. To what extent this is institutionalised ? It is apparently not rigid but what are the odds against the wo/man who is breaking stones getting to a poit where everyone and anyone can have a fling at them in different ways - simply becuase they happen to be too poort to have a voice?.....
1.Talibanisation:
If you look through the earlier posts you will find that no one on this forum condones violence. But recall that every criminal - including Kasab who was caught in the act - has a right to defence. And in exercising that right on behalf of the extremists we were trying to understand what creates them. We came up with a number of external factors, you possibly have added - but unfortunately not expanded upon enough for us to understand - that there could also be internal factors like...... (I was hoping you would give us some insights on this)
I personally think 'Talibanisation' in this context is 'smart', emotive language but cannot be used to describe/explain a situation wherein there is no organised force trying to lead everyone back to (non existent) fundamentalist doctrines. Based on the discussions so far I would suggest that there is a lot of bottled up anger among Hindus - which found an outlet at Babri Masjid/ Godhra etc. Anger is almost always against the 'other'. To expect all these Hindus to always keep their anger under check simply because Hindus discovered the the forms of yoga is I think asking for the moon (?universe) on a plate.
The words 'fringe elements' which has reapeatedly been used for those in the other cases you list suggests a few odd bods who act off thier own volition. Somebody gets up and tries to murder his grandmother - you cannot hold his entire extended family responsible! But maybe both descriptions are not quite correct so maybe you can come up with a more appropriate one???.
d.When it comes to defending Ram Setu/ or related sites in defence of Hinduism I think you have not read my post to Arjunbhagat. In fact he has decided to ponder over what I have said - admitting very candidly that he had not recognised the existence of those factors. Maybe you would also like to think about it??
2.I do like your bit on the 'frontal attack on Hindutva'!! And perhaps you are right about politics. But again I think somewhere we are forgettig that at the bottom line Hindus are first human beings and then Hindus. So to expect those who call themselves Hindu to stay out of politics unless they join a different party is kind of funny! And to my mind history/ geography perse are no indicators of teh quality of work - which to me (we could differ on this) is the first determinant of a 'good' organisation. Quality is more determined by what/ how/ etc things are done.
Now, I would appreciate very much if you read my first point - in all its sections - carefully and try and think how politics and dharma can have a successful marriage. For I think somewhere you possibly do have some underlying point which could be useful.
3.Caste: I agree something must be done to further soften the outlines. But I think before any discussion on this matter we need to think of matters like:
- It is becoming increasingly clear that the rigidity and some of the heirarchy of the caste system was in fact a gift of the governance facilitating practices of those who ruled the country preindependance and got further reinforced through 'vote bank politics' later.
-Now a days a lot of people are making their living through things like footwear, ladies handbags, fur coats (ie high end, value added goods) packaging of meat etc. If caste was as much of a reality as is made out - cobblers should have been kings! Instead most of them are finding it difficult to make ends meet.
There are so many other points one could raise. More important especially if you are practicing Raj Yoga, is to try and think through these labels.
3a,At the same time I would like you and others on TMJ to think of an extremely cruel form of discrimination against human beings - that based on money power. The need to sell kids into bonded labour because you cannot feed them, the need to break stones for highways because there is no work available to give you that one roti at night; the need for ten people to huddle around a fire because they can at least make that one today and the temp is down to -2C; ----- while others are buying airplanes for a spouse who intheir 'circle' of friends try to decide between the merits of spa 'a' which costs Rs50,000/- and spa 'b' which costs Rs65,000/- for one hour of relaxation; or those who cannot do without their cruise in Alaska/ European summer villa/......
To add insult to injury, organisations like CRY then send people to "collect money for kids whose parents are so cruel that they make them work for 100/- a day". To build your own image by further downgrading those who are suffering hell-on-earth and cannot speak for themselves anyway.....
When it comes to absolutes in the ugliness of discrimination with all its attendent cruelty, I submit that India has achieved more in half a century than that which (by everyone else's reckoning) (apparently) the Hindus managed to achieve in more than fifty! Maybe, as a group of people on TMJ, we need to think about why this form of discrimination is considered laudable. To what extent this is institutionalised ? It is apparently not rigid but what are the odds against the wo/man who is breaking stones getting to a poit where everyone and anyone can have a fling at them in different ways - simply becuase they happen to be too poort to have a voice?.....
-
- +0
-
-
written by Deshika.N.Kumar, 2009-06-29 05:32:45
Arjun, Arya, Karigar, Much water has flowed down the Thames since your comment Arjun and even more since Arya broached the subject and tried to carry it forward and Karigar made his comments. My apologies. :
oddly enough I too have often thought of the salt march! however my focus almost invariably shifts to those who were beaten up, of those who dressed the wounds etc, of those who quietly marched up knowing what was to come. .....
But getting back to your main point in the context of Arya's thoughts on 'ordinary' people trying to do something and Karigar on everyone working together, perhaps we need to look at an (?)interim situation wherein there could be a number of groups. Which implies that we need to think of the main things that need to be done (jobs to do)/ how/../ etc,. Perhaps leaders will emerge and/or.... Often person(s) who have not thought of themselves as being able to 'do' something get ideas when they see that the work involved maybe something they would like to do. Or find that they are ideally suited to want to (and offer to) take up the responsibilty for a portion of it - to sort of team up. Ofcuourse that would require facilitators to team up the 'correct' people..........
Sir, you are the expert on orgaisations and marketing, Arya and Karigar make good inputs and usually think over matters carefully before.... all of you have expressed your interest in this matter; and most Medhavis are not short of ideas once they start!! I retire!
oddly enough I too have often thought of the salt march! however my focus almost invariably shifts to those who were beaten up, of those who dressed the wounds etc, of those who quietly marched up knowing what was to come. .....
But getting back to your main point in the context of Arya's thoughts on 'ordinary' people trying to do something and Karigar on everyone working together, perhaps we need to look at an (?)interim situation wherein there could be a number of groups. Which implies that we need to think of the main things that need to be done (jobs to do)/ how/../ etc,. Perhaps leaders will emerge and/or.... Often person(s) who have not thought of themselves as being able to 'do' something get ideas when they see that the work involved maybe something they would like to do. Or find that they are ideally suited to want to (and offer to) take up the responsibilty for a portion of it - to sort of team up. Ofcuourse that would require facilitators to team up the 'correct' people..........
Sir, you are the expert on orgaisations and marketing, Arya and Karigar make good inputs and usually think over matters carefully before.... all of you have expressed your interest in this matter; and most Medhavis are not short of ideas once they start!! I retire!
-
- +0
-
-
written by Raju, 2009-06-28 18:28:43
This post is in reply to various comments.
Sri Krishna Kirti Dasji I am in total agreement with your analysis and view that we need Hindu Renaissance. In fact I had also mentioned earlier about Hindu Renaissance. In my view best way to counter both external and internal threats is by supporting various organization that educate Hindus and others on Bhakti Yoga, Jnana Yoga, Karma yoga and Raj-yoga.
Now that many things have been cleared, I feel comfortable to take part in rational discussions. Here are my clarifications, questions, concerns, basis, suggestions, some sources of information and food for thought. I will always like to view things more in the light of facts, observations and purity of means along with purity of goals.
General position- Clarification
Let us not beat around the bush Shashi Tharoor’s article is a frontal attack on Hindutva while ignoring external threats. I agree that we do have external threats. I also agree that Hindutva parivar organization have a right to exist. Yes, I did not state this earlier explicitly. Supporters of Hindutva need to recognize that others to have right to oppose its methods. It is only opposition to Hindutva methods I had in my mind when I said, “In my view Hindu public space belongs only to Hindu spiritual organizations. We should not cede this sacred space to aggressive Hindu socio-political-cultural forces. These forces may end up distorting if not destroying notion of Hindu spirituality”. No body is enemy including people who support Hindutva. There are good ideas and bad ideas with respect Hindu survival and Hindu renaissance. In my view TMJ discussions are about ideas and not people.
Internal focus
I wanted every one to think about internal threats like still existing caste divisions, not enough focus on spirituality, following means that do not achieve goals etc. It is quite likely that we may differ on the details of internal threats and priority that we attach to internal threats.
Institutionalization of Hinduism
I am concerned that Hindutva may end up institutionalization of Hinduism. Here is why.
From one end of Spain to other end of Africa, whole of Middle East, central Asia Islam was able to spread because it replaced existing religious institutions. My opinion is that Hindutva’s brand of religion in practice is like constructivists claim that all religious goals and symbols are socially created, and that religious experience is a projection of ideas from the culture. Confusion between spiritualism and symbolism of religion is a fatal one. After two or three generations this may result in institutionalization of Hinduism. History tells that institutionalized religion is weak religion.
Hindu Talibanization?
I have a simple question- Is Talibinaztion of Hindus a real possibility?
My concern is based on following.
Brief Hindu Parivar History
- No participation in India’s freedom struggle
- First protecting cows was identified as protecting Hinduism
- Hindu Muslims riots in 1960-70 during Ganpati festivals in Maharashtra, India.My personal observations and belief is that there were situations when Hindutva forces could have prevented Hindu-Muslim riots.
{For detailed and good study of ethnic conflict see
Ethnic Conflict and Civil Society: India and Beyond
By Ashutosh Varshney World Politics 53 (April 2001), 362–98}
- Demolition of Babri Masjid, post Godhra riots, distributing trishuals etc
- Building Ram temple and now protecting Ram Sethu has been identified
as saving Hinduism.
- Adoption and/or endorsement of confrontational approach to protect representational symbols of Hindu religion and culture.
Hindu militancy
-Hindutva newsletters mailed to defence officers
http://haw.blogspot.com/2003_0...chive.html
-On going investigation - Involvement of army officer and Hindu Sadhvi Pragya and others in bomb blast in Malegon, Nanded etc in Maharashtra
http://www.hinduonnet.com/flin...13200.htm
-Holy cow! Hindustan Suicide Squad
http://www.hinduonnet.com/theh...160200.htm
If Hindu society keeps taking wrong approach for two or three generations then it will become part of its culture. I am afraid wrong approach may end becoming basis of existence of future generations instead of Vedas, Upanishad and Bhagvat Gita. We know what happened in Lebanon, Bosnia etc; people instead of practicing their religion were involved in daily conflict.
I don’t know how we can ignore facts, observations and yet say that Hind Talibanization is not a possibility. I find it hard to justify non-spiritual means to achieve Hindu renaissance in independent India where Hindus are in majority (about 80-85% of population with access to lot of resources). Many of you have agreed that there are extremist elements in Hindu parivar movements. We know from history that a small group of extremist elements can create havoc, chaos and confusion to put it mildly. Is it possible for us to ignore these extreme elements while addressing external threats?
Are there any other views of internal threats to Hinduism?
The crisis within Hinduism By Pratap Bhanu Mehta
http://www.hinduonnet.com/2002...131000.htm
Hindutva versus Hinduism By Saral Jhingran
http://www.indianexpress.com/s...ryId=34375
Terrorists in Saffron by Swami Agnivesh
http://www.indianexpress.com/r..._id=29861
Questions?
In order to get correct answer we need to ask many questions.
1.Can we achieve Hindu renaissance without Hindutva?
2.Are we in groupthink mode by focusing mainly on external threats?
3.Are we in groupthink mode by saying that Hindutva parivar has
answers for internal and external threats?
Food For Thought
In India there are Hindu spirituality de-centring and re-centring forces. We all are looking for Hindu spirituality re-centering force that can simultaneously address both internal and external threats. At present I am reading article on Bengali religious nationalism and communalism by Peter Heehs. I will leave you with the conclusion of article by Sri Peter Heehs, based at the Sri Aurobindo Ashram in Pondicherry. My intent here to mention this article is for us to know and find out how Hindu spirituality elements can be used to counter external and internal threats.
“All that is central to the Hindu Right--religious syndicalism for political purposes, exclusive Hinduness, rejection of non-Hindus--was absent from the freedom-movement-era religious nationalism of Bengal and elsewhere. To assert in spite of this that the Hindu Right descends directly from Bengali religious nationalism because some general notions of the RSS*VHP-BJP combine are found in the thought of Vivekananda, Aurobindo, and others is to commit the genetic fallacy. …..”
Ref: Bengali religious nationalism and communalism
By Peter Heehs
International Journal of Hindu Studies 1, 1 (April 1997): 117-39.
© 1997 by the World Heritage Press Inc.
PETER HEEHS is based at the Sri Aurobindo Ashram in Pondicherry
May be we need to study Bengali religious nationalism. I joined Medha forums because I am open to learning from others and share with others what I know. I really liked Sri. Kosal’s selection of Martin Niemoller poem. Yes, we should part in the spirit of that poem.
Regards,
Note: Please note any one who disagrees with the information/content listed in the external sources like Ashutosh Varshney’s and Peter Heehs’s article and also web sources is encouraged to contact the author directly for clarification.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Kosla Vepa, 2009-06-28 07:24:45
I believe the air has cleared to a substantial degree, and in future medhavis will not stand in judgement over my positions without understanding my rationale There is however the major difference of opinion regarding the stereotyping of vast sections of the Indic populace. If such stereotyping is effectively condoned you can hardly expect the Occidental or other adversaries to not indulge in similar stereotypes. There is a silence on this issue, that implies it is ok to stereotype as long as the butt of the stereotyping is the hindu. I have not seen a single post, commenting on my position outside of the main protagonists-- I am categorical that i will not stand for such stereotyping.
Furthermore I categorically deny that i have made any ad hominem or personal attacks against anybody. i will continue to attack where necessary on matters of principle, the actions and behavior of people without necessarily utilizing emotion laden words such as disgusting and I urge Indics not to stand for such attacks. I will end with a quote from Martin Niemoller
Poem (1976 version)
Original Translation
Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Kommunist.
Als sie die Sozialdemokraten einsperrten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Sozialdemokrat.
Als sie die Gewerkschafter holten,
habe ich nicht protestiert;
ich war ja kein Gewerkschafter.
Als sie die Juden holten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Jude.
Als sie mich holten,
gab es keinen mehr, der protestieren konnte.
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
Then they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
I did not protest;
I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out for me.
so we will part on that note .
Furthermore I categorically deny that i have made any ad hominem or personal attacks against anybody. i will continue to attack where necessary on matters of principle, the actions and behavior of people without necessarily utilizing emotion laden words such as disgusting and I urge Indics not to stand for such attacks. I will end with a quote from Martin Niemoller
Poem (1976 version)
Original Translation
Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Kommunist.
Als sie die Sozialdemokraten einsperrten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Sozialdemokrat.
Als sie die Gewerkschafter holten,
habe ich nicht protestiert;
ich war ja kein Gewerkschafter.
Als sie die Juden holten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Jude.
Als sie mich holten,
gab es keinen mehr, der protestieren konnte.
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
Then they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
I did not protest;
I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out for me.
so we will part on that note .
-
- +0
-
-
written by Deshika.N.Kumar, 2009-06-28 07:03:52
KKdas, I realise Arjun has already come up with a question similar to mine. So I'll throw in a couple of other points for your discussion - - some light that may help the discussion on. As yu know I agree with your point about cultural self-identity but I am not sure that 'education' in the way you have presented it here, is the answer.
1.I think I would not confuse sva-dharma and christian 'welfare work' per se, but you are right in that giving in 'charity' is part of what it means to be a Christian. Seva has many additional connotations - Hindus are not a monolithic group and charity perse is also given greater importance as a form of sva-dharma in some forms . I would also say that christian charity has the in-built heirarchy which recognises that those who have (money) should share with the 'have nots'; while sva-dharma is more sort of part of everyday life - like breathing - with the inbuilt recognition that different people will have different responses to the same situation (breaths taken/ minute can be different even in the same person at different times!!). We also need to recognise that setting up educational institutions and hospitals were earlier very much a part of Hindu 'welfare work' in North India at any rate. What happened?
2.When it comes to institutionalised welfare work in Christianity it is based on those with 'missionary zeal'. Most of them are doing it for the love of Christ. There is a goal and marks beyond the immediate person helped. And it is the same zeal that would like to see the soul harvested since that is at the end of the day good for all three - Christ's work, personal marks and the soul saved. the work is in fact another 'Crusade'. The missionary zeal cannot reach the same level among Hindus because they lack two of the fundamental requirements for the mission!
3. On the part of the recipient of welfare, I imagine conversion is much more than a factor of proximity. At a fundamental level this is probably not just as simple as "sangat sanjayate kama" ....... and education perse is unlikely to solve the problem.
But here is where i leave you all to discuss the various angles
1.I think I would not confuse sva-dharma and christian 'welfare work' per se, but you are right in that giving in 'charity' is part of what it means to be a Christian. Seva has many additional connotations - Hindus are not a monolithic group and charity perse is also given greater importance as a form of sva-dharma in some forms . I would also say that christian charity has the in-built heirarchy which recognises that those who have (money) should share with the 'have nots'; while sva-dharma is more sort of part of everyday life - like breathing - with the inbuilt recognition that different people will have different responses to the same situation (breaths taken/ minute can be different even in the same person at different times!!). We also need to recognise that setting up educational institutions and hospitals were earlier very much a part of Hindu 'welfare work' in North India at any rate. What happened?
2.When it comes to institutionalised welfare work in Christianity it is based on those with 'missionary zeal'. Most of them are doing it for the love of Christ. There is a goal and marks beyond the immediate person helped. And it is the same zeal that would like to see the soul harvested since that is at the end of the day good for all three - Christ's work, personal marks and the soul saved. the work is in fact another 'Crusade'. The missionary zeal cannot reach the same level among Hindus because they lack two of the fundamental requirements for the mission!
3. On the part of the recipient of welfare, I imagine conversion is much more than a factor of proximity. At a fundamental level this is probably not just as simple as "sangat sanjayate kama" ....... and education perse is unlikely to solve the problem.
But here is where i leave you all to discuss the various angles
-
- +0
-
-
written by P. Desikan, 2009-06-28 06:27:04
Deshika,
It is nice of you to remember me once again as the Tharoor comments section moves forward. Especially when your thoughts are on the priceless SCDS and PUCL, for whose work, like several Medha members, I too have the greatest regard.
Partha.
It is nice of you to remember me once again as the Tharoor comments section moves forward. Especially when your thoughts are on the priceless SCDS and PUCL, for whose work, like several Medha members, I too have the greatest regard.
Partha.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Deshika.N.Kumar, 2009-06-28 04:31:31
Arjun, Karigar, KKD, some replies!
Arjun, Thanks for the clarifying posts We all have some gaps in our knowledge of the tradition - grey and black areas differ - so.... To answer your question: Read with your important qualifier, ie, "in the way Jesus is for Christians, or Mohammad is for Muslims", your statement on the legitimacy of our traditions is basically correct and .....
KKD, A well thought out piece on which others may have questions and comments so I will confine myself to one issue for the present. I think both your main points vis this thread, ie those on 'the culture's self-determinants' and education, are extremely important. But I am not sure about the 'form' of action as suggested. perhaps if you start with expanding on 'education' keeping in mind the culture, it will be easier to understand the possibilities as you see them. Names can always been given later if required.
Karigar, there is no question of taking umbrage!!, But I am afraid I will not be able to go into 'nuances' now. Actually perhaps Pradipda could share some information - I recall reading some very informative posts by him years back . As for RM - you are right he too made a similar statement about the religion existing without .... I think as with many things said about this tradition, the truth lies somewhere in between the two extremes - not necessarily half way.
Partha, Somewhere I seem to recall thinking yu might find this info useful and then .... : Centre for the Study of Developing Societies was chiefly responsible for the 'Citizen's Report' on the '84 riots. The report indicted the Congress party and named certain people. (It was actually written by ?PUCL/ ?PDUCL)
Arjun, Thanks for the clarifying posts We all have some gaps in our knowledge of the tradition - grey and black areas differ - so.... To answer your question: Read with your important qualifier, ie, "in the way Jesus is for Christians, or Mohammad is for Muslims", your statement on the legitimacy of our traditions is basically correct and .....
KKD, A well thought out piece on which others may have questions and comments so I will confine myself to one issue for the present. I think both your main points vis this thread, ie those on 'the culture's self-determinants' and education, are extremely important. But I am not sure about the 'form' of action as suggested. perhaps if you start with expanding on 'education' keeping in mind the culture, it will be easier to understand the possibilities as you see them. Names can always been given later if required.
Karigar, there is no question of taking umbrage!!, But I am afraid I will not be able to go into 'nuances' now. Actually perhaps Pradipda could share some information - I recall reading some very informative posts by him years back . As for RM - you are right he too made a similar statement about the religion existing without .... I think as with many things said about this tradition, the truth lies somewhere in between the two extremes - not necessarily half way.
Partha, Somewhere I seem to recall thinking yu might find this info useful and then .... : Centre for the Study of Developing Societies was chiefly responsible for the 'Citizen's Report' on the '84 riots. The report indicted the Congress party and named certain people. (It was actually written by ?PUCL/ ?PDUCL)
-
- +0
-
-
written by Arjun Bhagat, 2009-06-27 23:57:16
Dear Kaushal. Great post! You make so many points, that I am not even going to attempt to answer them all, primarily because there is nothing much to add to what you have already written so well. However, for whatever its worth, I hope you don’t drop out of the conversation. You really are adding value, in my opinion.
It is interesting that you think you and I will not see to eye to eye on most matters. On the contrary, the general perspective you have outlined is pretty much my world view, in terms of things Indic and its interaction with other civilizations and what has happened to us (our people, its elite, the loss of our ability to frame things using a genuine Indic lens, the prescriptive arrogance of the West etc. etc.) I have a feeling that if you and I were to create/define the current problem set, we would end up being in spaces that are very adjacent to each other, if not largely overlapping. If my assumption is true, I would presume many of our strategic responses might also be similar (less sure on this point). My brush ins with MW are similar to yours, and I can resonate with how you define him. It is another matter that guys like him have the soap box, and they are adept at making sure that they never let go of the mike, which means that he gets the bulk of the public air time… but guys like MW are not the crux of this discussion.
In terms of tactics, you are probably right. We have very different styles and will probably not agree. I see a huge difference between people like Rajput and the Marxist/ Liberal art academics in India. People like Rajput have a) some genuine concerns regarding who gets to represent Hinduism b) truly are interested in Dharma’s well-being and c) have been fed (through a steady diet of media and academia) that Hindutva is bad. Therefore, people like Rajput do not need to be dismissed or attacked (in my opinion of course) but debated and educated (and by that last, I am not implying that Rajput is wrong in any absolute sense, but that he can be educated to YOUR perspective on these issues). Alienating people like him creates the very societal fissures you bemoan. If you notice, he does write that some of the posts have made him think about issues that he was unaware of, which explained partly why he went quiet. And he seems very sincere about the openings he is getting from this interaction. I can assure you, he will get some more openings from this latest post of yours, but not from your first sarcastic post… and to the extent one is able to create such openings in folks like Rajput, one gets them to think about issues that the mass media does not even touch upon, and that is how we increase our friends.
On the other hand, attacking the MWs and their ‘secular’ academic-type chelas is something I think has real upside value. So, where you see a monolithic adversarial posture as the only effective response, I see an unnecessary conflation of two very different audiences, who deserve to be treated very differently. Anyway, to each his own, and I wish you success in the battles you are fighting, for they are truly worthy ones, as are the goals you espouse.
I must be honest. I don’t have much time to read many books, and the unread pile on my desk continues to grow ever larger. Before I will ever get to the point where I will order yet another book, something has to catch my attention to make it worth my while to jump that book to the top of the queue. So, if you have some articles or chapters on the web, and you could point me to them, I would enjoy reading them so I can get to ‘know’ you better before I move to the next step.
Dear KK Das. Thanks for a very thoughtful post. I think everything you say makes a lot of sense and I am intrigued by your suggestion of how education can become the point of the spear in our response to the Other. I look forward to reading your fleshed out article on this. It should be educative!!
I did not quite understand what exactly you mean when you talk about “a brahminical renaissance” within Hinduism. Since the word is so loaded and has so many different connotations, could you expound on what you are suggesting there?
Regds,
It is interesting that you think you and I will not see to eye to eye on most matters. On the contrary, the general perspective you have outlined is pretty much my world view, in terms of things Indic and its interaction with other civilizations and what has happened to us (our people, its elite, the loss of our ability to frame things using a genuine Indic lens, the prescriptive arrogance of the West etc. etc.) I have a feeling that if you and I were to create/define the current problem set, we would end up being in spaces that are very adjacent to each other, if not largely overlapping. If my assumption is true, I would presume many of our strategic responses might also be similar (less sure on this point). My brush ins with MW are similar to yours, and I can resonate with how you define him. It is another matter that guys like him have the soap box, and they are adept at making sure that they never let go of the mike, which means that he gets the bulk of the public air time… but guys like MW are not the crux of this discussion.
In terms of tactics, you are probably right. We have very different styles and will probably not agree. I see a huge difference between people like Rajput and the Marxist/ Liberal art academics in India. People like Rajput have a) some genuine concerns regarding who gets to represent Hinduism b) truly are interested in Dharma’s well-being and c) have been fed (through a steady diet of media and academia) that Hindutva is bad. Therefore, people like Rajput do not need to be dismissed or attacked (in my opinion of course) but debated and educated (and by that last, I am not implying that Rajput is wrong in any absolute sense, but that he can be educated to YOUR perspective on these issues). Alienating people like him creates the very societal fissures you bemoan. If you notice, he does write that some of the posts have made him think about issues that he was unaware of, which explained partly why he went quiet. And he seems very sincere about the openings he is getting from this interaction. I can assure you, he will get some more openings from this latest post of yours, but not from your first sarcastic post… and to the extent one is able to create such openings in folks like Rajput, one gets them to think about issues that the mass media does not even touch upon, and that is how we increase our friends.
On the other hand, attacking the MWs and their ‘secular’ academic-type chelas is something I think has real upside value. So, where you see a monolithic adversarial posture as the only effective response, I see an unnecessary conflation of two very different audiences, who deserve to be treated very differently. Anyway, to each his own, and I wish you success in the battles you are fighting, for they are truly worthy ones, as are the goals you espouse.
I must be honest. I don’t have much time to read many books, and the unread pile on my desk continues to grow ever larger. Before I will ever get to the point where I will order yet another book, something has to catch my attention to make it worth my while to jump that book to the top of the queue. So, if you have some articles or chapters on the web, and you could point me to them, I would enjoy reading them so I can get to ‘know’ you better before I move to the next step.
Dear KK Das. Thanks for a very thoughtful post. I think everything you say makes a lot of sense and I am intrigued by your suggestion of how education can become the point of the spear in our response to the Other. I look forward to reading your fleshed out article on this. It should be educative!!
I did not quite understand what exactly you mean when you talk about “a brahminical renaissance” within Hinduism. Since the word is so loaded and has so many different connotations, could you expound on what you are suggesting there?
Regds,
-
- +0
-
-
written by Kosla Vepa, 2009-06-27 22:19:05
Arjun, before I address the specific points that you brought up, I would like to explain the philosophical basis of my writings, so that you understand the context of what I am trying to do and why I do it the way I do. I believe that long centuries of servitude and near slavery like conditions or conditions of Dhimmitude(India was the major source of slaves in Eurasia for about 400 years, until the abundance of the slaves killed the economics of the slave trade, this resulted in the Hindu Kush mountains being so named and the escapees from the caravans of slaves being transported to Samarkand, Damascus , Isfahan, and other cities from Central asia to Anatolia are the Gypsies of today ) have robbed the Indic of the capability of asserting his presence among the family of nations. This has had 2 consequences,
1.The occidental knows the Hindu has become invertebrate and he is intent on finishing of what remains of his heritage. The Occident led by the Anglo saxon knows that India is a terribly fractured society. After all this is what he has worked for 2 centuries . From a Geopolitical standpoint, India’s free and open society offers a formidable competition to the world order that he has fashioned after the end of WW II. In reality he need not worry , because the Indic is busy scratching a living and it will be long while before strategic imperatives dominate the dinner table even in the dining rooms of the english educated elite. But the Occidental is taking no chances and the only way to rob the indic of his self confidence is to destroy his traditions, the chief among these being the Hindu heritage. And all the actions he has taken , especially after 1971 are intended to bolster this policy.
2.The mainstream elite Hindu (generally represented by the English Educated , who are the biggest beneficiaries of the current boom (includes most of us) is mostly oblivious and indifferent to what is happening to the country – the slow but steady disappearance of Indic tradition, the rapid conversion to Christianity, and the infiltration of BDMuslim, the general demographic onslaught on the Hindu, and the steady drop in the percentage of the Hindu, which has accelerated since 1857,, thanks to the long term policies of the British (pl see my book The South Asia File it is available for download at several locations, bu I would recommend you breakdown and splurge the $12.00 and read it in entirety (despite the trivial opinion you may have of me). This coupled with the misplaced and misunderstood liberalism Of Nehru, has resulted in the present state of affairs. But Nehru was no fool for it was he who initiated the secretivie Nuclear weapons program and kept it going. In 1962 he realized the error of his ways and ordered a massive rearmament of India’s armed forces.
3.What has this go to do with our discussion. I am coming too that. There is now in the country a larger number of Nehruvian socialists who have mistakenly interpreted Nehru’s aversion to Religion as being aversion to Hinduism. They distrust anybody who utters the word Hindu. In the meantime the word Secular has been thoroughly corrupted by the communists who effectively interpret it as meaning anti Hindu. So now we come to Sri Rajput and his insistence that the real enemy of India is the Parivar. He is not content with saying they are not representative of the Hindu, but that they are to be completely obliterated and that they should be no space allotted to them in the political map of India. Question is how you deal with him and this where they may be a significant difference of opinion. MY approach is t call a spade a spade. They must realize that such a position is a very bigoted one. They already know that, but they make the assumption that bigotry against the Hindu is of no consequence.
This is the context of our discussion. The point is not that we may differ in our scenarios, in fact I would be surprised if you agreed with me on most this. The point is that the posture I am adopting to our adversaries and their surrogates in India is a intentionally harsh and deliberate one, which I have adopted only after a lot of thought.. Anger, venting have nothing to do with it let me assure you.
Kaushal, my goal was not to agitate you, and to the extent that seems to have occurred, I truly apologize. After all, I think it is pretty obvious that all of us here are interested in supporting our dharmic traditions, and to that extent, we are all pulling in the same direction.
Apologies don’t mean much anymore to me, because people no longer apologize for the wrong that they did. Instead they apologize for (in your case) my being agitated. WHY ANYBODY should apologize for my agitation is beyond me . The act of being agitated expresses my weakness and there is very little reason why you should apologize for my weakness. If you sincerely wish to apologize then you should apologize for what you did and if you don’t feel you have done anything wrong for heavens sake do not apologize and certainly not because you think I was agitated. I rarely ask for an apology for myself, because the whole thing is a little childish. And the rest of your post clearly reinforces the notion that you think that even this moth eaten apology was not appropriate
DonT get me wrong. I am frank and I will tell you that I don’t like being called the things you called me. But I wil let you in one a piece of Vedantism I picked up from an American. He told me , if I don’t like you it is my problem. As far as I am concerned when you or Deshika Ji characterize me in a unfavorable manner, I consider that as primarily your problem.. But the damage has been done and what has been said cannot be unsaid
So why did I ask an apology from Sri Rajput for insinuating that the Parivar is the main enemy of the republic. This was not an apology to me, but primarily an apology to himself, so that he will think twice about saying such things again. Because such statements play into the hands of our adversaries and the next thing you know every two bit hustler from Harvard to Rome is dictating to us what our history ought to be and when I correct them they say I am a Hindutva (many of these buggers cant tell the difference between a Hindutva and Hottentots but that doesn’t stop them. When I say what is it to you ? To which they answer , your own guys are the ones who are saying Hindutva is no no. This is a problem when dealing with the Occidental and that is why i decided that he should be dealt with firmly. That is when I decided that the presence of confused people like Sri Rajput, is a serious impediment to convincing anybody for example about the authentic history of India, or even taking India seriously
Having said that, my responses to your post would be multi-layered:
a) Take your own advice. 1) People who live in glass houses… To the extent ad hominem attacks bother you, dripping sarcasm and disdain probably doesn’t make others feel good either. For somebody who feels the need to defend “200 million Parivar types”, you seem quite quick to ‘stereotype’ and ‘make egregious remarks about secularists. Strange, how you seem to do the very same things you seem to take such exception to with others…
Let us take this one at a time. What are you saying that because I make a mild comment such as’most secularist I know ‘ which Is a far cry from the entire Parivar that Sri Rajput is referring to is the same thing, Firstly let me assure you I stuck that in there to see if anybody would notice. You did catch it and I congratulate you . But dont you see, even if I made the remark seriously , it does not make it right. The name of the game is not lets catch Kaushal and hoist him on his own petard . It is a serious matter that Sri Rajput stereotypes such a large group of people and if everybody in India indulges in stereotyping it becomes an impossible situation. Even if you are going to stereotype, for heavens sake use some original ideas and not warmed over clichés from the Colonial overlord, the notion that the RSS was a menace of the state was a British Idea for good reason . The RSS caused the British a lot of grief. But even in this the British succeeded beyond their wildest creams. They left the poison pill behind and it has grown into a mighty tree and the net result has been that the Indic has adopted the British viewpoint in toto
b) The attention you have received is not unsolicited, it has come about because of the tenor and tone of your messages. However, I am not sure why you jump to the conclusion that you are a persona non grata. I for one am enjoying reading your perspectives (to the extent I filter out the tonal issues). However, if you are choosing to drop out, then, once again, one can only look at one of your own posts,
I make no pretence to be nice to those whom I regard as adversaries (read the preamble that I wrote to describe why I do what I did, but I do not address my friends and those who answer correctly to ‘friend or foe’ in the same way. I definitely used sarcasm on you when I decided your answer to the query ‘ friend or foe’ was not the right one. In fact I was going lite on you , I am far more caustic when I deal with them Michael witzels. This what I wrote MW
It is an annoying habit of Prof Witzel of dismissing any inconvenient statement with a wave of his hand, that makes his participation in discussion devoid of any redeeming value
For instance I am aghast that a putative scholar would make the broad stereotyping inherent in a statement of the type
"there are many canards and there is much misinformation on this list. Not to speak of absolute fantasy with regard to dates that are in fact interconnecting worldwide (Near East/Greece, China), but that are artificially made older by nationalists here."
His use of the word canard implies malice , but where does malice come in when we are talking about our own history. His standard riposte is that these statements are made by nationalists. I ask this for the umpteenth time what is wrong with being a nationalist. Winston Churchill was a staunch British nationalist throughout his long career and certainly would not have objected to such an appellation when he wrote the history of the English speaking peoples , but few would ignore what he says because he is a nationalist. The same remarks can be made with respect to Charles de Gaulle or Bismarck or Matternich or Talleyrond . So the real crime here is not that the people making these statements are nationalists, but the real crime according to Herr Prof Witzel is that they are Hindu nationalists, which he often subsumes under the term Hindutva. A few years ago I daresay he would not have known the difference between a Hottentot and a Hindutva even if his life depended on it. But he has latched on to the domestic discourse on this topic and that a section of the Indian public considers the use of the word Hindutva as pejorative and has used the word in a very derisive comment on the conference that i organized in Delhi during January 2009 , and in many other instances. He doesn't seem to understand that this an issue of domestic politics and that it really does not concern him , in his role as a a putative scholar, and that this broad stereotyping of people into narrow political boxes is an insult to a Hindu who values his individuality . A human being is a multifaceted entity and any attempt to reduce the dimensionality of a human being can truly be termed as a highly bigoted and racist endeavor , that usually results in categorizing humanity into simplistic, reductionist but erroneous categories, as a prelude to demonizing them. So I request Prof Witzel to refrain from ad hominem remarks and restrict himself to what is wrong with the arguments. If he does not have the time to do that , he seems to be implying that such arguments are complex and cannot be dismissed in a jiffy with a wave of one’s hand. The issue is not one of being a Hindutva but whether one is competent in the field of endeavor. Prof Witzel rarely make the attempt to establish the lack of competency of those who challenge him, while his own competency to make such statements remain severely under duress.
“It gives me no joy to see him not return, but if that is the case we must all understand it remains HIS CHOICE. He is a big boy (not a poster child) and he knows what he is doing.Let us respect his individuality by recognizing he is endowed with the precious freedom that goes with exercising free will and the associated accountability for his own actions.”
On this (whether I stay or go I am in reasonable agreement with you. If I decide that philosophically I am not in tune with the with the rest of the site I will leave. But I hope there will not be a diatribe that it was because of some disgusting act that it happened. If I go I will take personal responsibility for it .In any event, in the larger weltanschuung I do not matter and if I go , I hope there is not even a ripple.
c) Lets get to the substance of what has pricked you. Yes, I did refer to you three times. The first time, I give you credit for the substance of your argument, but point out that your style leaves a lot to be desired. Rather than feeling so attacked, do read your first post to Rajput, and if that is not sarcastic and personal, I am not sure what would qualify as being so.
As I said earlier I make no bones about it , I am not sarcastic to those who I do not consider to be adversaries and I agree that i am not a good counter.
To the extent it is; your style does need work. Lets look at the second time. Marketing and branding is all about making others buy into your point of view (ideas or products). To the extent you had valid, substantial points, delivered in such a way that it was hurtful, and thus alienating, I rest my case. The third time I mention your name, I am actually agreeing with you…. No attack there, except by this point you have become too prickly and agitated to focus on the substance of the discussion. (Interesting, isn’t it, how I ended up doing a truly bad job at marketing my own ideas? Since I was evidently treating you similarly to the way you were treating Rajput, you were no longer even getting to the substance of my arguments any more. To the extent, at age 65, you get more empathy for how others might feel…no harm done.)
I am afraid I have to be caustic again. Let me worry about my style , there is method in my madness. I have been reasonably successful with the Occidental. They rarely challenge the meat of my argument, for the very simple reason that thy are not very knowledgeable about India. But instead of being humble about it they indulge in bluff and bluster.
I do not think we will ever see eye to eye on most matters. so be it. But I hope you will not be quick on the trigger in the future and pronounce me crude and lacking in intellect. Life is too short to waste your time on detours.
-
- +0
-
-
written by karigar, 2009-06-27 17:09:37
Dear Sri KK Das ji,
That was a deep comment. I find the idea of doing according to the culture's self-definition, vs doing for pragmatic outcomes a good way to contrast & analyze, as you've done.
Like in Gita Sri Krishna advises to do one's own dharma however imperfectly is better than doing others' however perfectly...
But it is quite a difficult path today, as the brahmin (or brahmin minded person, the same thing essentially) is faced with an either-or choice, between struggling financially to teach dharmically, vs jumping ship towards a Western(ized) education which is the road to riches & success...
Perhaps India's economic renaissance will change things somewhat, but I wonder how much...
But good thoughts from you, thanks.
That was a deep comment. I find the idea of doing according to the culture's self-definition, vs doing for pragmatic outcomes a good way to contrast & analyze, as you've done.
Like in Gita Sri Krishna advises to do one's own dharma however imperfectly is better than doing others' however perfectly...
But it is quite a difficult path today, as the brahmin (or brahmin minded person, the same thing essentially) is faced with an either-or choice, between struggling financially to teach dharmically, vs jumping ship towards a Western(ized) education which is the road to riches & success...
Perhaps India's economic renaissance will change things somewhat, but I wonder how much...
But good thoughts from you, thanks.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Krishna Kirti Das, 2009-06-27 15:10:59
Namaste, arjunbhagat (@ 2009-06-24 13:52:37).
A remark in your post prompted some thoughts of mine, which I record below your quoted statement. I apologize that this is coming a little late.
I think this is an accurate observation.
Furthermore, I think that "immitation" is an accurate word to use in describing the Parivar's reaction to Christian, and Muslim, prosyletizing. Focusing for the moment on Christians, on account of their emphasis on the edict "Love thy neighbor," Christians are very much invested in social welfare work. To be a Christian means to engage in welfare work or support it in some way or another. Christians don't think of welfare work exclusively as a means to some other end (conversion). Instead, they think of it more in terms of how Hindus conceive of sva-dharma. Christians engage in social welfare work because engaging in or supporting welfare work is a part of what it means to be a Christian. Unlike the Christians, those who identify with the Parivar and who participate in or support the Parivar's welfare work appear to do so mostly for pragmatic reasons. For them welfare work appears primarily to be a means to an end--defending Hindu culture. Welfare work for Christians is a function of their self-identity, or ahankar. Parivar-affiliated welfare work is a means to some other end--it is pragmatic, not a function of self-identity.
The difference between these approaches is that activity connected with pragmatic reasoning is less substantial and less sustainable than activity connected with self-identity. Take for example the state of marriage in the West. In the West nowadays, marriage is seen as a means to an end. If a couple is happy, they stay married. If they are unhappy, they tend to divorce. That is why the divorce rate in Western countries is so high. Marriage conceived of in relation to sva-dharma, however, is more enduring. In the Gita, we find the following prescription: karmani evadhikaras te ma phaleshu kadachana / ma karma-phala-hetur bhur ma te sango 'stv akarmani, "You have a right to perform your prescribed duty, but you are not entitled to the fruits of action. Never consider yourself the cause of the results of your activities, and never be attached to not doing your duty" (BG 2.47). Marriage undertaken in this spirit is stronger and more enduring. This is also why the Christians will likely continue to outperform the Parivar in terms of welfare activity.
Some may object, however, pointing out that Christians do engage in welfare work in order to convert others. This is also true, yet Christians still do not conceive of welfare work as fundamentally a means for conversion. Instead, Christians see "Love thy neighbor" and the commitment to welfare work that naturally follows from it as intertwined with and supporting of the Christian precept to "Love God" and the commitment to conversion that naturally arises from this precept. Loving God means engaging in welfare work, but it also means saving people from eternal Hell. Since social welfare as practiced by Christians (education, food distribution, etc.) is a means by which people become Christians (prolonged association with someone deeply committed to a particular faith is sufficient to "convert" someone - sangat sanjayate kama), Christians will almost always be found engaging in welfare work and conversion simultaneously. Welfare work and conversion can never be cleanly separated either in precept or in practice. That is why attempts to politically regulate conversion will most likely fail.
Since the Parivar approach to fighting Christian conversion through welfare work is pragmatic and not a function of self-identity, and since the Christian commitment to both welfare work and conversion is a function of self-identity, the Parivar's present strategy taken to its logical conclusion is likely to fail. A historical analog to the Parivar's welfare activity can be found in how the Romans tried to counter the Christians similarly in terms of welfare activity. In the end, Roman efforts failed. Because the Romans on account of their pragmatic approach could not match the Christians in terms of commitment or sustainability to welfare work, in the end the Christians out-performed the Romans.
What I then believe is a more effective strategy is for Hindus (Parivar or otherwise) to employ strategies that do arise from a conception of self-identity. In particular, I think that education is a likely strategy to pursue, and it appears to mesh well with Hindu precepts. But by education, I'm not talking about building big scientific research universities or business schools. Instead I believe that education in religion is merely given primary importance. Imagine if you will a poor brahmana and his wife in a remote village, both of whom run a pathshala and subsist on donations from students and disciples. They teach reading and writing, but the primary focus is on character and religion--or at least religion is regarded as coequal with other subjects. And not everyone has to achieve high levels of academic achievement. (Focusing on high levels of academic achievement has actually backfired on Christians in the West--more than once. I will write about this more in detail in coming essays.) Just a very basic education is necessary and sufficient. I think that education is an area of social welfare activity that Hindus could equal if not outdo Christians.
But success in this area will depend on the creation of people who are committed to education not for the sake of defending Hinduism but because education is a function of their sva-dharma. If Hindu families are raising children to become doctors, engineers, and business consultants rather than, say, people who teach religion, then it is difficult to see what options for success Hindus have. It is true that the Hindu "laity" can help in sponsoring such activities, but success still requires a core of people committed to such activity with their lives and who are committed not for pragmatic reasons but because it is how they define themselves. Basically, this is a call for the revival of brahminical culture, a brahminical renaissance, within Hinduism.
A remark in your post prompted some thoughts of mine, which I record below your quoted statement. I apologize that this is coming a little late.
Like many others, the Parivar is deeply focused on protecting dharma from the onslaught of Abrahamic proselytizing. The solution it seems to have come up with is – in some critical respects – to imitate its enemies. Towards that end, it is creating self definitions of what it means to be a Hindu that actually does not resonate with how Hindus have defined themselves over millennia, but more like how the Christians or Muslims go about defining themselves.
I think this is an accurate observation.
Furthermore, I think that "immitation" is an accurate word to use in describing the Parivar's reaction to Christian, and Muslim, prosyletizing. Focusing for the moment on Christians, on account of their emphasis on the edict "Love thy neighbor," Christians are very much invested in social welfare work. To be a Christian means to engage in welfare work or support it in some way or another. Christians don't think of welfare work exclusively as a means to some other end (conversion). Instead, they think of it more in terms of how Hindus conceive of sva-dharma. Christians engage in social welfare work because engaging in or supporting welfare work is a part of what it means to be a Christian. Unlike the Christians, those who identify with the Parivar and who participate in or support the Parivar's welfare work appear to do so mostly for pragmatic reasons. For them welfare work appears primarily to be a means to an end--defending Hindu culture. Welfare work for Christians is a function of their self-identity, or ahankar. Parivar-affiliated welfare work is a means to some other end--it is pragmatic, not a function of self-identity.
The difference between these approaches is that activity connected with pragmatic reasoning is less substantial and less sustainable than activity connected with self-identity. Take for example the state of marriage in the West. In the West nowadays, marriage is seen as a means to an end. If a couple is happy, they stay married. If they are unhappy, they tend to divorce. That is why the divorce rate in Western countries is so high. Marriage conceived of in relation to sva-dharma, however, is more enduring. In the Gita, we find the following prescription: karmani evadhikaras te ma phaleshu kadachana / ma karma-phala-hetur bhur ma te sango 'stv akarmani, "You have a right to perform your prescribed duty, but you are not entitled to the fruits of action. Never consider yourself the cause of the results of your activities, and never be attached to not doing your duty" (BG 2.47). Marriage undertaken in this spirit is stronger and more enduring. This is also why the Christians will likely continue to outperform the Parivar in terms of welfare activity.
Some may object, however, pointing out that Christians do engage in welfare work in order to convert others. This is also true, yet Christians still do not conceive of welfare work as fundamentally a means for conversion. Instead, Christians see "Love thy neighbor" and the commitment to welfare work that naturally follows from it as intertwined with and supporting of the Christian precept to "Love God" and the commitment to conversion that naturally arises from this precept. Loving God means engaging in welfare work, but it also means saving people from eternal Hell. Since social welfare as practiced by Christians (education, food distribution, etc.) is a means by which people become Christians (prolonged association with someone deeply committed to a particular faith is sufficient to "convert" someone - sangat sanjayate kama), Christians will almost always be found engaging in welfare work and conversion simultaneously. Welfare work and conversion can never be cleanly separated either in precept or in practice. That is why attempts to politically regulate conversion will most likely fail.
Since the Parivar approach to fighting Christian conversion through welfare work is pragmatic and not a function of self-identity, and since the Christian commitment to both welfare work and conversion is a function of self-identity, the Parivar's present strategy taken to its logical conclusion is likely to fail. A historical analog to the Parivar's welfare activity can be found in how the Romans tried to counter the Christians similarly in terms of welfare activity. In the end, Roman efforts failed. Because the Romans on account of their pragmatic approach could not match the Christians in terms of commitment or sustainability to welfare work, in the end the Christians out-performed the Romans.
What I then believe is a more effective strategy is for Hindus (Parivar or otherwise) to employ strategies that do arise from a conception of self-identity. In particular, I think that education is a likely strategy to pursue, and it appears to mesh well with Hindu precepts. But by education, I'm not talking about building big scientific research universities or business schools. Instead I believe that education in religion is merely given primary importance. Imagine if you will a poor brahmana and his wife in a remote village, both of whom run a pathshala and subsist on donations from students and disciples. They teach reading and writing, but the primary focus is on character and religion--or at least religion is regarded as coequal with other subjects. And not everyone has to achieve high levels of academic achievement. (Focusing on high levels of academic achievement has actually backfired on Christians in the West--more than once. I will write about this more in detail in coming essays.) Just a very basic education is necessary and sufficient. I think that education is an area of social welfare activity that Hindus could equal if not outdo Christians.
But success in this area will depend on the creation of people who are committed to education not for the sake of defending Hinduism but because education is a function of their sva-dharma. If Hindu families are raising children to become doctors, engineers, and business consultants rather than, say, people who teach religion, then it is difficult to see what options for success Hindus have. It is true that the Hindu "laity" can help in sponsoring such activities, but success still requires a core of people committed to such activity with their lives and who are committed not for pragmatic reasons but because it is how they define themselves. Basically, this is a call for the revival of brahminical culture, a brahminical renaissance, within Hinduism.
-
- +0
-
-
written by karigar, 2009-06-27 12:46:42
Dear Arjun & Deshika,
You've probably not missed the seminal (IMO, anyway) article by Rajiv Malhotra : "The Myth Of Hindu Sameness" where he explores in depth the History Centredness of the Abrahamic traditions. For subesquent reference, it is available here in Madha (go to Medha Gold > Geopolitical Guru...)
Deshika, I'd also have hoped for a more nuanced description of Hinduism than "Hinduism is a conglomeration of various strands of belief.." since that almost takes away from Hindus' central claim in the world 'marketplace of ideas', i.e. Hinduism is Unique, Philosophically coherent in structure, Relevant to today's day & age.
Anyway, that is another argument for another day...& hope you don't take it personally
(Many of us have indulged in this type of description..including yours truly)
You've probably not missed the seminal (IMO, anyway) article by Rajiv Malhotra : "The Myth Of Hindu Sameness" where he explores in depth the History Centredness of the Abrahamic traditions. For subesquent reference, it is available here in Madha (go to Medha Gold > Geopolitical Guru...)
Deshika, I'd also have hoped for a more nuanced description of Hinduism than "Hinduism is a conglomeration of various strands of belief.." since that almost takes away from Hindus' central claim in the world 'marketplace of ideas', i.e. Hinduism is Unique, Philosophically coherent in structure, Relevant to today's day & age.
Anyway, that is another argument for another day...& hope you don't take it personally
(Many of us have indulged in this type of description..including yours truly)
-
- +0
-
-
written by Arjun Bhagat, 2009-06-27 12:31:16
Dear Deshika, no worries as far as me getting put off by intense discussions, or taking things too personally. The value of these debates lie in uncovering new thoughts and ideas that one may not otherwise get to, and if in the process there are some harsh exchanges, it’s the price we pay I guess. (I have been out on a trip for the last couple of days, hence my silence.) Been around these kinds of discussions for too long to take anything too personally or seriously!!
Kaushal, my goal was not to agitate you, and to the extent that seems to have occurred, I truly apologize. After all, I think it is pretty obvious that all of us here are interested in supporting our dharmic traditions, and to that extent, we are all pulling in the same direction.
Having said that, my responses to your post would be multi-layered:
a) Take your own advice. 1) People who live in glass houses… To the extent ad hominem attacks bother you, dripping sarcasm and disdain probably doesn’t make others feel good either. For somebody who feels the need to defend “200 million Parivar types”, you seem quite quick to ‘stereotype’ and ‘make egregious remarks about secularists. Strange, how you seem to do the very same things you seem to take such exception to with others…
b) The attention you have received is not unsolicited, it has come about because of the tenor and tone of your messages. However, I am not sure why you jump to the conclusion that you are a persona non grata. I for one am enjoying reading your perspectives (to the extent I filter out the tonal issues). However, if you are choosing to drop out, then, once again, one can only look at one of your own posts,
“It gives me no joy to see him not return, but if that is the case we must all understand it remains HIS CHOICE. He is a big boy (not a poster child) and he knows what he is doing.Let us respect his individuality by recognizing he is endowed with the precious freedom that goes with exercising free will and the associated accountability for his own actions.”
c) Lets get to the substance of what has pricked you. Yes, I did refer to you three times. The first time, I give you credit for the substance of your argument, but point out that your style leaves a lot to be desired. Rather than feeling so attacked, do read your first post to Rajput, and if that is not sarcastic and personal, I am not sure what would qualify as being so. To the extent it is; your style does need work. Lets look at the second time. Marketing and branding is all about making others buy into your point of view (ideas or products). To the extent you had valid, substantial points, delivered in such a way that it was hurtful, and thus alienating, I rest my case. The third time I mention your name, I am actually agreeing with you…. No attack there, except by this point you have become too prickly and agitated to focus on the substance of the discussion. (Interesting, isn’t it, how I ended up doing a truly bad job at marketing my own ideas? Since I was evidently treating you similarly to the way you were treating Rajput, you were no longer even getting to the substance of my arguments any more. To the extent, at age 65, you get more empathy for how others might feel…no harm done.)
Deshika (on your other comment pertaining to the Ramjanambhoomi),
You raise a bunch of very interesting points. I must say that I have never focused on the fact that historicity and physical locations have a strong emotional role to play amongst followers of our tradition. I think I have a strong personal bias towards the philosophical and spiritual aspects of our tradition, as does most of the circle I interact with, so I have tended to under value the physical aspects of things. I will ponder more about the points you make and see what I can make of it. (By the way, I would like your feedback on one point I made. That the legitimacy of our traditions do not rely on the historical truth/falseness of the existence of say a Krishna, in the way Jesus is for Christians, or Mohammad is for Muslims. Would you say that is basically true, or am I completely missing something?)
(By the way, I believe that if this is true, it gives our traditions great flexibility, resilience and strength, but that could be a whole different topic!)
Kaushal, my goal was not to agitate you, and to the extent that seems to have occurred, I truly apologize. After all, I think it is pretty obvious that all of us here are interested in supporting our dharmic traditions, and to that extent, we are all pulling in the same direction.
Having said that, my responses to your post would be multi-layered:
a) Take your own advice. 1) People who live in glass houses… To the extent ad hominem attacks bother you, dripping sarcasm and disdain probably doesn’t make others feel good either. For somebody who feels the need to defend “200 million Parivar types”, you seem quite quick to ‘stereotype’ and ‘make egregious remarks about secularists. Strange, how you seem to do the very same things you seem to take such exception to with others…
b) The attention you have received is not unsolicited, it has come about because of the tenor and tone of your messages. However, I am not sure why you jump to the conclusion that you are a persona non grata. I for one am enjoying reading your perspectives (to the extent I filter out the tonal issues). However, if you are choosing to drop out, then, once again, one can only look at one of your own posts,
“It gives me no joy to see him not return, but if that is the case we must all understand it remains HIS CHOICE. He is a big boy (not a poster child) and he knows what he is doing.Let us respect his individuality by recognizing he is endowed with the precious freedom that goes with exercising free will and the associated accountability for his own actions.”
c) Lets get to the substance of what has pricked you. Yes, I did refer to you three times. The first time, I give you credit for the substance of your argument, but point out that your style leaves a lot to be desired. Rather than feeling so attacked, do read your first post to Rajput, and if that is not sarcastic and personal, I am not sure what would qualify as being so. To the extent it is; your style does need work. Lets look at the second time. Marketing and branding is all about making others buy into your point of view (ideas or products). To the extent you had valid, substantial points, delivered in such a way that it was hurtful, and thus alienating, I rest my case. The third time I mention your name, I am actually agreeing with you…. No attack there, except by this point you have become too prickly and agitated to focus on the substance of the discussion. (Interesting, isn’t it, how I ended up doing a truly bad job at marketing my own ideas? Since I was evidently treating you similarly to the way you were treating Rajput, you were no longer even getting to the substance of my arguments any more. To the extent, at age 65, you get more empathy for how others might feel…no harm done.)
Deshika (on your other comment pertaining to the Ramjanambhoomi),
You raise a bunch of very interesting points. I must say that I have never focused on the fact that historicity and physical locations have a strong emotional role to play amongst followers of our tradition. I think I have a strong personal bias towards the philosophical and spiritual aspects of our tradition, as does most of the circle I interact with, so I have tended to under value the physical aspects of things. I will ponder more about the points you make and see what I can make of it. (By the way, I would like your feedback on one point I made. That the legitimacy of our traditions do not rely on the historical truth/falseness of the existence of say a Krishna, in the way Jesus is for Christians, or Mohammad is for Muslims. Would you say that is basically true, or am I completely missing something?)
(By the way, I believe that if this is true, it gives our traditions great flexibility, resilience and strength, but that could be a whole different topic!)
-
- +0
-
-
written by Kosla Vepa, 2009-06-26 07:19:51
Wise words Sri Karigar and i will follow up on you recommendations to me. As far as Sri Rajput is concerned, most seem to be overlooking the glaring fact that he was ready to brand a huge section of the Indian population as an enemy. He retreated because of inability to answer your purvapaksha, not because of spiritual reasons. It gives me no joy to see him not return, but if that is the case we must all understand it remains HIS CHOICE. He is a big boy (not a poster child) and he knows what he is doing.Let us respect his individuality by recognizing he is endowed with the precious
freedom that goes with exercising free will and the associated accountability for his own actions.
freedom that goes with exercising free will and the associated accountability for his own actions.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Deshika.N.Kumar, 2009-06-26 05:18:25
Pradipda, Karigar,
Thankyou for pulling everything together so clearly. I too think all of us need to recoup - perhaps the pace has been too fast?!- so we'll stop this round and get back to these and other issues later, either here or elsewhere on TMJ.
Its been great being with and learning from each one of you. Thank you,
Rgds/-
Deshika
ps. To those whom I owe a reply: Inshallah we will meet again soon.
Thankyou for pulling everything together so clearly. I too think all of us need to recoup - perhaps the pace has been too fast?!- so we'll stop this round and get back to these and other issues later, either here or elsewhere on TMJ.
Its been great being with and learning from each one of you. Thank you,
Rgds/-
Deshika
ps. To those whom I owe a reply: Inshallah we will meet again soon.
-
- +0
-
-
written by karigar, 2009-06-25 14:58:24
I'd like to second all those who are counseling restraint, & a sort of 'time out' before emotions run too high. The fact that it is so emotive tells us that this is a very important topic for us discussants, (& judging by the hits here) for the Medhavi readers.
To an extent all of us do take these issues personally, for where would we get the passion if we didn't? These issues impact our lives in different ways, & certainly our future generations, & some of us have spent a major part of the last few years being active in this field intellectually & as activists. I can see Kaushal has invested major time & effort & much dedication, judging by his well presented articles here. Arjun has done some great work over the years, & some of it is here too. The rest of us are no slouches either.
But that very passion that so drives us may temporarily obscure for us the genuine new insights we are giving one another.
For example, sri Kaushal can certainly express himself strongly where he feels he is being singled out (both personally, & in the stand he took) and make the clear refutatuins that he's done. But he may also, if he chooses to, read some of the comments again & see that writers has agreed in substance with much of what he was saying on the Parivar. As an example, I'd refer to Arjun Bhagat's post where he clearly highlighted the Sangh Parivar's work on behalf of Hindus in a positive light, and was also frank enough to admit that he wouldn't know what alternative he'd suggest, where he disagreed to the Parivar's way. This is not an easy issue, & refraining from 'monday morning quarter backing' is good, and respectful to the folks on the ground.
Sri Rajput has also politely suspended his participation, but one hopes he notices that though many of us have major disagreements with some of his views, but are striving to be clear to both take & give the opportunity to clarify so that things are boiled down to the real issues.
We have a wide cross-section of views here, and should be proud that we managed to hang together as a 'panel' for so long.
In the final analysis, we need to accept that this (i.e. a Web forum) is a multiple participant forum, and fairly ruleless (more moderation would make it a bit heavyhanded as some have already felt it to be). Anybody can comment to anyone on anything, a sort of 'wild west'. People will talk past each other, people will push one another's buttons (consciously or otherwise), and most certainly all of us will have our moments of frustration.
In the interest of the issue, we can only do our best to clearly express ourselves, & stay on the topic even if it is after taking a short (or long) break from the intensity to come back 'fresh to attack'.
To an extent all of us do take these issues personally, for where would we get the passion if we didn't? These issues impact our lives in different ways, & certainly our future generations, & some of us have spent a major part of the last few years being active in this field intellectually & as activists. I can see Kaushal has invested major time & effort & much dedication, judging by his well presented articles here. Arjun has done some great work over the years, & some of it is here too. The rest of us are no slouches either.
But that very passion that so drives us may temporarily obscure for us the genuine new insights we are giving one another.
For example, sri Kaushal can certainly express himself strongly where he feels he is being singled out (both personally, & in the stand he took) and make the clear refutatuins that he's done. But he may also, if he chooses to, read some of the comments again & see that writers has agreed in substance with much of what he was saying on the Parivar. As an example, I'd refer to Arjun Bhagat's post where he clearly highlighted the Sangh Parivar's work on behalf of Hindus in a positive light, and was also frank enough to admit that he wouldn't know what alternative he'd suggest, where he disagreed to the Parivar's way. This is not an easy issue, & refraining from 'monday morning quarter backing' is good, and respectful to the folks on the ground.
Sri Rajput has also politely suspended his participation, but one hopes he notices that though many of us have major disagreements with some of his views, but are striving to be clear to both take & give the opportunity to clarify so that things are boiled down to the real issues.
We have a wide cross-section of views here, and should be proud that we managed to hang together as a 'panel' for so long.
In the final analysis, we need to accept that this (i.e. a Web forum) is a multiple participant forum, and fairly ruleless (more moderation would make it a bit heavyhanded as some have already felt it to be). Anybody can comment to anyone on anything, a sort of 'wild west'. People will talk past each other, people will push one another's buttons (consciously or otherwise), and most certainly all of us will have our moments of frustration.
In the interest of the issue, we can only do our best to clearly express ourselves, & stay on the topic even if it is after taking a short (or long) break from the intensity to come back 'fresh to attack'.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Dr. Pradip Gangopadh, 2009-06-25 13:43:57
It is unfortunate that the entire discussion got sidetracked on the issue of extremism. It is a fact that violence seems to be part of Indian public life today. Maoists, CPI(M), Jihadists, different political parties (and not just some fringe elements of Sangh Parivar) in India all indulge in violence. The situation is so bad now that thousands of armed police are needed to hold elections. Otherwise the mainstream political parties will rig the elections. What I am saying is that extremism is in the air in India and will remain till we can find jobs and education for millions of illiterate young men.
The problem we should discuss here is the role of Sangh Parivar in tackling the grave danger faced by Hindu society. These problems are (1) the huge rise in the muslim population and (2) the industrial scale conversion effort of Christians.
It seems that we have gone off road in the discussion.
The problem we should discuss here is the role of Sangh Parivar in tackling the grave danger faced by Hindu society. These problems are (1) the huge rise in the muslim population and (2) the industrial scale conversion effort of Christians.
It seems that we have gone off road in the discussion.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Deshika.N.Kumar, 2009-06-25 11:32:07
1.I agree with gangp that it is wrong to label a person disgusting. If however one goes back to the original source - ie my post - I have said "I am disgusted by your posts of the day". There is a major difference between the two statements. Having said that I am in total agreement vis the advice given by gangP (by the way Thankyou for coming in), ie, its time for everyone to take a deep breath and relax.
2.Mr Bhagat was certainly invited by me. His interest area conincides with Arya's in particular and ours in general. And he is therefore likely to be able to contribute much that is useful. I only hope that after all this he remains around
3.Mr Bhagat, please accept my apologies for this reception of your initial efforts. It happens - the fruit of our efforts is not in our hands.
I only wonder when I (we all) will get back to more useful matters - guess many of us are reaping the fruits of our past efforts
2.Mr Bhagat was certainly invited by me. His interest area conincides with Arya's in particular and ours in general. And he is therefore likely to be able to contribute much that is useful. I only hope that after all this he remains around
3.Mr Bhagat, please accept my apologies for this reception of your initial efforts. It happens - the fruit of our efforts is not in our hands.
I only wonder when I (we all) will get back to more useful matters - guess many of us are reaping the fruits of our past efforts
-
- +0
-
-
written by Dr. Pradip Gangopadh, 2009-06-25 10:06:19
I think it was a mistake to label a person disgusting. It is equally a mistake to react to such a mistake with anger. I think and I hope that every person taking part in this discussion should take a deep breadth and calm down.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Kaushal, 2009-06-25 07:40:58
In this rather long winded post filled with many circular arguments and reductionist assertions, Mr. Bhagat has chosen to refer to my name on 3 occasions in less than flattering terms using epithets such as crude , aggressive, does not debate intellectually, venting rather than communicating, a poster child testimonial to the lack of knowledge of branding and marketing. I give credit to Bhagat sahib whom i have never met personally that he is extremely confident that I am all of these, so much so that he can make ad hominem attacks clearly intended to belittle me, but I am not surprised that he felt compelled to jump in at the behest of the MC of this debate who has initiated this round of ad hominem attacks by categorizing me as disgusting . This is the first time in my life I have been so characterized ,and at age 65 , apparently I was wrong in assuming I had seen or heard it all. Why somebody would spend all this band width on a disgusting, crude, aggressive poster child who does not debate intellectually remains one of the great mysteries of life. The Patrician Romans (the high caste romans), divided their people into patricians and plebeians, but so insecure were they of their Patrician status, that they would constantly remind themselves of their status by indulging in gladiatorial shows and other more exotic extravaganza. It is possible that the same dynamic is operating here in that Bhagat sahib feels compelled to remind himself and others that I am a crude and aggressive person. The overriding reason for the use of such ad hominems seems to be that nobody would notice it unless they with their superior wisdom point this out to the plebeians in medhaland or perhaps much more likely it requires the perspicacity of a Bhagat to recognize these characteristics and it is out of a sense of noblesse oblige that he is sharing it with those less fortunate and unable to recognize such realities . To each his own, if that is the major entertainment for the day for these gentlewomen and gentlemen , I say be my guest. I am indeed flattered that they spend so much of their day thinking about me.
As a result of all this unsolicited attention , I have become persona non grata in this discussion group and I realize I may not be welcome anymore in medha, but I have been reassured by one of the founders that “I don't think you have any real reason to regret your comments
While welcoming the delegates to the International Conference on Indian History last January in Delhi I reminded them of the etiquette of the conference, to vigorously argue their viewpoint focus on discussing the issues rather than the personality of the presenter. This has clearly been breached here and it is time to exit out of the discussion.
I would like to reiterate that at no time did I make an ad hominem remark about Mr. Rajput. I merely asked him to apologize for the egregious remarks he had made about a significant section of the Indian electorate comprising perhaps 200 million people. I stand by that request and if by doing so I come across as crude and aggressive, so be it, because clearly such a stance of stereotyping such a large number of people, whatever their beliefs indicates bigotry and we should all agree there should be no bigotry in this era . I make a solemn promise that I would do so again, if the situation presented itself. So my counsel on this is that if you feel an overwhelming desire to stereotype a large group of individuals, please ensure my absence, because I will certainly challenge you on that score alone
Mr Rajput spent a considerable amount of time pontificating on experiencing Brahman. ‘Aham Brahmasmi’ Is the mahavakya, but he forgot the equally important Mahavakya ‘Tat tvam Asi’, the opportunity to realize Brahman is available to the member of the hated Parivar also. That unless he has cause to do so he should venerate the fact that each individual is unique and respect the individuality of each person, until or unless he or she proves by his/her actions or his beliefs to be otherwise. By stereotyping 200 million Hindus and denying them their ‘space ‘ in the Hindu universe he is guilty at the very minimum of exhibiting great hubris and robbing millions whom he has never met of their individuality. I suggest he read my book on Dhaarmik traditions . It is available for download at numerous locations and is also available in hard copy at Lulu.com. I assure him he will come away a wiser man
As a result of all this unsolicited attention , I have become persona non grata in this discussion group and I realize I may not be welcome anymore in medha, but I have been reassured by one of the founders that “I don't think you have any real reason to regret your comments
While welcoming the delegates to the International Conference on Indian History last January in Delhi I reminded them of the etiquette of the conference, to vigorously argue their viewpoint focus on discussing the issues rather than the personality of the presenter. This has clearly been breached here and it is time to exit out of the discussion.
I would like to reiterate that at no time did I make an ad hominem remark about Mr. Rajput. I merely asked him to apologize for the egregious remarks he had made about a significant section of the Indian electorate comprising perhaps 200 million people. I stand by that request and if by doing so I come across as crude and aggressive, so be it, because clearly such a stance of stereotyping such a large number of people, whatever their beliefs indicates bigotry and we should all agree there should be no bigotry in this era . I make a solemn promise that I would do so again, if the situation presented itself. So my counsel on this is that if you feel an overwhelming desire to stereotype a large group of individuals, please ensure my absence, because I will certainly challenge you on that score alone
Mr Rajput spent a considerable amount of time pontificating on experiencing Brahman. ‘Aham Brahmasmi’ Is the mahavakya, but he forgot the equally important Mahavakya ‘Tat tvam Asi’, the opportunity to realize Brahman is available to the member of the hated Parivar also. That unless he has cause to do so he should venerate the fact that each individual is unique and respect the individuality of each person, until or unless he or she proves by his/her actions or his beliefs to be otherwise. By stereotyping 200 million Hindus and denying them their ‘space ‘ in the Hindu universe he is guilty at the very minimum of exhibiting great hubris and robbing millions whom he has never met of their individuality. I suggest he read my book on Dhaarmik traditions . It is available for download at numerous locations and is also available in hard copy at Lulu.com. I assure him he will come away a wiser man
The sense of unease you exhibit towards the Parivar is not at all uncommon, and I have seen and read about this need to distance from the Parivar for over a decade now….. and interestingly, when someone like Kaushal replies as he does (again, some of the points he makes are actually good ones; he just shoots himself in the foot by venting rather than communicating) he further reinforces this impression of the Parivar being full of crude, aggressive types who will not debate intellectually… (which is actually very far from the truth. Many people who identify with the Parivar, work for it and sacrifice for it are wonderful, caring dharmiks, who are deeply open, pluralistic folks who fight hard for what is so dear to every one of us.)
Having said that, they are not the best at branding and marketing, and Kaushal is a poster child testimonial to that point.
Anyway, I digress.
As I mentioned, this unease with the Parivar is something that many of us who have spent years thinking about some of these issues have tried to understand – what is the cause? I think the problem is beyond personalities or acts or behavior but lies in our strategic perception of what Dharma (Hinduism) is, and how does a dharmic society build it’s institutions to protect it’s culture and heritage.
Like many others, the Parivar is deeply focused on protecting dharma from the onslaught of Abrahamic proselytizing. The solution it seems to have come up with is – in some critical respects – to imitate its enemies. Towards that end, it is creating self definitions of what it means to be a Hindu that actually does not resonate with how Hindus have defined themselves over millennia, but more like how the Christians or Muslims go about defining themselves. That creates real unease amongst many Hindus, because it doesn’t seem quite right (and that is what one picks up from Rajput’s comments, for example.) In other words, the Parivar’s experiment to fight the Abrahamic traditions is to take on features from their traditions!!
Let me give you some examples of what I mean:
-The incredible focus on ‘Ram’s Temple’ and its ‘location’. In reality, our dharma does not stand or fall on whether Ram/Krishna/Pandvas were real historical figures or pure mythology, created in the minds of the author(s). That is not the case for the Abrahamic traditions. Imagine the cataclysm that would befall Christianity if it could be proven that Jesus was not a real person. It breaks down the very foundation of Christian theology. So, for many Hindus, the whole fight for the Ram temple makes little sense.
-There is talk about the ‘real’ people of bharat vs. the ‘outsiders’ (i.e. Muslims and Christians). Again, for pluralistic, open minded dharmics, this creates a lot of unease, because that just does not match with the philosophy and structure of our traditions.
-There are attempts to create organizational structures that ape the European church hierarchies, with the attendant concept of ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’. Again, this causes discomfort to many dharmics.
There are other examples I could give. Suffice it to say that the Parivar is experimenting with various options to fight the menace of conversion. Some of their strategies are to ape their opponent, which then of course leaves Hinduism looking more like an Abrahamic tradition, which then leads to the obvious question – what is it that you are fighting to protect? That is the unease that Rajput alludes to when he talks about the threat to our traditions comes from within… (I think).
However – and this is to Kaushal’s point – the reality is that the Parivar is not our enemy. NONE of us really knows how to get out of the conundrum we are stuck in. We must come up with some out of the box solutions, otherwise our current DNA structure (please read my previous post) will ensure the demise of dharma over the next few centuries – as it happened in Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Korea, Malaysia, Indonesia… one could go on and on. Unlike many passive dharmics, the Parivar is at least trying to stop the onslaught. If one disagrees with their strategy, then one must suggest alternatives. But we must not demonify them. That is too easy and too convenient.
(My own 2 cents. I do not believe that the Parivar’s strategy is the right long term one for our traditions success and prosperity, because it meddles with the structural DNA of our traditions, but I can also see that they have had a huge impact in slowing down the conversion process, and in some cases reversing it, and that is more than I know how to do! Of course it goes without saying that if they use intimidation, force or violence, then their strategy becomes unacceptable – but I am not sanguine that they actually do all the things they are accused of by the media either.)
-
- +0
-
-
written by Deshika.N.Kumar, 2009-06-25 05:37:43
Krishnakirtidas, glad to see you. Arjun, thankyou for the light all around. Following your lead (though I recognise and apologise for holding you up elsewhere) I am making a few quick observations pertaining to the Ramjanambhoomi issue.
a. Hinduism is a conglomeration of various strands of belief of which Vaishanavism, has a sense of history - of time, place etc, (in fact it is like the Abrahamics to that extent -though Thailand for instance has its own Chitrakoot etc). Vaishnavas constitute x% of Hindus with the x not necessarily a huge number but definitely a very large number, well represented as various subgroups in the Indo-Gangetic plains, west & south India and the eastern coast. The colonialists relegated their ideas on history (and with it to an extent central features of their religion) to the realms of mythology. Secular India found it convenient to follow their lead. The whole series of Avtaars including Shri Ram and Lord Krishna are the Vaishanavas gift to the Hindu thought process. Now it does so happen that Dwarka has been identified, also that some respected historians outside India think that there was enough in the ASI findings at the Babri Masjid site to support claims(a Cambridge prof was one whom I have heard on the subject)......
b.Historically, there were three temples the Congress (? Nehru, ?Patel,??) had promised to restore in independent India - as I recall Somnath, one in Benaras and one possibly in Mathura (pls check). Imp point is that independent India started with Somnath and then decided its secularism required that the others go under the carpet. This seem to have created/ left a strong feelings of resentment which cannot really be wished away.
c.Whether guided by a sense of heritage or tourism money or ..... there is a lot of work done on the restoration of buildings - mosques, tombs,....... Since there are very few Hindu structures other than temples it increasingly seems like Indian history started with the Mughals and was carried forward by the Brits. Simultaneously, particularly in the last couple of decades there has been increasing emphasis on buddhist tourist circuits, vihars, etc. But when it comes to the Hindu call for restoration of a site central to their religion (a reasonably substantial subgroup in absolute numbers - and one which contributes much of the itihaas of north India at a minimum) GOI and others decide that Hindus have no history only mythology therefore there is no sacred site; that one temple will lead to call for another;..... Comparisons are odious but inevitable especially as these Hindus point out (quite correctly!) that while other religions have sites elsewhere too, the Hindus only have places in India so they cannot build/ identify with locations elsewhere!!!
To put it slightly differently, primafacie it seems that for a number of Hindus the Ramjanambhoomi issue is at some level another facet of the Swami vs Bishop issue (ch Krishnakirtidas).
In a different context: That a large percentage of Hindus need to keep some central tenets of their religion under wraps and be despised for claiming a recorded history, suggests that the forces against dharmics are perhaps much stronger and more varied than that which meets the eye
a. Hinduism is a conglomeration of various strands of belief of which Vaishanavism, has a sense of history - of time, place etc, (in fact it is like the Abrahamics to that extent -though Thailand for instance has its own Chitrakoot etc). Vaishnavas constitute x% of Hindus with the x not necessarily a huge number but definitely a very large number, well represented as various subgroups in the Indo-Gangetic plains, west & south India and the eastern coast. The colonialists relegated their ideas on history (and with it to an extent central features of their religion) to the realms of mythology. Secular India found it convenient to follow their lead. The whole series of Avtaars including Shri Ram and Lord Krishna are the Vaishanavas gift to the Hindu thought process. Now it does so happen that Dwarka has been identified, also that some respected historians outside India think that there was enough in the ASI findings at the Babri Masjid site to support claims(a Cambridge prof was one whom I have heard on the subject)......
b.Historically, there were three temples the Congress (? Nehru, ?Patel,??) had promised to restore in independent India - as I recall Somnath, one in Benaras and one possibly in Mathura (pls check). Imp point is that independent India started with Somnath and then decided its secularism required that the others go under the carpet. This seem to have created/ left a strong feelings of resentment which cannot really be wished away.
c.Whether guided by a sense of heritage or tourism money or ..... there is a lot of work done on the restoration of buildings - mosques, tombs,....... Since there are very few Hindu structures other than temples it increasingly seems like Indian history started with the Mughals and was carried forward by the Brits. Simultaneously, particularly in the last couple of decades there has been increasing emphasis on buddhist tourist circuits, vihars, etc. But when it comes to the Hindu call for restoration of a site central to their religion (a reasonably substantial subgroup in absolute numbers - and one which contributes much of the itihaas of north India at a minimum) GOI and others decide that Hindus have no history only mythology therefore there is no sacred site; that one temple will lead to call for another;..... Comparisons are odious but inevitable especially as these Hindus point out (quite correctly!) that while other religions have sites elsewhere too, the Hindus only have places in India so they cannot build/ identify with locations elsewhere!!!
To put it slightly differently, primafacie it seems that for a number of Hindus the Ramjanambhoomi issue is at some level another facet of the Swami vs Bishop issue (ch Krishnakirtidas).
In a different context: That a large percentage of Hindus need to keep some central tenets of their religion under wraps and be despised for claiming a recorded history, suggests that the forces against dharmics are perhaps much stronger and more varied than that which meets the eye
-
- +0
-
-
written by Arjun Bhagat, 2009-06-24 13:52:37
Hi Rajput,
The sense of unease you exhibit towards the Parivar is not at all uncommon, and I have seen and read about this need to distance from the Parivar for over a decade now….. and interestingly, when someone like Kaushal replies as he does (again, some of the points he makes are actually good ones; he just shoots himself in the foot by venting rather than communicating) he further reinforces this impression of the Parivar being full of crude, aggressive types who will not debate intellectually… (which is actually very far from the truth. Many people who identify with the Parivar, work for it and sacrifice for it are wonderful, caring dharmiks, who are deeply open, pluralistic folks who fight hard for what is so dear to every one of us.)
Having said that, they are not the best at branding and marketing, and Kaushal is a poster child testimonial to that point.
Anyway, I digress.
As I mentioned, this unease with the Parivar is something that many of us who have spent years thinking about some of these issues have tried to understand – what is the cause? I think the problem is beyond personalities or acts or behavior but lies in our strategic perception of what Dharma (Hinduism) is, and how does a dharmic society build it’s institutions to protect it’s culture and heritage.
Like many others, the Parivar is deeply focused on protecting dharma from the onslaught of Abrahamic proselytizing. The solution it seems to have come up with is – in some critical respects – to imitate its enemies. Towards that end, it is creating self definitions of what it means to be a Hindu that actually does not resonate with how Hindus have defined themselves over millennia, but more like how the Christians or Muslims go about defining themselves. That creates real unease amongst many Hindus, because it doesn’t seem quite right (and that is what one picks up from Rajput’s comments, for example.) In other words, the Parivar’s experiment to fight the Abrahamic traditions is to take on features from their traditions!!
Let me give you some examples of what I mean:
-The incredible focus on ‘Ram’s Temple’ and its ‘location’. In reality, our dharma does not stand or fall on whether Ram/Krishna/Pandvas were real historical figures or pure mythology, created in the minds of the author(s). That is not the case for the Abrahamic traditions. Imagine the cataclysm that would befall Christianity if it could be proven that Jesus was not a real person. It breaks down the very foundation of Christian theology. So, for many Hindus, the whole fight for the Ram temple makes little sense.
-There is talk about the ‘real’ people of bharat vs. the ‘outsiders’ (i.e. Muslims and Christians). Again, for pluralistic, open minded dharmics, this creates a lot of unease, because that just does not match with the philosophy and structure of our traditions.
-There are attempts to create organizational structures that ape the European church hierarchies, with the attendant concept of ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’. Again, this causes discomfort to many dharmics.
There are other examples I could give. Suffice it to say that the Parivar is experimenting with various options to fight the menace of conversion. Some of their strategies are to ape their opponent, which then of course leaves Hinduism looking more like an Abrahamic tradition, which then leads to the obvious question – what is it that you are fighting to protect? That is the unease that Rajput alludes to when he talks about the threat to our traditions comes from within… (I think).
However – and this is to Kaushal’s point – the reality is that the Parivar is not our enemy. NONE of us really knows how to get out of the conundrum we are stuck in. We must come up with some out of the box solutions, otherwise our current DNA structure (please read my previous post) will ensure the demise of dharma over the next few centuries – as it happened in Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Korea, Malaysia, Indonesia… one could go on and on. Unlike many passive dharmics, the Parivar is at least trying to stop the onslaught. If one disagrees with their strategy, then one must suggest alternatives. But we must not demonify them. That is too easy and too convenient.
(My own 2 cents. I do not believe that the Parivar’s strategy is the right long term one for our traditions success and prosperity, because it meddles with the structural DNA of our traditions, but I can also see that they have had a huge impact in slowing down the conversion process, and in some cases reversing it, and that is more than I know how to do! Of course it goes without saying that if they use intimidation, force or violence, then their strategy becomes unacceptable – but I am not sanguine that they actually do all the things they are accused of by the media either.)
The sense of unease you exhibit towards the Parivar is not at all uncommon, and I have seen and read about this need to distance from the Parivar for over a decade now….. and interestingly, when someone like Kaushal replies as he does (again, some of the points he makes are actually good ones; he just shoots himself in the foot by venting rather than communicating) he further reinforces this impression of the Parivar being full of crude, aggressive types who will not debate intellectually… (which is actually very far from the truth. Many people who identify with the Parivar, work for it and sacrifice for it are wonderful, caring dharmiks, who are deeply open, pluralistic folks who fight hard for what is so dear to every one of us.)
Having said that, they are not the best at branding and marketing, and Kaushal is a poster child testimonial to that point.
Anyway, I digress.
As I mentioned, this unease with the Parivar is something that many of us who have spent years thinking about some of these issues have tried to understand – what is the cause? I think the problem is beyond personalities or acts or behavior but lies in our strategic perception of what Dharma (Hinduism) is, and how does a dharmic society build it’s institutions to protect it’s culture and heritage.
Like many others, the Parivar is deeply focused on protecting dharma from the onslaught of Abrahamic proselytizing. The solution it seems to have come up with is – in some critical respects – to imitate its enemies. Towards that end, it is creating self definitions of what it means to be a Hindu that actually does not resonate with how Hindus have defined themselves over millennia, but more like how the Christians or Muslims go about defining themselves. That creates real unease amongst many Hindus, because it doesn’t seem quite right (and that is what one picks up from Rajput’s comments, for example.) In other words, the Parivar’s experiment to fight the Abrahamic traditions is to take on features from their traditions!!
Let me give you some examples of what I mean:
-The incredible focus on ‘Ram’s Temple’ and its ‘location’. In reality, our dharma does not stand or fall on whether Ram/Krishna/Pandvas were real historical figures or pure mythology, created in the minds of the author(s). That is not the case for the Abrahamic traditions. Imagine the cataclysm that would befall Christianity if it could be proven that Jesus was not a real person. It breaks down the very foundation of Christian theology. So, for many Hindus, the whole fight for the Ram temple makes little sense.
-There is talk about the ‘real’ people of bharat vs. the ‘outsiders’ (i.e. Muslims and Christians). Again, for pluralistic, open minded dharmics, this creates a lot of unease, because that just does not match with the philosophy and structure of our traditions.
-There are attempts to create organizational structures that ape the European church hierarchies, with the attendant concept of ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’. Again, this causes discomfort to many dharmics.
There are other examples I could give. Suffice it to say that the Parivar is experimenting with various options to fight the menace of conversion. Some of their strategies are to ape their opponent, which then of course leaves Hinduism looking more like an Abrahamic tradition, which then leads to the obvious question – what is it that you are fighting to protect? That is the unease that Rajput alludes to when he talks about the threat to our traditions comes from within… (I think).
However – and this is to Kaushal’s point – the reality is that the Parivar is not our enemy. NONE of us really knows how to get out of the conundrum we are stuck in. We must come up with some out of the box solutions, otherwise our current DNA structure (please read my previous post) will ensure the demise of dharma over the next few centuries – as it happened in Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Korea, Malaysia, Indonesia… one could go on and on. Unlike many passive dharmics, the Parivar is at least trying to stop the onslaught. If one disagrees with their strategy, then one must suggest alternatives. But we must not demonify them. That is too easy and too convenient.
(My own 2 cents. I do not believe that the Parivar’s strategy is the right long term one for our traditions success and prosperity, because it meddles with the structural DNA of our traditions, but I can also see that they have had a huge impact in slowing down the conversion process, and in some cases reversing it, and that is more than I know how to do! Of course it goes without saying that if they use intimidation, force or violence, then their strategy becomes unacceptable – but I am not sanguine that they actually do all the things they are accused of by the media either.)
-
- +0
-
-
written by Krishna Kirti Das, 2009-06-24 11:31:48
Namaste,
As quoted in the above article, Sashi Taroor wrote:
Killing Swami Laxmananda was the equivalent of killing a Christian bishop. Had the killing been in the other direction, a Christian bishop being killed, that would have been an international incident. Yet Taroor seems not to take cognizance of this fact. Although it was Maoists who killed him, the Maoists in this particular incident happened to be outspokenly affiliated with the Christian community. In connection with Laxmananda's murder, the Maoists can be considered Christians (http://medhajournal.com/index....Itemid=278).
I believe that Taroor is probably aware of this omission, or he sees these facts as irrelevant. Either way, Taroor is a politician. As a politician, he has ulterior motives, and as is typical of politicians, they view both truth and falsehood as legitimate means to an desireable political ends. Those fighting against Taroor et. al. shouldn't expect a fair fight. This is all part-and-parcel of politics, and war.
As quoted in the above article, Sashi Taroor wrote:
The murderous mobs of Orissa sought to kill Christians and destroy their homes and places of worship, both to terrorise the people and to send the message 'you do not belong here'. What have we come to that a land that has been a haven of tolerance for religious minorities throughout its history should have sunk so low?
Killing Swami Laxmananda was the equivalent of killing a Christian bishop. Had the killing been in the other direction, a Christian bishop being killed, that would have been an international incident. Yet Taroor seems not to take cognizance of this fact. Although it was Maoists who killed him, the Maoists in this particular incident happened to be outspokenly affiliated with the Christian community. In connection with Laxmananda's murder, the Maoists can be considered Christians (http://medhajournal.com/index....Itemid=278).
I believe that Taroor is probably aware of this omission, or he sees these facts as irrelevant. Either way, Taroor is a politician. As a politician, he has ulterior motives, and as is typical of politicians, they view both truth and falsehood as legitimate means to an desireable political ends. Those fighting against Taroor et. al. shouldn't expect a fair fight. This is all part-and-parcel of politics, and war.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Kosla Vepa, 2009-06-24 06:52:21
Frankly i have done or said nothing i regret. It is the perversion of the truth and the lack of remorse on the part of those who stereotype a large group of people that is reprehensible
-
- +0
-
-
written by Deshika.N.Kumar, 2009-06-24 06:48:56
Rajput,
Yes I agree it seems like that - but you will find that it all fits together. I was working on that when I got sidetracked with all the mess of the day's post - guess it happens sometimes.
main thing is that karigar would not have tried to initiate a debate if he didn't think it was worthwhile. Doubt that anyone here is into humouring another!! But if you like another possibility - and Karigar could well come up with more- could perhaps be that you team up with someone for this discussion and/or maybe karigar and you could work out a different format or..... meanwhile if you feel you must maybe you could rest a day or two - but pls discuss it with Karigar.
I am insisting for the sake of the subject, for you in your practice of yoga, and for us in the fresh insights you seem to bring.
As for Arjun's discussion thread - well that could go on simultaneously, or could happen first or..... I leave it to better heads than mine. Dwai?, Pradipda? karigar?, ......,.......
Yes I agree it seems like that - but you will find that it all fits together. I was working on that when I got sidetracked with all the mess of the day's post - guess it happens sometimes.
main thing is that karigar would not have tried to initiate a debate if he didn't think it was worthwhile. Doubt that anyone here is into humouring another!! But if you like another possibility - and Karigar could well come up with more- could perhaps be that you team up with someone for this discussion and/or maybe karigar and you could work out a different format or..... meanwhile if you feel you must maybe you could rest a day or two - but pls discuss it with Karigar.
I am insisting for the sake of the subject, for you in your practice of yoga, and for us in the fresh insights you seem to bring.
As for Arjun's discussion thread - well that could go on simultaneously, or could happen first or..... I leave it to better heads than mine. Dwai?, Pradipda? karigar?, ......,.......
-
- +0
-
-
written by Deshika.N.Kumar, 2009-06-24 06:23:29
Kaushal,
Since you seem to believe in giving it straight and ignore those who are polite, let me return the compliment and inform you that I am particularly disgusted by your posts this day. TMJ fora are not a punch bag for venting personal anger. And I (? we) will not countenance personal attacks - let alone a series of them.
Having said that I will also point out that the cause of your anger lies in your own misreading of the posts. Karigar has tried to intervene, Rajput has clarified again - and both of them have tried to remind you that this is not drawing room conversation; they areputting in time and effort towards finding ways and means to improve the outreach and acceptability of your religion. You are so full of yourself that.............
As for 'closing ranks' - one cannot close ranks with a product whose contents are possibly contaminated by toxic impurities. Hindus seem to have their work cut out explaining the (?apparent )toxicity. Karigar and Rajput and anyone who joins them are involved in trying to understand the ?dimensions/ ?dynamics/....... Instead of screaming like banshees because someone has said that there is a possibility that there is some contamination that is probably causing the toxicity/ increasing its potency /.... anyone with any concern for the Parivaar would be better occupied in assisting to clean their backyard.
.
Since you seem to believe in giving it straight and ignore those who are polite, let me return the compliment and inform you that I am particularly disgusted by your posts this day. TMJ fora are not a punch bag for venting personal anger. And I (? we) will not countenance personal attacks - let alone a series of them.
Having said that I will also point out that the cause of your anger lies in your own misreading of the posts. Karigar has tried to intervene, Rajput has clarified again - and both of them have tried to remind you that this is not drawing room conversation; they areputting in time and effort towards finding ways and means to improve the outreach and acceptability of your religion. You are so full of yourself that.............
As for 'closing ranks' - one cannot close ranks with a product whose contents are possibly contaminated by toxic impurities. Hindus seem to have their work cut out explaining the (?apparent )toxicity. Karigar and Rajput and anyone who joins them are involved in trying to understand the ?dimensions/ ?dynamics/....... Instead of screaming like banshees because someone has said that there is a possibility that there is some contamination that is probably causing the toxicity/ increasing its potency /.... anyone with any concern for the Parivaar would be better occupied in assisting to clean their backyard.
.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Raju, 2009-06-24 04:55:35
Dear Deshika,
When I read Arjun Bhagat and Karigar’s last comment I felt that perhaps these two are on to some thing new that I had not thought so far. Do continue the discussion without me.
Regards,
Rajendra
-
- +0
-
-
written by Deshika.N.Kumar, 2009-06-24 00:13:59
Dear Rajput,
Please accept my personal, sincere and unqualified apologies for some of the comments which I have just read. Since I happen to be 'MCing' and there can be no excuses for such conduct, I decided to get back to you immediately.
Rgds/-
Deshika_
Please accept my personal, sincere and unqualified apologies for some of the comments which I have just read. Since I happen to be 'MCing' and there can be no excuses for such conduct, I decided to get back to you immediately.
Rgds/-
Deshika_
-
- +0
-
-
written by Deshika.N.Kumar, 2009-06-23 18:51:35
Rajput, I am yet to go through the comments (I saw your when I came to the board to post to Arujun bhagat) but please could you revive 'the spirit'. You've initated a vast and important area of discussion. I am sure if you are firm with your spirit it will respond. This is 'experience speak' - recently my spirit too needed a talking to, as you might have gathered had you followed the discussion carefully! Come on! We are all in this together! Deshika_
-
- +0
-
-
written by Deshika.N.Kumar, 2009-06-23 18:38:30
Arjun, thank you for the quick response & clear exposition of the problem. Please don’t apologise – you are now in banyan tree land, helping to identify and hopefully initiate control of marauding elephants(?s)! I am contextualising your effort. Will be back ASAP.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Raju, 2009-06-23 16:42:32
Dear Karigar,
I would love to discuss with you.
However spirit of discussion has been killed.
Bye for now.
Regards,
Rajendra
-
- +0
-
-
written by karigar, 2009-06-23 15:47:43
Dear Sri Rajput,
Thanks for the response.
So your purvapaksha of my stance is this:
That to me sounds a bit of a reductionistic take on what I've been saying. So let me put forth a in few points the structure of my views in the same way as I tried to encapsulate yours to your satisfaction. (Your not objecting to my understanding of your view tells me I did some justice to them-a good Purvapaksha)
So-
a.
RRJ(you): Tharoor is right in criticizing only hindus for the percieved faults.
KGR(me): Tharoor is wrong in criticizing only hindus for the percieved faults.
b.
RRJ: The faults are about issues internal to hinduism, and must be tackled before anything is done about other issues.
KGR: The internal dimension of the problem is a separate domain from the external threat posed by aggressive forces subverting and underminig hindu society. By virtue of being a practising hindu, one will naturally attempt to keep spirituality alive; but without tending to self-defence in the socio-political realm, soon there won't be any hinduism left to foster spirituality in the coming generations.
c.
RRJ: Other issues that others here are raising (external threats, hindus unable to deal with sociopolitical issues due to self-delusion, etc) are not really much of an issue, if at all.
KGR: Other issues are an immediate & impending threat to the very existence of our spiritual culture, and must be responded to and not ignored.
d.
RRJ: If hindus learn to be spiritual per basically an Advaitic roadmap, then all problems will be automatically taken care of.
KGR: Practice of Spirituality is totally dependent on a culture & atmosphere of non-threatened peace. Without this atmosphere, one cannot practice spirituality. The Lower (Apara-Vidya / Vyavaharika Satya) has to be dealt with & reconciled, before attempting to move to Higher (Para-Vidya / Paramarthika Satya).
Having put both views side-by-side; we can proceed to the details.
Firstly, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I detect a foregone conclusion in your comments about not ceding space to some specific sociopolitical formation of hindu leadership that you are apprehensive may destroy the spiritual foundations of hinduism.
My response is that before even getting to qualifying or disqualifying any current socio-political leadership formation, one needs to agree that current circumstances warrant action in the socio-political realm. Only after that can one judge what kind of formation is suitable.
Am I really reading from you that there is no need at all for any action or leadership in the sociopolitical arena? That in this area our culture is ok left defenceless to whatever marauder that comes along and takes more & more freedom & vitality from the culture? (Let's keep in mind we've not done, & I'm not advocating a 'tit-for-tat' agression on their home turf)
I sincerely hope not, for that would mean a contradiction in what you (or I) as a human being expects as a minimum standard for our life to be meaningful. As a single human being, one expects to be allowed freedom in the external world to pursue life goals of Dharma, Artha, Kama, Moksha without hindrance from other human beings in the world. And most naturally, we extend this notion of protection to our family & loved ones.
Reciprocity is a basic rule of society. If we detect others' Adharmic behavior towards us or our own, we always reserve the right to retaliate; as we expect them to do if we were adharmic.
How does this basic attitude contradict any norm of spirituality, and why is this basic expectation breaking down in the field of society where aggressive encroachment of our basic space is more & more rampant by hugely organized & motivated forces ?
I do not see myself disagreeing with all your points on how to improve/mitigate internal problems of hindu society. But why try to ignore impending danger which has already wrecked much of our culture & may destroy more if left unchecked?
Surely Kshatriya Dharma was alive & well during the times of Sankaracharya & before, and Rajas were and blessed by them and encouraged to be good at their Raja dharma. This invloved defence both ideological & military.
With the peace of proper dharma in the external/sociopolitical realm (which always has & always will require sociopolitical action), inner search & adhyatma can only find more fertile ground to grow & thrive in the society.
Best Regards.
Thanks for the response.
So your purvapaksha of my stance is this:
In my view your focus seems to be on means like "Niti-Shastra RealPolitik of how one must behave in Society with its power structures, etc." for reclaiming Hindu space from aggressive non-Indic forces.
That to me sounds a bit of a reductionistic take on what I've been saying. So let me put forth a in few points the structure of my views in the same way as I tried to encapsulate yours to your satisfaction. (Your not objecting to my understanding of your view tells me I did some justice to them-a good Purvapaksha)
So-
a.
RRJ(you): Tharoor is right in criticizing only hindus for the percieved faults.
KGR(me): Tharoor is wrong in criticizing only hindus for the percieved faults.
b.
RRJ: The faults are about issues internal to hinduism, and must be tackled before anything is done about other issues.
KGR: The internal dimension of the problem is a separate domain from the external threat posed by aggressive forces subverting and underminig hindu society. By virtue of being a practising hindu, one will naturally attempt to keep spirituality alive; but without tending to self-defence in the socio-political realm, soon there won't be any hinduism left to foster spirituality in the coming generations.
c.
RRJ: Other issues that others here are raising (external threats, hindus unable to deal with sociopolitical issues due to self-delusion, etc) are not really much of an issue, if at all.
KGR: Other issues are an immediate & impending threat to the very existence of our spiritual culture, and must be responded to and not ignored.
d.
RRJ: If hindus learn to be spiritual per basically an Advaitic roadmap, then all problems will be automatically taken care of.
KGR: Practice of Spirituality is totally dependent on a culture & atmosphere of non-threatened peace. Without this atmosphere, one cannot practice spirituality. The Lower (Apara-Vidya / Vyavaharika Satya) has to be dealt with & reconciled, before attempting to move to Higher (Para-Vidya / Paramarthika Satya).
Having put both views side-by-side; we can proceed to the details.
Firstly, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I detect a foregone conclusion in your comments about not ceding space to some specific sociopolitical formation of hindu leadership that you are apprehensive may destroy the spiritual foundations of hinduism.
My response is that before even getting to qualifying or disqualifying any current socio-political leadership formation, one needs to agree that current circumstances warrant action in the socio-political realm. Only after that can one judge what kind of formation is suitable.
Am I really reading from you that there is no need at all for any action or leadership in the sociopolitical arena? That in this area our culture is ok left defenceless to whatever marauder that comes along and takes more & more freedom & vitality from the culture? (Let's keep in mind we've not done, & I'm not advocating a 'tit-for-tat' agression on their home turf)
I sincerely hope not, for that would mean a contradiction in what you (or I) as a human being expects as a minimum standard for our life to be meaningful. As a single human being, one expects to be allowed freedom in the external world to pursue life goals of Dharma, Artha, Kama, Moksha without hindrance from other human beings in the world. And most naturally, we extend this notion of protection to our family & loved ones.
Reciprocity is a basic rule of society. If we detect others' Adharmic behavior towards us or our own, we always reserve the right to retaliate; as we expect them to do if we were adharmic.
How does this basic attitude contradict any norm of spirituality, and why is this basic expectation breaking down in the field of society where aggressive encroachment of our basic space is more & more rampant by hugely organized & motivated forces ?
I do not see myself disagreeing with all your points on how to improve/mitigate internal problems of hindu society. But why try to ignore impending danger which has already wrecked much of our culture & may destroy more if left unchecked?
Surely Kshatriya Dharma was alive & well during the times of Sankaracharya & before, and Rajas were and blessed by them and encouraged to be good at their Raja dharma. This invloved defence both ideological & military.
With the peace of proper dharma in the external/sociopolitical realm (which always has & always will require sociopolitical action), inner search & adhyatma can only find more fertile ground to grow & thrive in the society.
Best Regards.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Kosla Vepa, 2009-06-23 14:54:47
People who live in glass houses should not throw rocks at others. If you make general statements of all members of the Parivar, very harsh judgements i might add, then you should hardly expect that others will not do the same to you. In fact, there has been constant vilification of the members of the Parivar , particularly when you say that they are the greatest threat to India and to the Sanatana Dharma. Such a broad based statement is extremely hurtful and it is picked up by foreigners who now feel it is OK to label a person as a Hindutva without saying what it is that he has done that is objectonable.... .Furthermore such display of disunity is unbecoming of a mature democracy. One thing we have yet to to learn from the Occidental, is they close ranks when confronted by one who they feel doesnt belong to them.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Raju, 2009-06-23 13:05:29
We all are trying to see how we all can collectively or individually work towards educating and/or enhancing spiritual character of Hindu society. We all are trying to see if we can generate ideas that can be put into action. I have made a suggestion that we could publish list Hindu organization on TMJ that people could contribute or associate.
Every body is entitled to have different views and it is in this spirit I welcome different views even though I may not agree. I don’t anything to add when things are taken out of context and passing value judgments on others. There is a need to follow important point made earlier by Sri Karigar to keep discussion free of value judgments. otherwise ..
-
- +0
-
-
written by Kosla Vepa, 2009-06-23 11:57:21
Hindu socio-political-cultural organizations seem to be advocating constructivists approach while Hindu philosophy is perennial in nature. Hindu socio-political-cultural organizations are trying to achieve a sense of belongingness, homogeneity, and integration at cultural and symbolic level. These types of organization seem to adopt and/or endorse confrontational approach to protect representational symbols of religion and culture. Confusion between spiritualism and symbolism of religion is a fatal one.
In my view Hindu public space belongs only to Hindu spiritual organizations. We should not cede this sacred space to aggressive Hindu socio-political-cultural forces. These forces may end up distorting if not destroying notion of Hindu spirituality. It is for this reason I believe that in a free and democratic India threat to Hindus (about 80-85% of populations with access to lot of resources) is not external but internal.
So it has come to this. You are free to worship any brand of Hinduism as long as it meets with my approval. Surprise Surprise The real adversaries of diversity in India are the Secularists. This is what i always suspected. In my many years of interaction with secularists , i have always found them to be utterly intolerant of any view but theirs, whereas most members of the parivar that i have met are live and let live types like me.
I have only one question to ask of Mr Rajput . Which millennia does he belong to , because the world has moved on from the notion that the 'space ' belongs to somebody and that he can 'cede' it to somebody like a piece of real estate. I have news for you Mr Rajput, you do not have title to the 'space' to cede it to anybody. Unless you fancy yourself to be like the Colonial Overlords who were always generous and magnanimous with real estate that they did not have title to in the first place.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Raju, 2009-06-23 05:30:46
Dear Admin,
Instead of number 8 we get some thing else in the post.
Thanks,
Rajendra
Instead of number 8 we get some thing else in the post.
Thanks,
Rajendra
-
- +0
-
-
written by Raju, 2009-06-23 05:27:53
Dear Karigar,
I have been learning, thinking and creating arguments along with the flow of this discussion. I will use question and answer form for some concepts that may help us in discussion.
First let me thank Mogambo for staring problem definition, Dwai for introducing concept of Purvapaksha and Deshika, Pradip and Karigar for taking it further.
I agree with his Shashi Tharoor’s central message that one cannot use non-spiritual means to defend or preserve Hindu spiritual philosophy. This is a contradiction.
In my view your focus seems to be on means like "Niti-Shastra RealPolitik of how one must behave in Society with its power structures, etc." for reclaiming Hindu space from aggressive non-Indic forces. I would like to know your ideas to achieve above without distorting or affecting belief or view of Hindu spirituality.
What is spirituality?
Spiritual consciousness links men to divine impulse or inner consciousness or the universal order. For most of the religions, cultures and civilizations, this is the purpose of individual and collective existence. Spiritual consciousness is the expression of what is most eternal and everlasting within the human self, individually or collectively.
Spirituality connotes the meaning-giving, contextualizing transformative intelligence. The spiritual need lies in a search for meaning, the souls thirst for happiness, peace, tranquillity and inner satisfaction.
Ref: A Perspective of Collective Consciousness of Business Organizations
By Ashish Pandey and Rajen K. Gupta
Journal of Business Ethics, 2007
What is difference between constructivists and the perennialists?
In the West, one major debate about religious experience contrasts the constructivists and the perennialists. Constructivists claim that all religious goals and symbols are socially created, and that religious experience is a projection of ideas from the culture. There is no ultimate religious goal common to all mankind, and religious experience is primarily social and political, frequently used to validate the current authority structure. The perennialist argument is that there is a god or ultimate reality that transcends all symbols and cultural differences, and that religious experience gives insight into that reality.
Ref: Religious Experience in Hindu Tradition
By June McDaniel
College of Charleston, Religion Compass 3 (2009)
Why is Hinduism like a banyan tree?
Banyan tree develops over a long period of time. Its branches grow and also take root in the earth next to the main trunk. Later on it becomes difficult to identify branch from main trunk. We see a similar phenomenon with Hinduism. It is for this reason Hinduism is like a banyan tree with its multiple branches.
Here are some branches of Hinduism tree
1) Various gods - Siva, Vishnu, Shakti etc
2) Various sects – Shaivites, Vaisnavism, Shaktism etc
3) More gods - Worship of nature in the form trees, plant, animal, rivers, mountains
4) Various paths – Bhakti marg, RajYoga, Karama Yoga etc
5) Various scriptures - Vedas, Upanishad, Purans, Srimad Bhagavad-Gita etc
6) Various philosophies - Six darshans
7) Various Pursarthsa - Dharma, Artha, Kama, Mokshs
For ashrams - Brahmacharya, Grahasta, Vanaprastha and Sanyasa
9) Various sacred centers - Pilgrimage, maths, dham etc
10) Simultaneously holding dialectically opposite things - Pravrtti (engagement with the world) & nivrtti (withdrawal from the world) and also accepting one’s dual and non-dual nature
All these things gave rise to multiple/diverse cultures, and also produced creative tension/struggle between various groups. However Brahman has always been at the center of meta-philosophy and spiritual experience of Hindu life. Unity in diversity is accepted, as everything is manifestation of Brahman. Spirituality in Hinduism is about putting spiritual philosophy in practice and not theory.
Analysis
Hindu socio-political-cultural organizations seem to be advocating constructivists approach while Hindu philosophy is perennial in nature. Hindu socio-political-cultural organizations are trying to achieve a sense of belongingness, homogeneity, and integration at cultural and symbolic level. These types of organization seem to adopt and/or endorse confrontational approach to protect representational symbols of religion and culture. Confusion between spiritualism and symbolism of religion is a fatal one.
In my view Hindu public space belongs only to Hindu spiritual organizations. We should not cede this sacred space to aggressive Hindu socio-political-cultural forces. These forces may end up distorting if not destroying notion of Hindu spirituality. It is for this reason I believe that in a free and democratic India threat to Hindus (about 80-85% of populations with access to lot of resources) is not external but internal.
I agree with Dwai that 95% of the Hindus need to be aware/educated of right ways.
In response to that I am listing Hindu organizations, below short definition of every path, which can help one understand various Hindu paths.
* Karma yoga
Normally means action motivated only by a sense of duty, without any concern for the results. If one acts on the notions that Brahman is the real actor; then there is no question of being attached to results of one’s action.
- ???
* Bhakti yoga
Bhakti Yoga is defined as, selfless service to others in the name of love to one’s personal Brahman (God). In this yoga power of love is used for self-transcendence.
-Social organization like Anandwan started by Late Sri Baba Amte for leprosy patients
* Jnana Yoga
This is the yoga of the illuminated intellect (wisdom) of Brahman.
-Chinmaya Mission centers
-Sri Ramakrishna Math and Mission centers
* Raj Yoga
Raja yoga is based on self-illuminating power of Brahman.
-Art of Living founded by Sri Sri Ravi Shankar
-Yoga camps by Swami Ramdev
-Transcendental Meditation started by Sri Mahesh Yogi
Other suggestions
-Hold central, state and local govt accountable
-Caste system is very much prevalent in India and needs to be removed.
MK Gandhi was able to create a mass independence movement based on the social reforms and/or spiritual awakening movements that had started in Bengal, Maharashtra, Punjab etc and spread to rest of India before his arrival on the political scene. Work of social reforms and spiritual renaissance is not complete. This work should be accelerated and not misdirected.
May be you could take lead in compiling a list of organizations that have little or no connection with political parties directly or indirectly and are doing work to put people of India on proven paths of Karma Yoga, Bhakti yoga, Raj-yoga and Jnana yoga. This list can be helpful for any one that would like to support noble cause.
In Hindu society one needs to be aware of de-centring and re-centring forces with respect to spirituality. Hindu society will lose its spiritual character if it takes a wrong path and India may become like Lebanon or Bosnia.
This is an important discussion but I may not have anything else further to add to what I have already stated.
Regards,
Rajendra
I have been learning, thinking and creating arguments along with the flow of this discussion. I will use question and answer form for some concepts that may help us in discussion.
First let me thank Mogambo for staring problem definition, Dwai for introducing concept of Purvapaksha and Deshika, Pradip and Karigar for taking it further.
I agree with his Shashi Tharoor’s central message that one cannot use non-spiritual means to defend or preserve Hindu spiritual philosophy. This is a contradiction.
In my view your focus seems to be on means like "Niti-Shastra RealPolitik of how one must behave in Society with its power structures, etc." for reclaiming Hindu space from aggressive non-Indic forces. I would like to know your ideas to achieve above without distorting or affecting belief or view of Hindu spirituality.
What is spirituality?
Spiritual consciousness links men to divine impulse or inner consciousness or the universal order. For most of the religions, cultures and civilizations, this is the purpose of individual and collective existence. Spiritual consciousness is the expression of what is most eternal and everlasting within the human self, individually or collectively.
Spirituality connotes the meaning-giving, contextualizing transformative intelligence. The spiritual need lies in a search for meaning, the souls thirst for happiness, peace, tranquillity and inner satisfaction.
Ref: A Perspective of Collective Consciousness of Business Organizations
By Ashish Pandey and Rajen K. Gupta
Journal of Business Ethics, 2007
What is difference between constructivists and the perennialists?
In the West, one major debate about religious experience contrasts the constructivists and the perennialists. Constructivists claim that all religious goals and symbols are socially created, and that religious experience is a projection of ideas from the culture. There is no ultimate religious goal common to all mankind, and religious experience is primarily social and political, frequently used to validate the current authority structure. The perennialist argument is that there is a god or ultimate reality that transcends all symbols and cultural differences, and that religious experience gives insight into that reality.
Ref: Religious Experience in Hindu Tradition
By June McDaniel
College of Charleston, Religion Compass 3 (2009)
Why is Hinduism like a banyan tree?
Banyan tree develops over a long period of time. Its branches grow and also take root in the earth next to the main trunk. Later on it becomes difficult to identify branch from main trunk. We see a similar phenomenon with Hinduism. It is for this reason Hinduism is like a banyan tree with its multiple branches.
Here are some branches of Hinduism tree
1) Various gods - Siva, Vishnu, Shakti etc
2) Various sects – Shaivites, Vaisnavism, Shaktism etc
3) More gods - Worship of nature in the form trees, plant, animal, rivers, mountains
4) Various paths – Bhakti marg, RajYoga, Karama Yoga etc
5) Various scriptures - Vedas, Upanishad, Purans, Srimad Bhagavad-Gita etc
6) Various philosophies - Six darshans
7) Various Pursarthsa - Dharma, Artha, Kama, Mokshs
For ashrams - Brahmacharya, Grahasta, Vanaprastha and Sanyasa 9) Various sacred centers - Pilgrimage, maths, dham etc
10) Simultaneously holding dialectically opposite things - Pravrtti (engagement with the world) & nivrtti (withdrawal from the world) and also accepting one’s dual and non-dual nature
All these things gave rise to multiple/diverse cultures, and also produced creative tension/struggle between various groups. However Brahman has always been at the center of meta-philosophy and spiritual experience of Hindu life. Unity in diversity is accepted, as everything is manifestation of Brahman. Spirituality in Hinduism is about putting spiritual philosophy in practice and not theory.
Analysis
Hindu socio-political-cultural organizations seem to be advocating constructivists approach while Hindu philosophy is perennial in nature. Hindu socio-political-cultural organizations are trying to achieve a sense of belongingness, homogeneity, and integration at cultural and symbolic level. These types of organization seem to adopt and/or endorse confrontational approach to protect representational symbols of religion and culture. Confusion between spiritualism and symbolism of religion is a fatal one.
In my view Hindu public space belongs only to Hindu spiritual organizations. We should not cede this sacred space to aggressive Hindu socio-political-cultural forces. These forces may end up distorting if not destroying notion of Hindu spirituality. It is for this reason I believe that in a free and democratic India threat to Hindus (about 80-85% of populations with access to lot of resources) is not external but internal.
I agree with Dwai that 95% of the Hindus need to be aware/educated of right ways.
In response to that I am listing Hindu organizations, below short definition of every path, which can help one understand various Hindu paths.
* Karma yoga
Normally means action motivated only by a sense of duty, without any concern for the results. If one acts on the notions that Brahman is the real actor; then there is no question of being attached to results of one’s action.
- ???
* Bhakti yoga
Bhakti Yoga is defined as, selfless service to others in the name of love to one’s personal Brahman (God). In this yoga power of love is used for self-transcendence.
-Social organization like Anandwan started by Late Sri Baba Amte for leprosy patients
* Jnana Yoga
This is the yoga of the illuminated intellect (wisdom) of Brahman.
-Chinmaya Mission centers
-Sri Ramakrishna Math and Mission centers
* Raj Yoga
Raja yoga is based on self-illuminating power of Brahman.
-Art of Living founded by Sri Sri Ravi Shankar
-Yoga camps by Swami Ramdev
-Transcendental Meditation started by Sri Mahesh Yogi
Other suggestions
-Hold central, state and local govt accountable
-Caste system is very much prevalent in India and needs to be removed.
MK Gandhi was able to create a mass independence movement based on the social reforms and/or spiritual awakening movements that had started in Bengal, Maharashtra, Punjab etc and spread to rest of India before his arrival on the political scene. Work of social reforms and spiritual renaissance is not complete. This work should be accelerated and not misdirected.
May be you could take lead in compiling a list of organizations that have little or no connection with political parties directly or indirectly and are doing work to put people of India on proven paths of Karma Yoga, Bhakti yoga, Raj-yoga and Jnana yoga. This list can be helpful for any one that would like to support noble cause.
In Hindu society one needs to be aware of de-centring and re-centring forces with respect to spirituality. Hindu society will lose its spiritual character if it takes a wrong path and India may become like Lebanon or Bosnia.
This is an important discussion but I may not have anything else further to add to what I have already stated.
Regards,
Rajendra
-
- +0
-
-
written by P. Desikan, 2009-06-22 23:48:30
Here is an interesting view from outside tmj.
http://www.expressindia.com/news/print.php?newsid=47071
Regards. Partha
-
- +0
-
-
written by P. Desikan, 2009-06-22 23:48:30
Here is an interesting view from outside tmj.
http://www.expressindia.com/news/print.php?newsid=47071
Regards. Partha
-
- +0
-
-
written by Arjun Bhagat, 2009-06-22 21:15:36
I am entering this debate late, and while I have tried to sift through a bunch of the entries already made, I will declare up front that I have not got a strong sense of the tone or direction of the discussion to-date (not because its not there, but because I have not put in the time or effort to get as up to speed as I probably could). So, if my comment sounds a bit out of context, or takes the discussion 10 steps back, my apologies, as that is not my intention.
There are 3 points I would like to bring up, that I would like to hear from the people commenting on this article:
1.When Tharoor talks about 'Hinduism with its openness, tolerance and universal acceptance (all of which is true) and wears that like a halo around his head, but doesn't talk about the attacks it faces from BELIEF based religions that can make claims to unique connectors to God (son of god; prophet of God; whatever)and thus trash us 'idol worshipers/lost souls'for not accepting those beliefs, he is either a)disingenuous or b) has so taken to the Eurocentric worldview that he is unable to even see the problem! The problem faced by the Dharmic traditions in this regard has its parallels in many other real life situations. For example, in a pluralistic democracy, what does one do if there is a party that does not believe in pluralism or the plebiscite? (Communists from the 1920s onwards – and we saw how a democracy such as the US chose to deal with them) Or, if one looked at Muslim societies, where it was acceptable to make kafirs slaves, or make them pay Jizya; how is one supposed to respond to such worldviews? By wallowing in one’s own sense of high-mindedness and humanism? By not addressing these complex issues, Tharoor is churning out platitudes.
2.Which gets me to the second point. What should a dharmic civilization such as ours do when faced with a proposition like the one discussed above? To not find a solution implies a guaranteed lose-lose. If we intimidate, maim, plunder and attack people of Abrahamic faiths, we lose our dharma, we lose our humanism, we lose everything Tharoor is lamenting about. If we do nothing, and carry on saying that all religions are equally valid, and thus we do not come up with a solution, we lose, because then, at a DNA (structural) level, we guarantee ourselves oblivion. Assuming no change in the way dharmiks go about doing things (which is obviously not true) conversions will remain, for all practical purposes, a one way street, with souls flowing into Abrahamic traditions, which like black holes, will never allow souls to go the other way.
3.Which gets me to the third point. We are going to need true intellectual leader(s) who will figure out point 2, come up with changes in our way of going about doing things, and how we interact with non-dharmics, such that it doesn’t have to be a one way street, in terms of people converting. Game changing leaders – which is the only kind I am talking about here – do not come with a job description, or a particular skill set. They come because the situation matches with their capabilities, they have an intuition that allows them to weave and tack depending upon the reality of whatever it is that they are facing at any particular time, they make the cause the very reason for their existence and they know how to energize and enroll the rest of us in to the vision they generate for all of us. Think Gandhi, think the salt march, think how ordinary men and women became super human, walking up to the baton wielding cops, getting hammered, only to be replaced by another set of otherwise ordinary folks…. And you see all the ingredients we need in the kind of leadership I am talking about.
Again, I do not claim to have any answers here, but in my opinion, figuring out these three points, or at least contemplating on them should be a worthwhile endeavor, and should get us a few steps further than where Tharoor’s superficial piece leaves us dangling.
Regds.
There are 3 points I would like to bring up, that I would like to hear from the people commenting on this article:
1.When Tharoor talks about 'Hinduism with its openness, tolerance and universal acceptance (all of which is true) and wears that like a halo around his head, but doesn't talk about the attacks it faces from BELIEF based religions that can make claims to unique connectors to God (son of god; prophet of God; whatever)and thus trash us 'idol worshipers/lost souls'for not accepting those beliefs, he is either a)disingenuous or b) has so taken to the Eurocentric worldview that he is unable to even see the problem! The problem faced by the Dharmic traditions in this regard has its parallels in many other real life situations. For example, in a pluralistic democracy, what does one do if there is a party that does not believe in pluralism or the plebiscite? (Communists from the 1920s onwards – and we saw how a democracy such as the US chose to deal with them) Or, if one looked at Muslim societies, where it was acceptable to make kafirs slaves, or make them pay Jizya; how is one supposed to respond to such worldviews? By wallowing in one’s own sense of high-mindedness and humanism? By not addressing these complex issues, Tharoor is churning out platitudes.
2.Which gets me to the second point. What should a dharmic civilization such as ours do when faced with a proposition like the one discussed above? To not find a solution implies a guaranteed lose-lose. If we intimidate, maim, plunder and attack people of Abrahamic faiths, we lose our dharma, we lose our humanism, we lose everything Tharoor is lamenting about. If we do nothing, and carry on saying that all religions are equally valid, and thus we do not come up with a solution, we lose, because then, at a DNA (structural) level, we guarantee ourselves oblivion. Assuming no change in the way dharmiks go about doing things (which is obviously not true) conversions will remain, for all practical purposes, a one way street, with souls flowing into Abrahamic traditions, which like black holes, will never allow souls to go the other way.
3.Which gets me to the third point. We are going to need true intellectual leader(s) who will figure out point 2, come up with changes in our way of going about doing things, and how we interact with non-dharmics, such that it doesn’t have to be a one way street, in terms of people converting. Game changing leaders – which is the only kind I am talking about here – do not come with a job description, or a particular skill set. They come because the situation matches with their capabilities, they have an intuition that allows them to weave and tack depending upon the reality of whatever it is that they are facing at any particular time, they make the cause the very reason for their existence and they know how to energize and enroll the rest of us in to the vision they generate for all of us. Think Gandhi, think the salt march, think how ordinary men and women became super human, walking up to the baton wielding cops, getting hammered, only to be replaced by another set of otherwise ordinary folks…. And you see all the ingredients we need in the kind of leadership I am talking about.
Again, I do not claim to have any answers here, but in my opinion, figuring out these three points, or at least contemplating on them should be a worthwhile endeavor, and should get us a few steps further than where Tharoor’s superficial piece leaves us dangling.
Regds.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Deshika.N.Kumar, 2009-06-22 04:12:18
Rajput, ‘Observation’ is a perfectly legitimate tool in a ‘purva paksha’, the Indic form of debate in which as we all know the rules/ legitimising truths etc are somewhat different from that of a western style debate.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Deshika.N.Kumar, 2009-06-22 02:49:39
Medhavis, An invitation to jump in! a ‘situation(?s) vacant’ to be written up, plus a debate in the making! Add your bit wherever...
Karigar, Rajput , What a wonderful idea!! Please start soon. TMJ style others are waiting to join either or both of you, or perhaps go off on a total tangent leaving whoever to retrieve the situation!
Arya, A Great idea! well worth all efforts into elaborating on it! Herewith my take: an initial outline to assist folks conceptualise. It draws on your post:
[Wanted!!] : [Leader for Hindus: gender / caste/ geographical location/,,,,, no bar]
[Job Description:] [Uniting Hindus to carry forward their traditions through and beyond the 21st century {I am restricting it to Hindus because currently other Indics are keen to go it alone}; Outlining the banyan tree that is Hinduism so that initially at least Hindus and later everyone knows its main characteristics/ needs/ ......, ......, ...... and how it is different from other trees, plants, ........; ..........; ........; .........;
[Personal qualifications:] person has to be knowledgeable [on the different aspects of Hinduism,......., ......,] enlightened: his message should be powerful enough that can pull people from other religious beliefs as well., ......,.........,......, ...should come up with a spiritual solution that can be accepted by other beliefs...; .......; .........; .......;
[ Personal Qualities]: scientific in approach......; ........; .......... hard working;.....
[Abilities and Skills:] [Must be able to handle negative flak – direct and indirect from media, politicians, .......; ......; ............; ...........; ............; ;Ability to pull unite Hindus of differing views/ education levels,......., ...., ......]
--- . ------. --------.
[TMJ Hindus reserve the right to: accept/reject applications without ascribing any reasons; to appoint sub-leaders and/ or..... ; to decide on a new/ different hierarchical/ work structure;....... ; ...............; ................;]
Karigar, Rajput , What a wonderful idea!! Please start soon. TMJ style others are waiting to join either or both of you, or perhaps go off on a total tangent leaving whoever to retrieve the situation!
Arya, A Great idea! well worth all efforts into elaborating on it! Herewith my take: an initial outline to assist folks conceptualise. It draws on your post:
[Wanted!!] : [Leader for Hindus: gender / caste/ geographical location/,,,,, no bar]
[Job Description:] [Uniting Hindus to carry forward their traditions through and beyond the 21st century {I am restricting it to Hindus because currently other Indics are keen to go it alone}; Outlining the banyan tree that is Hinduism so that initially at least Hindus and later everyone knows its main characteristics/ needs/ ......, ......, ...... and how it is different from other trees, plants, ........; ..........; ........; .........;
[Personal qualifications:] person has to be knowledgeable [on the different aspects of Hinduism,......., ......,] enlightened: his message should be powerful enough that can pull people from other religious beliefs as well., ......,.........,......, ...should come up with a spiritual solution that can be accepted by other beliefs...; .......; .........; .......;
[ Personal Qualities]: scientific in approach......; ........; .......... hard working;.....
[Abilities and Skills:] [Must be able to handle negative flak – direct and indirect from media, politicians, .......; ......; ............; ...........; ............; ;Ability to pull unite Hindus of differing views/ education levels,......., ...., ......]
--- . ------. --------.
[TMJ Hindus reserve the right to: accept/reject applications without ascribing any reasons; to appoint sub-leaders and/ or..... ; to decide on a new/ different hierarchical/ work structure;....... ; ...............; ................;]
-
- +0
-
-
written by Raju, 2009-06-21 16:11:35
Dear Karigar,
I will reply to your comments in a day or so. At present I am little busy.
My comments about Hindu parivar is about "logic of socio-political-economic organizations of Hindu parivar" is based on my personal observations and not what you or others have said.
Regards,
Rajendra
-
- +0
-
-
written by karigar, 2009-06-21 13:37:02
Yes, we do have multiple levels of existence Vy?vah?rika and P?ram?rthika (Advaita-101), yet our actions should spiritual in nature. All I am saying that there should not be conflict in actions our actions in two domains (Spiritual/Internal vs Temporal/material i.e. External) are different. We do have example of Mahatma Gandhi and Marti Luther King Jr. whose actions were political yet spiritual in nature.
In earlier comment you said that “I'd once again submit that socio-geo-political smartness and spirituality are not mutually exclusive in any civilization or person.” However now it appears that you are suggesting that there may not be harmony in our actions as we have two domains. I am here reminded of Rig Vedic (RV 1.164.20-22) riddle of the two birds in the fig tree. These two birds appear to be different but they are one and the same.
In a free and democratic India threat to Hindus is not external but internal. In my view real danger is that Hindus society will lose its spiritual character. I believe whenever one has doubt, fear, or concern one should follow advice of Swami Vivekananda, Sri Adi Shankaracharya to discover and act based on our true nature and not logic of socio-political-economic organizations of Hindu parivar.
Dear Sri Rajput,
To sumarize your position,
a. Tharoor is right in criticizing only hindus for the percieved faults.
b. The faults are about issues internal to hinduism, and must be tackled before anything is done about other issues.
c. Other issues that others here are raising (external threats, hindus unable to deeal with sociopolitical issues due to self-delusion, etc) are not really much of an issue, if at all.
d. If hindus learn to be spiritual per basically an Advaitic roadmap, then all problems will be automatically taken care of.
I have tried to keep above summary free of value judgements, so that I develop a proper purvapaksha (summarize your position for your satisfaction).
I would also be keen to see you summarize (in a few key points) what you think my position is is, so that we can have a clear set of points for discussion henceforth.
My understanding of the framework of the Indic debate tradition is that I summarize my opponent's stand in a way he acknowledges & agrees as his stand,[ergo - PURVAPAKSHA or prior debater's position] and once that is agreed, I put forward my views [ergo- SIDDHANTA..my views / theory/hypothesis which I also try to prove]. He does likewise, so now we're held to our positions through the shifting sands of the debate / rhetoric...
I'm doing this since you directly addressed my in a previous comment (quoted above) with some clarity.
One another thing, you have introduced the word 'parivar' into the discussion. I do not recall having used that word at all during my entire comment history (even when I talked about socio-economic-political contexts etc). Since that word can carry connotations ranging from innocuous 'family' (which doesn't seem relevant to this context at all , to me at least) to a host of not so innocuous ones, I'd also request you to clarify what you meant by it.
Best Regards.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Arya_supremo, 2009-06-21 06:32:27
“no popular leadership” either in politics or outside of it
Let me elaborate my views further on popular leadership outside of politics..
In the age and era when spiritual leaders such as Vivekananda, Yogananda, Shri Aurobindo were spreading their charisma and enlightenment, minds of people were more pure and innocent. I would not doubt their struggle at that time as well, but I am sure it was easier... They were effective with both educated and with uneducated people...
However, if they were to be re-born in 21st century, what do you think will happen to them, they could get politically framed and their reputation could get maligned by the media..
I do not want to undermine probably some of the efforts of media, when some emerging so called spiritual leaders /crooks were exposed..
If there were to be another Hindu spiritual leader in the 21st century from India/outside , that person has to be knowledgeable, enlightened, scientific in approach, his message should be powerful enough that can pull people from other religious beliefs as well...should come up with a spiritual solution that can be accepted by other beliefs...
I would also like to know how Medhavis subscribe to my this idea, and help me to elaborate further on this, if this is worth elaborating...
I would leave solution to BJP for now till later...till we can establish something from outside...
Regards,
AS
-
- +0
-
-
written by Deshika.N.Kumar, 2009-06-21 05:00:38
Calling, all Medhavis!: herewith the Conundrum of the day!
The following statements between them encapsulate the two diametrically opposite views on what a society based on Hindu culture could mean for India (and the world. But since our discussion is based on Tharoor’s paper we confine ourselves to the Indian view points).
1. “The best we can do is make sure that the environment in which spirituality can prosper/ flourish is allowed to grow, if not meticulously tended to, at least unhindered in it's growth. That environment is the Indic/Hindu Culture and civilization ”.
2.“Socio-political-economic organizations of Hindu parivar have a very narrow view of Hinduism” (and therefore.......)
Perhaps we need to explore the whys and wherefores of the second statement in the light of the first.
Partha, how can one begrudge your peace? I can only hope that you will at some point recall that all of us value our ‘sarathy’s’ tangible presence.
Arya, Excellent point - “no popular leadership” either in politics or outside of it. But given this and the reality of the BJP, vote banks etc, what ’s on your wish list for affirmative action? Dwai, gangP and much earlier Partha, also touched on the political angle but we still await enlightenment!
Dwai, Pradipda, Rajput, Medha Sevaks, If “solution to the conversion/proselytizing issue” is high priority; so far we only have ‘social organisations’ as something Hindus themselves can tackle (Or can they? Are Hindus from civil society allowed to set up organisations that don’t claim to be secular? Anyone know the answer?) I hope you intend to add to this list and also share some of your ideas on these social organisations.
Pradipda, Kaushal42, Karigar, Dwai, the critiques/ clarifications/ details/answers ....... ranging from a close view of the article itself through conversions, spirituality, aspects of Hinduism, niti, “Hindu violence”, etc have been put across so well over the last many days that, on behalf of all of us who have been following the discussion, I would like to say a warm ‘ Thank You’.
The following statements between them encapsulate the two diametrically opposite views on what a society based on Hindu culture could mean for India (and the world. But since our discussion is based on Tharoor’s paper we confine ourselves to the Indian view points).
1. “The best we can do is make sure that the environment in which spirituality can prosper/ flourish is allowed to grow, if not meticulously tended to, at least unhindered in it's growth. That environment is the Indic/Hindu Culture and civilization ”.
2.“Socio-political-economic organizations of Hindu parivar have a very narrow view of Hinduism” (and therefore.......)
Perhaps we need to explore the whys and wherefores of the second statement in the light of the first.
Partha, how can one begrudge your peace? I can only hope that you will at some point recall that all of us value our ‘sarathy’s’ tangible presence.
Arya, Excellent point - “no popular leadership” either in politics or outside of it. But given this and the reality of the BJP, vote banks etc, what ’s on your wish list for affirmative action? Dwai, gangP and much earlier Partha, also touched on the political angle but we still await enlightenment!
Dwai, Pradipda, Rajput, Medha Sevaks, If “solution
Pradipda, Kaushal42, Karigar, Dwai, the critiques/ clarifications/ details/answers ....... ranging from a close view of the article itself through conversions, spirituality, aspects of Hinduism, niti, “Hindu violence”, etc have been put across so well over the last many days that, on behalf of all of us who have been following the discussion, I would like to say a warm ‘ Thank You’.
-
- +0
-
-
written by P. Desikan, 2009-06-20 16:36:04
Dear Deshika,
Thanks for remembering me again with
As I believe I have contributed my mite to this important discussion quite early in its evolution and have nothing further to add to it, I am relaxing and listening to the birds outside my window, while also paying attention to all of you carrying on with the discussion energetically.
Warm regards. Partha.
Thanks for remembering me again with
Partha, how are you holding out?
As I believe I have contributed my mite to this important discussion quite early in its evolution and have nothing further to add to it, I am relaxing and listening to the birds outside my window, while also paying attention to all of you carrying on with the discussion energetically.
Warm regards. Partha.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Deshika.N.Kumar, 2009-06-20 08:09:44
Dear Medhavi discussants,
Its been such a fast paced, often erudite discussion that I was almost hesitant to come by. However, TMJ is difficult to resist... ! Partha, how are you holding out?!!
Pradip da, so glad to see you back in form and in action! Between all of you seem to have brought in a number of new points while expanding on some of the old ones. Great going! I hope we can keep it up!
Rajput, while I am not sure I can agree that there is a problem with Hinduism per se, However, I do think you could well have a point in that we need to improve its packaging &/or transmission methodology &/or ...... It would be great if you could come up with some concrete examples of where the problem(s) lie. Karigar has done some practical work on transmission - perhaps you two could lead discussion
Also, please try and tell us clearly what it is that you find problematical about Hindu social organisations. It is difficult to comment on a broad generalisation that sounds - but is probably not meant to be - dismissive! I do know that most grassroots organisations can do with many improvement; also, that those with religious (Abrahamic) affiliations often have the advantage of a high degree of organisational and technical savvy due to training inputs from 'our (their) partner organisations'.
As for acting from a spititual base:- I think there is no one here who is averse to that! In fact the discussion centres around the forces that act against the Hindus rights to the respect/ space etc for their spiritual/ religious views, practices etc. and the need to be treated at par with other religious groups. We are looking at various sides (aspects, forms, extent, sources,. degree....) of the problem and in some cases possible solutions.
However I am not sure where you are in your insistence on spirituality as the means of achieving an end. If we think of Gandhi and Luther, we are actually talking of 'civil disobedience' as against the use of weapons. Now I am not very clear as to where arms can come in in the attempt to 'save' Hinduism. If they go in for 'civil disobedience' for every sub-issue raised.......... !!!! Perhaps you need to think this one out more carefully so that you can explain your point better
Its been such a fast paced, often erudite discussion that I was almost hesitant to come by. However, TMJ is difficult to resist... ! Partha, how are you holding out?!!
Pradip da, so glad to see you back in form and in action! Between all of you seem to have brought in a number of new points while expanding on some of the old ones. Great going! I hope we can keep it up!
Rajput, while I am not sure I can agree that there is a problem with Hinduism per se, However, I do think you could well have a point in that we need to improve its packaging &/or transmission methodology &/or ...... It would be great if you could come up with some concrete examples of where the problem(s) lie. Karigar has done some practical work on transmission - perhaps you two could lead discussion
Also, please try and tell us clearly what it is that you find problematical about Hindu social organisations. It is difficult to comment on a broad generalisation that sounds - but is probably not meant to be - dismissive! I do know that most grassroots organisations can do with many improvement; also, that those with religious (Abrahamic) affiliations often have the advantage of a high degree of organisational and technical savvy due to training inputs from 'our (their) partner organisations'.
As for acting from a spititual base:- I think there is no one here who is averse to that! In fact the discussion centres around the forces that act against the Hindus rights to the respect/ space etc for their spiritual/ religious views, practices etc. and the need to be treated at par with other religious groups. We are looking at various sides (aspects, forms, extent, sources,. degree....) of the problem and in some cases possible solutions.
However I am not sure where you are in your insistence on spirituality as the means of achieving an end. If we think of Gandhi and Luther, we are actually talking of 'civil disobedience' as against the use of weapons. Now I am not very clear as to where arms can come in in the attempt to 'save' Hinduism. If they go in for 'civil disobedience' for every sub-issue raised.......... !!!! Perhaps you need to think this one out more carefully so that you can explain your point better
-
- +0
-
-
written by Arya_supremo, 2009-06-20 04:34:00
Mogambo's posts
I would say there are none popular level headed young leadership in the NDA/BJP party...If one follows the latest political path, UPA is and increasingly gaining popularity amongst younger crowd in Rahul Gandhi's leadership. UPA government is capitalizing on the Muslim vote banks and now Dalit vote banks...(Rahul Gandhi's b'day is celebrated amongst Dalits, when Rahul Gandhi is celebrating his birthday in London..)). He has surely pulled in younger crowd in UPA...The bring up UPA.. I am sure many of you will identify the dynamics of Indian politics..
What has happened to NDA/BJP? They do not have any charismatic younger leader to pull the younger generation..
identify the source of these threats
I would say there are none popular level headed young leadership in the NDA/BJP party...If one follows the latest political path, UPA is and increasingly gaining popularity amongst younger crowd in Rahul Gandhi's leadership. UPA government is capitalizing on the Muslim vote banks and now Dalit vote banks...(Rahul Gandhi's b'day is celebrated amongst Dalits, when Rahul Gandhi is celebrating his birthday in London..
)). He has surely pulled in younger crowd in UPA...The bring up UPA.. I am sure many of you will identify the dynamics of Indian politics.. What has happened to NDA/BJP? They do not have any charismatic younger leader to pull the younger generation..
-
- +0
-
-
written by Dr. Pradip Gangopadh, 2009-06-19 11:33:13
Dear Dwai,
The only antidote to the conversion/proselytization problem is to expand the social
reach of the Hindu organizations.
I agree with you that the Bangladeshi immigration is a tough issue.
Regards
Pradipda
The only antidote to the conversion/proselytization problem is to expand the social
reach of the Hindu organizations.
I agree with you that the Bangladeshi immigration is a tough issue.
Regards
Pradipda
-
- +0
-
-
written by Dwai Lahiri, 2009-06-19 11:19:50
1) define what hindu majority means if at all it is a relevant term
My Answer:
By Hindu majority is meant those people who do not subscribe to Christian,
Islamic, Jewish or any thought which has its origin outside classical Indian
thought. Those people are in majority in India.
2) define the threats, dangers it might be facing in todays india
Two answers have been given on this question.
a) I feel the huge rise in muslim population and the industrial scale
conversion effort by Indian Christians and their clergy are twin threats to
the Hindu majority.
b) The other view is that Hindu spirituality is on the decline. (This is not
my position, i.e. decline of Hindu spirituality can not be reversed by any
human effort and so there is no point worrying about it.)
3) identify the source of these threats
I have already identified the sources of these threats in 2a.
4) come up ideas of how to deal with these threats
I have already expressed in one of my comments that family plaanning program,
educating poor Hindus, sending millions of Bangldeshi muslims back would
take care of the threat.
I am just wondering...what is the solution to the conversion/proselytizing issue.
Also, is it possible to deport millions of immigrants? We are seeing the problems faced by a richer nation such as the US in handling this problem.
Aren't the demographic changes that are happening causing the political ground realities to change as well (take case of West Bengal). The influx of the b'deshi immigrants is very obvious in even Kolkata. But there is an opportunity for politicians to turn that into a vote bank. I don't think deporting is even a viable option at this juncture.
What else can be done?
-
- +0
-
-
written by Dr. Pradip Gangopadh, 2009-06-19 08:55:12
let mogambo propose the following course of discussion, if others will humour
him:
1) define what hindu majority means if at all it is a relevant term
My Answer:
By Hindu majority is meant those people who do not subscribe to Christian,
Islamic, Jewish or any thought which has its origin outside classical Indian
thought. Those people are in majority in India.
2) define the threats, dangers it might be facing in todays india
Two answers have been given on this question.
a) I feel the huge rise in muslim population and the industrial scale
conversion effort by Indian Christians and their clergy are twin threats to
the Hindu majority.
b) The other view is that Hindu spirituality is on the decline. (This is not
my position, i.e. decline of Hindu spirituality can not be reversed by any
human effort and so there is no point worrying about it.)
3) identify the source of these threats
I have already identified the sources of these threats in 2a.
4) come up ideas of how to deal with these threats
I have already expressed in one of my comments that family plaanning program,
educating poor Hindus, sending millions of Bangldeshi muslims back would
take care of the threat.
him:
1) define what hindu majority means if at all it is a relevant term
My Answer:
By Hindu majority is meant those people who do not subscribe to Christian,
Islamic, Jewish or any thought which has its origin outside classical Indian
thought. Those people are in majority in India.
2) define the threats, dangers it might be facing in todays india
Two answers have been given on this question.
a) I feel the huge rise in muslim population and the industrial scale
conversion effort by Indian Christians and their clergy are twin threats to
the Hindu majority.
b) The other view is that Hindu spirituality is on the decline. (This is not
my position, i.e. decline of Hindu spirituality can not be reversed by any
human effort and so there is no point worrying about it.)
3) identify the source of these threats
I have already identified the sources of these threats in 2a.
4) come up ideas of how to deal with these threats
I have already expressed in one of my comments that family plaanning program,
educating poor Hindus, sending millions of Bangldeshi muslims back would
take care of the threat.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Dr. Pradip Gangopadh, 2009-06-19 08:53:31
Dear Rajendra,
Dwai has already given a good answer to the point made by you in your reply to me. I do not have anything to add to it.
Regards
Pradip
Dwai has already given a good answer to the point made by you in your reply to me. I do not have anything to add to it.
Regards
Pradip
-
- +0
-
-
written by Raju, 2009-06-19 08:52:30
Dear Dwai,
I agree Advita is not for every one. Advaita logic is used here to present ideas about non-dual Brahman. When we are discussing we use logic and for that concept of Brahman is very suitable. In my view Brahman is the only reality for all irrespective of whether you’re a Bhakti yogi, Karma yogi or a Rajyogi. I believe knowledge of Brahman is necessary for all practicing Hindus irrespective of their paths. Brahman is the only common thing for all Hindu paths. (It is Buddhism that denies Brahman.)
My logic does not say anywhere that one path is better than other. In my view all paths are valid and equal. In fact most of us use combination of these paths. Personally I find path of Raj-yoga based on meditation easier than Jnana-yoga. I believe any organization that has emphasis other Brahman is unlikely to be spiritual in nature. It is for this reasons it easy to follow path of various realized souls of India Sri Ramakrishna, Swami Vivekananda, Sri Aurobindo, Sri Raman Maharshi, Saint Jnashwer, Sri Adi Shankarcharya and other saints instead of following unproven and self-appointed organization claiming to represent/protect Hindu spiritual culture.
I like your positive approach and openness in discussions. I hope I have made my position clear.
Regards,
Rajendra Rajput
Note: My short definitions of various Hindu paths
* Karma yoga
Normally means action motivated only by a sense of duty, without any concern for the results. If one acts on the notions that Brahman is the real actor; then there is no question of being attached to results of one’s action.
* Bhakti yoga
Bhakti Yoga is defined as, selfless service to others in the name of love to one’s personal Brahman (God). In this yoga power of love is used for self-transcendence.
* Jnana Yoga
This is the yoga of the illuminated intellect (wisdom) of Brahman.
* Raja Yoga
Raja yoga is based on self-illuminating power of Brahman.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Sreeparna, 2009-06-19 08:18:39
There has been 80 odd posts on this article, with discussions and debates, of different views/similar views. Some may be repetitive, some new angle...
TMJ is for everyone who belongs here, it is for Medhavis to share, express, debate..a think tank...So why not continue it as before?
TMJ is for everyone who belongs here, it is for Medhavis to share, express, debate..a think tank...So why not continue it as before?
-
- +0
-
-
written by Kosla Vepa, 2009-06-19 07:52:54
Quote“Socio-political-economic organizations of Hindu parivar have a very narrow view of Hinduism.”
-
- +0
-
-
written by Deshika.N.Kumar, 2009-06-19 07:38:40
Before more wires get crossed!!!! Dwai, Let me yet again repeat: I heartily agree that we need different, possibly opposite view points (ie, all directions of the compass not just purva/paksh). In this regard all I've done is shift the focus of Mogambo's problem statement to better align it with the rest of the discussion (and I am sure Mogambo knows it).
As far as my reading of 'Hindu majority' is concerned it was NOT focussed on any individual let alone Mogambo. I suddenly realised what could happen not just on this forum but ..... It so happens I've been in the business of trying to understand what people are actually trying to communicate for about four decades and counting. When the going gets really tough getting clarity improves communication. I think it was only yesterday that Rajput thanked ?Pradip da for spelling --- out so clearly, "otherwise I would have been...."
As for my question on hierarchies, this too is extremely genuine. I agree that TMJ concentrates on the Wisdom Traditions but I thought one could try to understand matters that may arise out of that which comes up. The question has intrigued me for some time - but I only brought it up because of the direction the discussion suddenly took and, the fact that 'caste' had reared its head a while ago.
I think that essentially many of you are finding it difficult because I seem to ask questions/ make comments that have a very different focus and are not always easy to handle. If it bothers a number of you - and administrator, editors et al are the people with that knowledge - I am quite happy to hold my peace. In any case writing is not easy in my current state of health - sometimes it can take hours to get a short comment out - so there won't be any hard feelings on my side, don't worry!!! (oddly enough, I've written to admin a little earlier pointing out that the site and I are having problems - maybe therein lies the answer???!!)
Bests, Deshika_
As far as my reading of 'Hindu majority' is concerned it was NOT focussed on any individual let alone Mogambo. I suddenly realised what could happen not just on this forum but ..... It so happens I've been in the business of trying to understand what people are actually trying to communicate for about four decades and counting. When the going gets really tough getting clarity improves communication. I think it was only yesterday that Rajput thanked ?Pradip da for spelling --- out so clearly, "otherwise I would have been...."
As for my question on hierarchies, this too is extremely genuine. I agree that TMJ concentrates on the Wisdom Traditions but I thought one could try to understand matters that may arise out of that which comes up. The question has intrigued me for some time - but I only brought it up because of the direction the discussion suddenly took and, the fact that 'caste' had reared its head a while ago.
I think that essentially many of you are finding it difficult because I seem to ask questions/ make comments that have a very different focus and are not always easy to handle. If it bothers a number of you - and administrator, editors et al are the people with that knowledge - I am quite happy to hold my peace. In any case writing is not easy in my current state of health - sometimes it can take hours to get a short comment out - so there won't be any hard feelings on my side, don't worry!!! (oddly enough, I've written to admin a little earlier pointing out that the site and I are having problems - maybe therein lies the answer???!!)
Bests, Deshika_
-
- +0
-
-
written by Kosla Vepa, 2009-06-19 07:01:16
I cannot let this remark pass unchallenged. How dare he say this.
This is what I mean by Reductionism . Stereotyping an entire group of people because of their ideology has another name. It is called Bigotry and exhibits an inability to accept diversity. Diversity is not just restricted to ethnic or other differences caused by the accident of birth, but encompasses diversity in views. I certainly take strong objection to being told that my view of Hinduism is a very narrow view of Hinduism . It is an insult and deserves an unqualified apology.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Dwai Lahiri, 2009-06-19 06:59:55
Dear Rajendra,
I think it's important to draw a baseline first. I would say that 95% of Hindus aren't even thinking in lines of Advaita (with Tat Tvam Asi, line of thinking).
They are contented in being either:
1) Karma/Bhakti yogis
2) Karma/Bhakti bhogis
the two groups aren't mutually exclusive (and I don't mean them in any negative sense, they simply exist...anyone who observes modern Indian society will agree with this observation). Some fall towards the higher end of Yogi-ness and some on the higher end of Bhogi-ness. The rest fall somewhere in between.
Caught up in samsara, trying to be good human beings, but worrying about fulfilling samsaric duties, responsibilities etc.
We cannot project an idealistic aspiration that jnana yogis such as yourself hold onto the 95% of the masses. It doesn't work that way and hasn't worked since the times of Adi Shankara himself.
The best we can do is make sure that the environment in which spirituality can prosper/flourish is allowed to grow, if not meticulously tended to, at least unhindered in it's growth. That environment is the Indic/Hindu Culture and civilization.
What do the rest of the Medhavis have to say about this?
Buddhism, Jainism and all other religions are true. At present conversion from Hinduism to other religion happens in a free India whenever practices of Hindus are not spiritual in nature. Socio-political-economic organizations of Hindu parivar have a very narrow view of Hinduism.
Yes, you and I have a human form but that is not our true nature. We need to act discover our true nature, our actions in such a case cannot be any thing but spiritual in character. Upanishads-101: “Aham brahm?smi - I am Brahman, Tat twam Asi - That Thou Art”.
I think it's important to draw a baseline first. I would say that 95% of Hindus aren't even thinking in lines of Advaita (with Tat Tvam Asi, line of thinking).
They are contented in being either:
1) Karma/Bhakti yogis
2) Karma/Bhakti bhogis
the two groups aren't mutually exclusive (and I don't mean them in any negative sense, they simply exist...anyone who observes modern Indian society will agree with this observation). Some fall towards the higher end of Yogi-ness and some on the higher end of Bhogi-ness. The rest fall somewhere in between.
Caught up in samsara, trying to be good human beings, but worrying about fulfilling samsaric duties, responsibilities etc.
We cannot project an idealistic aspiration that jnana yogis such as yourself hold onto the 95% of the masses. It doesn't work that way and hasn't worked since the times of Adi Shankara himself.
The best we can do is make sure that the environment in which spirituality can prosper/flourish is allowed to grow, if not meticulously tended to, at least unhindered in it's growth. That environment is the Indic/Hindu Culture and civilization.
What do the rest of the Medhavis have to say about this?
-
- +0
-
-
written by Dwai Lahiri, 2009-06-19 06:52:42
Purva Paksha works between knowledgeable debaters who while disagreeing with final path one should follow accept as a premise, amongst other hypotheses, the elementary rules of logic. If the protagonist refuses to accept the elementary rules (e.g. Roberts rules of Order, elementary logic) then it is hardly a purva paksha. Frankly I am a little tired of arguing with an individual who combines narcissistic tendencies with pretensions of oracular wisdom while at the same time exhibiting (or feigning) ignorance about the fundamental demographics and other facts about the Indic.
Dear Dr Vepa,
I understand your frustration with the antagonist in this instance. But if you do observe in various fora on the internet at least, the antagonists seem/act/think/argue/behave in a similar manner. Maybe our specific one is a bit exaggerated in his approach or persona, but the locus standii still prevails. I am not saying I support him, I am just asking --
Isn't the kind of argumentation we are seeing from this person usually the critique/argument we see in general when it comes to the Indic rising?
Agreed that the level of sophistry and intellect will vary, but the position vis-a-vis the Indic is somehow a set of standard arguments used with varying degrees of stealth, sophistication, etc. Again, I'm not insinuating any such motivations to the individual being referenced here...but in general.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Kosla Vepa, 2009-06-19 06:02:33
Dwai ,
Purva Paksha works between knowledgeable debaters who while disagreeing with final path one should follow accept as a premise, amongst other hypotheses, the elementary rules of logic. If the protagonist refuses to accept the elementary rules (e.g. Roberts rules of Order, elementary logic) then it is hardly a purva paksha. Frankly I am a little tired of arguing with an individual who combines narcissistic tendencies with pretensions of oracular wisdom while at the same time exhibiting (or feigning) ignorance about the fundamental demographics and other facts about the Indic.
Purva Paksha works between knowledgeable debaters who while disagreeing with final path one should follow accept as a premise, amongst other hypotheses, the elementary rules of logic. If the protagonist refuses to accept the elementary rules (e.g. Roberts rules of Order, elementary logic) then it is hardly a purva paksha. Frankly I am a little tired of arguing with an individual who combines narcissistic tendencies with pretensions of oracular wisdom while at the same time exhibiting (or feigning) ignorance about the fundamental demographics and other facts about the Indic.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Raju, 2009-06-19 04:53:57
Dear Pradip,
Buddhism, Jainism and all other religions are true. At present conversion from Hinduism to other religion happens in a free India whenever practices of Hindus are not spiritual in nature. Socio-political-economic organizations of Hindu parivar have a very narrow view of Hinduism.
Yes, you and I have a human form but that is not our true nature. We need to act discover our true nature, our actions in such a case cannot be any thing but spiritual in character. Upanishads-101: “Aham brahm?smi - I am Brahman, Tat twam Asi - That Thou Art”.
Dear Karigar,
Yes, we do have multiple levels of existence Vy?vah?rika and P?ram?rthika (Advaita-101), yet our actions should spiritual in nature. All I am saying that there should not be conflict in actions our actions in two domains (Spiritual/Internal vs Temporal/material i.e. External) are different. We do have example of Mahatma Gandhi and Marti Luther King Jr. whose actions were political yet spiritual in nature.
In earlier comment you said that “I'd once again submit that socio-geo-political smartness and spirituality are not mutually exclusive in any civilization or person.” However now it appears that you are suggesting that there may not be harmony in our actions as we have two domains. I am here reminded of Rig Vedic (RV 1.164.20-22) riddle of the two birds in the fig tree. These two birds appear to be different but they are one and the same.
In a free and democratic India threat to Hindus is not external but internal. In my view real danger is that Hindus society will lose its spiritual character. I believe whenever one has doubt, fear, or concern one should follow advice of Swami Vivekananda, Sri Adi Shankaracharya to discover and act based on our true nature and not logic of socio-political-economic organizations of Hindu parivar.
Regards,
Rajendra Rajput
-
- +0
-
-
written by Deshika.N.Kumar, 2009-06-19 02:59:17
1. I have two questions for anyone else who can (cares to) enlighten me.
1a. For a moment, lets take the usual connotation of ‘caste’. The reasoning as I understand it is that Hindus are forever damned since their religion sanction(s)ed a rigid hierarchy [OK, Ok I did say, for a moment!]whereby large groups of (?Hindus/? Dalit depends on ..., ...., ....) have been treated very badly and demeaned for [perhaps some] hundreds of years by the Hindus. Ergo! Hinduism is paganism at its worst and Hindus are a violent people.
Now, what I cannot understand is why is it that hierarchies are bad if Hindus practiced it but not when others practice it? Vis the current discussion: the heathen is looked down upon by Christians as one who must have his soul saved ie, Saviour ( Christian) the heathen (today, the Hindus - in earlier years slavery etc also targeted other heathens). This hierarchy too has been prevalent for hundreds of years, this too is demeaning [Hindus, do I have it right?], this too...... Most importantly, while Hindus want and are working towards changes in caste based outlooks, Christians are only reinforcing the Christian/ heathen hierarchy by among other things increasing their ecumenical thrust and working on better strategies to save souls in larger numbers. Is it that the fact of reinforcing hierarchies/ demeaning others/..../..... by Christians is more right or less wrong or......?
1b. Again, the need to go back to first steps in this discussion appears to indicate that the onus of ‘Hindu violence’ lies solely with Hindus – though I thought/ learnt/.... that it takes two hands to clap. Is it that when heathens clap they need only one hand ? ........
1a. For a moment, lets take the usual connotation of ‘caste’. The reasoning as I understand it is that Hindus are forever damned since their religion sanction(s)ed a rigid hierarchy [OK, Ok I did say, for a moment!]whereby large groups of (?Hindus/? Dalit depends on ..., ...., ....) have been treated very badly and demeaned for [perhaps some] hundreds of years by the Hindus. Ergo! Hinduism is paganism at its worst and Hindus are a violent people.
Now, what I cannot understand is why is it that hierarchies are bad if Hindus practiced it but not when others practice it? Vis the current discussion: the heathen is looked down upon by Christians as one who must have his soul saved ie, Saviour ( Christian) the heathen (today, the Hindus - in earlier years slavery etc also targeted other heathens). This hierarchy too has been prevalent for hundreds of years, this too is demeaning [Hindus, do I have it right?], this too...... Most importantly, while Hindus want and are working towards changes in caste based outlooks, Christians are only reinforcing the Christian/ heathen hierarchy by among other things increasing their ecumenical thrust and working on better strategies to save souls in larger numbers. Is it that the fact of reinforcing hierarchies/ demeaning others/..../..... by Christians is more right or less wrong or......?
1b. Again, the need to go back to first steps in this discussion appears to indicate that the onus of ‘Hindu violence’ lies solely with Hindus – though I thought/ learnt/.... that it takes two hands to clap. Is it that when heathens clap they need only one hand ? ........
-
- +0
-
-
written by Deshika.N.Kumar, 2009-06-19 02:58:34
2.............. The constant thread in the discussion – the most contentious issue and the one around which most discussants expressed a view – is ‘Hindu Violence’. It follows that This [NOT Hindu majority] is the central Problem. Clearly attempts at clarification (the starting point) have been fruitless. Darshan/ Niti/ spirituality/...... /..... and their derivatives mean different things to different people and nothing at all to (?)many. Eg, for some the term ‘Hindu Majority’ is a descriptor for a nation where among other things, wisdom and values are prioritised, which provides every one equal respect/ opportunity/ ../.. helps the weaker etc, etc. For others it connotes a reign (rain) of fire &brimstone, rule by the sword, murders, .....,, ...., [In itself a strong indicator of how far the latter have diverged from/never understood/ been indoctrinated against/.... /. .Hindus & their culture].
Maybe Karigar’s idea of sticking to modern terms to explain ideas/ elicit responses, make more sense. However the Summary which uses easily understood terms like anger, resentment etc also failed to communicate. So ..........
3. As far as I am aware, even God can’t change a banyan tree into a redwood/ dogwood so how can ‘spirituality’ in Hinduism change over time?
Maybe Karigar’s idea of sticking to modern terms to explain ideas/ elicit responses, make more sense. However the Summary which uses easily understood terms like anger, resentment etc also failed to communicate. So ..........
3. As far as I am aware, even God can’t change a banyan tree into a redwood/ dogwood so how can ‘spirituality’ in Hinduism change over time?
-
- +0
-
-
written by Dwai Lahiri, 2009-06-19 02:58:10
Okay,
The true nature of mogambo was revealed...to those who know. Whatever be the case, whoever mogambo really might be, I think it's important to realize the importance of the Purva Paksha in any debate.
Mogambo fills that role. I would recommend we all treat him like that...as the voice of purva paksha and humor him. I would venture to say that it's probably not easy for mogambo to be what/who he is.
Besides his locus standii, does anyone have any problems with what he has suggested?
Dwai
The true nature of mogambo was revealed...to those who know. Whatever be the case, whoever mogambo really might be, I think it's important to realize the importance of the Purva Paksha in any debate.
Mogambo fills that role. I would recommend we all treat him like that...as the voice of purva paksha and humor him. I would venture to say that it's probably not easy for mogambo to be what/who he is.
Besides his locus standii, does anyone have any problems with what he has suggested?
Dwai
-
- +0
-
-
written by mogambo, 2009-06-18 15:26:50
medhavis
mogambo is going to speak up again at the risk of sounding like a squeaky wheel
on one hand there are those who claim that there is no such thing as a hindu minority
on the other hand we have attempts to salvage or protect the spiritual aspect of the hindu majority
is there a dichotomy in the two states above?
let mogambo propose the following course of discussion, if others will humour him:
1) define what hindu majority means if at all it is a relevant term
2) define the threats, dangers it might be facing in todays india
3) identify the source of these threats
4) come up ideas of how to deal with these threats
surely there is sufficient material in the 75 posts that this article has drawn to come up with the above summary?
may be once the problem is defined a solution will follow suit?
mogambo is going to speak up again at the risk of sounding like a squeaky wheel
on one hand there are those who claim that there is no such thing as a hindu minority
on the other hand we have attempts to salvage or protect the spiritual aspect of the hindu majority
is there a dichotomy in the two states above?
let mogambo propose the following course of discussion, if others will humour him:
1) define what hindu majority means if at all it is a relevant term
2) define the threats, dangers it might be facing in todays india
3) identify the source of these threats
4) come up ideas of how to deal with these threats
surely there is sufficient material in the 75 posts that this article has drawn to come up with the above summary?
may be once the problem is defined a solution will follow suit?
-
- +0
-
-
written by karigar, 2009-06-18 14:45:18
I'd again assert that the two domains (Spiritual/Internal vs Temporal/material i.e External) are different for a human being, and ask for different ways of being until one's spiritual evolution is ripe enough. Being prematurely spiritual externally is basically suicide.
For the temporal (sociopolitical) domain Niti Shastra lite (i.e. my view) would say-
Spirituality as Inward oriented growth/evolution (via whatever system) is a choice, one made gladly by a typical hindu, but is not a necessary condition for survival or 'happiness' for any human being or society.
In other words, one cannot make spirituality a 'litmus test' of human existence, and definitely not make it a yardstick to self-police hindus who would first like to defend their institutions before getting spiritual.
Personally, the two, i.e. sociopolitical existence & adhyaatmik spirituality are in separate domains( one outward & another inward) and one can tend to both using different methods. Of course a spiritual person is pre-conditioned to be moral & ethical, but one cannot say 'thou shalt NOT fight in the battlefield, since thou art bound by spirituality'...if there's anything the Gita teaches to a worldly person, it is not to use this fig leaf when duty calls, however unpleasant it may be.
And how can I practice spirituality living on this earth if I'm not assured that my body & surroundings will not be subjected to (mental & physical) violence since I (or my society) neglected to practice the NitiShastra (of Panchatantra, Chanakya, Hitopadesha or many others) of marking & protecting a territory, however small & frugal, for the protection of my body & mind on this earth ?
None of us in our personal lives abdicate our duties to self & one's own (close family etc) in order to be spiritual, unless we seriously become sanyasins (renouncers) which is an entirely different life with a different set of rules (for then, all the world is one's own). For the rest of us, these duties involve occupying public space respectful of others, but demanding & negotiating for respect from other fellow human beings, and fight if we have to.
The standards for a culture are basically the same. (a whole culture taking 'sannyaas', of course, is one headed for extinction...it cannot even support its own sannyasis)
For the temporal (sociopolitical) domain Niti Shastra lite (i.e. my view) would say-
Spirituality as Inward oriented growth/evolution (via whatever system) is a choice, one made gladly by a typical hindu, but is not a necessary condition for survival or 'happiness' for any human being or society.
In other words, one cannot make spirituality a 'litmus test' of human existence, and definitely not make it a yardstick to self-police hindus who would first like to defend their institutions before getting spiritual.
Personally, the two, i.e. sociopolitical existence & adhyaatmik spirituality are in separate domains( one outward & another inward) and one can tend to both using different methods. Of course a spiritual person is pre-conditioned to be moral & ethical, but one cannot say 'thou shalt NOT fight in the battlefield, since thou art bound by spirituality'...if there's anything the Gita teaches to a worldly person, it is not to use this fig leaf when duty calls, however unpleasant it may be.
And how can I practice spirituality living on this earth if I'm not assured that my body & surroundings will not be subjected to (mental & physical) violence since I (or my society) neglected to practice the NitiShastra (of Panchatantra, Chanakya, Hitopadesha or many others) of marking & protecting a territory, however small & frugal, for the protection of my body & mind on this earth ?
None of us in our personal lives abdicate our duties to self & one's own (close family etc) in order to be spiritual, unless we seriously become sanyasins (renouncers) which is an entirely different life with a different set of rules (for then, all the world is one's own). For the rest of us, these duties involve occupying public space respectful of others, but demanding & negotiating for respect from other fellow human beings, and fight if we have to.
The standards for a culture are basically the same. (a whole culture taking 'sannyaas', of course, is one headed for extinction...it cannot even support its own sannyasis)
-
- +1
-
-
written by Dr. Pradip Gangopadh, 2009-06-18 13:20:18
Dear Rajendra,
All one can ensure is that India remains a Hindu majority country. I do not think it
is completely in our hands to preserve spirituality. Ancient Hindus understood this. This is
the reason why Gita says:
For the protection of the good, for the destruction of the evil, and for the
establishment of Dharma, I am born from age to age.
(Gita 4.
I believe that spirituality can only be revived by God. This is the message of Hindu
scripture. It is not in human hands. Only thing we humans can do is in social-economic-
political field.
You have repeated the question asked by Tharoor as to why Hindu religious leaders have not
fought against people who are violating Hindu fundamentals. I think such a question betrays
Tharoor's ignorance about Hindu society. Hindu religious leaders do not enjoy the same
status as say a Pope or a muslim Maulana. They do not speak for Hindus in general. There are
also no fundamentals in Hindu dharma. Ancient Hindus even considered Lokayatas, Buddha, Jaina
dharmas a branches of Sanatana dharma. It is doubtful if all Hindus in general will agree
with Hindu religious leaders. There is no central organization in Hindu dharma which every
Hindu will obey. This amorphous nature makes it all but certain that no Hindu religious
leader will have influence over all Hindus. Tharoor is thinking of Abrahamic religions when
he is posing that question.
Regards
Pradip
All one can ensure is that India remains a Hindu majority country. I do not think it
is completely in our hands to preserve spirituality. Ancient Hindus understood this. This is
the reason why Gita says:
For the protection of the good, for the destruction of the evil, and for the
establishment of Dharma, I am born from age to age.
(Gita 4.
I believe that spirituality can only be revived by God. This is the message of Hindu
scripture. It is not in human hands. Only thing we humans can do is in social-economic-
political field.
You have repeated the question asked by Tharoor as to why Hindu religious leaders have not
fought against people who are violating Hindu fundamentals. I think such a question betrays
Tharoor's ignorance about Hindu society. Hindu religious leaders do not enjoy the same
status as say a Pope or a muslim Maulana. They do not speak for Hindus in general. There are
also no fundamentals in Hindu dharma. Ancient Hindus even considered Lokayatas, Buddha, Jaina
dharmas a branches of Sanatana dharma. It is doubtful if all Hindus in general will agree
with Hindu religious leaders. There is no central organization in Hindu dharma which every
Hindu will obey. This amorphous nature makes it all but certain that no Hindu religious
leader will have influence over all Hindus. Tharoor is thinking of Abrahamic religions when
he is posing that question.
Regards
Pradip
-
- +0
-
-
written by Raju, 2009-06-18 12:45:35
Dear Pradip,
I am happy that you stated your position explicitly rather than leaving it to be implied one for me.
Hindu majority is not the issue that I am addressing. Issue is maintaining Hindu spiritual culture. We can have Hindu majority but will that help if it is not spiritual in character. One may argue that Hindu majority is a necessary precondition but it is not sufficient. Your implicit path (may be my assumption) appears to be to depend on socio-political-economic means to achieve/maintain Hindu majority which will lead to Hindu spiritual culture. Majority of Indians were Hindu before Buddhism and Jainism. People embraced these and other religions in large numbers during ancient times, same is happening in modern times. This happens whenever Hindus deviate from their spiritual path. Unfortunately we do not have answer to the question that is raised by Shashi Tharoor “Why are the voices of Hindu religious leaders not being raised in defense of these fundamentals of Hinduism?” If we all know what is spirituality from Vedas and Upanishad then why should there be difference in approach?
There is no disagreement if your approach is based on spirituality. I don’t know why during the discussion emphasis is on the messenger and not message, socio-political-economic means and not spiritual means, details but not the overall picture, external focus and not introspection. In my view these things do create a wrong perception.
Thanks,
Rajendra
I am happy that you stated your position explicitly rather than leaving it to be implied one for me.
Hindu majority is not the issue that I am addressing. Issue is maintaining Hindu spiritual culture. We can have Hindu majority but will that help if it is not spiritual in character. One may argue that Hindu majority is a necessary precondition but it is not sufficient. Your implicit path (may be my assumption) appears to be to depend on socio-political-economic means to achieve/maintain Hindu majority which will lead to Hindu spiritual culture. Majority of Indians were Hindu before Buddhism and Jainism. People embraced these and other religions in large numbers during ancient times, same is happening in modern times. This happens whenever Hindus deviate from their spiritual path. Unfortunately we do not have answer to the question that is raised by Shashi Tharoor “Why are the voices of Hindu religious leaders not being raised in defense of these fundamentals of Hinduism?” If we all know what is spirituality from Vedas and Upanishad then why should there be difference in approach?
There is no disagreement if your approach is based on spirituality. I don’t know why during the discussion emphasis is on the messenger and not message, socio-political-economic means and not spiritual means, details but not the overall picture, external focus and not introspection. In my view these things do create a wrong perception.
Thanks,
Rajendra
-
- +0
-
-
written by Dr. Pradip Gangopadh, 2009-06-18 12:38:10
Dear Arya_S,
Strong family planning measures, repatriation of millions of Bangladeshi Muslim
immigrants, educating poor Hindus both on secular and spiritual matters are some of
the practical (though not easy) measures one can undertake. Rest is in God's hands.
Regards
Gangp
Strong family planning measures, repatriation of millions of Bangladeshi Muslim
immigrants, educating poor Hindus both on secular and spiritual matters are some of
the practical (though not easy) measures one can undertake. Rest is in God's hands.
Regards
Gangp
-
- +0
-
-
written by Arya_supremo, 2009-06-18 11:59:11
How do you ensure that India can remain a majority Hindu State and still maintain harmony with other religious beliefs?
Without resorting to violent measures can India in next 50 years remain Hindu majority state?
With the new generation where religion and spirituality is not discussed or the younger generations consider it to be "uncool" thing!
Can one see a solution, peacefully and in harmonious manner?
Without resorting to violent measures can India in next 50 years remain Hindu majority state?
With the new generation where religion and spirituality is not discussed or the younger generations consider it to be "uncool" thing!
Can one see a solution, peacefully and in harmonious manner?
-
- +0
-
-
written by Dr. Pradip Gangopadh, 2009-06-18 11:13:02
Dear Rajendra,
I am puzzled by your statement that you disagree on the general framework for
path/means to achieve the goal (of preserving Hindu spiritual culture).I have not
as yet made any comment about it!
Let me take this opportunity to post my position here. Hindu spiritual culture can
only be preserved if India remains Hindu majority. This is so because we have seen
Hindu spiritual culture lost in a series of countries like Afganisthan, Pakistan,
Bangladesh, Indonesia etc where Hindus have become minority. So I agree with VHP or
RSS's goal of keeping India a Hindu majority country. I disagree with their violent
tactics.Even Vivekananda has spoken about the importance of ensuring that a large
number of people remains Hindu.
Now that I have made my position clear please let me know the reasons for your disagreement.
What exactly do you disagree?
Pradip
I am puzzled by your statement that you disagree on the general framework for
path/means to achieve the goal (of preserving Hindu spiritual culture).I have not
as yet made any comment about it!
Let me take this opportunity to post my position here. Hindu spiritual culture can
only be preserved if India remains Hindu majority. This is so because we have seen
Hindu spiritual culture lost in a series of countries like Afganisthan, Pakistan,
Bangladesh, Indonesia etc where Hindus have become minority. So I agree with VHP or
RSS's goal of keeping India a Hindu majority country. I disagree with their violent
tactics.Even Vivekananda has spoken about the importance of ensuring that a large
number of people remains Hindu.
Now that I have made my position clear please let me know the reasons for your disagreement.
What exactly do you disagree?
Pradip
-
- +0
-
-
written by Raju, 2009-06-18 10:55:41
Dear Pradip and Karigar,
We may debate based on our analysis but I agree that we are all trying to make sure that Hindu spiritual culture is preserved. However, I respectfully disagree on your general framework for path/means to achieve the goal.
Regards,
Rajendra Rajput
We may debate based on our analysis but I agree that we are all trying to make sure that Hindu spiritual culture is preserved. However, I respectfully disagree on your general framework for path/means to achieve the goal.
Regards,
Rajendra Rajput
-
- +0
-
-
written by Dr. Pradip Gangopadh, 2009-06-18 10:25:34
Spirituality in the Hindu context can be summed up as purity of heart or chittasuddhi.
So a spiritual person is a good person in some sense.
So a spiritual person is a good person in some sense.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Kosla Vepa, 2009-06-18 09:10:51
This is in reply to the post by Rajendra Rajput
In using the artifice of reductionism , this writer is doing a disservice to humanity, to Hindus and to the general enlightenment of lesser mortals like me. Reductionism is the simplification of an issue usually to two choices , and then claim that the preferred approach is the superior of the two . In this case Reductionism takes the form of ‘I am spiritual , you are not’ , I am OK , you are not OK and how dare you call yourself a Hindu. There is nothing wrong with simplification , since that is how models are built of physical reality, but when essential features of the reality are missing in the model , the simplification is worthless and becomes a vehicle for misunderstanding.
First let us deal with the word spirituality. What does it mean. Oh. I know what the dictionary says
something that in ecclesiastical law belongs to the church or to a cleric as such , : clergy : sensitivity or attachment to religious values 4 : the quality or state of being spiritual
Spirituality
Is about gaining insight, knowledge & a better understanding about life
www.Quesak.com
Spirituality questions are answered from within during meditation.
There is no mention here about “openness, tolerance, universal acceptance, respect for variety, acceptance of all other faiths.” . If you keep adding such attributes to spirituality , there is the very real danger that spirituality becomes an amorphous term meaning different things to different people. I think the writer is confusing spirituality with simply being a”good’ person. The more amorphous the meaning of a word, the less effective it becomes as a means of communcation
I bring this up since the use of the word spirituality in this context does nothing to clarify the discussion.
Coming back to the issue of reductionism, the writer is clearly implying that he is spiritual and the rest of us who don’t agree with him are not. This is surely a self serving assumption. But this remains a circular argument. But surely this is a major assumption . How does he know that the people he is addressing are not spiritual or good.
There is the further implication that those who do not agree with the writer are indulging in or at the very least encouraging “non-spiritual means like politics of division, communal politics, and violence, hatred that fueled atrocities in Gujarat, Karnataka and Orissa”. This is a rather strong statement to make, and on introspection is a non sequitur . I do not know under what circumstances it becomes OK to burn 50 men women and children to death . Surely there is the issue of personal responsibility. In the ultimate analysis I will not do something unless I believe I am justified in doing so. Nobody forced the people to plan for the burning and deliberately set fire to the bogie and burn 52 people to death by locking the door. They did it of their own free will , for which they should be held responsible. And this is equally true of the killings in the aftermath of Godhra. The notion that the politics of division created such an event is silly. All politics is divisive because you are trying to convince the electorate that the other guy is wrong, but to use that as an excuse to kill people is to abdicate personal responsibility.
Coming back to the issue of spirituality in Hinduism ,I don’t think any of us have to defend Hinduism .But it is the responsiblility of each and every one of us to behave in a dhaarmik manner. What does such a dhaarmik tradition teach us. Each one of us has to come up with a set of rules that applies to him or her. I have my own subset of Core values
(http://www.scribd.com/doc/1202...an-History)
My point is that there is no other demon or Rakshasa here other than the one that resides in each and every living being and to make up the strawman that there is an other Hindu at whom we can throw rocks at is simply not the case. There does not exist such a mythical Hindu. There are only individuals who break the law and should be punished for their act .
In using the artifice of reductionism , this writer is doing a disservice to humanity, to Hindus and to the general enlightenment of lesser mortals like me. Reductionism is the simplification of an issue usually to two choices , and then claim that the preferred approach is the superior of the two . In this case Reductionism takes the form of ‘I am spiritual , you are not’ , I am OK , you are not OK and how dare you call yourself a Hindu. There is nothing wrong with simplification , since that is how models are built of physical reality, but when essential features of the reality are missing in the model , the simplification is worthless and becomes a vehicle for misunderstanding.
First let us deal with the word spirituality. What does it mean. Oh. I know what the dictionary says
something that in ecclesiastical law belongs to the church or to a cleric as such , : clergy : sensitivity or attachment to religious values 4 : the quality or state of being spiritual
Spirituality
Is about gaining insight, knowledge & a better understanding about life
www.Quesak.com
Spirituality questions are answered from within during meditation.
There is no mention here about “openness, tolerance, universal acceptance, respect for variety, acceptance of all other faiths.” . If you keep adding such attributes to spirituality , there is the very real danger that spirituality becomes an amorphous term meaning different things to different people. I think the writer is confusing spirituality with simply being a”good’ person. The more amorphous the meaning of a word, the less effective it becomes as a means of communcation
I bring this up since the use of the word spirituality in this context does nothing to clarify the discussion.
Coming back to the issue of reductionism, the writer is clearly implying that he is spiritual and the rest of us who don’t agree with him are not. This is surely a self serving assumption. But this remains a circular argument. But surely this is a major assumption . How does he know that the people he is addressing are not spiritual or good.
There is the further implication that those who do not agree with the writer are indulging in or at the very least encouraging “non-spiritual means like politics of division, communal politics, and violence, hatred that fueled atrocities in Gujarat, Karnataka and Orissa”. This is a rather strong statement to make, and on introspection is a non sequitur . I do not know under what circumstances it becomes OK to burn 50 men women and children to death . Surely there is the issue of personal responsibility. In the ultimate analysis I will not do something unless I believe I am justified in doing so. Nobody forced the people to plan for the burning and deliberately set fire to the bogie and burn 52 people to death by locking the door. They did it of their own free will , for which they should be held responsible. And this is equally true of the killings in the aftermath of Godhra. The notion that the politics of division created such an event is silly. All politics is divisive because you are trying to convince the electorate that the other guy is wrong, but to use that as an excuse to kill people is to abdicate personal responsibility.
Coming back to the issue of spirituality in Hinduism ,I don’t think any of us have to defend Hinduism .But it is the responsiblility of each and every one of us to behave in a dhaarmik manner. What does such a dhaarmik tradition teach us. Each one of us has to come up with a set of rules that applies to him or her. I have my own subset of Core values
(http://www.scribd.com/doc/1202...an-History)
My point is that there is no other demon or Rakshasa here other than the one that resides in each and every living being and to make up the strawman that there is an other Hindu at whom we can throw rocks at is simply not the case. There does not exist such a mythical Hindu. There are only individuals who break the law and should be punished for their act .
-
- +0
-
-
written by Dr. Pradip Gangopadh, 2009-06-18 08:17:11
I found this article to be one sided and hypocritical. The article makes use of false argument. I have posted examples of all three.
Example of Hypocrisy
Yes, violence by anyone is wrong. It is however rich that Tharoor a Congressman is criticizing violence against Christians while he remains mum on violence against Sikhs.He remains mum on violence by Christians in North East India and violence by muslims in Kashmir. He seems to have one scale for minorty violence and another scale for Hindu violence.
Example of one sidedness
Tharoor writes:But there is also the India that pulled down the Babri Masjid, that conducted the pogrom in Gujarat and that now unleashes its hatred on the 2% of our population who are Christians.
Yes none of this should have been done. I did not see, however, Tharoor criticizing muslims for pulling down at least 2000 Hindu temples over many centuries, putting up masjids on sacred Hindu sites, asking for parliamentary intervention in the Shah Bano case etc. Yes, the Gujarat pogrom was wrong but Tharoor seems to have forgotten that 59 Hindus were burnt to death. Yes, violence against 2 % of our population who are Christians was wrong. However, is the industrial scale conversion effort by the same 2 % Christian minority to turn India into a Christian country correct? Isn't such an effort an attack on the Hindu community also? Tharoor seems to have forgotten that this time the violence started after the murder of a Swami and his associates. Tharoor seems to feel one way when Hindus die and another way when others die. Is a minority life more precious than a Hindu life?
Examples of False Arguments
Tharoor writes:
[But what has happened in recent weeks in Orissa, and then in parts of Karnataka, and that threatens to be unleashed again in tribal districts of Gujarat, is a new low in our political life. The attacks on Christian families, the vandalism of their places of worship, the ................, have nothing to do with religious beliefs - .......... They are instead part of a contemptible political project whose closest equivalent can in fact be found in the "Indian Mujahideen" bomb blasts in Delhi.......... actions are anti-national; both aim to divide the country by polarising people along their religious identities; and both hope to profit politically ................]
This is a false argument. There is no equivalence between Indian Mujahideens and those who perpetrated violence in Orissa. Indian Mujahideen wants to convert all Hindus and others by force to Islam and create an Islamic state in India. Indian Mujahideen wants to destroy all diversity. Those who perpetrated violence in Orissa are opposed to industrial scale conversion by Christian missionaries and are preventing a Christian state in India. They are opposed to destruction of diversity. Unlike what Tharoor says both are guided by religious belief. It is contemptible that Tharoor has to lie in order to make his point.
Where VHP and others went wrong was in violently reacting to the death of the Swami and industrial scale conversion effort of Christian missionaries. Their tactics was wrong not their aim to prevent the conversion of all people of the world to Christianity.
Tharoor writes:
[The murderous mobs of Orissa sought to kill Christians and destroy ............ 'you do not belong here'. What have we come to that a land that has been a haven of tolerance for religious minorities throughout its history should have sunk so low? India's is a civilisation that, over millennia, has offered refuge and, more important, religious and cultural freedom, to Jews, .............. ]
Tharoor is on thin ice here. He has given the example of Jews. What he seems to have forgotten is that the Jews never carried out industrial scale conversion of Hindus. Similarly Persis never carried out industrial scale conversion of Hindus. This is the reason why Hindus have had good relations with both Persis and Hindus. Hindus have never liked groups who indulge in industrial scale conversion of Hindus.
Tharoor writes:
[As a believing Hindu, I am ashamed of what is being done by people claiming to be acting in the name of my faith. I have always prided myself on belonging to a religion ............ Hindu fundamentalism is a contradiction in terms, since Hinduism is a religion without fundamentals; there is no such thing as a Hindu heresy. How dare a bunch of goondas shrink the soaring majesty of the Vedas and the Upanishads to the petty bigotry of their brand of identity politics? ]
This is a wonderful example of Tharoor speak. He brings in the issue of Hindu heresy which is a totally irrelevant issue here. Have VHP or RSS or any Hindu organization attacked any one as a heretic?
Summary
To sum up I found this article to be essentially a political article and a very poorly written one. I would not have minded if Tharoor had criticized violence by all parties, obscurantist behavior of muslims, industrial scale conversion effort of Christian missionaries. I am after all not claiming that Hindus are perfect. Instead the fellow gives a one sided, hypocritical and falsely argued lecture to all and sundry. He even brings up totally irrelevant issue like Hindu heresy!
The article does not have any deep intellectual content.
Example of Hypocrisy
Yes, violence by anyone is wrong. It is however rich that Tharoor a Congressman is criticizing violence against Christians while he remains mum on violence against Sikhs.He remains mum on violence by Christians in North East India and violence by muslims in Kashmir. He seems to have one scale for minorty violence and another scale for Hindu violence.
Example of one sidedness
Tharoor writes:But there is also the India that pulled down the Babri Masjid, that conducted the pogrom in Gujarat and that now unleashes its hatred on the 2% of our population who are Christians.
Yes none of this should have been done. I did not see, however, Tharoor criticizing muslims for pulling down at least 2000 Hindu temples over many centuries, putting up masjids on sacred Hindu sites, asking for parliamentary intervention in the Shah Bano case etc. Yes, the Gujarat pogrom was wrong but Tharoor seems to have forgotten that 59 Hindus were burnt to death. Yes, violence against 2 % of our population who are Christians was wrong. However, is the industrial scale conversion effort by the same 2 % Christian minority to turn India into a Christian country correct? Isn't such an effort an attack on the Hindu community also? Tharoor seems to have forgotten that this time the violence started after the murder of a Swami and his associates. Tharoor seems to feel one way when Hindus die and another way when others die. Is a minority life more precious than a Hindu life?
Examples of False Arguments
Tharoor writes:
[But what has happened in recent weeks in Orissa, and then in parts of Karnataka, and that threatens to be unleashed again in tribal districts of Gujarat, is a new low in our political life. The attacks on Christian families, the vandalism of their places of worship, the ................, have nothing to do with religious beliefs - .......... They are instead part of a contemptible political project whose closest equivalent can in fact be found in the "Indian Mujahideen" bomb blasts in Delhi.......... actions are anti-national; both aim to divide the country by polarising people along their religious identities; and both hope to profit politically ................]
This is a false argument. There is no equivalence between Indian Mujahideens and those who perpetrated violence in Orissa. Indian Mujahideen wants to convert all Hindus and others by force to Islam and create an Islamic state in India. Indian Mujahideen wants to destroy all diversity. Those who perpetrated violence in Orissa are opposed to industrial scale conversion by Christian missionaries and are preventing a Christian state in India. They are opposed to destruction of diversity. Unlike what Tharoor says both are guided by religious belief. It is contemptible that Tharoor has to lie in order to make his point.
Where VHP and others went wrong was in violently reacting to the death of the Swami and industrial scale conversion effort of Christian missionaries. Their tactics was wrong not their aim to prevent the conversion of all people of the world to Christianity.
Tharoor writes:
[The murderous mobs of Orissa sought to kill Christians and destroy ............ 'you do not belong here'. What have we come to that a land that has been a haven of tolerance for religious minorities throughout its history should have sunk so low? India's is a civilisation that, over millennia, has offered refuge and, more important, religious and cultural freedom, to Jews, .............. ]
Tharoor is on thin ice here. He has given the example of Jews. What he seems to have forgotten is that the Jews never carried out industrial scale conversion of Hindus. Similarly Persis never carried out industrial scale conversion of Hindus. This is the reason why Hindus have had good relations with both Persis and Hindus. Hindus have never liked groups who indulge in industrial scale conversion of Hindus.
Tharoor writes:
[As a believing Hindu, I am ashamed of what is being done by people claiming to be acting in the name of my faith. I have always prided myself on belonging to a religion ............ Hindu fundamentalism is a contradiction in terms, since Hinduism is a religion without fundamentals; there is no such thing as a Hindu heresy. How dare a bunch of goondas shrink the soaring majesty of the Vedas and the Upanishads to the petty bigotry of their brand of identity politics? ]
This is a wonderful example of Tharoor speak. He brings in the issue of Hindu heresy which is a totally irrelevant issue here. Have VHP or RSS or any Hindu organization attacked any one as a heretic?
Summary
To sum up I found this article to be essentially a political article and a very poorly written one. I would not have minded if Tharoor had criticized violence by all parties, obscurantist behavior of muslims, industrial scale conversion effort of Christian missionaries. I am after all not claiming that Hindus are perfect. Instead the fellow gives a one sided, hypocritical and falsely argued lecture to all and sundry. He even brings up totally irrelevant issue like Hindu heresy!
The article does not have any deep intellectual content.
-
- +0
-
-
written by mogambo, 2009-06-18 07:38:24
Title of Shashi Tharoors article “Hindu Fundamentals are under attack” sums up pretty well the central message his article. Later on he states “Hindu fundamentalism is a contradiction in terms, since Hinduism is a religion without fundamentals; there is no such thing as a Hindu heresy.” Further he talks about various spiritual attributes of Hindu culture like openness, tolerance, universal acceptance, respect for variety, acceptance of all other faiths. In my view all he says that you cannot use non-spiritual means like politics of division, communal politics, and violence, hatred that fueled atrocities in Gujarat, Karnataka and Orissa. Finally he asks a very simple question “Why are the voices of Hindu religious leaders not being raised in defense of these fundamentals of Hinduism?”
I agree with his central message that one cannot use non-spiritual means to defend or preserve Hindu spiritual philosophy. This is contradiction. This can only lead to destruction of Hindu spirituality. In short Hindu person cannot have spiritual outlook only for fellow Hindus. All I have been saying is focus on spirituality. We know from history, logic and words of wisdom from realized saints that one needs to focus on spirituality for preservation and growth as it is ones inner nature.
I agree with your goal of preserving Hindu spiritual culture. (In Hindu society constant is spirituality in the culture that changes with time.) Can one use non-spiritual means to preserve Hindu spiritual culture? My answer is simple NO. I don’t know what specific Niti shashtra you have in mind?
It is OK to use politics to defend Hindu spiritual philosophy or culture as long as it is spiritual politics. We have example of use of spiritual politics by Martin Luther King Jr. in USA and Mahatma Gandhi in India. Once again spirituality was at the core of their politics. Swami Vivekananda and Sri Adi Shankaracharya used public forum, debates for self-preservation. These are example of spiritual means where both goals and means are pure. In life actions are external but source is internal. Spirituality by nature has internal orientation or one’s inner & true nature. Spiritual actions cannot be generated by having external and/or material focus. I am not suggesting inaction but spiritual action.
I believe for self-preservation and growth Hindus first need to start treating low caste and dalit Hindus with respect and dignity. It is not possible to have spiritual culture if there is no basic human decency. This has not happed for over 2000 years even when low caste Hindus constitutes over 50% of Hindu population. Has this helped self-preservation? My simple answer is NO. It is logical to focus internally as one’s weakness is others strength from worldly perspective.
Spirituality in Hinduism is about putting spiritual philosophy in practice. In my view this has been the key in creating and preserving Hindu spiritual culture/tradition. Once again it is for these reasons I don’t find any thing wrong in the central message in the article by Shashi Tharoor. I hope I have made my position clear to fellow Medhavites and also put my earlier comments in the context of discussion on Shashi Tharoor’s article.
very well said, says mogambo
-
- +0
-
-
written by Raju, 2009-06-18 04:38:50
Title of Shashi Tharoors article “Hindu Fundamentals are under attack” sums up pretty well the central message his article. Later on he states “Hindu fundamentalism is a contradiction in terms, since Hinduism is a religion without fundamentals; there is no such thing as a Hindu heresy.” Further he talks about various spiritual attributes of Hindu culture like openness, tolerance, universal acceptance, respect for variety, acceptance of all other faiths. In my view all he says that you cannot use non-spiritual means like politics of division, communal politics, and violence, hatred that fueled atrocities in Gujarat, Karnataka and Orissa. Finally he asks a very simple question “Why are the voices of Hindu religious leaders not being raised in defense of these fundamentals of Hinduism?”
I agree with his central message that one cannot use non-spiritual means to defend or preserve Hindu spiritual philosophy. This is contradiction. This can only lead to destruction of Hindu spirituality. In short Hindu person cannot have spiritual outlook only for fellow Hindus. All I have been saying is focus on spirituality. We know from history, logic and words of wisdom from realized saints that one needs to focus on spirituality for preservation and growth as it is ones inner nature.
I agree with your goal of preserving Hindu spiritual culture. (In Hindu society constant is spirituality in the culture that changes with time.) Can one use non-spiritual means to preserve Hindu spiritual culture? My answer is simple NO. I don’t know what specific Niti shashtra you have in mind?
It is OK to use politics to defend Hindu spiritual philosophy or culture as long as it is spiritual politics. We have example of use of spiritual politics by Martin Luther King Jr. in USA and Mahatma Gandhi in India. Once again spirituality was at the core of their politics. Swami Vivekananda and Sri Adi Shankaracharya used public forum, debates for self-preservation. These are example of spiritual means where both goals and means are pure. In life actions are external but source is internal. Spirituality by nature has internal orientation or one’s inner & true nature. Spiritual actions cannot be generated by having external and/or material focus. I am not suggesting inaction but spiritual action.
I believe for self-preservation and growth Hindus first need to start treating low caste and dalit Hindus with respect and dignity. It is not possible to have spiritual culture if there is no basic human decency. This has not happed for over 2000 years even when low caste Hindus constitutes over 50% of Hindu population. Has this helped self-preservation? My simple answer is NO. It is logical to focus internally as one’s weakness is others strength from worldly perspective.
Spirituality in Hinduism is about putting spiritual philosophy in practice. In my view this has been the key in creating and preserving Hindu spiritual culture/tradition. Once again it is for these reasons I don’t find any thing wrong in the central message in the article by Shashi Tharoor. I hope I have made my position clear to fellow Medhavites and also put my earlier comments in the context of discussion on Shashi Tharoor’s article.
Regards,
Rajendra Rajput
-
- +0
-
-
written by karigar, 2009-06-17 15:21:09
I'm not sure how to read the comment on spirituality in the context of this discussion. I'd once again submit that socio-geo-political smartness and spirituality are not mutually exclusive in any civilization or person. But a necessary condition for a person/culture to even attempt a spiritual life is that he/it be free to express his/its cultural forms in the public domain without being judged prejuducially. If freedom & good health is absent, spirituality becomes meaningless; and on the other hand if a person can move about with his head held high, spirituality flowers in this much more conducive atmosphere.
Let us please not forget that the deeply spiritual edifice that our Indic ancestors have bequeathed us rests on a economically & politically rich & vibrant civilization. This civilization didn't just 'happen', but was created by people ably creating & defending a culture that was spiritual at the core, and was not about to lose its self respect & dignity to aggressive competing cultures & ideologies.
The crumbling of this at the hands of cultures & ideologies for which India was not prepared began about a thousand years ago, and the evidence is there for all to see. Under the dubious 'patronage' of foreign interests, the culture virtually stopped producing anything spiritual of note, other than a few brilliant exceptions here & there who at least strove to keep the flame alive & pass on to the next generations.
We are the inheritors of a fairly damaged civilization, and need to be mindful of how fragile our nascent 'renaissance' is even today.
Even in modern Human Resource theory (I'm going back to my MBA course days) the human first is expected to satisfy the lower 'Hygiene' needs, and only then move on to higher 'motivation/self-actualization' based needs.
This discussion centers on the self-denial of this 'hygiene' (i.e. a respected place in the public domain, specifically in India) by self declared 'practising hindu leaders'. Sure, the internal social fissures need to be healed (& would surely please sincere critics), but self-preservation should not be held hostage to a compulsive need to look good in the eyes of others. Both can happen simultaneously, but independently. It's not as if the Prosyeltizers & other inimical forces will appalaud & go away if Indian society does put its house in order by getting better social justice, etc. Their intent is to demoralize & reap their 'harvests'.
Spiritually (adhyatma/Darshana, etc) is essentially a higher human need & will be possible in a culture only if the lower needs are met via Niti shastra of practising self-preservation and projecting power, even if only for defence.
Let us please not forget that the deeply spiritual edifice that our Indic ancestors have bequeathed us rests on a economically & politically rich & vibrant civilization. This civilization didn't just 'happen', but was created by people ably creating & defending a culture that was spiritual at the core, and was not about to lose its self respect & dignity to aggressive competing cultures & ideologies.
The crumbling of this at the hands of cultures & ideologies for which India was not prepared began about a thousand years ago, and the evidence is there for all to see. Under the dubious 'patronage' of foreign interests, the culture virtually stopped producing anything spiritual of note, other than a few brilliant exceptions here & there who at least strove to keep the flame alive & pass on to the next generations.
We are the inheritors of a fairly damaged civilization, and need to be mindful of how fragile our nascent 'renaissance' is even today.
Even in modern Human Resource theory (I'm going back to my MBA course days) the human first is expected to satisfy the lower 'Hygiene' needs, and only then move on to higher 'motivation/self-actualization' based needs.
This discussion centers on the self-denial of this 'hygiene' (i.e. a respected place in the public domain, specifically in India) by self declared 'practising hindu leaders'. Sure, the internal social fissures need to be healed (& would surely please sincere critics), but self-preservation should not be held hostage to a compulsive need to look good in the eyes of others. Both can happen simultaneously, but independently. It's not as if the Prosyeltizers & other inimical forces will appalaud & go away if Indian society does put its house in order by getting better social justice, etc. Their intent is to demoralize & reap their 'harvests'.
Spiritually (adhyatma/Darshana, etc) is essentially a higher human need & will be possible in a culture only if the lower needs are met via Niti shastra of practising self-preservation and projecting power, even if only for defence.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Raju, 2009-06-17 05:29:23
Hi All,
Here are more questions and my suggested answers.
Are Hindus always spiritual in their ways?
No. Why no Hindu organization works towards removing caste system and other social evils? No one came to help a dalit who wanted to pray at Lord Jagannatha at Puri temple. I think this happened in 2006. There are many such examples. Lets us not forget Buddhism, Jainism and other religion were formed in India when Hindus did not follow spirituality of Vedanta. During that period there were no other religions. Majority of Indians who embrace non-Indic religion are the ones who had suffered as a result of non-spiritual practices. This is what happened in Bihar, Bengal (including Bangladesh), Andhra and other Indian states. Why did Dr. Ambedkar embrace Buddhism? We all know the answer.
Are Hindus countering other religion or non-spiritual practices?
In my view answer is not very important. But I believe work of countering other will not be effective if spirituality is missing form Hinduism. It may be possible to achieve short-term success by using socio-political-economic means. I do support path of intellectual argumentative tradition taken by Swami Vivekananda and Sri Adi Shankaracharya. But for long term in my view only answer is spirituality.
Are Indians more spiritual than other people?
A disciple once asked Sri Aurobindo if Indians were more spiritual than other people. Sri Aurobindo replied,
"No, it is not so. No nation is entirely spiritual. Indians are no more spiritual than other people. But behind the Indian race there lives the past spiritual influence. . ."
"India has the greatest chance because of her past and because the spiritual force is accumulated here. . .But if India remains indifferent and sticks to old worn-out forms and refuses to move forward or listen to the call of her soul, then the Truth may recede and try somewhere else." (India's Rebirth, pp 175, 184)
Ref: Sri Aurobindo on the Future Role for India
http://www.infinityfoundation....ameset.htm
We know both from history and words of Sri Aurobindo, who had experienced Brahman that it is better to put spiritual philosophy of Vedanta in practice. Hindus will be deluding themselves if practices are not spiritual. I don’t believe in having organized Hinduism to oppose other religions. History tells us that any thing that is organized and institutionalized can be demolished and replaced by some thing else. It is for these reasons I don’t find any thing wrong in the central message in the article by Shashi Tharoor.
Thanks,
Rajendra
Note: I will read preface by Arvind Sharma. Book was published in 2007 and I quoted from article published in 2000.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Deshika.N.Kumar, 2009-06-17 04:11:52
Dear Medhavis,
The floor is yours; this is just a short interruption: Thanks for the bouquets - based on your work!!! I enjoyed being in on this - thank you! May I also say how much I appreciated your inputs? I know some of you felt you were back to an old much chewed bone!! Rajput glad yu came on. Mogambo, Devagura so wished that you had taken that one extra step that would have added something from you. AS, Partha, you’ve pushed a train of thought started by Devagura in the thread around ‘Seva’. Perhaps Medhavis would like to explore this idea further?
Karigar, the hoary chestnuts are in the fire, I need time. Thanks for collecting them.
The floor is yours; this is just a short interruption: Thanks for the bouquets - based on your work!!! I enjoyed being in on this - thank you! May I also say how much I appreciated your inputs? I know some of you felt you were back to an old much chewed bone!! Rajput glad yu came on. Mogambo, Devagura so wished that you had taken that one extra step that would have added something from you. AS, Partha, you’ve pushed a train of thought started by Devagura in the thread around ‘Seva’. Perhaps Medhavis would like to explore this idea further?
Karigar, the hoary chestnuts are in the fire, I need time. Thanks for collecting them.
-
- +0
-
-
written by P. Desikan, 2009-06-16 19:01:47
Dear Editors,
Deshika's superb summing up could become the model for future sum ups where the comments are large in number. If such a summary is given in the form of another blog or forum post, people can continue commenting under the new blog/forum post, without feeling bad about creating an unduly long blog-tail.
Regards. Partha
Deshika's superb summing up could become the model for future sum ups where the comments are large in number. If such a summary is given in the form of another blog or forum post, people can continue commenting under the new blog/forum post, without feeling bad about creating an unduly long blog-tail.
Regards. Partha
-
- +0
-
-
written by karigar, 2009-06-16 17:05:09
Deshika, thanks for the neat summarization you've been doing of the comments.
-
- +0
-
-
written by karigar, 2009-06-16 17:04:32
This is in reference to Sri Rajput's comment. I submit that Dr Arvind Sharma has been quoted partially to buttress a point of view quite inconsistent with his general views. One can only read the Preface he wrote to the book "Invading The Sacred" ( http://invadingthesacred.com ) to see that all he's saying is that he does not deny the right of non-hindu scholars to study hinduism, but with some allowance & respect for the views of practitioners who so far have been ignored at best.
Also, The general implication of the comment seems to be again using the High Truths of Vedanta for sociopolitical behavior instead of the Niti-Shastra RealPolitik of how one must behave in Society with its power structures, etc.
This is precisely where hindus delude themselves that they're being wonderfully enlightened, while all they end up doing is to cede Public Space to Aggressive forces that would rather see the whole edifice crumble down, Vedanta & All...
The world is full of wonderful cultures who lost the will to defend themselves intellectually & physically, and are now forever gone, to exist only in history books & museums....a prospect that the Abrahamic mentality is manfully trying to bring about.
Also, The general implication of the comment seems to be again using the High Truths of Vedanta for sociopolitical behavior instead of the Niti-Shastra RealPolitik of how one must behave in Society with its power structures, etc.
This is precisely where hindus delude themselves that they're being wonderfully enlightened, while all they end up doing is to cede Public Space to Aggressive forces that would rather see the whole edifice crumble down, Vedanta & All...
The world is full of wonderful cultures who lost the will to defend themselves intellectually & physically, and are now forever gone, to exist only in history books & museums....a prospect that the Abrahamic mentality is manfully trying to bring about.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Sreeparna, 2009-06-16 12:19:40
More food for thought?
http://timesofindia.indiatimes...664454.cms
http://timesofindia.indiatimes...664454.cms
-
- +0
-
-
written by Arya_supremo, 2009-06-16 09:38:47
Dear Medhavis,
This has been one of the many great discussions, brain storming by fellow Medhavis. Is there any idea, if the person in question Mr Shashi Tharoor, whose essay we are discussiong, debating, etc., will get to see a summarized response to his essay from felllow Medhavis?
Rgds,
AS
This has been one of the many great discussions, brain storming by fellow Medhavis. Is there any idea, if the person in question Mr Shashi Tharoor, whose essay we are discussiong, debating, etc., will get to see a summarized response to his essay from felllow Medhavis?
Rgds,
AS
-
- +0
-
-
written by Kosla Vepa, 2009-06-16 08:42:12
mogambo "so you mean to say that hindus are not a community? or that the term hindu is misused in a socio-political sense? would that not negate the identity claimed by all citizens of india who claim to be hindu in their passport application or other governmental application forms?"
There is a false premise behind this presumaby rhetorical 1question. THERE IS NO MENTION OF religion in my Indian passport. i checked the latest application form for a indian passport and it is just as i thought i did not find any question on the application regarding religion. The fundamental identity of an Indian remains Indian and not an abridged indian as in "indian Goan Christian converted from a Sraswat Brahmin" assuming such a category exists. That does not mean that an individual does not have a multifaceted personality ( a spiritual dimension, several material dimensions)but this is not the issue under contention here)
I do not have the time at the present to reply to the many repetitious restatement of assertions for which i have clearly demonstrated there is little or no validity.
There is a false premise behind this presumaby rhetorical 1question. THERE IS NO MENTION OF religion in my Indian passport. i checked the latest application form for a indian passport and it is just as i thought i did not find any question on the application regarding religion. The fundamental identity of an Indian remains Indian and not an abridged indian as in "indian Goan Christian converted from a Sraswat Brahmin" assuming such a category exists. That does not mean that an individual does not have a multifaceted personality ( a spiritual dimension, several material dimensions)but this is not the issue under contention here)
I do not have the time at the present to reply to the many repetitious restatement of assertions for which i have clearly demonstrated there is little or no validity.
-
- +1
-
-
written by Raju, 2009-06-16 06:13:54
Hi All,
I enjoyed and learned a lot by reading various views and comments.
Here are my views in the question and answer form.
What is important message or messenger?
Hinduism comprises of diverse ways of life. Spirituality is at the core of Hinduism not division. At the core of Hinduism is spirituality based on Brahman and belief that life in this world is based on Karma theory. I believe it is for this reason any Hindu or any one for that matter who accepts these things can and should speak for and about Hinduism.
In fact Sri Arvind Sharma in his article Who Speaks for Hinduism? A Perspective from Advaita Vedanta reframes the question "Who speaks for Hinduism—the insider or the outsider?" According to Advaita Vedanta we are not pure subjects, inasmuch as we are capable of objectifying ourselves in our minds. Hence both the insider and the outsider can speak for Hinduism. He even says that “The great advantage of the outsider is that the outsider can be objective”.
What do support little tradition or great tradition?
Adherence to truth, non-violence and other basic values are part of Hinduism along with acceptance of multiple paths and purusharthas. These things evolved over a long period of time in order to create spiritual culture. Vedanta tells use that Atman (Individual self) = Brahman (Universal Self). It is experienced realization of this by saint’s gives rise to be validity of Vasudhaiv Kutumbkam. It is based on these things other religions are also considered to be manifestation of Brahman. These things go to form a great tradition.
Rituals, pujas, ceremonies, practices, places of worship, pilgrimage and other such thing have been continuously changing and secondary to be a practicing Hindu. These things are considered to be part of little tradition. Sati, dowry, caste have been part of evil social traditions of Hindu society.
How should we resolve conflict?
Belief that purity of means is as important purity of goals may not give quick results but can surely help achieve long lasting harmony in the long run. In a nation/state legal framework is available for resolution.
Should Hindus be organized?
Hinduism is a distinctive and heterogeneous phenomenon. Hinduism is like an ancient and proliferating banyan tree, resembling interconnected collection of trees and branches without any obvious centre. The banyan of Hinduism contains a vast array of different sects, cults, and denominations, each with its own stem system of worship and belief. It is not polytheism but a kind of polymorphic monotheism. Hinduism is a multi-currented stream of based on Vedas and Upanishads. Only spirituality is at the core of Hinduism.
Hinduism being a polycentric in nature was never organized like non-Indic religions. History tells us that any thing that is organized can be demolished and replaced by some thing else. In my view idea, concept or myth of homogeneous Hindu majority either at political and/or cultural level is not wise. This is done to enable organization and institutionalization and subsequently for control purposes in the 21st century obviously by vested interests. This has nothing to Hindu spirituality.
Regards,
Rajendra Rajput
-
- +0
-
-
written by Deshika.N.Kumar, 2009-06-15 17:23:54
Dear Medhavis,
Discussants, here it is! Larger family, you are invited to act as referees. Note: To facilitate communication, ‘Tharoor’ refers to: the man/other hindus like him/ hindu secularists and leftists of all hues/..... and Hindu refers to those rooted in the religion and its culture. References are to main discussants. I am afraid it is in sections – computers!!
As Hindus see it Tharoor is trying to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. ‘Practice’ itself does not qualify anyone to act as spokesperson for Hindus/ Hinduism if the individual has cut his/her moorings from Hinduism and/or speaks from the perspective of a belief systems that has arisen outside its culture. That these moorings play an integral role in one’s understanding/ perspectives of/ communication about Hinduism and therefore of Hindus, has been highlighted with references to his patently confused reference to Vivekanand (Pradipda, Karigar) and his evident conflation of ideas from two totally disparate groups of Hindu teachings: Darshan and Niti (Mogambo, Karigar). [Again, he claims that Hinduism ‘has no fundamentals’ but blames ‘fundamentalists’] – the descriptor should in fact be ‘extremists’ (Pradip da/ Partha/ Mitadas) [and then goes on to list a number of ‘fundamentals’].
As a hindu Tharoor is ashamed of Hindus whom he blames for assorted vandalism, hooliganism, murders and riots. Hindus are in complete agreement that vandalism, hooliganism etc are totally unacceptable. However, they do not appreciate his sacrifice on the altar of shame for they resent the hindus’/other religious groups’/State’s /Media’s palpable negative discrimination in this collective indictment of them and their religion. [Muslims are not held responsible for jehadis or Christians for the murder that led to ‘Kandhamahal’]. They also resent being slotted as ‘fundamentalists’ if they don’t confine themselves to the beliefs/ actions of hindus (Mitadas)........
Discussants, here it is! Larger family, you are invited to act as referees. Note: To facilitate communication, ‘Tharoor’ refers to: the man/other hindus like him/ hindu secularists and leftists of all hues/..... and Hindu refers to those rooted in the religion and its culture. References are to main discussants. I am afraid it is in sections – computers!!
As Hindus see it Tharoor is trying to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. ‘Practice’ itself does not qualify anyone to act as spokesperson for Hindus/ Hinduism if the individual has cut his/her moorings from Hinduism and/or speaks from the perspective of a belief systems that has arisen outside its culture. That these moorings play an integral role in one’s understanding/ perspectives of/ communication about Hinduism and therefore of Hindus, has been highlighted with references to his patently confused reference to Vivekanand (Pradipda, Karigar) and his evident conflation of ideas from two totally disparate groups of Hindu teachings: Darshan and Niti (Mogambo, Karigar). [Again, he claims that Hinduism ‘has no fundamentals’ but blames ‘fundamentalists’] – the descriptor should in fact be ‘extremists’ (Pradip da/ Partha/ Mitadas) [and then goes on to list a number of ‘fundamentals’].
As a hindu Tharoor is ashamed of Hindus whom he blames for assorted vandalism, hooliganism, murders and riots. Hindus are in complete agreement that vandalism, hooliganism etc are totally unacceptable. However, they do not appreciate his sacrifice on the altar of shame for they resent the hindus’/other religious groups’/State’s /Media’s palpable negative discrimination in this collective indictment of them and their religion. [Muslims are not held responsible for jehadis or Christians for the murder that led to ‘Kandhamahal’]. They also resent being slotted as ‘fundamentalists’ if they don’t confine themselves to the beliefs/ actions of hindus (Mitadas)........
-
- +0
-
-
written by Deshika.N.Kumar, 2009-06-15 17:20:30
........Hindus are also angered by the selective, systematic and focussed interference of the others’ in their belief system (representing discussants) - especially as it is in strong contrast to the kid gloves, hands off policy with regard to the minority religions (Pradip da) ; the negative discrimination exercised in the State’s control of some of their most major places of worship including distribution of funds collected there from (Dwai); the constant demand on them to learn tolerance [though it is not extended to them by the non-Hindus]; the libellous characterisation of them as ‘idolaters, ...., ......”; the discriminatory and single-minded academic suppression and/ or extremely negative portrayal of their culture, history, achievements (Kaushal: Secualrism redux; links provided by: Karigar, Pradipda ); large scale globally funded/ strategized proselytising by the ‘minorities’ (Hatimtai/ Karigar/ Kaushal/ GangP/ Mogambo); etc.
But Hindus realise that Tharoor’s knowledge base/understanding and therefore perspective on socio/cultural/economic/ religious matters stems from Secularism as dictated by the ‘Secular model’. It is argued that this model, rooted in European efforts to separate Church and State cannot be applied to deal with/ understand Hindus and efforts to ‘convert’/’box’ Hindus into this model are/ will be limited [and possibly counterproductive]. ‘Separation’ of Church and State presupposes that there is a body (‘the Church’) that governs individuals’ religious lives, (Pradip da, Karigar, Kaushal) [issues edicts on doctrinal requirements etc which did/ does/is liable to extend its governance on all the other aspects of life and therefore must be kept out of secular [State] matters]. Since Hinduism has no equivalent to ‘the Church’ any model wherein this is the chief vector is a non sequitar as are qualifiers like Western, Eastern, Indian etc (Arya)........
But Hindus realise that Tharoor’s knowledge base/understanding and therefore perspective on socio/cultural/economic/ religious matters stems from Secularism as dictated by the ‘Secular model’. It is argued that this model, rooted in European efforts to separate Church and State cannot be applied to deal with/ understand Hindus and efforts to ‘convert’/’box’ Hindus into this model are/ will be limited [and possibly counterproductive]. ‘Separation’ of Church and State presupposes that there is a body (‘the Church’) that governs individuals’ religious lives, (Pradip da, Karigar, Kaushal) [issues edicts on doctrinal requirements etc which did/ does/is liable to extend its governance on all the other aspects of life and therefore must be kept out of secular [State] matters]. Since Hinduism has no equivalent to ‘the Church’ any model wherein this is the chief vector is a non sequitar as are qualifiers like Western, Eastern, Indian etc (Arya)........
-
- +0
-
-
written by Deshika.N.Kumar, 2009-06-15 17:10:53
Tharoor rails against Hindu religious leaders for not defending Hinduism’s fundamentals. However, the foregoing paragraphs suggest that the [outrageous?!] Hindu suggestion that India’s non-Hindu population needs to think carries weight (Dwai). They recognise that Hindus are not a majority (Kosla); that the ‘Hindu’ label [on a passport for instance], is a construct [since terms like ‘communist’, ‘secularist’, ‘ shaivite’, etc are not acceptable in lieu]. They also point out that today, the term ‘minority’ is a misnomer for the Indian arms of well funded, well governed, ‘multi-nationals’ [whose chief spokespersons are close to the power centres in aid-giving countries] (Karigar, Kosla, GangP). Additionally Hindus themselves are an atomised polity because of the nature of the religion (Kosla) - with political expediency (Pradipda), a possible media-politician nexus (Partha, Mitadas), etc used to further the divide them when and where possible.
Thus though Hindus are united against violence, hooliganism et al, a non-existent collective – and by extension, a non-existent governance setup - cannot do anything about these matters. It is for those who stoke the fires - the hindus, the secularists, those responsible for the governance/ doctrines/ edicts et al among ‘minorities’, the communists, the media, and politicians, etc – to do some introspection {and perhaps practice "both tolerance and universal acceptance. And accept all religions [including Hinduism as understood and practiced by Hindus] as true."??!!}.
However, possibly because some of the discussants have not read/ understood the discussion in its entirety, or due to the more generally held views about Hindus and Hinduism, or because there exists a possibility that the Hindu discussants here are unique in their views, or because...... there appears to be some hesitation in accepting the Hindu discussants’ views.
So all Medhavis are invited to referee the discussion as presented here.
Thus though Hindus are united against violence, hooliganism et al, a non-existent collective – and by extension, a non-existent governance setup - cannot do anything about these matters. It is for those who stoke the fires - the hindus, the secularists, those responsible for the governance/ doctrines/ edicts et al among ‘minorities’, the communists, the media, and politicians, etc – to do some introspection {and perhaps practice "both tolerance and universal acceptance. And accept all religions [including Hinduism as understood and practiced by Hindus] as true."??!!}.
However, possibly because some of the discussants have not read/ understood the discussion in its entirety, or due to the more generally held views about Hindus and Hinduism, or because there exists a possibility that the Hindu discussants here are unique in their views, or because...... there appears to be some hesitation in accepting the Hindu discussants’ views.
So all Medhavis are invited to referee the discussion as presented here.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Deshika.N.Kumar, 2009-06-14 19:52:33
Dear Medhavis,
We appear to have hit a crucial point in our discussion. I am pulling it together –hope to meet Partha and Karigar expectations! Will be back shortly.
We appear to have hit a crucial point in our discussion. I am pulling it together –hope to meet Partha and Karigar expectations! Will be back shortly.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Raju, 2009-06-14 17:32:34
Here is an interesting news item that I came across.
BJP should give up ‘Hindutva’: RSS ideologue Vaidya
http://www.expressindia.com/la...ya/476262/
-
- +0
-
-
written by mogambo, 2009-06-13 11:12:08
mogambo says
"mogambo sees it as:
“hindu community is majority and is automatically primary policymaker in india as result of their size”
Kosla There is a fundamental contradiction here. The word Hindu used in different senses here
It is being used as the name of the universe of all the people who classify themselves as Hindus. But that is an eclectic universe which is certainly not monolithic in its ideology to call it a majority. Certainly they do not vote as a bloc (if they did we would have Congress Majority or a BJP majority) . But we have neither. So the concept of a Hindu majority is a myth used to demonize the Hindu faith and to blame them for the acts of each and every Hindu individual, If the Hindu majority should take responsibility for the act of every single Hindu. then every Christian should be responsible for the killing of the Swami in Orissa, which was carried out by an extremist Christian gang.
so you mean to say that hindus are not a community? or that the term hindu is misused in a socio-political sense? would that not negate the identity claimed by all citizens of india who claim to be hindu in their passport application or other governmental application forms?
surely they dont indentify themselves by their sub-sect?
mogambo thinks that the granular nature of hinduism is often used by people to shirk their responsibilities as a community, tho' he doesn't think that is happening here on medha j.
mogambo also agrees that all hindus need not feel penalised due to ill-acts by certain individuals. but is it not a matter of introspection for a community as a whole if events like godhra etc happen? perhaps the community is not responsible for the act, but should it not take the responsibility of responding to such an activity?
given that they are [on paper atleast] the largest community in india, should their leaders not speak up against such atrocities?
the fact that no one speaks up is what gives the feeling to the rest of the world that the "extremists" are the spokesmen for the "hindu" community
“minorities in India are less in number so some special arrangements are needed to make their existence in India more balanced from a numbers perspective”
Kosla - This is a very specious argument which assumes that the entire Hindu community is collectively responsible for the safety of a minority. The problem occurs because of the use of the word majority and minority. Who belongs to a majority and what constitutes a minority. I am a Hindu and therefore should I be counted as being part of majority. But if that is the case why is the party that comes closest to my views not getting elected ? Clearly because I am not part of a majority. If I am not a majority , then I am clearly a minority and being a minority, according to the above argument I need some special arrangements that are need to make my existence more balanced. So you see where this is leading to --- India is a nation of minorities and there does not exist a majority in any sense of the term. Only a blind man would talk about a Hindu majority in India. But clearly there needs to be a scapegoat, and the myth of a Hindu Majority is a very convenient strawman to beat upon.
mogambo thinks that this argumentation can go both ways
as mentioned in the previous section:
if a certain section of indian citizens identify their socio-religious identity as being hindu [whatever that might mean to each individual] that would automatically qualify this section of people as being the majority hindu community.
if not, why not abolish the term hindu/hinduism and identify each and every sub-sect by its label? why not the shivaites call themselves shaivaites and their religion shaivism, the vaishnavites vaishnavism and so on?
the fact that such a provision [of calling oneself a hindu] exists in the indian political infrastructure implies that there is an identification as such?
“why do the hooligans of hindutva not focus on democratic process to bring about change? why do they have to try and force their view down everyones throat?”
Kosla - This is an egregious statement, even if there were a measure of truth in it, but as it stands it remains a highly libelous one. First of all the use of the term ‘hooligans of hindutva’ is highly objectionable. Who are these hooligans ? How many are there ? What percentage do they form of all the Hindutva population ? this is followed by the Goebellian lie : hindutva do(es) not focus on democratic process ? what is the evidence that the Hindutva does not focus on democratic process . And finally the rhetorical flourish “why do they have to try and force their view down everyones throat?” reminiscent of the “’why do you beat your wife” . Again where is the evidence that they are forcing anything down anybody’s throat.
what would you call the "rama sena" group that was terrorizing citizens for participating in valentine's day activities?
what would you call the akhila bharatiya vidhyarti parishad who would do the same?
shiv sena?
rss?
sangh parivar?
each of these groups has a very strong notion about what being a "good and true hindu" is and try to enforce these behaviours in a talibanesque manner. if indians wish to claim certain honesty and integrity as being a democratic, progressive nation, should there be place for such behaviour?
mogambo says let everyone have the right to speak, but not the right to bully others into accepting their opinion as the truth!
"surely if all hindus saw alike or at least majority did they would be able to bring about some change?"
Kosla - That is clearly an argument supporting what I said that the Hindus do not form a majority
does it? could it not also imply that the hindu majority is divided about what is representative of their tradition or culture or religion?
could this not be an inner struggle about who gets to speak for hindus and which version of hinduism is democractically acceptable by its masses?
"the pet party of Hindutva fellows did not win more than 160 seats in 2009 parliament that must say something about the wish of Hindu majority right?"
Kosla = ll that tells me is that any talk of a Hindu majority doesn’t amount to a hill of beans
please see above arguments
so tharoor is right in saying that these hooligans are fundamentalists and must be questioned with strictness for their behaviors?"
Kosla - Assuming we are all agreed on who a fundamentalist is where has it been established that they are fundamentalists ? Why is this sudden distinction made for Tharoor, who belongs to the evil Hindu majority. Or is it just possible that he is saying what I am saying, perish the thought, that not all Hindus are alike (not all Hindutva are alike) and therefore there are no demons here except those individuals (past and present, Hindus , Muslims, Christians, ) who have broken the law and have been proven to have committed a crime.
mogambo thinks that is what tharoor is trying to say
-
- +0
-
-
written by Kosla Vepa, 2009-06-11 10:44:44
mogambo says
"mogambo sees it as:
“hindu community is majority and is automatically primary policymaker in india as result of their size”
Kosla There is a fundamental contradiction here. The word Hindu used in different senses here
It is being used as the name of the universe of all the people who classify themselves as Hindus. But that is an eclectic universe which is certainly not monolithic in its ideology to call it a majority. Certainly they do not vote as a bloc (if they did we would have Congress Majority or a BJP majority) . But we have neither. So the concept of a Hindu majority is a myth used to demonize the Hindu faith and to blame them for the acts of each and every Hindu individual, If the Hindu majority should take responsibility for the act of every single Hindu. then every Christian should be responsible for the killing of the Swami in Orissa, which was carried out by an extremist Christian gang.
“minorities in India are less in number so some special arrangements are needed to make their existence in India more balanced from a numbers perspective”
Kosla - This is a very specious argument which assumes that the entire Hindu community is collectively responsible for the safety of a minority. The problem occurs because of the use of the word majority and minority. Who belongs to a majority and what constitutes a minority. I am a Hindu and therefore should I be counted as being part of majority. But if that is the case why is the party that comes closest to my views not getting elected ? Clearly because I am not part of a majority. If I am not a majority , then I am clearly a minority and being a minority, according to the above argument I need some special arrangements that are need to make my existence more balanced. So you see where this is leading to --- India is a nation of minorities and there does not exist a majority in any sense of the term. Only a blind man would talk about a Hindu majority in India. But clearly there needs to be a scapegoat, and the myth of a Hindu Majority is a very convenient strawman to beat upon.
“why do the hooligans of hindutva not focus on democratic process to bring about change? why do they have to try and force their view down everyones throat?”
Kosla - This is an egregious statement, even if there were a measure of truth in it, but as it stands it remains a highly libelous one. First of all the use of the term ‘hooligans of hindutva’ is highly objectionable. Who are these hooligans ? How many are there ? What percentage do they form of all the Hindutva population ? this is followed by the Goebellian lie : hindutva do(es) not focus on democratic process ? what is the evidence that the Hindutva does not focus on democratic process . And finally the rhetorical flourish “why do they have to try and force their view down everyones throat?” reminiscent of the “’why do you beat your wife” . Again where is the evidence that they are forcing anything down anybody’s throat.
"surely if all hindus saw alike or at least majority did they would be able to bring about some change?"
Kosla - That is clearly an argument supporting what I said that the Hindus do not form a majority
"the pet party of Hindutva fellows did not win more than 160 seats in 2009 parliament that must say something about the wish of Hindu majority right?"
Kosla = ll that tells me is that any talk of a Hindu majority doesn’t amount to a hill of beans
so tharoor is right in saying that these hooligans are fundamentalists and must be questioned with strictness for their behaviors?"
Kosla - Assuming we are all agreed on who a fundamentalist is where has it been established that they are fundamentalists ? Why is this sudden distinction made for Tharoor, who belongs to the evil Hindu majority. Or is it just possible that he is saying what I am saying, perish the thought, that not all Hindus are alike (not all Hindutva are alike) and therefore there are no demons here except those individuals (past and present, Hindus , Muslims, Christians, ) who have broken the law and have been proven to have committed a crime.
"mogambo sees it as:
“hindu community is majority and is automatically primary policymaker in india as result of their size”
Kosla There is a fundamental contradiction here. The word Hindu used in different senses here
It is being used as the name of the universe of all the people who classify themselves as Hindus. But that is an eclectic universe which is certainly not monolithic in its ideology to call it a majority. Certainly they do not vote as a bloc (if they did we would have Congress Majority or a BJP majority) . But we have neither. So the concept of a Hindu majority is a myth used to demonize the Hindu faith and to blame them for the acts of each and every Hindu individual, If the Hindu majority should take responsibility for the act of every single Hindu. then every Christian should be responsible for the killing of the Swami in Orissa, which was carried out by an extremist Christian gang.
“minorities in India are less in number so some special arrangements are needed to make their existence in India more balanced from a numbers perspective”
Kosla - This is a very specious argument which assumes that the entire Hindu community is collectively responsible for the safety of a minority. The problem occurs because of the use of the word majority and minority. Who belongs to a majority and what constitutes a minority. I am a Hindu and therefore should I be counted as being part of majority. But if that is the case why is the party that comes closest to my views not getting elected ? Clearly because I am not part of a majority. If I am not a majority , then I am clearly a minority and being a minority, according to the above argument I need some special arrangements that are need to make my existence more balanced. So you see where this is leading to --- India is a nation of minorities and there does not exist a majority in any sense of the term. Only a blind man would talk about a Hindu majority in India. But clearly there needs to be a scapegoat, and the myth of a Hindu Majority is a very convenient strawman to beat upon.
“why do the hooligans of hindutva not focus on democratic process to bring about change? why do they have to try and force their view down everyones throat?”
Kosla - This is an egregious statement, even if there were a measure of truth in it, but as it stands it remains a highly libelous one. First of all the use of the term ‘hooligans of hindutva’ is highly objectionable. Who are these hooligans ? How many are there ? What percentage do they form of all the Hindutva population ? this is followed by the Goebellian lie : hindutva do(es) not focus on democratic process ? what is the evidence that the Hindutva does not focus on democratic process . And finally the rhetorical flourish “why do they have to try and force their view down everyones throat?” reminiscent of the “’why do you beat your wife” . Again where is the evidence that they are forcing anything down anybody’s throat.
"surely if all hindus saw alike or at least majority did they would be able to bring about some change?"
Kosla - That is clearly an argument supporting what I said that the Hindus do not form a majority
"the pet party of Hindutva fellows did not win more than 160 seats in 2009 parliament that must say something about the wish of Hindu majority right?"
Kosla = ll that tells me is that any talk of a Hindu majority doesn’t amount to a hill of beans
so tharoor is right in saying that these hooligans are fundamentalists and must be questioned with strictness for their behaviors?"
Kosla - Assuming we are all agreed on who a fundamentalist is where has it been established that they are fundamentalists ? Why is this sudden distinction made for Tharoor, who belongs to the evil Hindu majority. Or is it just possible that he is saying what I am saying, perish the thought, that not all Hindus are alike (not all Hindutva are alike) and therefore there are no demons here except those individuals (past and present, Hindus , Muslims, Christians, ) who have broken the law and have been proven to have committed a crime.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Dr. Pradip Gangopadh, 2009-06-10 13:02:51
Dwai,
[If Indian policymakers are Hindus, then why do they make policy-decisions that are so detrimental to Hinduism? ]
I would not say that 'they make policy-decisions that are so detrimental to Hinduism'.
Hinduism is not affected by what the policy makers do. Indian policy makers make policy-decisions that are designed to keep Hindus divided and thus under control. The reason for this becomes clear when one takes a look at our neighboring countries which are dominated by one religious group. Congress party and its fellow travelers are afraid of losing political power if sufficiently large number of Hindus goes against them. This is the reason for adopting Hindu-unfriendly policies.
Pradip da
[If Indian policymakers are Hindus, then why do they make policy-decisions that are so detrimental to Hinduism? ]
I would not say that 'they make policy-decisions that are so detrimental to Hinduism'.
Hinduism is not affected by what the policy makers do. Indian policy makers make policy-decisions that are designed to keep Hindus divided and thus under control. The reason for this becomes clear when one takes a look at our neighboring countries which are dominated by one religious group. Congress party and its fellow travelers are afraid of losing political power if sufficiently large number of Hindus goes against them. This is the reason for adopting Hindu-unfriendly policies.
Pradip da
-
- +0
-
-
written by Dr. Pradip Gangopadh, 2009-06-10 12:52:56
Tharoor in his zeal to be more Hindu than 'Hindu chauvinists' has written the following:
'Indians today whose ancestors were Christian well before any European discovered Christianity (and before the forebearers of many of today's Hindu chauvinists were even conscious of themselves as Hindus)'.
Hmm!
The first claim that 'Indians today whose ancestors were Christian (were Christian) well before any European discovered Christianity' is a highly dubious one since there is no
historical evidence of St. Thomas ever coming to India. How do we know that there was a historical St. Thomas since even the historicity of Jesus Christ has been challenged?
How does Tharoor know the thought processes of ancient forebearers of many of today's Hindu chauvinists? We don't know what they thought of themselves.
This is a typical example of what I call 'secular light' speak.
Gangp
'Indians today whose ancestors were Christian well before any European discovered Christianity (and before the forebearers of many of today's Hindu chauvinists were even conscious of themselves as Hindus)'.
Hmm!
The first claim that 'Indians today whose ancestors were Christian (were Christian) well before any European discovered Christianity' is a highly dubious one since there is no
historical evidence of St. Thomas ever coming to India. How do we know that there was a historical St. Thomas since even the historicity of Jesus Christ has been challenged?
How does Tharoor know the thought processes of ancient forebearers of many of today's Hindu chauvinists? We don't know what they thought of themselves.
This is a typical example of what I call 'secular light' speak.
Gangp
-
- +0
-
-
written by Dwai Lahiri, 2009-06-10 12:24:02
Dear friends,
I think we all tend to digress and/or misunderstand implications of comments made on a faceless medium such as the internet is.
I am certain Deshika meant no harm. Also, I must admit that I enjoy reading mogambo's radically different perspectives on things.
I think I personally am interested in learning more about what mogambo touched upon --
If Indian policymakers are Hindus, then why do they make policy-decisions that are so detrimental to Hinduism?
Mogambo, please investigate the status of Hindu Temples vs religious establishments of other religions in India. Only the temples are run by the state and revenues generated in the temples are siphoned out instead of being re-directed towards development of the infrastructure, human and soft resources that are needed in the temples.
More later.
DWai
I think we all tend to digress and/or misunderstand implications of comments made on a faceless medium such as the internet is.
I am certain Deshika meant no harm. Also, I must admit that I enjoy reading mogambo's radically different perspectives on things.
I think I personally am interested in learning more about what mogambo touched upon --
If Indian policymakers are Hindus, then why do they make policy-decisions that are so detrimental to Hinduism?
Mogambo, please investigate the status of Hindu Temples vs religious establishments of other religions in India. Only the temples are run by the state and revenues generated in the temples are siphoned out instead of being re-directed towards development of the infrastructure, human and soft resources that are needed in the temples.
More later.
DWai
-
- +0
-
-
written by Deshika.N.Kumar, 2009-06-10 05:14:31
Dear Medhavis,
This was priceless! Well or otherwise I had to reply! Apparently only Mogambo understood my post – fair enough since the operative part was reasonably personal. Having got the message he did a good job –you need look no further than his subsequent posts – and meanwhile threw out enough bait for the rest of you.
Mogambo knows what most of you have overlooked i.e. I am all for variety in comments – was in fact pushing for them for that in part is the fun of a discussion at TMJ –I explicitly stated that thoughts are wanted and repeatedly seconded Dwai’s comment, that there are no right or wrong thoughts. Also the discussion so far, and in fact most discussions on TMJ, show that almost everyone goes out of their way to cogitate and contribute even when they think the discussion is below/ above their standard/ inclination/...../.... etc. While some are politer than others there is hardly any consistent negativity and, though there may be occasional displays of emotion – to be expected given the nature of the subject and our informality – there are no harsh barbs .
Therefore I see no reason why anyone (Mogambo/ ...../..../...../....) should be so agenda driven that s/he cannot/ will not factor in what another is trying to say, is more often than not aggressive in speech, and/ or refuses to put in the extra effort which is the hallmark of most discussants in TMJ. Surely every individual is entitled to get and give a minimum basic respect even while differences in style, language, temperament, (in)formal education/ learning levels/ gender/ religion/ caste/ colour/....../.... are accommodated ? Is it that accommodation/ respect/... are the duty and/or prerogative of a few? Is the duty to be ‘thinking adults’ the responsibility of ‘the majority’ only?
Partha, thanks for trying to soften the blow. Perhaps now you and Karigar have understood why – though I loved your bouquets - I did not directly acknowledge them at the time. Mita, while I appreciate the loyalty to a fellow Medhavi, could it be that your response was stronger cos there is a degree of angst?
This was priceless! Well or otherwise I had to reply! Apparently only Mogambo understood my post – fair enough since the operative part was reasonably personal. Having got the message he did a good job –you need look no further than his subsequent posts – and meanwhile threw out enough bait for the rest of you.
Mogambo knows what most of you have overlooked i.e. I am all for variety in comments – was in fact pushing for them for that in part is the fun of a discussion at TMJ –I explicitly stated that thoughts are wanted and repeatedly seconded Dwai’s comment, that there are no right or wrong thoughts. Also the discussion so far, and in fact most discussions on TMJ, show that almost everyone goes out of their way to cogitate and contribute even when they think the discussion is below/ above their standard/ inclination/...../.... etc. While some are politer than others there is hardly any consistent negativity and, though there may be occasional displays of emotion – to be expected given the nature of the subject and our informality – there are no harsh barbs .
Therefore I see no reason why anyone (Mogambo/ ...../..../...../....) should be so agenda driven that s/he cannot/ will not factor in what another is trying to say, is more often than not aggressive in speech, and/ or refuses to put in the extra effort which is the hallmark of most discussants in TMJ. Surely every individual is entitled to get and give a minimum basic respect even while differences in style, language, temperament, (in)formal education/ learning levels/ gender/ religion/ caste/ colour/....../.... are accommodated ? Is it that accommodation/ respect/... are the duty and/or prerogative of a few? Is the duty to be ‘thinking adults’ the responsibility of ‘the majority’ only?
Partha, thanks for trying to soften the blow. Perhaps now you and Karigar have understood why – though I loved your bouquets - I did not directly acknowledge them at the time. Mita, while I appreciate the loyalty to a fellow Medhavi, could it be that your response was stronger cos there is a degree of angst?
-
- +0
-
-
written by P. Desikan, 2009-06-09 16:29:12
Amen, dear Hatimtai.
Yesterday when I came to my computer to reply to Deshika's mood-out. possibly a result of her being unwell, it did not co-operate.
I now see that I need not have bothered. Medha has risen as one man/woman to defend the fair participation of medhavi Mogambo.
Just yesterday, I seem to have written in my comment to Jim on his British Raj piece, 'Since we are thinking adults, it is always possible that our views do NOT coincide with those of some other thinking adults.'
Now it is left only for Deshika to get well and join all of us in keeping Mogambo going in his civil, polite, but determined path, or even agreeing with some of us in some of the things we say!
Regards, Partha
Yesterday when I came to my computer to reply to Deshika's mood-out. possibly a result of her being unwell, it did not co-operate.
I now see that I need not have bothered. Medha has risen as one man/woman to defend the fair participation of medhavi Mogambo.
Just yesterday, I seem to have written in my comment to Jim on his British Raj piece, 'Since we are thinking adults, it is always possible that our views do NOT coincide with those of some other thinking adults.'
Now it is left only for Deshika to get well and join all of us in keeping Mogambo going in his civil, polite, but determined path, or even agreeing with some of us in some of the things we say!
Regards, Partha
-
- +0
-
-
written by Sreeparna, 2009-06-09 14:39:05
TMJ is an open forum, and the beauty here is the diversity of topics, people, discussions. We should continue an openness. Mogambo did not make any personal attacks so far. He and Arya has different point of views, that is making the discussion even more interesting...We welcome all views to be discussed and debated!!
Regards,
Hatimtai
Regards,
Hatimtai
-
- +0
-
-
written by karigar, 2009-06-09 08:12:39
Sometimes it is Sri Nair, sometimes it is Sir Nair(the Powerful One That Knows It all)...sometimes something else altogether...
But he was here a little while ago, & can always come here when the hunting's good...(but seriously, a gilt edged invitation from Medha... ?
But he was here a little while ago, & can always come here when the hunting's good...(but seriously, a gilt edged invitation from Medha...
?
-
- +0
-
-
written by Mita, 2009-06-09 07:49:15
Mogambo may have a different perspective than what the majority has posted here but TMJ has place for all opinions. In my long association with TMJ I have never found any discussion moderated or anyone banished for having differing viewpoints. It's an open forum and there is nothing wrong in the questions that Mogambo has raised .. it is neither aggressive nor insulting to any particular group. It has been a lively discussion so far and a different voice only adds spice to it. Let's keep the spirit of TMJ alive .. Mogambo you are very welcome here!!
Mita.
Mita.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Dr. Pradip Gangopadh, 2009-06-09 07:17:56
mogambo should stay in medha journal.
-
- +0
-
-
written by mogambo, 2009-06-09 07:03:57
Deshika,
I agree with what arya_supremo wrote elsewhere...mogambo seems like a medhavi in his own way...unconventional language aside smilies/smiley.gif his posts usually carry some issue based logic (quite the contrary, for example, to the innuendoes of posters in the 'wikipidea' blog, for instance, where the the 'refutation' of the blog is issue-free personal attacks)
One reason karigar likes Medha is the diversity of voices..& wishes for more
Mogambo,
please show mogambo the nexus or links of the millions of poor muslims or christians or buddhists or jains or sikhs with outside groups that are influencing them
There's no nexus there, & I'm not saying that at all. The poor christians & miuslims in India (we shall leave out sikhs & jains here, as they are proud inheritors of the Indic universe) are typically 'sheep' who've been turned to the 'flock' of foreign Identity politics (for that's what Abrahamic religions are, on a social level) by self appointed 'shepherds'.
The issue is with the 'shepherds' (most Islamic/Christian theologians/leaders), who're the representatives of the foriegn Transnational Missionary Enterprises. (& no I'm not being funny here, to answer your other questionsmilies/smiley.gif The billions of dollars in the 'war chests' of the Churches & Saudi Charities boggles the mind, and puts to shame many a medium sized country's GDP. So that's not funny at all..(or is it??).
With regards to the 'hindus' in control of Indian policy....that's another fallacy...merely a hindu name doesn't make one a hindu, of one's ideology is different...case in point is the big Communists in Bengal...many 'Comrades' with brahmin surnames (mukherjee..chatterjee..& also....basu.dasgupta, etc..)..whore comrades, not hindus in any practical sense.
thanks to karigar and arya for understanding
mogambo finds it interesting to see different perspectives or opinions aired in a discussion
he has repeatedly invited sri anand nair to participate in the goings on here at medha since he would bring additional and fresh perspective into things
perhaps mogambo would request the moderators/admins of medha to invite sri nair? would that be too hard?
-
- +0
-
-
written by karigar, 2009-06-09 06:53:19
Deshika,
I agree with what arya_supremo wrote elsewhere...mogambo seems like a medhavi in his own way...unconventional language aside his posts usually carry some issue based logic (quite the contrary, for example, to the innuendoes of posters in the 'wikipidea' blog, for instance, where the the 'refutation' of the blog is issue-free personal attacks)
One reason karigar likes Medha is the diversity of voices..& wishes for more
Mogambo,
There's no nexus there, & I'm not saying that at all. The poor christians & miuslims in India (we shall leave out sikhs & jains here, as they are proud inheritors of the Indic universe) are typically 'sheep' who've been turned to the 'flock' of foreign Identity politics (for that's what Abrahamic religions are, on a social level) by self appointed 'shepherds'.
The issue is with the 'shepherds' (most Islamic/Christian theologians/leaders), who're the representatives of the foriegn Transnational Missionary Enterprises. (& no I'm not being funny here, to answer your other question The billions of dollars in the 'war chests' of the Churches & Saudi Charities boggles the mind, and puts to shame many a medium sized country's GDP. So that's not funny at all..(or is it??).
With regards to the 'hindus' in control of Indian policy....that's another fallacy...merely a hindu name doesn't make one a hindu, of one's ideology is different...case in point is the big Communists in Bengal...many 'Comrades' with brahmin surnames (mukherjee..chatterjee..& also....basu.dasgupta, etc..)..who're 'Comrades', not hindus in any practical sense.
I agree with what arya_supremo wrote elsewhere...mogambo seems like a medhavi in his own way...unconventional language aside
his posts usually carry some issue based logic (quite the contrary, for example, to the innuendoes of posters in the 'wikipidea' blog, for instance, where the the 'refutation' of the blog is issue-free personal attacks) One reason karigar likes Medha is the diversity of voices..& wishes for more
Mogambo,
please show mogambo the nexus or links of the millions of poor muslims or christians or buddhists or jains or sikhs with outside groups that are influencing them
There's no nexus there, & I'm not saying that at all. The poor christians & miuslims in India (we shall leave out sikhs & jains here, as they are proud inheritors of the Indic universe) are typically 'sheep' who've been turned to the 'flock' of foreign Identity politics (for that's what Abrahamic religions are, on a social level) by self appointed 'shepherds'.
The issue is with the 'shepherds' (most Islamic/Christian theologians/leaders), who're the representatives of the foriegn Transnational Missionary Enterprises. (& no I'm not being funny here, to answer your other question
The billions of dollars in the 'war chests' of the Churches & Saudi Charities boggles the mind, and puts to shame many a medium sized country's GDP. So that's not funny at all..(or is it??). With regards to the 'hindus' in control of Indian policy....that's another fallacy...merely a hindu name doesn't make one a hindu, of one's ideology is different...case in point is the big Communists in Bengal...many 'Comrades' with brahmin surnames (mukherjee..chatterjee..& also....basu.dasgupta, etc..)..who're 'Comrades', not hindus in any practical sense.
-
- +0
-
-
written by mogambo, 2009-06-09 05:05:47
A quick comment. I'll get back on the other posts later - I am not too well.
Mogambo, This is a discussion forum NOT a Military Court of Enquiry. Kindly adjust your language/ tone etc accordingly else I will be constrained to request the administrator to block your posts.
Dear Deshika
mogambo hopes you feel better and wants to let you know that he does not intend to cause aggravation to anyone
if medha is a forum where all opinions can be voiced then the question of moderating mogambos posts alone would be unfair
As for the contents:
1. 'Affirmative action.....' By implication you have affirmed, accepted and asked for what the the 'hindus' said/ say i.e., that reservations/ assistance etc,.should be based on economic criteria and not caste/ religion etc
agreed that affirmative action should be based on socio-economic status and not completely the way it has been implemented in india today
3.'..... practice their religion....... retribution.' Then both by implication and concommitantly you have to agree that Hindus too should have this right.
of course hindus do have the freedom to practice their religion. but it doesnt seem likely that their religious practices involve marginalising minorities! most hindus dont do that. it seems like tharoor was referring to (and mogambo agrees) that the minority of hindus who think and behave in a militant fashion should be vociferously asked not to pretend to be the representatives of hinduism. also that hindutva does not portray the hinduism that most hindus practice
4.'.... questions the validity....... own religion'. If you have followed the discussion so far you should have much of the answer; if you have not kindly do your homework first. There have been some excellent posts on the subject.
mogambo too agrees that most posts were excellent in their qualitative value
but they do not address the issue raised:
"why do hindu policymakers wish to undermine hinduism?"
In fact:
5. I am surprised at the qualitative difference between your posts and that of most others.
mogambo is sorry to hear that his posts lack in qualitative value
would it however be ok to say that mogambo's posts bring forth issues that would help you develop your critique or response in a more effective manner given that almost all the other participants on this forum subscribe to "A" specific ideology or way of thinking?
if not mogambo would be glad to leave forever but would miss interacting with some really smart people
it is not mogambo's fault that he subscribes to a different way of thinking that the rest of you
its just that the way of thinking is different
mkh
-
- +0
-
-
written by Deshika.N.Kumar, 2009-06-08 17:45:34
A quick comment. I'll get back on the other posts later - I am not too well.
Mogambo, This is a discussion forum NOT a Military Court of Enquiry. Kindly adjust your language/ tone etc accordingly else I will be constrained to request the administrator to block your posts. As for the contents:
1. 'Affirmative action.....' By implication you have affirmed, accepted and asked for what the the 'hindus' said/ say i.e., that reservations/ assistance etc,.should be based on economic criteria and not caste/ religion etc
3.'..... practice their religion....... retribution.' Then both by implication and concommitantly you have to agree that Hindus too should have this right.
4.'.... questions the validity....... own religion'. If you have followed the discussion so far you should have much of the answer; if you have not kindly do your homework first. There have been some excellent posts on the subject. In fact:
5. I am surprised at the qualitative difference between your posts and that of most others.
Mogambo, This is a discussion forum NOT a Military Court of Enquiry. Kindly adjust your language/ tone etc accordingly else I will be constrained to request the administrator to block your posts. As for the contents:
1. 'Affirmative action.....' By implication you have affirmed, accepted and asked for what the the 'hindus' said/ say i.e., that reservations/ assistance etc,.should be based on economic criteria and not caste/ religion etc
3.'..... practice their religion....... retribution.' Then both by implication and concommitantly you have to agree that Hindus too should have this right.
4.'.... questions the validity....... own religion'. If you have followed the discussion so far you should have much of the answer; if you have not kindly do your homework first. There have been some excellent posts on the subject. In fact:
5. I am surprised at the qualitative difference between your posts and that of most others.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Dr. Pradip Gangopadh, 2009-06-08 12:01:37
[please show mogambo the nexus or links of the millions of poor muslims or christians or
buddhists or jains or sikhs with outside groups that are influencing them]
There are 110,000 Christian preachers (99 % of whom are now Indian Christians) who are
spending millions of western dollars proselytizing poor Hindus. The late Pope JP II clearly
stated in India that there would be a rich harvest in the next millenium. Given these facts
it is stunning that mogambo wants to be shown the links of the millions of poor muslims or
christians with outside groups!!
buddhists or jains or sikhs with outside groups that are influencing them]
There are 110,000 Christian preachers (99 % of whom are now Indian Christians) who are
spending millions of western dollars proselytizing poor Hindus. The late Pope JP II clearly
stated in India that there would be a rich harvest in the next millenium. Given these facts
it is stunning that mogambo wants to be shown the links of the millions of poor muslims or
christians with outside groups!!
-
- +0
-
-
written by mogambo, 2009-06-08 11:18:59
Mogambo's comments about "minorities' gets less & less applicable as the world Globalizes more & more. What's more global than the Christian & Islamic Missionary Enterprises, alternately Headquartered in the West & Saudi Arabia, funded with Industrial & Petro Dollars.
A 'minority' is not really a minority if his religion is tied up to the chain of command that can be traced back to the above Global Nexi. i.e. The 'local' Mosque or Church is increasingly functioning as a 'branch office' of a Transnational Corporation...thus Stronger, instead of supposedly weaker than the local 'competition' of Hindus.
Also Secularism in US etc means allowing other religions to flourish, but WITHOUT compromising the essential Judeo-Christian centrality of these societies. Exactly the opposite in India where Hinduism is definitely marginalized in Official Policymaking India. (Obviously, all minorities would like that...but is that fair or even handed?)
For this aspect, & more depth to analyze this whole discussion, please let's take a refresher from (Medha Gold> Geopolitical Guru) Rajiv Malhotra's piece "Myth of Hindu Sameness......Tharoor & the like should debate Rajiv's thesis as a prequalifier before writing politically convenient stuff like this article.
mogambo is curious whether karigar was serious in his response
please show mogambo the nexus or links of the millions of poor muslims or christians or buddhists or jains or sikhs with outside groups that are influencing them
certain things are more important within a nation ie nationality is given higher precedence over religious affiliation
but when there is possibility of minorities being marginalised, it is role of nation to ensure that they are allowed their civil rights to practice that religion/s without fear of retribution
look at the riots between hindus and muslims hindus and christians: godhra kandhmal so on
mogambo would say there should be affirmative action to help empower these minorities
why should dalits etc only be helped by such rules? minorities too need special attention
mogambo also questions the validity of the statement "hinduism has been marginaliseed by policymakers"
are most of these policymakers too not hindu? why would they marginalise their own religion?
-
- +0
-
-
written by Dr. Pradip Gangopadh, 2009-06-08 07:39:16
My comment on 'sarva dharma sambhava'.
Respecting all religions do not mean all religions are equal. I have given a
quote from Vivekananda on the issue.
"You must remember that humanity travels not from error to truth, but from
truth to truth; it may be, if you like it better, from lower truth to higher
truth, but never from error to truth. Suppose you start from here and travel
towards the sun in a straight line. From here the sun looks only small in size
. Suppose you go forwards a million miles, the sun will be much bigger. At
every stage the sun will become bigger and bigger. Suppose twenty thousand
photographs had been taken of the same sun, from different standpoints; these
twenty thousand photographs will certainly differ from one another. But can
you deny that each is a photograph of the same sun? So all forms of religion,
high or low, are just different stages towards that eternal state of light,
which is God Himself. Some embody a lower view, some a higher, and that is all
the difference."
- Vivekananda (Complete Works IV, p147)
Respecting all religions do not mean all religions are equal. I have given a
quote from Vivekananda on the issue.
"You must remember that humanity travels not from error to truth, but from
truth to truth; it may be, if you like it better, from lower truth to higher
truth, but never from error to truth. Suppose you start from here and travel
towards the sun in a straight line. From here the sun looks only small in size
. Suppose you go forwards a million miles, the sun will be much bigger. At
every stage the sun will become bigger and bigger. Suppose twenty thousand
photographs had been taken of the same sun, from different standpoints; these
twenty thousand photographs will certainly differ from one another. But can
you deny that each is a photograph of the same sun? So all forms of religion,
high or low, are just different stages towards that eternal state of light,
which is God Himself. Some embody a lower view, some a higher, and that is all
the difference."
- Vivekananda (Complete Works IV, p147)
-
- +0
-
-
written by karigar, 2009-06-07 10:26:25
Two more responses-
Mogambo's comments about "minorities' gets less & less applicable as the world Globalizes more & more. What's more global than the Christian & Islamic Missionary Enterprises, alternately Headquartered in the West & Saudi Arabia, funded with Industrial & Petro Dollars.
A 'minority' is not really a minority if his religion is tied up to the chain of command that can be traced back to the above Global Nexi. i.e. The 'local' Mosque or Church is increasingly functioning as a 'branch office' of a Transnational Corporation...thus Stronger, instead of supposedly weaker than the local 'competition' of Hindus.
Also Secularism in US etc means allowing other religions to flourish, but WITHOUT compromising the essential Judeo-Christian centrality of these societies. Exactly the opposite in India where Hinduism is definitely marginalized in Official Policymaking India. (Obviously, all minorities would like that...but is that fair or even handed?)
For this aspect, & more depth to analyze this whole discussion, please let's take a refresher from (Medha Gold> Geopolitical Guru) Rajiv Malhotra's piece "Myth of Hindu Sameness......Tharoor & the like should debate Rajiv's thesis as a prequalifier before writing politically convenient stuff like this article.
Arya Supremo
for depth on this I again refer to the extensive writings of Rajiv Malhotra. If the most relevant is not here yet, I'm hopeful they'll be coming here soon. The "Myth of..." article is a good, comprehensive start.
In a few words, the "western..Secularized" is basically the prevalent Western thought (post the Euro-'Enlightenment' thought of 16-17th centuries, when the Church was basically de-throned from its position of Governing ALL the affairs of the men living in Christian countries, i.e. practically all Europe; and a New "Secular + Scientific" Orthodoxy took its place.)
This worked & works well for the West, but when Imported to India, as it has been done by the Brits & their Brown Sahib successors who still rule Indian Public "acceptable" attitudes, it creates all sorts of problems.
The 'enemy' that the Secularization of Europe fought & fought well, Doesn't exist at all in India. Since (a) Indian life never had any 'centralized church' governing all social life anyway, and (ii) Indians wern't ruling themselves anyway for the last couple of hundred years, having been Subjugated.
So to fit the "Western Secular" theory, Hinduism needs to be reconstructed to be defined to be another 'religion' like the Abrahamics (christianity & Islam)
That is what Tharoor & co (along with some so called 'hindu' political parties who think this is a good thing) are doing in order to analyse the Hindu Response (sometimes violent, but mostly not) to the agressive religions behavior.
They perhaps know that using Indian categories, like Dharma, etc wont fly..because (a) most elite English speaking Indians have completely lost touch with these concepts (thought the 'unlettered' majority lives by these concepts..I'd include simple muslim & christian converts too unless they've undergone thorough brainwashing & re-training on how o be Abrahamic) and (b) the Church & Mosque 'shepherds' of the 'flocks' & Theologians will not give these Indic categories any validity even in India....such is the irony of the twice Colonized!!
Mogambo's comments about "minorities' gets less & less applicable as the world Globalizes more & more. What's more global than the Christian & Islamic Missionary Enterprises, alternately Headquartered in the West & Saudi Arabia, funded with Industrial & Petro Dollars.
A 'minority' is not really a minority if his religion is tied up to the chain of command that can be traced back to the above Global Nexi. i.e. The 'local' Mosque or Church is increasingly functioning as a 'branch office' of a Transnational Corporation...thus Stronger, instead of supposedly weaker than the local 'competition' of Hindus.
Also Secularism in US etc means allowing other religions to flourish, but WITHOUT compromising the essential Judeo-Christian centrality of these societies. Exactly the opposite in India where Hinduism is definitely marginalized in Official Policymaking India. (Obviously, all minorities would like that...but is that fair or even handed?)
For this aspect, & more depth to analyze this whole discussion, please let's take a refresher from (Medha Gold> Geopolitical Guru) Rajiv Malhotra's piece "Myth of Hindu Sameness......Tharoor & the like should debate Rajiv's thesis as a prequalifier before writing politically convenient stuff like this article.
Arya Supremo
What is Western Secularized? Can Mr. Karigar elaborate on this. Can Mr Karigar explain, when does a person have the right to criticize hindus? Can a secular westerner criticize Muslims? Can a secular easterner criticize christians? Should such religious belief/secular belief get labeled as east/west?
for depth on this I again refer to the extensive writings of Rajiv Malhotra. If the most relevant is not here yet, I'm hopeful they'll be coming here soon. The "Myth of..." article is a good, comprehensive start.
In a few words, the "western..Secularized" is basically the prevalent Western thought (post the Euro-'Enlightenment' thought of 16-17th centuries, when the Church was basically de-throned from its position of Governing ALL the affairs of the men living in Christian countries, i.e. practically all Europe; and a New "Secular + Scientific" Orthodoxy took its place.)
This worked & works well for the West, but when Imported to India, as it has been done by the Brits & their Brown Sahib successors who still rule Indian Public "acceptable" attitudes, it creates all sorts of problems.
The 'enemy' that the Secularization of Europe fought & fought well, Doesn't exist at all in India. Since (a) Indian life never had any 'centralized church' governing all social life anyway, and (ii) Indians wern't ruling themselves anyway for the last couple of hundred years, having been Subjugated.
So to fit the "Western Secular" theory, Hinduism needs to be reconstructed to be defined to be another 'religion' like the Abrahamics (christianity & Islam)
That is what Tharoor & co (along with some so called 'hindu' political parties who think this is a good thing) are doing in order to analyse the Hindu Response (sometimes violent, but mostly not) to the agressive religions behavior.
They perhaps know that using Indian categories, like Dharma, etc wont fly..because (a) most elite English speaking Indians have completely lost touch with these concepts (thought the 'unlettered' majority lives by these concepts..I'd include simple muslim & christian converts too unless they've undergone thorough brainwashing & re-training on how o be Abrahamic) and (b) the Church & Mosque 'shepherds' of the 'flocks' & Theologians will not give these Indic categories any validity even in India....such is the irony of the twice Colonized!!
-
- +0
-
-
written by karigar, 2009-06-07 06:01:59
Our ancestors were not fools...they weren't silly intellectually challenged people who threw Lofty sayings (out of context too) when the need was for Realpolitik. This was spelled out in the Niti-Shastras, & even Panchatantra / Hitopadesha....
See below exposition on what soft headed woolly 'liberal' hindus have been feeding ourselves (our ancestors would've said 'yo moorhkha!!!" & laughed at our (hindus) self destructive silliness...
One way restraint ("I won't touch you, but you can do whatever you want to me") never works in real sociopolitical life, thus the separation of Externally directed Dharma & Niti Shastras from lofty Yoga, Vadanta & other Darshanas meant for Inner search...it is silly to use Darshanas to argue about crude sociopolitical reality.
The 'Modern' Achin Vaniks can try to wish away all the well balanced & interpenetrating structures that made Indian culture / society work exemplarily in the past.....and adopt Western Categories & become Brown Sahibs (yeah yeah...more explanation required...) all they want...the limitations will slowly start showing, if they already haven't. Western culture hasn't even a quarter of the civilizational experience that Indian Chinese cultures have....sure we trust them to know the big picture???
=====================================================
This is my own and that a stranger -- that is the calculation of the
narrow minded; for the magnanimous hearts however, the entire earth is
but a family. -- ancient Sanskrit shloka.
This shloka with the words "Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam" ("entire word is
one family") has become very popular in recent decades. India's
leaders quote it in ther speeches. India's foriegn policy is claimed
to be based on it. It has actually been inscribed in stone at India's
parliament house! It has been greatfully internalised by Indian
liberals ('internationalists') as well as Hindutva-types both as a way
to give legitimacy to their respective world views.
However, one intrepid researcher Sarvesh K. Tiwari has discovered that
"its usage in public discourse springs from a superficial or even a
perverted understanding." He adds:
If we study the original sources which recited it in the first place,
it becomes amazingly apparent that its popular understanding is simply
blundered, and its application in the matters of policy is a height of
ignorance and squarely flawed.
This Sanskrit verse is found neither in Rig Veda or Mahabharata, nor
in Puranas or Manusmriti. So where was it lifted from? It actually
occurrs mainly in Hitopdesha and Panchatantra (both a collection of
fables imparting wisdom to children).
But here is the bombshell: In all the two, people who prescribe this verse or believe in it have been declared either as fools or as scam artists out to cheat others and take over their property!
In Hitopdesha, "the verse is spoken by a shrewd subversionist. The
lesson being that one has to exercise discretion from unwittingly
trusting such brotherhood-preachers, and that the price for
befriending and sheltering the wrong kind under the influence of such
unconditional brotherhood, is nothing less than self-destruction." In
Panchatantra, the shloka is recited by a "moorkha" (an idiot) who dies
at the hands of a fool he had invited to his company citing this
shloka.
The message these books impart is very clear: Do not cite this
philosophy of "word as one family" and welcome all sorts of people
into your house (or country), otherwise you will lose your life and
property. You will be destroyed if you are not discreet in the company
you keep. In the fables, everybody who quoted this shloka died at the
hands of crooks and fools.
This is really fascinating. I would recommend you read the article in
original. Quoting this verse by modern Indians is nothing but
self-deception. Here goes:
The Hoax Called Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam – 1 : Hitopadesha:
http://bharatendu.com/2008/08/...umbakam-1/
The Hoax Called Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam - 2: Panchatantra and Kautilya:
http://bharatendu.com/2008/09/...umbakam-2/
The Hoax Called Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam - 3: Vikrama, Poetics and
Upanishada: http://bharatendu.com/2008/09/...umbakam-3/
See below exposition on what soft headed woolly 'liberal' hindus have been feeding ourselves (our ancestors would've said 'yo moorhkha!!!" & laughed at our (hindus) self destructive silliness...
One way restraint ("I won't touch you, but you can do whatever you want to me") never works in real sociopolitical life, thus the separation of Externally directed Dharma & Niti Shastras from lofty Yoga, Vadanta & other Darshanas meant for Inner search...it is silly to use Darshanas to argue about crude sociopolitical reality.
The 'Modern' Achin Vaniks can try to wish away all the well balanced & interpenetrating structures that made Indian culture / society work exemplarily in the past.....and adopt Western Categories & become Brown Sahibs (yeah yeah...more explanation required...) all they want...the limitations will slowly start showing, if they already haven't. Western culture hasn't even a quarter of the civilizational experience that Indian Chinese cultures have....sure we trust them to know the big picture???
=====================================================
This is my own and that a stranger -- that is the calculation of the
narrow minded; for the magnanimous hearts however, the entire earth is
but a family. -- ancient Sanskrit shloka.
This shloka with the words "Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam" ("entire word is
one family") has become very popular in recent decades. India's
leaders quote it in ther speeches. India's foriegn policy is claimed
to be based on it. It has actually been inscribed in stone at India's
parliament house! It has been greatfully internalised by Indian
liberals ('internationalists') as well as Hindutva-types both as a way
to give legitimacy to their respective world views.
However, one intrepid researcher Sarvesh K. Tiwari has discovered that
"its usage in public discourse springs from a superficial or even a
perverted understanding." He adds:
If we study the original sources which recited it in the first place,
it becomes amazingly apparent that its popular understanding is simply
blundered, and its application in the matters of policy is a height of
ignorance and squarely flawed.
This Sanskrit verse is found neither in Rig Veda or Mahabharata, nor
in Puranas or Manusmriti. So where was it lifted from? It actually
occurrs mainly in Hitopdesha and Panchatantra (both a collection of
fables imparting wisdom to children).
But here is the bombshell: In all the two, people who prescribe this verse or believe in it have been declared either as fools or as scam artists out to cheat others and take over their property!
In Hitopdesha, "the verse is spoken by a shrewd subversionist. The
lesson being that one has to exercise discretion from unwittingly
trusting such brotherhood-preachers, and that the price for
befriending and sheltering the wrong kind under the influence of such
unconditional brotherhood, is nothing less than self-destruction." In
Panchatantra, the shloka is recited by a "moorkha" (an idiot) who dies
at the hands of a fool he had invited to his company citing this
shloka.
The message these books impart is very clear: Do not cite this
philosophy of "word as one family" and welcome all sorts of people
into your house (or country), otherwise you will lose your life and
property. You will be destroyed if you are not discreet in the company
you keep. In the fables, everybody who quoted this shloka died at the
hands of crooks and fools.
This is really fascinating. I would recommend you read the article in
original. Quoting this verse by modern Indians is nothing but
self-deception. Here goes:
The Hoax Called Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam – 1 : Hitopadesha:
http://bharatendu.com/2008/08/...umbakam-1/
The Hoax Called Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam - 2: Panchatantra and Kautilya:
http://bharatendu.com/2008/09/...umbakam-2/
The Hoax Called Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam - 3: Vikrama, Poetics and
Upanishada: http://bharatendu.com/2008/09/...umbakam-3/
-
- +0
-
-
written by Deshika.N.Kumar, 2009-06-07 01:25:24
Dear all,
anyone(s) like to comment on 'sarva dharma sambhava'
Partha, Unfortunate that I am so regularly asked for my senior citizen card! Anyway.... Actually, I (we) am (are) into action. As you know each Muslim can take on anyone when it comes to speaking for their religion - and pushing study of the koran. At the bottom line Christians are united on the need to convert pagans ch: Operation (?)Joshua; any time after the age of seven kids become 'soldiers of Christ'. But even 'educated' 'Hindus' cannot/ will not articulate much, they will leave it to the scholars and pandits. These two live in a rarefied world - the 'generalisations' are in fact inhouse jargon.
I think if Hindus from/ in an 'independent' country feel pushed around they must at least learn to make corrections in perceptions - and that is only possible if the learned are willing to share succintly and clearly, and non- academics willing to question and share even if either or both are initially hesitant/ the matter is badly phrased/...../..... eg it is only after Mita pushed the point that you gave us a working definition of secularism/ fundamentalism and, and,........ Devagura has contributed the beginnings of a different methodology - he has to develop it somewhat;....... Karigar, kaushal, gangp, you, Dwai,........
In this case the learner is not I, it is Us; the contributor is not me, it is the input each one has and (hopefully) will put in. Just like each of you, I am sharing of my knowledge and abilities so that in the process each one of us becomes more whole (ch hatimtai)
anyone(s) like to comment on 'sarva dharma sambhava'
Partha, Unfortunate that I am so regularly asked for my senior citizen card! Anyway.... Actually, I (we) am (are) into action. As you know each Muslim can take on anyone when it comes to speaking for their religion - and pushing study of the koran. At the bottom line Christians are united on the need to convert pagans ch: Operation (?)Joshua; any time after the age of seven kids become 'soldiers of Christ'. But even 'educated' 'Hindus' cannot/ will not articulate much, they will leave it to the scholars and pandits. These two live in a rarefied world - the 'generalisations' are in fact inhouse jargon.
I think if Hindus from/ in an 'independent' country feel pushed around they must at least learn to make corrections in perceptions - and that is only possible if the learned are willing to share succintly and clearly, and non- academics willing to question and share even if either or both are initially hesitant/ the matter is badly phrased/...../..... eg it is only after Mita pushed the point that you gave us a working definition of secularism/ fundamentalism and, and,........ Devagura has contributed the beginnings of a different methodology - he has to develop it somewhat;....... Karigar, kaushal, gangp, you, Dwai,........
In this case the learner is not I, it is Us; the contributor is not me, it is the input each one has and (hopefully) will put in. Just like each of you, I am sharing of my knowledge and abilities so that in the process each one of us becomes more whole (ch hatimtai)
-
- +0
-
-
written by P. Desikan, 2009-06-06 20:18:33
Deshika, you are inspiring! Where were you hiding all this time?
Let me not linger on this phenomenon, but just look at the big paragraph you have lobbed at me in your latest 'mc' comment.
First I felt I needed some clarity. Precisely what you say in the last sentence of your paragraph, too. But a second reading helped. You want focussed and not vague identification of sources which attack Hinduism and focussed and not vague plans of action to counter such attacks. The sources must be clear enough to you. There are any number of articles published on the subject right in this journal. The plan of action followed up by concrete action, I am sure, must come from young Indians (like you)who may have to make some hard choices for themselves if they have to act fast. Meanwhile the not so young ones(like me, on the wrong side of 70 years)can keep on harping on the need for action.
All the best. Partha.
Let me not linger on this phenomenon, but just look at the big paragraph you have lobbed at me in your latest 'mc' comment.
First I felt I needed some clarity. Precisely what you say in the last sentence of your paragraph, too. But a second reading helped. You want focussed and not vague identification of sources which attack Hinduism and focussed and not vague plans of action to counter such attacks. The sources must be clear enough to you. There are any number of articles published on the subject right in this journal. The plan of action followed up by concrete action, I am sure, must come from young Indians (like you)who may have to make some hard choices for themselves if they have to act fast. Meanwhile the not so young ones(like me, on the wrong side of 70 years)can keep on harping on the need for action.
All the best. Partha.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Deshika.N.Kumar, 2009-06-06 03:50:07
Arya, Possibly Karigar should have written more carefully - but I for one see this as a discussion and not a test of language / writing skills. Having said that......
If someone insists on wearing dark glasses indoors obviously those not wearing such specs are likely to hoot when the person complains that the rooms are dark and gloomy and...... Also it is perfectly legitimate for anyone to point to the use of the dark glasses. ( I assume of course that we are not in Idi Amin's Uganda or North Korea or China, etc). As to who can legitimately criticise.... Now that I think of it I am not sure that I recall (m)any instances of overt criticism of the tenets of Christianity and Islam or wholesale condemnation of their followers by anyone (secular or otherwise) of standing. If you bring some good examples of such criticisms we can together try and arrive at answers to your questions.
Partha, Probably as you say "Hinduism itself is a sitting duck target" and the idea of this discussion is to try to identify and articulate some of the main sources and processes involved in killing the duck (or golden goose?). I have repeatedly seen educated people who link with Hindus (as against secular/ communist/ liberal/.... kaushal's post) and are generally articulate and lucid, get totally vague or refer to someone's paper or clam up when the subject comes up. Those at all involved either restrict themselves to thinking aloud or try to douse individual chingaris. Some like RM concentrate on a portion. But clearly this fire has multiple sources, is fed by a variety of fuels and is lit and relit by many. Accepting that Tharoor has not thought (Mogambo and Arya and possibly some others may yet cause a dilution or diversion) Medhavis have still restricted ourselves to blaming it on the media or giving comparitively vague generalisations like socio-political realm, western secular..., media-politician nexus and the comparitively focussed but still vague pointers at political compulsions (probably definitely a contributing cause but a major cause?), conversions, etc. We need much more clarity.
Mogambo - I am not sure I deserve your sarcasm -my post clearly implies that the jury is sitting. To assist I would appreciate a few clarifications. The term 'majority hindu community ' is used ad infinitum, ad nauseum till it has become almost meaningless. Perhaps you can tell us the statistics (and sources) that make a case for 'majority'? Also which is the 'community' under reference - what defines these Hindus? And what are the special provisions required by 'minorities' (statistics and ....) and why? And....
Gangp enjoyed the bit on Tharoor on thin ice! When it comes to 'others not OK' I am not sure you have the bit on the Evangelicals and others abs correct but we get the point on Fundamentalism - which is what is required for this discussion. Your comment on women and shariat law may not go down well with Mogambo but......
If someone insists on wearing dark glasses indoors obviously those not wearing such specs are likely to hoot when the person complains that the rooms are dark and gloomy and...... Also it is perfectly legitimate for anyone to point to the use of the dark glasses. ( I assume of course that we are not in Idi Amin's Uganda or North Korea or China, etc). As to who can legitimately criticise.... Now that I think of it I am not sure that I recall (m)any instances of overt criticism of the tenets of Christianity and Islam or wholesale condemnation of their followers by anyone (secular or otherwise) of standing. If you bring some good examples of such criticisms we can together try and arrive at answers to your questions.
Partha, Probably as you say "Hinduism itself is a sitting duck target" and the idea of this discussion is to try to identify and articulate some of the main sources and processes involved in killing the duck (or golden goose?). I have repeatedly seen educated people who link with Hindus (as against secular/ communist/ liberal/.... kaushal's post) and are generally articulate and lucid, get totally vague or refer to someone's paper or clam up when the subject comes up. Those at all involved either restrict themselves to thinking aloud or try to douse individual chingaris. Some like RM concentrate on a portion. But clearly this fire has multiple sources, is fed by a variety of fuels and is lit and relit by many. Accepting that Tharoor has not thought (Mogambo and Arya and possibly some others may yet cause a dilution or diversion) Medhavis have still restricted ourselves to blaming it on the media or giving comparitively vague generalisations like socio-political realm, western secular..., media-politician nexus and the comparitively focussed but still vague pointers at political compulsions (probably definitely a contributing cause but a major cause?), conversions, etc. We need much more clarity.
Mogambo - I am not sure I deserve your sarcasm -my post clearly implies that the jury is sitting. To assist I would appreciate a few clarifications. The term 'majority hindu community ' is used ad infinitum, ad nauseum till it has become almost meaningless. Perhaps you can tell us the statistics (and sources) that make a case for 'majority'? Also which is the 'community' under reference - what defines these Hindus? And what are the special provisions required by 'minorities' (statistics and ....) and why? And....
Gangp enjoyed the bit on Tharoor on thin ice! When it comes to 'others not OK' I am not sure you have the bit on the Evangelicals and others abs correct but we get the point on Fundamentalism - which is what is required for this discussion. Your comment on women and shariat law may not go down well with Mogambo but......
-
- +0
-
-
written by P. Desikan, 2009-06-05 14:13:50
Dear Deshika,
From the ancients who spoke against established Indian religious thoughts of their time, up to now, there have been secularists in India all the time and they had always added spice to intellectual debate. These cannot be confined to a single definition. For instance I believe it to be secularism when a person is comfortable with other persons having beliefs different from himself and not demanding him to follow their thinking. Also when the Government of a nation can legislate without any reference to religion and when the governed create this ideal possibility voluntarily. In practice this does not obtain since a statistical percentage of professors of faiths will always be rather eloquent, aggressive, pushing and some even extremist. And faiths will exist. Tha English-left inspired secularists among Delhi academicians under the patronage of the post Gandhi- Gandhis have their mission cut out. Not Hindu communalism, not Hindu extremism, but Hinduism itself is a sitting duck target for them and they have time and ammunition of a sort available. Hindu extremism flaring up periodically like any other extremism, is a good excuse for them to beat Hinduism with.
Having said that, I repeat I am with all Medhavis in abhorring violence, goondaism, extremism, anywhere, in any cause.
Regards. Partha.
From the ancients who spoke against established Indian religious thoughts of their time, up to now, there have been secularists in India all the time and they had always added spice to intellectual debate. These cannot be confined to a single definition. For instance I believe it to be secularism when a person is comfortable with other persons having beliefs different from himself and not demanding him to follow their thinking. Also when the Government of a nation can legislate without any reference to religion and when the governed create this ideal possibility voluntarily. In practice this does not obtain since a statistical percentage of professors of faiths will always be rather eloquent, aggressive, pushing and some even extremist. And faiths will exist. Tha English-left inspired secularists among Delhi academicians under the patronage of the post Gandhi- Gandhis have their mission cut out. Not Hindu communalism, not Hindu extremism, but Hinduism itself is a sitting duck target for them and they have time and ammunition of a sort available. Hindu extremism flaring up periodically like any other extremism, is a good excuse for them to beat Hinduism with.
Having said that, I repeat I am with all Medhavis in abhorring violence, goondaism, extremism, anywhere, in any cause.
Regards. Partha.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Dr. Pradip Gangopadh, 2009-06-05 13:32:14
Fundamentalism describes the culture of Protestant Christianity quite accurately. Protestant Christianity used the doctrine of "sola scriptura" to break away from the
Catholics. A Protestant Christian was supposed to consider the Bible to be inerrant.
Now a days not all Protestants take such a hard line view. Those who do take such a
hard line view, like the Southern Baptists, are called fundamentalists. Then there are
other protestants who do not regard the Bible as inerrant but consider other religions
to be false. They are called evangelicals. There are again other groups of protestant
Christians, like the methodists, who do not regard the Bible as inerrant and do not regard other religions as false. They are called liberal Christians.
Writers like Tharoor who are very westernized but do not understand the Christian religious divides use the term fundamentalism in a non-orthodox manner. As far as I
can see neither BJP nor RSS nor others in that camp take the "sola scriptura" position. So I do not see how they can be called fundamentalist.
I would suggest that the Congress under Rajiv Gandhi took an Islamic fundamentalist position when they passed the "Muslim women protection" bill since the bill's tenets followed the Islamic Shariat code. The idea that muslim women's rights are in fact protected by not allowing them to go to civil court for alimony is a hard line Islamic
fundamentalist position. Congress's Islamic fundamentalist position triggered the Hindu extremist reaction. So I would say that it is the Congress and other so called secularists in India who are fundamentalists.
Catholics. A Protestant Christian was supposed to consider the Bible to be inerrant.
Now a days not all Protestants take such a hard line view. Those who do take such a
hard line view, like the Southern Baptists, are called fundamentalists. Then there are
other protestants who do not regard the Bible as inerrant but consider other religions
to be false. They are called evangelicals. There are again other groups of protestant
Christians, like the methodists, who do not regard the Bible as inerrant and do not regard other religions as false. They are called liberal Christians.
Writers like Tharoor who are very westernized but do not understand the Christian religious divides use the term fundamentalism in a non-orthodox manner. As far as I
can see neither BJP nor RSS nor others in that camp take the "sola scriptura" position. So I do not see how they can be called fundamentalist.
I would suggest that the Congress under Rajiv Gandhi took an Islamic fundamentalist position when they passed the "Muslim women protection" bill since the bill's tenets followed the Islamic Shariat code. The idea that muslim women's rights are in fact protected by not allowing them to go to civil court for alimony is a hard line Islamic
fundamentalist position. Congress's Islamic fundamentalist position triggered the Hindu extremist reaction. So I would say that it is the Congress and other so called secularists in India who are fundamentalists.
-
- +0
-
-
written by mogambo, 2009-06-05 13:01:41
Mogambo I am glad you have brought these issues into the open. Clearly none of the Medhavis who have replied so far defend hooliganism, vandalism, extremism, etc. I cannot better Partha’s comments. But Dwai, Karigar, Kaushal and Partha seem to think that it is those who defend Hinduism who are being run down by others; who are expected to give all the respect. A sort of mirror image of what you have said. Which is the mirror and what is it that gives it its tangibility?
is that really the case?
mogambo sees it as:
hindu community is majority and is automatically primary policymaker in india as result of their size
minorities in india are less in number so some special arrangements are needed to make their existence in india more balanced from a numbers perspective
why do the hooligans of hindutva not focus on democratic process to bring about change? why do they have to try and force their view down everyones throat?
surely if all hindus saw alike or at least majority did they would be able to bring about some change?
the pet party of hindutva fellows did not win more than 160 seats in 2009 parliament that must say something about the wish of hindu majority right?
so tharoor is right in saying that these hooligans are fundamentalists and must be questioned with strictness for their behaviours?
-
- +0
-
-
written by Dr. Pradip Gangopadh, 2009-06-05 07:33:59
Deshika,
Tharoor is right that Vivekananda wanted people of every faith/dharma to live
together. He is, however, on thin ice if he thinks Vivekananda would support industrial
scale Christian evangelisation since Hindu-Christian confrontations in India have been
due to industrial scale Christian evangelisation. Vivekananda thought that a Hindu who
converts to other religion becomes an enemy of Hindus. Let me post the relevant quote:
"I want to see you Swami", I began, "on this matter of receiving back into
Hinduism those who have been perverted from it. Is it your opinion they should
be received?
"Certainly", said the Swami (Vivekananda)," they can and aught to be taken."
He sat gravely for a moment, thinking, and then resumed,"Besides," he said,
"we shall otherwise decrease in numbers. When the Mohammedans first came, we
are said -- I think on the authorty of Ferishta, the oldest Mohammedan
historian --- to have been six hundred millions of hindus. Now we are about
two hundred millions. And then every man getting out of the Hindu pale is not
only a man less, but an enemy the more. Again the vast majority of Hindu
perverts to Islam and Christianity are perverts by the sword, or to the
descendents of these. It would be obviously unfair to subject these to
disabilities of any kind. As to the case of born aliens, did you say? Why,
born aliens have been converted in the past by crowds, and the process is
still going on.In my own opinion, this statement not only applies to
aboriginal tribes, to outlying nations, and to almost all our conquerors
before the Mohammedan conquest, but also to all those castes who find a
special origin in the Puranas. I hold that they have been aliens thus
adopted. Cermonies of expiation are no doubt suitable in the case of willing
converts, returning to their Mother church, as it were; but on those who
were alienated by conquest-- as in Kashmir and Nepal -- or on strangers
wishing to join us, no penance should be imposed."
- Vivekananda (Complete Works V, p233, interview given in "Prabuddha Bharat",
April, 1899)
Pradip da
Tharoor is right that Vivekananda wanted people of every faith/dharma to live
together. He is, however, on thin ice if he thinks Vivekananda would support industrial
scale Christian evangelisation since Hindu-Christian confrontations in India have been
due to industrial scale Christian evangelisation. Vivekananda thought that a Hindu who
converts to other religion becomes an enemy of Hindus. Let me post the relevant quote:
"I want to see you Swami", I began, "on this matter of receiving back into
Hinduism those who have been perverted from it. Is it your opinion they should
be received?
"Certainly", said the Swami (Vivekananda)," they can and aught to be taken."
He sat gravely for a moment, thinking, and then resumed,"Besides," he said,
"we shall otherwise decrease in numbers. When the Mohammedans first came, we
are said -- I think on the authorty of Ferishta, the oldest Mohammedan
historian --- to have been six hundred millions of hindus. Now we are about
two hundred millions. And then every man getting out of the Hindu pale is not
only a man less, but an enemy the more. Again the vast majority of Hindu
perverts to Islam and Christianity are perverts by the sword, or to the
descendents of these. It would be obviously unfair to subject these to
disabilities of any kind. As to the case of born aliens, did you say? Why,
born aliens have been converted in the past by crowds, and the process is
still going on.In my own opinion, this statement not only applies to
aboriginal tribes, to outlying nations, and to almost all our conquerors
before the Mohammedan conquest, but also to all those castes who find a
special origin in the Puranas. I hold that they have been aliens thus
adopted. Cermonies of expiation are no doubt suitable in the case of willing
converts, returning to their Mother church, as it were; but on those who
were alienated by conquest-- as in Kashmir and Nepal -- or on strangers
wishing to join us, no penance should be imposed."
- Vivekananda (Complete Works V, p233, interview given in "Prabuddha Bharat",
April, 1899)
Pradip da
-
- +0
-
-
written by Deshika.N.Kumar, 2009-06-05 06:28:55
Dear Medhavis,
Mogambo I am glad you have brought these issues into the open. Clearly none of the Medhavis who have replied so far defend hooliganism, vandalism, extremism, etc. I cannot better Partha’s comments. But Dwai, Karigar, Kaushal and Partha seem to think that it is those who defend Hinduism who are being run down by others; who are expected to give all the respect. A sort of mirror image of what you have said. Which is the mirror and what is it that gives it its tangibility?
Mita, Thanks for taking the time, though...... ! The secular/ fundamentalist camps are a reflection of the current discourse in India; you have added another, that of the liberal leftist. You seem to advocate that the focus should be on poverty alleviation – that the media is diverting attention in talking of religion. I hope you will expand on these ideas. Also, a slight correction: yoga, natural healing, meditation, vegetarianism, etc are not Hindu they are ‘scientific’ and accepted in ‘the West’ and therefore now acceptable in India. To my knowledge there are priests teaching yoga in Germany and France, meditation & yoga are taught in some US private schools and natural healing is a major prop in charismatic Christianity – that is apart from all the various reiki, pranic, theta, ....,... healing, etc
Partha, my apologies! You raised the important issue of a media- politician nexus which I whittled down ( I was half asleep!). But since Mita seems to have picked up that thread you get more time to think thru your idea!
Devaguru, The quote is quite unexceptional, can be used by each one to arrive at totally different conclusions – which I see as both the beauty and the bane of the BG! I for one would like to hear the connections you draw in the current context. Thanks.
Pradipda, glad you are back. Tharoor’s bit on Vivekanand reminds me of the neo-vedanta discussion with Karigar. For me that throws some light on Tharoor’s take on Vivekanand and Hinduism in general. But the two of you are the experts and we await your views.
Hatimtai, While the scholars are discussing you have zeroed in on a specific! Perhaps you and Moornam could help us better understand how and why conversion is an issue - people don’t have to convert to another religion.
Dwai, Karigar, Kaushal, Partha,
OK,we’ll consign Amartya Sen to the doghouse for the moment! But here is some more: ‘Western Secularisation’: I was at a seminar where the ex and present Head of the Political Science Department Delhi Univ – Achin Vinaik and Neera Chandhoke – were the chief speakers on secularism. Chandhoke claimed that India is in the process of establishing an ‘Indian secularism’ – couldn’t say anything on characteristics etc because it is being developed – ‘we are getting there’. About the ‘Indic criteria’ Vinaik says: “This understanding does not recognise the great differences between pre-modern and modern concepts of tolerance, justice, pluralism and of acceptable forms of social harmony and even of notions of the good life. ......... Hindu communal forces must be prevented from stabilizing their control of the Indian state................ terms of this co-existence must be different from that of the past........ One myth is that Indian society has been characterised by an unchanging and continuous permeation by the religious.......... In two domains – family and education – religiously inspired doctrines are all too often dangerous..........” It seemed to me that they were in fact talking with an authority that transcends their official posts.
Mogambo I am glad you have brought these issues into the open. Clearly none of the Medhavis who have replied so far defend hooliganism, vandalism, extremism, etc. I cannot better Partha’s comments. But Dwai, Karigar, Kaushal and Partha seem to think that it is those who defend Hinduism who are being run down by others; who are expected to give all the respect. A sort of mirror image of what you have said. Which is the mirror and what is it that gives it its tangibility?
Mita, Thanks for taking the time, though...... ! The secular/ fundamentalist camps are a reflection of the current discourse in India; you have added another, that of the liberal leftist. You seem to advocate that the focus should be on poverty alleviation – that the media is diverting attention in talking of religion. I hope you will expand on these ideas. Also, a slight correction: yoga, natural healing, meditation, vegetarianism, etc are not Hindu they are ‘scientific’ and accepted in ‘the West’ and therefore now acceptable in India. To my knowledge there are priests teaching yoga in Germany and France, meditation & yoga are taught in some US private schools and natural healing is a major prop in charismatic Christianity – that is apart from all the various reiki, pranic, theta, ....,... healing, etc
Partha, my apologies! You raised the important issue of a media- politician nexus which I whittled down ( I was half asleep!). But since Mita seems to have picked up that thread you get more time to think thru your idea!
Devaguru, The quote is quite unexceptional, can be used by each one to arrive at totally different conclusions – which I see as both the beauty and the bane of the BG! I for one would like to hear the connections you draw in the current context. Thanks.
Pradipda, glad you are back. Tharoor’s bit on Vivekanand reminds me of the neo-vedanta discussion with Karigar. For me that throws some light on Tharoor’s take on Vivekanand and Hinduism in general. But the two of you are the experts and we await your views.
Hatimtai, While the scholars are discussing you have zeroed in on a specific! Perhaps you and Moornam could help us better understand how and why conversion is an issue - people don’t have to convert to another religion.
Dwai, Karigar, Kaushal, Partha,
OK,we’ll consign Amartya Sen to the doghouse for the moment! But here is some more: ‘Western Secularisation’: I was at a seminar where the ex and present Head of the Political Science Department Delhi Univ – Achin Vinaik and Neera Chandhoke – were the chief speakers on secularism. Chandhoke claimed that India is in the process of establishing an ‘Indian secularism’ – couldn’t say anything on characteristics etc because it is being developed – ‘we are getting there’. About the ‘Indic criteria’ Vinaik says: “This understanding does not recognise the great differences between pre-modern and modern concepts of tolerance, justice, pluralism and of acceptable forms of social harmony and even of notions of the good life. ......... Hindu communal forces must be prevented from stabilizing their control of the Indian state................ terms of this co-existence must be different from that of the past........ One myth is that Indian society has been characterised by an unchanging and continuous permeation by the religious.......... In two domains – family and education – religiously inspired doctrines are all too often dangerous..........” It seemed to me that they were in fact talking with an authority that transcends their official posts.
-
- +0
-
-
written by P. Desikan, 2009-06-04 19:26:29
Dear Karigar,
A separate brief blog from you may be necessary as a refresher. Not only to our friend Arya. Perhaps you could have been more specific by using the words 'If one is already having a western secularized mindset, .....'.
I often find that an Abrahamic origin person, who does not practise the rituals of his religion, is able to call himself secular, while enjoying having digs at Oriental thoughts and beliefs. The Indian who apes him does likewise.
Regards. Partha.
A separate brief blog from you may be necessary as a refresher. Not only to our friend Arya. Perhaps you could have been more specific by using the words 'If one is already having a western secularized mindset, .....'.
I often find that an Abrahamic origin person, who does not practise the rituals of his religion, is able to call himself secular, while enjoying having digs at Oriental thoughts and beliefs. The Indian who apes him does likewise.
Regards. Partha.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Arya_supremo, 2009-06-04 17:08:20
If one's already espousing an alternate way of life- the 'Western Secularized" one, one is then only criticizing hindus as an outsider.
Read the article, debates..
What is Western Secularized? Can Mr. Karigar elaborate on this. Can Mr Karigar explain, when does a person have the right to criticize hindus? Can a secular westerner criticize Muslims? Can a secular easterner criticize christians? Should such religious belief/secular belief get labeled as east/west?
-
- +0
-
-
written by P. Desikan, 2009-06-04 14:02:56
Thank you dear Pradip and Mita.
If Tharoor was not correct in using the word fundamenatlism to describe what he regards as objectionable antisocial acts based on misguided interpretations of religious beliefs of some of his fellow religionists among his countrymen, Mita or I cannot be correct either in using the same word. Extremism sounds more appropriate.
Mita, Karigar and I would still not like large sections of any religious following to be dubbed fundamentalist/extremist based on the statistical presence among them of some such extremist persons. Giving them political or other support is wrong. Their containment is a continuing social obligation. Pradip would feel similarly, I assume.
Showing slight emotion to emphasize one's conviction on a subject is permissible and likeable in debate. If Mita feels she was not displaying slight emotion in the remarks I quoted, I am happy to withdraw my reference.
Warm regards. Partha.
If Tharoor was not correct in using the word fundamenatlism to describe what he regards as objectionable antisocial acts based on misguided interpretations of religious beliefs of some of his fellow religionists among his countrymen, Mita or I cannot be correct either in using the same word. Extremism sounds more appropriate.
Mita, Karigar and I would still not like large sections of any religious following to be dubbed fundamentalist/extremist based on the statistical presence among them of some such extremist persons. Giving them political or other support is wrong. Their containment is a continuing social obligation. Pradip would feel similarly, I assume.
Showing slight emotion to emphasize one's conviction on a subject is permissible and likeable in debate. If Mita feels she was not displaying slight emotion in the remarks I quoted, I am happy to withdraw my reference.
Warm regards. Partha.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Mita, 2009-06-04 11:43:03
Dear Partha,
My comments were not emotional. I was trying to convey that we are so quick to
label people. The set of values that are deemed fundamental in the East are
considered liberal in the West (I gave the example of practicing yoga, being
vegetarian and believing in natural healing methods). Why this intolerance and
the need to label people - you either stand with us or you are the enemy?
I agree with Pradipda, the right word here is "extremism" and not "fundamentalism".
My comments were not emotional. I was trying to convey that we are so quick to
label people. The set of values that are deemed fundamental in the East are
considered liberal in the West (I gave the example of practicing yoga, being
vegetarian and believing in natural healing methods). Why this intolerance and
the need to label people - you either stand with us or you are the enemy?
I agree with Pradipda, the right word here is "extremism" and not "fundamentalism".
-
- +0
-
-
written by Dr. Pradip Gangopadh, 2009-06-04 07:23:42
I do not think Tharoor is correct in using the term Hindu fundamentalist.
What we are seeing is Hindu extremism.
What we are seeing is Hindu extremism.
-
- +0
-
-
written by P. Desikan, 2009-06-03 20:39:59
What is fundamentalism? Is it going back to basics? I practice yoga, natural healing, and vegetarianism. That should make me a fundamentalist .. but I'm also pro-choice, anti-war, and secular in my beliefs and so I'm labeled a liberal leftist. The battle lines have been drawn. You either stand on the sideof secularism or you are a right-wing, fascist Hindu fundamental.
IMHO Hindu fundamentalism is a myth created by the media.
I have two points to make on the above slightly emotional set of remarks.
1. Myths created by media are powerful, but we are free not to believe them or be affected by them. Especially as members of this sensible circle.
2. Fundamentalism is about forcing one's beliefs on others, about disliking persons not subscribing to one's beliefs, about being intolerant of beliefs of others different from one's own, about using various levels of pressure, influence or violence on others to convert them to one's own thinking.
If you do namaas five times a day or practise yoga or go on a spiritual retreat, or do none of these things, it is your business. How can you be a fundamentalist?
Regards. Partha.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Kaushal, 2009-06-03 20:23:59
The world is full of people who are ashamed of what somebody else has done. There is a sense of noblesse oblige when you express such shame. You know very well , the first person singular will not be blamed and it is an inexpensive manner of indulging in Catharsis.Most in this category will have rarely lifted a little finger to prevent such incidents from happening other than expressing regret from an air conditioned office in Dubai.
The world would be far better place if people expressed shame for what they themselves did . Learn to admit mistakes and do not indulge in the fantasy that you are the only worthy in the land. This is not to say that bad things do not happen to good people , but that is why we have the injunction that every individual take responsibility for what he or she does and to blame somebody else for these happenings , whether it is the dharma or the accident of birth or station in one's life is an act of cowardice. So Mr. Tharoor my advise to you is to stop being ashamed of others and have the courage to say that the wrongdoer should be punished. Read the essay on [url=Fate and free willhttp://kaushal42.blogspot.com/...sanas.html.
Once again, i reiterate to Mr. Tharoor please do not be ashamed on my account (or for anyone else for that matter), as that would deeply offend me.
The world would be far better place if people expressed shame for what they themselves did . Learn to admit mistakes and do not indulge in the fantasy that you are the only worthy in the land. This is not to say that bad things do not happen to good people , but that is why we have the injunction that every individual take responsibility for what he or she does and to blame somebody else for these happenings , whether it is the dharma or the accident of birth or station in one's life is an act of cowardice. So Mr. Tharoor my advise to you is to stop being ashamed of others and have the courage to say that the wrongdoer should be punished. Read the essay on [url=Fate and free willhttp://kaushal42.blogspot.com/...sanas.html.
Once again, i reiterate to Mr. Tharoor please do not be ashamed on my account (or for anyone else for that matter), as that would deeply offend me.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Mita, 2009-06-03 18:17:13
I would have otherwise ignored this .. but my opinion has been asked and so here it is.
What is fundamentalism? Is it going back to basics? I practice yoga, natural healing, and vegetarianism. That should make me a fundamentalist .. but I'm also pro-choice, anti-war, and secular in my beliefs and so I'm labeled a liberal leftist. The battle lines have been drawn. You either stand on the sideof secularism or you are a right-wing, fascist Hindu fundamental.
IMHO Hindu fundamentalism is a myth created by the media. Politicians and goondas have taken full advantage of it and don't fail to fan the fire of communal hatred at the slightest pretext. There is no place for violence in any religion. For a country that boasts the largest number of people living
below the poverty line, the government and the citizen should be focusing on development.
Instead, the media has managed to divert attention.
An eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind and I think we have all learnt
our lessons from the dark ages of crusades.
Mita.
ps: what's with the formating of the comment box? I had a hard time getting
my lines in.
What is fundamentalism? Is it going back to basics? I practice yoga, natural healing, and vegetarianism. That should make me a fundamentalist .. but I'm also pro-choice, anti-war, and secular in my beliefs and so I'm labeled a liberal leftist. The battle lines have been drawn. You either stand on the sideof secularism or you are a right-wing, fascist Hindu fundamental.
IMHO Hindu fundamentalism is a myth created by the media. Politicians and goondas have taken full advantage of it and don't fail to fan the fire of communal hatred at the slightest pretext. There is no place for violence in any religion. For a country that boasts the largest number of people living
below the poverty line, the government and the citizen should be focusing on development.
Instead, the media has managed to divert attention.
An eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind and I think we have all learnt
our lessons from the dark ages of crusades.
Mita.
ps: what's with the formating of the comment box? I had a hard time getting
my lines in.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Sreeparna, 2009-06-03 16:58:44
Thanks Deshika for initiating this very interesting discussion. I am a Hindu, who likes to be open to other religious beliefs. As most of you scholars have discussed, I think that one should not romanticize and emphasize hooliganism to any particular religion. And lot of these issues are political/media exploited...
My personal belief is that, Seva should be free of religion. Sadly it is not practiced in this way.. certain missionaries helps unfortunate individuals, however, pushes their agenda to convert those individuals..I am sure other religious sects practice soft selling their agenda in return of doing good..
I have also noticed that there are individuals, who would cast an eye of doubt at "Ramakrishna mission"/ISKON and about their Seva, but have less doubt about a christian missionaries "Seva"... If we call ourselves secular we should either cast doubt at all or to none..
As a side note, I would like to invite all Medhavis to join Medha Seva, which can be a think-tank, idea for service, innovation, above all religious boundaries, but united by philosophy of Seva...There are real smart and wise (Medhavis), who can make a difference!!
Cheers!
My personal belief is that, Seva should be free of religion. Sadly it is not practiced in this way.. certain missionaries helps unfortunate individuals, however, pushes their agenda to convert those individuals..I am sure other religious sects practice soft selling their agenda in return of doing good..
I have also noticed that there are individuals, who would cast an eye of doubt at "Ramakrishna mission"/ISKON and about their Seva, but have less doubt about a christian missionaries "Seva"... If we call ourselves secular we should either cast doubt at all or to none..
As a side note, I would like to invite all Medhavis to join Medha Seva, which can be a think-tank, idea for service, innovation, above all religious boundaries
, but united by philosophy of Seva...There are real smart and wise (Medhavis), who can make a difference!! Cheers!
-
- +0
-
-
written by Jim Clark, 2009-06-03 16:42:54
Bhagavad Gita.. Absolute Freedom
Arjuna said "What is this absolute freedom Krishna? What is the nature of action the nature of beings and of the gods?"
Krishna said "Freedom is union with the deathless..the self is the essense of all things..its creative power called action causes the whole world to be"
The First and Last Freedom.. Contradiction
"We see contradiction in us and about us.. because we are in contradiction.. there is a lack of peace in us and therefore outside us. There is a constant state of denial and assertion-what we want to be and what we are. The state of contradiction creates conflict and this conflict does not bring about peace-which is a simple.. obvious fact."
Arjuna said "What is this absolute freedom Krishna? What is the nature of action the nature of beings and of the gods?"
Krishna said "Freedom is union with the deathless..the self is the essense of all things..its creative power called action causes the whole world to be"
The First and Last Freedom.. Contradiction
"We see contradiction in us and about us.. because we are in contradiction.. there is a lack of peace in us and therefore outside us. There is a constant state of denial and assertion-what we want to be and what we are. The state of contradiction creates conflict and this conflict does not bring about peace-which is a simple.. obvious fact."
-
- +0
-
-
written by karigar, 2009-06-03 15:04:34
Deshika,
Thanks for the lively MCing of this discussion.
For my thoughts on Amartya Sen, go no further than:
http://medhajournal.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=44:identities-and-labels-how-far-should-one-go-with-them&catid=36:karigars-corner&Itemid=268
For Tharoor, one only regrets the touch of holier than thou in his attitude, and also hopes that he's humble enough to realize that he also cannot claim any sort of monopoly over how to describe a 'good hindu' or a 'bad hindu' . Merely claiming ownership of the kind 'I am a hindu, so I'll criticize" is not enough. The criteria by which he does this is important. I submit there's full use of Western Secularism as an implicit yardstick in his words.
Neither is selective quoting of Vivekananda enough. Vivekananda stood for robust pride & self expression of India's Sanatana Dharmic (a.k.a. 'hindu') cultural underpinnings. He used Indic categories to put across his points. (Karma Yoga, Dharma , Artha, Kama, Moksha...each expressed with a depth of knowledge & unsurpassed devotion)
The Tharoors & Amartyas of the world still criticize Hindus using non-indic criteria, so their "I'm a hindu, so I will..." doesn't hold water. If one's already espousing an alternate way of life- the 'Western Secularized" one, one is then only criticizing hindus as an outsider.
Of the two, at least Tharoor used to have a sense of much needed empathy, a sense of 'mine own' in his writings (read his "India-midnight to the Millenium" & "The Great Game".....now this is not so sure in future, with the Minister's crown on his head.
Of course Hooliganism is hooliganism, whenever & wherever, and needs to be condemned. But doesn't need to be willy-nilly labeled and inference drawn to the larger populace (as Partha has mentioned), and ultimetely to the 'Hinduism Stands Guilty' hogwash.
Thanks for the lively MCing of this discussion.
For my thoughts on Amartya Sen, go no further than:
http://medhajournal.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=44:identities-and-labels-how-far-should-one-go-with-them&catid=36:karigars-corner&Itemid=268
For Tharoor, one only regrets the touch of holier than thou in his attitude, and also hopes that he's humble enough to realize that he also cannot claim any sort of monopoly over how to describe a 'good hindu' or a 'bad hindu' . Merely claiming ownership of the kind 'I am a hindu, so I'll criticize" is not enough. The criteria by which he does this is important. I submit there's full use of Western Secularism as an implicit yardstick in his words.
Neither is selective quoting of Vivekananda enough. Vivekananda stood for robust pride & self expression of India's Sanatana Dharmic (a.k.a. 'hindu') cultural underpinnings. He used Indic categories to put across his points. (Karma Yoga, Dharma , Artha, Kama, Moksha...each expressed with a depth of knowledge & unsurpassed devotion)
The Tharoors & Amartyas of the world still criticize Hindus using non-indic criteria, so their "I'm a hindu, so I will..." doesn't hold water. If one's already espousing an alternate way of life- the 'Western Secularized" one, one is then only criticizing hindus as an outsider.
Of the two, at least Tharoor used to have a sense of much needed empathy, a sense of 'mine own' in his writings (read his "India-midnight to the Millenium" & "The Great Game".....now this is not so sure in future, with the Minister's crown on his head.
Of course Hooliganism is hooliganism, whenever & wherever, and needs to be condemned. But doesn't need to be willy-nilly labeled and inference drawn to the larger populace (as Partha has mentioned), and ultimetely to the 'Hinduism Stands Guilty' hogwash.
-
- +0
-
-
written by P. Desikan, 2009-06-03 14:02:16
Mogambo's endorsement of Tharoor's joining the audibly self-deprecating groups of 'Hindu' intellectuals is understandable.
Karigar's analysis of the recent political compulsions of Tharoor also makes sense.
A healthy transaction could perhaps ideally obtain in societies in which I am OK (when I behave) and you are OK (when you behave), because both you and I are required to be responsible and are capable of behaving properly. A healthy society must be able to tick off a section that misbehaves, without trying to name it first and immediately blaming the larger group, of which it may form a part.
India has the machinery to proceed against any group that goes off norms, thanks to a reasonable constitution and legislative and law enforcing functions. But we are also a colourful democracy needing our political heroes and huge fan-followings. Aberrations take place at regular frequencies.
I would only slightly modify Mogambo's correct recommendation to make it more correct. All Indians should raise their voices against the entry of any kind of fundamentalism in their midst enabled by any bunch of bullies at home or from abroad.
Warm regards. Partha
Karigar's analysis of the recent political compulsions of Tharoor also makes sense.
A healthy transaction could perhaps ideally obtain in societies in which I am OK (when I behave) and you are OK (when you behave), because both you and I are required to be responsible and are capable of behaving properly. A healthy society must be able to tick off a section that misbehaves, without trying to name it first and immediately blaming the larger group, of which it may form a part.
India has the machinery to proceed against any group that goes off norms, thanks to a reasonable constitution and legislative and law enforcing functions. But we are also a colourful democracy needing our political heroes and huge fan-followings. Aberrations take place at regular frequencies.
I would only slightly modify Mogambo's correct recommendation to make it more correct. All Indians should raise their voices against the entry of any kind of fundamentalism in their midst enabled by any bunch of bullies at home or from abroad.
Warm regards. Partha
-
- +0
-
-
written by mogambo, 2009-06-03 06:13:58
mogambo says tharoor is right
is not the most significant aspect of hindu-ness the ability to respect all traditions and not proclaim superiority over all others?
in other words as paraphrased from swami vivekananda:
sarva dharma sambhava
all hindus should raise their voice against the fundamentalisation of their culture and tradition by a bunch of bullies
mogambo kush huwa
is not the most significant aspect of hindu-ness the ability to respect all traditions and not proclaim superiority over all others?
in other words as paraphrased from swami vivekananda:
sarva dharma sambhava
all hindus should raise their voice against the fundamentalisation of their culture and tradition by a bunch of bullies
mogambo kush huwa
-
- +0
-
-
written by Deshika.N.Kumar, 2009-06-03 05:52:43
Partha,
The media is such an important - and not often mentioned - factor. And your comment so full of thought that now I need to think! Meanwhile I am sure some of the others can expand, recount instances etc on this thread of the discussion. Thanks for starting it.
The media is such an important - and not often mentioned - factor. And your comment so full of thought that now I need to think! Meanwhile I am sure some of the others can expand, recount instances etc on this thread of the discussion. Thanks for starting it.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Deshika.N.Kumar, 2009-06-03 05:43:50
Dear Medhavis,
As Dwai says – there is no right and wrong view. The idea is to share perspectives, knowledge, information etc to help ourselves and each other become something like the pearls in Indra’s heaven. Every comment has its importance – every pearl absorbs and reflects. My comments are essentially facilitators in a discussion meant to help each one of us gain more understanding, greater clarity etc.
Dwai,
Thanks for setting the ball rolling:-
“..... genuine discontent” (emphasis added) ? Tharoor clearly states that he (his kind)is (are)the aggrieved party – “As a believing Hindu, I am ashamed....... How dare a bunch of goondas ..... reduce it to a chauvinist rampage?” What do the likes of Tharoor need to think about? To take off from the next post – Charvaaks have always existed and been accepted; Sri Sri Ravi Shanker once said Hindus were the first communists; and as for the Abrahamic religions: Christians are such wonderful people, his college.......
Karigar,
Delightfully put across! But on a more serious note:
For Tharoor there’s no ‘should’ about the conflation of ‘guilt’ and ‘Hindus’. He (and his kind) follow the religion and he is ‘ashamed’ of the rest (including ‘sleeping’ Hindu religious leaders) who need to understand the enormity and depth of sins committed and choke off. Amartya Sen is a Nobel prize winning economist!
Over to the defence sir!
Anand Nair – how come you are quiet? I thought you would love the article and be the first to comment. GangP missing you! How about you and Karigar starting withTharoor’s views on Vivekanand? Hatimtai – Tharoor is asking wise Hindus to do some seva: get their brethren to understand that they should learn tolerance, inclusiveness, etc. What is your take on that? Partha, Karigar, what have you to say on the historical aspects ....... ? (Looking at the article on line I am wondering whether you want me to post the edited out descriptive bits. Let me know if you find it necessary). Mita, given your interest in sustainable development this article should be right up your street - we want to hear you. Akshey, Amit..........
As Dwai says – there is no right and wrong view. The idea is to share perspectives, knowledge, information etc to help ourselves and each other become something like the pearls in Indra’s heaven. Every comment has its importance – every pearl absorbs and reflects. My comments are essentially facilitators in a discussion meant to help each one of us gain more understanding, greater clarity etc.
Dwai,
Thanks for setting the ball rolling:-
“..... genuine discontent” (emphasis added) ? Tharoor clearly states that he (his kind)is (are)the aggrieved party – “As a believing Hindu, I am ashamed....... How dare a bunch of goondas ..... reduce it to a chauvinist rampage?” What do the likes of Tharoor need to think about? To take off from the next post – Charvaaks have always existed and been accepted; Sri Sri Ravi Shanker once said Hindus were the first communists; and as for the Abrahamic religions: Christians are such wonderful people, his college.......
Karigar,
Delightfully put across! But on a more serious note:
For Tharoor there’s no ‘should’ about the conflation of ‘guilt’ and ‘Hindus’. He (and his kind) follow the religion and he is ‘ashamed’ of the rest (including ‘sleeping’ Hindu religious leaders) who need to understand the enormity and depth of sins committed and choke off. Amartya Sen is a Nobel prize winning economist!
Over to the defence sir!
Anand Nair – how come you are quiet? I thought you would love the article and be the first to comment. GangP missing you! How about you and Karigar starting withTharoor’s views on Vivekanand? Hatimtai – Tharoor is asking wise Hindus to do some seva: get their brethren to understand that they should learn tolerance, inclusiveness, etc. What is your take on that? Partha, Karigar, what have you to say on the historical aspects ....... ? (Looking at the article on line I am wondering whether you want me to post the edited out descriptive bits. Let me know if you find it necessary). Mita, given your interest in sustainable development this article should be right up your street - we want to hear you. Akshey, Amit..........
-
- +0
-
-
written by P. Desikan, 2009-06-03 04:06:10
Newsworthiness determines media-assessments and measurements either of people, of their group attributes or even of their beliefs and values. Works of great thoughtfulness and erudition in what we call Hinduism, acts of routine goodness in the lives of the ordinary people professing to this way of life and the values they not only profess but follow without fanfare or public acclaim most of the time, will never get into the media. Aberrations will, as this process of giving publicity to them suits political agendas.
We must understand the ways media-politician interactions operate and have the wisdom not to be carried away by them.
Do I make sense?
Regards. Partha.
We must understand the ways media-politician interactions operate and have the wisdom not to be carried away by them.
Do I make sense?
Regards. Partha.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Dwai Lahiri, 2009-06-02 14:41:14
Dear Friends,
This is a very important discussion. Please post your thoughts...there is no right or wrong view.
Medha Journal is for all views to be discussed and may each of us choose that which seems best for us.
Dwai
This is a very important discussion. Please post your thoughts...there is no right or wrong view.
Medha Journal is for all views to be discussed and may each of us choose that which seems best for us.
Dwai
-
- +0
-
-
written by karigar, 2009-06-01 16:48:12
Shashi Tharoor & Amartya Sen are of a piece when it comes to breast beating about how guilty hindus should feel about sundry activities that happen in the socio political realm, mostly in reaction to genuine issues where the powers that be have a tendency to ignore the concerns of hindus vs aggressive groups playing the 'minority' card.
Sadly enough, one rarely, if ever, finds their vast intellects & penetrating analyses being trained on the aggressive religious (abrahamic prosyeltization) and secular (leftist intellectual & material mayhem) forces.
As such, much as I admire the writings of both these august gentlemen, their holier than thou lectures are one sided & hold little water.
Moreover, Tharoor is now comfortably 'khadi' & in the camp of the same dynasty whose founder he'd taken on, once upon a time..
Sadly enough, one rarely, if ever, finds their vast intellects & penetrating analyses being trained on the aggressive religious (abrahamic prosyeltization) and secular (leftist intellectual & material mayhem) forces.
As such, much as I admire the writings of both these august gentlemen, their holier than thou lectures are one sided & hold little water.
Moreover, Tharoor is now comfortably 'khadi' & in the camp of the same dynasty whose founder he'd taken on, once upon a time..
-
- +0
-
-
written by dwai, 2009-06-01 07:40:07
Could some of the angst have been derived from genuine discontent?
There might be validity to some of what Tharoor is saying. But has he or Amartya Sen ever stopped to inquire why, if at all it is happening, is this happening?
Any takers?
Thanks to Deshika for bringing this to our notice.
Dwai
There might be validity to some of what Tharoor is saying. But has he or Amartya Sen ever stopped to inquire why, if at all it is happening, is this happening?
Any takers?
Thanks to Deshika for bringing this to our notice.
Dwai
-
- +0
-
-
Write comment
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Rajput, we had started this line with Arya’s idea of leaders outside of politics. As the inputs from Pradipda, KKD and you here and Karigar, Kaushal, Arjun and others elsewhere (and Dwai in providing the platform to make it all possible!) have shown, the space exists, the works exist. The road ahead is open – anyone who wants can leave their footprints on the sands of time!
Thank you all.