PDA

View Full Version : Nomenclature terrorism



sm78
18 November 2008, 04:36 AM
From the "internet" ...

Nomenclature terrorism

The recent fuss about alleged "Hindu terrorists" has entertained me hugely because all the usual suspects played their expected roles to perfection. The pseudo-secular media had a field day insinuating that Hindu terrorism is as major a problem in India as is Mohammedan and Christist terrorism. The UPA forgot its axiom that "terrorism has no religion", and joyously crowed about "Hindu terrorists". The BJP was apoplectic in its attempts to distance itself from the alleged "Hindu terrorists".

Meanwhile, some actual – not imagined — terrorism activity has been going on in Kerala, where at least 300 people have been recruited by Mohammedan fundamentalists to wage war on the Indian State. Newspaper reports suggest that at least 96 young men from Kerala, who were given military training by SIMI, are at large. 16 of them are in Kashmir, the others in Bangalore or Kerala, according to Intelligence Bureau reports. Apparently there are special instructions in Malayalam in SIMI jungle camps held all over the country, for the poor dears are not so proficient in Urdu/Arabic.

These young men were dispatched to Kashmir with simple instructions: kill Indian soldiers and facilitate infiltration by the Pakistanis. Terrorism has now become just a job. So much so that so-called "spiritual advisers" ("paymaster" may be a more accurate designation) are out there recruiting known gangsters, converting them and sending them off to Kashmir. A particular gang of Christist criminals in Cochin has apparently supplied several converts who made the trek to Kashmir: including one Verghese aka Yasin who took a bullet in his head from the Indian Army and had to be identified from his fingerprints.

All this is ironic: Kerala has long been a supplier of manpower and womanpower – first it was the clerks and petty shopkeepers all over India, as well as a lot of soldiers; then it has been nurses, next construction labor and professionals for the Persian Gulf and America, and most recently, Christist padres and nuns for the conversion industry and as gastarbeiter for the shrinking seminaries of Europe.

I guess it is but a small step to terrorism as a profession. As Adi Sankara said in a slightly different context some centuries ago, "udara nimittam bahu krta vesham"(one wears various roles to satisfy that despotic stomach). It is said that in parts of Malabar, the UAE dirham, the Saudi riyal, and the US dollar are almost as much legal tender as the Indian rupee: there is so much of that stuff floating around. Not to speak of absolutely authentic-looking Pakistani-made Indian rupee notes. A while ago, an entire ocean-going container full of Rs. 500 and Rs. 1000 counterfeit notes – from Pakistan with love via Dubai – was intercepted in Kerala. That is a boatload of money, indeed.

And then there's the news about serial blasts in Manipur and – as I write this – in Assam, that have killed large numbers of innocent people. There are all the other blasts – there have been so many we begin to lose count – in Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Delhi, etc. etc. etc. – where the perpetrators unambiguously let it be known that they were Mohammedans inflamed by religious fundamentalism and jihad.

Christist terrorists have been running rampant in the Northeast for some time: their modus operandi is a little different – they prefer the AK-47 and they generally target specific individuals. They have ethnically-cleansed 45,000 Reang tribals from Mizoram for refusing to convert; they shot respected litterateur and patriot, Bineshwar Brahma in Guwahati; they shot Hindu priest Shanti Tripura in his own temple; and most recently, they shot Swami Lakshmananda in Orissa (let's not kid around about this: even the alleged Communist terrorist who was trotted out, suitably incognito, on TV to exonerate Christists admitted that most of his flock were Christists).

Not to mention that almost the entire top echelon of the dreaded Tamil Tigers are Christists, and the non-Christists mysteriously suffer "accidents" or are captured by the Sri Lankan Army or "commit suicide". Velupillai Prabhakaran, Anton Balasingham, et al are all Christists. So was Dhanu, the suicide bomber who blew up Rajiv Nehru Gandhi. There is reason to believe that the so-called Maoists in Nepal are also crypto-Christists, especially some of their top brass.

Of course, none of this qualifies for the "religious terrorism" moniker as far as the lovely English-Language Media and the UPA are concerned. Their sound and fury is reserved for some poor Hindu nun who is, by the power of "truth by repeated assertion", subjected to an electronic lynch, deemed a terrorist and subjected totejovadham. This is to be expected, as the ELM and the pseudo-seculars in India have a sworn duty: that of cultural extinction of the native civilization of this country. Once you understand this axiom, their baffling acts are self-consistent in a certain bizarre frame of reference.

Whether the pseudo-seculars do this for money, or they have been brainwashed by the predatory State, is not entirely clear. But then it doesn't matter, does it, since the end result is the same?

And this deliberate use of nomenclature terrorism – the use of insinuation to demonize and to create defensiveness – is a purely Goebbelsian propaganda tactic. I tried a little experiment on the pseudo-seculars some years ago by returning the favor. I started referring to their ideology as Nehruvian Stalinism. Their immediate knee-jerk reaction was to label me a Hindu fundamentalist, Hindu fascist etc. Which I was prepared for: I told them, fine, maybe I am all that, but you, you are Nehruvian Stalinists.

exactly what they expect others to do under their attacks. They got defensive, they labored to explain why they were not Stalinists, and how different Nehru was from Stalin. They grew increasingly exasperated as I kept insisting that Nehru was a lot like Stalin: the personality cult, the imperiousness, the purges, the heavy-industry fetish, etc., and how Jawaharlal was merely a little less effective in his ruthlessness.

Happily, I got a few pseudo-seculars into an absolute tizzy denying these allegations; they practically foamed at the mouth. I had succeeded – I had got them to play on my terms, on the playing field I defined; instead of protesting that I was not a fascist, I had changed the terms of reference and forced them to defend their cherished shibboleths. It was good to watch them squirm.

That, I submit, is the way to play this game. Hindus should not bother to try and prove that they are not terrorists. We should say "Yes, there must be Hindu terrorists, just like you guys are Communist terrorists, or Christist terrorists, or Mohammedan terrorists. Any questions?" If they continue to blather, one might hint darkly of caches of AK-47s and RDX.

It is evident that the pseudo-seculars are cowards and bullies, and this will shut them up. Only, gentle reader, I suggest you be careful in your choice of words, just in case somebody has a hidden camera – make veiled threats, where you cannot be pinned down to anything specific. And occasionally mutter knowingly about some atrocity perpetrated by the Christist or Communist or Mohammedan terrorists, and insinuate that you have certain "friends" and you know where the pseudo-seculars live. You know, the kind of thing the Mafioso say in those gangster movies.

Nomenclature terrorism is a game two can play, and the sinister Nehruvian Stalinists can be – as in the quaint phrase they use – hoist on their own petard.

Infinite Regress
22 November 2008, 11:50 PM
All this shows that people who're oppressed for a long time tend to retaliate sooner or later. It's in this context terrorism has to be viewed, which means we should be careful NOT to label it. By labeling it, we'll be reducing it to religion, which is absurd, because terrorism has nothing to do with religion.

It's simply another form of violence (rather than the 'legitimate' state violence) to acquire resources. Evidently, this means we must relate the whole thing to the disparity that exists in our societies. Only then can terrorism be understood in a proper context.

atanu
01 December 2008, 05:38 AM
All this shows that people who're oppressed for a long time tend to retaliate sooner or later. It's in this context terrorism has to be viewed, which means we should be careful NOT to label it. By labeling it, we'll be reducing it to religion, which is absurd, because terrorism has nothing to do with religion.

It's simply another form of violence (rather than the 'legitimate' state violence) to acquire resources. Evidently, this means we must relate the whole thing to the disparity that exists in our societies. Only then can terrorism be understood in a proper context.

Namaste Infinite,

Nicely said, as per my understanding. To understand the issue further, how do we say that a fanatic (specially a fanatic in the name of a religion) who is ready to die after killing many is out to acquire resources?

--------------

I take this opportunity to relate a true happening of 1980s. An older friend of mine used to stay near Dehradun in India. He was very troubled by his son's indiscipline and total aversion to studies etc. My friend once decided to give his son a serious threat and confronted him. He said "Do you wish to starve when I am no more? Who will look after you when I am gone?".

The son said that there was no cause for worry. He said that he had been offered a place in a group of friends who were in the business of terrorism and there would be no shortages.
------------

However, not to dilute a very serious threat, I wish to learn what science says of fanatics who die for religious cause? Is there a pre-disposition towards hatred or some similar trait? I have studied Homeopathy as a hobby for long. Homeopathy makes selection of a drug based on a personality picture of a patient. So, the father of Homeopathy studied thousands and thousands of personalities. I remember a very pecuiliar observation of his that usually Terrorists are super sensitive emotionals who take life's inequities and pecuilarities too seriously and are not able to cope rationally. IMO, these are pawns in the hands of real terrorists who we never come to catch. These master minds attain their ambitions through these pawns.

Om

sm78
01 December 2008, 06:33 AM
... because terrorism has nothing to do with religion ...

Let Mr Rajeev Srinivsan to answer this as well (which is fair, since the original post is from his blog).
http://rajeev2004.blogspot.com/

Ofcourse this is strictly w.r.t indian politics and real problem facing that country. One is free to define terrorism anyway one pleases, given consiquences are only to his/her own head.


LOL time.. terror has no religion
We have been told that terror has no religion. Repeatedly. Sun liya bhai, kitni baar bataoge.

Yet, news media, Congress party and even the government were repeating "Hindu terrorism" ad nauseam.

At the same time, we have the very same news media, Congress and the lame-duck Madmoron government not even mentioning "Islamic terrorism" for what it was in Mumbai recently. Nobody is calling the Jehadis in Mumbai "terrorists". Even "militant" seems to be used grudgingly. In fact, they even seem to be shy and apologetic of mentioning Pakistani involvement in the terror attacks. Why would anyone else in the world believe it when even our own pseudo-secular government and public does not want to admit it? Pakistan has gone all over the world media proclaiming their innocence and even blaming Hindus and Israel for the terror attacks. Pakistan has already won the war when we have our own citizens rooting for them. Now its just a matter of time when Hindus like us are destroyed. The conquest of India would be complete. They dont even have to use nuclear weapons. They can just keep sending in terrorists like in Mumbai. They can even get lot of local help from Muslims and the dhimmis in India.

Here, I am afraid to move out into the streets, while I see muslims celebrating in their ghettos, strutting around unhurt and unafraid. Recently I saw a muslim arguing with a havaldar on the streets a day after the attacks. The cop asked the muslim to take his handcart aside and stop blocking the traffic. The muslim instead started abusing the cop. I cant even imagine arguing with a cop (leave alone abusing), lest I want to be caught in a Nehruvian-Stalinist bureaucratic byzantine maze for years and pay random fines. We continue to live in fear of being killed or jailed anytime, while muslims in India indulge in jehadi terrorism freely (or provide support to Jehadis from enemy countries).

Oh, I repeat - Terror has no religion.

atanu
01 December 2008, 08:18 AM
Let Mr Rajeev Srinivsan to answer this as well (which is fair, since the original post is from his blog).
http://rajeev2004.blogspot.com/

Ofcourse this is strictly w.r.t indian politics and real problem facing that country. One is free to define terrorism anyway one pleases, given consiquences are only to his/her own head.

Singhi Mashai Namaskar,

We have not engaged in a discussion for some time now. I have considered your posts in silence and let the understanding of your view emerge in me.

We all accept that there is a very big problem at hand for all peaceful people (for the time being I request you to accept this terminology instead of naming Crime with any other tag. I hope you will accept).

Instead of coming to any conclusion or any solution, I will try to place a few points for you to ponder for sometime and then offer us your considered solutions/answers. Remember the following points are not prejudicial but open questions. They are also not impositions but represent queries answer to which I am seeking from your view point. Please do not take these questions at personal level and pass comments on my guna or your guna.

Has there been any time when a tiger or a snake has not attacked an innocent peaceful animal like deer or a man?
Is not that man who is much weaker than a tiger physically, yet is able to overcome a tiger?
Is it not true that a man overcomes a tiger not by the methods of a tiger but by the methods of man -- by employing his superior intellect and calm planning instead of fretting?--------------------------------------

Is it not true that Vishnu roams and roamed this world to uproot Barbarism and protect Dharmic and Dharma?
If you agree to above then, is it not true that despite Vishnu's cleansing acts there are problems that we perceive?
What Vishnu does not decide to rectify, can a speck of spark that an individual is, change THE WORLD?
However, whether it is true that an individual can protect his own consciousness (which actually is Mahat) by cleansing it?
Is it not true that the attraction for consumerism also is a source of dissatisfaction and that it can be cleansed by an individual?
Why at the feet of gurus like, Ramakrishna, Maharshi Ramana, Sai Baba, Ravi Shankar, Prabhupada and others sit many Muslims and Christians?
What is their power that they attract devotees from diverse religions from diverse countries?
Is the work that Swami Vivekananda does smaller than the work done by Shri Singhal towards calming of ruffled egos. What gives one peace?----------------------------

Shri Krishna showed Arjuna the Visvarupa. Arjuna knew that the great Kala had already killed those whom Arjuna was to kill.
Does it not mean that the Great Kala is omniscient and omnipotent and has a master plan?
Knowing the above, is there much point in brooding over past and imagining a dirty future?
Or is it good to meditate and remain in the moment and let the events pass by, performing one's alloted task without any expectation?
Does God have any control over events and your future or will Muslims and Christians control your future?
Conversely, will an individual achieve anything good for himself or society when he is not omniscient and even does not know the present? And his mind his not calm that he can devise a plan to subdue a tiger with his intelligence?---------------------------

WHAT YOU ARE SEEKING? IF WE ELIMINATE ALL CRIMINALS (m-------- AND C-----------) THEN WOULD YOU BE SATISFIED? IF YES, THEN WHAT SHOULD BE THE STRATEGY?
What happens if I die thinking of Muslim criminals or Christian misdeeds and fail to take God's name while passing away?---------------------------

Singhi, do ponder over these questions and offer me your views. Though you may feel that these queries are preliminary and does not apply to the present dangerous situation, rest assured that your answers will surely enrich me.

Regards and best wishes.

Om Namah Shivaya

Infinite Regress
02 December 2008, 08:49 AM
There are two extreme positions that people tend to take regarding religion. Either they assume that all religions teach peace, or that all (or some) of them are inherently violent.

A third view is more logical, since it sees religion as a tool of the rich people to divide the poor, so they won't worry about economic conditions, and instead fight each in the name of god.:( And as long as the common people are thus occupied, the rich get richer, and the status quo is maintained.

If we view Islam in this context, it should become apparent that the rich people (arafat, for instance) use poor people in their (Islamic) community as pawns. Why? Because as long as poor Palestinians give up their lives in suicide bombing, terrorism and such, the rich Muslims at the top can have a good time enjoying the wealth that they get from western/Islamic and other humanitarian sources.:o As is obvious, religion is used as a tool by the rich to become richer, all the while keeping the poor in a pathetic state.

This is what I meant when I said religion has nothing to do with terrorism, not suggesting Islam is in any way peaceful. Even if it were, that would be immaterial, because the elite/rich will create some other crisis to bring about terrorism, where the common man will be forced to give up his life.

Bottom line, both extremes are wrong, one extreme that says Islam (and Christianity) is similar to eastern traditions, it's peaceful, and all that jazz:D. This cannot be proven, because if people point to one quote in koran about peace, another person can show hundred quotes pointing to violence.

Nor is it advisable to go to another extreme, that is, religion is THE problem. No, politics is the real problem and religion, especially barbaric religions like Islam, are used as tools by the ruling class to keep the masses divided, poor, and hungry.:mad:

MahaHrada
02 December 2008, 10:37 AM
There are two extreme positions that people tend to take regarding religion. Either they assume that all religions teach peace, or that all (or some) of them are inherently violent.

A third view is more logical, since it sees religion as a tool of the rich people to divide the poor, so they won't worry about economic conditions, and instead fight each in the name of god.:( And as long as the common people are thus occupied, the rich get richer, and the status quo is maintained.

If we view Islam in this context, it should become apparent that the rich people (arafat, for instance) use poor people in their (Islamic) community as pawns. Why? Because as long as poor Palestinians give up their lives in suicide bombing, terrorism and such, the rich Muslims at the top can have a good time enjoying the wealth that they get from western/Islamic and other humanitarian sources.:o As is obvious, religion is used as a tool by the rich to become richer, all the while keeping the poor in a pathetic state.

This is what I meant when I said religion has nothing to do with terrorism, not suggesting Islam is in any way peaceful. Even if it were, that would be immaterial, because the elite/rich will create some other crisis to bring about terrorism, where the common man will be forced to give up his life.

Bottom line, both extremes are wrong, one extreme that says Islam (and Christianity) is similar to eastern traditions, it's peaceful, and all that jazz:D. This cannot be proven, because if people point to one quote in koran about peace, another person can show hundred quotes pointing to violence.

Nor is it advisable to go to another extreme, that is, religion is THE problem. No, politics is the real problem and religion, especially barbaric religions like Islam, are used as tools by the ruling class to keep the masses divided, poor, and hungry.:mad:

There are always a lot of reason for a situation, religiously motivated violence is a complex problem, that means there is never one or only a few real reasons and other elements are somehow less real or only minor. The posion is in the exact mixture.
People that promise that there is one culprit and when this culprit is eradicated the world will be a paradise lie to you.
Misuse of religious superstitions as a source for income. like heavy taxation on infidels, income through looting infidel temples, the fact that the promise that god is on our side and will reward the warrior will make warfare more efficent etc, all this are shurely important reasons based on political and economic power mongering or greed.

But the remedy will never be a peoples republic or a socialist state or a so called revolution. Just take a look what happend to cambodia or what happened in china and russia, or what happend in south america, look at what is happening right now in in nepal and you can see that socialist beliefs "in the people power" is as worse an inhuman doctrine as any other belief system, only misused to greedly rob and steal from the rich and the poor and give all the money and looted land to the revolutionary army and some greedyinhuman leaders of the socialist or communist cadres.
In the end the poor become even more poor and opressed, the rich are still rich, but all religion and spirituality is a crime and eliminated.
The best remedy for inhuman indoctrination of any kind is endeavour to provide proper education, good housing, enough food.
Most important is education and independence of the individual the first thing the mullahs in in Iran did after the shah was removed was to enshure that the Water supply was only open for people that attend the prayers and indoktrination in the masjid also opium was given out for free there to attract people. Having no supply of water or opium except through the fundamentalists the farmers lost their independence.
The intelligent educated upper and midle class people all fled or where killed. The rest that where left in Iran are poor farmers without any education that are forced to attend religious institutions for indoctrination and are surrounded by armend revolutionary guards oppressing them. There are a few rich politicainas and mullahs and the rest live like cattle on the field. Iran before Khomeni was an aspiring liberal modern nation with a lot of educated people also including woman.
The ruling class in the case of Iran, i.e. the shah and all the educated upper and middle class was killed or had to leave the country no way it was they that used religion for anything, the religion was their destruction.
There is not a simple explanation available for anything only complex answers exist.
Fundamentalism and extremism political right or left wing or religious superstitions are based on exactly this principle of constant simplification of a complex world.
Ignorance is the root cause of suffering like the Buddha said. In other words actions based on of simplification are the causes of suffering not their remedy.

Eastern Mind
02 December 2008, 05:49 PM
There are always a lot of reason for a situation

There is not a simple explanation available for anything only complex answers exist.



Well said. My analogy is that 'it' is never black or white, only varying shades of grey. The word terrorism has been bandied about so much I'm quite sick of it. Its basically boiled down to the "I'm right. You're wrong" philosophy. Terrorism is synonymous with 'the other side' . Those guys are the terrorists, so we have the terrorists themselves saying that the people trying to stop the terrorists are the real terrrorists. "Bush is a terrorist." "The government of Sri Lanka is the "real' terrorist." So basically through the last ten or more years the word has deteriorated into meaning very little, as the attempt to define it is nigh impossible.

"Communism" is another word we could do without. Its root is "common" which is also the root of community, commune, communal, communication, and a few more with somewhat more positive connotations, I suppose. But the dreaded word 'communism' has taken all the heat.

I recall slightly after hitting puberty when my weak mind was just entering Piaget's formal thought stage arguing with a classmate about communism. He had made some statement that all commies oughta be shot, but then when I queried him about giving me any single tenet of communism, he had no answer. (Neither did I know anything, but at least I knew I knew nothing, and he didn't know I knew nothing.") Twas then I learned first hand that idiocy is often best demonstrated by words, and in essence they're meaningless. .. Ramblin a bit..
Aum Namasivaya

sm78
03 December 2008, 05:26 AM
Islamic Terrorism and other muslim related problems are complex and I am not suggesting that one should white-wash 1.2 billion human beings as representative of evil. On contrary I am trying to be the opposite, don't white wash things with statements like "terror has no religion", or "has nothing to do with a religion/islam" and such stuff.

Role of Islam is indeed at the very core of this and other such issues. There are many other compounding factors, which don't imply that one can discount the religion from all this.

Islam is not a book, and the extreme violence and oppression in Islamic society is due to way it is organized which inhibit any culture of knowledge and freedom, which status quo for muslim populations in many places. This cannot be pushed under the carpet and violence blamed on random terrorist, while ignoring the society which breeds the terrorism.

Ajmal Kasab, the terrorist caught in Mumbai, was a petty thief till he got hired by Laskar. When he returned after terrorist training, to his native village where he was one of the poorest of the poor, he found himself being treated with a new respect by everybody. The story is in TOI today, and such stories are stacked in archives of our times. Yet, we refuse to admit what we can't believe inspite of so much evidence. We only repeat same nonsense inspite of all facts, because it is what we want to hear.

As far as atanu's list of questions which is quiet interesting, I'll provide a reply in a few days. I am tempted to reply immediately, yet it will take some days to organize it.

hare krishna

atanu
03 December 2008, 06:34 AM
This is what I meant when I said religion has nothing to do with terrorism, not suggesting Islam is in any way peaceful. Even if it were, that would be immaterial, because the elite/rich will create some other crisis to bring about terrorism, where the common man will be forced to give up his life.

Bottom line, both extremes are wrong, one extreme that says Islam (and Christianity) is similar to eastern traditions, it's peaceful, and all that jazz:D. This cannot be proven, because if people point to one quote in koran about peace, another person can show hundred quotes pointing to violence.

Nor is it advisable to go to another extreme, that is, religion is THE problem. No, politics is the real problem and religion, especially barbaric religions like Islam, are used as tools by the ruling class to keep the masses divided, poor, and hungry.:mad:


Namaste Infinite,

Reasonable view as per my orientation. Dialectical conflicts have never been absent in any society. And dialectical conflicts do re-generate. However, scriptures teach one to take responsibilty for one's problems.


Regarding the second observation, I have some reservation. If one approaces Vedic verses in a way virginity of Mary has been interpreted in another post, one will find abundant examples to prove that the Veda is most violent, chauvinistic etc. etc.. Because, in general, Hindus are not brutal, so the Vedic verses on battles do not come question (in general).

But a single verse of Veda is maligned when people have to pin the blame on Santana Dharma for the ills of inequity in Hindu society -- the Casteism. I have tried to show that Veda does not sanction untouchability. It on the other hand teaches that all varnas are of one purusha.

It is easy to blame scriptures for the effects of greed and dirt of human ego. As someone whom I respect pointed out: So long as we engage the illusion that we are not ALL ONE, it always will be such.

To your statement "Politics is the main problem", I say that Politics is non-intelligent. How it is run depends on intelligent humans. Herein, the role of I-ME-Mine is the main cause. And herein, the belief and acceptance of varna accrued through one's own Karma, makes the Hindu society a stable society.

Om

MahaHrada
03 December 2008, 07:51 AM
Well said. My analogy is that 'it' is never black or white, only varying shades of grey. The word terrorism has been bandied about so much I'm quite sick of it. Its basically boiled down to the "I'm right. You're wrong" philosophy. Terrorism is synonymous with 'the other side' . Those guys are the terrorists, so we have the terrorists themselves saying that the people trying to stop the terrorists are the real terrrorists. "Bush is a terrorist." "The government of Sri Lanka is the "real' terrorist." So basically through the last ten or more years the word has deteriorated into meaning very little, as the attempt to define it is nigh impossible.

"Communism" is another word we could do without. Its root is "common" which is also the root of community, commune, communal, communication, and a few more with somewhat more positive connotations, I suppose. But the dreaded word 'communism' has taken all the heat.

I recall slightly after hitting puberty when my weak mind was just entering Piaget's formal thought stage arguing with a classmate about communism. He had made some statement that all commies oughta be shot, but then when I queried him about giving me any single tenet of communism, he had no answer. (Neither did I know anything, but at least I knew I knew nothing, and he didn't know I knew nothing.") Twas then I learned first hand that idiocy is often best demonstrated by words, and in essence they're meaningless. .. Ramblin a bit..
Aum Namasivaya

I agree, you are glossing on many important issues of modern, especially western society, words do indeed loose or change meaning mainly because the public is not educated, or interested enough to educate themselves and simplifications are the hallmark of advertising and the media business, since people derive their "education" almost solely through the media things will even get worse.

Since everything has become a business including Religion and politics, and business says what sells good is true, language looses its signficance, gathering correct information has become exceedingly difficult.

There is this incident of a teacher who is teaching plain vanilla hatha yoga and to sell it better and because he is a buddhist he calls it tibetan yoga, since he is sucessful and tibetans are greedy people even buddhist centers and the Lamas are giving full support.
If we are unlucky in a few years time it will be a general belief belive in the west that Hatha Yoga was original tibetan and Hindu derived Hatha Yoga is copied from tibetan buddhismus. Spiritual remarketing, nobody gives a damm about the real history of yoga.

Since also Indian fake Gurus want to sell their product they read the new age garbage books about tantra and yoga and remarket it again as "ancient indian tantra secrets" so that way all kind of garbage becomes established as truth, and we have indian "Gurus" offering western sex theraphy culled from western books as authentic tantra, and so on with other topics. You can imagine what happens to Language on the way-it is distorted and reduced to meningless chatter.
We never had a common definition of terms in the history of language but the pace in which meaning becomes distorted is incredibly faster now because of globalization and predominance of greed above scholarship and learning.

And this is just one example.The same happened to Kundalini Yoga, nearly everybody in the west hearing the word kundalini yoga think of the Yoga offered by a Sikh organisation, also this distortion of the word Kundalini Yoga in the west is due to a remarketing done by the sikh 3HO Group. While the concept of Kundalini is originally quite unrelated to the sikh religion and their guru parampara and mantras due to remarketing i in the west it is ´synonymous with extensive chanting of sikh mantras.
If i try to tell people that Kundalini is a Hatha Yoga, a shakta and a general agamic concept they laugh at me and say i am stupid-they say No you are wrong Kundalini Yoga is where you sing a lot of mantras. But on Hdf education is not much better it is sufficent to be respected as an advaitan when you post all is one at least 10 times a day and add some random quote from the bible koran or upanishad or vedas wheter all of this makes sense or not is somehow secondary.
Somebody said the problem with common sense is that it is not common anymore.

simex
03 December 2008, 10:35 AM
And this is just one example.The same happened to Kundalini Yoga, nearly everybody in the west hearing the word kundalini yoga think of the Yoga offered by a Sikh organisation, also this distortion of the word Kundalini Yoga in the west is due to a remarketing done by the sikh 3HO Group. While the concept of Kundalini is originally quite unrelated to the sikh religion and their guru parampara and mantras due to remarketing i in the west it is ´synonymous with extensive chanting of sikh mantras.
If i try to tell people that Kundalini is a Hatha Yoga, a shakta and a general agamic concept they laugh at me and say i am stupid-they say No you are wrong Kundalini Yoga is where you sing a lot of mantras. But on Hdf education is not much better it is sufficent to be respected as an advaitan when you post all is one at least 10 times a day and add some random quote from the bible koran or upanishad or vedas wheter all of this makes sense or not is somehow secondary.
Somebody said the problem with common sense is that it is not common anymore.

I am in the west. I have definitely seen the tantric sex secrets phenomenon. However, I have never seen kundalini yoga associated with Sikhism. As I understand, it was picked up by the hippie movement in the late 60s, but even those hippies knew about proper pranayama techniques, even if they didn't understand the culture and philosophy from which it was culled.

I don't mean to be rude, but can I ask an obvious question? Why is it important that sanatana dharma be credited?

In my experience studying religion, I have come to the realization that there are two types of religious people. One is the truth seeker, who wishes to know if there is a purpose for their existence, and how life should be lived. The other is the identity seeker, who wishes to understand and display proudly a piece of their cultural identity. The latter is quite the opposite inent of sanatana dharma-- in my reading of it, atleast-- and serves only to excite the ego which spiritual practice seeks to destroy.

Sanatana Dharma is sanatana and need not be defended or preserved like a museum piece. It is living and ever changing, and yet always consistant; a testament to the one timeless absolute which manifests itself so diversely.

Even if the entire population of earth is destroyed, as it surely will, and Shiva's drum beats again, or Vishnu enters another dream, life will manifest again, and sanatana dharma will be discovered. Not because it is magical, but because it is the truth and can never be extinguished, only forgotten and remembered.

Once I had a dream in which I was arguing with another man very violently, but soon my bodily functions waked me. As I lay there in my bed, the anger still festered, and I looked around wildly to find the man, but there was only myself, and the anger subsided, washed away by the light of truth.

Om shanti shanti shanti

MahaHrada
03 December 2008, 11:12 AM
I am in the west. I have definitely seen the tantric sex secrets phenomenon. However, I have never seen kundalini yoga associated with Sikhism. As I understand, it was picked up by the hippie movement in the late 60s, but even those hippies knew about proper pranayama techniques, even if they didn't understand the culture and philosophy from which it was culled.

I don't mean to be rude, but can I ask an obvious question? Why is it important that sanatana dharma be credited?

In my experience studying religion, I have come to the realization that there are two types of religious people. One is the truth seeker, who wishes to know if there is a purpose for their existence, and how life should be lived. The other is the identity seeker, who wishes to understand and display proudly a piece of their cultural identity. The latter is quite the opposite inent of sanatana dharma-- in my reading of it, atleast-- and serves only to excite the ego which spiritual practice seeks to destroy.

Sanatana Dharma is sanatana and need not be defended or preserved like a museum piece. It is living and ever changing, and yet always consistant; a testament to the one timeless absolute which manifests itself so diversely.

Even if the entire population of earth is destroyed, as it surely will, and Shiva's drum beats again, or Vishnu enters another dream, life will manifest again, and sanatana dharma will be discovered. Not because it is magical, but because it is the truth and can never be extinguished, only forgotten and remembered.

Once I had a dream in which I was arguing with another man very violently, but soon my bodily functions waked me. As I lay there in my bed, the anger still festered, and I looked around wildly to find the man, but there was only myself, and the anger subsided, washed away by the light of truth.

Om shanti shanti shanti

You are missing the point, and that in a way beyond all hope that i ever could make you understand it. See you next life for another try.

simex
03 December 2008, 11:46 AM
You are missing the point, and that in a way beyond all hope that i ever could make you understand it. See you next life for another try.

Try me. My mind is not immovable, and my position is not firm. I am here to learn from the experiences of others. if you deny me the opportunity, is that not adharmic?

I have to say though, in my experience, "It's hopeless to explain it to you" is a euphemism for "I have no explanation".

Prove me wrong, I implore you. Nothing makes me happier than to learn that I am wrong; it's only then that real learning takes place.

MahaHrada
03 December 2008, 01:06 PM
You miss the topic the thread is about language and that people do not use it anymore to convey information but use it like a weapon to push their agenda.

We listen so much to politicians advertisment and media and these have stolen our language and turned it into a weapon or a way to manipulate our minds, so that we ourselves may loose the ability to communicate, in the end whatever one says becomes meaningless and we may even loose knowledge of our own past to salespersons and politicians because wrong definition of terms may affect also our knowledge of history. (like in the case of the origin of yoga)

The thread staretd with the word Terrorism and how it is distorted by political agenda and media.

The story about the distortion of the word Yoga was only an example, could have been any other word that changed its meaning because of some inferior agenda like greed or power. I do not see any connection between what you write and the topic at hand.

simex
03 December 2008, 01:49 PM
I apologize, you hit a topic that resonated with me, and I forgot the thread.

Let me guide the thread gently back to the topic at hand...

In the US this effect is widely used by idealogues, maybe you are here too and see the same things as I do.

When white people are fighting opressors, they are called rebels or even freedom fighters-- like in the case of the hostage situation in russia in recent years. But when an analogous group of brown people appear on the scene, they are called insurgents or terrorists. If america were attacked by a foreign nation, we would most certainly not call our resistance "the insurgency".

I actually watched a documentary about a man who works for the republican party. His job is to organize focus groups which gauge how people feel emotionally about different words for the same thing.

This man is responsible for coining "pro-life" as opposed to "anti-abortion", and the "death tax" as opposed to the "estate tax", among other things. They make no effort to hide their propaganda efforts, but I'm sure they have a euphemism for "propaganda" too.

President bush was a big fan of the power of words to mislead. We got the "patriot act" which heavily eroded the constitution (how patriotic!); we got the "clean air act" which lessened restrictions on air pollution; and we got the "healthy forests act" which lessened restrictions on deforestation.

When the US unleashed a flurry of bombs on Iraq, to frighten (i.e. terrorize) the inhabitants, we called it "shock and awe".

etc...

i share your frustrations. People are easily misled by the emotional attachment they have to words. And what is even more frustrating is how easy it is to learn that words are not reality; that the map is not the terrain. I think simple logical lessons like this are not taught in school on purpose, so that propaganda will continue to be effective.

It is truly sad.

atanu
03 December 2008, 10:43 PM
Well said. My analogy is that 'it' is never black or white, only varying shades of grey. Aum Namasivaya

Namaste Eastern Mind,

Yes, I agree that it is never white and black in Guna conflict situation.

For example, I am leader of group X and I give a fiery speech against group Y people. Group Y has a cunning leader and he uses my speech as a catalyst to motivate his people (Group Y) to attack and kill innocent group X people.

To whom can the blame be apportioned. Its all gray.

Yet when it comes to pitting Ignorance versus Knowledge, it is Black and White. For example Shri Krishna teaches: What is night for the ignorant is day for the Yogi.

Regards

Om

atanu
03 December 2008, 11:14 PM
Sanatana Dharma is sanatana and need not be defended or preserved like a museum piece. It is living and ever changing, and yet always consistant; a testament to the one timeless absolute which manifests itself so diversely.

Even if the entire population of earth is destroyed, as it surely will, and Shiva's drum beats again, or Vishnu enters another dream, life will manifest again, and sanatana dharma will be discovered. Not because it is magical, but because it is the truth and can never be extinguished, only forgotten and remembered.

Once I had a dream in which I was arguing with another man very violently, but soon my bodily functions waked me. As I lay there in my bed, the anger still festered, and I looked around wildly to find the man, but there was only myself, and the anger subsided, washed away by the light of truth.

Om shanti shanti shanti


I bow to this: Not to increase the ego strength but in appreciation of Sat Sangh that is afforded to us.

Om

Infinite Regress
06 December 2008, 08:58 AM
Something curious here. Doesn't SM78's first post itself reveal that there are hindu terrorists? I mean, the people who tortured the sadhvi and other innocent men....what are they, if not Hindu terrorists?

The only diff. is, while Islamic terrorists hurt non-Muslims, these Hindu terrorists are busy hurting their own people. In this context, there definitely is a Hindu terrorism, although different from Islamic and other forms of terrorism.

PRABHU P
06 December 2008, 10:58 AM
Namasthe viewers,

The terrorism in any form should be condemned. Terrorism in any form shouldn't be encouraged. No one has any right to destroy any thing that has been created by the Goddess on any grounds. At the same time every one has every right to defend themselves. It is the duty of the Governments to enact necessary laws to try and punish the terrorists without allowing them to escape on flimsy grounds. No other country in the world other than India which profess the Sanathana Dharma allows all religions to flourish and it is whimsical to say that the minority rights are not protected in India.

Sarvey Bhavanthu Sukhinaha.

With regards,
PRABHU P

saidevo
07 December 2008, 11:30 PM
Namaste everyone.

I recently watched a film titled "The Kingdom" that I think has a point on a whether religion is responsible for terrorism committed in its name. The story is briefly this:



Muslim terrorists bomb and kill at random the people in an American colony of an oil company workers in Saudi Arabia. Impersonating Saudi Arabian police, terrorists hijack a car and shoot people in a softball ground and the residents in the surrounding houses. A suicide bomber, in the guise of guiding the panic stricken people to safety, blows himself up, and then a second bomb is exploded from an ambulance using marbles and nails as projectors. Over a hundred people are killed and two hundred others injured. The FBI's lead agent in Saudi Arabia gets killed in the explosion.

The US manages to convince the Saudi government and sends a team of combat-trained FBI agents which includes a woman to investigate the bombing and killing. Initially there is resistance from the Saudi authorities that the American investigations would be confined to only what they are shown and where they are led to. The Saudi government however is keen to bring the terrorist leader to book (because the US has been a main oil consumer for them), and the FBI agents convince their Prince to sanction a specialized, thorough investigation under the leadership of their own colonel.

The amount of orthodoxy displayed in the Muslim public life at Saudi is amazing: both the public and the security people look at the non-Muslims with unveiled contempt, derision and hatred; the FBI woman agent is not allowed to touch the body of a Muslim killed in the bombing; she is not allowed to shake hands; not allowed to meet the Prince; when she is allowed to examine the dead bodies of non-Muslims, she manages to extract the shrapnel pieces from them, finding marble peaces in the process. The other team members meantime dig up a marshy pit to find traces of the exploded ambulance.

Investigations shift to an adjacent building of residential apartments from where it is suspected that the terrorists might have filmed the scenes of explosion and killing after it is posted to an Islamic website (which an agent discovers in his laptop). As the team approaches the building, it is welcomed by heavy artillery firing from the windows and open terrace, which includes using rocket launchers. They however manage they to 'fight back' with a single machine gun and pistols, killing the key attackers (this is typical of the sensational heroism displayed in Hollywood films) and enter the building. One of the agents is caught by the terrorists who try to behead him in an apartment in the building and film the scene. The woman agent rescues him in a daring attempt. She also spots a gentle-looking Muslim family in an apartment, terrified by all the fighting going on. As she enters the apartment and offers a lollypop to the frightened small girl, the girl in turn offers her a present--a marble! This clue leads to the leader of the terrorists, the old granddad of the family. His son shoots the Arabian colonel from behind but the other agents kill him instantly. The old man, who is a bomb-maker, tries to shoot them with a machine gun hidden in his clothes, but is gunned down.


The film ends with a message, which is the point of this posting. As the agents return home, one of them asks another what he whispered earlier to the woman FBI agent in the briefing before they flew to Arabia. At the same time, the mother of the family of the killed terroist leader asks her young son what his grandpa whispered to him in the ear before he died. The answer is the same in either case:

"... we were gonna kill them all."
"Don't fear them, my child. We are gong to kill them all."

Both these answers are obviously born out of mad religion coursing the veins of the people involved. It knots up in the stomach to watch how young boys with bright and innocent faces are involved in the atmosphere of violence based on the religion in countries like Saudi Arabia.

The advent of Abrahamic religions is a curse to mankind. It was Christian terrorism since the dawn of Christianity that indulged in massive, mindless killing in the name of religion as the history shows. Today it is the Islamic terrorism that has replaced modern weaponry and conveyance for blades and steeds.

Whether leaders or suicide bombers, what do the terrorists want to establish by such mindless violence? Only the supremacy of their religion and a monopolistic society of its followers! It is not the money, IMO, or even greed for power, but only the establishment of their own religion and destruction of all others that is the motivating force of Jihadi and Jesuit terrorism.

saidevo
08 December 2008, 12:12 AM
Ashok Malik presents a different perspective of the recent terrorist attacks in Mumbai, and explains how the LeT desperately strives for a war between India and Paksistan, which would enable them to join forces with the Pak army and earn more recognition and territory. LeT and Al Qaeda might combine in the future for more global violence and the US has started to recognize this possibility after the recent Mumbai attacks.

http://dailypioneer.com/141606/Problemistan.html

Infinite Regress
08 December 2008, 09:27 AM
The advent of Abrahamic religions is a curse to mankind. It was Christian terrorism since the dawn of Christianity that indulged in massive, mindless killing in the name of religion as the history shows. Today it is the Islamic terrorism that has replaced modern weaponry and conveyance for blades and steeds.

Whether leaders or suicide bombers, what do the terrorists want to establish by such mindless violence? Only the supremacy of their religion and a monopolistic society of its followers! It is not the money, IMO, or even greed for power, but only the establishment of their own religion and destruction of all others that is the motivating force of Jihadi and Jesuit terrorism.

People always do things for profit, even the most irrational man wouldn't do things for the heck of it. Establishing the supremacy of religion isn't the reason for any of this, since it's got no practical value. OTOH, the idea (that one must establish the supremacy of religion) might motivate people to conquer land and labor. And land/labor has practical value.

In short, by projecting the illusion that they're trying to establish the supremacy of religion, these bigots are actually grabbing land/labor, and becoming rich at the expense of the common man. Only this can explain the 'practicality' part of religious terrorism. The desire for religious supremacy alone doesn't cut it.

MahaHrada
08 December 2008, 10:35 AM
posting has appeared twice i deleted one

MahaHrada
08 December 2008, 10:45 AM
People always do things for profit, even the most irrational man wouldn't do things for the heck of it. Establishing the supremacy of religion isn't the reason for any of this, since it's got no practical value. OTOH, the idea (that one must establish the supremacy of religion) might motivate people to conquer land and labor. And land/labor has practical value.

In short, by projecting the illusion that they're trying to establish the supremacy of religion, these bigots are actually grabbing land/labor, and becoming rich at the expense of the common man. Only this can explain the 'practicality' part of religious terrorism. The desire for religious supremacy alone doesn't cut it.

Nobody is arguing that there is only one reason for cruelty and inhuman violence and war, there are always several reasons, for instance in the case of political extremism, communism, socialism or fascism many people are actually stupid enough to belive in the mad doctrines, and therefore follow their political leaders, other follow because of brainwash, others just follow to grab land or riches or power, still others are followers of extremists beause they are perverted and take pleasure in killing and torturing others.

Others use some politicial or religious motivation as an excuse for revenge or for getting rid of people that have been creditors or they had some other problems with.

But there is something else that is important in the extremists religious inhumanity, which is lacking in other cases of extremist violence.
like in the case of islam or earlier on in historic Christianity dangerous doctrines are backed up by ages of religious indoctrination.

The difference is that some varities of violence are already thoroughly embedded in society by Religion and therefore more deeply rooted, because evil backward customs and intolerance and violent deeds are perceived as homourable deeds for ages and nobody is questioning that.

In the case of communist violence, for instance you have to constantly brainwash people taking pains to embedd the inhuman hate again and again, using detention camps and other methods.

The doctrines that are implanted include ideas that religion is evil and only an instrument of the ruling class, other ideas like the one that the enemies that have to be killed and tortured are those that are honoured by the ruling class, which means people that are honoured because of acomplishments that took place in other communities than the communist community, or are honors based on religion.

Also the doctrtine to oppress and kill people only because they have some political influence that they use for conserving the current state of non communist goverments, or simply instigate hate against people because they have some money, shops, houses, factories or land which they can be robbed off, is part of the communist indoctrination.

Religiously motivated violent doctrines on the contrary are embedded through a long history of violent oppressive and inhuman customs of the respective communities and are therefore more deeply rooted in the mind of the extremist than political extremist violence, also having god on your side is a better argument for ruthless deeds than having Mao Tse tung or Che guevara on your side.
Because God is all knowing while Mao tse tung was only a human, thats why obedience to god is more powerful a belief that can manipulate the mind to act in a gruesome way, than obedience to a political leader like Hitler, Mao or Stalin.

For instance the idea that simply belonging to another religion is something evil that deserves punishment from god, and that this is why some other cultures are considered backward lower or evil and an enemy right from the very beginning , and all throughout the history of that religion, that is a real powerful background motivation for current acts of oppression.

If a society that traditionally excuses all kinds of opresssion, torture and violent acts , as a religious duty done in the name of god, even inside the family and in ones own community. and on top of that there are doctrines that excuse acts, that are even more of a pronounced oppressive or violent nature against outsiders, it will be a society or culture that is much more easily influenced by all kind of violent doctrines, but of course especially prone to the Influence of religiously motivated violence.

Thats why i think that Islamic fundamentalism poses the same threat to the worldwide community of peace loving nations, peaceful religious communitys of all religions, and also to the freedom of individuals than fascism, communism or socialism does.

One should not mistakenly think that the danger of religious fundamentalism is any less than that of Maoism, and other political extremist movements.

History clearly shows that those devoted to political extremism and religious extremism always try to exterminate religious and cultural variety, with all their means including extreme torture and violence, usually by killing religious leaders and destroying temples and places of worship.

This is because extremists cannot tolerate any idea different from their own, because of that rigidity most of the time extremists even tend to exterminate people of their own movement, should they happen to have their own thoughts, that shows how jealously they guard their respective belief systems, and how important the idea of the superiority of their own ideas over others is for all varieties of extremists.

Why should this be different for islamist religious extremists, why should they "project an illusion" when all other extremists also belive in the Infallibility of their inhuman doctrines?

It seems all you are trying is to agitate, and push exactly the communist and socialist doctrine that the so called ruling class is using the religious leaders and Religion to oppress people and therefore are enemies of the oppressed working class and have to be exterminated.

MahaHrada
08 December 2008, 01:02 PM
Mark Steyn: Jews get killed, but Muslims feel vulnerable

By MARK STEYN
Syndicated columnist
Shortly after the London Tube bombings in 2005, a reader of Tim Blair, The Sydney Daily Telegraph's columnist wag, sent him a note-perfect parody of a typical newspaper headline:
"British Muslims Fear Repercussions Over Tomorrow's Train Bombing."
Indeed. And so it goes. This time round – Mumbai – it was the Associated Press that filed a story about how Muslims "found themselves on the defensive once again about bloodshed linked to their religion".
Oh, I don't know about that. In fact, you'd be hard pressed from most news reports to figure out the bloodshed was "linked" to any religion, least of all one beginning with "I-" and ending in "-slam." In the three years since those British bombings, the media have more or less entirely abandoned the offending formulations – "Islamic terrorists," "Muslim extremists" – and by the time of the assault on Mumbai found it easier just to call the alleged perpetrators "militants" or "gunmen" or "teenage gunmen," as in the opening line of this report in The Australian: "An Adelaide woman in India for her wedding is lucky to be alive after teenage gunmen ran amok."
Kids today, eh? Always running amok in an aimless fashion.
The veteran British TV anchor Jon Snow, on the other hand, opted for the more cryptic locution "practitioners." "Practitioners" of what, exactly?
Hard to say. And getting harder. For the Wall Street Journal, Tom Gross produced a jaw-dropping round-up of Mumbai media coverage: The discovery that, for the first time in an Indian terrorist atrocity, Jews had been attacked, tortured and killed produced from the New York Times a serene befuddlement: "It is not known if the Jewish center was strategically chosen, or if it was an accidental hostage scene."
Hmm. Greater Mumbai forms one of the world's five biggest cities. It has a population of nearly 20 million. But only one Jewish center, located in a building that gives no external clue as to the bounty waiting therein. An "accidental hostage scene" that one of the "practitioners" just happened to stumble upon? "I must be the luckiest jihadist in town. What are the odds?"
Meanwhile, the New Age guru Deepak Chopra laid all the blame on American foreign policy for "going after the wrong people" and inflaming moderates, and "that inflammation then gets organized and appears as this disaster" in Mumbai.
Really? The inflammation just "appears"? Like a bad pimple? The "fairer" we get to the, ah, inflamed militant practitioners, the unfairer we get to everyone else. At the Chabad House, the murdered Jews were described in almost all the Western media as "ultra-Orthodox," "ultra-" in this instance being less a term of theological precision than a generalized code for "strange, weird people, nothing against them personally, but they probably shouldn't have been over there in the first place."
Are they stranger or weirder than their killers? Two "inflamed moderates" entered the Chabad House, shouted "Allahu Akbar!," tortured the Jews and murdered them, including the young rabbi's pregnant wife. Their 2-year-old child escaped because of a quick-witted (non-Jewish) nanny who hid in a closet and then, risking being mowed down by machine-gun fire, ran with him to safety.
The Times was being silly in suggesting this was just an "accidental" hostage opportunity – and not just because, when Muslim terrorists capture Jews, it's not a hostage situation, it's a mass murder-in-waiting. The sole surviving "militant" revealed that the Jewish center had been targeted a year in advance. The 28-year-old rabbi was Gavriel Holtzberg. His pregnant wife was Rivka Holtzberg. Their orphaned son is Moshe Holtzberg, and his brave nanny is Sandra Samuels. Remember their names, not because they're any more important than the Indians, Britons and Americans targeted in the attack, but because they are an especially revealing glimpse into the pathologies of the perpetrators.
In a well-planned attack on iconic Mumbai landmarks symbolizing great power and wealth, the "militants" nevertheless found time to divert 20 percent of their manpower to torturing and killing a handful of obscure Jews helping the city's poor in a nondescript building. If they were just "teenage gunmen" or "militants" in the cause of Kashmir, engaged in a more or less conventional territorial dispute with India, why kill the only rabbi in Mumbai? Dennis Prager got to the absurdity of it when he invited his readers to imagine Basque separatists attacking Madrid: "Would the terrorists take time out to murder all those in the Madrid Chabad House? The idea is ludicrous."
And yet we take it for granted that Pakistani "militants" in a long-running border dispute with India would take time out of their hectic schedule to kill Jews. In going to ever more baroque lengths to avoid saying "Islamic" or "Muslim" or "terrorist," we have somehow managed to internalize the pathologies of these men.
We are enjoined to be "understanding," and we're doing our best. A Minnesotan suicide bomber (now there's a phrase) originally from Somalia returned to the old country and blew up himself and 29 other people last October. His family prevailed upon your government to have his parts (or as many of them as could be sifted from the debris) returned to the United States at taxpayer expense and buried in Burnsville Cemetery. Well, hey, in the current climate, what's the big deal about a federal bailout of jihad operational expenses? If that's not "too big to fail," what is?
Last week, a Canadian critic reprimanded me for failing to understand that Muslims feel "vulnerable." Au contraire, they project tremendous cultural confidence, as well they might: They're the world's fastest-growing population. A prominent British Muslim announced the other day that, when the United Kingdom becomes a Muslim state, non-Muslims will be required to wear insignia identifying them as infidels. If he's feeling "vulnerable," he's doing a terrific job of covering it up.
We are told that the "vast majority" of the 1.6 billion to 1.8 billion Muslims (in Deepak Chopra's estimate) are "moderate." Maybe so, but they're also quiet. And, as the AIDS activists used to say, "Silence=Acceptance." It equals acceptance of the things done in the name of their faith. Rabbi Holtzberg was not murdered because of a territorial dispute over Kashmir or because of Bush's foreign policy. He was murdered in the name of Islam – "Allahu Akbar."
I wrote in my book, "America Alone," that "reforming" Islam is something only Muslims can do. But they show very little sign of being interested in doing it, and the rest of us are inclined to accept that. Spread a rumor that a Quran got flushed down the can at Gitmo, and there'll be rioting throughout the Muslim world. Publish some dull cartoons in a minor Danish newspaper, and there'll be protests around the planet. But slaughter the young pregnant wife of a rabbi in Mumbai in the name of Allah, and that's just business as usual. And, if it is somehow "understandable" that for the first time in history it's no longer safe for a Jew to live in India, then we are greasing the skids for a very slippery slope. Muslims, the AP headline informs us, "worry about image." Not enough.
©MARK STEYN


http://www.ocregister.com/articles/mumbai-muslims-time-2248410-jews-muslim

Infinite Regress
09 December 2008, 01:07 AM
Mark Steyn: Jews get killed, but Muslims feel vulnerable



A typical bourgeois piece of propaganda, and I am shocked that Hindus fall for this. Today it's the Muslim, tomorrow, it'll be the turn of the Hindus. Even this article is quite disgusting, the author shows no compassion at all toward the victims, instead, he goes on and on about how 'evil' Muslims are, and how Jews are always the victims.

What about the Iraqi civilians who're murdered by American forces, what of the Palestinians whose homes/land have been occupied by Zionists? The author will be careful NOT to answer these things, instead, he'll focus on one thing and one thing only. Muslims are bad, Jews and Americans are angels who make no mistakes, this is his line of reasoning.

We have to look at both sides. While Islamic terrorism is condemnable, so is imperialism. In fact, they feed on each other.

EDIT:
Also, let's not forget that this so-called Islamic terrorism was invented by the west/zionists, otherwise, how else would these people acquire knowledge/logistics/funding, so much so they've become an international organization, expanding all over the world! If one says Saudi is responsible, let's not forget the west is close to Saudi (even Bush family is in bed with Saudi royalty).

All this would've been impossible without help from imperialists. In other words, west/zionists were okay with Islamic terrorism, as long as it was restricted to India, Russia, Africa etc. Now that they're targets, they're complaining. And Hindus fall for this, wow!

MahaHrada
09 December 2008, 05:37 AM
A typical bourgeois piece of propaganda, and I am shocked that Hindus fall for this. Today it's the Muslim, tomorrow, it'll be the turn of the Hindus. Even this article is quite disgusting, the author shows no compassion at all toward the victims, instead, he goes on and on about how 'evil' Muslims are, and how Jews are always the victims.

What about the Iraqi civilians who're murdered by American forces, what of the Palestinians whose homes/land have been occupied by Zionists? The author will be careful NOT to answer these things, instead, he'll focus on one thing and one thing only. Muslims are bad, Jews and Americans are angels who make no mistakes, this is his line of reasoning.

We have to look at both sides. While Islamic terrorism is condemnable, so is imperialism. In fact, they feed on each other.

EDIT:
Also, let's not forget that this so-called Islamic terrorism was invented by the west/zionists, otherwise, how else would these people acquire knowledge/logistics/funding, so much so they've become an international organization, expanding all over the world! If one says Saudi is responsible, let's not forget the west is close to Saudi (even Bush family is in bed with Saudi royalty).

All this would've been impossible without help from imperialists. In other words, west/zionists were okay with Islamic terrorism, as long as it was restricted to India, Russia, Africa etc. Now that they're targets, they're complaining. And Hindus fall for this, wow!

You are a communist extremist and you are agitating among Hindus,that should be clear by now and of course like any extremist you miss the point.

This article is about how the western media try to brainwash the public and push the perception that there is no such thing as islamic terrorism, the fact that Jews where targeted shows that the terror without doubt was religiously motivated. and that these people have been islamic terrorists not "teenage gunmen" or "inflamed moderates" or "practicioners".

There is not a single line in this article about "imperialism" or "zionism" or that muslims are "evil" and where does it mention jews and americans are "angels"?

The only criticism against muslims in this article is that the author is of the opinion that they, or their religious leaders do not condemm terrorist deeds with strong determination, but are silent, and show no intention of any reformation of islam.

Where does this article praise america ,israel or the west? Not that i think this would be bad per se, as you seem to think, only i like to mention such ideas are absent in the article and exist in your imagination only.

On the contrary it is directed against mainstream western, especially american and uk, media and government propaganda.
Of course the american and european goverments are only interested in establishing white supremacy and are not that much interested in countering Terrorism, only where it hurts their own agenda.

But establishment of caucasian supremacy over the dark skinned is not the topic of this thread or the article.

This thread is about the misuse of nomenclature, and especially nomeclature that is concerned with terrorism and used for purposes of propaganda, by the media and politicians thats why this article from mark steyn is on topic.

atanu
09 December 2008, 07:52 AM
Ashok Malik presents a different perspective of the recent terrorist attacks in Mumbai, and explains how the LeT desperately strives for a war between India and Paksistan, which would enable them to join forces with the Pak army and earn more recognition and territory. LeT and Al Qaeda might combine in the future for more global violence and the US has started to recognize this possibility after the recent Mumbai attacks.

http://dailypioneer.com/141606/Problemistan.html

Namaste Saidevoji,

It is easier for me to select the 2nd post of yours as more representative/more reasonable. No truly spiritual man will want dominion over others in the name of religion. On the other hand, a non-spiritual, non-ethical leader may take help of emotional appeal of religion to gain political end, since religion appeals to emotions.



But there is something else that is important in extremist religious inhumanity, which is lacking in other cases of extremist violence.
In the case of islam or earlier on in historic Christianity.

Which is that violence is thorououghly embedded in society by Religion and more deeply rooted, because evil backward customs and intolerance and violence are perceived as homourable deeds for ages and nobody is questioning that.

Regarding this, I wish to draw your attention to the pre-Christian era wars of Europe and middle East. The region was never free of conflict, starting from the war between the Trojans (conventionally understood as Romans) and the Archeans (conventionally understood as Greeks). The Archaeans are understood to have slaughtered the Trojans (except for some of the woman and children whom they kept or sold as slaves) and desecrated the temples, thus earning the gods' wrath.

Even before Christ or Mohammad, the region was full of wars among all parties. And we seem to forget that Christ Himself was physically the victim of such Rajas. These wars are always for the purpose of dominion. If religion is used, it is done to generate mass hysteria.

In fact, before Muslims became their number one enemies, Jews have fought three bloody wars against Roman empire, who were the main oppressors. And Jews have suffered at the hands of Christians more than at the hands of any other groups.

I agree partially to your statement "---violence are perceived as honourable deeds for ages and nobody is questioning that.--", since a business man has only the business interest in mind. And today, it is the rule of Vaishya. How many will disagree that it was for business reasons that the Al Qaeda and Bin Laden were nurtured. It is for business reasons that the dictators/monarchs of Saudi Arabia etc. are supported and tolerated at the expense of Democracy or secular governments.

But there are voices of reason against every sort of extremism -- of religious or of political nature. As an example only, I include link to such a website

http://www.theocracywatch.org/satan2.htm

A small portion from above:




Dr. Elaine Pagels, professor of History of Religion at Princeton University wrote a book titled The Origins of Satan. She explains in an interview with Ellen Kushner on WGBH, Boston Public Radio, what can happen when a society has a 'good vs. evil' world view:
"Every group and tribe has had ways of feeling superior to every other. I mean, every anthropologist knows that, but what's really different here is that you have a moral view - 'we are good, and you are evil.'
And what happens then," Pagels continues, "as was put into the mouth of Jesus in the Gospel of John: whoever kills you will think he's doing service to God. So that if a conflict between us and them turns into a moral conflict, so we're God's people, they are Satan's people, we can do anything we like with them. I think of that when I hear the term "ethnic cleansing." It's like there's dirt there. You know, it's a good thing to get rid of dirt."-----------------

I think it should be easy to agree for a Hindu (who has studied Brihadaraynaka) that everything is loved for the sake of self only. Till the true Self is not known, the state of affairs will be like this only. Wars of ego will merely shift centres.

I draw your attention to a Gita verse of 18th Chapter wherein Lord says:

61. Eeshwarah sarvabhootaanaam hriddeshe’rjuna tishthati;
Bhraamayan sarvabhootaani yantraaroodhaani maayayaa.

61. The Lord dwells in the hearts of all beings, O Arjuna, causing all beings, by His illusive power, to revolve as if mounted on a machine!

-----------------

Does a perpetrator of violence (in the name of religion) know wrong from right or is he an automaton mounted on a Guna machine by the Lord? How can we say that such a person is following his religion correctly?

I somehow believe that the time may be near ripe for spread of the knowledge of the Upanishads.

Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

MahaHrada
09 December 2008, 09:44 AM
I draw your attention to a Gita verse of 18th Chapter wherein Lord says:

61. Eeshwarah sarvabhootaanaam hriddeshe’rjuna tishthati;
Bhraamayan sarvabhootaani yantraaroodhaani maayayaa.

61. The Lord dwells in the hearts of all beings, O Arjuna, causing all beings, by His illusive power, to revolve as if mounted on a machine!

-----------------

Does a perpetrator of violence (in the name of religion) know wrong from right or is he an automaton mounted on a Guna machine by the Lord? How can we say that such a person is following his religion correctly?

I somehow believe that the time may be near ripe for spread of the knowledge of the Upanishads.

Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

This verse of the Gita refers to the koshas and the anatomy of the subtle body it is about all beings it doesn´t refer especially to violent political extremists or islamic terrorists it is about the relation of our divine self and the jivatma that dwell on an 8 petalled yantra (yantra aroodhaani here translated as "machine") that is situated in the heart.
Imbalances of prana cause a shifting moving or turning of the tiny jivAtma "capsule" inside that Nadi-Yantra giving rise to diverse emotions.

The rest of the posting is quite uninteresting and also completly disconnected to the topic and it is repetitive being only another instance where you illustrate your opinion that the "western tribes" or mlecchas are violent because of their inferior racial or genetic disposition what you prefer to term rajasic guna because it is a less offensive nomenclature, (which reminds me of the real topic of this thread) and that their violence and terrorism is unconnected to religion but depends on the race and region and is solely motivated by commercial greed not religious sentiments, these are all topics which i have already commented upon in other threads, so i think there is no need to go all over the same things again.
-------------------------------------


59-60(a). Jiva on account of its ever moving by the left and right paths is not visible. Just as a ball struck down (on the earth) with the bat of the hand springs up, so Jiva ever tossed by Prana and Apana is never at rest.
60(b)-61(a). He is knower of Yoga who knows that Prana always draws itself from Apana and Apana draws itself from Prana, like a bird (drawing itself from and yet not freeing itself) from the string (to which it is tied).
....
94. Now I shall give a description of Atman. In the seat of the heart is a lotus of eight petals. In its centre is Jivatma of the form of Jyotis and atomic in size, moving in a circular line. In it is located everything. It knows everything. It does everything. It does all these actions attributing everything to its own power, (thinking) I do, I enjoy, I am happy, I am
miserable, I am blind, I am lame, I am deaf, I am mute, I am lean, I am stout, etc. When it rests on the eastern petal which is of Sveta (white) colour, then it has a mind (or is inclined) to Dharma with Bhakti (devotion). When it rests on the south-eastern petal, which is of Rakta (blood colour), then it is inclined to sleep and laziness. When it rests on the southern petal, which is of Krishna (black) colour, then it is inclined to hate and anger. When it rests on the south-western petal which is of Nila (blue) colour, then it gets desire for sinful or harmful actions.

.....and so on for the other parts of the yantra.

Dhyanabindu upanishad

http://www.celextel.org/108upanishads/dhyanabindu.html

Infinite Regress
09 December 2008, 11:20 AM
You are a communist extremist and you are agitating among Hindus,that should be clear by now and of course like any extremist you miss the point.

This article is about how the western media try to brainwash the public and push the perception that there is no such thing as islamic terrorism, the fact that Jews where targeted shows that the terror without doubt was religiously motivated. and that these people have been islamic terrorists not "teenage gunmen" or "inflamed moderates" or "practicioners".



Calm down.:) The point is, you want to employ the word 'terrorism' to describe Islamists, and not call them practitioners etc. Will you also agree to call Zionists as terrorists, since their activities are no different from that of the Islamists? And will you call the Americans as terrorists for the same reason? If so, no problem. Else, you're a hypocrite.;)

MahaHrada
09 December 2008, 02:16 PM
Calm down.:) The point is, you want to employ the word 'terrorism' to describe Islamists, and not call them practitioners etc. Will you also agree to call Zionists as terrorists, since their activities are no different from that of the Islamists? And will you call the Americans as terrorists for the same reason? If so, no problem. Else, you're a hypocrite.;)

You are free to think whatever you want about me as long as it is not approval. To get approval from a leftwing extremist would make me think i lost my discernment.

Since terrorism has no definition which everybody agrees on, we have to first define the terms. If we use the most common definition of terrorism, that acts have to be done to create fear and oppression (terror), deliberatley target non combatants (civilians) and that they are perpetrated for an ideological reason, to be termend terrorist.

You can take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism
to get an impression what kind of consensus if any exists.

Following that definition there are maybe some actions of states that can be called terrorist acts, like the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

But i guess we would be stretching the definition of Terrorism to far and such things are better called crimes of war instead of terrorist acts, that way we are not running into the problem of only misusing the term to make the acts of political opponents appear illegal by calling them terrorists.

Nearly all terrorists are calling themselves freedom fighters or some such thing and the state they are opposing terrorist states.

There have been a few acts that could be termend terrorist as far as i know from zionist extremists, but there are no influential terrorist groups, but i know very little about extremist zionism, is this a must?

But how is this fact connected to the topic of this thread and what the heck have some zionist extremists assaults, if there have been any at all that fit the definition, to do with the danger of Islamist terrorism we are confronted with in Bharat?

2008 alone there where 6 bombings by islamists, in agartala, in ahmedabad in bangalore in delhi and jaipur besides the recent mumbai attack thats why islamist terror is an issue for us in this forum not whether some zionist group , nobody has ever heard off, allegedly has done a terrorist act, or has assasinated a political enemy or not, in some distant past, let the israeli goverment deal with this problem why should that palaestine/israel conflict concern us here?

Are the islamist terrorist crimes somehow excused and they are not terrorist acts or religiously motivated anymore if there exist also other groups be they zionist or maoist or whatever that fit the definition of Terror groups? Or what are you intending to tell us here?

amra
09 December 2008, 04:21 PM
A reminder to all that Islam is not a homogeneous entity. The term 'Islamic Terrorist' is misleading. The particular form of Islam responsible for these appaling actions is known as Wahabism. Wahibis developed out of the void, which was left by the advent of doubt in Europe, the rise of science, the advent of America and other factors. Whilst the west desecended into a science of the physical world, the spread of this 'void' to the east created the fanatical branch of Muslims known as Wahabis, who retreated into a blinkered literalistic faith. Wahabi ideology is behind terrorist acts, it is becoming the dominant form of Islam, but it is not representative of Islam as a whole. Whilst reading the words 'Islamic Terrorist' keep this in mind. Is the Hindu Dharam labelled as terrorist because of the acts of certain fanatics such as RSS and Hindutva? These groups are no different from the Islamic Terrorists, do people remember the mosque that was torn down in Ayodhya, and innocent muslim people attacked and raped?


"But there is something else that is important in extremist religious inhumanity, which is lacking in other cases of extremist violence.
In the case of islam or earlier on in historic Christianity.
Which is that violence is thorououghly embedded in society by Religion and more deeply rooted, because evil backward customs and intolerance and violence are perceived as homourable deeds for ages and nobody is questioning that."


MahaHradaNatha I admire the clarity of your postings, but I cannot follow the line. In an age of globalisation, the interpenetration of ideas has become 'too much' and in my opinion has lead to a 'saturation' of the 'solvent' but even then we must work with what we have and not throw the baby out with the bath water. The mythology of religions contains much that is helpful for mankind, to blame religion as the cause of violence is short-sighted. RSS and Hindutva have carried out terrorist acts but in the name of Hindu Dharam, do we accuse the Hindu Dharam of failing because some fools misinterpret scripture due to the dilution of their psyche and use it to further their agenda, of course not. Also note I understand the scale of terrorism is not the same, but I make the comparison to illustrate a point, the actions of RSS, Hindutva Arya Samaj are not on the same scale as 'Islmaic' Terrorism.

saidevo
09 December 2008, 10:06 PM
Namaste Atanu.



No truly spiritual man will want dominion over others in the name of religion. On the other hand, a non-spiritual, non-ethical leader may take help of emotional appeal of religion to gain political end, since religion appeals to emotions.


I agree that religion appeals to emotions, even in the case of Hinduism, though Hindus are generally perceived to be weak to the extent they are tolerant. Now, Hinduism has as many (if not more) non-spiritual, non-ethical leaders in India and abroad. Why isn't happening or has never happened with Hinduism that they want dominion over others, specially people of other cultures and faiths and nations, in subtle or crooked ways, brainwashing their own people for aggression in the name of religion?

• Would it mean that there is much more in the teachings of Hinduism than the teaching of slaying taught in the Vedas and Upanishads; or the perception of some that Gita teaches violence?

• Or would it mean that we know less about our religion or even less concerned about such knowledge than the followers of Abrahamic and other Indian religions? Why is that the Abrahamic religions foster ignorance, hatred and violence towards cultures and faiths of a different kind, at the highest echelons of their society and brainwash the common people into aggression, which Hinduism cannot even think of?

As for your observations of pre-Christian wars and conflicts that involved even desecration of temples, I would say that

• perhaps it was due to the perception that the 'dharma' or rather 'ambition' of kings was to enlarge their territory by annexing others. Alexander (the Great) invaded and captured lands all along up to the north of India;

• perhaps the desecration of temples indicates that the Greek and Roman religions were felt to be different by the other party, though they were essentially similar in their gods, rituals and teachings.

Hindu kings too fought and invaded neighbouring lands and those conflicts involved violence but the temples were never desecrated despite the various sects of beliefs in Hinduism.

Islamic invasion of India was certainly done in the name of religion though the amibition of dominion was behind it. The British invasion of India was even worse in the sense Christianity lurked behind every sly and vile deed of the British rulers, the height of which was to use our own people in their administration and army to destroy our culture and divide us.

I agree that religion is politics and business to the people whose ambition is dominion, still that ambition is carried out in the name of religion only, in subtle or crooked ways.

In today's world, most countries are democratic; business develops enough wealth; science and technology dominate life; certainly all these three--politics, business and technology--do not need religion; so if there is wisdom at the highest political and business levels, why can't these three be used to unite the world under one global government with a world citizenship? Why use religion to 'unite' the world by seeking dominion and destruction?

You have a wise, consistent, and philosophically precise POV for the state of things today: that 'guNa' and ego are the dominant factors in the automated play of God, which is enacted for these times of Kali Yuga and that this state will remain so long as (God intends that) the true Self is understood intellectually and realized experientially only by a tiny percentage of the human population.

Humans are the same physiologically the world over; yet human nature is different, as you say, because of the dominant 'guNa', which is a product of climate and food. But the point is, to what extent do the teachings of the Abrahamic religions contribute to 'balance the guNas' in a human so that he/she can become gradually wiser and move towards the knowledge of the true Self.

Hindu religion as everyone knows, is known as Hindu Dharma, which is the Sanatana Dharma for the whole mankind. The concept of dharma is not so prevalent in the teachings of Abrahamic religions (except for some basic do's and don't's), as it is elaborate in the case of Hinduism, where it defines the very life and living. Perhaps this is the practical reason for the violence in the name of religion.

Infinite Regress
10 December 2008, 01:11 AM
I agree that religion appeals to emotions, even in the case of Hinduism, though Hindus are generally perceived to be weak to the extent they are tolerant. Now, Hinduism has as many (if not more) non-spiritual, non-ethical leaders in India and abroad. Why isn't happening or has never happened with Hinduism that they want dominion over others, specially people of other cultures and faiths and nations, in subtle or crooked ways, brainwashing their own people for aggression in the name of religion?


Let's see. There are two possibilities:

#1 Hindus don't dominate others because they're too nice and tolerant.

If this possibility were true, then why would Hindus be corrupt and violent, as you've admitted yourself? Why would they fight amongst themselves, treat each other shabbily? Women are raped every minute in India. Add to that caste-based violence. Does all this point to tolerance?

#2 Hindus don't dominate because they're busy fighting with each other to think of other nations/cultures/religions:

Now this possibility makes more sense. Hindus have always proved to be greedy, corrupt individuals, willing to betray their nation for $$$. So is it not logical to assume that Hindus are reluctant to dominate others, only because they don't have the guts or the money/power, and the rest?

Bottom line, let's stop kidding ourselves that Hindus are nice people, because they don't dominate others. They don't dominate others, because they simply lack the means to do so, NOT because they're kind, gentle people. History proves otherwise.

Please note that my attacks are on unscrupulous Hindu people, and NOT on Hindu Dharma as such. So please don't accuse me of anti-Hindu tirade. Far from it, I am just trying to point out that most Hindus don't even know Sanskrit, so how can they know upanishads, and act on that basis? Therefore, to say that Hindus are good people due to upanishads is silly, because Hindus don't even know the upanishads!

sm78
10 December 2008, 01:25 AM
Let's see. There are two possibilities:

#1 Hindus don't dominate others because they're too nice and tolerant.

#2 Hindus don't dominate because they're busy fighting with each other to think of other nations/cultures/religions:

This is not about dominating, which seems to be your bottleneck in thinking.

#3 Hindus don't fight back blatant direct physical attack on their religion and society because as a community they have become too imbecile, are lead by people who are equally or more imbecile and hardly anyone can think beyond his own self or his family.

Some knowledgable people argue that this limitation in our thought and compassion for society at large is actually fine, and it is ok to just meditate at the moment.


But my past experience with people who use the 'bourgeois' quite often, is that they will just rant on their propaganda points, and no rational discussion is possible. So this post is many for other readers and not IR.

sm78
10 December 2008, 01:31 AM
Salman khan: "Condemning the terrorists, the actor says that those who engage in such terrorist activities are given wrong taalim since their childhood. "All those involved in Mumbai carnage were young men. They had been given wrong education since the age of four or five. What could they do? They got into this terrible terror game because they were shown the wrong path since their childhood."

One moslem actor who I otherwise like because of his honesty, who more or less wears his heart on his sleeves, gives the most rational reply to the situation. Except for an additional phrase "wrong training from childhood = Islam", he is bang on.

While others have jugled, played around, masturbaded intellectually, talked senseless nonsense to justify or explain a simple truth. All that was needed is to be honest with facts.

saidevo
10 December 2008, 01:45 AM
Namaste IR.



#2 Hindus don't dominate because they're busy fighting with each other to think of other nations/cultures/religions:

Now this possibility makes more sense. Hindus have always proved to be greedy, corrupt individuals, willing to betray their nation for $$$. So is it not logical to assume that Hindus are reluctant to dominate others, only because they don't have the guts or the money/power, and the rest?


• Would you say that Hindus fight among themselves in the name of Hinduism? Hindus do fight in the name of caste (not even varNa), but caste is not taught in the Vedas or Upanishads.

• Hindus also fight among themselves for the supremacy of their God (Shiva, VishNu, Krishna) but this fight is only academic and rhetoric and not in real life with violence as with the case of the sects of Abrahamic religions.

• The point I was making is that Hindus are as prone to the interplay of guNas despite the favourable climate and food of the nation, as in the case of people of Abrahamic faiths. The situation is the same in both cases: the result of the karma of the past lives, with this difference, however, IMO: because Hindu scriptures emphatically teach tolerance, unity of man and God, divinity of everything in creation and so on, the situation and exploitation in the name of the religion is far less aggravated with Hindus than with the people of Abrahamic religions whose scriptures do teach exclusivity of their God and people, and destruction of those who do not subscribe to their religion.

Further, Hinduism gives practical techniques of sAdhana, such as prANAyAmA, yoga and dharma which are eternal and universal. What practical technique do the Abrahamic religions give for a sAdhaka except the path of blind belief without questioning?



...most Hindus don't even know Sanskrit, so how can they know upanishads, and act on that basis? Therefore, to say that Hindus are good people due to upanishads is silly, because Hindus don't even know the upanishads!


This is like saying that an ordinary, modern householder does not know about advanced science or economics, so how can he/she lead a normal life of comforts and advancements. Just as science and technology is applied into every walk of life, in Hinduism, the teachings of the Vedas and Upanishads are dispensed in the Smritis such as the Puranas and Itihasas and in every bhakti literature used by the common Hindu.

For this same reason, not every Christian or Muslim is thorough with their scriptures or know the original languages they were written in, yet they lead a life prescribed by their scriptures due to the sermons they receive in their prayerhouses.

MahaHrada
10 December 2008, 06:35 AM
A reminder to all that Islam is not a homogeneous entity. The term 'Islamic Terrorist' is misleading. The particular form of Islam responsible for these appaling actions is known as Wahabism. Wahibis developed out of the void, which was left by the advent of doubt in Europe, the rise of science, the advent of America and other factors. Whilst the west desecended into a science of the physical world, the spread of this 'void' to the east created the fanatical branch of Muslims known as Wahabis, who retreated into a blinkered literalistic faith. Wahabi ideology is behind terrorist acts, it is becoming the dominant form of Islam, but it is not representative of Islam as a whole.

This statement about wahabism is purely academic but here i am more concerned with real life, this viewpoint on the particular is neglecting the whole, it doesn´t take into account that terrorism flourishes only in a certain atmosphere of, at least tolerance if not praise and can not exist without outside support. Mainstream Islam offers exactly this comfort zone where extremists can flourish.
Only muslims can reform islam as was aptly stated by mark steyn, thats why it is important to insist that terrorism is a problem whose roots are embedded in islamic religion, education and culture, otherwise the religious and political leaders of muslim nations can go on ignoring the problem and go on supporting extremist organisations.
Muslims worry about their image? Apparently not enough to act and stand up against extremists amongst them.

Due to the media dissassociating the problem of terorism from islamic religion and culture, and goverments even imparing free speech, outside pressure on the muslim religious and political leaders ceases and if it ceases there is no need for the religious and political leaders of islamic nations to condemm terrorist acts and pursue the perpetrators with full force (or at all).
The world will not benefit from such media propaganda campaigns.
If the religious and political leaders of islamic nations would today begin to wholeheartedly condemm terrorist acts and punish extremist perpetrators, islamic terrorism would be a thing of the past in about one year time, i guess, considering the fact that most political and religious leaders of islamic nations are autocratic despots and do not need a democratic consensus maybe islamist terrorism would be exterminated in even a shorter period.
Everyone of us has to decide if he or she wants that the pressure to reform islam and fight terrorism from within the muslim community should decrease or increase and accordingly he can adjust his opinion whether he agrees to dissasociate terrorism from Islam, or whether he will publicly insists that it is a religious and cultural problem and therefore has to be adressed by the political leaders and the religious leaders of muslim countries.
That is the choice we have.


Whilst reading the words 'Islamic Terrorist' keep this in mind. Is the Hindu Dharam labelled as terrorist because of the acts of certain fanatics such as RSS and Hindutva? These groups are no different from the Islamic Terrorists, do people remember the mosque that was torn down in Ayodhya, and innocent muslim people attacked and raped? [/size]

This is dalit marxist and colonialist propaganda. Hindutva or RSS whatever they may represent it is not associated with Terrorism.
please check this list of designated terrorist groups
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_groups

you will find not one Hindu group amongst those listed

For an unbiased western viewpoint on Hindutva and allied movements see David Frawley
http://www.vedanet.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=48&Itemid=2

on so called hindu fascism i recommend you take a look at another european pOV that of Koonrad eelst
http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/books/ayodhya/ch14.htm



MahaHradaNatha I admire the clarity of your postings, but I cannot follow the line. In an age of globalisation, the interpenetration of ideas has become 'too much' and in my opinion has lead to a 'saturation' of the 'solvent' but even then we must work with what we have and not throw the baby out with the bath water. The mythology of religions contains much that is helpful for mankind, to blame religion as the cause of violence is short-sighted. RSS and Hindutva have carried out terrorist acts but in the name of Hindu Dharam, do we accuse the Hindu Dharam of failing because some fools misinterpret scripture due to the dilution of their psyche and use it to further their agenda, of course not. Also note I understand the scale of terrorism is not the same, but I make the comparison to illustrate a point, the actions of RSS, Hindutva Arya Samaj are not on the same scale as 'Islmaic' Terrorism.

How many times have i to insist that i do not claim that religion is the sole reason for violence?
I only insist that it is one of the reasons. Another thing i insist on, but more for academic reasons, without much practical import, is that the root of inhumanity has existed in Islam and christianity right from the beginning, that is i consider that these religions in their history as well as their founders preached inhuman doctrines.

Of course there are in the Kuran and the Bible remnants of teachings that have been inherited from a past before jesus and muhammed appeared, and as such they maybe contain some reasonably helpful information, same is true for islamic culture but also these remnants and more liberal traditions within these religions are endangered by extremists or have already been exterminated.

Again regarding your last remark: This is lack of information, there is no Hindu terrorism, this is solely political extremists and colonialist propaganda.

atanu
10 December 2008, 06:49 AM
Namaste Atanu.

Humans are the same physiologically the world over; yet human nature is different, as you say, because of the dominant 'guNa', which is a product of climate and food. But the point is, to what extent do the teachings of the Abrahamic religions contribute to 'balance the guNas' in a human so that he/she can become gradually wiser and move towards the knowledge of the true Self.

Hindu religion as everyone knows, is known as Hindu Dharma, which is the Sanatana Dharma for the whole mankind. The concept of dharma is not so prevalent in the teachings of Abrahamic religions (except for some basic do's and don't's), as it is elaborate in the case of Hinduism, where it defines the very life and living. Perhaps this is the practical reason for the violence in the name of religion.

Namaste Saidevoji,

What I say is from a personal point of view and as is true of Hinduism, which fosters healthy debate but seldom a need to kill, I also do not wish to impose my perceptions as the only correct perception. Especially, when SM is warning us of intellectual masturbadion (sic)?

I have not read the full Bible or full koran. But I think the Ten Commandments is almost equivalent of Yama-Niyama. Agni is the teacher here and Agni (Abhram) is the teacher there. There are verses in Bible and Koran, which speak of one mankind, one God, and the need to make peace with one's adversary to avoid paying every penny at Magistrate's place (it is nothing but karma theory in another language). Jesus even teaches that "Blind should not teach the blind". He authorised only his discipiles to preach and did not authorise preaching at mass scale.

It is my view point that ascribing and attributing the mindless violence and hatred to scripture will harm everyone. OTOH, comparing notes with willing Muslims and Christians about the commonality of teachings will enlarge the goodwill. I do not even imagine that the dialogue will solve all/any problems but it will definitely not aggravate the situation further and most importantly God will be glad since one tried to solve differences with one's adversary.

I do not even imagine that the dialogue will solve some problems of the society, since Lord has said that only a few out of many millions go on to know Him truly. But dialogue and mutual appreciation will surely cure oneself.

--------------------------

A story from Shri Ramakrishna

A prostitute came to live as a neighbour of a very devout lady. The devout lady's peace was disturbed and day and night she cursed the prostitute for making her environment impure. She also prayed continually to God to remove the impious and immoral prostitute from the neighbourhood. The prostitute followed a simple regime. She did a morning puja everyday wherein she asked God of his forgiveness for her lowly way of earning livelihood.

At the time of reckoning with the Magistrate, the Prostitute was granted heaven while the very pious lady was sent to hell. The pious lady asked her folly and was told "You forgot me in the wake of your disgust."

--------------

I do not say that the story is universally applicable to all society members. But, IMO, the story is applicable for those who have selected God over the fleeting goods of this Universe.

Regards


Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
10 December 2008, 08:11 AM
Some knowledgable people argue ------ ok to just meditate at the moment.


But my past experience with people who use the 'bourgeois' quite often, is that they will just rant on their propaganda points, and no rational discussion is possible. So this post is many for other readers and not IR.


Namaste Singhi,

Let us first clear out the basic premise.

A spiritualist believes the spirit to be the progenitor of the gross. One indivisible Pragnya Sarvesvara leads to many hued Taijjassa, which is the intermediate to the Fleshy waking state, which again is agnivaisvanaro.

A spiritualist who has faith on his own scriptures will not deny that one Rudra abhisekham will do more to soothe violent Rudras that surround us on everyside. One calm silent mind can subjugate thousand savage elephant minds. Very few will say that the pain of samsara is enjoyable.

That is the reason why Gurus like Shri Ramakrishna or Sai Baba attract thousands. Disturbed people come again and again since the Self realised gurus with their superior mental strength impart much needed peace. Swami Vivekananda indeed said that a meditating yogi does more than a thousand so-called reformers in terms of peace. On the other hand, one thought of anger, one word of hatred fills up the all pervading Taijjassa on all sides with violent Rudras.

If you cannot agree to these spiritual teachings then perhaps your platform is different and there is no point of any discussion since there will be never a meeting of minds.

I have faith that Sanatana Dharma is not the ill. On the contrary, lack of it is the ill. To cure the ills of the burning samsara, more of sanatana dharma and not less of it is required. And on this account, I am proud that I am a Hindu.

Love.

Om Namah Shivaya

amra
10 December 2008, 02:34 PM
"Another thing i insist on, but more for academic reasons, without much practical import, is that the root of inhumanity has existed in Islam and christianity right from the beginning, that is i consider that these religions in their history as well as their founders preached inhuman doctrines".

This academic stance, is one totally opposed to islam and christianity, in which people believe in the infallibility and purity of their prophets. By saying the prophet Muhammed preached a doctrine of inhumanity, is to strike at the sacred core of the religion. I can imagine even a moderate muslim being angered by these comments, what do you aim to achieve by taking this stance?

MahaHrada
10 December 2008, 07:16 PM
"Another thing i insist on, but more for academic reasons, without much practical import, is that the root of inhumanity has existed in Islam and christianity right from the beginning, that is i consider that these religions in their history as well as their founders preached inhuman doctrines".

This academic stance, is one totally opposed to islam and christianity, in which people believe in the infallibility and purity of their prophets. By saying the prophet Muhammed preached a doctrine of inhumanity, is to strike at the sacred core of the religion. I can imagine even a moderate muslim being angered by these comments, what do you aim to achieve by taking this stance?

If this angers a muslim he is not what i would call moderate. Probably he is one of the inflamed moderates deepak chopra talks about :)
But i guess there is no such thing as a moderate muslim or christian if the moderates already get crazy about an opinion insignificant people like me have.
I do not aim to achieve anything with this opinion it is only what i think about these guys, that they have not been exactly that which i was always missing to make me feel happy in this life.
on the contrary....

sm78
11 December 2008, 04:12 AM
A spiritualist believes the spirit to be the progenitor of the gross.

Yes, this is the very basis of sanatana dharma.



A spiritualist who has faith on his own scriptures will not deny that one Rudra abhisekham will do more to soothe violent Rudras that surround us on everyside. One calm silent mind can subjugate thousand savage elephant minds.
Who has denied the need for meditation, rudra abhishekam or sandhya vandana? It is not only needed, but essential to understand the aforementioned basis of sanatana dharma, the one spirit.



Very few will say that the pain of samsara is enjoyable.
I guess so. That's my experience at least.


That is the reason why Gurus like Shri Ramakrishna or Sai Baba attract thousands. Disturbed people come again and again since the Self realised gurus with their superior mental strength impart much needed peace. Swami Vivekananda indeed said that a meditating yogi does more than a thousand so-called reformers in terms of peace.
I don't want to make generic comment on the people mentioned, but personally I don't regard Ramakrishna or Sai Baba to be the tourch bearers of sanatana dharma. Their message and presence may have been reasons for solace of many people (thousands?), but it has hardly helped the society to perpetuate towards peace.

I don't see Krishna saying anywhere that it does more good to society in terms of peace to be like a meditating yogi in the time of war. Did you? Nor does the upanisads. Nor does anywhere in Ramayana and Mahabharata.Vedas?

Yet, the indisputable need for meditation is never disputed anywhere.


On the other hand, one thought of anger, one word of hatred fills up the all pervading Taijjassa on all sides with violent Rudras.
What is anger? Is it just looking hot and red? Was the seer to whom veda mata gayatri revealed herself an asur, even after becoming brahmarshi? In mahabharata, krishna got hot and red many times to an extent that it required an elaborate stuti by those present to prevent a calamity. Was he very dirsturbed? Might he have benefited, if he had the oppertunity to sit near Sai Baba?

Or, Is Anger an asuric urge of causing damage to another being to preserve one's own? Is it about being hot, red and pink or thousand rudras dancing (who will dance even if you are meditating), or is it a vritti whose basis and perpose is rooted in the ego and body?

Like all other asur vrittis, could anger be originally something divine only poisoned in its false association with Ego?

Could it be that this anger and intolerance be about preserving the roots of a culture, whose foundations were laid in the dim past by self realized individuals, whose sole purpose was to make the real progenitor shine forth from the clutches of the gross in all of human life? Will this anger have a basis, when it is known that Islam stands against everything that the great forebearers of the sanatana stood for? Could it be that this anger and intolerance against Islam is not about what is good for atanu, singhi or maybe thousand such individuals at all?

Meditation is good for singhi, but maybe it is not his good we are concerned of here? Could it be that what is good for singhi, and good for atanu are false concepts as these identities will soon drop down dead?

Can anger, which is not touched by egoistic ends of preserving the body self, be called anger just because one appears hot and red outwadly?


If you cannot agree to these spiritual teachings then perhaps your platform is different and there is no point of any discussion since there will be never a meeting of minds.

If your answer to these questions is different from what I have implied, then perhaps your platform is different and there is no point of any discussion since there will be never a meeting of minds.


I have faith that Sanatana Dharma is not the ill. On the contrary, lack of it is the ill. To cure the ills of the burning samsara, more of sanatana dharma and not less of it is required. And on this account, I am proud that I am a Hindu.
So do I. But I believe that human life simple not about having faith in God. A bird has that too. It is about conviction that God dwells in the society. And what do you do when you know God dwells somewhere? Service ... Sacrifice ... ?

amra
11 December 2008, 05:53 AM
It is understandable that on a Hindu forum the understanding of the technicalities of the islamic faith would be limited, but among all the types of Muslims I have met the one thing they all agree on is the purity and infallibility of the prophet. This is the whole foundation on what being a muslim rests on. To accept that the prophet taught inhuman doctrines and at the same time be a muslim is nonsensical, it is absurd. To help, it may be useful to think that muslims consider the Prophet as param Guru, you all know that to disrespect the Guru is a fatal mistake. To re-iterate the point so as to avoid mis-understanding a muslim on becoming a muslim has to accept the founder of his religion as Divine and above right and wrong. A muslim cannot be called a muslim if he believes the founder of his religion preached inhumanity - this has applied even to sufi's and those who went against orthodoxy who were burned at the stake and persecuted. Show me a muslim who believes that the prophet (the foundation of the whole religion) taught inhumane doctrines. This is so absurd a cannot help repeating myself.

"I do not aim to achieve anything with this opinion it is only what i think about these guys, that they have not been exactly that which i was always missing to make me feel happy in this life.
on the contrary...."

These guys have failed to understand the devil, shaitan. The same thing is occuring in Bharat albeit at a much reduced intensity, due to the strength of the traditions, but the neo-vedantists and the psuedo gurus are gobbling up the essence and repackaging it in whatever way you please.

MahaHrada
11 December 2008, 06:58 AM
It is understandable that on a Hindu forum the understanding of the technicalities of the islamic faith would be limited, but among all the types of Muslims I have met the one thing they all agree on is the purity and infallibility of the prophet. This is the whole foundation on what being a muslim rests on. To accept that the prophet taught inhuman doctrines and at the same time be a muslim is nonsensical, it is absurd. To help, it may be useful to think that muslims consider the Prophet as param Guru, you all know that to disrespect the Guru is a fatal mistake. To re-iterate the point so as to avoid mis-understanding a muslim on becoming a muslim has to accept the founder of his religion as Divine and above right and wrong. A muslim cannot be called a muslim if he believes the founder of his religion preached inhumanity - this has applied even to sufi's and those who went against orthodoxy who were burned at the stake and persecuted. Show me a muslim who believes that the prophet (the foundation of the whole religion) taught inhumane doctrines. This is so absurd a cannot help repeating myself.

"I do not aim to achieve anything with this opinion it is only what i think about these guys, that they have not been exactly that which i was always missing to make me feel happy in this life.
on the contrary...."

These guys have failed to understand the devil, shaitan. The same thing is occuring in Bharat albeit at a much reduced intensity, due to the strength of the traditions, but the neo-vedantists and the psuedo gurus are gobbling up the essence and repackaging it in whatever way you please.

I fail to understand the point of your posting, there is no requirement for a muslim or a christian to change his belief just because i have come to the conclusion that he is respecting the wrong person.

And what do you mean by these guys have failed to understand the devil?

When i talked about those guys i was jokingly referring to jesus and mohammed and what they brought to this planet was nothing but pain and suffering for the belivers as well as for the heathen.
and: How do us fallen angels or shaitan enter in the picture all off a sudden confess it witch :
You have prayed to them yesterday especially adressing my servant the great ashmunadai and because you have sinned by doing this you ask for some extra punishment? :)

atanu
11 December 2008, 07:13 AM
Namaste Singhi,


Meditation is good for singhi, but maybe it is not his good we are concerned of here? Could it be that what is good for singhi, and good for atanu are false concepts as these identities will soon drop down dead?


Yes. Very well said. At least some identities will become ravaging muslim characters.


Yes, this is the very basis of sanatana dharma.

I don't want to make generic comment on the people mentioned, but personally I don't regard Ramakrishna or Sai Baba to be the tourch bearers of sanatana dharma. Their message and presence may have been reasons for solace of many people (thousands?), but it has hardly helped the society to perpetuate towards peace.


Then who are your torch bearers? I have only one thing to say that without these sages and those who came earlier, India would have been a different society -- which way you know very well.

And that answers all.



So do I. But I believe that human life simple not about having faith in God. A bird has that too. It is about conviction that God dwells in the society. And what do you do when you know God dwells somewhere? Service ... Sacrifice ... ?


Yes. I agree. This is what Isha Upanishad teaches. Worship the unmanifest with the manifest.

Yes. Service -- sacrifice. But those muslim killers also think that they are doing service and sacrifice.

Om Namah Shivaya

saidevo
11 December 2008, 08:57 AM
Here is an informative Website on Terrorism maintained by Dr. Kalyaraman:
http://sites.google.com/site/hindunew/Terror

sm78
12 December 2008, 01:30 AM
Namaste Singhi,


Yes. Very well said. At least some identities will become ravaging muslim characters.

True, but I'll not guess on which identities will become "ravaging muslim characters". My guess is that your and mine's guess will be different.





Then who are your torch bearers? I have only one thing to say that without these sages and those who came earlier, India would have been a different society -- which way you know very well.

And that answers all.


If naming names of persons of known history satisfy you (since where real actions are considered, pauranic characters seems not to satisfy you, I guess we are too used to allegories to map their characters), here you go:-

Adi Shankaracharya, Madhava, Chanakya, Sant Ramadas, Sri Vidyaranya Yati ...

There must have been several unknown ones saints whose guidance to the rajans of this country at specific times saved this country from total collaspe and maintained the line of sadhana from time immemorial. In accordance with the 4th ashram and turiyashram, these people would have remaine unknown to the public.

After all God does everything for us, yet who knows him?

Ramakrishna has done more harm than any good.I know it is an impossible pill for you to sollow. So that says all.




Yes. Service -- sacrifice. But those muslim killers also think that they are doing service and sacrifice.

Om Namah Shivaya

The fundamental flaw of balming a few other persons and not the cause, resurfaces again.

It is better to not to make comments on person you don't know. Yes, sacrifice they have shown, judgement they have not. Hence their fate I can't comment, it is quite possible their fate is better than the average eating, sleeping, mating, meditating and self obsessed individuals of this country. Birth in asur kula is a curse from which they have been relieved. Better not have hatred for them and superiority complex for ourselves.

When they attacked mumbai, I felt no hatred, no anger against these individuals only sadness at the real issue of our own indulgence with tama vritti and delusion. Yet, all people around seem to see monsters in these boys, while oblivious to the slumbering sloth monster within us.

Whatever happens to us and around us is for our own shortcomings. We happily post thousand lines of discourse on it.

Yet when nature puts forth a real incident, points to our slumber, we gladly paint a few boys as monsters, pass the blame and continue with our indulgence. To top this off, we take pride in being spiritual.

Like a true Hindu I hope best and offer tarpanam to their departed souls.

atanu
12 December 2008, 06:11 AM
True, but I'll not guess on which identities will become "ravaging muslim characters". My guess is that your and mine's guess will be different.


Namaste Singhi,

The Varna that a Jiva gains is by its own Karma. It is not your or my guess that will prevail.



Adi Shankaracharya, Madhava, Chanakya, Sant Ramadas, Sri Vidyaranya Yati ...

All of them deserve sastanga pranam.



Ramakrishna has done more harm than any good.

That is your opinion. For me, Shri Ramakrishna deserves sastanga pranam.


The fundamental flaw of balming a few other persons and not the cause, resurfaces again.

No other person has been blamed by me. Just look above and see that you yourself said that "No good was done by -----".

The fundamental cause of all strife is ignorance. Gita says that Ishwara residing in every bhutatma makes it rotate like an automated machine. Till the ignorance persists that "I am this body which is rotating like a Top (lattu)", the superposition of Maya will cover up the Shantam. Respectable Shankaracharya has taught us so. Shankaracharya did not toil for establishing Dvaita. He toiled for showing that the true purport of Vedas was Advaita.

His war was not with any individual or any group but He fought against "IGNORANCE".

We differ fundamentally because your concern is preservation of a preferred cultural orientation, into which you took up a station by God's will. Your concern is very valid, since one must improve one's station/residence/ dwelling/raiment/self.

But my concern is different. I have been given that the Creator of the Universe maintains it flawlessly. I try to do my alloted jobs as worship. My main concern is why the Universe appears so ugly when scriptures say that the Universe is Divine Purusha, who is called Shantam Shivam Narayanam?



When they attacked mumbai, I felt no hatred, no anger against these individuals only sadness at the real issue of our own indulgence with tama vritti and delusion.

That is truly a response of a Mahatma.


Yet when nature puts forth a real incident, points to our slumber,

Till the slumber persists the microcosm (Antarkahana -mind) which appears as the macrocosm will seem to be separate and an enemy.

Regards and Best Wishes.


Om Namah Shivaya

sm78
12 December 2008, 06:27 AM
We differ fundamentally because .....
Regards and Best Wishes.
Om Namah Shivaya

I agree on your observation, so we can end this argument with this agreement. We see the world according to our level knowledge and it will only change with more knowledge.

I respect that you gave my view a due reflection, I do the same. Beyond vAda only nature knows what's best.

atanu
12 December 2008, 06:58 AM
I respect that you gave my view a due reflection, I do the same. Beyond vAda only nature knows what's best.

Namaste SM,

Yes. If we being in the same cultural setting cannot pay attention to each other's views then how will we manage to understand other perspectives of other cultures?

Om Namah Shivaya

Infinite Regress
12 December 2008, 11:36 PM
Let me conclude this with the following points:

#1 If terrorism is defined as an activity that uses terror as a means of achieving certain ends, then not only the Islamic militants, but politicians, cops, soldiers are all terrorists.

#2 Capitalists, socialists all claim that their system is the best. Then why did excesses occur in their regimes? They say the system is good, but the people were bad. If this is true (that the best system could be used for evil ends), what to speak of Islam, which is already a war-time religion?

#3 From #2, the question is not, whether Islam and Christianity are good or evil. Even apparently good 'isms' like capitalism and socialism produced war, conflict, terrorism, naturally 'isms' like Islam/Christianity which are nowhere as sophisticated as capitalism/socialism, are going to produce more conflict, terrorism etc.

#4 Conclusion: If unscrupulous people are so clever as to use even good 'isms' for evil purposes, is it any wonder that less sophisticated 'isms' are used for purposes like terrorism? Which means, even if we eliminate Islam/Christianity and come up with the BEST political ideology, that would still be misused, and people are gonna get hurt.

So blame the people, not the system.

atanu
13 December 2008, 03:18 AM
So blame the people, not the system.

Namaste Infinite,

Please allow me some modification.

People are good. There is not a single person who does not act to attain happiness. People seek power, money, or fame thinking that these will bring happiness.

There is a mistake. Most forget that one is happiest in deep sleep where there is no power, money, or fame.

There is another mistake. Atanu (the body-mind) seeks happiness for Atanu only, not understanding that unhappiness passed on to others during the process of grabbing the happiness for self, will come back.

So.

So blame the ignorance, not people and not the system.

Om

Tyrannos
13 December 2008, 10:59 AM
Hail!!!


If terrorism is defined as an activity that uses terror as a means of achieving certain ends...

I think that we need to distinguish:
-terrorism characterized by attacks made by political or religious organizations:
for example anarchists in the nineteenth century, and not only, did many attacks and killed many people ... and no state authorities encouraged them or funded ...
-terrorism as acts of violence by a State authority, which has always political or religious purposes;
For example, the Terror during the French Revolution, Stalin, etc.etc.

Islamic terrorism today is instead a sum of these two types:
the islamic terrorists apparently belong to organizations "private" but in reality, and everybody knows that ..., they are funded by governments .....just in our present-times for the Muslims is easier to try to spread and impose their religion and thus also their values through acts of terrorism rather than open war ...then the subterfuge and disguise are favorites : these means are safer, because terrorist acts are presented as shares of mad fanatics ... and then no state is accused to the point of being threatened with war; only Iraq and Afghanistan have been attacked, and simply because those countries were not governed with the consent of the majority of the people ... because they were not democratic countries .... otherwise nobody would have invaded those countries ...


#2 Capitalists, socialists all claim that their system is the best. Then why did excesses occur in their regimes? They say the system is good, but the people were bad. If this is true (that the best system could be used for evil ends), what to speak of Islam, which is already a war-time religion?

Here we are not talking about good or evil, but of justice and injustice ...
The only right system is the Sanatana Dharma, the only right Law is the Dharma ...
"Whenever there is a withering of the Dharma and an uprising of adharma on all sides, then I manifest Myself.
For the salvation of the righteous and the destruction of such as do acts of injustice , for the firm establishing of the Dharma, I come to birth, age after age".
(Bhagavad Gita)

All the laws or political systems that are not faithful to the Dharma and to the Law of the Gods are unjust as opposed to the Dharma:
How can be considered as just systems capitalism or socialism or communism, etc .???? The men are all alike? The material enrichment of money? What say the laws of Manu or the Dharmasutra in this regard?The equality of men exists only in Satyayuga, when all men are Brahmins ... not in kali yuga!

The systems not loyal to Sanatana Dharma that do not use physical violence used in reality, psychological violence: we must stop to see only the number of deaths, there are also those who live in ignorance, who know nothing of true Dharma, and who live in the void and emptiness: also these are victims ... and there is no terror worst of ignorance!

Who says that capitalism or socialism, etc. are right systems? men, always and only men ...

Who says that the laws of the Gods are right? The Gods.

The Law must have a foundation: There are human laws and Divine Laws.
There are different Divine laws based on different religions: abrahamic "divine" law; and Divine Laws of Sanatana Dharma ...

Political systems are wrong or right depending on their religious or ideological foundation ... which is faithful or not to Sanatana Dharma ... Law and Religion are ONE.



So blame the ignorance...
the ignorance that ignore the Sanatana Dharma and the Divine Laws,
the ignorance that leads to believe in false political ideologies or false religions...


Tyrannos

atanu
13 December 2008, 11:13 AM
Hail!!!
the ignorance that ignore the Sanatana Dharma and the Divine Laws,

the ignorance that leads to believe in false political ideologies or false religions...
Tyrannos

Namaste Tyrranos,

You are correct yet you will absorb in time the omnipotence and omniscience of God --there is no so-called false religion and so-called false political ideology that came into existence bypassing God's will.

All this is Brahman.



-terrorism as acts of violence by a State authority, which has always political or religious purposes;
For example, the Terror during the French Revolution, Stalin, etc.etc.

Just take an imaginary birth among the revolutionaries/terrorists and see through their perspective. Then take the final birth in the MIDDLE.


-----------------------

I fail to follow Nuno's teaching with you to my great disadvantage. That is possibly my Prarabdha.

Best Wishes with love

Om Namah Shivaya

sm78
15 December 2008, 01:04 AM
Namaste Tyrranos,

You are correct yet you will absorb in time the omnipotence and omniscience of God --there is no so-called false religion and so-called false political ideology that came into existence bypassing God's will.

All this is Brahman.

On reflection, I find all these true and false religions, idelogies and motives are all actually just about bypassing and ignoring God.

All this is Not Brahman.

I don't see any means to talk of true & false and Brahman in the same breath.

But, I am weak in philosophy, anyway.

atanu
15 December 2008, 03:11 AM
On reflection, I find all these true and false religions, idelogies and motives are all actually just about bypassing and ignoring God.

All this is Not Brahman.
I don't see any means to talk of true & false and Brahman in the same breath.


Truly. Noticing the true and false ideologies yet not noticing the seer/ thinker/knower is not conducive to see anything.


Om

Tyrannos
16 December 2008, 11:19 PM
Hail!!!
the ignorance that ignore the Sanatana Dharma and the Divine Laws,
the ignorance that leads to believe in false political ideologies or false religions...
Tyrannos
Namaste Tyrranos,

You are correct yet you will absorb in time the omnipotence and omniscience of God --there is no so-called false religion and so-called false political ideology that came into existence bypassing God's will.

All this is Brahman.

First: Tyrannos, not Tyrranos. It's Greek...:)

Again, All is Brahman.Ok.
Also the adharma is part of the All.Ok.
But the Brahman is not adharma...
And why Krishna destroy kamsa? also kamsa is part of the Brahman:All is Brahman. So WHY?


there is no so-called false religion and so-called false political ideology that came into existence bypassing God's will
Ok. But the false political ideologies and the false religions exist:

"Suta Goswami said: After hearing the king’s prayers, Lord Shiva said: O king Bhojaraja, you should go to the place called Mahakakshvara, that land is called Vahika and now is being contaminated by the mlecchas. In that terrible country there no longer exists Dharma. There was a mystic demon named Tripura(Tripurasura), whom I have already burnt to ashes, he has come again by the order of Bali. He has no origin but he achieved a benediction from me. His name is Mahamada(Muhammad) and his deeds are like that of a demon. Therefore, O king, you should not go to this land of the evil demon. By my mercy your intelligence will be purified. Hearing this the king came back to his country and Mahamada(Muhammad) came with them to the bank of the river Sindhu. He was expert in expanding illusion, so he said to the king very pleasingly: O great king, your god has become my servant. Just see, as he eats my remnants, so I will show you. The king became surprised when he saw this just before them. Then in anger Kalidasa rebuked Mahamada(Muhammad) “O rascal, you have created an illusion to bewilder the king, I will kill you, you are the lowest..."
That city is known as their site of pilgrimage, a place which was Madina or free from intoxication. Having a form of a ghost, the expert illusionist Mahamada(Muhammad) appeared at night in front of king Bhojaraja and said: O king, your religion is of course known as the best religion among all. Still I am going to establish a terrible and demoniac religion by the order of the Lord . The symptoms of my followers will be that they first of all will cut their genitals, have no shikha, but having beard, be wicked, make noise loudly and eat everything. They should eat animals without performing any rituals. This is my opinion. They will perform purificatory act with the musala or a pestle as you purify your things with kusha. Therefore, they will be known as musalman, the corrupters of religion. Thus the demoniac religion will be founded by me. After having heard all this the king came back to his palace and that demon(Muhammad) went back to his place."("Bhavishya Purana: Prati Sarg: Part III")


Just take an imaginary birth among the revolutionaries/terrorists and see through their perspective. Then take the final birth in the MIDDLE.
Perspective???What perspective? :confused: the Dharma and the Truth are always the same, they do not change according to the perspective...

Tyrannos

atanu
17 December 2008, 01:24 AM
And why Krishna destroy kamsa? also kamsa is part of the Brahman:All is Brahman. So WHY?


Let Krishna do it again.



Perspective???What perspective? :confused: the Dharma and the Truth are always the same, they do not change according to the perspective...

Tyrannos

Are you of fixed perspective. Are you Dharma?