Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 63

Thread: Secularism is poison

  1. #21
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Posts
    157
    Rep Power
    0
    Since I have heard of no open warfare in india, I don't see what more you could want. I think the problem is that when some people choose to go to some other view of god ,others get nervous. Thinking that the religion is crumbling and that it will collapse and be swept into the dustbin of history.

    The problem with islam is that there is not moderate version of it. You have to be a true believer or you are in trouble, go by strange rules or get out and be killed. If here was a branch of islam that did not require this total following of rules that make no sense, I would think that most of the followers would breath a sigh of relief and go over to it.

    In the future I see religion as fading away or combining into one religion. The getter communications get and the faster travel is possible something has to give. You have to learn ot live with others and they have to learn to live with you.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    mrityuloka
    Age
    52
    Posts
    3,729
    Rep Power
    337
    Quote Originally Posted by willie
    In the future I see religion as fading away or combining into one religion.
    No, I don't think so. I think that religion has already faded away! In fact, it has faded away to enough degree that now people are feeling the need for spirituality especially here in the west. Don't you think?

    You have to learn ot live with others and they have to learn to live with you.
    And that is precisely the message of hinduism: Live and let live.

    satay

  3. #23
    Namaste Namo,

    thank you for the post.

    Quote Originally Posted by Namo Narayana
    Vajra, I would be called unsecular if I did not let a zoroaster or a jew to live in peace.
    is this a statement or a question?

    i wouldn't call you "unsecular" if you did not let a Jew live in peace, i would call you a bigot.

    those things are not the same.

    I wouldnt be called unsecular if I check the religious crime and social crime of an evangelist say christian and muslim. as simple as that.
    crime has nothing to do with being secular or not, in my view. crime is crime is crime. i would, of course, agree that what a society may choose to call a crime can and is influenced by the various religous and political groups that exist within its national boundaries.

    if you recognise Santa dharma, buddha dharma, jain, sikh as different religion.
    indeed, this is my view.

    I can very well convince that India is supremely secular not to mention zoraostrians and jews. makes sense ?
    it would make sense if that is what secular meant, however, that is not what it means. secular does not mean religious tolerance and pluralism, in my view, it means to indicate the lack thereof.

    metta,

    ~v
    Meditation brings Wisdom, lack of meditation leaves ignorance. Know well what leads you forward and what holds you back.

    ~Buddha Shakyamuni

    *******************************

    I have gained this from philosophy:

    That i do, without being commanded, what others do only through fear of Law.

    ~Aristotle

  4. #24
    Namaste Singhi Kaya,

    thank you for the post.

    Quote Originally Posted by Singhi Kaya
    Dear buddhist friend,

    I understand from your standpoint talk here may sound quite intolerant!
    perhaps, but that is not my view and it doesn't seem relevant to the topic of the OP.... perhaps i'm missing it...?

    I respect your viewpoint. I can't argue for you. You dharma is upto you.
    well, indeed, this is so.

    For hindu's the case is different.
    naturally if they weren't different, they would be the same!

    Our dharma stresses on what is dharmic-duty far above ahimsa or peace or metta. Depending on the context our duty can be extremely violent to extremely non-violent.
    indeed, this is so.

    Going through gita as is will make things clear for you. And what is dharmic duty? , you may ask.
    i wouldn't ask, actually, but i'm happy to have your view on it.

    In one word, if it can be said in one word, it is called "asura nidhan" - slaying the asuras. To know what / who are asuras you need to study the "dev-asur sampad bibhag yog" in Gita.
    did you know that Buddha Dharma also teaches about Asuras?

    In other words fight what is just or true (satya). Talking other's life or loosing one's own is of no importance in this dharmic war.
    indeed, this view would not be supportable through a Buddhist point of view.

    Such rules apply to selfish work aimed at personal benefit.
    such a notion necessarily requires that one have a self to work for. since Buddhists do not hold that such a thing exists, this isn't much of a concern for us

    So not tolerating Islamicists or evangelists is the dharma for a hindu - far above ahimsa, because they display all characteristics of asurik development. Islam is clinic book.
    in so doing, one makes it clear that there is no difference between them and their oppressors.

    whilst it is certainly of value to pass legislation preventing unethical conversions and other manipulative techniques used by the Maleccha religions, that does not mean that we Dharma adherents, must use their methods to refute them.

    i would posit, in fact, that we must use other methods, to clearly distinguish the Dharma from the other traditions so as to provide clear and compelling testimony concerning the transformative power of Dharma.

    metta,

    ~v
    Meditation brings Wisdom, lack of meditation leaves ignorance. Know well what leads you forward and what holds you back.

    ~Buddha Shakyamuni

    *******************************

    I have gained this from philosophy:

    That i do, without being commanded, what others do only through fear of Law.

    ~Aristotle

  5. #25
    Hari Om

    Quote Originally Posted by Vajradhara
    did you know that Buddha Dharma also teaches about Asuras?
    No! But I don't think it is as pivotal as in hinduism (spl Gita and the Chaandi)



    Quote Originally Posted by Vajradhara
    indeed, this view would not be supportable through a Buddhist point of view.
    I know that



    Quote Originally Posted by Vajradhara
    such a notion necessarily requires that one have a self to work for. since Buddhists do not hold that such a thing exists, this isn't much of a concern for us
    ... yes very difficult to argue there. I know from experience, so won't even try!



    Quote Originally Posted by Vajradhara
    in so doing, one makes it clear that there is no difference between them and their oppressors.
    That's our moha in mind. You are attaching yourself to an concept in your mind as how ahimsha will appear and talking decesions. On contrary decesions should be solely based on justice and truth - Satya. And one has inherent abhay (fearlessness) and teja(feeling of vengieance that natuarally arises when we see injustice, not to be confused with krodha or anger) if one desires to invoke them. This is crux and hall mark of the Gita. What you just said is where Arjuna had roughly positioned himself before the war. And where he ended was terrible if viewed from such pre-convictions in mind. A hindu has to do what is his duty. And slaying the asuras comes foremost-though we have forgotten this for a long time. But all our epic, all our puranas and our chaandi and our Gita and even the vedas is just about it. As Arjua (in this forum) said in the veg thread, there is no himsha or ahimsha in nature. It's in our mind. Ahimsha is a high virtue for the ego (cleverly avoided the word self )...before duty it is non-issue.

    The only reason why I'm a hindu is perhaves contained in the above paragraph. We strive to develop all the divine qualities inour character (not ahimsha only), but attach to none. In krishna's refuge I'm being assured that if required killing can become the greatest dharma.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vajradhara
    whilst it is certainly of value to pass legislation preventing unethical conversions and other manipulative techniques used by the Maleccha religions, that does not mean that we Dharma adherents, must use their methods to refute them.

    i would posit, in fact, that we must use other methods, to clearly distinguish the Dharma from the other traditions so as to provide clear and compelling testimony concerning the transformative power of Dharma.

    metta,

    ~v
    If you have any idea about India you will know such things don't work here. this is suppossedly hindu majority society but govt every day takes a legislation to destroy our society and coax the islamicists for a few votes. Just yesterday a proposal was passed to saise reservation for SC/ST/OBC to 50% in all govt education institutions. Each day politicians play on caste card and divide our society. Each day for a few petty votes they sell our country to the mlecchas. When faced before the asura no other but only shaktibad works. If you take one policy of weakness (like live and let live), they wil finish you (ofcourse in due time when they have the power). In past 1400 years muslims have only eaten into our society. They haven't ever taken a step back. And why should they before such weakling like us who in order to reflect positively on ahimsha on themselves neglect their duty's. Mahashakti/Devi Maa rides on Lion. It needs lion hearted men to truely resurrect the spirit of our dharma. Till then what ever lofty philosophy we speak or mystic sadhana we talk about, we are actually walking the path of disaster. Bengal is a classic example. The seat of tantrik sadhana is soon to follow the kashmir way (kashmir btw was another seat of lofty tantrik sadhana). All our siddhas have failed to be krisna, inspire us to fight the evil.

    what is dharma?
    Dharma is truth, dharma is justice, dharma is fearlessness, dharma is fighting the evil, dharma is peace, dharma is non-violence, dharma is many more things .... what dharma isn't is attachement to particular method or a mental conception. One has to act as per time and duty. That's all. Krishna in mahabharata did many things which were not ethical, but he did it, because it's truth that matters most

    How we are different from asuras?
    Because we are with the dharma and attama, they are not. We are as ruthless as an asura but only to an asura. An asura is ruthless to all who doesn't submit to him. We are ruthless to such man. One is great injustice, the other is a great justice

    To end all this rant apply's to a hindu only. If a buddhist agrees - nothing like it. But I know from litttle personal experience, most dharmic men are not ready to take the field of work and those rare souls who have taken the path of work don't believe in dharma. Untill 2 become one, we are doomed.

    Please don't take this big rant as a preaching. You follow your dharma. But I have to follow mine - and posting in internet isin't quite it
    Last edited by Singhi Kaya; 06 April 2006 at 04:26 PM.

  6. #26
    Namaste Singhi,

    Thank you for the post.

    Quote Originally Posted by Singhi Kaya
    No! But I don't think it is as pivotal as in hinduism (spl Gita and the Chaandi)
    indeed, it is not as heavily emphasized in our teachings.

    That's our moha in mind. You are attaching yourself to an concept in your mind as how ahimsha will appear and talking decesions.
    quite curious, i am, to know how you've ascertained this bit of information.

    On contrary decesions should be solely based on justice and truth - Satya.
    perhaps this is true for my Sanatana Dharma friends. this is not, however, how we Buddha Dharma types would tend to go about it. in our view, our decisions should be based on compassion and recognition of the inherent nature of sentient existence.

    A hindu has to do what is his duty.
    indeed, this is so.

    And slaying the asuras comes foremost-though we have forgotten this for a long time. But all our epic, all our puranas and our chaandi and our Gita and even the vedas is just about it. As Arjua (in this forum) said in the veg thread, there is no himsha or ahimsha in nature. It's in our mind. Ahimsha is a high virtue for the ego (cleverly avoided the word self )...before duty it is non-issue.
    naturally, since the ego doesn't really exist, either, basing views which are predicated upon said ego seems to be fraught with peril, at least in a theological sense. as such, this is not my practice.

    through the practice of Ahisma we bestow fearlessness to those around us and inspire hope and joyous undertaking amongst the beings that we interact with.

    The only reason why I'm a hindu is perhaves contained in the above paragraph. We strive to develop all the divine qualities inour character (not ahimsha only), but attach to none. In krishna's refuge I'm being assured that if required killing can become the greatest dharma.
    indeed, becoming attached to the ideas espoused on the path is no different than being attached to ideas which are not concerned with the path.

    our teachings are like bits of tile used to knock on the door, or like a raft used to cross the river. once the door is opened or the river crossed, the tile or the raft is no longer needed. many beings spend a great deal of time building their raft and can become rather attached to it, if they are not careful.

    If you have any idea about India you will know such things don't work here.
    i have some and it is based on this knowledge that i think what i do in this regard.

    it matters not what the society in general does, in my view, our own motivations and actions are what we should keep watch over.

    this is suppossedly hindu majority society but govt every day takes a legislation to destroy our society and coax the islamicists for a few votes.
    this seems to be the nature of politics and has little to do with India, per se. politicians are very similiar thoughout the world, it seems.

    In past 1400 years muslims have only eaten into our society.
    herein lies the main difference in our views.

    whilst it may well be so that Muslims have invaded and remain in the Indian heartland, the simple truth of the matter is that Islam, even in it's heyday, was never that much of a practice of the people, it was done by local rulers that desired to remain safe from the sword and retain their family holdings and so forth.

    naturally, my view of Islam is not well disposed as a Buddhist. it cannot be overstated the irrepairable harm that was done to Buddhism, and the world, by the destruction of the University of Nalanda.

    that being said, the Muslim population of India is still quite small, if i recall correctly, it is somewhere between 3-5%. so.. some 1400 years later and there is still virtually no Islam in India. seems like the Dharma is holding its own quite well

    Please don't take this big rant as a preaching. You follow your dharma. But I have to follow mine - and posting in internet isin't quite it
    actually, i try to follow the Buddha Dharma though i understand your meaning.

    metta,

    ~v
    Meditation brings Wisdom, lack of meditation leaves ignorance. Know well what leads you forward and what holds you back.

    ~Buddha Shakyamuni

    *******************************

    I have gained this from philosophy:

    That i do, without being commanded, what others do only through fear of Law.

    ~Aristotle

  7. #27
    Hari Om

    Thanks for your reply. Your ideas are clear, it seems like given the difference in philosophy we agree more than I expected. So I'll mainly address the issue below:-

    Quote Originally Posted by Vajradhara
    herein lies the main difference in our views.

    whilst it may well be so that Muslims have invaded and remain in the Indian heartland, the simple truth of the matter is that Islam, even in it's heyday, was never that much of a practice of the people, it was done by local rulers that desired to remain safe from the sword and retain their family holdings and so forth.

    naturally, my view of Islam is not well disposed as a Buddhist. it cannot be overstated the irrepairable harm that was done to Buddhism, and the world, by the destruction of the University of Nalanda.

    that being said, the Muslim population of India is still quite small, if i recall correctly, it is somewhere between 3-5%. so.. some 1400 years later and there is still virtually no Islam in India. seems like the Dharma is holding its own quite well
    Very first point. Islam is not 2%-5% of India. It is 14%-15%, if not more. And it is increasing at much faster pace than any other community in India, because oviously our minority licking govt cannot apply same brith control and marriage rules to them-lest they hurt their sentiments! If you think of the undivided India (India + Bangladesh + Pakistha) Muslims are more than 30%. Prediction is in about half a century they will be the majority in this aryavarta. As some know very well fate of hindu's will depend on muslims from outside India as well as inside. And even with 14% (which by far makes india one of the largest muslim country as well after Indonesia) they have started issuing fatwas banning hindu festivals - ofcourse news doesn't reach even outside that cursed village or district when such things happen. I know saraswati puja (goddess of knowledge) was banned in several places of murshidabad district of west bengal. Puja was indeed not carried out in most places. But our marxist hindu politicians keep fanning and oiling muslims and insluting the dharma. New desn;t reach outside, even if it reaches, nobody bothers. This is a win for Dharma? Is it even holding it's ground?
    Here is a statistics of muslim growth In Inidan subcontinent:-
    1>In roughly 1000 years muslims growth is from 0% to 30%+ of the subcontinent
    2>Roughly 80Million Hindus perished during this period.
    3>Buddhist population in North India evaporated to zero. In bengal it is common to call muslims as "nere". Now nere I think comes from the word "nera" which indicates a man which shaven head. Buddhist save heads and were a big population of the region.
    4>In modern India growth rate of muslims is 1.5 times hindus, due toreasons already metioned.
    5>What ever hindu''s that were left in bangladesh (pakisthan was hopeless from the start) ~ 16% are now being systematically driven out. It was same for Pak in during independence. In roughly 60n years Hindu population in Pak dropped from a position muslims hold now in India to 3% or less.

    Do any of this indicates dharma is holding it's ground?? From cold hard fact I will say no. India is an unfinished business, Islam as a dogma to conquer and plunder the world for the Arab still percists as a religion. Little study of islam will idicate it's not even close to christianity and nothing to do with dharma as we understand. But people are too afraid to speak out lest their head start to roll or are not bothered as their current state is comfortable. This is exactly the neglect of duty I was talking about. We are with dharma. We are spiritual. Our power when we decide to uproot a social menace is way to much than Islam can amass from their drill of shouting at the sky at peak of their lungs 5 times a day.

    Whether or not Islam became a common practice or just rulers follow it will be scolastic argument. Fortunately living in India and among the muslims I don't have to study on this. Personal experiences can be a much better substitute. But I don't want to make "racist" satement aginst muslims. I will only say within a very short span of time - a generation or 2 a converted muslim retains nothing about his sanatana tradition. There is an incredible science behind Islam. How do you think mohhammad was able to wipe off completely any memories of pre-islamic arabia from minds of all arabs?

    I'll just request you or anyone for that matter to devote some time on Islam. If you think in all honesty that it is not dharma and indeed it harms others, then what's the use of dharma if we are not able to stop this adharma?

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Vajradhara
    quite curious, i am, to know how you've ascertained this bit of information.


    Sorry I was talking in general terms. My english is often broken. I wan't trying to say you as in Vajradhara incarnation is bounded by moha in mind.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Posts
    157
    Rep Power
    0
    What has happened in the west is that the followers have been lied to too much and now they are like accountants. Always adding up what the words of holymen are and what their actions are and looking for them to balance out. So slowly churches are becomming social organizations , mainly occuppied by the well off and those who want to see and be seen. So the churches have to entertain the followers or see them leave, and this leads to all sorts of promises and emotional sermons.

    The spirituality movement is breaking out because people have figured out the brahman cannot be explained by some books and cannot be incarcerated in some building. Brahman is only waiting for people to seek it out in a personal basis.

    Hinduism is going down the same paths as other religions have and will get to the same ruin. Endless arguements about which holy books are the best, different paths that only confuse the followers, holymen that are one jump ahead of the law and no ceneral organization to ride herd on it at all.

    Just keep the political establishment secular, there can be little worse then a state religion.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Sahasrarkadyutirmatha
    Posts
    1,802
    Rep Power
    191

    Post

    Namaste Willie,

    The co-existence of different paths should not disturb the single-pointed devotion of true aspirants, whose chosen path is for them the only way forward. The only people who might be confused are those who as yet have no set path of their own ~ and they are surely without any Guru. The Dharmacakra is confusing (even fearsome) for those who are not already riding on its eternal carriage.

    The world would be a much more peaceful place if only more people could understand that apparently quite divergent paths can actually lead straight to the same aim. Not “all paths are one”, but there certainly are many (equally valid) paths to God; and that is the point of a Guru (i.e. to lead you to where you wish to go, by a way that he knows well and which he trusts that you will be able to follow).

    All Gurus will naturally have varying approaches, and the trick is to meet the appropriate Guru for you in your own particular life with all of its own particular circumstances and conditions (or more importantly, to recognize that Guru when he/she appears).

    There is actually much effort in properly guiding a student, and if they do not live up to their promise then there are repercussions for the Guru, so I find it difficult to understand how some Gurus can properly initiate hundreds, even thousands, of students. In most cases, such Gurus are acting more like a Pujari, and basically just giving a blessing (and perhaps a copy of their new book, and a few sacred items from the ashram shop).

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Why You Love Shiva Bhagavan ?
    By shian in forum Shaiva
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 10 May 2013, 01:13 PM
  2. Lord Shiva in The Vedas
    By Omkara in forum Shaiva
    Replies: 195
    Last Post: 18 February 2013, 09:51 PM
  3. Siva consumes poison
    By yajvan in forum Puranas
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 30 April 2008, 12:32 AM
  4. Aswins
    By atanu in forum Vedas & Brahmanas
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 04 August 2007, 11:55 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •