Hindu Rashtra Explained

The point was to find a figure who was worth the title of India's founding father, last I checked, none of these figures were lawyers educated at University College London... probably a top 10-20 university in most independent rankings. As I said, Aryabhatt was a figure in history credited with a single hypothesis, Gandhiji created an entire school of thought, in political science terms, think of him as, say, Chaitanya who founded the bhakti movement within Hinduism of political science.

The trouble still is you still do not understand my point.

They aren't better or worse - though Abrahamic faiths have brought nothing but destruction to the world and need to go extinct due to their claim, sole claim, on the truth. Since they claim only they have the truth, whichever strain, they need go - however, Hindu rights are pushing Eastern religions down the same cliff.

Well, I discuss issues with an open mind - without prejudices, but you have a side to defend - perhaps you and I have different reasons on this forum, maybe?

Right, Newton believed in alchemy - but Christianity was on it's way down ever since the birth of the 'Origin of Species'. My trouble with the Christians is that they sell their religion lying.

They lie that they have the claim to the truth, when it is already proven otherwise. Same goes for all other faiths, including Islam. However, Judaism and Hinduism don't have official 'conversion' systems, so those are much more endurable... until one meets an empty headed Hindu supremist right wing nut.

Not quite, over time - Samkya merged with Vedanta - which is for a formless or informless deity (sagun or nirgun). Today, Samkya is theistic - it's mentioned in the Gita, where Kapil is one of the representations of Krishna.

Right, with the zero which is an Indian construct - however, I think there is a concept which Hinduism left out - the need for lack of ritualism. HInduism has far too many rituals (just one of the many points I could think of now)

You are right - the solution is a status quo. Let yourself and all else practice your faiths freely but under your own roofs. I am sure, if there is/are deity/deities, he/she/it/they is/are powerful enough to reach the households rather than the public domain.

 

It was never a golden age, Hinduism was divided by regional deities. As I said, I am willing to respect followers of all *Indic* religions, that includes Islam, which is a reality whether people like or not. Sufi strains and the Ahmedis are evidence of indigeneity of Islam.

As I said, I am neutral - however, I do have my biases against all Abrahamic faiths, primarily a result due to my study of history. That doesn't mean I won't stay neutral in that sense too. So yeah, but it's good to see that you are tolerant enough to sing glories of another faith group.

Even in sarcasm, this tolerance is welcome.

 

You're right - though Christians are on the very top of my list of 'things to take care of before I die with my pen'. The top of the list is occupied by most Abrahamic religions and, thanks to your kind self, Hinduism is now in the top 10.

I've never met a right winger in my life - but thanks for this experience, in particular, you Mr. rcscwc. All you've managed to do is engage in ad hominem and pollute the Internet with verbal diarrhea. Nothing you've mentioned is worth even returning on the basis of opinion, I hope you know that.

And, after the intellectual Goel with whom I'd have loved to lock horns, it is people like you who represent political Hinduism, who haven't even read the damn scriptures they want to endorse... the reason for the downfall of the Hindu right.

All I can say is, not good enough.

 

What is remarkable is the statement that a non-Hindu opinion is not welcome. This is more than enough to utterly bury this ideology for good.

 

No it was golden age ! its History well recognised. nor Islam, neither Christianity are Indic religions.
I am serious fan of science and respect all who contributed to it no matter what faith they believe in. And that's what make more proude to be Hindu origin.
But some guys over here just like to undermine it because they some dark side of it. Hinduism not perfect but apart from castism there is no other negative side of it. Ironically even converted Christians and Buddhist follow it.
I am completely in support to remove caste system from society and Hindu literature. After all each and every human being has a DNA with same molecular weight, same construction same functions!
Being a Hindu rashtra is not about converting others to Hinduism or treating them as second citizen, its about being pure secular like France, and keeping moral, social and cultural values as Indian.
Hiduism achieves perfect integration of culture and faith but in western countries it doesn't thats why we can see social structure is falling in UK and other European countries.

The kind of secularism is practiced in India is absolutely flawed.
The second mejority in India (Muslims) should not have a problem with Hindu nation because for muslims Allah is supreme not nation so how does it matter to them whether country is Hindu or not.

PS: I am glad to see that you can take out a positive note from others post and talk about it. Some just want reply for sake opposition and hate only.

 

Because London didn't existed before 2500 years. One of my friend completed his masters in low from UCL does that mean he better that Aryabhatta ? You comparison is invalid and unnecessary. Gandhi did not invented non-violence, it existed all along. Non-violence resistance. Yes Gandhi did got most publicity out of it.
Non-violence is a form of civil protest when they know violence is not an option, Libyan rebels knew it thats why they opted for violent struggle. Syrian rebels tried non-violence protest but are getting crushed under tanks.

Best thing about Hinduism is their are minimal compulsions if followed otherwise no. Take example of "Ganesh utsav", it was started for a purpose, for 10 days every year , but now people can do it for 1.5 days,3, 5, 7 10 days, even government can ban "visergan" in rivers and lakes and people follow it. It shows Hindus are open to positive changes.

I am not hard core Hindu, I have lots of choices. But I don't oppose something because I don't do it. I drink, eat non-veg, I wouldn't like it to be banned ! Example, I eat non-veg up certain extend, but do not when my mother says not to during festivals and other days. Because I know what is science behind eating veg-nonveg and it is ok for me. But I would like to defend Hinduism because it is Hinduism which has given me this kind of thinking capability.

Agree here completely.

Not completely, it formed different variant and doesn't change its basics. leave it, its huge to discuss, honestly I am not capable of it.

Actually rituals are developed time to time , through out the history. I like rituals as long as I am not performing . I have different perspective on this, Example, Hindu rituals actually consumes lots of flowers, which opens employment ! flowers are good for health and non-polluting.

Agree.

 

Your trouble is that you are fixated about who is father of Bharat Nation. Not Gandhi

Not Aryabhata. Wellll, he did get educated at Oxford or Cambridge or Horward or SG univ. Even you refuse to accept that he a GREAT , it does not matter. BU, BUT, but... Even he is father of nation. Not even Lord Krishna or Rama. It predates both of them.

There is no Father of Bharat Nation. Period.

Sankhya did not deny God. It just had not given much space to Brahma. Moreover, Sankhya till today is an independent school.

 

Illuminati, your problem is that you take your ID too literally. For you, only you are enlightened, others are stumbling about in darkness.

 

Can you explain without going into technicalities how Uniform Civil Code goes against Secularism ? I always thought One Law for all irrespective of their religion is the bedrock of Secularism. Either my definition of secularism is wrong or the one that is followed in India and is propagated by the likes of you is seriously screwed up.

p.s.:- I think its the latter.

You are barking up the wrong tree. No use in arguing with people who make the basic mistake of placing every religion on the same scale without taking into account each one of its teachings, their record of treating minorities and whether they glorify violence and then extrapolating the results of one experiment onto the other even though the teachings of both the idealogies are anything but similar.

 

I agree with KS, Uniform Civil Code should have been implemented right at the beginning. You can't have a truly secular nation with that kind of an aberration present. As for the point that some will not like it, too bad, they will get used to it over time.

 

It's history - what my primary problem with religions such as Christianity is because they don't tell the truth - all their claims have been disproven - for a Christian, you have to believe that a married woman got pregnant and was still a virgin (she got pregnant, gave birth to a child, how is a human being still a virgin), suggests 6 days for Earth's 'creation'... it's probably about 3.5 billion years old... and the entire business of talking snakes, immortal gardens and whatever... it's an absurd position.

You have absolutely no idea how Christianity hijacked science in the late 1800s and 1900s - so much so that they used to measure time on the basis of this Jewish carpenter gentleman's birthday. It's a bunch of lies - and they are the loudest people amongst the religious circles. They basically killed people in Britain for reading the bible in English - because they wanted it to be preserved in Latin, catholics killed the protestants and vice-versa. The mormons claimed that skin-colour is a curse from their deity... the list goes on and on. Not forgetting the silent cultural genocide in places like Africa, what happens to these pagans there?

They are introducing Abrahamism there and dividing the continent there. This is a major world problem. My problem with it is that they don't know that it's not too different than from believing in the Zulu of the mountain.

In India, I think things are fine as they are, muslims are indeed insecure so one has to look at it all. I am fine if you feel strongly about your beliefs - fine, write a book - but - don't play politics that affect the lives of the poor masses. Religion is a non-starter, people need to realise that it as an identifier is an outdated concept, India needs to move on, focus on more important issues.

It's more about politics than Hinduism - do you think the BJP don't play politics? A Hindu nation will utterly destroy India's plurality.

 

The realities of today is, India has no other alternatives - my standard for iconism is rather high. Harvard or whatever, the idea is of one's ability to pass out from a reputable college.

Yes... that's another world beater of a point, Samkya is extinct if one believes current Indic scholarship. It's dualistic in nature, it's more deistic than agnostic - because it says Gods/divinity are irrelevant.

It was absorbed by Vedanta and they turned it theistic.

I am not being arrogant, your arguments tend to be too personal - you think you're making fine points, in actuality, they are nonsensically only understood by you. No offense. This is your first attempt at facts... even that is wrong friend, least based on current scholarship.

Or you might be right and I might need to do a lot more reading... there is that remote possibility as well.

Well, yes. This is politics, nature is hardly fair... behind all that pampering, you fail to realise that Hindus will learn to stand on their own feet - the Muslim community is going to suffer from all this pampering in the long run anyways. Islamic is Indic because of the Ahmedis. Study about it, see how the Sufis have changed South Asian Islam... and how the merger between Hindu and Islamic architecture has given birth to the Moghul culture which is basically Indian.

One can't deny the Moghuls or the Muslims. Don't mistake and merge political problems with cultural problems.

If you think certain minorities or majorities or whatever are favoured, how about not voting such policies in place by electing the right people to office.

Hindu rashtra cannot hide your scholastic deficiencies, in the end - there is always that need to read and learn. A hindu rashtra won't change that.

 

Illuminati, muslims will always be insecure in a non islamic dispensation. They will always be unhappy and insecure till shariat laws are imposed on all. Look aqt your neighbours in north.

 

This would be absurd, it's not for me to claim - it's for you to decide, identity and character perceptions are decided by those who decide, not those who are subjects to such assessments.

If you think otherwise, then it's otherwise. I, though, hardly... ever, take into account what others think of me. If it feels right, confirmed by extensive study, then it is right. You're right, I might be rigid but everytime I decide to discuss things, I enter that discussion with an open mind with the possibility of being wrong.

Your arguments can't even convince a primary school kid. You can hardly even answer my questions, how do you expect to change my mind?

No person knows everything - however, if you think you can expand on your knowledge, you should adopt the ideas. No person is too stupid or too smart to learn... everyone begins somewhere, a human being's life is only an end product after death, even in the very few seconds of his life, there is a possibility that he might change the very premise of his/her life.

Man can even learn new tricks from a dog if he looks right - learning is a continuum, it never ends. Once you stop learning, it's the end of the line, there is only one way - down.

 

Mr. Karthic - perhaps the trouble here is that you people are just barking?

The trees are still green, barking won't change realities - this is all divisive, and I don't like such divisive politics.

No politics that comes at the expense of the poor masses should ever exist. If your hypothesis cannot show how and why the millions of poor in India, about 300-400 million, will benefit - it needs to be buried. The next Nehru or Jinnah will never surface again.