Material pasted in #81:
Merely lodging disagreement with use of a word. I take exception to:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->while Sri Krishna preached Armageddon, and Sri Parasurama PRACTICED it<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Armageddon has a very specific meaning. It is a term that is entirely biblical, where its meaning is complete destruction of everything and all life forms: all plants, all animals, all children, all women, all old men, all men - <i>all over the world</i>.
(But it has nothing to do with Kala - Time - destroying everything. Armageddon is a particular, defined event the bible alludes to. One can't find an equivalent in Hindu Dharma, it's like comparing cannonballs and apples.)
Krishna did not even tell the Pandavas that war must be, <i>until</i> all other options were tried and exhausted. He went as emissary to the Kauravas to talk them out of their obstinacy in denying the Pandavas even the smallest, token portion of their share.
When all attempts to avoid a confrontation had come to nothing, then and only then did the war start. And it is during the war - when Arjuna throws down Gandiva and sits dejectedly on the battlefield of Kurukshetra - that Krishna tells him why he must continue in this war, even though it is so destructive and will end with the deaths of all his family and beloved elders and teachers arrayed on the other side.
Where in the world does Krishna 'preach armageddon'?
Even Parashurama, in killing Kshatriyas, did not kill all men let alone all people, or all creatures. No armageddon there either.
Hindus must be careful not to use terms - worse, attribute them to our heroes and Gods - when we do not know their meanings. (I probably use words in the wrong contexts myself, which, unless someone sees fit to correct me, I won't know about.) But attaching 'armageddon' to Krishna in the Gita is inexplicable. Hindus who are trying to make a point ought to be more careful to explain what they mean correctly. Any important statement that uses terms that don't belong can and <i>will</i> be used against us.
People who know about armageddon, but don't know anything about the Gita and Mahabharatam, will use unintended mistakes like the above against Hinduism: 'See here's a Hindoo explaining how Krishna preached armageddon. So that makes their Gods no different from jihadis. Compare that with jeebus, who preached love <i>and</i> armageddon.'
Pointing out something else in post 81 again:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Kshatriyas were also specifically allowed to eat meat obtained through slaughter.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->It's true that they were allowed to eat meat obtained from hunting (specific animals).
But this was usually done only before battle. Outside of this, their diet (in earlier ages) was more strictly vegetarian than it has been in the last millennium. I do not have the source for this, and cannot remember where to find it, so take it as an opinion until if/when I am able to back up my position with more than my own words.
Not disagreeing on the explanation contained in #81 of why Gandhi's 'total ahimsa' was flawed and not in keeping with Hindu Dharma of the ages.
Being prepared for war was always a part of Hindu life. We even had an entire class of people trained for that (class as in class of specialists, not as in British class system), all over the country. None of them shrank from this duty or ever thought it evil; because they realised it was a necessity sometimes. Not being prepared to defend oneself - or on larger scale: to defend one's civilisation - means that everything can be lost (which in our case includes Dharma which is the essence of Hindu civilisation).
There was no drivel then like there is today: the modern movement of 'pacificism at any cost' even if it means destruction of all that is good and wholesome. Pacifism at any cost, even if it means handing over the world to tyrants and monsters to blight the world after they've destroyed those that could have defended it.
Wendy Doniger can say whatever her miniscule mind can conjure up from the safety of her comfortable residence. But let's see if she would declare her loudly-advertised pacifism to oncoming Changeez Khan or the Huns. Or whether she will try and draw blood before letting herself or any kids she may have get murdered. Some enemies can not be reasoned with, so sermonising to them about 'Can't we all just live in peace' will be nothing more than a waste of oxygen.
Unreasonable insistence on others' pacifism is worse than cowardice. At least the coward does not insist everyone else be a coward too and get murdered in a dreadful manner. But the uppity modern thought of being pacifist-at-all-times will rob everyone of the natural instincts of self-, family-, village-, nation- and civilisation-preservation. In our case the last is Dharma. All the ideals of Hindu civilisation are enshrined in that. So if any Dharmic person were to speak of defending 'our civilisation', it is ultimately Dharma which we seek to protect: it defines our principles formed over countless generations.
Merely lodging disagreement with use of a word. I take exception to:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->while Sri Krishna preached Armageddon, and Sri Parasurama PRACTICED it<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Armageddon has a very specific meaning. It is a term that is entirely biblical, where its meaning is complete destruction of everything and all life forms: all plants, all animals, all children, all women, all old men, all men - <i>all over the world</i>.
(But it has nothing to do with Kala - Time - destroying everything. Armageddon is a particular, defined event the bible alludes to. One can't find an equivalent in Hindu Dharma, it's like comparing cannonballs and apples.)
Krishna did not even tell the Pandavas that war must be, <i>until</i> all other options were tried and exhausted. He went as emissary to the Kauravas to talk them out of their obstinacy in denying the Pandavas even the smallest, token portion of their share.
When all attempts to avoid a confrontation had come to nothing, then and only then did the war start. And it is during the war - when Arjuna throws down Gandiva and sits dejectedly on the battlefield of Kurukshetra - that Krishna tells him why he must continue in this war, even though it is so destructive and will end with the deaths of all his family and beloved elders and teachers arrayed on the other side.
Where in the world does Krishna 'preach armageddon'?
Even Parashurama, in killing Kshatriyas, did not kill all men let alone all people, or all creatures. No armageddon there either.
Hindus must be careful not to use terms - worse, attribute them to our heroes and Gods - when we do not know their meanings. (I probably use words in the wrong contexts myself, which, unless someone sees fit to correct me, I won't know about.) But attaching 'armageddon' to Krishna in the Gita is inexplicable. Hindus who are trying to make a point ought to be more careful to explain what they mean correctly. Any important statement that uses terms that don't belong can and <i>will</i> be used against us.
People who know about armageddon, but don't know anything about the Gita and Mahabharatam, will use unintended mistakes like the above against Hinduism: 'See here's a Hindoo explaining how Krishna preached armageddon. So that makes their Gods no different from jihadis. Compare that with jeebus, who preached love <i>and</i> armageddon.'
Pointing out something else in post 81 again:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Kshatriyas were also specifically allowed to eat meat obtained through slaughter.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->It's true that they were allowed to eat meat obtained from hunting (specific animals).
But this was usually done only before battle. Outside of this, their diet (in earlier ages) was more strictly vegetarian than it has been in the last millennium. I do not have the source for this, and cannot remember where to find it, so take it as an opinion until if/when I am able to back up my position with more than my own words.
Not disagreeing on the explanation contained in #81 of why Gandhi's 'total ahimsa' was flawed and not in keeping with Hindu Dharma of the ages.
Being prepared for war was always a part of Hindu life. We even had an entire class of people trained for that (class as in class of specialists, not as in British class system), all over the country. None of them shrank from this duty or ever thought it evil; because they realised it was a necessity sometimes. Not being prepared to defend oneself - or on larger scale: to defend one's civilisation - means that everything can be lost (which in our case includes Dharma which is the essence of Hindu civilisation).
There was no drivel then like there is today: the modern movement of 'pacificism at any cost' even if it means destruction of all that is good and wholesome. Pacifism at any cost, even if it means handing over the world to tyrants and monsters to blight the world after they've destroyed those that could have defended it.
Wendy Doniger can say whatever her miniscule mind can conjure up from the safety of her comfortable residence. But let's see if she would declare her loudly-advertised pacifism to oncoming Changeez Khan or the Huns. Or whether she will try and draw blood before letting herself or any kids she may have get murdered. Some enemies can not be reasoned with, so sermonising to them about 'Can't we all just live in peace' will be nothing more than a waste of oxygen.
Unreasonable insistence on others' pacifism is worse than cowardice. At least the coward does not insist everyone else be a coward too and get murdered in a dreadful manner. But the uppity modern thought of being pacifist-at-all-times will rob everyone of the natural instincts of self-, family-, village-, nation- and civilisation-preservation. In our case the last is Dharma. All the ideals of Hindu civilisation are enshrined in that. So if any Dharmic person were to speak of defending 'our civilisation', it is ultimately Dharma which we seek to protect: it defines our principles formed over countless generations.