Post 129 (Sengotuvel):
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Islam came in with murder, looting and wanton destruction
Christianity has used more subtle methods of coercion and blackmail - except in Goa where it has been Islamlike murder, looting and destruction<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->You're slightly wrong about christianity. It has been as genocidal as islam, and has only recently reduced it in some parts of the world. In other places it still operates faithfully like the culling machine it always was.
I agree with most of what you have said in your posts in this thread.
I disagree partly with something that you wrote in <b>post 64</b>. In fact, it's likely I'll be disagreeing with every other Hindu on this.<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->When you talk of a Hindu narrative, it is important not to get tied up in knots about who is a Hindu.
A Hindu is anyone who thinks he is one. His story is his narrative. If it is his story, it should not be disputed - it becomes part of the narrative.
If, for example, a person who is a Hindu laments that Hindus are intolerant and that they should should not be antagonistic towards Islam or Christianity - this person's narrative is a powerful tool in the Hindu narrative.
Even if you classify this person as a Dhimmi or a psec, his narrative, as part the Hindu narrative ... The strength of such a narrative lies in the fact that the person with this narrative claims to be a Hindu (he has not converted) and looks askance at other Hindus whom he feels are showing intolerance. Showing intolerance to this view is a tactical blunder. The Hindu narrative cannot exclude narratives from any Hindu. The act of rejecting this narrative as that of a dhimmi or "not a true Hindu" only thins the ranks of Hindus and encourages alliances with others.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I will explain a little further on, why I disagree with some of this.
I do not accept everyone as Hindu who merely say they are. In my view, a Hindu is one who (1) says they are Hindu AND (2) has a sympathy for Hindu Dharma, they consciously choose to be Hindu.
I don't know how to more accurately define (2). Will try describing:
Innate sympathy should make them instantly cautious of dawaganda. Rather than immediately jumping to the side of the media/christoislamic accusations, they should always choose to examine facts from all perspectives, not disregard the Hindu perspective.
They have to think well of overall Hindu Dharma, and wish to clarify at least to themselves misinterpretations, misconceptions and outright slander (perhaps to expose it for others as well), while also wish to improve all negative things there might be in present-day Hindu society.
In short, they have to think of Hinduism not as a lost cause and a shame to live with, but something alive, worth living, worth defending, improving and a source of happiness. Hindu Dhimmis are only Hindus by nature of passivity: they more often find it a source of shame, something they're 'stuck with', they can't be bothered changing to something else. (Such mindsets wouldn't be an asset to any religion, IMO.)
The reason I differentiate between Hindus who merely say they are so, and my definition of what a Hindu is, is simple:
There is a class of Indian that is Hindu only when it comes out to accuse Hinduism in defense of christoislamism or due to some profound misunderstanding of what secularism means. Examples:
- 'As a Hindu, I feel ashamed that they are trying to hang Afzal Guru. How inhumane!'
- 'As a Hindu, I march against the random terrorists who regularly attack temples and against the so-called Hindus who might protest against islamic terrorism. Terrorism is not islamic or christian, it is random. Some individuals may be terrorists. For example, there are Hindu terrorists too - like in the (BJP/RSS/VHP/bla bla bla). Okay, I can't think of any concrete examples, but I leave that to you as homework.'
- 'As a Hindu, I want to say it was wrong for those Kar Sevak Hindu women and children to have been in the Godhra train. It was their own fault and they got accidentally burnt for it.'
- 'As a Hindu, I stand with shabana azmi, teesta seetalvad and a host of other secular Hindus and Indians against the protests organised against MF Hussain's beautiful art work.'
- 'I am swami agnivesh, a Hindu Swami - note I'm a swami. Are you listening? Who better than me to speak for Hinduism, I have swami credentials - self-conferred of course, but swami credentials, I say! As a Hindu, I have to say, Hinduism is an evil religion because .... (list of missionary stories)'
- 'As a Hindu I have to oppose the mistreatment of the Kashmiri terrorists. How can India do such a thing. No wonder they are now terrorising the rest of India.' (Meanwhile, terrorised and exiled Kashmiri Hindus don't get any sympathy.)
- 'As a Hindu, I have to ask, why can't we be friends with Pakistan? What does it matter that they regularly terrorise India? If we become friends, it will all become better.'
- 'I'm Hrithik Roshan. As a Hindu, I am ashamed of being an Indian when people claiming to be Hindus accuse my friend Aamir Khan's terrorist film as being sympathetic to terrorism.'
The list is endless. Thankfully, many such people who'd have still <i>claimed</i> to be Hindus 5 or 10 years ago openly say they are not Hindus at all nowadays. They stick to only 'secular'.
Some unwitting people may actually be real dhimmis who don't know better and remain Hindu out of pure inertia or not thinking about what they want to be.
But as I said, there are also many frauds who like to pose as Hindus when it suits their agenda. Why do these people's narratives count at all in the Hindu narrative and if they have to, why should their versions contribute equally to it? Why should all Hindu narratives be weighted equally?
Does a Shankaracharya's understanding of Hindu Dharma deserve equal consideration as mine? And should it get equal consideration as say Mallika Sherawat (doesn't know anything) or mira nair (married to islamoterrorist) or teesta seetalvad (same) or deepa mehta or some other anti-Hindu 'Hindu' secular?
Because such a Hindu narrative is not at all representative of Hindu Dharma, and let's face it, by that time, large amounts of christoislamic missionary tales would have crept into it courtesy of such people.
In fact I think we should follow in the footsteps of the Lakota, Dakota, Nakota and a few other N American native American Nations. They have rejected all those even among themselves who are destroying their heritage. In this point, I feel we should take their example. (They've also rejected converts from non-native American people, but we need not imitate them in that). They've seen what insidious damage has been done by the 'macaulayites' amongst themselves and have drawn the line. Awesome.
I say, leave the dead wood alone before it rots the whole. Who knows, some dhimmi Hindus may well turn around and stop being passive when they see what active Hindus believe in (when they learn of the narrative you suggested). But I don't know that they ought to be courted beforehand, when you'll have to carry their unwilling selves around to get anything done anyway.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Islam came in with murder, looting and wanton destruction
Christianity has used more subtle methods of coercion and blackmail - except in Goa where it has been Islamlike murder, looting and destruction<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->You're slightly wrong about christianity. It has been as genocidal as islam, and has only recently reduced it in some parts of the world. In other places it still operates faithfully like the culling machine it always was.
I agree with most of what you have said in your posts in this thread.
I disagree partly with something that you wrote in <b>post 64</b>. In fact, it's likely I'll be disagreeing with every other Hindu on this.<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->When you talk of a Hindu narrative, it is important not to get tied up in knots about who is a Hindu.
A Hindu is anyone who thinks he is one. His story is his narrative. If it is his story, it should not be disputed - it becomes part of the narrative.
If, for example, a person who is a Hindu laments that Hindus are intolerant and that they should should not be antagonistic towards Islam or Christianity - this person's narrative is a powerful tool in the Hindu narrative.
Even if you classify this person as a Dhimmi or a psec, his narrative, as part the Hindu narrative ... The strength of such a narrative lies in the fact that the person with this narrative claims to be a Hindu (he has not converted) and looks askance at other Hindus whom he feels are showing intolerance. Showing intolerance to this view is a tactical blunder. The Hindu narrative cannot exclude narratives from any Hindu. The act of rejecting this narrative as that of a dhimmi or "not a true Hindu" only thins the ranks of Hindus and encourages alliances with others.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I will explain a little further on, why I disagree with some of this.
I do not accept everyone as Hindu who merely say they are. In my view, a Hindu is one who (1) says they are Hindu AND (2) has a sympathy for Hindu Dharma, they consciously choose to be Hindu.
I don't know how to more accurately define (2). Will try describing:
Innate sympathy should make them instantly cautious of dawaganda. Rather than immediately jumping to the side of the media/christoislamic accusations, they should always choose to examine facts from all perspectives, not disregard the Hindu perspective.
They have to think well of overall Hindu Dharma, and wish to clarify at least to themselves misinterpretations, misconceptions and outright slander (perhaps to expose it for others as well), while also wish to improve all negative things there might be in present-day Hindu society.
In short, they have to think of Hinduism not as a lost cause and a shame to live with, but something alive, worth living, worth defending, improving and a source of happiness. Hindu Dhimmis are only Hindus by nature of passivity: they more often find it a source of shame, something they're 'stuck with', they can't be bothered changing to something else. (Such mindsets wouldn't be an asset to any religion, IMO.)
The reason I differentiate between Hindus who merely say they are so, and my definition of what a Hindu is, is simple:
There is a class of Indian that is Hindu only when it comes out to accuse Hinduism in defense of christoislamism or due to some profound misunderstanding of what secularism means. Examples:
- 'As a Hindu, I feel ashamed that they are trying to hang Afzal Guru. How inhumane!'
- 'As a Hindu, I march against the random terrorists who regularly attack temples and against the so-called Hindus who might protest against islamic terrorism. Terrorism is not islamic or christian, it is random. Some individuals may be terrorists. For example, there are Hindu terrorists too - like in the (BJP/RSS/VHP/bla bla bla). Okay, I can't think of any concrete examples, but I leave that to you as homework.'
- 'As a Hindu, I want to say it was wrong for those Kar Sevak Hindu women and children to have been in the Godhra train. It was their own fault and they got accidentally burnt for it.'
- 'As a Hindu, I stand with shabana azmi, teesta seetalvad and a host of other secular Hindus and Indians against the protests organised against MF Hussain's beautiful art work.'
- 'I am swami agnivesh, a Hindu Swami - note I'm a swami. Are you listening? Who better than me to speak for Hinduism, I have swami credentials - self-conferred of course, but swami credentials, I say! As a Hindu, I have to say, Hinduism is an evil religion because .... (list of missionary stories)'
- 'As a Hindu I have to oppose the mistreatment of the Kashmiri terrorists. How can India do such a thing. No wonder they are now terrorising the rest of India.' (Meanwhile, terrorised and exiled Kashmiri Hindus don't get any sympathy.)
- 'As a Hindu, I have to ask, why can't we be friends with Pakistan? What does it matter that they regularly terrorise India? If we become friends, it will all become better.'
- 'I'm Hrithik Roshan. As a Hindu, I am ashamed of being an Indian when people claiming to be Hindus accuse my friend Aamir Khan's terrorist film as being sympathetic to terrorism.'
The list is endless. Thankfully, many such people who'd have still <i>claimed</i> to be Hindus 5 or 10 years ago openly say they are not Hindus at all nowadays. They stick to only 'secular'.
Some unwitting people may actually be real dhimmis who don't know better and remain Hindu out of pure inertia or not thinking about what they want to be.
But as I said, there are also many frauds who like to pose as Hindus when it suits their agenda. Why do these people's narratives count at all in the Hindu narrative and if they have to, why should their versions contribute equally to it? Why should all Hindu narratives be weighted equally?
Does a Shankaracharya's understanding of Hindu Dharma deserve equal consideration as mine? And should it get equal consideration as say Mallika Sherawat (doesn't know anything) or mira nair (married to islamoterrorist) or teesta seetalvad (same) or deepa mehta or some other anti-Hindu 'Hindu' secular?
Because such a Hindu narrative is not at all representative of Hindu Dharma, and let's face it, by that time, large amounts of christoislamic missionary tales would have crept into it courtesy of such people.
In fact I think we should follow in the footsteps of the Lakota, Dakota, Nakota and a few other N American native American Nations. They have rejected all those even among themselves who are destroying their heritage. In this point, I feel we should take their example. (They've also rejected converts from non-native American people, but we need not imitate them in that). They've seen what insidious damage has been done by the 'macaulayites' amongst themselves and have drawn the line. Awesome.
I say, leave the dead wood alone before it rots the whole. Who knows, some dhimmi Hindus may well turn around and stop being passive when they see what active Hindus believe in (when they learn of the narrative you suggested). But I don't know that they ought to be courted beforehand, when you'll have to carry their unwilling selves around to get anything done anyway.