04-18-2007, 06:20 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Sumann Bharadwaja Sarma+Apr 18 2007, 03:34 AM-->QUOTE(Sumann Bharadwaja Sarma @ Apr 18 2007, 03:34 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Folks,
b) A little while back, something about cutting line for darshan...the answer to which was that some good said person did in some past allowed that to happen. Isn't this a glib, dangerous argument, to confront proselytization with?
< snip >
c) I am not sure I understand the value of the counter-punch in the you farted game. Could someone please explain it again? When someone throws an obviously baseless accusation and leaves us to defend, should the obvious response not be; Crusader religion person of insulting type (the north koreans do this well), why are you insulting my holy way of life (or other surrogates). i.e. the in your face cease and desist, until they explain how their argument is not baseless, no? Or is it much simpler than that: you debase my religion I debase yours. You insult me, I insult yours....But then the problem with that is the neutral observer is left with unanswered questions (neutral being a relative term, of course!). What is the right way to hold fort while deleting the offense?
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hmm great questions.
The "past life" bit is, I believe, interesting psychology used to explain the inevitable after the event. You don't cut the queue deliberately, telling yourself that a quickie darshan is owed to you from a past life. I don't outrage the modesty neighbor's wife by telling myself that she owes it to me. That is not the context in which it applies. It is used as one possible explanation of an unavoidable event after that event has passed.
The past life suggestion is used as a balm to soothe a person who has to accept the inevitable. A person who has cut a queue and is feeling guilty can be comforted (or made to feel worse) by some method.
In Islam, a mullah might prescribe some punishment.
In Christianity - you go to a confession and may then get some minor punishment.
In both instances your happiness after an even that is past (and cannot be reversed) is dependent on external agents - i.e the mullah/padre and their proclivities.
As a Hindu you can choose a similar path of self punishment to overcome guilt - even in a situation (such as the queue breaking) in which a mild misdemeanor has been committed in a moment of weakness. You can vow to do the whole thing again - or donate to charity or whatever.
But Hinduism offers you yet another path to self-correct your actions without punishing yourself with guilt. It tells you that you are yourself responsible for your actions, and anything that just "happens" to you despite your being a responsible person are payback for a previous even in a previous lifetime. No need to ask for punishment, but you can do a course correction in this life to make sure you don't err again. Sorry if I have not explained that clearly - but it is once again an indicator the greater choice of routes offered for mental piece in Hinduism.
The "you farted" example is used merely to show that the first person who makes the accusation automatically puts you on the defensive - and you end up "defending" something instead of doing what you should be doing. The accusation is made at a time of your opponents choosing (in order to stop you saying or doing something that causes him takleef) and can successfully divert the topic. One way of not allowing such a diversion to occur is to allow the accusation to be made and decide to leave it for a future date when you can get on the offensive yourself. This has the drawback that you are not defending yourself against a false accusation, but it allows you carry on doingwhat you were doing without changing the topic to defending yourself.
Let me explain the context in which it might be clear - since you were on BRF. I will try and be brief
A statement was made that Christians destroyed temples in Goa.
The response to this by one guy was a "you farted" accusation in which he suggested that Temple desecration was done by the connivance of Brahmins. This accusation got people so angry that all the responses after that were diverted from the prime purpose of bringing out the Hindu narrative of how temples were destroyed, to the secondary purpose of defending the "you fatred" accusation made by the lone baiter. In fact the accuastion by the baiter was so successful that half the Hindus chagned the topic from the Hindu narrative with silly arguments asking him why he did not like Hindus. That was a very stupid thing to do. If you ask me why I don't like you, you are inviting me to make a thousand more "you farted" accusations aboout you.
What got lost in the fight was the fact that Christians did destroy temples. If the righteous Hindus who got angry with the "you farted" comment had only allowed the comment to pass (as a temporary ploy) - then all the egregious things done by Christianity could have been piled on. But the you farted baiter successfully thwarted that.
Hindus have never learned the art of rhetoric. Christian and Muslim mullahs and evangelists have practised the art for centuries. A friend of mine who is in sales (in India) was telling me that they actually studied the methods used by evangelists - to put on all the "fire", conviction and arguments to convince someone. Hinduism has no equivalent and most Hindus appear like naive, well meaning children in front of sophisticated arguers from other faiths.
Examples like "you farted" and "torn shirt vs open fly" that I have used on BRF are merely tactics used in discussions in order to trip up and divert attention and I have rarely found Hindus using them effectively against Christians/Muslim fundoos in discussions.
The way to use the you farted accusation is to bring it up right away. If you hear any positive evangelistic statement - you immediately say "Oh but you guys murdered so many". That puts the other guy on the defensive. And if he diverts the topic to accuse you you can stop him by telling him not to divert the topic from Christian murdered using a "torn shirt vs open fly tactic"
Both tactics "you farted" and "torn shirt vs open fly" are TACTICS used in discussions that must be recognised and used effectively just like Mullahs and Evangelists.
The bottom line is when someone makes an egregious accusation don't get mad, get even. But getting even might mean suppressing your anger and allowing the accuser to go unchalleneged so that you can work yourself into an unassailable position and then beat his argument to death. But if you get angry and allow yourself to be diverted by every accusation he makes (to defend yourself) you are falling for his game and you are on a losing path by following his agenda. You have to be offender, not defender, in order to gain territory.
b) A little while back, something about cutting line for darshan...the answer to which was that some good said person did in some past allowed that to happen. Isn't this a glib, dangerous argument, to confront proselytization with?
< snip >
c) I am not sure I understand the value of the counter-punch in the you farted game. Could someone please explain it again? When someone throws an obviously baseless accusation and leaves us to defend, should the obvious response not be; Crusader religion person of insulting type (the north koreans do this well), why are you insulting my holy way of life (or other surrogates). i.e. the in your face cease and desist, until they explain how their argument is not baseless, no? Or is it much simpler than that: you debase my religion I debase yours. You insult me, I insult yours....But then the problem with that is the neutral observer is left with unanswered questions (neutral being a relative term, of course!). What is the right way to hold fort while deleting the offense?
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hmm great questions.
The "past life" bit is, I believe, interesting psychology used to explain the inevitable after the event. You don't cut the queue deliberately, telling yourself that a quickie darshan is owed to you from a past life. I don't outrage the modesty neighbor's wife by telling myself that she owes it to me. That is not the context in which it applies. It is used as one possible explanation of an unavoidable event after that event has passed.
The past life suggestion is used as a balm to soothe a person who has to accept the inevitable. A person who has cut a queue and is feeling guilty can be comforted (or made to feel worse) by some method.
In Islam, a mullah might prescribe some punishment.
In Christianity - you go to a confession and may then get some minor punishment.
In both instances your happiness after an even that is past (and cannot be reversed) is dependent on external agents - i.e the mullah/padre and their proclivities.
As a Hindu you can choose a similar path of self punishment to overcome guilt - even in a situation (such as the queue breaking) in which a mild misdemeanor has been committed in a moment of weakness. You can vow to do the whole thing again - or donate to charity or whatever.
But Hinduism offers you yet another path to self-correct your actions without punishing yourself with guilt. It tells you that you are yourself responsible for your actions, and anything that just "happens" to you despite your being a responsible person are payback for a previous even in a previous lifetime. No need to ask for punishment, but you can do a course correction in this life to make sure you don't err again. Sorry if I have not explained that clearly - but it is once again an indicator the greater choice of routes offered for mental piece in Hinduism.
The "you farted" example is used merely to show that the first person who makes the accusation automatically puts you on the defensive - and you end up "defending" something instead of doing what you should be doing. The accusation is made at a time of your opponents choosing (in order to stop you saying or doing something that causes him takleef) and can successfully divert the topic. One way of not allowing such a diversion to occur is to allow the accusation to be made and decide to leave it for a future date when you can get on the offensive yourself. This has the drawback that you are not defending yourself against a false accusation, but it allows you carry on doingwhat you were doing without changing the topic to defending yourself.
Let me explain the context in which it might be clear - since you were on BRF. I will try and be brief
A statement was made that Christians destroyed temples in Goa.
The response to this by one guy was a "you farted" accusation in which he suggested that Temple desecration was done by the connivance of Brahmins. This accusation got people so angry that all the responses after that were diverted from the prime purpose of bringing out the Hindu narrative of how temples were destroyed, to the secondary purpose of defending the "you fatred" accusation made by the lone baiter. In fact the accuastion by the baiter was so successful that half the Hindus chagned the topic from the Hindu narrative with silly arguments asking him why he did not like Hindus. That was a very stupid thing to do. If you ask me why I don't like you, you are inviting me to make a thousand more "you farted" accusations aboout you.
What got lost in the fight was the fact that Christians did destroy temples. If the righteous Hindus who got angry with the "you farted" comment had only allowed the comment to pass (as a temporary ploy) - then all the egregious things done by Christianity could have been piled on. But the you farted baiter successfully thwarted that.
Hindus have never learned the art of rhetoric. Christian and Muslim mullahs and evangelists have practised the art for centuries. A friend of mine who is in sales (in India) was telling me that they actually studied the methods used by evangelists - to put on all the "fire", conviction and arguments to convince someone. Hinduism has no equivalent and most Hindus appear like naive, well meaning children in front of sophisticated arguers from other faiths.
Examples like "you farted" and "torn shirt vs open fly" that I have used on BRF are merely tactics used in discussions in order to trip up and divert attention and I have rarely found Hindus using them effectively against Christians/Muslim fundoos in discussions.
The way to use the you farted accusation is to bring it up right away. If you hear any positive evangelistic statement - you immediately say "Oh but you guys murdered so many". That puts the other guy on the defensive. And if he diverts the topic to accuse you you can stop him by telling him not to divert the topic from Christian murdered using a "torn shirt vs open fly tactic"
Both tactics "you farted" and "torn shirt vs open fly" are TACTICS used in discussions that must be recognised and used effectively just like Mullahs and Evangelists.
The bottom line is when someone makes an egregious accusation don't get mad, get even. But getting even might mean suppressing your anger and allowing the accuser to go unchalleneged so that you can work yourself into an unassailable position and then beat his argument to death. But if you get angry and allow yourself to be diverted by every accusation he makes (to defend yourself) you are falling for his game and you are on a losing path by following his agenda. You have to be offender, not defender, in order to gain territory.