<!--QuoteBegin-dhu+May 21 2007, 07:13 AM-->QUOTE(dhu @ May 21 2007, 07:13 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Husky, you should have left your comment intact.[right][snapback]69096[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Have put it back in there.
Post 284 (Sattva):
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->(N Europe) where basically its inhabitants worship materialism and live to fulfill emotional and physical desires, with little turn towards spirituality, let alone religion.
Instead of viewing these nominal christians as needing of guidance, the church seeks to convert the heathens. Well, if thats the case, what is needed then is a more open Hindu missionary activity in the West to help these lost materialists. Of course, at the same time we must be fighting the Missionary/Imperialist scourge in our lands, along with reintroducing Hindu Dharma in the imperialist strongholds. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I understand what you're trying to say, but disagree with a few things you've mentioned above.
Scandinavians and other Europeans are better off without christianity, they certainly don't need the church to guide (terrorise) them. They've suffered enough of that for centuries. They're free at last, though some may be over-partying at present in celebrating this freedom.
It's stereotyping to say that these countries' inhabitants are 'worshipping materialism and are only living to fulfill emotional and physical desires'. Though sometimes society - whether restrictive or overly lax - tends to force individuals to follow the rest of mainstream trends, many individuals there and elsewhere do think for themselves.
It's wrong to think that when people have no religion they must need it. Not all of mankind absolutely requires religion or Gods. I need Gods and you might too, but people can find what they need for themselves.
For the most part, people just need to develop some balance, think for themselves, make conscious choices in life (choose to care for others, animals, nature, the world), take care of their mental and physical health and seek some inner solace be it in nature, stories, music or work even. Gods or the Tao, or whatever people may choose to call the Divine, are always there to guide anyone. For even small advancements all one needs is to quieten down a bit and be more peaceful and conscious, and live a more wholesome life.
And many non-religious people in the west choose to do these things. Some choose to become vegetarians because they feel it is most ethical. Some are highly pantheistic and (others) already resonate quite naturally with what we will identify as Taoist, Buddhist and Hindu ideas.
It's true that, going by TV, much of the west seems to be bragging about promiscuity or binge-drinking or other excessive/out-of-balance activities, but this does not represent every or even most non-religious people's life in the west. Besides, most of the western popstars doing this tend to be devout christians like Jennifer Simpson (S Baptist) or tend to come from such backgrounds.
As an additional point, high divorce rates are only an indicator that people are being irrational or naive when looking for spouses or what they expect out of their marriages. It's not an indicator of immorality or an increase in immorality.
What people forget when looking at the west is that people there are taking full advantage of a newfound freedom after having lived in iron shackles for centuries. The evolving spiritual and mental understanding that existed in those countries prior to christianity's takeover was nearly completely exterminated. Many in the west can still not go back because they just don't resonate with the ideas and understanding of the Old Religion any more - because of the chasm of >1.5 millennia that christianity created between them and their Old Ways.
The society that developed in the west after the 'sudden freedom' from christianity naturally had a tendency to abuse it. It's been maybe between 1 and 2 centuries now since the grip of christianity started becoming ineffective; and people and popular culture are still pushing further at the boundaries of what is taboo. This is an adolescence they are going through. It is therefore not right to suggest shackling them up in that intolerant christo ideology again.
They will find their way, and they need time for this. Maybe they will create a new balanced culture over time, or maybe they might one day regain the seeds of their original one that was forcibly replaced by christianity. If their Old Traditions were still strong and clearly laid out, it would be good for them if their society would move towards where their Old Religions would be today if they had been allowed to continue. That is, pick up where they left off.
But that's the thing about being abruptly and completely cut off from an ancient religio-culture that took ages to develop: there is sometimes no going back unless and until a recovery or rediscovery happens (not talking about imaginary IE here). It takes a great deal of time for forests to grow back after large-scale destruction.
There's a warning in this for India and Indians too. In wanting to be 'progressive' or whatever is the fly word today, some Indians want to imitate the most extreme extrapolations of what they imagine people in the west are doing after watching foreign TV. Besides coming off as incompetent wannabees who can only poorly imitate the worst examples, we're just repeating other people's most meaningless and wasteful experiences instead of learning from them. Unlike the more unfortunate people in the west, we have <i>not</i> lost our spiritual-culture and heritage, so there is no need for us to grope as if we also have gone temporarily blind. But if we keep up the pretence of blindness long enough, we *will* lose our vision through disuse.
In the western setting I understand why society is in the situation it's in at present: it's been rebelling against the long oppression. But I just can't figure out why some among the young generations of Indians (including actors in their 30s like Sherawat) want to blindly imitate western society in its extreme, yet without such Indians having any cause for their present behaviour - unlike the west. It's like well-off kids choosing to become junkies after thinking junkies from troubled or hapless backgrounds are cool. We end up looking the greater fools.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Instead of viewing these nominal christians as needing of guidance, the church seeks to convert the heathens. Well, if thats the case, what is needed then is a more open Hindu missionary activity in the West to help these lost materialists. Of course, at the same time we must be fighting the Missionary/Imperialist scourge in our lands, along with reintroducing Hindu Dharma in the imperialist strongholds.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The church should keep its paws off Europe, it has mauled the region enough for several eternities.
I cannot agree with suggestions about doing Hindu missionary activity in the West. First of all, people who are seeking will find whatever it is they seek: their own Old Religion, or Buddhism or Hinduism or Native American Religion - whatever suits them best.
We need not advertise.
Secondly, I sincerely believe - and others here might heavily disagree with me on this - that Hinduism mostly (<i>not always</i>) makes sense for people who've been born among those progressing from generation to generation with the evolving Sanatana Dharma. Minds that are not familiar with the same historic or ancestral experiences handed down for generations, might some day suddenly reject it - perhaps even violently. Even subtly forcing ideas on others is bad.
When people find Hinduism for themselves and find it suits them as if it were their own skin - like David Frawley or Michel Danino or Ishwar Sharan - then it's of course naturally their religion.
But going about advertising for Hinduism or telling people of how it might be the right thing for them could go wrong if such a plan were ever successful. If Hinduism is right for someone outside the subcontinent, they will definitely find it for themselves (or it will find them). Same goes for other Old Religions. I read somewhere about a former-muslim Turk who is now interested in Ancient Greece's Hellenismos. I think it was in the comments section of jesusneverexisted.com or maybe some other such site - not sure.
Every country does have its own Swadharma - every country evolved its own Old religio-culture, developed with the help/inspiration of their Gods - and if we wish to help people in the west or elsewhere, it's towards the best of their own original traditions that we should direct them. Our shoe may not always fit the next man, however pretty he may find it and however comfortable it may be for us.
There's another reason why I am of this opinion. If there is one lesson one can learn from the (recent) history of religions, it's that the combination of
(1) one people's religion (essentially one people's mentality/understanding of divinity and the cosmos) and
(2) another population (who had evolved their own understanding of divinity, and have their own pattern of thinking/understanding which is generally no better nor worse than another's; but is certainly profoundly different from (1))
often gives rise to all kinds of horrible and unforeseen consequences.
This is how the terrorist ideologies of christianity and islam arose. The accidental mess that resulted from Zoroastrian, Greek, Roman and Buddhist influence on Middle-Eastern and Mediterranean peoples. Islam then arose from the unpredictable outcome of the chemical reaction of christian, Judaic, other Middle-Eastern and again some Zoroastrian (like praying 5 times a day, veiled noblewomen) influences.
Leave people to evolve their own identity, society and the naturally-resulting mental, spiritual progression of their population. Anything more is playing with fire.
I do agree that there are some universal ideas in Hinduism (as also in a number of other religions) that will help many people - like many Native American sayings or prayers from the Vedas - but becoming a Hindu or a follower of Native American Religion may not be the ideal destiny for everyone.
Post 284 (Sattva):
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->(N Europe) where basically its inhabitants worship materialism and live to fulfill emotional and physical desires, with little turn towards spirituality, let alone religion.
Instead of viewing these nominal christians as needing of guidance, the church seeks to convert the heathens. Well, if thats the case, what is needed then is a more open Hindu missionary activity in the West to help these lost materialists. Of course, at the same time we must be fighting the Missionary/Imperialist scourge in our lands, along with reintroducing Hindu Dharma in the imperialist strongholds. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I understand what you're trying to say, but disagree with a few things you've mentioned above.
Scandinavians and other Europeans are better off without christianity, they certainly don't need the church to guide (terrorise) them. They've suffered enough of that for centuries. They're free at last, though some may be over-partying at present in celebrating this freedom.
It's stereotyping to say that these countries' inhabitants are 'worshipping materialism and are only living to fulfill emotional and physical desires'. Though sometimes society - whether restrictive or overly lax - tends to force individuals to follow the rest of mainstream trends, many individuals there and elsewhere do think for themselves.
It's wrong to think that when people have no religion they must need it. Not all of mankind absolutely requires religion or Gods. I need Gods and you might too, but people can find what they need for themselves.
For the most part, people just need to develop some balance, think for themselves, make conscious choices in life (choose to care for others, animals, nature, the world), take care of their mental and physical health and seek some inner solace be it in nature, stories, music or work even. Gods or the Tao, or whatever people may choose to call the Divine, are always there to guide anyone. For even small advancements all one needs is to quieten down a bit and be more peaceful and conscious, and live a more wholesome life.
And many non-religious people in the west choose to do these things. Some choose to become vegetarians because they feel it is most ethical. Some are highly pantheistic and (others) already resonate quite naturally with what we will identify as Taoist, Buddhist and Hindu ideas.
It's true that, going by TV, much of the west seems to be bragging about promiscuity or binge-drinking or other excessive/out-of-balance activities, but this does not represent every or even most non-religious people's life in the west. Besides, most of the western popstars doing this tend to be devout christians like Jennifer Simpson (S Baptist) or tend to come from such backgrounds.
As an additional point, high divorce rates are only an indicator that people are being irrational or naive when looking for spouses or what they expect out of their marriages. It's not an indicator of immorality or an increase in immorality.
What people forget when looking at the west is that people there are taking full advantage of a newfound freedom after having lived in iron shackles for centuries. The evolving spiritual and mental understanding that existed in those countries prior to christianity's takeover was nearly completely exterminated. Many in the west can still not go back because they just don't resonate with the ideas and understanding of the Old Religion any more - because of the chasm of >1.5 millennia that christianity created between them and their Old Ways.
The society that developed in the west after the 'sudden freedom' from christianity naturally had a tendency to abuse it. It's been maybe between 1 and 2 centuries now since the grip of christianity started becoming ineffective; and people and popular culture are still pushing further at the boundaries of what is taboo. This is an adolescence they are going through. It is therefore not right to suggest shackling them up in that intolerant christo ideology again.
They will find their way, and they need time for this. Maybe they will create a new balanced culture over time, or maybe they might one day regain the seeds of their original one that was forcibly replaced by christianity. If their Old Traditions were still strong and clearly laid out, it would be good for them if their society would move towards where their Old Religions would be today if they had been allowed to continue. That is, pick up where they left off.
But that's the thing about being abruptly and completely cut off from an ancient religio-culture that took ages to develop: there is sometimes no going back unless and until a recovery or rediscovery happens (not talking about imaginary IE here). It takes a great deal of time for forests to grow back after large-scale destruction.
There's a warning in this for India and Indians too. In wanting to be 'progressive' or whatever is the fly word today, some Indians want to imitate the most extreme extrapolations of what they imagine people in the west are doing after watching foreign TV. Besides coming off as incompetent wannabees who can only poorly imitate the worst examples, we're just repeating other people's most meaningless and wasteful experiences instead of learning from them. Unlike the more unfortunate people in the west, we have <i>not</i> lost our spiritual-culture and heritage, so there is no need for us to grope as if we also have gone temporarily blind. But if we keep up the pretence of blindness long enough, we *will* lose our vision through disuse.
In the western setting I understand why society is in the situation it's in at present: it's been rebelling against the long oppression. But I just can't figure out why some among the young generations of Indians (including actors in their 30s like Sherawat) want to blindly imitate western society in its extreme, yet without such Indians having any cause for their present behaviour - unlike the west. It's like well-off kids choosing to become junkies after thinking junkies from troubled or hapless backgrounds are cool. We end up looking the greater fools.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Instead of viewing these nominal christians as needing of guidance, the church seeks to convert the heathens. Well, if thats the case, what is needed then is a more open Hindu missionary activity in the West to help these lost materialists. Of course, at the same time we must be fighting the Missionary/Imperialist scourge in our lands, along with reintroducing Hindu Dharma in the imperialist strongholds.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The church should keep its paws off Europe, it has mauled the region enough for several eternities.
I cannot agree with suggestions about doing Hindu missionary activity in the West. First of all, people who are seeking will find whatever it is they seek: their own Old Religion, or Buddhism or Hinduism or Native American Religion - whatever suits them best.
We need not advertise.
Secondly, I sincerely believe - and others here might heavily disagree with me on this - that Hinduism mostly (<i>not always</i>) makes sense for people who've been born among those progressing from generation to generation with the evolving Sanatana Dharma. Minds that are not familiar with the same historic or ancestral experiences handed down for generations, might some day suddenly reject it - perhaps even violently. Even subtly forcing ideas on others is bad.
When people find Hinduism for themselves and find it suits them as if it were their own skin - like David Frawley or Michel Danino or Ishwar Sharan - then it's of course naturally their religion.
But going about advertising for Hinduism or telling people of how it might be the right thing for them could go wrong if such a plan were ever successful. If Hinduism is right for someone outside the subcontinent, they will definitely find it for themselves (or it will find them). Same goes for other Old Religions. I read somewhere about a former-muslim Turk who is now interested in Ancient Greece's Hellenismos. I think it was in the comments section of jesusneverexisted.com or maybe some other such site - not sure.
Every country does have its own Swadharma - every country evolved its own Old religio-culture, developed with the help/inspiration of their Gods - and if we wish to help people in the west or elsewhere, it's towards the best of their own original traditions that we should direct them. Our shoe may not always fit the next man, however pretty he may find it and however comfortable it may be for us.
There's another reason why I am of this opinion. If there is one lesson one can learn from the (recent) history of religions, it's that the combination of
(1) one people's religion (essentially one people's mentality/understanding of divinity and the cosmos) and
(2) another population (who had evolved their own understanding of divinity, and have their own pattern of thinking/understanding which is generally no better nor worse than another's; but is certainly profoundly different from (1))
often gives rise to all kinds of horrible and unforeseen consequences.
This is how the terrorist ideologies of christianity and islam arose. The accidental mess that resulted from Zoroastrian, Greek, Roman and Buddhist influence on Middle-Eastern and Mediterranean peoples. Islam then arose from the unpredictable outcome of the chemical reaction of christian, Judaic, other Middle-Eastern and again some Zoroastrian (like praying 5 times a day, veiled noblewomen) influences.
Leave people to evolve their own identity, society and the naturally-resulting mental, spiritual progression of their population. Anything more is playing with fire.
I do agree that there are some universal ideas in Hinduism (as also in a number of other religions) that will help many people - like many Native American sayings or prayers from the Vedas - but becoming a Hindu or a follower of Native American Religion may not be the ideal destiny for everyone.