03-08-2008, 09:06 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Wrong. Christianity was a *devolution* from Greco-Roman, native American, etc. civilisations. For instance, christianism could only destroy Greek art, libraries, science and philosophy and the schools, temples, libraries in the Roman empire, and it destroyed the superior social structure of NA native Americans. Christianity introduced stupidity as something to aspire to. Its social darwinistic invention that "brute force (to push insipid ideology) is a substitute for civilisation, culture and evolution" is rather the same as islam's own number one principle.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're right, if you're viewing life in terms of right vs wrong, or good vs evil which, incidentally, happens to be a Christian idea. <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /><!--endemo--> But there are others who measure life in terms of victory vs defeat, and conclude on this basis that a defeated civilization must've been an inferior one. Are you getting it?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->But what does Durant know. Sureshmoorthy will argue that it was a matter of superior evolution on islam's part (sureshmoorthy: "The fact remains....people who refused to evolve were wiped out by those who did") that made the islamoterrorist invaders win over Hindu Bharat. That's on account of sureshmoorthy's viewing "All life" "in the context of Social Darwinism". Just like he will apply to the social darwinist model in arguing that the 500 Years of Indigenous Resistance was an attitude of that of losers:<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Think about it, and you'll know it's true. Turn the pages of Indian history, and you'll know it's true. Starting from Chauhan to the present day two-bit politician, you'll notice a familiar pattern. Hindus repeat certain mistakes, without ever caring to learn from them. And what are those mistakes? See below.
#1 <b>Not understanding the enemy, especially the enemy's ideology</b>.
Did any Hindu king, Shivaji included, ever try to get to the root cause of the problem, namely Islam? Fine, what of the modern Hindus? Not many have the capability or the willingness to do so. Even supposedly pro-Hindu orgs like RSS repeat same old platitudes like sarva dharma samabhava etc.
Doesn't this show total intellectual bankruptcy of the Hindu people? Doesn't it show that Hindus are simply unwilling to learn from their past, and evolve to another level? 1000 years ago, Chauhan lost the war due to his ignorance of Islam. In the 21st century, modern day Chauhans are losing the war due to the same ignorance. Doesn't this strike you as odd at all, I mean the fact that Hindus are either unwilling or incapable of learning and evolving?
If I point this out, does that mean I am supporting the enemy, or that I am attacking Hindus? Don't answer that, it's a rhetorical question anyway.
#2 <b>Not going for the kill</b>:
This is another mistake Hindus have been making repeatedly. Chauhan and Mrs. Gandhi share something in common here, right? This again proves my contention that a race that refuses to learn and evolve will be destroyed.
I can point to hundred such instances, where Hindus do the same old thing without even caring to think the matter through, thereby suffering terrible consequences. Doesn't this show that somewhere along the line, Hindus have simply stopped making changes for the better, as Aurobindo has alleged? He called it 'thought phobia.' But the point is: if Hindus had changed with the times, things could've been much better.
Change is the essence of life, and people who refuse to change go under. Even our lives prove this rule. Will anyone get a good job, if he studies basic programming these days? Or, must he change with the times, and acquire the knowledge and skills that are relevant to the present day? As one can notice, resistance to change will arrest a person's intellectual growth. The same goes for nations too.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Of course his opinion on history is "objective" rolleyes.gif - when one factors out that it's seen through the eyes of someone infatuated with social darwinism, and someone who probably knows very little about Australian Aboriginals and native Americans but will use them as an "example" in his proof for why "The fact remains....people who refused to evolve were wiped out by those who did". (Meaning: people who refused to assimilate into christoislamism. Note how joining christoislamism means 'evolving' to this social darwinist - quite predictable.)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Christians and Muslims oppose evolution, so I don't see how anything as sophisticated as SD could've evolved (!) out of what you call ChristoIslamism. Reg. native Americans and aborigines, forget about what I say. It's a universal standard of measurement that we're applying here, namely:
#1 If a civilization is defeated, one concludes that it's either inferior, or there must've been a fundamental flaw in the system. In India's case, there were many such flaws such as a decentralized system, lack of leadership, too much idealism in the scriptures, lack of political ideology as a basis for action, and so forth. These flaws must be corrected, if India is to rise again.
#2 An individual (or nation/race) is judged by his accomplishments and contributions. This is unfortunate, but true. If India hadn't made contributions in various fields like math, science, religion, arts, literature etc., would you feel proud at all? Do you think Durant (your fav., I suppose), Einstein, Twain, Emerson and all those worthies would've cared to say positive things about India, if India hadn't accomplished anything?
<b>As you can see, these seem to be the universal standards by which races and nations are judged</b>. There's nothing we can do about it. Going by these standards, the world concludes that aborigines/native Americans are inferior. Some of them also conclude that Indians are inferior, because a handful of Brits could rule them. Is this unfair? Probably, but life often is. Understand that we're living in a cruel world, where goodness of the heart matters very little. The world recognizes success and power, not much else.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Many peoples in the world may choose to follow their traditional ways of life. But sureshmoorthy will probably side with those who insist on building schools amongst the Amazon rainforest tribes even though they already have their own system of imparting the education necessary for *their* lifes in *their* environment - an environment and way of life where most of modern education is irrelevant.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No one is taking sides here. But nature has her own way of giving a few blows every now and then. She tests us to see if we're qualified to survive, and these tests come in many forms. Many animals, like the dinosaurs, failed to adapt, and died out. The same principle applies to amazon tribes as well. It's NOT about right and wrong at all, it's all about survival through evolution. The aborigines and native Americans are probably the dinosaurs in the world of the modern man. And this reluctance or incapability to adapt is almost like giving an invitation to the Christian marauders to destroy them. It's that simple.
Like I said earlier, no one here is debating who's good and who's evil, whether the natives are good and the christians are evil. We're not trying to organize a Mr. Evil contest. <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /><!--endemo--> Our sole concern is to learn from history, doing which we can be better equipped to face these challenges.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Sureshmoorthy better hurry and export his grand opinions to Japan where the "dangerous" ideas of Fujiwara Masahiko on where Japan's real future lies should be stopped by all means. Sureshmoorthy can't allow Japan to prove by example that the western idea of progress as being inexorable (uncompromising) is not necessarily a way forward (but rather a sidetrack when such progress is at the expense and has been exclusive of much of Japan's native evolution of thought and life).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For all its eastern exterior, Japan remains a heavily westernized nation. Even their cartoon characters look like Caucasians, not like the Japanese! Most Japanese want to look and act western. So I don't know where you get these ideas about Japan's native evolution, whatever that means. All its evolution is based on western principles.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->And here, sureshmoorthy talks about "us Hindus" while teaching us stoopid Hindoos about the "right" way to interpret Aurobindo and the "symbolic Deva-Asura wars":<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I never called anyone stupid, although it's true there are many stupid people in this world. That's life. But the important thing is to interpret our scriptures properly. There are people who think deva-asura battles are mere fairy tales for children; whilst others believe that they have deeper implications. It isn't very difficult to concede that the asuras represent opposing forces, and the battle an evolutionary struggle. And Aurobindo firmly believed in this process. A cursory glance at his work "Life Divine" should prove this. But then again, Aurobindo's thoughts are too intellectually challenging for most people, which is why interpretations are necessary.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Question is, why doesn't sureshmoorthy stop "antagonizing others who succeeded" (=christoislamicommunistics) altogether and just convert to the "superior" (in social darwinistic POV) ideology of christoislamicommuninazism?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Christianity and Islam oppose evolution. Communism stands for the false idea of equality, whereas SD believes in intrinsic differences in each individual. So SD inevitably leads to laissez faire, and is opposed to communism. So I don't know how you can relate 'christoislamicommuninazism' to SD.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->And when sureshmoorthy says "us Hindus", who/what does he mean? Well, he makes it clear here - where he differentiates between Hinduism and Hindutva, and likes to (ideally) get rid of the 'religion' in Hinduism and make it a "non-religious, political, nationalism" (because Hindus are actually in the way of his vision, you see):<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This question doesn't belong here, so I've answered in the relevant thread. Please go there and read my comments.
You're right, if you're viewing life in terms of right vs wrong, or good vs evil which, incidentally, happens to be a Christian idea. <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /><!--endemo--> But there are others who measure life in terms of victory vs defeat, and conclude on this basis that a defeated civilization must've been an inferior one. Are you getting it?<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->But what does Durant know. Sureshmoorthy will argue that it was a matter of superior evolution on islam's part (sureshmoorthy: "The fact remains....people who refused to evolve were wiped out by those who did") that made the islamoterrorist invaders win over Hindu Bharat. That's on account of sureshmoorthy's viewing "All life" "in the context of Social Darwinism". Just like he will apply to the social darwinist model in arguing that the 500 Years of Indigenous Resistance was an attitude of that of losers:<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Think about it, and you'll know it's true. Turn the pages of Indian history, and you'll know it's true. Starting from Chauhan to the present day two-bit politician, you'll notice a familiar pattern. Hindus repeat certain mistakes, without ever caring to learn from them. And what are those mistakes? See below.
#1 <b>Not understanding the enemy, especially the enemy's ideology</b>.
Did any Hindu king, Shivaji included, ever try to get to the root cause of the problem, namely Islam? Fine, what of the modern Hindus? Not many have the capability or the willingness to do so. Even supposedly pro-Hindu orgs like RSS repeat same old platitudes like sarva dharma samabhava etc.
Doesn't this show total intellectual bankruptcy of the Hindu people? Doesn't it show that Hindus are simply unwilling to learn from their past, and evolve to another level? 1000 years ago, Chauhan lost the war due to his ignorance of Islam. In the 21st century, modern day Chauhans are losing the war due to the same ignorance. Doesn't this strike you as odd at all, I mean the fact that Hindus are either unwilling or incapable of learning and evolving?
If I point this out, does that mean I am supporting the enemy, or that I am attacking Hindus? Don't answer that, it's a rhetorical question anyway.
#2 <b>Not going for the kill</b>:
This is another mistake Hindus have been making repeatedly. Chauhan and Mrs. Gandhi share something in common here, right? This again proves my contention that a race that refuses to learn and evolve will be destroyed.
I can point to hundred such instances, where Hindus do the same old thing without even caring to think the matter through, thereby suffering terrible consequences. Doesn't this show that somewhere along the line, Hindus have simply stopped making changes for the better, as Aurobindo has alleged? He called it 'thought phobia.' But the point is: if Hindus had changed with the times, things could've been much better.
Change is the essence of life, and people who refuse to change go under. Even our lives prove this rule. Will anyone get a good job, if he studies basic programming these days? Or, must he change with the times, and acquire the knowledge and skills that are relevant to the present day? As one can notice, resistance to change will arrest a person's intellectual growth. The same goes for nations too.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Of course his opinion on history is "objective" rolleyes.gif - when one factors out that it's seen through the eyes of someone infatuated with social darwinism, and someone who probably knows very little about Australian Aboriginals and native Americans but will use them as an "example" in his proof for why "The fact remains....people who refused to evolve were wiped out by those who did". (Meaning: people who refused to assimilate into christoislamism. Note how joining christoislamism means 'evolving' to this social darwinist - quite predictable.)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Christians and Muslims oppose evolution, so I don't see how anything as sophisticated as SD could've evolved (!) out of what you call ChristoIslamism. Reg. native Americans and aborigines, forget about what I say. It's a universal standard of measurement that we're applying here, namely:
#1 If a civilization is defeated, one concludes that it's either inferior, or there must've been a fundamental flaw in the system. In India's case, there were many such flaws such as a decentralized system, lack of leadership, too much idealism in the scriptures, lack of political ideology as a basis for action, and so forth. These flaws must be corrected, if India is to rise again.
#2 An individual (or nation/race) is judged by his accomplishments and contributions. This is unfortunate, but true. If India hadn't made contributions in various fields like math, science, religion, arts, literature etc., would you feel proud at all? Do you think Durant (your fav., I suppose), Einstein, Twain, Emerson and all those worthies would've cared to say positive things about India, if India hadn't accomplished anything?
<b>As you can see, these seem to be the universal standards by which races and nations are judged</b>. There's nothing we can do about it. Going by these standards, the world concludes that aborigines/native Americans are inferior. Some of them also conclude that Indians are inferior, because a handful of Brits could rule them. Is this unfair? Probably, but life often is. Understand that we're living in a cruel world, where goodness of the heart matters very little. The world recognizes success and power, not much else.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Many peoples in the world may choose to follow their traditional ways of life. But sureshmoorthy will probably side with those who insist on building schools amongst the Amazon rainforest tribes even though they already have their own system of imparting the education necessary for *their* lifes in *their* environment - an environment and way of life where most of modern education is irrelevant.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No one is taking sides here. But nature has her own way of giving a few blows every now and then. She tests us to see if we're qualified to survive, and these tests come in many forms. Many animals, like the dinosaurs, failed to adapt, and died out. The same principle applies to amazon tribes as well. It's NOT about right and wrong at all, it's all about survival through evolution. The aborigines and native Americans are probably the dinosaurs in the world of the modern man. And this reluctance or incapability to adapt is almost like giving an invitation to the Christian marauders to destroy them. It's that simple.
Like I said earlier, no one here is debating who's good and who's evil, whether the natives are good and the christians are evil. We're not trying to organize a Mr. Evil contest. <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /><!--endemo--> Our sole concern is to learn from history, doing which we can be better equipped to face these challenges. <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Sureshmoorthy better hurry and export his grand opinions to Japan where the "dangerous" ideas of Fujiwara Masahiko on where Japan's real future lies should be stopped by all means. Sureshmoorthy can't allow Japan to prove by example that the western idea of progress as being inexorable (uncompromising) is not necessarily a way forward (but rather a sidetrack when such progress is at the expense and has been exclusive of much of Japan's native evolution of thought and life).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For all its eastern exterior, Japan remains a heavily westernized nation. Even their cartoon characters look like Caucasians, not like the Japanese! Most Japanese want to look and act western. So I don't know where you get these ideas about Japan's native evolution, whatever that means. All its evolution is based on western principles.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->And here, sureshmoorthy talks about "us Hindus" while teaching us stoopid Hindoos about the "right" way to interpret Aurobindo and the "symbolic Deva-Asura wars":<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I never called anyone stupid, although it's true there are many stupid people in this world. That's life. But the important thing is to interpret our scriptures properly. There are people who think deva-asura battles are mere fairy tales for children; whilst others believe that they have deeper implications. It isn't very difficult to concede that the asuras represent opposing forces, and the battle an evolutionary struggle. And Aurobindo firmly believed in this process. A cursory glance at his work "Life Divine" should prove this. But then again, Aurobindo's thoughts are too intellectually challenging for most people, which is why interpretations are necessary.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Question is, why doesn't sureshmoorthy stop "antagonizing others who succeeded" (=christoislamicommunistics) altogether and just convert to the "superior" (in social darwinistic POV) ideology of christoislamicommuninazism?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Christianity and Islam oppose evolution. Communism stands for the false idea of equality, whereas SD believes in intrinsic differences in each individual. So SD inevitably leads to laissez faire, and is opposed to communism. So I don't know how you can relate 'christoislamicommuninazism' to SD.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->And when sureshmoorthy says "us Hindus", who/what does he mean? Well, he makes it clear here - where he differentiates between Hinduism and Hindutva, and likes to (ideally) get rid of the 'religion' in Hinduism and make it a "non-religious, political, nationalism" (because Hindus are actually in the way of his vision, you see):<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This question doesn't belong here, so I've answered in the relevant thread. Please go there and read my comments.