Continued from previous.
3.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I am not giving any benefit of the doubt to christianity, and I do not believe in any of it either, nor in Islam (I am secular).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Oh no. No no. Not the "Look at me, I am an impartial observer" routine. Good grief.
There is nothing secular in declaring that christoislamism on one hand, and Dharmic religions+other Natural Traditions on the other, are "all the same". That's just the same old dawaganda. Since when are nazis the same as their Jewish and Roma victims?
Anyone who claims they are objective or secular and then declares it is all "equal-equal" is a fraud. How can anyone consider the christonazis - who genocided the native Americans of N and S America - as being on an equal footing with the native Americans who developed their wholesome civilisational ethos?
One can only suppose two things about people who thus declare themselves 'secular' and who moreover do so by using precisely the sort of ridiculous statement that instantly undermines their declaration. Either one must be a total ignorant to take such an insupportable position (playing at being the 'objective secular') on a topic they obviously know nothing about, or they must be filled with that type of deliberate moral ambivalence about everything except their own ideology (whether disclosed/undisclosed) as is exhibited frequently by the communistas. There is nothing remotely objective about this position.
Either things <i>are</i> factually equal <i>or</i> they are not. In this case: christoislamism (terrorism) has nothing whatsoever to do with Natural Traditions let alone being equal to them in any sense.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"The [Catholic] Spaniards in Mexico and Peru used to baptize Indian infants and then immediately dash their brains out; by this means they secured that these infants went to heaven."
-- Bertrand Russell<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Indian chief Hatuey fled with his people but was captured and burned alive. As
"they were tying him to the stake a Franciscan friar urged him to take Jesus to his heart so that his soul might go to heaven, rather than descend into hell. Hatuey replied that if heaven was where the Christians went, he would rather go to hell."
What happened to his people was described by an eyewitness:
"The Spaniards found pleasure in inventing all kinds of odd cruelties ... They built a long gibbet, long enough for the toes to touch the ground to prevent strangling, and hanged thirteen [natives] at a time in honor of Christ Our Saviour and the twelve Apostles... then, straw was wrapped around their torn bodies and they were burned alive." [SH72]
-- American Holocaust, by D.Stannard<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Did you read stuff on this forum before you decided to join? I don't think anyone here is a faux-secular (<- that's what people are who attempt to put christoislamiterrorism alongside valid Natural Traditions). If you had read pages here before you joined, you would know why and in what context the idea of "secularism" originated, and why it is not applicable to Dharmic or Natural Traditionalist society. Hauma Hamiddha's posts and IF front page articles went through this already. See no need to re-open a dialogue on a topic that was already discussed in-depth and on which a clear understanding was achieved. Unless of course you bring new and profound insights on it (though none of these were presented in your above posts)
4.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Personally, I would like Bharatavarsha to be used more often and ideally to replace the common use of "India" altogether<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->You also said:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Can't properly explain it<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Meaning that you actually dont know why Bharatavarsha should be used more often, and that it is only your personal opinion that it should be.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Now, now, don't need to compound the many mistakes you've already made with yet another one.
My English may not be good (who cares), but what I wrote says (and upon re-reading it, it's still clear): "I couldn't <i>explain</i> why I thought it would be better for Bharatavarsha to replace the common use of India".
And then, immediately after writing that, I found and gave a more tangible example for clarification: the post-independence adoption of the word 'India' into Dharmics' usage as a visible manifestation of our <i>partial</i> independence. Also, that post was directed at Bodhi who may perhaps know me well enough by now to try to guess what I could be intending with my incomplete/non-thorough reply.
5.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't completely mind the use of India in English all that much, but have noticed how the use of "India" makes some other people so smug even though they have no reason to be<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->As you say here, India is really a word that is only meant to be used in English.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Can't make out how you made yet another wrong inference concerning what I wrote.
What I wrote, rephrased: "I have noticed how our using the word India makes people - who have *no reason* to be smug - smug". How you managed to translate that into my implying that the word "is only meant to be used in English" is beyond me. One mistake may be owing to an accident, two to being in a hurry. Three can perhaps still be attributed to carelessness. But four big mistakes (in your post there's <i>at least</i> that many) seems to imply some inability to identify or at least edit out mistakes.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I will gladly accept Bharatavarsha as the name of India if you manage to convince the Indian government to change the name to Bharatavarsha <!--emo&:lol:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='laugh.gif' /><!--endemo-->
[right][snapback]87841[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Yawn.
Bharatam is already India's official name.
Can't imagine anyone ever lying awake about what you or any other pseudo-secular may choose to call it today or in any hypothetical 'one fine day' scenario.
3.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I am not giving any benefit of the doubt to christianity, and I do not believe in any of it either, nor in Islam (I am secular).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Oh no. No no. Not the "Look at me, I am an impartial observer" routine. Good grief.
There is nothing secular in declaring that christoislamism on one hand, and Dharmic religions+other Natural Traditions on the other, are "all the same". That's just the same old dawaganda. Since when are nazis the same as their Jewish and Roma victims?
Anyone who claims they are objective or secular and then declares it is all "equal-equal" is a fraud. How can anyone consider the christonazis - who genocided the native Americans of N and S America - as being on an equal footing with the native Americans who developed their wholesome civilisational ethos?
One can only suppose two things about people who thus declare themselves 'secular' and who moreover do so by using precisely the sort of ridiculous statement that instantly undermines their declaration. Either one must be a total ignorant to take such an insupportable position (playing at being the 'objective secular') on a topic they obviously know nothing about, or they must be filled with that type of deliberate moral ambivalence about everything except their own ideology (whether disclosed/undisclosed) as is exhibited frequently by the communistas. There is nothing remotely objective about this position.
Either things <i>are</i> factually equal <i>or</i> they are not. In this case: christoislamism (terrorism) has nothing whatsoever to do with Natural Traditions let alone being equal to them in any sense.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"The [Catholic] Spaniards in Mexico and Peru used to baptize Indian infants and then immediately dash their brains out; by this means they secured that these infants went to heaven."
-- Bertrand Russell<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Indian chief Hatuey fled with his people but was captured and burned alive. As
"they were tying him to the stake a Franciscan friar urged him to take Jesus to his heart so that his soul might go to heaven, rather than descend into hell. Hatuey replied that if heaven was where the Christians went, he would rather go to hell."
What happened to his people was described by an eyewitness:
"The Spaniards found pleasure in inventing all kinds of odd cruelties ... They built a long gibbet, long enough for the toes to touch the ground to prevent strangling, and hanged thirteen [natives] at a time in honor of Christ Our Saviour and the twelve Apostles... then, straw was wrapped around their torn bodies and they were burned alive." [SH72]
-- American Holocaust, by D.Stannard<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Did you read stuff on this forum before you decided to join? I don't think anyone here is a faux-secular (<- that's what people are who attempt to put christoislamiterrorism alongside valid Natural Traditions). If you had read pages here before you joined, you would know why and in what context the idea of "secularism" originated, and why it is not applicable to Dharmic or Natural Traditionalist society. Hauma Hamiddha's posts and IF front page articles went through this already. See no need to re-open a dialogue on a topic that was already discussed in-depth and on which a clear understanding was achieved. Unless of course you bring new and profound insights on it (though none of these were presented in your above posts)
4.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Personally, I would like Bharatavarsha to be used more often and ideally to replace the common use of "India" altogether<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->You also said:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Can't properly explain it<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Meaning that you actually dont know why Bharatavarsha should be used more often, and that it is only your personal opinion that it should be.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Now, now, don't need to compound the many mistakes you've already made with yet another one.
My English may not be good (who cares), but what I wrote says (and upon re-reading it, it's still clear): "I couldn't <i>explain</i> why I thought it would be better for Bharatavarsha to replace the common use of India".
And then, immediately after writing that, I found and gave a more tangible example for clarification: the post-independence adoption of the word 'India' into Dharmics' usage as a visible manifestation of our <i>partial</i> independence. Also, that post was directed at Bodhi who may perhaps know me well enough by now to try to guess what I could be intending with my incomplete/non-thorough reply.
5.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't completely mind the use of India in English all that much, but have noticed how the use of "India" makes some other people so smug even though they have no reason to be<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->As you say here, India is really a word that is only meant to be used in English.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Can't make out how you made yet another wrong inference concerning what I wrote.
What I wrote, rephrased: "I have noticed how our using the word India makes people - who have *no reason* to be smug - smug". How you managed to translate that into my implying that the word "is only meant to be used in English" is beyond me. One mistake may be owing to an accident, two to being in a hurry. Three can perhaps still be attributed to carelessness. But four big mistakes (in your post there's <i>at least</i> that many) seems to imply some inability to identify or at least edit out mistakes.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I will gladly accept Bharatavarsha as the name of India if you manage to convince the Indian government to change the name to Bharatavarsha <!--emo&:lol:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='laugh.gif' /><!--endemo-->
[right][snapback]87841[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Yawn.
Bharatam is already India's official name.
Can't imagine anyone ever lying awake about what you or any other pseudo-secular may choose to call it today or in any hypothetical 'one fine day' scenario.