<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->reason should always supercedede dogma, where is doubt about that?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Only in Natural Traditions. Not in christianism, where Dogma/Faith is the fundamental requirement. "Don't doubt gawd's word... or Eternal Hell Forevaaahhhh."
Bodhi, I didn't call it "domestic violence". I think I called it "cowardly in the extreme" to beat kids and animals. I still consider it that.
And I don't care in the least what the 'enlightened' west thinks (they have never been consistent except in one thing: whatever view they hold at the moment is what they will try to enforce on the world). I was expressing my opinion, based on my experiences.
The way I learnt
- to do well at school was to prove to my parents that I could do just/almost as well as my sister, if I tried hard. I wasn't flattered by how they told me (good-naturedly) that they didn't expect the same results from me and that they'd be pleased with my achievements no matter what those were as long as I worked at it. So I set out to prove them wrong in having such low expectations. <i>I</i> had standards, after all. (I think they thought I was struggling, maybe? I was just difficult.)
- good behaviour: my parents couldn't control my hysterics. Not their fault - I was a new, unexpected and terrifying experience to them. My sister was all goody-twoshoes and after striking gold the first time, they found that the second one was an atom bomb. They didn't know what to do, how to control me. I could manipulate them very well by the time I was 2 and was ruling the roost when I was 4. <i>But</i>, and this is very curious, neither maternal nor paternal grandparents could be fooled by me. They always saw right through my tantrums with my mum/dad/sister. I always calmed down in front of my maternal grandparents and sat with them quietly so that my parents couldn't recognise me as the same child. I'd play with them very contentedly, and so they'd take me off the hands of my mum and dad who'd be relieved to stop hearing me scream and run into walls when I didn't get my way. I was happier sitting in the kitchen watching my grandmother grate the coconut or with my grandfather watching him read the newspaper or nap, than I was playing with toys.
With my paternal grandparents I did my best to make sure they only saw my very best side. Actually, it wasn't so hard around them, or rather, it came naturally. I remember thinking how my grandparents were <i>worth</i> pleasing, whereas I found my parents' distress comical. I kept thinking how if my mum and dad didn't know how to deal with me, I wasn't going to help/teach them <!--emo&:devil--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/devilsmiley.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='devilsmiley.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I don't know what it was about my grandparents or all Hindu grandparents of that generation. Some incomprehensible magic about their influence <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->By the way, when I was studying in class 3rd and 4th [...] And today, I don't remember that time as a bitter period.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->You're very forbearing.
But even here there's a difference: the nuns at the convent beat kids up if we spoke in Tamizh rather than the tyrant nuns' Inglish. They beat kids up for forgetting a pencil. They beat kids up for being awake during the compulsory afternoon nap. They beat kids up for wearing Hindu symbols. And for many other of the most trivial reasons. In short, they beat us up for <i>any</i> reasons they could find, both psecular and anti-Hindu. They absolutely hated children. And hated Hindu Tamizh-speaking children in particular.
I learnt nothing from them but a deep hatred of learning the Roman alphabet and of learning English, the very things they were 'trying to teach' us (aka telling us to learn by ourselves). I would learn those things only later, *after* repeating kindergarten all over again in NL: Roman alphabet in the first year of primary, beginnings of rudimentary English in high school.
At least your teacher taught you things, though he also threatened you with the cane. The nuns just terrorised and hit kids and couldn't teach to save their petty meaningless lives.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Coming to extending this child-beating to fear-psychosis in christianism, as proposed in one article on page you linked to. Those people who nurture this notion so popular these days, that "normative" and all that is only limited to mlechCha religions, have not read our purANa-s.
Why is there a very well formed concept of pApa and resulting sojourn in naraka-lokas, if not to stop humans from uninhabitedly doing what one just "likes"?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Not the same thing. The concept of some kind of underworld is there in all natural traditions, exactly for the same reasons they are there in Hindu Dharma: dissuading bad behaviour. You have the idea of the underworld in Mahayana Buddhism (where it is also temporary), and Tantalus or Tartalus or something in Hellenismos (been a while since my sister told me about this one) where one is tantalised with water and food being within one's reach but moving further off when one reaches for it and there's also Hades' Realm. Then there are similarly dark regions in the Shinto religion for those who commit dark deeds.
There's <i>no</i> resemblance to the concept of christoislamic hell. Hell is where the good people go: those who refuse to believe in christoislamiterrorism, people who doubt the blabla/koran, people who say No Thanks to the imperative to jihad, people who don't follow commandment #1 in that they won't terrorise others for having different Gods.
It's <i>Eternal</i> torture in hell for offending the petty non-existent jeebusjehovallah by not believing in him or not accepting him and his lame ideology.
As a consequence, christoislamism consigns everyone from Julian to Thomas Paine, and all the Natural Traditionalists <i>of all time</i> to hell. Forever. <i>But not</i> the various terrorist popes/priestly paedophiles, not various rapist genocidal maniac crusaders and conquistadors, not similarly terrorist jihadis. They all go to their heaven/pardees. Because non-existent jeebusjehovallah is pleased with their tyranny.
The idea of a temporary bad place for finite cruel deeds is not obnoxious to me nor does it sound illogical (whether I believe in this or not does not matter). Just as a temporary stay in Swargam is there for finite good deeds committed by mortals, to encourage inactive/careless characters to try harder to do something useful with their lives. Likewise, Buddhists in Mahayana collect "merit points" to move up in their Bauddha spiritual afterlives (as per a Mandarin-language Taiwanese 'religious' program I watched).
But this concept is entirely topsy-turvy in christoislamism, where what is good is marked to be suppressed, rooted out and destroyed. And what is evil, cruel and low is encouraged and 'rewarded' by non-torment in the non-existent jeebusjehovallah's fatally boring heaven.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->You had quoted from the book of christianism to show how child-beating is prescribed there, and which to you apparently is a horrible thing in itself, and those christians consider it their religious duty, which is also a terribly bad thing. I was trying to show you, that at least child-beating can be found very much in our traditions too, and in itself is not a bad thing.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Born-again buffoons in the US were shown here on "20/20" (I think it was) - a current events show - where the episode was about how the rod was used in a lot of faithful christian homes. In some cases, the skin off the back of some kids (where they had been struck repeatedly) was off. And scary-looking bruises.
Some adults showed the scars on their back: these looked like they would have been really bad injuries back when they'd been inflicted. Some of the adults interviewed spoke of how their life in childhood consisted only of fear - their parents would take it out on them regularly for anything, as everything was construed as rebellion against jeebus.
In the animal (mammal) world, parents - and depending on the species, the community/pack too - would do everything to protect the litter. That's because the adults have all invested in the next generation which is very vulnerable: the world's a dangerous place with predators and dangerous pitfalls and scarcity of resources (and skills are required to get food, which the young don't yet have). Likewise, human offspring also need protection, to grow well. The rest of the world generally doesn't care. But the children need to feel safe <i>at home</i>. If they have to fear their own parents, then the world becomes a very very stressful, anxious, traumatising and unsafe place for them. They constantly feel like the hunted, with all the round-the-clock stress and subsequent consequences. Unlike young in the animal world, human young don't always just die from neglect or abuse. Sometimes they survive but with something inside them having gone wrong. They were raised wrong, and their brain got programmed with the wrong skills or with no useful skills, and in many cases they don't quite make it as well-rounded adults.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->we used to have this teacher in my village school<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->So different from my Grandfather. I've seen him teach other children. He's very patient. He was never harsh even in words.
Once he tried to correct my loveletter to him - I wrote it in English while he was nearby and took it to him to show it to him in person - where I had beautifully mispelled the word 'photos' (I wrote it the Dutch way). I never write it wrong now.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Fear is an essencial part of growing up in dharma too. Affecion does ot last without a fear of reprimand. 'bhaya vinu hoya na preeti", says tulasIdAsa.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I cannot agree. I hate anything I fear. (Unless I was mistaken in fearing it - for example, a dog that meant no harm.)
Bodhi, I didn't call it "domestic violence". I think I called it "cowardly in the extreme" to beat kids and animals. I still consider it that.
And I don't care in the least what the 'enlightened' west thinks (they have never been consistent except in one thing: whatever view they hold at the moment is what they will try to enforce on the world). I was expressing my opinion, based on my experiences.
The way I learnt
- to do well at school was to prove to my parents that I could do just/almost as well as my sister, if I tried hard. I wasn't flattered by how they told me (good-naturedly) that they didn't expect the same results from me and that they'd be pleased with my achievements no matter what those were as long as I worked at it. So I set out to prove them wrong in having such low expectations. <i>I</i> had standards, after all. (I think they thought I was struggling, maybe? I was just difficult.)
- good behaviour: my parents couldn't control my hysterics. Not their fault - I was a new, unexpected and terrifying experience to them. My sister was all goody-twoshoes and after striking gold the first time, they found that the second one was an atom bomb. They didn't know what to do, how to control me. I could manipulate them very well by the time I was 2 and was ruling the roost when I was 4. <i>But</i>, and this is very curious, neither maternal nor paternal grandparents could be fooled by me. They always saw right through my tantrums with my mum/dad/sister. I always calmed down in front of my maternal grandparents and sat with them quietly so that my parents couldn't recognise me as the same child. I'd play with them very contentedly, and so they'd take me off the hands of my mum and dad who'd be relieved to stop hearing me scream and run into walls when I didn't get my way. I was happier sitting in the kitchen watching my grandmother grate the coconut or with my grandfather watching him read the newspaper or nap, than I was playing with toys.
With my paternal grandparents I did my best to make sure they only saw my very best side. Actually, it wasn't so hard around them, or rather, it came naturally. I remember thinking how my grandparents were <i>worth</i> pleasing, whereas I found my parents' distress comical. I kept thinking how if my mum and dad didn't know how to deal with me, I wasn't going to help/teach them <!--emo&:devil--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/devilsmiley.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='devilsmiley.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I don't know what it was about my grandparents or all Hindu grandparents of that generation. Some incomprehensible magic about their influence <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->By the way, when I was studying in class 3rd and 4th [...] And today, I don't remember that time as a bitter period.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->You're very forbearing.
But even here there's a difference: the nuns at the convent beat kids up if we spoke in Tamizh rather than the tyrant nuns' Inglish. They beat kids up for forgetting a pencil. They beat kids up for being awake during the compulsory afternoon nap. They beat kids up for wearing Hindu symbols. And for many other of the most trivial reasons. In short, they beat us up for <i>any</i> reasons they could find, both psecular and anti-Hindu. They absolutely hated children. And hated Hindu Tamizh-speaking children in particular.
I learnt nothing from them but a deep hatred of learning the Roman alphabet and of learning English, the very things they were 'trying to teach' us (aka telling us to learn by ourselves). I would learn those things only later, *after* repeating kindergarten all over again in NL: Roman alphabet in the first year of primary, beginnings of rudimentary English in high school.
At least your teacher taught you things, though he also threatened you with the cane. The nuns just terrorised and hit kids and couldn't teach to save their petty meaningless lives.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Coming to extending this child-beating to fear-psychosis in christianism, as proposed in one article on page you linked to. Those people who nurture this notion so popular these days, that "normative" and all that is only limited to mlechCha religions, have not read our purANa-s.
Why is there a very well formed concept of pApa and resulting sojourn in naraka-lokas, if not to stop humans from uninhabitedly doing what one just "likes"?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Not the same thing. The concept of some kind of underworld is there in all natural traditions, exactly for the same reasons they are there in Hindu Dharma: dissuading bad behaviour. You have the idea of the underworld in Mahayana Buddhism (where it is also temporary), and Tantalus or Tartalus or something in Hellenismos (been a while since my sister told me about this one) where one is tantalised with water and food being within one's reach but moving further off when one reaches for it and there's also Hades' Realm. Then there are similarly dark regions in the Shinto religion for those who commit dark deeds.
There's <i>no</i> resemblance to the concept of christoislamic hell. Hell is where the good people go: those who refuse to believe in christoislamiterrorism, people who doubt the blabla/koran, people who say No Thanks to the imperative to jihad, people who don't follow commandment #1 in that they won't terrorise others for having different Gods.
It's <i>Eternal</i> torture in hell for offending the petty non-existent jeebusjehovallah by not believing in him or not accepting him and his lame ideology.
As a consequence, christoislamism consigns everyone from Julian to Thomas Paine, and all the Natural Traditionalists <i>of all time</i> to hell. Forever. <i>But not</i> the various terrorist popes/priestly paedophiles, not various rapist genocidal maniac crusaders and conquistadors, not similarly terrorist jihadis. They all go to their heaven/pardees. Because non-existent jeebusjehovallah is pleased with their tyranny.
The idea of a temporary bad place for finite cruel deeds is not obnoxious to me nor does it sound illogical (whether I believe in this or not does not matter). Just as a temporary stay in Swargam is there for finite good deeds committed by mortals, to encourage inactive/careless characters to try harder to do something useful with their lives. Likewise, Buddhists in Mahayana collect "merit points" to move up in their Bauddha spiritual afterlives (as per a Mandarin-language Taiwanese 'religious' program I watched).
But this concept is entirely topsy-turvy in christoislamism, where what is good is marked to be suppressed, rooted out and destroyed. And what is evil, cruel and low is encouraged and 'rewarded' by non-torment in the non-existent jeebusjehovallah's fatally boring heaven.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->You had quoted from the book of christianism to show how child-beating is prescribed there, and which to you apparently is a horrible thing in itself, and those christians consider it their religious duty, which is also a terribly bad thing. I was trying to show you, that at least child-beating can be found very much in our traditions too, and in itself is not a bad thing.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Born-again buffoons in the US were shown here on "20/20" (I think it was) - a current events show - where the episode was about how the rod was used in a lot of faithful christian homes. In some cases, the skin off the back of some kids (where they had been struck repeatedly) was off. And scary-looking bruises.
Some adults showed the scars on their back: these looked like they would have been really bad injuries back when they'd been inflicted. Some of the adults interviewed spoke of how their life in childhood consisted only of fear - their parents would take it out on them regularly for anything, as everything was construed as rebellion against jeebus.
In the animal (mammal) world, parents - and depending on the species, the community/pack too - would do everything to protect the litter. That's because the adults have all invested in the next generation which is very vulnerable: the world's a dangerous place with predators and dangerous pitfalls and scarcity of resources (and skills are required to get food, which the young don't yet have). Likewise, human offspring also need protection, to grow well. The rest of the world generally doesn't care. But the children need to feel safe <i>at home</i>. If they have to fear their own parents, then the world becomes a very very stressful, anxious, traumatising and unsafe place for them. They constantly feel like the hunted, with all the round-the-clock stress and subsequent consequences. Unlike young in the animal world, human young don't always just die from neglect or abuse. Sometimes they survive but with something inside them having gone wrong. They were raised wrong, and their brain got programmed with the wrong skills or with no useful skills, and in many cases they don't quite make it as well-rounded adults.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->we used to have this teacher in my village school<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->So different from my Grandfather. I've seen him teach other children. He's very patient. He was never harsh even in words.
Once he tried to correct my loveletter to him - I wrote it in English while he was nearby and took it to him to show it to him in person - where I had beautifully mispelled the word 'photos' (I wrote it the Dutch way). I never write it wrong now.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Fear is an essencial part of growing up in dharma too. Affecion does ot last without a fear of reprimand. 'bhaya vinu hoya na preeti", says tulasIdAsa.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I cannot agree. I hate anything I fear. (Unless I was mistaken in fearing it - for example, a dog that meant no harm.)
Death to traitors.