<!--QuoteBegin-Kishore+Dec 27 2008, 01:52 PM-->QUOTE(Kishore @ Dec 27 2008, 01:52 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->A very wise statement indeed Savithri !!![right][snapback]92288[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteBegin-Savithri+Dec 27 2008, 02:46 PM-->QUOTE(Savithri @ Dec 27 2008, 02:46 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Thank you Kishoreji.[right][snapback]92289[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->It's like one of those Love Boat replays.
As much as I hate to interrupt this deeply romantic exchange you and Kishore are having, I want to insert.
<!--QuoteBegin-Savithri+Dec 27 2008, 02:46 PM-->QUOTE(Savithri @ Dec 27 2008, 02:46 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->The cause (Sanaathana Dharma) is greater than individuals.[right][snapback]92289[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->And that's exactly what Shamu and Mudy said: that no one owes any allegiance to Subramaniam Swamy the individual; it is only as long as he happens to align with the cause that Hindus ought to support him.
<!--QuoteBegin-Savithri+Dec 27 2008, 02:46 PM-->QUOTE(Savithri @ Dec 27 2008, 02:46 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Bhishma tutors Yudhishtira on Dharma as follows:[right][snapback]92289[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->No, you <i>didn't</i> do what it looks like you just did. No, because that would just be hysterical.
If I had to take it seriously, then how to put it? Best not to appeal to Bhishma and Yudhishthira (and all the rest of the Kuru dynasty, not to mention Krishna himself) in support of Subramaniam Swamy. Their adherence to Dharma is *not* compromised (corrected spelling error) like that of the lenient Hindu body today (e.g. me), and they'd not only be the first to exclude Swamy from their society for having allowed his daughter to marry an islamaniac, but also - if acquainted with what islamania entails - they'd likely challenge and fight Suhasini's islamaniac husband.
Your best bet is not to reference the epics or the Geeta in this matter at all. Psecular lifestyles are preserved from scrutiny and discovery of faults without it.
Oh, and before you get too deeply involved with him, you might want to Know More About Kissore. I don't think you could still find his flattery all that complimentary.
As much as I hate to interrupt this deeply romantic exchange you and Kishore are having, I want to insert.
<!--QuoteBegin-Savithri+Dec 27 2008, 02:46 PM-->QUOTE(Savithri @ Dec 27 2008, 02:46 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->The cause (Sanaathana Dharma) is greater than individuals.[right][snapback]92289[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->And that's exactly what Shamu and Mudy said: that no one owes any allegiance to Subramaniam Swamy the individual; it is only as long as he happens to align with the cause that Hindus ought to support him.
<!--QuoteBegin-Savithri+Dec 27 2008, 02:46 PM-->QUOTE(Savithri @ Dec 27 2008, 02:46 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Bhishma tutors Yudhishtira on Dharma as follows:[right][snapback]92289[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->No, you <i>didn't</i> do what it looks like you just did. No, because that would just be hysterical.
If I had to take it seriously, then how to put it? Best not to appeal to Bhishma and Yudhishthira (and all the rest of the Kuru dynasty, not to mention Krishna himself) in support of Subramaniam Swamy. Their adherence to Dharma is *not* compromised (corrected spelling error) like that of the lenient Hindu body today (e.g. me), and they'd not only be the first to exclude Swamy from their society for having allowed his daughter to marry an islamaniac, but also - if acquainted with what islamania entails - they'd likely challenge and fight Suhasini's islamaniac husband.
Your best bet is not to reference the epics or the Geeta in this matter at all. Psecular lifestyles are preserved from scrutiny and discovery of faults without it.
Oh, and before you get too deeply involved with him, you might want to Know More About Kissore. I don't think you could still find his flattery all that complimentary.