Miscellaneous Topics

[amndalb]

Go for international health insurance.





Health Insurance tx

[HareKrishna]

Is hindu atheism valid?"Hindu" identity ,usurpation of indian culture

http://nirmukta.com/2009/11/28/is-hindu-...n-culture/

http://nirmukta.com/2008/09/06/growing-u...mythology/

http://nirmukta.com/2010/03/25/hindu-rev...-ignorant/

http://nirmukta.com/2010/03/14/subterfug...evolution/

http://nirmukta.com/2010/03/01/the-god-o...evolution/

[HareKrishna]

Is hindu atheism valid?"Hindu" identity ,usurpation of indian culture

kta.com/2009/11/28/is-hindu-atheism-valid-a-rationalist-critique-of-the-hindu-identitys-usurpation-of-indian-culture/

rmukta.com/2008/09/06/growing-up-with-indian-mythology/

irmukta.com/2010/03/25/hindu-revisionism-was-shankaracharya-deceptive-or-just-ignorant/

nirmukta.com/2010/03/14/subterfuge-how-brahmins-destroyed-the-bhagavata-revolution/

rmukta.com/2010/03/01/the-god-of-gods-battles-brahmanism-vaasudeva-krishna-and-the-bhagavata-revolution/

[Bharatvarsh2]

Most Indian atheists are illiterate idiots who don't know what they are babbling about.



I glanced through some of those articles and sure enough they are filled with so many mistakes.



I bet not one of those idiots knows Sanskrit or Tamil and rely on motivated translations for their half baked knowledge (like the article on how brahmins supposedly "destroyed" the bhagavata "revolution").



I have been an atheist (i.e I have no belief in anything supernatural) for years and I feel no need to evangelize others to atheism like the Hitchens-Dawkins variety. I find those types as annoying as the Xtian missionary morons.



Indian atheists fancy themselves to be some great revolutionaries while forgetting that most of what they say had already been said by the Charvaka school of materialists a long time ago under complete freedom, it's another matter that his message never caught on with the masses.



They will also hide under their sofa's when it comes to criticizing either Islam or Christianity.



I consider myself a Hindu very much though and a proud one. I must also mention that the founder of Hindutva Veer Savarkar was himself an agnostic.



Then there was Varsha Bhosle one of the fiery pro Hindu columnists at rediff (sacked for her pro Hindu leanings by the "secular" editor) who was also an agnostic but a very proud Hindu.

[HareKrishna]

[quote name='Bharatvarsh2' date='04 April 2010 - 05:21 AM' timestamp='1270338239' post='105626']

Most Indian atheists are illiterate idiots who don't know what they are babbling about.

I glanced through some of those articles and sure enough they are filled with so many mistakes.

I bet not one of those idiots knows Sanskrit or Tamil and rely on motivated translations for their half baked knowledge (like the article on how brahmins supposedly "destroyed" the bhagavata "revolution").

I have been an atheist (i.e I have no belief in anything supernatural) for years and I feel no need to evangelize others to atheism like the Hitchens-Dawkins variety. I find those types as annoying as the Xtian missionary morons.

Indian atheists fancy themselves to be some great revolutionaries while forgetting that most of what they say had already been said by the Charvaka school of materialists a long time ago under complete freedom, it's another matter that his message never caught on with the masses.

They will also hide under their sofa's when it comes to criticizing either Islam or Christianity.

I consider myself a Hindu very much though and a proud one. I must also mention that the founder of Hindutva Veer Savarkar was himself an agnostic.

Then there was Varsha Bhosle one of the fiery pro Hindu columnists at rediff (sacked for her pro Hindu leanings by the "secular" editor) who was also an agnostic but a very proud Hindu.

[/quote]



They say that buddhism ,upanishadism,bhagavatism,lokayata(Charvaka)was against ritual sacrifice(especially animal sacrifice),caste-system ,costely rituals,earthly pleasure(except lokayata),brahman authority.

he

They claim that brahmans slowly infiltrated in above movements and introduce in the sacred texts the pro-caste atitude,costly puja(replacing sacrifice),guru unquestioned authority (replacing brahman unquestioned command).

Thoose -buddhism and upanishadism transformed in advaita vedanta,bhagavata in vishnuism,



i have a respect for Dawkins for his clarity and for his fight against terrorist religions.



Theese indian atheists claim that if they were born in pakistan will critic islam,or in Italy they will critic catholicism.

[Bharatvarsh2]

They say that buddhism ,upanishadism,bhagavatism,lokayata(Charvaka)was against ritual sacrifice(especially animal sacrifice),caste-system ,costely rituals,earthly pleasure(except lokayata),brahman authority.

he

They claim that brahmans slowly infiltrated in above movements and introduce in the sacred texts the pro-caste atitude,costly puja(replacing sacrifice),guru unquestioned authority (replacing brahman unquestioned command).

Charvaka was a materalist who had no use for any of the scriptures.



If Brahmins really wanted to suppress him they would have persecuted him and destroyed his writings yet nothing of the sort happened, fragments of them have come down to us.



His movement was a failure and never became popular with the masses, instead of accepting that fact the Indian atheists want to repeat the mullah-missionary propaganda of making the Brahmins the scapegoats for everything.



Buddhism was not against "caste system" whatever that means. According to the earliest recorded sayings of Buddha he was quiet proud of his Kshatriya varna and even advocated incest to preserve it's purity.



This totally false view of the Buddha as a social reformer is a modern construct, especially made popular by Ambedkar. Koenraad Elst discusses this in detail in one of his books (I think in "Who is a Hindu") and shows why this is false.



After all Buddhism didn't concern itself with any largescale social reform in China or feudal Japan or Tibet.



In Japan without any Brahmins untouchability was practiced against a subgroup known as Burakumin. I bet these illiterate idiots don't know about that.



The Sinhalese who have been Thervada Buddhists for a long time still have "castes" (i.e endogamous groups) like Goyigama etc without any Brahmins among them.



Animal sacrifice is a practice today maintained not by Brahmins but by the so called "lower" castes. The Brahmins have long ago took to using substitutes for real animals in their yagna's but they never imposed their views about vegetarianism and animal sacrifice on the rest of the Hindus tyranically like Ashoka tried to do.



In the South goats are sacrificed to local goddesses like Poleramma, Maisamma etc and very few Brahmins visit these temples let alone officiate as priests there. The priests are usually non brahmin. In Nepal too the Gurkhas sacrifice buffalo's to the goddess.



It's quiet telling that these supposed rationalists praise Ashoka who imposed his values about animal sacrifice on the rest of the population while denigrating Brahmins who minded their own business when it came to the local goddesses and customs of other castes. If Brahmins had tried to forcibly ban animal sacrifice then these same "rationalists" would use that as evidence for Brahmin suppression of "lower caste culture".

[Bharatvarsh2]

11.8. Jeevan Kulkarni on Buddhism and caste





Dr. Ambedkar’s chief argument for Buddhism was that this was the only religion that did not in any way encourage or justify social injustice. He, along with the majority of modern writers on Buddhism, especially liked Gautama’s supposed protest against the caste system. The question is whether the social-reformist qualities which Ambedkar ascribed to the Buddha were not in the eye of the beholder.





One Hindutva polemicist who accepted Dr. Ambedkar’s challenge was the HMS amateur-historian (and veteran of India’s desperate defence of its northeastern frontier against the Chinese invaders in 1962) Jeevan Kulkarni. He argues that the Buddha did pursue a political agenda, but not an egalitarian one, that “he tried only to establish supremacy of Kshatriyas over the Brahmins” while “the fate of the two other classes remained the same”.59 The pro-Kshatriya bias in early Buddhist literature has been noted by others as well, e.g. linguist Madhav Deshpande: “On the higher philosophical plane, Buddha totally rejected hereditary caste rank. But on the lower social plane, Buddha asserted a social hierarchy different from that of Brahmanical belief. He clearly asserts that Kshatriyas are superior to Brahmanas.”60





Kulkarni argues further, along with many Western students of Buddhist history, that Gautama’s objectives were not of this world, and that “Buddha was not a social reformer (…) The theory much trumpeted about the role of Buddha as a social reformer was discarded by a galaxy of scholars prior to Dr. Ambedkar’s version (and also of infamous writings of Laxmi Narsu) of Buddhism. Most of them have decidedly proved that Buddha had never discarded caste system”.61





Kulkarni calls Western authorities to the witness stand. Sir W.W. Hunter has written: “It would be a mistake to suppose that Buddhism and Jainism were directed from the outset consciously in opposition to the caste system. Caste, in fact, at the time of the rise of Buddhism was only beginning to develop; and in later days, when Buddhism commenced its missionary careers, it took caste with it into regions where upto that time the institution had not penetrated.”62





Hermann Oldenberg is quoted as explaining how Buddha had other concerns than social reform: “Caste has no value for him, for everything earthly has ceased to affect his interests, but it never occurs to him to exercise his influence for the abolition or for the mitigation of the severity of its rules for those who have lagged behind in the worldly surroundings.”63 R. Spencer Hardy wrote: “The existence of the four great tribes is recognized continually in the Jatakas, and inferiority of caste is recognized as giving rise to the same usages and as being attended with degradation.”64 Prof. T.W. Rhys-Davids has given details about caste practices in over 100 Buddhist communities.65





The list of Western supporters of Kulkarni’s critique could easily be extended, e.g. Alex Wayman writes: “It is generally stated in Western writings on Buddhism that Buddhism is directly opposed to the caste system. While it is true that such distinctions in status perpetuated by social norms were not the basis for admission into monasterial monk training, and also true that Buddhist literature contains some sharp attacks on what are referred to as ‘Brahmin pretensions’, lay Buddhists had to respect social norms and even Buddhist literature generated by the monks differs in response to the caste system, usually remaining silent about it.”66





This is confirmed by the Dutch Buddhologist Prof. Zürcher: “In modem popularizing writings, one often reads that ‘egalitarian’ Buddhism was essentially a ‘protest movement’ against the Brahminical caste system. It is true that the Buddhist view of caste is different from and more rational than the religious justification which one finds in Brahminism. But neither the Buddha himself, nor any pre-modern Buddhist teacher after him has combated the caste system. The explanation of the egalitarian attitude which we find in the sangha, is simple. Caste is a social distinction, which belongs in the world of the laity, where it is completely proper and self-evident. As soon as someone becomes a monk, he in principle steps completely out of the world. He renounces his family and family ritual, and therefore also the caste to which his family belongs. Like all other Indian ascetics inside and outside Buddhism, he is a complete ‘outsider’: for him, social distinctions-those of caste included-have not become objectionable, but meaningless.”67





Kulkarni’s argument against claims of Buddhist egalitarianism even finds support among Indian Marxists, at least among those of an earlier generation who had not yet taken to using Buddhism as a stick with which to beat Hinduism. The rhetoric about “egalitarian Buddhism vs. oppressive Hinduism” is now so influential in India’s collective consciousness that I consider it worthwhile to hear their testimonies too. The eminent historian D.D. Kosambi pointed out that in the recruitment of monks, the candidate’s social position was not entirely disregarded: “…runaway slaves, savage tribesmen, escaped criminals, the chronically ill and the indebted as well as aboriginal Nagas were denied admission into the order.”68





To ensure peace for itself and avoid trouble with society (creditors, aggrieved slave-owners etc.), it was a logical decision for the Buddhist Sangha to keep out all those who could attract angry attention. The encounter with worldly suffering (typified by an old man, a sick man and a corpse) had convinced Gautama to turn away from the world and to focus on spiritual exercises. The monks did not want to be disturbed with social problems, and the atmosphere they created for themselves in their monasteries was meant to focus their attention on their spiritual practice, not on the social needs of the laymen:





“No rotting half-eaten corpse, no leprous beggar with festering sores mars the smooth harmony of sumptuous frescoes and reliefs to remind the monk of the Founder’s doctrine. Nor does the art portray the normal hardships of the poorest villager, whose surplus the monk could eat, but whose misery was easily discounted on the callous theory that the suffering must have been deserved because of misdeeds in some previous birth.”69





Not unlike clerics in other religions (including Brahmins), Buddhist monks tended to develop a certain smugness regarding the privileges which came with their spiritual prestige. This is but a general human failing and cannot be held against Buddhism as such, but it is nonetheless notable that if Buddhism wasn’t any worse than others in this respect, it wasn’t any better either.





Where slavery existed, Buddhism did not abolish it. The Buddha never ordered the masters to set the slaves free, nor the slaves to revolt against their masters. Buddhist monasteries continued the labour arrangements existing in society at large. In his study on slavery in ancient India, the Marxist historian Dev Raj Chanana noticed the stark contrast between the actual history of Buddhist social practice and the more “progressive” picture given by modern writers, who fail to register the existence of serfdom in connection with the Buddhist monasteries:





“On reading the modern works concerning the Buddhist order in India one gains the impression that no slave labour was employed in the monasteries. One would be inclined to believe that all the work, even in the big monasteries like [those] of Kosambi or Rajagriha, was carried out by the monks themselves. However, a study of Pali literature shows clearly that the situation was otherwise.”70





From the beginning, Buddhism shared the disdain for manual labour expressed by certain Brahminical and ancient Greek sources, which held that philosophical pursuits required a freedom from labour tasks. According to Chanana, this attitude to labour had not always existed in India to the same extent: “This attitude to manual work as an imposition is in contrast with the view expressed in an earlier epoch, in the Rigveda, where there is no expression of any dislike of manual work. This is, in part at least, due to the absence of the division of labour as seen in the well-known verse describing various jobs, intellectual and manual, undertaken by members of one and the same family.”71 In the case of Buddhism, however, “we must not forget that the Buddha, anxious to free his monks of material preoccupations, had forbidden almost all manual labour to them.”72





To the slaves, Buddhism gave the same justification of their condition as is always scornfully attributed to Hinduism. Chanana summarizes: “On the other hand he advised the slaves to bear patiently with their lot and explained the same as follows. If a person is born a slave, it is the consequence of some bad acts of an earlier life and the best way for him is to submit willingly to his lot. He should submit to all sorts of treatment at the hands of his master and should never allow any feeling of revenge to grow within himself, even if the other should try to kill him. In such cases, a change of destiny is promised to the slave in the next birth. (…) In case, however, such a person is lucky enough to obtain manumission from his master, he may obtain ordination and thus try to secure salvation from the cycle of transmigration, i.e. release from the slavery of life and death.”73





So, the same allegation of using the karma doctrine as an opium for the people to keep them happy in their submission has been levelled against the Buddha as well as against Puranic Hinduism: “That he derived his conclusion from the widely accepted belief in the theory of karma, of the retribution of acts, need not be stressed again and again. To him and his followers birth in a particular group was the consequence of certain good or evil acts. Since the retribution was believed to be inexorable, unvarying, like the working of a machine, he could not but advocate complete submission to one’s destiny (…) we may agree that the Buddha (from what we learn about him in the Tipitaka) sincerely believed in [karma]. But even from this angle it is clear that disobedience on the part of a slave or servant was considered as an evil act. The same view was held of bad treatment on the part of a master.”74





The Hindutva horizon being typically limited to India, Jeevan Kulkarni overlooks what could have been one of his strongest arguments: the fact that Buddhism’s non-interest in social reform is amply demonstrated by its career outside India. Everywhere it integrated itself into the existing social and political set-up, from bureaucratic centralism in China to feudal militarism in Japan. There is no known case of any of these branches of Buddhism calling for social reform, let alone for a social revolution as far-reaching as the abolition of caste would have meant in India. After centuries of profound impact of Buddhism, Tibetan society was in such a state that the Chinese Communists could claim in 1950 (with exaggeration, but not without a kernel of truth) that 95% of the Tibetans were living in slavery. Buddhism does not seem to have made Tibet’s traditional feudalism any more egalitarian than it had been in the pre-Buddhist past.





Outside India, a number of sources confirm that Buddhist monasteries employed slaves: “There are numerous references to prove the existence of slaves in the Buddhist monasteries in China. (…) These slaves were normally in charge of the maintenance of the monasteries but could also be sent to aid the peasants at the time of ploughing, harvesting, etc. Public slaves and criminals used to be formed into groups and known as the ‘families of the Buddha’ .”75 Perhaps “slave” is too strong a term here, as many slaveholding societies had intermediate forms of semi-free serfdom; but “egalitarianism” is certainly a different thing. Apart from slave-owning, the monasteries also upheld milder forms of social inequality. In China, they were feudal landlords, and under the Tang dynasty (618-907) the Sangha was even the biggest land-owner in the empire, until it was expropriated (in what has been mis-termed the “Buddhist persecution”) because its tax-exempt status disrupted the economy. It also goes without saying that the traditional inequality between men and women was fully accepted: nuns were always lower in rank than monks.76 We may therefore agree that by and large, Buddhism cannot be considered a pioneer of modern egalitarianism.





Coming to the specific form of inequality which is the caste system, in a survey of the Buddhist canon, we do find a number of references to this subject. These instances show that Buddhism was not meant as a social revolution, even when it was critical of caste inequality. Thus, in a list of parables from the Pali Canon, we find the well-known simile: “Whether kindled by a priest, a warrior, a trader or a serf, from whatsoever type of fuel, a fire will emit light and heat; even so, all men, regardless of caste, are equally capable of the highest spiritual attainment.”77 This merely says that the spiritual dimension is common to all, not that the differentiation of men into castes or even the secular inequality between these castes should be abolished.





Another instance is the famous story from the Divyavadana (2nd century AD?), of the noble monk Ananda and the low-caste girl Prakriti. The girl tries to seduce the monk, but through the Buddha’s miraculous intervention, her efforts are counterproductive, and it is she who follows the monk into the Sangha: she becomes a nun. But the public objects to the ordination of an outcaste, and so the Buddha explains that caste divisions have no bearing on spiritual life.78 But he does not say that henceforth, his audience should intermarry with the lowest castes. He does just the opposite: he contrasts worldly and spiritual spheres, and justifies the neglect of caste discrimination in this case with reference to the girl’s spiritual vocation, thereby acquiescing in the persistence of caste in lay society. On the other hand, even if only for theorical purposes, the text’s demolition of caste inequality is thorough, e.g. it is said that in a previous life, the two had already been lovers, though then their castes had been the opposite.79





Another promising example is where the Buddha grills a Brahmin with Socrates-type questions to extract from him the insight that to be a Brahmin, or conversely to be unworthy of the practices of Arya Dharma, birth is not the criterion.80 The modern editor explains that the Buddha “vindicates his own universalist outlook and severely criticizes the whole theoretical basis of the brahminical caste structure”.81 Here, then, we reach the limit of Savarkar’s and Kulkarni’s revision of the claim of Buddhist egalitarianism: eventhough Buddhism did not reform society in an anti-caste sense, some Buddhist texts did develop a theoretical criticism of caste. Yes, there was an anti-caste element in Buddhism, often voiced by Brahmin-born monks.82





Brahmin writers have not only codified and justified the existing caste system, and possibly hardened it; in the final editing of many influential classics of Puranic Hinduism, they have also unnecessarily extended caste distinction beyond the social sphere, incorporating spiritual liberation in the calculus of karma and caste duties. The crassest example of this tendency is the Shambuka story in what experts consider the youngest layer of Valmiki’s Ramayana, where Rama “has to” kill the low-caste ascetic Shambuka because the latter’s spiritual vocation is contrary to his caste duties and therefore harmful to society as a whole.83





In anti-Hindu polemic, this episode is always held up as proving the true and irreducible inhumanity of Hinduism. However, J.L. Brockington contrasts this episode of the Ramayana (7:67) with the contrary evaluation of a similar act in an older layer of the Ramayana, viz. Dasharatha’s paying dearly for his killing Shravana, an ascetic of mixed Vaishya-Shudra descent (2:57): “There has been an enormous shift in attitudes between the period of the former, among the earlier additions, and the latter, among the latest parts included in the text”, viz. an appalling hardening of caste discrimination.84 The harsh caste discrimination of recent centuries is a vaguely datable innovation in Hindu social history, not an age-old conditions.85





A case could be made that this appropriation of spirituality by the Brahmin caste is what the Buddha criticizes in the Prakriti story and elsewhere. What he objects to is not the existing social system on the basis of caste, but precisely the improper extension of caste division to the spiritual sphere, beyond the worldly sphere where social distinctions belong. We may add that Sri Lankan Buddhists, who have a long history of fighting predominantly Hindu Tamils, and hence a strong sense of separateness from Hinduism, observe their own caste distinctions.86





Buddhism’s lack of interest in social reform was implicitly admitted by Dr. Ambedkar himself, when as Law Minister he defended the inclusion of Buddhists in the category of citizens to whom the Hindu Code Bill would apply. He declared: “When the Buddha differed from the Vedic Brahmins, he did so only in matters of creed, but left the Hindu legal framework intact. He did not propound a separate law for his followers. The same was the case with Mahavir and the ten Sikh Gurus.”87 That should clinch the issue.



11.9. Conclusion





Neo-Buddhim is based on a mistake. Dr. Ambedkar opted for Buddhism on the somewhat contrived assumption that the Buddhist Sangha Councils provided a native model for modern parliamentary democracy, and mostly on the wrong assumption that Buddhim was an anti-caste reform movement. In Hindutva literature, in a few marginal corners, the latter assumption has been criticized, sometimes with reference to corroborative Western research. However, emanating from upper-caste Hindutva authors and written in a heated polemical style, this is unlikely to reach let alone convince the neo-Buddhost audience.





The neo-Buddhists are not Hindus, because they say so. Indeed, whereas all the other groups considered developed their identities naturally, in a pursuit of Liberation or simply in response to natural and cultural circumstances, only to discover later that this identity might be described as non-Hindu, the neo-Buddhists were first of all motivated by the desire to break with Hinduism. The most politicized among them, all while flaunting the label “Buddhist”, actually refuse to practise Buddhism: because it distracts from the political struggle, and perhaps also because the Buddhist discipline is too obviously similar to the lifestyle of the hated Brahmins in its religious aspect. It doesn’t come naturally to political militants to sit down and shut all activist concerns from their minds, whether to recite Vedic verses or to focus on the dependent origination of their mental motions.





Yet, in broad sections of the converted Dalit masses, the practice of Buddhism is catching on. From a Hindu or a generally spiritual viewpoint, this is one of the most hopeful and positive developments of the post-independence period: many thousands of people who had truly been a Depressed Class, confined to lowly occupations, suffering humiliation and low self-esteem, often steeped in superstition and given to alcoholism, entered the path of the Buddha. Rather than talk about the spiritual path and the glories of India’s sages, as anglicized upper-caste Hindus do, they talk politics but do regularly sit down to apply the methods taught by the Awakened One





Most thinking Hindus, from Veer Savarkar to Ram Swarup, have welcomed the conversion of Dr. Ambedkar and his followers to Buddhism. Rather than joining hands with the Christians or Muslims, Dr. Ambedkar stayed within the national mainstream by taking refuge in the Buddha, thus averting what to Hindus looked like a looming disaster. That he abjured the Hindu Gods and the label “Hindu” seemed to matter less, especially when research shows that many neo-Buddhists still participate in Hindu forms of worship.





That the neo-Buddhists will move closer to the Hindu mainstream, and possibly even take a leadership role in future waves of religious revival, is rendered more likely by the evolution in society. Thanks to education, reservations, and the ever-widening impact of modernization on all Indians regardless of caste, the actual living conditions and cultural horizons of Dalits and upper castes become ever more similar. It is logical, then, that caste animosities will gradually give way to the increasing realization of common Indian and common human concerns, in mundane as well as in spiritual matters.





So, from the Hindu viewpoint, the practical conclusion ought to be: let the neo-Buddhists be non-Hindus. Their chosen religion will shield them from maximum exposure to anti-Hindu influences, and will encourage in them doctrines and practices with which most Hindus are familiar. The religious development and deepening of neo-Buddhism and the process of social reform and psychological modernization in Hindu society ensures that the two will meet again in the not too distant future.



http://voiceofdharma.org/books/wiah/ch11.htm

[HareKrishna]

That was buddhism.

what about bhagavata?

was it a movement against caste and sacrifice?

did it pass in to a period of brahmanisation, from bhagavata becoming vishnuism?

did it opposed to costly puja worship?

there was a fight betwin liberals and conservatives,between kshatriyas and brahmans?

did it opposed to guru /brahman unquestioned authority?

[rcscwc]

OIC = Overseas Indian Citizen.



A jargon for foreign citizens of Indian Origin, natural or naturalised in foreign countries, like Bobby Jindal.



There is a demand that OICs should be permitted to represent Indian in international sports. By Olympic rules it might be possible. But should it happen?



There are such OICs in foreign militaries. Should we treat them as ex-servicemen? If killed in action, should they be treated as our martyrs, even if cremated in India?

[HareKrishna]

[quote name='Bharatvarsh2' date='04 April 2010 - 05:21 AM' timestamp='1270338239' post='105626']

I bet not one of those idiots knows Sanskrit or Tamil and rely on motivated translations for their half baked knowledge (like the article on how brahmins supposedly "destroyed" the bhagavata "revolution").



[/quote]

It is said that Ramanujacharya meditating in the forest was like the crucifixion of Jesus. I do not like abrahamic concepts in our culture. Ours is a great and pure philosophy, uncontaminated by all the man-made stuff. Whether you are advaitin, shaivite, vaishnavite, dvaitin, it doesn't matter, you are all at a more elevated position than those practicing christianity.



And no, you are mistaken if you think pancha samskaram was borrowed from baptism. The practice of Bhakti and Vaishnavism is older than Christianity. Two proofs: 1) Heliodorus Column, where a greek pledges that he has become a Vaishnava, erected in 113 BC, 2) Megasthenes visit to India in 3rd Century BC, where He acknowledges Vaishnavism. Plus, the Mora Well inscriptions.

All this Predates Christianity. Ramanujacharya did not 'introduce' Pancha Samskaram as a copy of baptism. It was already in practice. He converted many people into vaishnavite faith and also made this whole concept known to the general masses. It was relatively obscure till then.



Vaishnavism is independent to Christianity. All things considered, Vaishnavism probably influenced Christianity.

[Capt M Kumar]

He provides assured power supply to a chain of some 300 CFLs that he has installed to light up the town he lives in, footing all the expenses himself.



More popularly known as ‘Bijli wale’ and ‘Phakkad Baba’, Omkar Vaishnav (45) says that lighting up the streets helps to save the locals from quite a few problems. ‘‘Cases of road accidents, chain snatching and eve-teasing can be reduced if there is adequate street light,’’ says Omkar, a resident of Bahjoi town in Moradabad. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india...842049.cms

[Capt M Kumar]

<img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ohmy.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':o' /> अखबार चाइन डेली में छपी रिपोर्ट में कहा गया है कि पेइचिंग के पटर्निटी टेस्टिंग सेंटरों की रिपोर्ट के मुताबिक चीन में पिछले कुछ सालों में नाटकीय ढंग से पितृत्व परीक्षण की तादाद बढ़ी है और इससे पता चलता है कि करीब 30% पुरुष अपने बच्चों के असली पिता नहीं हैं।



पेइचिंग के फॉरेन्सिक साइंस सेंटर जेनोमिक्स इंस्टिट्यूट के मुताबिक वर्ष 2002 के बाद से पैटरनिटी टेस्ट की तादाद में हर साल 20 फीसदी बढ़ोतरी हो रही है। http://navbharattimes.indiatimes.com/art...053768.cms

min translation:

according to Chinese daily, 30% of the tested Chinese for paternity test are not real fathers.

[dhu]

There was a post a few years back with a list of chanakyan rules to achieve power. does anyone have this post.

[HareKrishna]

A Ladies undewear shop opened recently in Saudi Arabia <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' />

http://www.faithfreedom.org/wordpress/?p=8210

[HareKrishna]

http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre64d2...n-taliban/

Pakistani Taliban say America will "burn"

[Guest]

And they all have the nerve to talk about Indic systems.....sheesh.



http://emsnews.wordpress.com/2010/05/18/...-in-power/

This is a classic: there is no religion on earth more racist and exclusionary than Judaism. ’Real’ Jews won’t even touch or eat food prepared by non-Jews unless there is a rabbi standing around, blessing everything and thus, making it ‘clean’. I was the ‘unclean’ shiksa in my ex-husband’s family. No one wanted to eat my dinners (ie: no dinner parties at my unclean house!) and I was told, in my face, that I was not part of the family and of course, when my husband’s parents died, they disowned him so he inherited literally nothing, not even photographs.



ΩΩThis was pure and unadulterated racism aimed at me, a spawn of the very racist Norman ruling elites of England. Heh. My own family’s history is very bloody as well as racist, we wouldn’t breed with the Saxons or the Celts of Britain! Much less, anyone else. Inbred to the extreme: this is also true of Jews until European liberalism opened up the ghettoes and Jews began to work and marry outside of the religion.



ΩΩJews have exploited the crimes of the Nazis—Nazis are extremely racist, too—in order to pass undemocratic laws about ‘hate crimes’ which prevents anyone from saying, ‘Zionists are the same as Nazis’ in Europe, for example. It is illegal. But in the US, it is still permitted to compare the racist ethnic cleansing thinking and laws of Israel with Nazi Germany’s equally odious laws. I kind of wish we had the Canadian laws here back when my ex-husband’s family regularly insulted me. Then, I could have had some of them arrested! HAHAHA.



ΩΩOf course, I wasn’t mean about all of this, I simply got a divorce. But this brush with rank racism has caused me to feel sympathy for others who suffer this sort of thing. The recent rash of editorials written by Jews attacking Arizona for passing laws allowing the police to look for illegal aliens amused me greatly since these same writers are perfectly happy with Israel turning the natives of Palestine into ‘illegal aliens’ inside of their own country! Again: the contradictions pass right over Jewish heads because they really do think they are above the laws of humanity and thus, can do as they please while demanding the rest of us walk on eggs around them.



ΩΩThe Jewish Zionist community has been very focused on disarming Iran now that they disarmed and destroyed Iraq. This international attempt at enforcing Iran’s second class citizenship is faltering. The Zionists use our entire State Department and 100% of our diplomatic capital to pursue this ridiculous disarmament of only Iran while Israel and the US collect and use nuclear bombs with virtually no restraints.

[HareKrishna]

Another HareKrishna center opened.





http://faunpas.ning.com/photo/centrul-ha...ext=latest

http://faunpas.ning.com/photo

[Guest]

^^^^

Where is this?

[HareKrishna]

[quote name='Swamy G' date='26 May 2010 - 07:00 PM' timestamp='1274880147' post='106576']

^^^^

Where is this?

[/quote]

in Oradea

http://api.ning.com/files/NAamu-Bqpi6XD9...Oradea.JPG

[HareKrishna]

[quote name='Swamy G' date='26 May 2010 - 07:00 PM' timestamp='1274880147' post='106576']

^^^^

Where is this?

[/quote]

in Oradea