<!--QuoteBegin-Husky+Apr 17 2007, 08:34 PM-->QUOTE(Husky @ Apr 17 2007, 08:34 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Raju+Apr 17 2007, 06:45 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Raju @ Apr 17 2007, 06:45 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Say, if an Abdul Kalam or a Feroz Khan want to refer to themselves as a hindu or look at things from that perspective, then their narrative is important as well and needs to be heard.Â
It is important not to dismiss such people as psec or under any other nomenclature.[right][snapback]67233[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Every Hindu knows Abdul Kalam is neither anti-Hindu nor a psecular. I've read that he reads the Bhagavad Gita. Every day, I think it was. If he says he's a Hindu, Hindus aren't going to contest that. Why such an irrelevant example?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly, just go by the actions and not by the speech.
That will make it clear whose narrative needs to heard and whose doesn't
<!--QuoteBegin-acharya+Apr 17 2007, 04:06 PM-->QUOTE(acharya @ Apr 17 2007, 04:06 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Ajatshatru+Apr 17 2007, 02:03 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ajatshatru @ Apr 17 2007, 02:03 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Hindu Narrative has barely started on this forum and we have already started debating who is an actual Hindu & who is not. Next for all you know we start arguing as to who exactly is a Hindu and then keep arguing with each other till the cows come home.
In the meanwhile, of course, the core issue about Hindu narrative will as usual takes a backseat till we can first decide who exactly is a real Hindu.
There seems to be a sense of urgency now more than ever to record Hindu narrative as Shiv rightly pointed out in his last post.
Also, is it just me that feels that there is something about Hindu psyche that we Hindus are so pre-occupied fighting amongst ourselves(caste,region,language etc) that Hindus only act/react to an external danger when things have already reached a critical point?Â
Even here on this forum rather than realizing the urgency of recording Hindu narrative, we have again started arguing as to who is a real Hindu, whether all Hindus narrative should be given equal weightage etc. No one is talking about given all Hindu narrative equal weightage but for Godâs sake letâs not get distracted to such an extent talking about issues like who is a real Hindu that we lose focus of the core issue.
We should, like Arjun, just see the eye of the bird and realize what is the core issue (Hindu narrative) right now that needs our urgent attention.
[right][snapback]67241[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I ave figured out that these arguments are a reflection of less reading and less contemplation . Most educated with modern education have less read about the world and know less about the philosophy and know less about what modern education has done to the Hindu philosophy.
He hardly realises that there has been a large scale negation of Hindu philosophy in the west and also inside India.
[right][snapback]67252[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
>>>I ave figured out that these arguments are a reflection of less reading and less contemplation .
And making such sweeping statements about others is a reflection of more reading and more contemplation? And could I borrow your crystal ball with which you 'figure' out everything in a jiffy.
>>>Most educated with modern education have less read about the world and know less about the philosophy and know less about what modern education has done to the Hindu philosophy.
I see a lot of assumptions here(me having had modern education et all). And pray how would someone with modern education be less read about the world? Then again some may argue as to the idea of what exactly constitutes modern education may differ from person to person.
It's also a good idea to back your assumptions with actual facts. I could sit down with you and debate about the real essence of Hindu philosophy but then see little point in doing so as you like already placed yourself on a pedestal by declaring you are the only one that got true Enlightenment about Hindu philosophy sitting under some tree.
>>>He hardly realises that there has been a large scale negation of Hindu philosophy in the west and also inside India.
And what's negation of Hindu philosophy got to do with my declaring that most Hindus have started feeling the urgency of recording the Hindu narrative? You lost me here...
<!--QuoteBegin-Raju+Apr 17 2007, 08:46 PM-->QUOTE(Raju @ Apr 17 2007, 08:46 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->
That will make it clear whose narrative needs to heard and whose doesn't
[right][snapback]67254[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I will utilize this statement to pointout one fact, as a reminder of what I am talking about.
Screw the question of whose narrative needs to be heard and whose does not need to be heard for one minute, let your mind go blank and think..
Whose narrative is being heard right now in the world?
What is being heard is not a complete Hindu narrative. It is a "Hindu" narrative written by all sorts people including conquerors, leftists, marxists etc.
Where the hell is the Hindu narrative?
There is no Hindu narrative. So what is all this argument about what should be heard or not. All that I see is non Hindu narrative.
My grandmother used to claim that there was a Tamil song that went
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><i>
"Adi" endruthukke avale illai
Pillai pere Ramakrishna
</i><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It means "I have no woman yet to call my wife", but I have decided to call my son "Ramakrishna"
See what I mean?
Get a damn Hindu narrative out and let people on here if necessary who claim they are Hindus bring their narrative out to compete with and displace all the narratives that are already doing the rounds. Argument that some narratives are bad is pointless when there is no proper positive Hindu narrative doing the rounds at all.
Of course there are bad and false narratives doing the rounds. How pointless can an argument get?
We have instances in our puranas where laws of physics have been broken/manipulated to accommodate certain exceptions.Why dont we assume for a moment that the supreme consciousness is responsible for the laws of physics? May be we are underestimating power of our consciousness. Is it not possible that "it" created everything in first place? Consciousness as we call it has energy associated with itself. This energy manifests/impresses itself upon others/other events.
All the quantum physics approach is unnecessarily complicated and diversionary at best.
[right][snapback]67225[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is an "assumption" in the consideration of "consciousness" in "EveryThing". May be human definition of consciousness largely reflects something to do with "thought", but what about a stone or some hydrogen atom, or bosons or mesons. The "everything" understanding surely falls under human consiousness, and thats the limit of our argument that can be take as premise for "Everything".
Something subjective beyond our brains, remains as pure "Existence", and again that definition is per human consiousness. Since, Existence can be equated to consciousness in different spheres of existence, hence we can consider "fully conscious" humans to "near zero" conscious subjects.. and this is relative.. and again "everything" has life (stone has a large half-life (slow death)), sope the mere presence is concious enough.
imho, its a very fine theory to live with. but, for a great hindu narratives, we need to bring about the stories that highlights these, and more. Again, from being conscious about this does not mean, having understood what is good or bad, or truth and false, that are again subjective. Hence, hindu narratives should include what qualifies good and bad, truth, false, evil etc.. to counter EJs and Jihadics.
of course, for true hindu-ism (SD-ism), this need not be done.. but the need of the hour is to counter attack largely the "EvanJihadics".
http://deccanherald.com/deccanherald/apr18...13462007418.asp
Duality and consciousness
By acharya mahaprajna
Preksha meditation develops the feeling of equality and a consciousness free from duality. This is a new phase of consciousness when the duality of gain and loss, pleasure and pain comes to an end.
There is nothing new in the world. That which has grown old assumes a new form. When what has been lost to memory reappears, it is called new. For example, the first experiment in preksha meditation, conducted by Bharata, remained hidden for a number of centuries.
Weâve reconstructed this simple process of meditation for the benefit of all those who are looking for a straight and clear-cut path to experiencing an unalloyed consciousness free from duality.
This is because, we knew, a complicated and difficult process of sadhana would not become popular, particularly because humans by their very nature avoid that which is difficult.
Preksha meditation develops the feeling of equality and a consciousness free from duality. This is a new phase of consciousness when the duality of gain and loss, pleasure and pain -- which disturbs, deforms and defiles the mind -- comes to an end. Pain and grief are products of the dialectical operation of the opposite forces of life.
A son who doesnât earn enough may earn his fatherâs displeasure, and his love gets suppressed by anger. This is because the fatherâs mind is conditioned by the experience of pleasure and pain and loss and gain. If he has, say, three sons and only one of them earns, he will be more attached, if not more affectionate, to the earning son.
Duality creates problems which have no end. Power and knowledge when opposed by ignorance and passions often fail. If we want to be free from sorrows, weâll have to put an end to the sense of duality. And there is a natural inclination in man to look beyond material objects and the pleasures they give. Hence his search for lasting joys which can bear fruit only by a unity of experience.
When the darkness (ignorance) caused by sensual pleasures becomes thick, one comes to feel a strong desire to go beyond empirical experience and to experience a state of undivided consciousness.
This consciousness is called samayika. It results in a complete restraint of mind and its fickleness. A new life then begins in which there are no grief and sorrow.
<!--QuoteBegin-Ajatshatru+Apr 17 2007, 03:30 AM-->QUOTE(Ajatshatru @ Apr 17 2007, 03:30 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->
>>>I ave figured out that these arguments are a reflection of less reading and less contemplation .
And making such sweeping statements about others is a reflection of more reading and more contemplation? Or are you merely exercising the right of a moderator by launching personal attack on a forum member to try to browbeat him into submission? And could I borrow your crystal ball with which you 'figure' out everything in a jiffy.
>>>Most educated with modern education have less read about the world and know less about the philosophy and know less about what modern education has done to the Hindu philosophy.
I see a lot of assumptions here(me having had modern education et all). And pray how would someone with modern education be less read about the world? Then again some may argue as to the idea of what exactly constitutes modern education may differ from person to person.
It's also a good idea to back your assumptions with actual facts. I could sit down with you and debate about the real essence of Hindu philosophy but then see little point in doing so as you like already placed yourself on a pedestal by declaring you are the only one that got true Enlightenment about Hindu philosophy sitting under some tree.
>>>He hardly realises that there has been a large scale negation of Hindu philosophy in the west and also inside India.
And what's negation of Hindu philosophy got to do with my declaring that most Hindus have started feeling the urgency of recording the Hindu narrative? You lost me here...
[right][snapback]67256[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You have misunderstood my post.
I was merely supporting your own post and thought process.
Did not mean to disect your post but used your post to put my thoughts.
The thread needs to move forward what Shiv is trying to get at.
Folks,
I have a few questions....
a) Who is (not) a secular Hindu? Isn't Hinduism inherently secular?
(For example, there are those who call themselves secular Jews and that confuses me a heck of a lot more than the notion of a secular Hindu).
b) A little while back, something about cutting line for darshan...the answer to which was that some good said person did in some past allowed that to happen. Isn't this a glib, dangerous argument, to confront proselytization with?
Isn't this an insult to other fellow Hindus?
(For what its worth, my family got the side-door to darshan plenty, and I obstinately refused, each time, since age 5 or so. It has caused a lot of headache in the family and still does...Getting older, I do realize how hard my parents worked for that access and that they see no wrong in it per se, though they do appreciate my arguments and I appreciate their industriousness. Now, I sure get enticed by getting my son the "best view" but I cant get over the thought that I'll be damned if I cut line. The poojaris are no help, put X-money there, use line A++! Ugh, this issue is such a mind-boggling morass for me. Am I just dumb to not recognize that God offered me all these easy opportunities to hangout together, or have I earned his eternal blessing for standing up to what is right?)
c) I am not sure I understand the value of the counter-punch in the you farted game. Could someone please explain it again? When someone throws an obviously baseless accusation and leaves us to defend, should the obvious response not be; Crusader religion person of insulting type (the north koreans do this well), why are you insulting my holy way of life (or other surrogates). i.e. the in your face cease and desist, until they explain how their argument is not baseless, no? Or is it much simpler than that: you debase my religion I debase yours. You insult me, I insult yours....But then the problem with that is the neutral observer is left with unanswered questions (neutral being a relative term, of course!). What is the right way to hold fort while deleting the offense?
d) Who's got their narrative down and wants to go first?
b) A little while back, something about cutting line for darshan...the answer to which was that some good said person did in some past allowed that to happen. Isn't this a glib, dangerous argument, to confront proselytization with?
< snip >
c) I am not sure I understand the value of the counter-punch in the you farted game. Could someone please explain it again? When someone throws an obviously baseless accusation and leaves us to defend, should the obvious response not be; Crusader religion person of insulting type (the north koreans do this well), why are you insulting my holy way of life (or other surrogates). i.e. the in your face cease and desist, until they explain how their argument is not baseless, no? Or is it much simpler than that: you debase my religion I debase yours. You insult me, I insult yours....But then the problem with that is the neutral observer is left with unanswered questions (neutral being a relative term, of course!). What is the right way to hold fort while deleting the offense?
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hmm great questions.
The "past life" bit is, I believe, interesting psychology used to explain the inevitable after the event. You don't cut the queue deliberately, telling yourself that a quickie darshan is owed to you from a past life. I don't outrage the modesty neighbor's wife by telling myself that she owes it to me. That is not the context in which it applies. It is used as one possible explanation of an unavoidable event after that event has passed.
The past life suggestion is used as a balm to soothe a person who has to accept the inevitable. A person who has cut a queue and is feeling guilty can be comforted (or made to feel worse) by some method.
In Islam, a mullah might prescribe some punishment.
In Christianity - you go to a confession and may then get some minor punishment.
In both instances your happiness after an even that is past (and cannot be reversed) is dependent on external agents - i.e the mullah/padre and their proclivities.
As a Hindu you can choose a similar path of self punishment to overcome guilt - even in a situation (such as the queue breaking) in which a mild misdemeanor has been committed in a moment of weakness. You can vow to do the whole thing again - or donate to charity or whatever.
But Hinduism offers you yet another path to self-correct your actions without punishing yourself with guilt. It tells you that you are yourself responsible for your actions, and anything that just "happens" to you despite your being a responsible person are payback for a previous even in a previous lifetime. No need to ask for punishment, but you can do a course correction in this life to make sure you don't err again. Sorry if I have not explained that clearly - but it is once again an indicator the greater choice of routes offered for mental piece in Hinduism.
The "you farted" example is used merely to show that the first person who makes the accusation automatically puts you on the defensive - and you end up "defending" something instead of doing what you should be doing. The accusation is made at a time of your opponents choosing (in order to stop you saying or doing something that causes him takleef) and can successfully divert the topic. One way of not allowing such a diversion to occur is to allow the accusation to be made and decide to leave it for a future date when you can get on the offensive yourself. This has the drawback that you are not defending yourself against a false accusation, but it allows you carry on doingwhat you were doing without changing the topic to defending yourself.
Let me explain the context in which it might be clear - since you were on BRF. I will try and be brief
A statement was made that Christians destroyed temples in Goa.
The response to this by one guy was a "you farted" accusation in which he suggested that Temple desecration was done by the connivance of Brahmins. This accusation got people so angry that all the responses after that were diverted from the prime purpose of bringing out the Hindu narrative of how temples were destroyed, to the secondary purpose of defending the "you fatred" accusation made by the lone baiter. In fact the accuastion by the baiter was so successful that half the Hindus chagned the topic from the Hindu narrative with silly arguments asking him why he did not like Hindus. That was a very stupid thing to do. If you ask me why I don't like you, you are inviting me to make a thousand more "you farted" accusations aboout you.
What got lost in the fight was the fact that Christians did destroy temples. If the righteous Hindus who got angry with the "you farted" comment had only allowed the comment to pass (as a temporary ploy) - then all the egregious things done by Christianity could have been piled on. But the you farted baiter successfully thwarted that.
Hindus have never learned the art of rhetoric. Christian and Muslim mullahs and evangelists have practised the art for centuries. A friend of mine who is in sales (in India) was telling me that they actually studied the methods used by evangelists - to put on all the "fire", conviction and arguments to convince someone. Hinduism has no equivalent and most Hindus appear like naive, well meaning children in front of sophisticated arguers from other faiths.
Examples like "you farted" and "torn shirt vs open fly" that I have used on BRF are merely tactics used in discussions in order to trip up and divert attention and I have rarely found Hindus using them effectively against Christians/Muslim fundoos in discussions.
The way to use the you farted accusation is to bring it up right away. If you hear any positive evangelistic statement - you immediately say "Oh but you guys murdered so many". That puts the other guy on the defensive. And if he diverts the topic to accuse you you can stop him by telling him not to divert the topic from Christian murdered using a "torn shirt vs open fly tactic"
Both tactics "you farted" and "torn shirt vs open fly" are TACTICS used in discussions that must be recognised and used effectively just like Mullahs and Evangelists.
The bottom line is when someone makes an egregious accusation don't get mad, get even. But getting even might mean suppressing your anger and allowing the accuser to go unchalleneged so that you can work yourself into an unassailable position and then beat his argument to death. But if you get angry and allow yourself to be diverted by every accusation he makes (to defend yourself) you are falling for his game and you are on a losing path by following his agenda. You have to be offender, not defender, in order to gain territory.
I will take on the short ones, the big ones are for the big guys here. <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Sumann Bharadwaja Sarma+Apr 17 2007, 06:04 PM-->QUOTE(Sumann Bharadwaja Sarma @ Apr 17 2007, 06:04 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->
a) Who is (not) a secular Hindu? Isn't Hinduism inherently secular?
(For example, there are those who call themselves secular Jews and that confuses me a heck of a lot more than the notion of a secular Hindu). <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> The word secularism has to do with a divorce from the laws of the state from a laws of a religion. The concept was borne out of the unique experiences of christianity in Europe.
In Hinduism, at a certain level, you could say it has been the opposite. Kings always ruled under the laws of Dharma. The ways of the land were wedded to the ways of the people.
However, there is a key difference. While monotheistic faiths have a central authority with a single source, which is exclusive, authoritative, totalitarian and claimed to be complete and completed and the only version of the truth - these philosophies have always resulted in a conflict between the state and the religion.
In Hinduism, Dharma though not fungible is infinitely more flexible and does not suffer from any of the issues that monotheistic faiths suffer from.
The result is the reformation process in Europe has produced the term secularism to provide a divorce between public laws and private matters.
So, is Hinduism inherently secular. The answer to that is a firm no - There was never any need for it - as it does not suffer with any of the afflictions and nor does it share any of the experiences of the Europeans. The question is moot and does not apply to the Hindu frame. Dharma is what has guided our rulers of the past.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->d) Who's got their narrative down and wants to go first?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> WIP.
d) Who's got their narrative down and wants to go first?
[right][snapback]67301[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have access to some rare autobiographical documents describing Madhwa brahmin life in Karnataka from about 1850 onwards, and the document shows how attitudes have changed and how Hindus have moved from old attitudes to much more inclusive ones and the reasons for that.
I will post excerpts because I have permission to do that. Ramana I may send you the entire doc as requested - but I am not sure I can do that for everyone. But I will try an describe the life that those people faced. I will need some time.
A narrative is an ongoing process where you lay down your views, your doubts and your experiences - maybe joys of festivals or sorrows at something else to share and document. You may want to share a menu that you like, or the smell of something cooking or the sounds of something happening related to your Hindu home. These are all part of your narrative - and it need not come out in one go.
The vegetarian meal is always served on a plantain leaf. The salt is always on the far left corner. A pickle is always deposited to the right of that. The next two items to the right of the pickle are ALWAYS a salad of gram dal and some such stuff. Cooked vegetables of 2-3 types to the right of that.
The Payasam/Khir is ALWAYS on the near right corner.
A spiced rice dish is always deposited on the left side leaving the middle open for the main courses - which can be five or six in number - mostly rice based.
The meal cannot begin until rice and dal are placed in the middle and ghee is added - after which themeal always starts with eating the khir in the near right corner.
Why?
The reasons for this are lost in the mists of time as far as I can tell. The reasons may be perfectly pragmatic - perhaps as a reminder or perhaps to bring order to the plethora of dishes being served to hundreds of people by a dozen people.
There may be more than one reason given to different people.
To view this pic when ones stomach's empty!! <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo--> Not fair SV, some warning needed.
Some added questions: did you pour/sprinkle water around the leaf? Put a few morsels of rice on the right side OUTSIDE the leaf?
If you did, answer (from traditions I come from, same state as your SV, just on costal side): water around leaf prevented ants and insects from coming into you leaf; the few morsels were put out there so the ants didn't go back hungry. Such concerns for little creatures while keeping hygeine in mind speak volumes. Similar traditions exists in other cultures?
On payasam: It was always served after the main course was done.
Sengotuvellllll, Ok OK, I will get used to that id Shiv.
On that picture. I am a Mumbaite, at least in heart now. See, we mumbaites have the original claim to build and live in a non hindu personal framework.
I was a teenager the first time, I traveled through the south in the early 80's. No North Indian restaurants, No sandwiches, Pav Baji, nothing, unlike today. This was especially true in the interiors, places such as Vjayawada in AP, Dindigul in TN, Balgaum and Udipi in Kannada land and Alleppey and Cannanore in Kerala and many other such small urban areas.
I was miserable. Almost everywhere the food was yikes - to my taste buds. I swear to you, I must have puked many times just watching the voracious eating style on the leaf. All this was ALIEN to a fork, spoon, knife guy such as myself then.
My South Indian experience in Mumbai was limited to Idli and Dosa. It is another matter now, where, we cook a variety of authentic SI food at home itself for about half of our meals in the week. Ask me to eat with hands on a leaf and I am a pro.
My point: The divorce from our native ways and means is real. Such trivia such as food and ways of living is part of the narrative.
It is important to discover some the causes of this loss and what should be done to arrest and reverse it.
Here is my contribution to the Hindu Narrative:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->LOCAL NEWS http://in.news.yahoo.com/070417/48/6eovo.html
IAF pilot to sanyasi, he now wants to unite India, spread peace
By IE
Wednesday April 18, 02:36 AM
WHAT can compel an Air Force pilot and a father of two to turn to spirituality? For Swami Sachidananda Bharathi, it was an air crash in 1982.
Bharathi said he was flying from Delhi to Kochi when the aircraft caught fire and went out of control. "Instead of going up in flames or crashing, it dived into a nearby lake," said Bharathi, the pilot-turned-peace-activist who is now in the city. "I and 14 passengers were rescued after 10 minutes.
"It was a miraculous escape. I realised that there was some divine power that was driving our destiny."
Born in a Christian family at Kerala's Idiki district, and named N V John, Bharathi then turned to spiritualism. He began interacting with religious gurus and reading scriptures. "After interacting with Hindu, Christian, Sikh and Muslim gurus for several years, I finally decided to tread an independent path. A religion is known from its saints, and I became aware of the intrinsic qualities of each religion from the gurus."
Squadron Leader John got married in 1979, and later became a father of two. But he renounced his family in 1996 and took up sanyas in 2001. In 2003, he finally decided to change his name to Swami Sachidananda Bharathi.
Now 60, he can be mistaken for a swami in his saffron robe, but Bharathi disagreed. <b>"This attire should be related to sanyasis, people who have denounced worldly pleasures and ties for the benefit of people. But unfortunately, it has become a symbol for Hindu religion."</b>
Out on a year-long tour of India, Bharathi wishes to unite Indians for a second freedom struggle. He said, <b>"Although we have achieved political freedom, we have not attained social, moral or economic freedom."</b>
The aim of his tour, called 'Desh Vandana' (salute the nation), is to promote values of sacrifice and service. "I am trying to promote the concept of skipping a meal every week and feeding a hungry child," he explained. "Skipping a meal will instill the attitude of sacrifice and feeding one person will help us serve the needy."
Bharathi has another purpose, too: Involving the youth in the "national regeneration movement", which he initiated 10 years ago. "I was always attracted to patriotism, and that's the reason why I joined the Air Force. <b>But now I feel Indians should rediscover and preserve the eternal values that has enabled the country to survive for centuries."</b>
The movement attempts to <b>revive ideas of Gandhi and Vivekananda</b>, he said. <!--emo&:eager--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/lmaosmiley.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='lmaosmiley.gif' /><!--endemo-->
"Bengal has always been a hotbed of major movements like the Brahmo Samaj. So I have similar expectations from the youths here." <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Ashok Kumar+Apr 17 2007, 05:55 PM-->QUOTE(Ashok Kumar @ Apr 17 2007, 05:55 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Re: the venn diagrams above by Shiv
I prefer C, but there is still a lot of white-space left outside the big saffron circle.
My picture is of whole page filled with saffron with small overlapping circles of blue and green.
That is, hinduism/dharma is the universal set, and christianity/Islam (or any other ism) are overlapping subsets within that universal set.
[right][snapback]67228[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When I first created the diagrams a few days ago, I was also in favor of 'C' as a possible description of the relationship between Hinduism, Christianity and Islam.
But I had more thoughts after I kept staring at the diagrams.
Diagram B would be, for example, the Christian narrative, with Hinduism as a separate Island that needs to be totally absorbed.
I am wondering if diagram A represents reality, even if the proportions may be wrong. While we like to claim that Hinduism is inded a universal subset, it has shadow areas that it does not cover. Areas of darkness if you laike. Those areas of darkness are occupied by Christianity and Islam.
But look at the following characteristics of Christianity and Islam and tell me where they occur within the universal subset of Hinduism:
Where in Hinduism do you find the compulsion to follow only one God? Where in Hinduism do you find the concept that God can cast you away and damn you forever? Where in Hinduism do you find anyone restricting you from following one or more of different paths depending on your mood and needs? Where in Hinduism do you find written permission to kill someone for not being in agreement with you? Where in Hinduism do you find that your faith and your God's health is dependent upon your forcing your narrative and faith on everyone else? Where in Hinduism are you told that all knowledge is written in ONE book, and nothing can exist outside that?
No. certain fundamental pillars of Christianity and Islam are well outside the Hindu scheme of things.
To an extent, we have fooled ourselves into thinking that this is not so. But it is so. There is no meeting ground over many areas.
The only convoluted thought process I could use to make Christianity and Islam a subset of Hinduism is so say that completely ignorant people exist, whose minds are closed. The fact that ignorance and darkness exists is certainly well known to Hindus.
But darkness and ignorance are not a monopoly of Christianity and Islam, and the ability to see light and truth are not restricted to people who call themselves "Hindu".
The acceptance of this is the fundamental difference between Hindusim and those other religions. For a fundamenatlist of Christianity or Islam, you can never ever be right until you follow his god.
I too thought similarly after stating my preference for a universal set of saffron.
Saffron cant include blue/green as already mentioned by Shiv since there is much in the DNA of green/blue that is alien to saffron.
One may say that saffron is everywhere where blue and green are not, in an exclusive sense (not an inclusive sense). That is, saffron surounds all the space outside of green & blue. But even that is not satisfactory. Because that would mean that whichever way one steps out of blue or green one would land up in saffron. I can imagine many scenarios where one can step out of green & blue and be far away from saffron too. For example, church of flying saucer or church of satan or church of dark matter. Besides there are some areas where there is some commonality between safforn and blue/green.
I guess the best representation will be three overlapping circles of blue green and saffron, with an important feature that the relative proportions of the saffron circle to the blue/green circles would be of Ganeshji to his vaahan.
One thing the Venn diagram did in my mind was to start me thinking about what consitutes a "true Christian", a "true Muslim" and a "true Hindu"
Who occupies the space between all thse "true" people? Who occupies the grey areas (white in the diagram)?
I find on this forum (and BRF) that many Hindus tend to reject people who fall in these grey areas, while as far as I can tell, Christianity and Islam work overtime to get these "grey area" people within their fold.
Ultimately, that may be Hinduism's fatal weakness.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Some added questions: did you pour/sprinkle water around the leaf? Put a few morsels of rice on the right side OUTSIDE the leaf?
If you did, answer (from traditions I come from, same state as your SV, just on costal side): water around leaf prevented ants and insects from coming into you leaf; the few morsels were put out there so the ants didn't go back hungry. Such concerns for little creatures while keeping hygeine in mind speak volumes. Similar traditions exists in other cultures?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hello Viren,
Food is sacred to hindus and we eat it with a prasada attitude (buddi); ie all food we eat is actually a divine gift, and it is to be shared and eaten joyously.
Water is holy in Hinduism and is used to purify all manner of things (arre thoda jal dena bhai, comes to mind in between shloka recitations), so we purify our meal by sprinkling water around the leaf (or thali). I am not sure this has much to do with ants or insects, meals usually are not to be had in such conditions. At any rate, the volume of water, the skill necessary to deliver it and maintain the water-shield's spatial coherence and temporal persistence is really hard. May be it is just easier to clean up the place before eating. Cleaning up the kitchen, utensils [before every meal and after], hands [before cooking and eating], and the place where you eat is absulimo essential per cooking hygine and this is acknowledged in various scriptures.
We offer morsels of food as acknowledgements of Deva, pitru, rishi, manushya and bhuta runas that we carry within us. Then we say
Om Pranaya swaha, (respiratory -- you have to breathe to eat)
Om Apanaya swaha, (you must be able to get it out)
Om Vyanaya swaha, (you must have circulation)
Om Udanaya swaha (purgatory hold)
Om Samanaya swaha, (disgetion needed!)
Om Brahmane swahaaaa! (thank you brahmana the supreme being in me, and all)
(you may add your favorite goddess/god forms of brahmana, and aspiring or confirmed devas --such as your teacher or cricket coach-- to this list).
And eat the food as it were a prasadam from God, for it all is His and comes to us from Him. Bon Apetit!
(Of course, there will be variations, all interpretations of truth are acceptable!)
Sweets are to be had in the begining because they are good for apetite (digestion?). Some interpretations of Ayurveda will have you start with something sour, but largely it has come to mean "sweets", which is actually a rather broad representation of foods. Sweets are a way to arouse the fire in you, whereas water (dominated) foods are to restore calmness in you. These two are not to be had side-by-side!
Don't start your meal with a big fat glass of water, don't let it interfere as you go around the thali devouring the delicious meal on yout plate, but do end it with water, lest the system remain perpetually active in the "ah, ah, ah" or "wah, wah, wah" mode (say). Of course there are variations and other interpretations of truth are welcome. And of course, there are exceptions, say if your digestive system has gone bonkers or there is some other health problem; refer to the appropriate action in the Ayurveda manual <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
As to organization of food; there is some knowledge about serving in clockwise direction, eating with right hand, and the geometry of it all that makes food go where it is. Will have to ask my pundit and get back!
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> 
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo--> Not fair SV, some warning needed.