p.s. look how the quote Xavier. This was the guy who proposed the Goa inquisition.
<!--QuoteBegin-Meena+Apr 17 2007, 04:41 AM-->QUOTE(Meena @ Apr 17 2007, 04:41 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-vishwas+Apr 17 2007, 04:31 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vishwas @ Apr 17 2007, 04:31 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Meena,
Why do you have to have an appropriate answer for the views of Christian believers? Why should you need to find validation for your views, in their opinions? They are believers of a different religion. Why should you seek a congruence of views?
[right][snapback]67182[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
These are the views which they use to convert people. When they go to a tribal and tell him/her their way of living is incorrect and is devil worship. Then after the conversion he/she joins them to go after his original co-religionists. One is not looking for congruence but one must be able to stand up to them.
[right][snapback]67184[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Meena+Apr 17 2007, 04:41 AM-->QUOTE(Meena @ Apr 17 2007, 04:41 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->These are the views which they use to convert people. When they go to a tribal and tell him/her their way of living is incorrect and is devil worship. Then after the conversion he/she joins them to go after his original co-religionists. One is not looking for congruence but one must be able to stand up to them.
[right][snapback]67184[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Meena,
I don't think this is how conversion works. Tell a tribal that he is worshipping the devil, and he will spit in your face.
I suspect how it works is:
1. Say you are coming to help the tribe.
2. Set up hospitals and schools.
3. Show the power of money.
4. Involve them in prayer and slowly introduce the tribals to a new God, new rituals and new form of worship.
5. The above will convert atleast a few. Now, give them status and economic facilities, and cause a split in the tribe. The remaining will eventually follow, when they see how much of a difference missionary money will make to their lives.
It is not by argument that they are converting the tribals. It is not by calling it devil worship. They don't call it devil worship in the initial stages of conversion. They call it that when they are seeking to isolate the last hold-outs.
In this case I think Meena has fallen for the "You farted " game.
I had described the "You farted" game on BRF and will do so here if need be, but in essence the game consists of making an accusation out of the blue to put someone on the defensive. Evangelists are adept at this, as are Mullahs
In the case of the link from Meena the "You farted" accusation is a criticism of the Gita which is a sort of "coup" because the subject of spread of Christianity by murder and coercion is forgotten in favor of defending the Gita.
As a tactic to face the likes of Mullahs and Evangelists never ever be defensive, never be apologetic, and never try to defend against an accusation. You have to take the attitude that the other person is wrong, was wrong ad will always be wrong - so how can his accusation have any truth. Listening to the other person to look for truth is a Hindu weakness.
Instead, you need to come out with some accusations yourself - like a list of murders committed in the name of Christianity
<!--QuoteBegin-Husky+Apr 16 2007, 10:43 AM-->QUOTE(Husky @ Apr 16 2007, 10:43 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> Why do these people's narratives count at all in the Hindu narrative and if they have to, why should their versions contribute equally to it? Why should all Hindu narratives be weighted equally?
Does a Shankaracharya's understanding of Hindu Dharma deserve equal consideration as mine? And should it get equal consideration as say Mallika Sherawat (doesn't know anything) or mira nair (married to islamoterrorist) or teesta seetalvad (same) or deepa mehta or some other anti-Hindu 'Hindu' secular?
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not easy questions to answer.
The only way I can rephrase your question is "Why should I not show hate and contempt for these despicable turncoats and traitors?"
The only thing they have in their favor is that they still choose to use Hindu names and describe themselves as Hindu. If Vivekananda's greatness occurred everwhere we would not have what we have today.
If you look at a Teesta from the viewpoint of a Mullah, he will not give a damn about what you think is her lack of Hinduness. What will drive him crazy is the assault on Islam by Teesta's very existence. Teesta is living proof of an assault on Islam. Her name (Teesta), her appearance (No modesty/burkha), her behavior (mixing with men) would carry a death sentence under sharia. Her marriage to a Muslim without her complete and irrevocable conversion as required in sharia is a travesty, and the fact that she proclaims herself to be Hindu is actually the same as thumbing her nose at Allah. That would be an Islamist viewpoint.
Now you, who claim to be Hindu and hold Vivekananda as your highest ideal, are comparing Teesta with him and asking why you should accommodate her as Hindu. What would Vivekanada have thought about your view?
She should have some place, some accommodation within a Hindu narrative because she is undermining sharia more than you could do yourself. She could be your ally, but you have to make place for her. If you turn her away - she will definitely use what is in her power to undermine you. Why make more enemies when what you are fighting are silly but powerful ideologies?
Whose narrative is more damaging to sharia, the very foundation of Islam? Yours or Teestas?
04-17-2007, 01:45 PM (This post was last modified: 04-17-2007, 01:52 PM by Husky.)
Post 163:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->(Husky @ Apr 16 2007, 10:43 AM)
Why do these people's narratives count at all in the Hindu narrative and if they have to, why should their versions contribute equally to it? Why should all Hindu narratives be weighted equally?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not easy questions to answer.
The only way I can rephrase your question is "Why should I not show hate and contempt for these despicable turncoats and traitors?"<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Wah? My suggestion wasn't that Hindus go and hate the frauds. Don't know where you got that from.
(1) I was trying to suggest that <b>pretenders' versions</b> should be ignored in the Hindu narrative you wish to get constructed because they are <i>not</i> Hindu. They are often not even self-confessed Hindus, except on the rare occasions when they choose to claim the label to use it as a passcard to speak against Hinduism in favour of christoislamicterrorism.
Teesta Seetalvad is a 'psecular' Indian officially (she has Hindu parentage, but I don't think she admits to being a Hindu). Unofficially, she's an undeclared muslimah. Whether islamics and the mullah accept her or not is not my problem. She's a muslimah in her private view.
(2) Also, I suggested that Hindu <b>dhimmis' versions</b> be not accorded equal weight in the overall narrative.
Going back to the frauds and posers of <b>(1)</b>, many pseculars today are officially not Hindu: Rahul Bose does not say he's Hindu, nor do many another. They declare themselves as secular (though quite a few of them are christoislamics, like the christian Arundhati Roy). Why should their views count at all in the overall Hindu narrative? Then we might as well let in all the world's ummah and missionaries and converted sheep to tell the Hindu story again.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The only thing they have in their favor is that they still choose to use Hindu names and describe themselves as Hindu.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->You lost me. Arundhati Roy, for example, doesn't officially wear her real name on her sleeve (Suzanne), but we must still all accept her as a Hindu because she still subtly pretends to be? Many psecular Indians choose to (ab)use their names in a similar manner precisely for this reason and do so far more overtly.
Reminds me of the christoterrorists in Korea who go around preaching they had been Buddhist monks who then saw the light of jeebus and converted to saving christianity (e.g. look for occurrences of the word 'monk at http://www.buddhapia.com/eng/tedesco/2.html ). Or the Chinese communists who dress up like Tibetan monks and then do all kinds of criminal activities to bring ill-fame to real monks in Tibet - do they counts as Tibetan Buddhists?
My point was, authentic Hindu voices deserve to be heard. Pretenders to Hinduism should be ignored. Hindu perspective according to dhimmis (Hrithik Roshan for instance) should be weighted less than knowledgeable Hindus' versions.
Never mind. Go ahead, construct the narrative - minus mine. I'm curious to see how it turns out any different from what the christoislamics have so far projected Hindu Dharma as.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Whose narrative is more damaging to sharia, the very foundation of Islam? Yours or Teestas?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Mine o'course. Teesta is a heretic muslim. I'm an infidel. She's already converted, just needs to be restrained. People like myself can't be converted.
Sharia isn't the foundation of islam, sharia is merely the islamic law to govern <i>muslims in their lands</i>.
According to mohammed, allah has plans to make the entire world islamic. We, infidels, are in the way of their allah's plan. There's no bigger thorn in the eye of the ummah and their alleged allah than an infidel.
We'll be kafirs to the end and are keeping ('delaying' as they see it) the world from becoming an islamic 'pardees'/hell-hole. Just like our mere existence peeves the christians because we stand in the way of the christian promise/threat of the second-coming.
Heretic muslims/christians are a secondary problem to the christoislamic ideology, first problem is the unsaved kafir. Of course, local problems are dealt with first, because they're easier to deal with: hence TSP and Afghanistan terrorise their 'errant' womenfolk. But they never let off intending to (and indeed, carrying out) j-hading dar-ul-harb nations.
<!--QuoteBegin-Husky+Apr 17 2007, 01:45 PM-->QUOTE(Husky @ Apr 17 2007, 01:45 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->
My point was, authentic Hindu voices deserve to be heard. Pretenders to Hinduism should be ignored. Hindu perspective according to dhimmis (Hrithik Roshan for instance) should be weighted less than knowledgeable Hindus' versions.
Never mind. Go ahead, construct the narrative - minus mine. I'm curious to see how it turns out any different from what the christoislamics have so far projected Hindu Dharma as.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is no arguing with the idea that "authentic Hindu voices" should be heard. I find it interesting that you have chosen to reduce yourself to a minority of one on the issue, because it strikes me that if you start pinning a particular narrow definition on "authentic Hindu", then one would have to be prepared for reducing the number of "authentic Hindus" in India to perhaps 200 or 300 million or less ( a frightening 50 million??) . This is just a statement without any substantiation. For example if the definition is narrow enough "authentic Hindus" can be reduced to just one - yourself. Just as you have done.
The idea of recording a narrative is not to list authentic Hindus or pin them down to a narrow range of behavior or belief (like Christianity and Islam).
I personally based the idea of recording the narrative on the idea that Hindus and Hinduism are under threat and that there is no census to say how many "authentic Hindus" are left. Applying evolutionary theory - any population characteristic that falls below a particular critical mass may be doomed to die anyway, and Hinduism may already be doomed to die anyway. From that viewpoint, if authentic Hindus in the world is reduced to just you alone, Hinduism as we know it is already dead among humans and nothing will revive it, unless it revives itself (which it can, being a timeless collection of truths)
However if we happen to have (by the grace of Allah and Yahweh) enough Hindus left to carry on what is left, then we need to urgently record forever all remaining Hindu knowledge, tradition and folklore to serve as a reference for Hindus of the future who have lost the tradition of gaining knowledge by word of mouth, and who are so reduced in number that "word of mouth" spread is physically not possible. That is the idea of recording narrative.
Spending a great deal of time finding "authentic Hindus" (such as yourself?) and reaching agreement on whether a particlar narrative should recorded higher or lower rank or status would be fine if we had all the time in the world. Hindus had all the time in the world to do that before Christ and Mahomet. In the "Year of the Lord" 2007, there is not much time left to spend on haggling. Haggling should be done later. First record and document, and decide later whether it is "authentic Hindu" or not. Hindu knowledge and folkore should be treated as an archaeological site from which NOTHING is thrown, but something gets rejected only after deep analysis.
In short - you may be right. I just don't agree with your methodology.
>>>Why do these people's narratives count at all in the Hindu narrative and if they have to, why should their versions contribute equally to it? Why should all Hindu narratives be weighted equally?
Well, if they claim to be Hindus they may like to contribute to the Hindu narrative. If they have anything positive to add to the Hindu narrative, I see no harm in their contributing to the Hindu narrative.
>>> âBecause such a Hindu narrative is not at all representative of Hindu Dharma, and let's face it, by that time, large amounts of christoislamic missionary tales would have crept into it courtesy of such peopleâ.
But on the other hand, if they try to pass off Chrisoislamic missionary tales under the guise of these tales as being part of Hindu narrative, surely thousands of other knowledgeable Hindus are monitoring the Hindu narrative so will notice and may choose to discard such missionary tales from the final Hindu narrative. Surely Hindus are intelligent enough to notice and point out any attempts by such people to pass off such christoislamic tales as Hindu narrative.
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.
04-17-2007, 05:30 PM (This post was last modified: 04-17-2007, 05:53 PM by Husky.)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->There is no arguing with the idea that "authentic Hindu voices" should be heard. I find it interesting that you have chosen to reduce yourself to a minority of one on the issue, because it strikes me that if you start pinning a particular narrow definition on "authentic Hindu", then one would have to be prepared for reducing the number of "authentic Hindus" in India to perhaps 200 or 300 million or less ( a frightening 50 million??) . This is juwst a statement without any substantiation. For example if the definition is narrow enough "authentic Hindus" can be reduced to just one - yourself. Just as you have done.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->You misunderstand. Authentic Hindu voices are those of people who are <i>not pretending</i> to be Hindu (this then excludes christians who hide under Hindu names, and excludes psecular anti-Hindus who only say they are Hindus when they wish make some spiteful pronouncement on Hinduism, as if speaking on behalf of all Hindus). That is, authentic Hindu voices are those of everyone who thinks of themselves as Hindu even in private. This includes dhimmi Hindus even if they are passive, but not non-Hindus who merely claim to be when it suits their purpose.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->For example if the definition is narrow enough "authentic Hindus" can be reduced to just one - yourself. Just as you have done.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Are you referring to the 'minus me'? :not sure: That was merely to indicate that I don't see the use of my voice being incorporated in a version of Hinduism which regards arundhati roy, teesta seetalvad or other poseurs all the same as that of the rest of the Hindu masses including me. The poseurs don't identify themselves as Hindus in private, so I don't see why they should count as Hindus at all. Or communists who only claim to be Hindus whenever they need to secure the Hindu vote and then, when they're safe, go back to declaring that Hinduism brought the 'dark ages' to India and ban Hindu expressions.
I'd assumed that in this new telling of Hinduism non-anti-Hindus would get more of their views across, seeing as how the other side already has all the airtime in all other narrations. If not, can't see as I can be bothered to recount my experiences for this new version. Don't do nothin' for free, after all. There should be some pay-off for me (money will do as well...)
Schade. Doesn't matter. On the other hand, I could merely have misunderstood what will and will not be included in this Hindu narrative.
Since when did turncoats and traitors get an equal stake in the Hindu narrative, a Mirza Jai Singh will never get even 1% of what a Shivaji or Hammir Dev Chauhan gets in the history books of Hindus, simply because he was a traitor and it does not matter whether he considered himself Hindu, we had many Indians who were servile to the British when they ruled us but our books on the freedom movement don't tell their stories do they (and rightly so).
Just because you were accidentally born as a Hindu and still have that token name doesn't make you a Hindu, anyway people like Arundhati Roy and her ilk are communists and can never be Hindus unless they give up the deadwood known as communism.
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.
It is important not to dismiss such people as psec or under any other nomenclature.
Hindu Narrative has barely started on this forum and we have already started debating who is an actual Hindu & who is not. Someone will say you cannot be a Commie and still be a Hindu, a Commie will then turn around and say what makes you a better Hindu than me, next someone will talk about they being made to feel they are not Hindus because they belong to such and such caste.... 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? E.g. not directly connected to Hindu Narrative but take the example of war. After independence whenever there is a war like happened in 1962, 1965 etc there is a sense of panic, suddenly country finds out political parties have neglected the modernization of armed forces for a long time, there is a hue and cry but the moment war is over itâs back to business as usual (decision to purchase arms takes years, Ministers more interested in kickbacks, scoring brownie points against other politicians regarding past arms deals, not enough % of GDP spent on armed forces) till another war is thrust on us and again panic.
Though a lot of Hindus have started realizing the dangers of Js & EJs, there are also some Hindus when you talk to them about dangers of J and EJs will simply say âyes, we know all that but arenât Hindus suppose to be tolerant (they simply donât get it that tolerance does not mean no action when confronted with signs of impending danger and/or tolerance also cannot be used as a sign of cowardice). Then there are those Hindus (some politicians, leftist media etc) who will pooh pooh the dangers of J and EJs by talking of being Hindus should be magnanimous and making minorities feel safe ((thus giving a license to minorities to do anything they want safe in the knowledge that they (minorities) will be able to get away with it)). And then there are some Hindus (a small minority) who are just plain indifferent as they claim it doesnât affect them directly. All of this lot will be rudely awakened from their deep slumber when things reach a boiling point (as has already happened in Kashmir, Assam, Tripura etc) and then as usual there will be panic as there was hardly any prior planning done to tackle such an eventuality.
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.
From the above discussion there is a Hindu narrative and then there is an Indian narrative which represents the choice C in Shiv's diagrams.
So there needs to be -Hindu narrative (Orange part), an Indian Muslim and an Indian Christian narrative and all this encompasssed in the Indian narrative (White region in which optin C resides).
Any Shiv what is this nom-de-plume you have picked? Sounds like some deep South SDRE name and de Sanskritized to boot <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
04-17-2007, 08:34 PM (This post was last modified: 04-17-2007, 08:34 PM by Husky.)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Please look at the image below.
It represents Hinduism, Christianity and Islam coded in colors under three graphs A, B and C
Please tell me if you think whether choices A, B or C represent reality in your mind.
[...]
Or do you have a different mental picture?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Most important question: <i>where are all the other religions?</i> I mean, where's Shinto, Taoism, N American Native American Tradition, and the like? They're as important as Hinduism. Hinduism seriously overlaps with those, some even more than others. Hinduism is not alone. At present it's like asking people a multi-choice Q on whether they are most like Stalin or Hitler, instead of giving other good guys to make the comparison with.
Unless you require the diagram to account for christoislamic plagiarism of the Natural Religions, I don't see any overlap of any of these Religions with christoislamism. If this plagiarism is to be taken into account, then yeah, Hellenismos, Religio Roma, Mithraism and mainstream Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, possibly Hinduism, even Old Arabian Religion ought to intersect a little with christoislamism. But that's <i>only</i> because of the elements christoislamism took from them and inverted. Else nothing at all.
<!--QuoteBegin-Raju+Apr 17 2007, 06:45 PM-->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?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Someone will say you cannot be a Commie and still be a Hindu, a Commie will then turn around and say what makes you a better Hindu than me, next someone will talk about they being made to feel they are not Hindus because they belong to such and such caste....<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->First time I've ever heard anyone mention that certain castes are not Hindu. Who at IF said such a thing? It is also an irrelevant example, no need to attribute it to the other side's arguments. Don't disingenuously equate communists to another Hindu community, the two are <i>not</i> the same.
Communists cannot be Hindus just 'cause they say so. Communism is a christian meme, call it 'christian heresy' if you will. It is an ideology that is an offshoot of christianity, so they can at best say they're christian and the christians can duke it out with them.
<!--QuoteBegin-ramana+Apr 17 2007, 07:42 PM-->QUOTE(ramana @ Apr 17 2007, 07:42 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Any Shiv what is this nom-de-plume you have picked? Sounds like some deep South SDRE name and de Sanskritized to boot <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
[right][snapback]67243[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ramana - some patient names in Pondicherry where I studied used to fascinate me. They are definitely deep South, Tamil Nadu and speaking of desanskrtization - probably that as well.
Examples are Machai Gandhy (female name NOT Gandhi - pronounced Gun-dhi). Pichaimuthu, Sengodan, Sengottuvel, I know of a man whose name was "AnandRaj" or some such thing who converted the same name into pure Tamil and called himself "Arima Magizhko"
Sengotuvel is an all time favorite of mine <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Ajatshatru+Apr 17 2007, 02:03 AM-->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.
<!--QuoteBegin-Bharatvarsh+Apr 17 2007, 06:09 PM-->QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Apr 17 2007, 06:09 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Since when did turncoats and traitors get an equal stake in the Hindu narrative, a Mirza Jai Singh will never get even 1% of what a Shivaji or Hammir Dev Chauhan gets in the history books of Hindus,
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Fine, but if YOU are Hindu, you had better get your story out. I bet I can add a lot more "Hindu narratives" written by non Hindus while people sit around and argue what should come in and what should not.
Recall that I can't write YOUR narrative. I can write MINE and I will, and nobody will stop me. It is up to those who read my narrative to judge whether it is Hindu or not.
Only YOU can write YOUR narrative. If you think you are a real Hindu then your narrative needs to come out rather than argument about narratives that will surely come out that you will want to dispute.
What is Hindu about you and your family and your ancestry? What is there in your narrative that adds any value to the Hindu narrative. This is not meant to be a "challenge" but the point that every Hindu should put down his narrative. Even twenty thousand such narratives would be of great value, leave alone 200 million.
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->