http://desicritics.org/ Superior South Asian bloggers on Culture, Media, Politics, Sport, Business, and Technology. en Copyright 2006 by the authors Sun, 31 Jan 2010 12:53:26 EST http://backend.userland.com/rss BC custom software http://desicritics.org/2008/07/31/053618.php#comment-379898 Great information, keep posting. 379898@desicritics.org Sun, 31 Jan 2010 12:53:26 EST http://desicritics.org/2008/07/31/053618.php#comment-340452 And BTW Man Singh, The Eurocentric Cambridge Dictionary of Authentic Indian Words edited by Thomas Macaulay himself, spells "kahanee" as "kahanee", not "kahani". Please get grip on your language first, via Macaulay's dictionary. 340452@desicritics.org Thu, 28 Aug 2008 17:58:59 EDT http://desicritics.org/2008/07/31/053618.php#comment-340450 #65 Good catch. MS should not misspell Indian words in English, it does not look authentic. 340450@desicritics.org Thu, 28 Aug 2008 17:54:49 EDT http://desicritics.org/2008/07/31/053618.php#comment-340445 Man Singh: the correct spelling is "tota", not "tauta" according the the Oxford English Dictionary of Authentic Indian Words. 340445@desicritics.org Thu, 28 Aug 2008 17:43:47 EDT http://desicritics.org/2008/07/31/053618.php#comment-340434 CS # 60 to #63 Plut is pure sanskrit word and has nothing to do with Pluto. For many people Newton Einstein and galileo's theorries are alos `tauta maina Ki Kahani' only becasue they can'nt understand it. And I resepct even Tauta Maina ki kahani if they carry some moral for humanity. Why not? We should go by moral of the story and not by wordings and even if we dun know the writer. Perhaps `Pin drop silence' metaphor used in English literature was first used in Vedic sanskrit literature `Soochibhedya sannata' while describing the process of creation. Refer Chapter 6 shloka 7 of Rudra Samhita of Shivpuran that `itham satyam dhatamse soochibhye nirantare' (That truth existed even when there was comntinuous pin drop silence) If some ignorant progeny of those great Rishis do not want to give any credit for their exteremely creative lieterary and analytical skills. Yes there have been people ridiculing them in all ages and todays fans of `tauta maina' are no exceptions. Macauley wanted to create such generation of Indians who have inferiority complex towarsd every thing Indian. You are demonstrating it well that you are a perfect product of Maucaley's factory. What is origin of anger? Lord Krishna gives answer in Chapter in Bhagwadgeeta chapter 2 shloka 62 to 64 and compare it with what modern Pyschologists say? Study theiry of creation from vedas and other vedic literature and then compare it with what modern scientists say? Look how creatures like Ila has been described to act as male and female both in the beginning of creation. Check how creation proceeded with creating another creature without sexual activities like Ameba and Paramesium do. Look at order of Avataras Fish - Tortoise-narsingha-Ram (with vaanaras) - Krishna - Budha - .. and compare it with theory of evolution. Study Aryabhatta, Parashar and Bhrigu , compare their conslusions about plenetry motion and its impact of human life and compare with it with results of modern reasearch. If you find mismatches beyong reasonable limits then only call them `tauta main ki kahani' otherwise you are making monkey of yourself if you are ridiculing these great works of Rishis like this. 340434@desicritics.org Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:22:03 EDT http://desicritics.org/2008/07/31/053618.php#comment-340407 am i the only person who pays any attention to man singh's tota maina ki kahanee? how come it took me so long to realize this? commonsense, eh? 340407@desicritics.org Thu, 28 Aug 2008 09:54:48 EDT http://desicritics.org/2008/07/31/053618.php#comment-340387 Man Singh: ""And a sound vibration of `Plut'(waveform) characterstics caused the disturbace in it and creation evolved out of it like a tree from a seed"" True, but the correct spelling is Pluto, not Plut. However, the real issue, regarding the moral and aesthetic issues of our tortured times is this, at least from an ethical point of view is this: Would you read a sleazy magazine on a crowded train? Use a toothpic in public (no not pubic). Attend a "mating party" behind your partner's back (not not literally your partner's back). Slip off to a commercial sex venue after seeing your date home? Let us know. 340387@desicritics.org Wed, 27 Aug 2008 21:04:17 EDT http://desicritics.org/2008/07/31/053618.php#comment-340386 Man Singh: ""And a sound vibration of `Plut'(waveform) characterstics caused the disturbace in it and creation evolved out of it like a tree from a seed"" True, but the correct spelling is Pluto, not Plut. However, the real issue, regarding the moral and aesthetic issues of our tortured times is this, at least from an ethical point of view is this: Would you read a sleazy magazine on a crowded train? Use a toothpic in public (no not pubic). Attend a "mating party" behind your partner's back (not not literally your partner's back). Slip off to a commercial sex venue after seeing your date home? Let us know. 340386@desicritics.org Wed, 27 Aug 2008 21:00:42 EDT http://desicritics.org/2008/07/31/053618.php#comment-340380 Man Singh: ""Does description of Allah or God matches with this description of Param tatva that existed before any creation. And a sound vibration of `Plut'(waveform) characterstics caused the disturbace in it and creation evolved out of it like a tree from a seed."" Can someone interested in performing some public service enlighten everyone about what this person is raving and ranting about?? 340380@desicritics.org Wed, 27 Aug 2008 20:15:20 EDT http://desicritics.org/2008/07/31/053618.php#comment-340373 All following which a human being has realised/seen the Pram tatva (Brahm) are valid. Those paths who block the minds of human beings by saying `you simply can not see, understand or realise Brahm' are naturally invalid paths. Ideology of gangasters can not be considered a valid path in vedant. It is vivek shakti (common sense) that has to be used while understanding the verse `Ekam sad vipra bahuda vadanti' of rigveda. This param tatva Bhram has been described as : CXXIX. Creation.(Translation by Griffith) 1. THEN was not non-existent nor existent: there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it.What covered in, and where? and what gave shelter? Was water there, unfathomed depth of water? 2 Death was not then, nor was there aught immortal: no sign was there, the day's and night's divider.That One Thing, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it was nothing whatsoever. 3 Darkness there was: at first concealed in darknew this All was indiscriminated chaos.All that existed then was void and form less: by the great power of Warmth was born that Unit. 4 Thereafter rose Desire in the beginning, Desire, the primal seed and germ of Spirit.Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent. 5 Transversely was their severing line extended: what was above it then, and what below it?There were begetters, there were mighty forces, free action here and energy up yonder 6 Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?TheGods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being? 7 He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it,Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not. Does description of Allah or God matches with this description of Param tatva that existed before any creation. And a sound vibration of `Plut'(waveform) characterstics caused the disturbace in it and creation evolved out of it like a tree from a seed. Therefore spritual paths that are capable of taking the seeker to our origin are valid paths. vedic Rishis say there are many paths to reach there. But for sure those who never claim to lead a sadhak to that level can not be valid paths. Yes their spritual practices help sadhak to reach closer to destiny. Their political behaviour though has cased a havoc on the earth. 340373@desicritics.org Wed, 27 Aug 2008 19:21:05 EDT http://desicritics.org/2008/07/31/053618.php#comment-340344 Kumar: ""It may be untenable, but not illegitimate."" True. I really don't care what people believe in and it is not for me to referee beliefs!! That would keep me too busy. Talking of what is untenable or not only! 340344@desicritics.org Wed, 27 Aug 2008 13:37:36 EDT http://desicritics.org/2008/07/31/053618.php#comment-340342 commonsense (#55), I broadly agree with your post #55, but I would like to add a comment on one line: >> However to claim that it can be proven to a believer of another religion that religion B is better than A, and that too, "scientifically" is untenable. One may claim to show that "that religion B is better than A" on the basis of philosophical/logical/moral reasoning and so on. Almost all the books of religion and philosophy are written to show what is so good about that religion that the book advocates. There is nothing wrong in that. Even if someone attempts to "scientifically" show that a religious belief is true, one can give it a try, but I don't think it will work. For example, someone may argue on the lines that a religious scripture must be from God because it states scientific facts that were unknown to humanity at the time of its writing and so on. It may be untenable, but not illegitimate. 340342@desicritics.org Wed, 27 Aug 2008 13:34:46 EDT http://desicritics.org/2008/07/31/053618.php#comment-340340 Kumar: ""How can a Vedantist who believes that Vedanta is the best representation of truth also say that Quran is equally good/true, when the Quran does not teach Vedanta and in many cases directly contradicts it? Or how can a Muslim who has concluded that Muhammad is the last prophet of God also agree with Christianity which does not accept Muhammad as a true prophet?"" Precisely! All religious belief-systems are relative to the point of view of the believers with absolutely NO LOGICAL way of adjudicating between competing claims. Such claims cannot be proven or disproven since they are contextual, relativist claims. A bit like somebody saying (sorry I've used this example before), "my wife is the best in the world". Sorry, perhaps best for you, but a nighmare for others. 340340@desicritics.org Wed, 27 Aug 2008 13:28:06 EDT http://desicritics.org/2008/07/31/053618.php#comment-340339 Kumar: ""Some of the followers of a religion may think that it is best for all humanity. There are people of all religions who think that way about their particular religion and there is nothing wrong in that. A Vedantist may think that his philosophy is the closest representation of truth; a Muslim may believe that Quran is the final and most reliable word of God, a Christian may believe that Jesus is true incarnation and so on. How can a Vedantist who believes that Vedanta is the best representation of truth also say that Quran is equally good/true, when the Quran does not teach Vedanta and in many cases directly contradicts it? Or how can a Muslim who has concluded that Muhammad is the last prophet of God also agree with Christianity which does not accept Muhammad as a true prophet?"" I completely agree! So why are we discussing this? Perhaps because the original discussion was slightly different. I was arguing against the idea that it is possible to scientifically "prove" that one's religion is the "best". "Believing" that one's religion is best is of course probably the reason why one believes in one's religion! However to claim that it can be proven to a believer of another religion that religion B is better than A, and that too, "scientifically" is untenable. What's good for one is not necessarily good for the other. When it comes to a question of "faith" no point trying to justify with by connecting it to "science". 340339@desicritics.org Wed, 27 Aug 2008 13:15:03 EDT http://desicritics.org/2008/07/31/053618.php#comment-340337 commonsense (#51) >> Whatever religous beliefs are BEST for its believers is best for them and not necessarily for those who chose NOT to believe Some of the followers of a religion may think that it is best for all humanity. There are people of all religions who think that way about their particular religion and there is nothing wrong in that. A Vedantist may think that his philosophy is the closest representation of truth; a Muslim may believe that Quran is the final and most reliable word of God, a Christian may believe that Jesus is true incarnation and so on. How can a Vedantist who believes that Vedanta is the best representation of truth also say that Quran is equally good/true, when the Quran does not teach Vedanta and in many cases directly contradicts it? Or how can a Muslim who has concluded that Muhammad is the last prophet of God also agree with Christianity which does not accept Muhammad as a true prophet? >> There will never be only one religion in this world, so it's best not to create a universal pecking order of religions Most likely we will never see a situation of one world religion, and that is because of human diversity, differences in areas of philosophical emphasis etc. That does not mean that one has no right to believe in what he sees as the best representation of philosophical truth and morality (and proclaim the reasons why he/she thinks so). 340337@desicritics.org Wed, 27 Aug 2008 12:34:43 EDT http://desicritics.org/2008/07/31/053618.php#comment-340336 CS Social and economic spheres have to be fluid and seemless indeed, and they would be intertwined with all other spheres no doubt. But we are not taking about social and economic spheres. We are talking about spheres of government and religion which can not be allowed to be seemless or intertwined with each other. That means society has to come to some understanding about their distinct and clearly marked spheres where intertwining of each other would not be allowed. That is the idea behind separation of religion and state. And it works when state operates with clearly defined domain and limited roles, leaving people to fashion their own social and cultural and religious institutions as they wish. However, such state is not possible with the advert of state-centric ideologies that want state to be omniscient, omnipresent, omnipresent entity and every nook and cranny of nation as its exclusive domain - that is what artificially engineers a divide and turf clash between state and religion, state and nation, government and the governed, majority religion and minority religions. 340336@desicritics.org Wed, 27 Aug 2008 12:20:18 EDT http://desicritics.org/2008/07/31/053618.php#comment-340334 Kerty: ""Can you define the boundaries of government domain and public sphere with any certainty and clarity?"" Social life is fluid, a seamless web. Can anyone define the boundaries of the economy and separate it from culture, religion, politics, sports etc.? They are inter-twined, and reinforce each other, yet we understand the distinctions. Same for the state and civil society distinction. 340334@desicritics.org Wed, 27 Aug 2008 11:34:32 EDT http://desicritics.org/2008/07/31/053618.php#comment-340324 Kumar, sorry for the stupid typos. I mean: Whatever religous beliefs are BEST for its believers is best for them and not necessarily for those who chose NOT to believe. Until they choose to believe in it. There will never be only one religion in this world, so it's best not to create a universal pecking order of religions. To each is his/her own, or if they prefer, no religion. Hence what is BEST is in the eyes of the believer. 340324@desicritics.org Wed, 27 Aug 2008 10:48:06 EDT http://desicritics.org/2008/07/31/053618.php#comment-340323 Kumar: ""Why not? Each religion is basically a set of doctrines/beliefs pertaining to claims about philosophical truth and morality. The pursuit is for the "best" of truth/morality and so there is the claim that it is the best. Nothing wrong in that. In fact that is how it ought to be."" Whatever religous believe is BEST for its believers is best for them and not necessarily for those who chose to believe in it. Until they choose to believe in it. There will never be only one religion in this world, so it's best not to create a universal pecking order of religions. To each is his/her own, or if they prefer, no religion. 340323@desicritics.org Wed, 27 Aug 2008 10:36:29 EDT http://desicritics.org/2008/07/31/053618.php#comment-340317 Kumar In India, religion thrives in spite of government and its secular ideologies, and not because of them. Not that it does not want to uproot it from every sphere of life, but religion is entrenched and embedded so deeply into every sphere of life that there is very little it can do about it, but use rival and minority religions to neutralize it. Talk of religious neutrality, an intrusion-free zone for religion to express its freedoms, respect for all religions etc are theories that remain theories. Secularism usually rides with expansionist leftist ideologies and therefore, it can not translate such theories into reality. In India, government has been engineered by leftist ideologies that are expansionist and totalitarian in ambition, where government, people, public domain and private domain incrementally have to become one and the same, indistinguishable, inseparable, where government itself becomes an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent God-like institution, leaving no room for real God to coexist in any sphere of life. Expansionist government acquires overriding interest in every sphere of nation's life and people's lives, and pushing out and banishing religion from every noon and cranny of them becomes a secular mandate and a crusade, recognizing only individual and nothing beyond, appeasing hedonistic individualism and nothing beyond, tactically appeasing most belligerent and extreme strands of minority religions and pitting them against other religions to neutralize them all and vacate them from all domains. That is the tract record of secularism so far. Secularists sound like snake oil salesmen and have lost most of the goodwill and credibility in India - No doubt, India needs a positive system that can empower and manage its diversity, but it has not reared its genuine head in India so far. 340317@desicritics.org Wed, 27 Aug 2008 09:53:00 EDT http://desicritics.org/2008/07/31/053618.php#comment-340305 Morris (#46) >> Appeasement of minority is happenning in not just India but in other secular democracies as well, more or less. There is constitutional provision in all civilized democracies to treat everyone as equal citizens of state with rights/freedom/responsibilities/accountabilities etc (without regard for minority/majority distinctions). The minority question is dealt with some sensitivity and care due to the natural tendencies seen in history towards fascism, aparthied, racism, casteism etc. So any attitudes of religious/linguistic/casteist/racist/traditional/cultural chauvinism is dealt with some extra care. >> India probably tops them all. India can be certainly counted as a mature secular democracy. However, much of affirmative action, reservations etc are primarily based on caste and so in most cases it is limited to only hindus (and the sections of minorities who are equally backward/disadvantaged in socio-educational-economic standard stand to lose in some of these cases). >> enjoying privilege of wearing turban, hijab etc. What is wrong if someone wants to wear a turban, hijab, bindi, skull caps etc as part of their culture/tradition/religion? Only a truly secular state can provide such freedom to all religions/cultures/traditions (regardless of majority/minority) >> I agree that one could intelectually determine which is the best religion Yes, and it is up to the individual to decide – whether one calls it intellectual or spiritual or moral or social etc is ones choice. >> Unfortunately, it is an emotional issue not subject to meaningful discussion. It need not be that way. The likes of VHP/RSS make it a "emotional issue" and it is an archaic attitude that belongs to stone age. 340305@desicritics.org Wed, 27 Aug 2008 03:52:38 EDT http://desicritics.org/2008/07/31/053618.php#comment-340303 kerty (#45) >> Can you define the boundaries of government domain and public sphere with any certainty and clarity? A very large portion of government domain has to do with providing education, health care, promoting industry/jobs, maintaining general law/order, nations defense etc. A large part of it is religiously neutral (as it ought to be). In India, there is a lot of governmental support/encouragement for all religious places, pilgrimages, festivals etc. There can be points of conflicts which needs to be dealt with sensitively. It gets difficult if VHP/BJP/RSS creates and invents anti-religious and anti-traditional 'sentiments' like demolishing mosques. >> The truth is that both government domain and secularism are expansionist and hydra-headed May be true in an extreme communist state. Otherwise, there is no reason why government cannot be religiously neutral and yet provide support and freedom of religion/culture/tradition. The ideas such a hindutva state or a islamic/christian theocratic state needs to be rejected. More so in a globalized world where there is a lot of co-existence of people of all religions/races/castes/language etc. 340303@desicritics.org Wed, 27 Aug 2008 03:32:32 EDT http://desicritics.org/2008/07/31/053618.php#comment-340295 Appeasement of minority is happenning in not just India but in other secular democracies as well, more or less. India probably tops them all. But it is a political process and I am not sure how that can be checked. The limit is what the politicians can get away with without losing the support of the majority. Just a thought. The only other answer is that the word religion should have no legal standing. But that would offend minorities who are at present enjoying privilege of wearing turban, hijab etc. where it is not permitted. In such a secular country, the state will be totally blind with respect to religions. Religion will become like a private service club. I agree that one could intelectually determine which is the best religion. Unfortunately, it is an emotional issue not subject to meaningful discussion. I am sure a lot of people, deep down in their hearts doubt whether their religion is the best. But they are born in it and if need be they will fight for it. Ideally, I think our children should not be considered of the same faith as we are until they decide so upon reaching the age of majority. This will never happen. It must be in our genes to see our children in the same image as we are. And we will not accept our faith to be second best. Therefore the best we can achieve is that they are equally good and able to save us. 340295@desicritics.org Tue, 26 Aug 2008 22:18:52 EDT http://desicritics.org/2008/07/31/053618.php#comment-340294 #44 "The secular view is that there is a religiously neutral public sphere in the governance of a state" Can you define the boundaries of government domain and public sphere with any certainty and clarity? Can anything remain off-limit from their constant and ever growing encroachment, intrusion, expansion? Not just in theory, but in practice? The truth is that both government domain and secularism are expansionist and hydra-headed, and can never leave any room for religion or culture or any other parallel or rival reality. They can not help but push Religion and cultural domains down to the deepest private and lowest atomized levels of existence and role in a society - selective patronage of minority religions/cultures is deployed to neutralize dominant religion/culture and achieve the end results. That is why anything that is part of dominant religion and culture or reinforces them is demonized as communal, while relentless patronage and appeasement of even the most extreme and intolerant form of minority religions is hailed as secularism. That is the modus operandi of secularism. If there is such a thing as genuine secularism out there, it has yet to rear its genuine head in India. 340294@desicritics.org Tue, 26 Aug 2008 20:11:19 EDT http://desicritics.org/2008/07/31/053618.php#comment-340290 kerty (#42) >> In a Psecular world view - all religions are bad and no religion should be allowed to gain moral high ground or validity, for it undermines the moral high ground needed by secularism to enjoy its hegemony. The secular view is that there is a religiously neutral public sphere in the governance of a state, which seeks to define/implement the best of law/constitutinal provisions for justice, fairness, human rights, welfare/well-being of citizens etc. At the sametime all citizens are free to practice a religion/culture/tradition of their choice. The freedom of religion ought to be an inherent theme of genuine secularism. (in contrast to states that are communist or theocratic or religious fascist). 340290@desicritics.org Tue, 26 Aug 2008 18:16:56 EDT