Through Bloodshed and Tears Ke ho gayo bhai...?

Sikhs are an excellent sect. They are extremely courageous much more than most others, they don't go by status and can adopt any profession with equal sincerity and diligence. Only thing that has become slightly bad with them is that they started taking religion a bit seriously. Which is always wrong (religion is almost always good for nothing).

I can compare Sikhs with Brahmins, Brahmins are very few in number, very few of them are rich, most of them are poor or middle class, but their intellectual presence is immense, more than any other sect. But because they are not that capable of generating wealth, Brahmins as a community remain poor and they can not raise the living standard of their community because of lack of money (but they can and they always become good teachers, good intelectuals and so on, but that doesn't bring lot of money money, nor it produces lot of products??)

On the other hand, Sikhs go equally for all professions, they can excel in anything and are capable of generating wealth out of their hard work. So they can always raise living standard of their community.

This is how psychology of a Brahmin (even if an idiot) and a Sikh (even if subdued) differ. But both are good for society, if they live together. They are complimentary. But as no caste is needed, no religion is needed, in future the good qualities should merge. We don't need Brahmins as a sect who are either dumb or pursue intellect/art in a crazy way, even if they are poor. Be Budhdhist there, like Chinese, some individuals will behave like Brahmins and that will be goood enough. Let individuals be free to pursue their ideas, skills individually and not as per caste/sect.

What Indians need to do is: to merge their castes harmonioulsy, a Brahmin should marry a so called low caste... so a normal psychology can quickly generate... a son of a Brahmin and Shudra will neither be over-confident nor be too-diffident just because of his caste:-)

hmmm will have to create an ilog out of this, the easiest way to create an ilog

Through Bloodshed and Tears Here is something about Sikhs and Muslims of Kashmir, from not so recent history of Sikhism, the gift that Islam gave them from the very begining and the reason why Sikhism originated.., plus a little about many Brahmins who may now be living as fanatical muslims in Kashmir...


[[
There were a great many rebellions during Aurangzebs's reign, including those by the Rajput states of Marwar and Mewar, and the Sikhs. Things came to such a head that Guru Tegh Bahadur, the ninth Guru (Spiritual Pontiff) of Sikhism, was executed by Aurangzeb for standing up against the forcible conversion of Kashmiri Hindu Brahmins and refusing to convert to Islam. Aurangzeb had demanded that all Kashmiri Brahmins convert to Islam. The Kashmiris then asked for assistance from the Sikh Guru. Guru Tegh Bahadur was proclaimed their Guru, and he advised Aurangzeb that if Tegh Bahadhur could be converted to Islam, then the Brahmins would convert to Islam. Tegh Bahadhur was then executed after his refusal to convert. This day, November 11 is still commemorated by the Sikh community. The son of Guru Tegh Bahadur, Guru Gobind Singh, the 10th Guru of Sikhism, led an open revolt against Aurangzeb's forces. It is thought that a letter to Aurangzeb by Guru Gobind Singh (The Zafarnama) contributed to the death of the aged Emperor. The letter highlighted all the atrocties that the Emperor had committed. He is said to have had extreme remorse after reading it, and soon ceased many of his hostilities towards his non-Muslim subjects, especially before his death.
]]


This is not just to offset any negative campaign by muslims against Hindu/Sikhs but also to remind Kashmiries, Hindus and Sikhs what their ancestors have gone through... FOrgiving is perfect but don't forget...

Ridiculing Religion or Religion of Ridicule
#184 Posted by quin on November 2
quin,
the following was written in bold (there was a bit more)..

this is what i said?
[[
So the "true value of religion" is already known to you without knowing the context of that true value. It is like you don't know what the thing is but you know its true value??
]]

Do you not understand what I am saying here?.....

I have said it so many times, in much longer statements.... a truth is always told with its context and it can not contradict any other truth.... further it is not like you will keep context blurred and will still be able to state truth clearly....

Ridiculing Religion or Religion of Ridicule
#173 Posted by quin on
[[
This is a challenge for all those who want to bring the true value of religious thought to fore and make it accessible for the modern mind. No doubt, without proper ‘contextualizing’ no meaningful work about religion is possible.
]]

This is the one bad thing that religion gave to us. The responsibility to keep giving contexts to stupid things??? So God said things without "thinking" properly and now you will have to add "context" to make "tribal" look "modern". And how much of context will it be????


So the "true value of religion" is already known to you without knowing the context of that true value. It is like you don't know what the thing is but you know its true value??

Let me be a bit rude and idiotic to suggest you this... A truth is truth when it is said with all of its context otherwise it doesn't even make sense,forget about being true or not.

Ridiculing Religion or Religion of Ridicule Re #72 Posted by quin on


[[
#2. pinku: please substantiate your claim;

“seems like an apology on behalf of all religion”
]]

In general your article describes movie as "for athiest and against religion", the movie was "for those who do not believe in religion and against religion". I was referring to the following para in your article. What you say, seems to suggest that movie hardly had any comedy or sarcasm and instead of doubt it was rallying the cause of athiests in a distasteful way. First what is the cause of athiests? I do not know that athiests use the same kind of large organized structures, lies as religions use? If you think that cause of athiests is to make religions look bad when they are not, then you should give examples where that was done (a lie about religion). "snake" and all those things are part of those religions? Otherwise why it is distasteful if the taste of movie is to show bad taste of religions?

I have still not seen that movie, but in his intevrview with Larry King he says that he is not Athiest, he simply do not know who God is what he is. So why people of religion force words into mouths of those who say religions are bad, why do you call him athiest? He doesn't say that God doesn't exist, he doesn't say he is an athiest, he says he doesn't know and of course if God exists he is not God of those religions?

There is nothing in culture that religion gives and is not replacebale with something better. It is very difficult to say what is "good" in religion that you can not have without religions, but it is easy to say what is bad in them, that we can avoid.

Paragraph from your article-
[[
Yet, watching the movie, one neither gets the comedy nor the satire, nor a simple message of doubt. One leaves the theatre with a strong sense that Maher is rallying the atheists in a battle cry. It may be good to challenge what is ridiculous in religion. Only by a thorough and unrelenting threshing can all chaff be separated from traditional religious thinking. On the other hand, the trickery he and his team use for this venture renders Religulous ineffective and a distasteful production. By pronouncing war against religion, Maher may do a greater disservice to the cause of atheism. Atheism becomes its own antithesis, the worst form of which is no less than religious fundamentalism. In a chart near the beginning of the movie Maher shows that sixteen percent of the US population are atheist—more than other groups such as gay and lesbians, Muslims, Jews, and Blacks. Clearly the atheist voice must be heard.
]]

Hindu Hegemony #128 Posted by muradbaig on
murad,


[[
You perhaps mean that Indians are more intelligent or capable of complex thinking than Arabs but I don't think linking intellect to any religion is either right, fair or politically correct.
]]

Nope, I don't mean that, the first promise that i have to have with myself is to remain close to truth. Intelligence is not result, but ability or mental capability (doesn't matter whether it produces result or not), individuals of almost all races have similar ability. But the results will depend upon environment, both physical and psychological, that let them use that ability. Over many thousand of years the hardware will start to show very minor changes, but most of it is software.

A religion is a collection of ideas, so we are not talking about Indians or Arabs but the ideas that Hinduism or Islam have. People who initially opposed Islam were also Arabs??, people like Omar Khayyam who disliked Islam were also Arabs??. An intelligent person belongs-to and owns the whole world in some way. The power of intellect is not power or feeling of management, where you need designation/authority to feel the ownership.

I am saying that Hinduism is ideologically far superiror to Islam. So the moment you get into the trap of comparing Islam and Hinduism and you try to defend Islam you will have to lose sooner or later. Your own next generation may not like your arguments.

Hinduism (and Budhdhism, even in case of Budhdhism it is Brahmins/rishis or the same priestly class of Hindus) as a religion created excellent ideas, many of them may not be true, but they reflect lot of intelligence and lot of truths compared to other religions; they are very ancient compared to anything in other religious traditions. The way Brahmins evolved their thoughts, the way they said whatever they said and the way they created a religious framework is much more praise-worthy than most non-hindus realize because of their own religious-ego. Still except for Scientists or Philosophers the common masses have been forced with all kind of negative campaign by Christians and Islamists against Hinduism. Their philocophical ideas,their Gods, their idols, their worships, even the worst thing "casteism" that people abuse them of, are so benign and never before advent of Islam created a bad society killing each other. You don't need an einstein to understand this. If you know history you should know what so many travellers to India say about it. None of them report a degenerated society, with the kind of killing that was present in either Europe, Arab/Persia or even China during those times.

If somebody says that he is both honest and intelligent and still feels that Hinduism is not ideologically or philosophically superior to Islam then, I have to doubt either his/her honesty or intellect (or knwoledge?, not that much). He/she simply can not be both honest and intelligent.

Intelligent people are everywhere, even in Africa there may be many who simply do not get a chance to learn anything. Most people do not understand how amazing mind is, it is more amazing than we know. If I just remove the "learning" that minds of many of you having 500IQ have absorbed, you will behave quite like a cave-man.

Hindu Hegemony #76 Posted by muradbaig on October 29,

In general the truth is that intellectually Hinduism is far superior to Islam, irrespective of how many intelligent hindus or muslims you have. So even if Einstein would have converted to Islam, this truth will remain truth.

If you argue against it, you will lose sooner or later.

Hindu Hegemony #76 Posted by muradbaig on October 29, 2008 11:50:25 pm

Murad Baig again uses wrong statements to say somewhat wrong things.

[[
Till recently Brahmins in Bengal, Assam and South India readily ate beef. Infact beef is specified for the most important Vedic rite of Rajsuya Yagna or the coronation of any king where a gaomeda or cow sacrifice was specifically demanded. Even the Ashvameda ended with the slaughter and eating of the horse.
]]

This statement is constructed in a way as to suggest that just now Hindus have started becoming vegetarian while the fact is that now they have started eating meat, even Brahmins eat meat now a days.


Check this .. and (you can use any translation or original sanskrit text, Hindus do not create so much of controversy about translation even though most of their text was translated by Christians)

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m12/m12b089.htm#fr_664


p. 237

That profession, however, is certainly fraught with cruelty. The iron-faced plough wounds the soil and many creatures that live in the soil. Cast thy eyes, O Jajali, on those bullocks yoked to the plough. Kine are called in the Srutis the Unslayable. That man perpetrates a great sin who slays a bull or a cow.



So what it shows is that Mahabharta does say that cow/bull eating is bad, but it is true that early vedic Hinduism had meat eating people. Later they evolved into meat-eating and non-meat eating classes. The Kshtriyas almost never stopped meat eating. The self imposed discipline of vegetarianism mainly remained with-in Priestly class Brahmins/sages for long time. As I said earlier, the best thing about Brahmins was that they used to show themselves as role models and most of the time in a good way. So the first people who became vegetarian were these Brahmins/sages. Then with the strong ideas they popularized it among masses. The idea of Yoga which defined terms like “satvic/rajsic/tamsic” (satvic is people caring for pure life, Rajsik is one who cares for material wealth and comfort. And tamsic and rakhshasa are people who are slave of their senses and can do almost anything.) and other ideas like the one that I copy-pasted just below this bold text, were very strong ideas and slowly turned lot of people into vegetarianism. Still Rajputs or Kshatriyas were warrior class so they were never required to comply strictly with such things. Even today while lot many Hindus have started eating meat, you will see that Brahmins and VAishyas (Baniyas) are main group who do not eat meat.


He who sees that the Lord of all is ever the same in all that is -- immortal in the field of mortality -- he sees the truth. And when a man sees that the God in himself is the same God in all that is, he hurts not himself by hurting others. Then he goes, indeed, to the highest path. Bhagavad Geeta 13.27-28


Ahinsa is the highest Dharm. Ahinsa is the best Tapas. Ahinsa is the greatest gift. Ahinsa is the highest self-control. Ahinsa is the highest sacrifice. Ahinsa is the highest power. Ahinsa is the highest friend. Ahinsa is the highest truth. Ahinsa is the highest teaching. Mahabharat 18.116.37-41

He who desires to augment his own flesh by eating the flesh of other creatures lives in misery in whatever species he may take his birth.
Mahabharata, Anu. 115.47. FS, pg. 90






Here are others on vegetarianism in Hinduism


The Mahabharata and Bhagavad Gita, Epic History
The very name of the cows is aghnya, indicating that they should never be slaughtered. Who, then could slay them? Surely, one who kills a cow or a bull commits the most heinous crime.
Mahabharata, Shantiparva 262.47. FS,pg. 94


The purchaser of flesh performs himsa (violence) by his wealth; he who eats flesh does so by enjoying its taste; the killer does himsa by actually tying and killing the animal. Thus, there are three forms of killing: he who brings flesh or sends for it, he who cuts off the limbs of an animal, and he who purchases, sells or cooks flesh and eats it -all of these are to be considered meat-eaters.
Mahabharata, Anu. 115.40. FS, pg 90

He who desires to augment his own flesh by eating the flesh of other creatures lives in misery in whatever species he may take his birth.
Mahabharata, Anu. 115.47. FS, pg. 90

One should never do that to another which one regards as injurious to one's own self. This, in brief, is the rule of dharma. Yielding to desire and acting differently, one becomes guilty of adharma.
Mahabharata 18.113.8.

Those high-souled persons who desire beauty, faultlessness of limbs, long life, understanding, mental and physical strength and memory should abstain from acts of injury.
Mahabharata 18.115.8.

Ahimsa is the highest dharma. Ahimsa is the best tapas. Ahimsa is the greatest gift. Ahimsa is the highest self-control. Ahimsa is the highest sacrifice. Ahimsa is the highest power. Ahimsa is the highest friend. Ahimsa is the highest truth. Ahimsa is the highest teaching.
Mahabharata 18.116.37-41.

He who sees that the Lord of all is ever the same in all that is-immortal in the field of mortality-he sees the truth. And when a man sees that the God in himself is the same God in all that is, he hurts not himself by hurting others. Then he goes, indeed, to the highest path.
Bhagavad Gita 13. 27-28. BgM, pg. 101

Nonviolence, truth, freedom from anger, renunciation, serenity, aversion to fault-finding, sympathy for all beings, peace from greedy cravings, gentleness, modesty, steadiness, energy, forgiveness, fortitude, purity, a good will, freedom from pride-these belong to a man who is born for heaven.
Bhagavad Gita 16.2-3. BGM, pg. 109

Organisational Bullshit #9 Posted by pinku on October 29
Who red-flagged my comment and why???

Is there a red flag troll or terrorist on duty??

Hindu Hegemony #113 Posted by mohar11 on

[[
Indeed. the problem with "Tolerance" Project is that it works only if ALL groups involved participate more or less equally in the project... Unfortunately, In many cases involving muslim communities - that does not happen that way...
]]

And that is the truth.

Till we start tolerating truth, we should be less tolerant of sh*ts. What that means is that tolerance means nothing till we know what we are tolerating and how we are tolerating.

I can say that I am quite tolerant of mosquitos but I do kill them whenever i get chance:-)



Does anybody need a hindu terrorist or troll here???? I missed most of the earlier comments, if anybody thinks that we do not have enough of "stuff" to show/test our tolerance here, please let me know. I can say a few offending words, to test tolerance.

Organisational Bullshit correction... in 8

But other than this one example above, everything that a manger does inappropriately to reduce his work and to pass or delegate his responsibility to lower level person/team is a BS that goes from upper level to lower level.

Organisational Bullshit As for everything else, first thing is whether you define something properly or not, then only you can analyze it.

Now the article defines BS! So we can say that BS is whatever article defines. The definition is a long list of statements that says this is BS, this is BS...

As DM said, you can define your own BS and say that this is the Bullsh*t_revised_version_1, and in here, it goes from lower to upper levels and upper to lower levels both ways.

For example, a common BS that comes down in IT projects is deadline, at each level you remove buffer at your own will and give a much harder time-line to your lower level. Many times the top level people do not know how to estimate and so foolishly try to keep lot of buffer and give very tight deadline to lower level, creating a bad quality product (bad design) which takes much longer to refine than if the deadline was based on proper estimates.


But other than this one example above, everything that a manger does to in appropriately reduce his work and to pass or delegate his responsibility to lower level person/team is a BS that goes from upper level to lower level.

Ridiculing Religion or Religion of Ridicule #6 Posted by masadi on
masadi, capitalism is not stupid, it is greedy..., it is evil in many ways, but it is never plain stupid and good for almost nothing as religions are. They don't want to do what you said.... basic aim of capitalism top level greedy people, called investors, is to enjoy comforts without doing much. All this recession or even a recession 100 times worse than what it is now, just doesn't affect those greedy people much... They are not looting money, money keeps on flowing, they loot the efforts of poor people.

Now that is done at each level. A desi middle-class person employs a maid, pays Rs 500 or 1000 per month and loots lot of hardwork from her. Then this middle class employee is fooled by his manager to work more and more with not much salary and so on.

The idea is simple, the fruits of efforts are enjoyed by those who are more close to top than bottom. But again, this is their intention, it is not necessary that the results are like this. A simple minded engineer can have lot of fun in his life by doing just good enough work and not seeking the ladder of "status"/management. Only the poors or ultra poors like maids or laborers (or people who do not get even laborer's work) get affected most.

Religion are plain stupid, or grossly stupid, not just greedy. They are greedy of power plus their major product is idiocy.

The greed of capitalism or society will not go away soon and in a sense it is part of evolution. It will go away, there are more sophisticated ideas that will replace this common greed eventually. But it will take time.

The step in getting rid of this greed is to get rid of stupidities propagated and suported by religions. Unite people on truths and not on stupidities. Create unity of thoughts that is close to truths.

Specifically...
[[
On the one hand they want to pay the workers less and less and on the other hand they want to increase markets by selling more and more, and they keep on at it not understanding this contradiction as if nothing was wrong, sooner or later their chickens come home to roost...
]]

Those greedy people do not lose anything. 90% of millionares remain millionares after any type of recession, 10 percent get affected at the most(actually not even 10 percent). All they do is they re-circulate money to start looting "efforts" from lower level people again. The business is in getting "efforts" at low cost and nothing else.

Ridiculing Religion or Religion of Ridicule
Seems like an apology on behalf of all religions. I don't know what this movie says about religions in ‎1 hour and 41 min‎utes, but religions have so much stupidity that you can have fun for days/weeks/years.

Defending your own religion is acceptable to some extent because your own ego is being hurt, but defending religions in general as if they are "poor" creatures "being beaten by everybody" is absurd. These are powerful, idiotic creatures with lot of muscle-power, money, propaganda, lies and who say too many amazingly idiotic things on behalf of God and force them on people who do not even have time to think about God.
Making fun of them is least you can do to make them realize what the are. More such movies with more fun and sarcasm should be made on regular basis. That is the only way to make peolpe come out of the clutches of religion and seek proper meaning of God/Universe on their own.

Neither science nor Athiesm converts people forcibly. They don't stamp you with the stamp of "athiest" or "scientist". Nor do the fight for it. You don't even want to give them freedom to speak against evil creatures like religions; that is riliguous???

Hindu Hegemony #9 Posted by Senna on October 28, 2008 5:35:54 pm

[[
I am ignorent as to this megasthenese Is it before the 'aryans' Aryans taught veda and stipulated caste system .Is it corrrct ?

]]

350 BC, much after those Aryans, the so called Hinduism started in 1500 BC, so almost 1150 years later, in the times of Chandragupta Maurya...

Are the Converted Tribals Really Hindu?


Re #441 Posted by akcheema on October 25, 2008 2:09:59 am

[[
If I accept this argument then I have little reason to believe that the 'alien' culture was 'forced' upon the natives ... otherwise there shouldn't be so many of these 'natives' left behind with their culture so 'intact'.
]]

Is it understood that there is no argument here?? Or do you mean to suggest that if a region has large population then you can not force something on small portion of it??? What is that argument? Islam was not ruling all of India all the time.... on the contrary the remaining 2/3rd show that there was no large scale appreciation of Islam even when rulers were muslims.... if Islam was considered superior in any way, majority would have converted to Islam and not minority... though, this is also not a very god argument, because the first situation depends on type of force and to what extent (% of population) it can be aplied, the second depends upon whether Hindus were able to prevent conversions even when muslims were rulers (the answer is no, but till you state it... you can not conclude anything).