The Forgotten Children of God

Here is a good article:

[The architects of the Indian Republic hoped that, as secular ethos took roots, democratic institutions spread and a secular-scientific outlook consolidated itself, the Indian society would outgrow the evil of caste system. They simply underestimated the die-hard durability of a pseudo-religious institution primed by a pro-status quo worldview. Because of this, they did not launch an all-out war against caste. They assumed it would wither away in course of time and die a natural death.]

http://www.hinduonnet.com/stories/2001121300851300.htm

Ref Bhardwaj #: 148

[Had India moved in the Buddhist direction in terms of religion at the time of the anti-British struggle, India would have been one of the most advanced nations in the world. We would have abolished Brahminism in all spheres of life by now. The Dalits alone have taken to that patth....argues indian political pundit

Spiritual Democracy



KANCHA ILAIAH

crap..crap...crap...crap...]

This is the idiot who said that India discriminates against buffaloes because buffaloes are black whereas cows are not.

Stop grasping at straws.

Just defame Hinduism.

Dear Drumz,

``1. They Can`t face the fact that they have a direct relationship to God, enabling them to clearly see that some of their so called revelations (hadis, sharia, Quran) are nonsense.

2. To avoid this descrepency they try to change Islam. It`s good if one uses reason to interpret scripture. However, Muslim apologists are at often times COWARDS who cant deal with the fact that islam is inherently sexist-among other things. Instead of being real men/women and admitting that Islam isnt perfect, theyll convince themselves that it is.``

Please elaborate, expand and give examples...

Thank you in advance,

Umer Murtaza

Urstruly and whoever.

Is your problem with the `dogma` of reincarnation binding people to their circumstances?

Actually I addressed this in my post #116, but.., firstly within the scope of traditional Hindu philosophy(practice is another matter) and then under the Indian Constitution(practice is another matter).

As everyone ought to know by now, the concept of reincarnation comes from the concept of an eternal soul. Namely every living thing has a soul which is a part of the Ultimate, but thinks of itself as separate until self-realization that its part of the eternal whole. I think Buddhism just subscribes to the eternal soul and no Ultimate.

The quotes of the Gita show what is meant by realising the Ultimate, namely seeing the underlying unity not only of all humans but all living things.

The theory goes that every living thing though having the same core of the Ultimate/Absolute lives out the compulsions of its nature, except humans who have the power and discrimation to overcome the compulsion of nature and circumstance.

Coming to castes.
Firstly, Krishna in the Gita didnot talk of divisions BY BIRTH, so he doesnot caste which is division by birth.

About birth, he and others do talk elsewhere of the sum total of inclinations(samskaras) and karma influencing the circumstances of your next birth, namely not surprisingly Krishna and other Hindu philosophers do indeed subscribe to the concept of reincarnation and the eternal soul in every living thing.

Suppose we take the concept of eternal soul and reincarnation to be true as a working hypothesis, oppression or impositions of rigid divisions in the name of caste(ie birth) is still not justified, in my view.

Namely, how can A tell B, ``I am going to persecute you and oppress you(finally every straitjacket is oppression) because of your past sins. If you happen to have children born to you during this misery I impose on you, well they deserve it too, thats because they did bad things in their past life too``.

Given the eternal soul and the equality of all humans in the final analysis, who is A to decide who deserves misery and who doesnot based on their birth ? Its clear to me at least, A does so(and did so) because he had the power to do so, but nothing in Hindu scriptures gives A the authority to decide who deserves what for their past sins if any.

If B has a core of the Absolute and doesnot have to live under compulsion of nature and circumstance, than how can another human A force him or take it on himself to impose adverse unchanging circumstances on him, especially when A is told in the scriptures (which unfortunately only he could read) that he should see no difference between himself A and B and C, D, E, much less persecute them or impose his will on them?

Now looking at it with respect to the Indian Constitution which says religious matters arenot matters to be arbitrated by the Constitution and moreover A and B are equal citizens.

Hence, religious belief is decreed to be a private matter for Hindu Indians, reincarnation and caste divisions are unrecognized by the Indian Constitution. Caste discimination is illegal under the Indian Cosntitution except in identification of communities for affirmative action.

What does this mean as a Hindu believing in reincarnation? Well, if A or B believe in reincarnation, thats their private business, but A cannot by law impose what his sense of his better karma reward(namely being born in a higher caste) on B, nor does B by law of the land have buy into the `upper/lower caste due to past sins` crap expounded by A, even if both believe in reincarnation.

So Dalits CANNOT be told as you imply, to shut up and bear it due to reincarnation and past sins, either under the auspices of Hinduism or under the auspices of the Indian Constitution.

Now due to rigid social convention, when B finds it hard going to convince A to cut the crap, B sometimes takes the choice of conversion to another religion, and buying out of the whole thing.

Since social relations in India suffer from rigid social tradition not rigid religious theology, in many situations(in India there is always a whole variety of situations) conversion is not needed, and in many other situations, conversion doesnot help.

Zafar #149
`` But did you say please?

If you were less rude their responses might be less resoundingly absent.``

Zafar, itna hi nahin. Don`t look now, but #144 sounds very much like passing unqualified remarks regarding Islamic dogma. Waqt waqt ki baath hai yaani, # # ki bath hai.

Re Hindu men, well if memory serves me right, mahaashay used to make unqualifed references to yours truly as a man. matlab nikal gayaa hai tho pehchaanthe nahin :)

Reply Urstruly # 144

“hunh??? BTW I asked for Hindu men and not the aadhaa Hindu man.”

But did you say please?

If you were less rude their responses might be less resoundingly absent.

I repeat: kombdi, thum ithna stupid kay ko hai?

Had India moved in the Buddhist direction in terms of religion at the time of the anti-British struggle, India would have been one of the most advanced nations in the world. We would have abolished Brahminism in all spheres of life by now. The Dalits alone have taken to that patth....argues indian political pundit

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2001



LEADER ARTICLE

Spiritual Democracy





KANCHA ILAIAH





VER since a large number of Dalits embraced Buddhism, more intense debate about the significance of Dalit spiritual life has been taking place in the media among religious forces and academia. Oddly, some scholars of sociology began to argue about the futility of discussing the right to religion and the right to priesthood in the context of capitalist modernity.

Similar arguments were heard in the context of the Durban conference about the inclusion of caste in the programme of action of the United Nations. When one examines the conscious arguments in relation to all agendas that the oppressed castes of India set for themselves by some academics, one cannot help feeling that there is a collective conspiracy operating in the form of theoretical casteism in all intellectual spheres of life. The voice of organic intellectuals to demolish the myths of theoretical casteism is extremely feeble. The mass action of the oppressed castes in whatever direction they think would liberate them alone will demolish such myths.

Let us look at the mythical arguments of many progressive and liberal scholars that capitalism and political democracy have outgrown the spiritual realm, and hence the fight of the Dalits in this realm is pointless. One is that Dalit liberation becomes possible more through politico-economic action like redistribution of land, increased wages and share in the political power.

The sophistry that the fight of the Dalits for equality in all modes of spiritual and civil societal structures, at best, would bring about a marginal change in their lives needs to be countered. It amounts to arguing that the role of religion as an agent of socio-economic power is over because capitalism has bowled out all human institutions that operate around religion. They, therefore, suggest that it is futile to invest the energy of struggling masses around the issues of religion.

Such arguments gloss over the fact that the social basis of capitalism as an economic system and democracy as a political system lies in spiritual democracy that religions like Buddhism, Christianity and Islam established. The notion of spiritual democracy is embedded in the early notion that all human beings are equal before God. Though Buddha did not take the name of any God, establishing the fact that all human beings can attain nirvana as part of the Sangha life was the first principle of spiritual democracy that the world had ever witnessed. India should be proud of this first step taken by the Buddha because nationalism should always go with democratic values but not with authoritarian or fascist values.

Unfortunately the Aryan ruler-centred (around Ram and Krishna) spiritual tradition went against this democratic tradition leading to spiritual casteism. It is this spiritual casteism that led to the establishment of spiritual fascism. All those intellectuals who benefited from spiritual casteism, irrespective of their present ideological position, pretend to ignore it as if it is natural.

This is the reason why Indian nationalism and Buddhism were not made coterminous but nationalism and Hinduism were made coterminous. Had India moved in the Buddhist direction in terms of religion at the time of the anti-British struggle, India would have been one of the most advanced nations in the world. We would have abolished Brahminism in all spheres of life by now. The Dalits alone have taken to that path.

The second major step towards establishing spiritual democracy was taken by Jesus. He centred his discourse around the notion of God quite formidably to establish a fundamental democratic principle that before God all — including Jews, Samaritans (the untouchables of Israel), slaves and women — were equal. In subsequently denying the right to priesthood to women,

Christianity went against Jesus’s teaching. However, the right to priesthood for all classes and tribes and for women to be part of church congregations were among the first major steps in the realm of spiritual democracy in Asia. The politico-legal democratic principle that all are equal before law was first established as a Christian ethic and is an extension of the spiritual principle that all are equal before God. Hinduism, which is being linked to the Vedic texts, went astray by not recognising that all castes are equal before God. This is where Buddhism and Hinduism stood against each other in the Indian subcontinent. Here again Christianity as an Asian-born religion went against Hinduism. Because of the common character of spiritual democracy, Buddhism expanded eastwards even encircling Israel, the land of Jesus, and Christianity expanded westwards.

Because of spiritual casteism, Hinduism did not spread anywhere beyond the caste-centred societies of India and Nepal. Islam, with the initiative of Prophet Mohammed, started as a more radical spiritual democracy. At once it liberated women as Mohammed himself married a widowed businesswoman. The Koran was the first book of one voice that framed the rules of spiritual democracy giving equal rights to all tribes, castes and classes within a broad patriarchal framework. It also took the first step towards advancing science within the framework of religion. Since Islam did not allow radical reforms, it subsequently stagnated by slowly pushing itself into spiritual authoritarianism. When Christianity faced the challenge of Islam, it allowed radical reforms within leading to the growth of Protestantism.

The processes of industrial and democratic revolutions in the West must be located in the process of deepening spiritual democracy in the Christian realm where spiritual democracy transformed the civil societal base into social liberalism. Reforms in Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam were no match for the onward march of spiritual and political democracy and the advancement of science and technology that got social support within the Christian world. The dialectical relationship between spirituality and the human mind stilted the march of atheistic socialist thought. Otherwise, socialism would have spread across the globe. As some of our left intellectuals assume, religion as a social system is not yet bowled out.

The present process of globalisation along with the market would also result in competition between religions where the religions that have radical reformative abilities may wage wars against spiritual authoritarian and spiritual fascist modes wherever and in whichever form they survive. Since dignity of labour is going to play a crucial role in global capitalist modernity, the religions that compete even in the spiritual market by expanding the space for rational thinking will attract the educated mind. In this process, Hinduism that refuses to grant spiritual democratic rights to Dalits, who live around it, might face a problem.

(The author is a professor of political science, Osmania University, Hyderabad)

This is the current state of Muslim apologists...

1. They Can`t face the fact that they have a direct relationship to God, enabling them to clearly see that some of their so called revelations (hadis, sharia, Quran) are nonsense.

2. To avoid this descrepency they try to change Islam. It`s good if one uses reason to interpret scripture. However, Muslim apologists are at often times COWARDS who cant deal with the fact that islam is inherently sexist-among other things. Instead of being real men/women and admitting that Islam isnt perfect, theyll convince themselves that it is.

3. They will then do all sorts of silly intellectual gymnastics to shadow the line separating ``traditional`` Islam with what they think Islam should be (all the time convincing themselves that there is no divide).

...Urstruly wouldnt dare, would anyone else?

Sattar2

As per other board you are claiming that we are debating at this board. Well it is a news to me. BTW what are we debating-you are shouting so loud that I cant hear a thing.

Talib 142

hunh??? BTW I asked for Hindu men and not the aadhaa Hindu man.

Urstruly Sahib (#139),

You seem to be giving up way too easily, without backing up your claims of Islam being “Deen-e-Fitrat”. Your “which means …” chant is a futile attempt at sounding intelligent … while you are at a loss to explain Islam without sounding like a deranged, drunk, lunatic. Your Islam is not “Deen-e-Fitrat”. It is an absurd fairy-tale of flying prophets and bloodthirsty men of God.

This is quite a contrast from the Ahmadi interpretation, which removes distortions in Islam. This is the blessing of following the prophet of Allah. He purifies the religion and challenges the authority of corrupt clergy. Incidentally this also explains why you mullahs have unanimously singled out Ahmadis for violent persecution and abuses.

My goal? … it is to present the pristine, true Islam to the mankind. I do not care if you agree with me or not … as long as I am allowed to peacefully practice and preach true Islam. However, if you still insist that we have two different religions, then feel free to find another name for your religion. Also, although, Allah has chosen the name Islam for my faith, it would not bother me if you also call yourself a Muslim. See, how easy this is [grin].

You now invoke respect for each other’s beliefs. While I have only spoken to you in a reciprocal manner, and shown you your own ugly face in the mirror, I wonder what happened to the vocal, fire-and-brimstone, jamaati mullah who got his kicks from bashing liberals, Ahmadis, westerners, and Hindus all too often. It is you who reviled Ahmadis on several boards here. In Pakistan you animals are all too eager to bring charges of “posing” as a Muslim against Ahmadis and perpetuate sectarian violence! Asking for mutual respect, when you can no longer defend your position … intellectually or forcibly … when you can no longer shove your Islam down the throats of others … hmmm … throwing in the towel, Urstruly Sahib?



You should have no difficulty explaining how Islam is Deen-e-Fitrat. Just pretend you are explaining to Radha the descent of Jesus Christ from skies on the wings of two angels, his battle with the one-eyed monster riding a giant, fire-breathing donkey, while in reality, you yourself will sound like to a giant donkey. But you must be quite used to this by now, since this is how you argued your case on Blasphemy Laws, concept of jihad, violence against Ahmadis, and more [hee hee hee … I am exploding with laughter as I type this … oh God … you crack me up, Urstruly Sahib … sometimes life is like a funny episode in a low-budget sitcom …].

So, let me see you make a complete idiot of yourself yet another time, trying to explain flying prophets, while maintaining that in reality it is the Ahmadis who are heretics and kaffirs. How is this for a “predictable” response [wide grin]?

Asad

Reply Urstruly # 135

“Brilliant repartee” SHOULD be easy when one is writing both sides of a “conversation”. What’s your excuse?

As we say in Bombay: kombdi, thum ithna stupid kay ko hai?

Zafar #131
Thanks, though I have to say my family members seem to have the clearest fundas on these things..

And as someone was saying, there is now the Constitution-smriti available for guidance :)

Re: #130

jay,

(1)

``It is alleged that conciousnes cannot be the product of the brain, or rather there is no physical analogue to something being aware of itself.``

Fortunately, we live in times where there are plenty of examples available.

Take the chowk web-server for example. The software running on it has at least 10 layers and more. Is the chowk server aware of itself and its surroundings ?...yes, it is. If I send a `good` message it will say `acccepted, thank you` otherwise it will say something appropriate.

How did my message get to chowk? Basically, as the message was travelling down the line saying `I am a message for chowk``, the chowk server says ``I`m chowk. I`ll take you``. To some other messages it says, ``No, you are not for me. I`m chowk``.

How close is that to humans?

The upper layer softwares are dependent of the lower. Error messages received by the upper layers will be properly handled as they are passed onto the lower layers. BUT, if an error happens to the LOWEST layer...which is standing alone, the system will crash.

Is the system aware of its lowest layer? No, its not. It is the lowest layer which GENERATES the first `basic awareness`. This awareness gets MULTIPLIED as more and more layers are added.

IMO, this is exactly the way the brain is working. We are off course not aware of the deeper layers of our consciousness, let alone the deepest layer.

When I say I`m aware of myself, I mean I`m aware of my thoughts and feelings...which is basically the `top layer`. If I fall into a deep sleep, I`m not `aware` of myself...the `top layer` is silent. But my deeper layers are still fully functioning...while I`m not `aware`.



(2)

``Time and space are simply a product of perception, there may not be any physical `objective, thing out there.``

Yes, of course...thats what the relativity theories are all about.



(3)

``If life is all so predictable, it should be very boring. Ultimately, from a pure utilitarian view poin, give life some magic. If you believe in it, it will happen.``

You sound like Deepak Chopra!

regards,

Sattar # 2

I wonder why we quarrel when we have two completely differnt set of beliefs-which means that we are two differnt people-which means we observe two differnt religions-which means we should respect each other`s beliefs-which means we should recognize the differnces and not exploit them--which means less hostility-which means give and take-which means no segregation but cooperation-which means no need for laws to maintain order-which means everybody wins.

Which needs respect for each other`s dogma-which needs understanding each other`s dogma-which needs a discusion-which needs less rebuking and more talking-which needs effort-which needs determination-which needs a goal-what is your goal?

Sadna # 137

hummmm....let me guess...from now on you will only ``discuss`` Islamic dogma and pass unqualified remarks as before...right? right?

I wonder where have all the hindu men gone? Despite the fact that I`ve promised to be as non-lethal as possible but still......hummmmmm