This Beloved Arab Colony

There are not many things in Hindu & Islamic scriptures that can be said to be fully logical or scientific. Muslims used to think that the Earth is flat (not spherical) and Hindus used to think that the Sun is nearer to the Earth than the Moon. No one can claim to have seen Heaven (Jannat or Swarag) or God. There are many things in the scriptures that might have been the imaginations of our primitive ancestors.

Fighting today over things created centuries back is insanity. What matters is we, the people of today and our thinking, which is more rational, scientific and even moral. We do not allow Sati system nor do we forcibly convert people to muslims. Basic human moral values are truly universal in nature. So all we need to do is respect others and move ahead collectively for the betterment of humankind.

Cheers!!

Re: # 187

What I have read in Quran is not racist but discriminatory anyway. Quran gives right to a man to beat up a woman in some cases. Such cruelty is not there in any religion.

From:Encyclopedic Dictionary of Yoga, G.Feuerstein, Paragon Publ,NY, 1990

Linga (Mark, Symbol)- Samkhya tradition refers linga as ``that which has
characteristics`` namely the human personality which includes Antahkarana
(its aspects - ego, subconscious, conscious thought and intellect,
5 cognitive senses (jnanedriyas), and 5 conative senses (karmendriyas).

Maitraayaniya Upanishad (VI.10) applies the term linga to `the entire
creation extending from the first principle (Mahat) to the particulars
(vishesha)` and contrasts it with linga `without origin` i.e God itself.

Mahabharat (XII.195.15) describes linga as the vehicle, or body of the
transmigrating psyche (that which passes from one birth to the next).

Metaphysically, linga stands for the unimaginable potency PRIOR to the
creation of universe.

Abhinav Gupta in his Tantra- Aaloka (V.54) explains Linga as ``linam-
gamyate - This whole (universe) is dissolved (linam) in that, and this
whole (universe) is perceived (gamyate) as residing within that``.

The `Amaraugh- Prabodh` offers following etymological definition: ``Where
the movable and immovable dissolves by force of `Laya` (natural
destruction), that is (known as) linga.

As the mystic law `As above so below`` -Brahmanda manifests in every Pinda
, the cosmic linga has its representation within human body also. Thus
Tantric and Hatha Yoga literature describe experience of radiant linga in
different psychic centers (chakras) of the body. Brahma Upanishad speaks
of 3 types of linga that should be made object of meditation: Adho linga
at the base of spine (Mulaadhaar chakra), Shikhin linga at the crown of
the head (Sahasraar chakra) and Jyotir (light) linga at the center of the
forehead (Aajnyaa or Guru chakra).

Siddha Siddhanta Paddhati (II.4) mentions a linga shaped flame in the
heart.

Thus ALL above scriptures talk about linga as NOT having sexual meanings. Above
dictionary, in contrast, refers to phallic interpretation merely in passing and
does not give ANY scriptural support indicating its possible non-Hindu origin.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

It is about time that sensible Pakistanis declare their independence of masjid-mullah-mania. Indian Hindus did that in 1947. Despite partitioning Nehru Zindabad!! The saviour of decency in India.

The tragedy is that if Pakistanis keep kow-towing to the rabid masjid-mullah-mania, India may have to fight harder to retain sanity.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

#304, Inquirer;#308, nb; #309, urbashi:

First of all I am a proud Hindu man. I have higher expectations from educated Hindus - may be unjustifiably. I did mean that I was not singling urbashi. But urbashi`s response needs a clearer enunciation. As an example of the analysis, I will discuss four posts to show where, I think the problem lies. These are: #289, urbashi; #288, nb; and #286 and 287, Syed.

First: Syed in # 286 and # 287 shows that he has read some things about Hinduism. Evidently, his quotes are from obscure religious books which he takes for The Scriptures of Hinduism. Now, there is a real problem in the definition of scriptures in Hinduism, if you view it from a Muslim point of view. Islam has a central source of religious guidance and so a follower of Islam would be inclined to consider a central book in parallel with Quran. This would happen even if Syed was not the evil urbashi thinks he is.

Second: Syed is no scholar of Hinduism and he does have inherited antipathy towards Hinduism. This antipathy takes a particularly vrulent form in the context of woes in Pakistan and advancement in India. So he finds any derogatory quotation to show the strangeness of Hinduism to get even with his Indian Hindu adversaries.

Third: What Syed should do is pose the question to those who know more about Hinduism rather than blurt out undigested information. It must be said to his credit, however, that he is quoting chapter and verse and not just expressing opinions. It should be possible to verify his quotations.

Fourth: urbashi has not responded to the points Syed has raised instead she ascribes ``mulish mind`` etc. What she should have done is to point out that Syed`s quotations are not from the operative scriptures of Hinduism. She should have pointed out that for Hindus the governing document is Tulsi Das` Ramayan. Kaushalya, Kakeyi and Sumitra did not commit sati after passing of King Dasratha.. That would settle that issue without bickering and venom. The social and family question was also not helped by baselessly stating that apsaras are not available to the dead Hindu men. The whole cobweb of life after death is meaningless. NOBODY KNOWS, HENCE IT DOES NOT EXIST. YOU CAN DELUDE YOURSELF WITH ANY THING. JUST AS MUSLIM SUICIDERS DO WITH 72 HOURIS.

Appendix to both Hindus and Muslims EQUALLY!!!!!!!!!!

BOTH QURAN AND GITA ARE ATTEMPTS TO MAKE SENSE OF NATURE, SOCIETY, FAMILY REALTIONSHIPS, AND INTERSOCIETAL DYNAMICS. Neither is a hundred percent correct and relevant to the modern society. Human circustances have changed and there is NEED for ADAPTATIONS and rationalization (=making more rational) of ALL scriptures. MUSLIMS SHOULD STOP CONVERTING AND COERCING OTHERS AND DECLARE THAT AS OFFICIAL POLICY OF ISLAM AND HINDUS SHOULD CORRECT THEIR INNER HOUSE AND REMOVE THE IN-BUILT INJUSTICES.

I do not know about you but I am tired of my lecture, though relevant!!!!

re:#310 by Maharana
You are right about that story. But it is no use telling Syed all that. This guy is incorrigible.

BTW, that hill which formed, per the myth, was so big and lustrous that Brahma and vishnu both pleaded with Shiva to conform it to normal dimensions so ordinary mortals can view it and benefit from it.. So, the hill shrank in size to become what is today known as ``Arunachala Hills`` in Tiruvannamalai, South India. So goes the local legend there. This hill is considered the largest Agni linga. Ramana Maharishi spent all his life meditating near the hill and attained self-realisation there.
Sridhar

nb & Inquirer and others,

This thread is pretty much dead. But i read through Syed`s # 286 to find a factual error in his so called stories. This is leading me to doubt the veracity of his other posted stories from hindu scriptures. Since there are so many scriptures in Hinduism, any hindu will tell you its impossible to read all those books and keep first hand knowledge of the same. A weakness exploited well by Syed.
Here`s the story posted by syed-
``Here is another origin of the holy Linga: ``... He (Siva) agreed to this and laughed, for he was secretly amused, and he said to Brahma, `There is no good use for this linga except for the creation of progeny.` And as he said this he broke it off and threw it upon the surface of the earth. The linga broke through the earth down to the subterranean hell and went to the very sky. Visnu sought the end of it below, and Brahma flew upwards, but they did not find the end of it, for all their vital effort. Then a voice arose out of the sky as the two of them sat there, and it said, `If the linga of the god with braided hair is worshipped, it will certainly grant all desires that are longed for in the heart.` When Brahma and Visnu heard this, they and all the divinities worshipped the linga with devotion, with their hearts set upon Rudra (Siva).`` -- Siva Purana, Dharmasamhita 49:23b-46, 74-86.``

To Mr. Syed`s misfortune I`ve read this story. And here`s the gist-

Both Brahmaa and Vishnu enter into a dispute about their respective strengths, each claiming to be mightier than the other. Their dispute starts getting heated up with no solution in end. Sudenly out of nowhere a giant pillar made of fire appears in front of them. It stretches from underneath the earth and extends skywards. Its ends being invisible to both Brahmaa and Vishnu. Brahma and Vishnu decide to settle their dispute by finding the end of this pillar/lingum of fire. Whoever finds the end first will be proclamied winner.
So, Vishnu takes the form of a Wild boar and Brahma that of a Swan. The swan flies upwards, while the boar digs underneath to find the end. After a long time Vishnu is exhausted and realizes that this Lingum is extending beyond his capacity to discover its end. But Brahma on the other end decides to lie about finding the end, fearing that Vishnu might have found it. So he asks ketaki flowers falling from heaven to be his witness and lie to vishnu about finding the end. Ketaki reluctantly does so. Vishnu accepts defeat, after Brahmaa`s claim and ketaki`s testimony. Then, the Lingum breaks open and Shiva appears. He tells Brahmaa that he has comitted the biggest sin of lying. And hence he declares there will be no more temples of Brahmaa. There were suppose to be only two temples of Brahmaa till then. And hence after that day, there have been no more temples of Brahmaa. The site which celebrates this legend is the Pushkar temple near Ajmer, Rajasathan. Its one of the two Brahmaa temples, with a Shiva Lingum somewhere undergoround.

Well, did not want to bore anyone of you, but hope I`ve driven the point home.

Adios

304 by Inquirer on July 2, 2003 2:08pm PT
Yes,Inquirer,you are right about a number of points you make.However,I do notice that you pick on a Hindu when you express your disappointment with the situation.Hon_Syed has been expressing the type of vitriol that I thought only cariacatures of fanatical Muslims did.How come you don`t mention him as an example?He has been extremely offensive to Hinduism and its followers,and has used the colloquial Hindustani term for faeces in relation to Hinduism.Who has ben telling people what they believe?Certainly not me,nor sridhar nor urbashi nor maharana nor m_souza.Syed seemes to have taken it upon himself to tell Hindus what they believe.How strange that Syed`s version of Hinduism is so different from that which I was brought up in.When I was a little girl,I was always taught not to make fun of other people`s beliefs,but it seems his parents never taught him that-if they did he certainly wasn`t listening.He has told people he does not believe they are fair-skinned,or that they eat in a certain way.Can I ask you,is it all right to tell everyone who disagrees with him that they are liars,whether the other person is describing his own skin colour or his own religion?I do try to learn,but just as certain criminals are deemed irredeemable,some people can never see reason.I have pointed out several times that all religions can be proved and disproved.I am getting a little tired of the expectation that Muslims can say what they like without knowing anything,but Hindus cannot retaliate.I believe if you can`t take it,you shouldn`t give it. You say we should learn from the West and argue objectively. I would like to see how this conversation progressed with Raman Catholics or Jews. Of course,Syed would say it wouldn`t happen as they are people of the Book.(we shall of course not mention the carnage in the Middle East among all the happy people of the Book). Even Westerners do not just sit there taking abuse(as it appears Hindus are expected to do).Try it some time and see what happens.Unless we all live and let live,nothing will ever change.

In passing, Inquirer (# 304), I was wondering why you picked on me when you spoke of sarcasm and personal attacks. You added, of course, that you weren`t singling me out., although you obviously were. How come that I can`t respond to personal attacks, while others can make the attacks? Is it because it`s the Hindu`s obligation to take things lying down? I`m sure you don`t want to imply that, you`ve usually been fairly reasonable in your posts. Name one instance when I`ve spoken out against Muslims or their beliefs. And if you think people like the Hon. Syed are using this site to learn anything, or do anything except to hurl abuse, you`re being much more naive than is possible to believe. A suggestion - why don`t you read what others write before you comment on what I wrote? I know you can`t be responsible for Syed or others of his ilk, but surely you can avoid getting into the blame game, can`t you? One has to be objective, hasn`t one? and rational?

#305, urbashi: I can understand that your dissatisfaction with honorable_syed led to ``tit for tat`` policy. But you see you do not gain anything by falling in a trap like that. We, as a group, need to learn that nothing is achieved except may be blowing of steam and venom.

THAT IS WHY IT MIGHT BE WORTHWHILE DEVELOPING IN THE SYSTEM POSSIBILITY OF BLACKING OUT OF SOME PARTICIPANTS INDIVIDUALLY. THIS SUGGESTION HAS BEEN MADE IN ANA-DOBARAH`S ARTICLE. IF SUCH A SYSTEM CAN BE COMBINED WITH A CENTRAL COLLATION, ONE MAY BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY THE HABITUAL OFFENDERS. THESE OFFENDERS MAY EVEN BE HELPED BY INFORMING THEM OF THEIR FAILURES.

#301 by urbashi on July 2, 2003 6:49am PT
Syed, I don`t know whether there is any point in trying to interact with you, because you have such a closed mind and simply won`t admit that you might ever be wrong. Anyway, this is a last attempt, and as likely to be futile as all the others.
-----------

urbashi..for this reason I gave up...
he is a hard nut to crack although he is a `nut` allright. he is the type ke kuch bhi bolo iske kaan me joo(lice) nahi rengtee...he keeps on ranting..`we invaders` `we invaders`

I think he gets dreams about his fauj invading India...with him sitting on a horse back(or camel back? dunnno)...energetic hordes...doing hohoho..here we come...you sati believers...you idolaters....wait till we come.....hohohoho

Inquirer, I agree with you, and it`s because I wanted to learn what the other side had to say that I joined chowk at all. And I`ve always asked people myself to be logical and calm when they write. But if you go through my earlier posts you`ll find that I`ve written like this now only because I feel, unfortunately enough, that Hon. Syed simply will not listen to or read what other people have to say, but seems to be fixated on the few topics I`ve mentioned, and goes out of his way to be abusive and offensive. It appeared to me that this is the only language that will penetrate to him. I have no quarrel with ali 87, he hasn`t been rude and insulting to me, and if he`s made a few undesirable comments about others` religions it`s obvious that those weren`t deliberately meant to be offensive - at least in the remarks I`ve read. Everyone has a right to his or her opinion, and nobody can change anybody`s mind for them. So why not just listen to what the other side has to say, and agree to disagree? Especially when you don`t know about the other religion/community at all from personal experience. I don`t think you can call people devious and liars without the least foundation, only because they happen to belong to a religion you despise. I`m afraid if someone attacks me personally I`m going to reply in just the same vein. Even the garbled stuff that Studebaker produces is quite innocuous in comparison.

I returned to this page and was somewhat surprised at the discussion between Sridhar, nb, m_souza, urbashi, mahrana on the Hindu side and ali 87, Honorable_Syed on Muslim side. Inspite of the bickering between the groups, it seems there is some communication going on. Earlier, I have seen only the hurling of abuses on both sides.
I would like to point out that better learning is done by asking questions about the beliefs of the other side rather than telling them what they believe. This is particularly important when people are talking about religion. Apparently, the conversation is more oftenly proceeding with the Hindus telling Muslims what Islam is and Muslim telling what Hindus what their scriptures tell them.
It is clear that there are elements of irrationality in both religions and there are people with vested interest in both groups professing these religions which believe in the unfair advantage they have vis a vis not only other relgion`s devotees but also the majority among their own religion`s adherents.
We need to learn from the westerners the technique of objective discussion. We should avoid sarcasm and personal attacks as are clear in urbashi`s statements, for example. I am not singling her. All of the participants are guilty of this. The style of Dost-Mittar and Aleph Null should be adopted by the exponents of both sides.

Inspite of all that has happened, the current conversation is an improvement on many earlier confrontations that I have witnessed.

Syed,first of all,you cannot say we Muslim invaders,because your ancestors were Indian.Since you can refuse to believe everything everyone else says(you know how fair everyone is and what they eat at home),so I can say you are a South Asian pretending to be an Arab(why I don`t know,they don`t have much except oil going for them).For your interest,Akbar(The Great) did outlaw sati.Since we desis aren`t as strict with laws as the white man,it didn`t do all that well.You will not think about anything anyone has to say-I don`t know why you are in a forum.You need a website all of your own to spout your rubbish unopposed-at least until your local intelligence services suddenly take an interest in you..We have a word here for persons like yourself,which I don`t think I want to use,but it rhymes with banker.Thank Allah for the Brits?I think not,the Iraqis would have a different point of view.They would have let sati continue,had it not been for Indians who wanted things changed.The British never upset local beliefs too much,there was too much money to be made from the natives to bother with their beliefs.