Dear Mr. Sarabjit Roy,
your IAC running conveyor belt. You & only you chose to publish some for a 'yes group'
and some mails are allowed to be vanished in thin air as per your convenience. Obviously,
no one can complain because it is all managed by you.
You have lost your 'cool' once again and cursed me in your reply to my details presented
on the subject of 'definition of Hindu'. We Hindus have come to know that any one who has
denounced Hindu Way of Life, will react the way you did. I have no idea whether you were
born Hindu or down the line you have rejected 'Sanatan Dharma' for any other religion.
I am simple man and I do carry a simple definition of Hindu in my mind. Any one who have
followed our ancient Vedic Traditions cum Sanatan Dharma, is Hindu. It is not a religion as
most people call it, rather Hindu is a way of life. One has to go through various books, for
example: The Ramayan and The Mahabharat to understand Hindu Way of Life. There is no
visible aspect of God in Hinduism. A Hindu see manifestation of Divine in all creatures. I see
God in you and others and try to connect to your soul nature eternally. May God bless you!
With my best wishes,
Dr. Kumar Arun
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 07:26:08 +0530
From: sroy.mb@gmail.com
To: indiaresists@lists.riseup.net
Subject: Re: [IAC#RG] Definition of "Hindu"
Dear Mr Sabhlok
Your line of arguments is too simplistic and will get you trapped when you come up against professional theologians or religious agitators.
1) It is inadvisable to use geological/territorial boundaries to define a religion. This is an extension of the Greek or Muslim view that all non-Greeks or non-Muslims in India are 'kaafirs' or Hindus. This distorted line of argument has been put into our history books by Left leaning intellectuals like Romila Thapar and you seem to have swallowed it, just as Nehru did when he rammed through the Hindu Code of 1955/56.
2) It is inadvisable to use the term "followers" to define the religion.
As a starting point you kindly read Koenraad Elst's work on this
http://voiceofdharma.org/books/wiah/
http://voiceofdharma.org/books/wiah/ch3.htm
It is wrong on very many points / places, but still a good enough starting point and as an introduction to the subject,
Today, actual Hindus don't constitute more than about 37% of India's population. So "we" should start defining ourselves more as Indians and less as Hindus if India is to survive into the next century..
Sarbajit
Your line of arguments is too simplistic and will get you trapped when you come up against professional theologians or religious agitators.
1) It is inadvisable to use geological/territorial boundaries to define a religion. This is an extension of the Greek or Muslim view that all non-Greeks or non-Muslims in India are 'kaafirs' or Hindus. This distorted line of argument has been put into our history books by Left leaning intellectuals like Romila Thapar and you seem to have swallowed it, just as Nehru did when he rammed through the Hindu Code of 1955/56.
2) It is inadvisable to use the term "followers" to define the religion.
As a starting point you kindly read Koenraad Elst's work on this
http://voiceofdharma.org/books/wiah/
http://voiceofdharma.org/books/wiah/ch3.htm
It is wrong on very many points / places, but still a good enough starting point and as an introduction to the subject,
Today, actual Hindus don't constitute more than about 37% of India's population. So "we" should start defining ourselves more as Indians and less as Hindus if India is to survive into the next century..
Sarbajit
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 6:14 AM, Prem Sabhlok <psabhlok@hotmail.com> wrote:
The followers of any religion/sect/cult/Samaj which originated in India are Hindus. Thus when we say India has about 80% Hindus, these include followers of Sanatan Dharma, Sikhs, Buddists, Jains, Kabir panthi, Balmiks, Ganpatias,tribals who are not converted to Islam, Christianity etc, Arya Samajists, Brahmakumaris, Parnamis like Mahatma Gandhi and others.
The followers of any relgion/sect/cult which originated from outside India are non Hindus like Islam, Christianity, Jews, Parsi, Sufis
etc. Thus it is very difficult to define Hindu and "way of life" is the easiest definition. Follow "any way of life" you are Hindu.
Regards
Prem Sabhhlok
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 13:47:14 -0500
From: ltcolttkishore@gmail.com
To: indiaresists@lists.riseup.net
Subject: Re: [IAC#RG] Definition of "Hindu"Dear All,Greetings.Being alert to divisive forces of all types is by itself a hopeful and positive way.One has to be careful not to throw the baby also out with the bath water.Hinduism and being A Hindu is a way of life, as believed by most conscientious . Even a lazy chap (like me for eg.) can be a Hindu doing NOTHING .There is no regimentation or institutionalisation for aHindu. He can pray without feeling superior or sinful at a temple or mazar or church or stupa.Very accommodating ISM,is Hinduism.This "Spectrum" of nonchalance to Seriousness is what makes it a perfect Medium( Heat Sink or the entity to absorb any energy) to assimilate all religious concepts AND that is what is not to the liking of MOST fundu type Xians and Moslems.(The permissiveness of Hinduism is seen when a non Hindu can enter Portals of Balaji by JUST signing a register he believes in Balaji. Sarvam Jagannatham)
So ,if you like to be Hindu you can be Hindu.That simple and no demands made and is unconditional. Any body can ,"Garv se kaho ham Hindu hai".Vedic religion or Aryanism( ?) is too nebulous and Lazy chaps like me are happy (Or fearful?) to pray to all gods of all religions they come across.In the meantime I remain a seeker of clarity and then truth in that order.Veteran (Ltcol) TTKishoreOn Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Archita Bhatta <architabhatta@gmail.com> wrote:
It is an old question and an old answer by now, but there is need o reiterate this... THERE IS NOTHING AND NO ONE CALLED A HINDU. THE WORD DOES NOT EXIST IN THE VEDAS, where the usual formal honorofic addressal to another person is Arya.This has led many to believe that there is something called an Aryan race... a misnomer by any account...Let me reiterate that the word called Hindu arrived on the eve of and gained currency after Alexander's conquest of what we now know as India, which then included the present-day Pakistan and Afghanistan.The military history of Alexander's conquests show that they had planned to cross the River Indus, but due to propensities peculiar to the Greek language, they could pronounce the name of the river as Hindus. From there arrived the historically incorrect and unacceptable term Hindu, which has now become a divisive mantra for ultra-nationalist and militant organisations like the RSS and its political handmaid, he BJP.If any intellectual worth his or her salt wants to make this as a brand name and a clarion call to accelerate their self-interests, history will take care of their coffins, InshaAllah.For those who believe in the spiritual practices peculiar to this land the real term is Sanatan Dharm... a religion that has been co-existent with Creation ... but then, this is what all religious leaders would like their flock to believe in, because this is their business model, nothing less.ThanksArchitaOn 23 March 2013 01:12, J Raman <events@southasianoutlook.com> wrote:
Dear Mr Sarabjit Roy:Your email makes interesting reading indeed.Of course, it is absolutely a personal issue as to what religion one practices or does not.Do you have a link to or transcript of the Legal Judgement of 1899?If you have it, it will add more emphasis to your points in the email.Thanks.J RamanFrom: Sarbajit RoySent: Friday, March 22, 2013 2:37 PMTo: indiaresistsSubject: Re: [IAC#RG] URGENT: Important group noticeDear Mr. S.Kumar
I shall certainly address each and every one of your points with great pleasure if you can prove the following statement:-
"Sarabjiy Roy might be an aetheist or Communist."
Another gentleman Mr Bhagwat Goel has just called me a FUNDAMENTALIST COMMUNIST ??? on another mailing list <ha ha>
So I will save you the trouble and unprove it myself.
FYI, It is compulsory for a Communist to be an atheist, but not every atheist is a Communist. Similarly there are many atheists who are Hindus and many Hindus who are atheists. BTW, an atheist is simply a person who does not believe in existence of God.
Unluckily for both of you I am not an atheist.
I am a Theist. Kindly note the spacing between the "a" and "Theist" This means that I believe in God. In fact I am a firm and devout believer in God, so it means that I an not an atheist and therefore am also not a Communist. So the only thing which is left to prove is if I am a "Hindu" or not.
Luckily again, I am armed with a Legal Judgment of the Chief Court of the (undivided) Punjab of 1899 which is the most ancient modern judgment of India (and further upheld in final appeal in the Privy Council in 1903) on Hinduism which says as follows:-
a) That the term "Hindu" cannot be defined precisely, because Hinduism is a religion of wide elasticity and catholicism to the extent that one can eat beef, kill cows, have 10 wives simultaneously, drink, smoke, not go to temple, be married to a Christian foreigner etc and still be a Hindu. (please note this remarkably liberal judgment was given in 1899)
b) That Sikhs are Hindus and nothing but Hindus no matter how much they deny it.
c) That my religionists "may" or "may not be" Hindus at their discretion. What this judgment means is that if Sarbajit Roy (or my co-religionists) states formally he is a Hindu then everyone else is NOT a Hindu for him. In fact the entire Unform Civil Code which BJP is demanding for past 40 years is only for Sarbajit Roy and his co-religionists and not because of any Shah Bano or Kashmiri Pandits. If we (who reject temples and priests and babas and swamis ..) are Hindus then all their temple trusts revert to the State irrevocably and finally and cause massive problems in Sanatan Dharam.
And Sir, because Dr. Kumar 2786 mentions you are a walking encyclopedia (like me) let me also clarify that even though this is a 1900's judgement it is used even today as the lead judgment to settle in SC who is a Hindu and who is not a Hindu in law. For example the Ramakrishna Mission judgement was based almost fully on this judgment.
Now it is my turn to ask you (because for all I know you may be Chinese) to answer only 2 small questions.
A) Are YOU a Hindu ?
B) If so, what is the name of your God ?
I have no difficulty in answering these 2 questions in 1 word each.
Sarbajit
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 7:52 PM, S kumar <kumar_8134@yahoo.com> wrote:
Why should you interfere in the administration and conduct of Hindu Temples only in the Country? Sarabjit Roy has a totally biassed negative opinion about Hindu-s when he says he sees only one temple in his region and religion that too abandoned and in ruins. Do you consider the thousands of temples all over the Country mismanaged and in ruins?What don't you look all over the Country? Kerala State has Sabarimala Temple having over 200Cr. income per annum, followed by Guruvayur and the State controlled Religious body controls an annual income of over Rs.1500 Cr. which is administered by the Govt. The same happens in Tamilnadu and Andhra esp. Tirupathi Temple the income of which is the highest in India and has been looted by the former CM Samuel Reddy and used for Christian and Muslim purposes. Building and landed properties belonging to the temple were sold off by the Christisn CM, who used to carry sackfuls of currency whenever he visited Sonia Gandhi at Delhi, discontinuation of which cost his son the coveted position and harassment by ED, CBI and CBDT.Over Rs.50,000Cr. worth of Gold ornaments, crows..etc. donated by King Krishnadevaraya, has been found missing and nobody has taken the inventory in Tirpuathi for several years!!In Karnataka, CM Krishna openly declared in Assembly that Hindu temple incomes were mostly spent for building Churches and Mosques as well as run Madrassa-s in his State!!Religion is not the monopoly of aetheistic Communists in WB or Kerala or other States!! While the State Religious board officials are paid Govt. pay scales from temple incomes, the priests and other cadres doing daily chores of Pooja..etc. from 3AM to 11 PM are not given even 50% of the amount paid to Board employees.In case of the make shift temple at Ayodhya too, the income in Hundi-s are taken away by the Admninistraion- DC and expenses to conduct pooja-s are not even met from these collections, leave alone the salary of the employees.Why should the Govt. control the Hindu Temples only? What about the millions of $ received by Missionaries every year besides the Saudi/ Iran funding millions for Moques and Dargahs?Don't Hindu-s have the fundamental rights to observe their faith in temples and manage its affairs?Sarabjiy Roy might be an aetheist or Communist. But he has no business to denigrate Hindu Trusts running temples. At best Govt. could appoint an executive officer as a trustee to monitor its working and Govt. has no business to take the temple incomes and spend it for Haj travel subsidies or building ChurchesFrom: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: indiaresists@lists.riseup.net
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 6:19 PM
Subject: Re: [IAC#RG] URGENT: Important group noticeSir
I can say that because I know for a fact that it is not necessary to have temples to have a great religion. I can say this because my own religion had only 1 major "temple" which is abandoned and in ruins, and every time the State Govt approaches us to take it over for them to "renew" as a National monument or give us grants we shoo them away.
Only the mismanaged temples, whose ill-gotten gains acquired over decades of corruption, which trustees had fought and squabbled over, were taken over by the State. It is the foolishness, greed, ego and inter-fighting of Hindus which allowed this to come about - in other words, it is only POLITICS (not religion). See what is happening in the Sikh Gurudwaras which shall also come to the same pass if their squabbling and bickering continues.
Take another example - Lord Rama Janambhoomi Temple at Ayodhya. Who is fooling who ? Where is all the money collected from all over India and abroad over so many decades going ? Who benefits by the Temple not being built, not only in notes but also in votes ?
SarbajitOn Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 5:50 PM, Gaur J K <gaurjk@hotmail.com> wrote:Dear Mr. Roy,
How can you say these are political and not religious issues. Hindu temples and matts are under the control of trusts and the trustees are appointed by the Govt. Donations(offerings) by common people to the deities are not used for propogation of religion but all kinds of non-religious activities. Can you say the same thing for Wakaf and church donations and charities.
Every other day we see media reports describing wealth of Hindu temples. I have not seen report about donations -domestic and foreign-received by other religious institutions.
2. The Govt. is sympthetic to hear the exceasses of upper cast in the distant past on backward classes.
But can you say anything about excesses of the British and Muslim rulers. You are immediately branded as communal.
regds JK
Dear ShriRam
I hope we can agree that common Hindus, common Muslims, common Indians etc are ORDINARILY least concerned about religion beyond their simple worship and daily devotions.
However, there are the vested interests in all religions, not necessarily only Brahmins and Sayyids etc. which want to communalise issues for their own gain and agitate, inflame and arouse the ordinary people. It is happening in all states of India, whether ruled by Congress or BJP or Communists (actually now there is hardly any Communist ruled State left since hard-core Leftists have essentially turned to extremism) or anyone else.
The need of the hour is a UNIFYING force. which transcends Religion, Caste and Regionalism. That will only come I fear when we must all face a common enemy so powerful which will cause us to set all our petty differences aside before it is too late.
Let me also say some very unpalatable things for Hindus so that we can all move forward from our standard defensive positions to actually solve the problems together.
A) Muslims ARE treated as 2nd class citizens in India, (and as 3rd class citizens in Gujarat).
B) Caste Hindus are terrified by upsurge of empowered dalits and other depressed caste and tribal demographics which is scaring the shit out of them.
C) Hindus are no longer monolithic and are fragmented between Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains and so many other splinter groups who no longer identify themselves primarily as Hindus.
D) "Hindus" are desperately trying to keep their flock together by similar scare tactics and false propaganda to project that Hindus are discriminated against. These are all POLITICAL and not religious issues.
E) All parties are openly collaborating with Naxals and Maoists for electoral reasons, but this totally demoralizes the enforcement agencies at the local level. Or Political parties should openly state that Naxals will be accommodated in mainstream politics without their laying down arms (Nepal example is in front of everybody)
F) 2014 (or sooner) national elections will be one of the most bitter and divisive elections fought yet. However, Bharat Bhagya Bhidata has always come to India's aid in some strange and mysterious manner and we all fervently must pray that the Great Being who rules our destiny will not fail his humble servants who sit at his feet to serve him.
SarbajitOn Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 6:23 PM, <ssr.singh@gmail.com> wrote:Dear Sir,
Views expressed here are balanced. However, in one of your mails your comments vis-a-vis Mr Ksheersagar's letter in response to Ms Zaidi's letter, you have tried to brush aside the answer to the question related to demand of Shariayat as someone's personal/Internal matter.
I have no issue with your viewpoint but many a times you do seem to support Ms Zaidi, Seema Mustafa and many of their ilk beyond required limits and hence I wrote to you.
I respect anyone's view if it is rational and based on healthy logic.
Regards.
SR
Regards,
Post: "indiaresists@lists.riseup.net" Exit: "indiaresists-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net" Quit: "https://lists.riseup.net/www/signoff/indiaresists" Help: https://help.riseup.net/en/list-user WWW : http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.