What Hindus Should be Aware of

I am with you Sri vijisesh Ji. If what all Sowbhagyavathi Kamakshi Ji wants is for me to admit being a 'secularist', to stop this charade, I admit to it.

There - now we all can get on with the business of fruitful discussions that would either throw some light on certain issues or would produce some concrete actions to help our community.

But I want to at least comment on Sowbhagyavathi Chintana Ji's posting above:
I think you have made an interesting observation between the American and Indian culture. However, I also think that Indians have always categorized and named and grouped things - in fact I think we started it all! We split everything in to different things - witness the multiplicity of Jathis and sub Jathis; sects and subsects; and the lists go on forever.

By the way, labeling brings up a scene from the old Sam Peckinpa's western serial, 'The Rifleman', where the hero tells his son:' Mark, there is nothing wrong in labeling! But first make sure, when you label a pickle jar, there are pickles in that jar, not something else!'.

Pranams,
KRS

An interesting story about secularism in U.S.

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1070914/asp/frontpage/story_8316015.asp

Dear Sri Nacchinarkiniyan Ji,

This is an interesting article. But the matter of fact is there is a similar assault on the majority religion in USA (Christians) is going on by a so called 'secular' media and to some extent the 'activist' courts.

They want a Government shorn of any religious background at all. This nation was founded on Judeo Christian principles and the 'secularism' here is the cause of many fights in the political arena (abortion for example).

My view of 'secularism' is the same us what our Maha Periaval had said - I am paraphrasing - 'secularism in India should mean that the Government should treat all religions the same'. It should not mean that the government should promote policies that negate religious values.

Pranams,
KRS

Dear Sri KRS,

But I want to at least comment on Sowbhagyavathi Chintana Ji's posting above:
I think you have made an interesting observation between the American and Indian culture. However, I also think that Indians have always categorized and named and grouped things - in fact I think we started it all! We split everything in to different things - witness the multiplicity of Jathis and sub Jathis; sects and subsects; and the lists go on forever.

Perhaps we started it. But that was a very long time ago. We have come a very long way from a constructive use of philosophy for social good. The current Indian mind set does not tend toward classification - our system of education is built along pre-1947 British lines (and approached with rote memorization and unquestioning attitude; critical thinking is seriously missing) not Vedic lines - that is just my understanding.

The current American attitude is more active than the current Indian one in adopting a systematic approach (a method evolved through consensus) to understanding and utilizing philosophy for social action. Such an attitude relies on classification to enact better social control in all spheres.

As to categorization originating with Indian thought - please recognize that the current Indian mindset does not have enough prosperity and time to think back and analyze calmly the origin and nature of things as they should be. The philosophy of our religion may stand the test of eternal time - but the sociology of it, i.e., the actual practice of it has undergone serious metamorphosis and is fraught with elementary levels of understanding best, given the social pressures of current Indian society.

As I left India comparatively recently I thought that the context should be highlighted. It might help if you infuse some of your fresh ideas with a bit of contextual information such as - this comes from a person who has been away for x number of years, who is now doing y for a career, etc.

It would be erroneous to assume that people of all age groups, gender, socio-economic status and educational background share your views or even your level of understanding. What may be "plain" to you may be a "pain" to others as we are witnessing.

I think this can be effectively sidestepped if you support your theories with possible areas of application. That is just my opinion, of course.

Regards,
Chintana

As long as the Government has control over the Hindu temples, it can not be considered secular. The offerings in Saabari Malai temple goes towards reducing the budget deficit in Kerala. The Marxists have no problem in filling the Devaswom boards with communists.

That way the West Bengal government is better. it does not interfere in any Hindu temple.

Dear all,

First to Sri Vijisesh. I am not ignoring you and do want to address your concern but there are big guns like Sri KRS and Sri Silverfox accusing me unfairly 'labelling' Sri KRS. I cannot ignore that. That is why I posted the last posting. See if I ignore something it would always come back and we have to one day resolve it. I'll come back to you and we have all the time, OK dear?

Now to Sri KRS. You have said:

If what all Sowbhagyavathi Kamakshi Ji wants is for me to admit being a 'secularist', to stop this charade, I admit to it.

Click to expand...

But why this condescension? I didn't say you should admit it. All I asked was if you would deny it! Whatever identity you want to assume, as I said before, is your freedom which is your birth right. Be proud of it. Only guilty people deny their identity. Remember the famous words of Richard Nixon "I am not a crook"?! This 'I am and I am not' attitude not quite good to put it mildly. I can understand why you would want to call it a charade (You would definitely thank Sri Vijisesh for his posting. Comes handy, doesn't it!)

Dear Sow Chintana,

1. Re: Your P.S. II, I expected that the two administrators would speak with one voice. Since you both gave answers to my question, that settles it. I am OK with the answer.

2. Re: P.S.I. You did summarize well and I appreciate your grasp! It is because you are quite objective and I can't say you took sides. What you said are your honest views. Thanks!

3. You have said:

But here is the confusing part - although you say that KRS is a secularist besides having other kinds of identities his secularist identity is the only one you seem to refer to, quite repeatedly in your postings.

Click to expand...

. To clear your confusion, everyone including all of us have a right to don as many identifies in our life. Some identifies fall off by the way side as being irrelevant. Some people hold on to an identity even though they are convinced that it is wrong to hold on to. There are so many reasons for it including vasana, guilt complex etc. For example Bhishma lying on his death bed convinced Karna that he should abandon the Kauravas and join the Pandavas as it would be the right Dharma for him. However Karna said he has to pay 'Senchotru kadan' to Duryodhana. Here is a case where the logic would not be dhaarmic. My husband's friend was a communist leader and my husband convinced him that communism is wrong. Yet his friend would somehow got back into that company by the sheer force of his vasana, his habits etc. Only thing was that he was quite shy of facing my husband again!

While everyone has a right to don as many identities, they also have the right to oppose an identity of others in so far as it is felt harmful. This is merely stemming from the self-preservation of one's own identity which is natural. In this way if I was concerned about Sri KRS's secularist identity I speak about it and as his other identities do not bother me I do not concern myself with them. In fact I could even feel secure with one of his identity viz. being a devotee of Kanchi Matam yet it is not my style to talk of oneness of identities for identifies by their very nature are fickle.

Dear Silverfox, Thanks for your participation!

Dear Nachinaarkiniyaan, do you by any chance have a soft corner for the communists? This just crossed my mind.

Thank you all.

Dear Nachinaarkiniyan (wow it is a long name to type yet I don't want to shorten it!) I take back my comment on you in my last post. I wrote it because the telegraph is a CPM paper. Sorry.

Answered Partly

Dear Kamakshi,

I have to respond to much of your reply later as I am in the middle of doing something else.

I wanted to respond to this part, right now:

"Dear Sow Chintana,

1. Re: Your P.S. II, I expected that the two administrators would speak with one voice. Since you both gave answers to my question, that settles it. I am OK with the answer."

Good. May I suggest that you use a gentler tone while asking questions? It took me quite a bit of effort to not respond sharply to you.

Every question, every confusion can be answered. You are welcome to point out inconsistencies. Please take care to see that you keep your tone even in your postings.

Regards,
Chintana

Dear Kamakshi ji,
Pretty good wrap up of things !
I am amazed to find ur reply which has been justifiable from your side and delivered only after deep cruising into the contents of msgs of your opponent !

Yes as mentioned earlier by some one , perspective matters more than anything else !

Constructive criticism , defending values , getting to know one's true colours should be a valid right of the readers of the forum !

Good one !

Dear Sowbhagyavathi Kamakshi Ji,

'Big gun?'. Hardly. Anyways, I have said all I wanted to say on the subject between us and as far as I am concerned, this matter is closed.

Pranams,
KRS

Thank you Sow Chintana for your suggestion. In return I should suggest that you too take care to be respectful to the members and not flaunt your powers to erase and kick people out. It is no way to run a successful fourm.

Government keep off of Hindu temples!

I agree with Shri Nacchinarkiniyan; The Tamil Nadu government, while professing to be secular (and at the same time pandering to Christians and Muslims), has control over all the temples; even its official seal is a Hindu Temple, for God's sakes!
I wonder if anybody has brought a lawsuit against the TN govenment to keep its dirty hands off of the Hindu temples? I am sure they are also taking in all the money collected thru those 'hundies' (is it what it is called?)

Nacchinarkiniyan said:

As long as the Government has control over the Hindu temples, it can not be considered secular. The offerings in Saabari Malai temple goes towards reducing the budget deficit in Kerala. The Marxists have no problem in filling the Devaswom boards with communists.
That way the West Bengal government is better. it does not interfere in any Hindu temple.

Click to expand...

Dear Kamakshi:
First of all, I hope that while we all are discussing, debating and arguing this issue, we are doing this as a family! We DO belong to the same family of Brahmins, don't we? The point I am trying to make is no matter how much we fight, we have the basic bond and caring for one another as a community. So, none of us should feel slighted. Am I right?

Ok, you are calling me 'big gun'!! wow! Nobody has called me that! I am not sure if it is a compliment! Seriously, I am not a 'big gun' or for that matter a gun at all; guns make me nervous (a little levity there!). When I do my postings, they were based on my own views; the 'Administrator' part doesn't come in at all! You have as much right to say your views as I have.

Why do you think that all administrators have to have the same view? Administrator role comes in only when somebody starts using abusive or crude language or getting into personal insults; otherwise, the administrator has a 'hands-off' policy. Maybe you want to become a moderator of this forum.

Finally, I was completely lost in your postings. It goes to show my ignorance. Could you do me a favor and tell me who YOU consider as a 'SECULARIST'? I would love to hear your definition of a Secularist. Maybe that will clear up my confusion.

Kamakshi said:

Dear all,
First to Sri Vijisesh. I am not ignoring you and do want to address your concern but there are big guns like Sri KRS and Sri Silverfox accusing me unfairly 'labelling' Sri KRS. I cannot ignore that. That is why I posted the last posting. See if I ignore something it would always come back and we have to one day resolve it. I'll come back to you and we have all the time, OK dear?

Now to Sri KRS. You have said: But why this condescension? I didn't say you should admit it. All I asked was if you would deny it! Whatever identity you want to assume, as I said before, is your freedom which is your birth right. Be proud of it. Only guilty people deny their identity. Remember the famous words of Richard Nixon "I am not a crook"?! This 'I am and I am not' attitude not quite good to put it mildly. I can understand why you would want to call it a charade (You would definitely thank Sri Vijisesh for his posting. Comes handy, doesn't it!)

Dear Sow Chintana,

1. Re: Your P.S. II, I expected that the two administrators would speak with one voice. Since you both gave answers to my question, that settles it. I am OK with the answer.

2. Re: P.S.I. You did summarize well and I appreciate your grasp! It is because you are quite objective and I can't say you took sides. What you said are your honest views. Thanks!

3. You have said: . To clear your confusion, everyone including all of us have a right to don as many identifies in our life. Some identifies fall off by the way side as being irrelevant. Some people hold on to an identity even though they are convinced that it is wrong to hold on to. There are so many reasons for it including vasana, guilt complex etc. For example Bhishma lying on his death bed convinced Karna that he should abandon the Kauravas and join the Pandavas as it would be the right Dharma for him. However Karna said he has to pay 'Senchotru kadan' to Duryodhana. Here is a case where the logic would not be dhaarmic. My husband's friend was a communist leader and my husband convinced him that communism is wrong. Yet his friend would somehow got back into that company by the sheer force of his vasana, his habits etc. Only thing was that he was quite shy of facing my husband again!

While everyone has a right to don as many identities, they also have the right to oppose an identity of others in so far as it is felt harmful. This is merely stemming from the self-preservation of one's own identity which is natural. In this way if I was concerned about Sri KRS's secularist identity I speak about it and as his other identities do not bother me I do not concern myself with them. In fact I could even feel secure with one of his identity viz. being a devotee of Kanchi Matam yet it is not my style to talk of oneness of identities for identifies by their very nature are fickle.

Dear Silverfox, Thanks for your participation!

Dear Nachinaarkiniyaan, do you by any chance have a soft corner for the communists? This just crossed my mind.

Thank you all.

Click to expand...

Dear Nacchinarkiniyan:
I completely agree with your observations; -- as a member of this Forum and not as an Administrator! I DO have my own views.
I am so pissed off at the newspaper "The Hindu", I wrote a letter to Mr. Ram, the Communist, (except he would like to have all the bourgeois comforts) asking him to change the name of the newspaper because it insults us, Hindus. Never heard from him!

Who is M. V. Kamath?

Nacchinarkiniyan said:

The strict definition of secularism as per the dictionary is

The other definition is

Strictly according to this India is not a Secular republic.

None of our politicians are Secular according to this.

The political parties in India have written their own definition.

I remember M.V. Kamath saying long time back " In India if a christian goes to the Church, he is a good Christian, if a Muslim goes to the Mosque , he is a good Muslim, but if a Hindu goes to the temple he is communalist."

All Parties in India including Muslim league or even Madani's party are secular. Only BJP is communal. This definition is accepted by the entire Media especially the English newspapers led by "The Hindu".

Indian intellectuals not only join the politicians in this but also vie with each other in this game.

The term for this is Intellectual Prostitution which is worse than the body kind.

I have to use this as this is the only word which suits these people.

This seems irrelevant here. If others want it I will delete it.

Click to expand...

Dear Silverfox,

If I had inadvertantly hurt your feelings I am sorry.

Regards,
Kamakshi

You DID NOT hurt my feelings?

Oh,No, Kamakshi, by any extent, you NEVER hurt my feelings! Whatever gave you that idea? No way! Besides, you didn't say anything hurtful anyway!
I was just writing to you as I would to my little sister or a niece! Please don't even think about it!

Kamakshi said:

Dear Silverfox,

If I had inadvertantly hurt your feelings I am sorry.

Regards,
Kamakshi

Click to expand...

Kamakshi said:

Thank you Sow Chintana for your suggestion. In return I should suggest that you too take care to be respectful to the members and not flaunt your powers to erase and kick people out. It is no way to run a successful fourm.

Click to expand...

I am perfectly aware of the standards that we at the admin try to enforce in this forum.

Have you followed all of my exchanges with Amoorkan? I mean from the start of this thread.


Regards,
Chintana

Sure I did. And I consider the discussion on this matter with you will not be productive. Wish you all the best.

Kamakshi said:

Sure I did. And I consider the discussion on this matter with you will not be productive. Wish you all the best.

Click to expand...

I am sorry you think so.

If you did indeed follow all the exchanges you would have noticed that Amoorkan was spreading awareness about the threat to Hinduism. I asked that he suggest action plans that will help us deal with the situation.

Because without those action plans his views were starting to sound very sectarian. Besides it was creating a sense of helplessness about the situation.

He did not want to do that. He just wanted to create "awareness". He was upset that we didn't let him be.

After reading this history if it was not evident to you that what I tried to establish was the forum related objectives I really dont know what to say.

I assure you that I am not desperately seeking ego-fulfillment by stepping on the shoes of others. I don't need this forum for ego reasons. As I mentioned elsewhere this is purely service. And one cannot satisfy everybody at all times, as I am learning.

If my strong sense of logic is misunderstood as "egoistic" I wish to state upfront that that is not my problem. If anyone finds it hard to counter my arguments that person would do well to polish up on logical thinking skills before pointing fingers at me.

So please be careful next time before you accuse me of "misusing" my "powers". And I will hope that your subsequent efforts to point out mistakes will be delivered in a gentler tone.

Regards,

Chintana

What's the news today?

vijisesh said:

TO ALL THOSE WHO ARE INTERESTED !

There is a Slim line , demarcating " STRONG SENSE OF LOGIC" from " BEING EGOISTIC" and in my humble view, this space gets more and more wider in the reader's minds and the motive of the poster gets pretty apparent when they begin defending the same stance over and over again and Re-emphasizing and forcing their views / logic , so called here , on some body !

It would have been Suffice to say that " People get carried away at times !" or " I have been completely misunderstood !" or " please try and make an attempt to look at my view points " ----- I don't have the least of doubts that there are numerous phrases that can be coined in English / tamilish , rather , to get a polite msg out ! , WHICH SHALL BE WELCOMED BY ALL !

EVERYBODY is CAREFUL in this world , and follow the regulations of SAFETY or else they could get RAMMED over by a speeding vehicle !
Very few need to be lectured / need a warning on this !

Also NO ONE CAN CONSIDER/ PROCLAIM HIMSELF TO BE A GOD / EMPEROR / DICTATOR in this Free world , repeatedly over-reacting over trivial things!

DISCLAIMER : The thoughts above are purely mine , not aimed at any individual and do not mean any harm to anyone !

Click to expand...

Thank you for your views.

Chintana

Jai shree Ram !

Dear Sri vijisesh Ji,

When you say "None of the 100 postings of mine have any quote from vedas or our religion ! I don't know much to quote", I have to disagree.

Initially I thought, along with probably some others in this Forum that you did not know any of our scriptures, but lo and behold, I have seen a smattering of quotes in the way of paraphrasing, even from Srimad Bhagavad Gita.

Pranams,
KRS

On Moderating and Moderators

Dear all,

Recent misunderstandings with a couple of posters has prompted me to write this message. Please take whatever applies to you - if it doesn't apply please let it go. You will do us a favor.

(In response to previous Vijisesh's posting)

Taunting me into a reply, Vijisesh?

Alright, here goes… (this one time…I don’t know if I will respond to such stimulations in the future).

My earlier message (the maroon italics) was a response to Kamakshi. But since you have also responded I will address you too.

Please remember that your interactions with moderators in the forum sets the standards for all others to follow. Respecting people in general is part of the objectives of this forum. More specifically, if you respect your moderators in your language the people who come here will know that there are certain values that are upheld in this forum. We demand respect and politeness not for our ego satisfaction but to form the basis for a community. People when they come here should think that they will be respected here, no matter how divergent their views. If we don’t have a show of respect for one another we don’t have a community. We should wind up the show and go home (and continue to be abused and powerless against the oppressive political system).

We at the admin work very hard to ensure this by being fair to everyone. I know I have disagreed with several posters about their views but have done my best to treat them with the same respect I treat myself. Also as a moderator I value transparency in my actions. The posters should always know how the moderating takes place – for this reason I do not delete any of my postings. The good decisions exist along-side the not-so good ones. There have been times when I have been tempted to pull down a message that I was not particularly proud of. But I let everything stand to show that I am not perfect, to show I am human and most importantly to show that one can do a conscientious job despite not being perfect.

All of us are volunteers, sincere and committed to this cause. We ensure that we treat all of the posters with respect and dignity although we find many of them unreasonable and unwilling to listen and change. We take care to ensure that our language reflects decorum at all times.

Unfortunately not all posters treat us the same way. Many throw stones in the form of words, and baseless allegations. When that happens we are always stumped about what to do – “If I react will I be seen as argumentative?”, “If I don’t react will the posters think that there is no fairness in this forum?”, “Will they think the moderators themselves are not able to exercise a good sense of judgment – so what can we expect here?” – These are some of the questions that go through my mind before I react. I highlight this to show that my reactions you see in the forum are part of my job – i.e., answers to considered questions. Not some kind of an egoistic ride as it is made out to be. My reactions come out of practicing a conscious alignment of all of our actions with the objectives of the forum.

When posters provoke us by implying that we are not prompt and effective (using language in bad taste; utterly disrespectful) do they expect us to keep quiet? Just put yourselves in our shoes for one moment before you throw things at us. If we keep quiet posters have to understand we are setting a bad precedent in this forum. If the moderator successfully defends herself then she is egoistic. If she explains she is not egoistic then she is overreacting. I understand I cannot please everyone. However I will continue to do what is fair in my assessment – including protecting my self-respect. I came here to serve you all, not to let you abuse me.

Every individual, when attacked has the right to defend. Even the legal system upholds this. Instead of asking us explanations for our actions when posters describe our actions as “misuse of power” without stating the basis for such reasoning – we have no choice – I have no choice - but to find out if there is any basis for this. If such allegations are baseless then such words are an utter disregard for the service that the moderators are doing for this forum.

I don’t want accolades. I just wanted to be treated fairly. And that includes a right to defend myself if you provoke me.

Posters, if it turns out that the error was on your part, you will do everybody a great service if you just say – “I am sorry – it won't happen again.” That would be the end of the discussion. We can all move on and hope that nasty thing won’t happen again. If you find that the moderator is upholding an objective of the forum and you are in error just say sorry - please, please don't argue. Such argument is a sign of your ego, not the moderators'.


I mentioned all this because some might think that we are out here sitting pretty and enjoying passing random rules on posters. NOT TRUE!!! Every single decision is in accordance with what we want to achieve here. More can be done surely. But what we are currently doing is not off-track. All of us at the admin do our bit to ensure this.


Regards,


Chintana

I do not reply to most of the threads, but that doesnt mean i dont read them.
In many cases if a moderator/admin doesnt respond, the member(s) react as if we have made a mistake. I assure you thats not the case. We simply do not want to have a tit-for-tat argument session.

Certain threads require a reply and certain dont warrant one.

Arguing just takes up your time and our time. And these could be spent on various things.

For example: you could help us in letting people know about this website.

Do note, this website/forum wasnt started for fun. It was started for a purpose and all of us here are working towards that.

It would take us just a matter of minutes to close down this and move on with our routine lives... But thats not what we want to do. We are in a stage where the odds are stacked against us. And we must be able to standup against what is being thrown at us and not bow down.

Best of all, we need a place where we can discuss various issues we are facing in our daily life withour being censored.

As chintana, so far we have not censored anything (unless its deemed necessary) and we would like to keep it that way. But that requires everyone's cooperation. We must learn to be tolerant with one another and within the community. Otherwise, all the hard work is of no use.

Moreover, the admin team is not something that is inaccessible. At various times, we have met a lot of the members face to face and we would love to meet up with you and find out your ideas/views in person.
So that we know you are and you know who we are