Implications of Logic versus Faith in Modern Society

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear Sesh (me taking liberty of friendly addressing since am certain you will not mind (you are around my age)),

No worries... I am named so that people could address me so...

Have had all sorts of friends since adolosecence, including a few deviants. Not many have succeeded in influencing the other, though the attempts to do so exist (esp when we think / presume that we are trying to help the other person in making a better life). That one hangs out with the other for pleasure of their company does not mean they need to succeed in influencing the other in any way at all.

no comments on your personal stuff.... but have personally seen many of my own friends get waylaid... all heady stuff... there are examples of both kinds...

Haven't we all held our own, no matter what we have seen or known in a society? But i do not understand a 'degrading society'.

who are the all? and how have they behaved? can it be generalized then, to the effect, that they too share our same thoughts?

I have explained the meaning of degraded society in my reply to Shri KRS.

For your other query too, pls find the reply as mentioned above.

 

[happyhindu]

Sesh,

no comments on your personal stuff.... but have personally seen many of my own friends get waylaid... all heady stuff... there are examples of both kinds...

who are the all? and how have they behaved? can it be generalized then, to the effect, that they too share our same thoughts?

Yes very true...there are always examples of both kinds. When i say 'we all held our own', it referes to all of us who hang out here. All the time while growing up, each one of us shd have had things that wud have swayed us, tempted us, and so on. Sometimes we wud have gone for it, sometimes we did not. Sometimes we did and then found the way back. However, all of us had the choice of freewill to decide.

If someone did succumb to their 'heady stuff' would you have blamed the movies that influenced him, the booze for not having low alcohol content, the friends that influenced him, the parents that did not 'control' or raise the kid well enuf, the siblings that did not do enuf to guide, the girlfriend that did not show enuf commitment to hold him back, the pets at home that did not cuddle up with him enuf, and so on....

Where did his own role go? Do we need people to tell us how we should live?

 

[KRS]

Dear Srimathi HH Ji,

I don't understand what exactly you are saying. But if I am a party to clarifying anything, I welcome it.

Regards,
KRS

Dear Sri KRS-ji,

Perhaps unknowingly, you have clarified my spider-web as a guru and guide again...Thankyou.

 

[happyhindu]

How much would a layman in a civil society be willing to tolerate political interference in faith? Obviously legally there is no difference between faith from religion. So, for practical purposes the inference is the word religion here.

Just curious - how many people are willing to tolerate politics being made out of religion? Both ways - pro and con.

What thriving business entities rabid men in the guise of politicians have created out there:

a) atheism-based political parties like Dravida Kazhagams
b) religion-based political parties such as Muslim League
c) missionary-encouraging political parties that turn a blind eye to vandalization of hindu scriptures like the Congress
d) anti-religion parties such as Communists
e) hindutva-based political parties like BJP
f) so-called 'parivars' that seek some sorta exclusive 'family,
g) trashcan senas called Ram Sena, Durga Sena, Shiv Sena..then there are monkey brigades like Bajrang Dal ..

Do these help in better living conditions for anyone at all?

I might think that some people on this corner of webspace might be supporting or having a soft-corner for pro-hindu parties here.

Are we allowing ourselves to become emotional fools by letting these things take control of our lives? So if one talks about birth-based reservations, they get a chance to make business out of caste-based reservations...what purpose does all this serve to the common man at all?

Not sure if this sounds rude. Am actually rambling with a strange mix of frustration and wonderment...

 

[s007bala]

re

>>what purpose does all this serve to the common man at all?<<

Its becoz common man in India,is illiterate plus poverty breaking his peace of mind,he is oblivious to these retarded leaders.The educated are so selfish,that they look into their interest first.The political leaders opine,that they are doing a favor to common man,under the circumstances.The religious leaders are with their own blind spots.:twitch:.

:jaw:sb ainkiller:

 

[happyhindu]

Add the fact that these politicians are 2 kinds:

1) The ones that do not know hindu faith but are out to protect it (bjp, bajrang dal, useless senas, etc).

2) The ones that do not know hindu faith but are out to destroy it (dravida kazhagams, communists, etc).

While obvioulsy religion is just a tool these guys use to abuse the sensibilities of the masses; the biggest prob is these politicians are essentially in plain and simple terms just goondas.

 

[s007bala]

re

Add the fact that these politicians are 2 kinds:

1) The ones that do not know hindu faith but are out to protect it (bjp, bajrang dal, useless senas, etc).

2) The ones that do not know hindu faith but are out to destroy it (dravida kazhagams, communists, etc).

While obvioulsy religion is just a tool these guys use to abuse the sensibilities of the masses; the biggest prob is these politicians are essentially in plain and simple terms just goondas.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2009/02/13/VI2009021302500.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Pure and simple economic conditions plus civil treatment as 'Indians first' is the future slogan,if the country has to get rid of violence as a means to acheive prosperity.Otherwise,the internal cancer,will spread the rot sooner than later.

While the dravidian parties are holding religion responsible for the decay,the root cause is education.Nothing to do with religion.The dravidian parties have become corrupt and can no longer blame tamil brahmins as the cause of untouchability and rot in society.

While the hindutva parties blame of alien cultural invasion as the cause of rot,is no better.The BJP had clear mandate once,but did not build the Rama Mandir in Ayodhya.Only Indian Hindus are made to sacrifice their faith,for fear of Abrahamic Faiths clout in the world.This fear will end sooner than later,if religious leaders act on their conscience.

Faith with logical dispensation,will enhance religious tolerance.

sb

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri SS Ji,

Thank you for your detailed answers. Your answers intrigue me. Let me respond in 'red' below:

Shri KRSji,

I am not concluding, rather emphasising the nature of things here... I dont think India has a law on cultural identities... yes certainly, they are not allowed to act outside the law... what am stressing here is that illegitimate situations are natural; it just depends on the situation...

But you are extrapolating here - The act by itself (here killing) is seen as justice in certain cases and a murder in others... So, does it gain sanctity if it is imposed in the name of justice? I think no one can generalize whether killing is good or bad...
Ofcouse one can justify - this is the main essence of Gita. A society has the right to take away one's life. A judge so powered is justified to pass a death sentence. In a proper war, a soldier is justified in killing the enemy. In all these cases, 'justice' flows from Dharma and that is why there is no Karmaphala attached to them in those instances. Killing outside of these sanctions is not justified by any means.

How can there be boundaries when religion is defined as a way of living?
This is an excellent question/observation. But in a modern society, there ought to be boundaries between the civic society and religion. For example, if our Shastras are strictly followed, we would not have ant contacts with 'mlecchas' as brahmins. Yet we mix with all kinds of people from all different religions at work, which is about 50% or more of our waking time. Do we bring our religion there? We appreciate 'civic' arts, like the movies, drama, poetry readings, concerts, pop culture, etc. They do not have any religious connection. We vote for a person who we believe is a good representative of the entire community we live in, irrespective of their religion. So your question essentially stemming from thinking that Sanatana Dharma is today practiced as it was practiced during vedic times. It's practice has drastically changed.

People simply do not react to a mindless person's words... if that had been the case, we would have only riots all around, for there is no dearth of MPs (mindless persons) in India. It is only when they perceive a hidden threat, that reactions arise.
It is not a question of whether the other person is 'mindless' or a 'scholor'. Words can not be a threat. Words are there to be debated and counter argued with proper deliberation. It is as bad if some people in support of someone's words raise up against other people in an illegal manner.

Probably, I have not changed my view yet...... and hence the likeness... You see, any t, d and h can say something, but yet get away under the guise of free expression... agreed, it is the constitutional right and one can be positive and all that... If my neighbour is constantly harassing me with mindless words, I can only tolerate for a certain period...
Yes. But then there are laws against harrassment. 'Harrass' him with words back. It is always a two way street. With anyone when one stops listening, they would stop talking. Only when people pay attention to any words, more words come out. But unless we defend the right for anyone to say anything under the sun, we will quickly be dancing to the restrictions by the 'authority', that none of us wants. Problem with 'moral' and 'obscene' laws are that unless they are very specific, they can lead us down the slippery road. By the way, I am still waiting to hear what 'moral fabric' is disturbed?

Yes, I would advocate that... in the current scenario.
So are you advocating a lawless society? Are you saying , for example that when there is a terrorist act by a muslim, in retaliation the 'hindu community' can kill innocent muslims?

A society that does not respect its inborn culture is a degrading one...

Anything that does display outwardly disrespect for the culture is " not giving value to cultures"...

There is a separate thread on culture and brahmins where I had tried to express my views on culture...
Yes, I read your postings. But again, please define the 'inborn' culture. How long a culture need to exist to be 'inborn'. Is this culture static and not changing? Who is showing 'disrespect' to this culture? What is 'alien' and 'indegenous' culture?

Am not arguing for anybody here... just stating why it happens... Me writing on this forum about any rights is not gonna alter anything.
Yes, true. But it shows what you think. Morality can never be imposed. It has to be observed inwardly by people. By the way the way you think is the very reason the women everywhere are even today are suffering in almost 75% of the countries in the world!

How does it evolve without being imposed... you see, that is the fundamental error in your premise... You set a rule or an act or a policy and then refine it over time... So impositions are but natural... It is the reaction and feedback which refines it over time.

For the one who opposes it is an imposition, for one who agrees, it is a matter of consensus...
This is not a logical statement. We have 'impostions' called 'laws' in the civic society. This is why in an informed democracy there is a mechanism to develop consensus. What you are talking about is a vision some of the Hindutva people have in their minds as to what our religion should be and then they try to impose it on others. Please look up at the word 'consensus'. What you mean is not 'consensus' but 'imposition'.

Again, please define whay you mean by the indegenous 'moral fabric'. I will show you why your argument is not valid.

I meant free expression and religion.
Again I partly disagree with you. Yes, free expression and religion do not go together well when we talk about the Abrahamic Religions. Judaism did not allow Jesus to speak. Christianity killed many, including noted scientists - their world was flat till aquinas inserted logic and science as a part of their religion. Do I need to talk about Islam?

But Hinduism grew up under free expression. Buddha was allowed to 'preach' till he died of ripe old age. Shankaracharya defeated the Purva Mimamsins(who dominated Hinduism) in open debates without fear for His life, Ramanuja converted a score of his desciples in to Brahmins without fear and so on. This is the grand heritage of our religion and free speech. With our religion they are not double edged sword, without one the other one would not exist. Please read a book called 'The argumentative Indian' bt Amrita Sen where he forwards a case of the free expressions role within Hinduism and vice versa.

You need to think a bit about this.

Regards,
KRS

Thanks,
Seshadri

 

[KRS]

Folks,

With respect to what we have been discussing here, please find the links below. Do these 'moral police' know that the 'Valentine's Day's' concept did not originate in the West? As usual they are wrongly believing that the land of Kalidasa, Vatsayana and Thruvalluvar is the land of Victorian morals! If only they read up and understand our grand culture on love where we made it a science! Saint Valentine did what many of our forefathers did. Assist in making love marriages happen.

By the way, another mis-conception of theirs is that Valentined day is for the unmarried lovers. It is for anyone who wants to recognize a special person, irrespective of sex or role. For example, one's valentine may be his grandfather. Instead of trying to understand this and adopting it (how about a 'Manmadhan' day?), these people are making themselves an animal used by the dhobiwalas.

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/001200902141121.htm
http://www.theage.com.au/world/no-love-lost-in-attacks-on-indias-valentines-20090215-884x.html

Only a sample!

Regards,
KRS

 

[happyhindu]

Its sorta well known that the best way to peace is either meditation or making love. They wrote treatises like kamasutra so that tehre is choice...its like taking a pick of wht one likes, depending on the needs of a given time.

Boys (men actually) become so ecstatic when they watch Irfan and Yusuf Pathan weaving magic on the cricket ground these days. Surely nobody is becoming any less indian by taking pride in a fellow indian.

Btw, this is a nice song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8oAGvFxevw&feature=channel_page (i don't condemn, i don't convert, love is my religion..)..

 

[[email protected]]

SriHHji, yes two type Politicions. One will sent to domolish a worship place, and aonother will watch with out doing any thing. Communisits sent Bangaladesh Musilims to demolish and Congress silent and watch another BJP keep quite and not refused or accpected it's role, but every one on 6th dec knows it is a political game. Every party want to take advantage from these kind of acts. S.R.K.

 

[malgova.mango]

it is a pity intellectuals, that too modern ones, they only pick on these ugly incidents.

hey u love , you kiss you do whatever you want , but please don't do that in public and that too in broad daylights this is what we want.

please celebrate valentines day , afterall love is god. but in the name of love don't do indecent exposure in public that too in daylight. this culture india doesn't want. they want to freely move with their kids without any embrassement.

the media is insensitive to all these, so some conservative people react. don't silence them , already one can't watch tv with kids now.

 

[s007bala]

re

it is a pity intellectuals, that too modern ones, they only pick on these ugly incidents./quote]

Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder

[quote ,hey u love , you kiss you do whatever you want , but please don't do that in public and that too in broad daylights this is what we want./quote]

Lack of space plus privacy at home,makes these happen.Youngsters want to have fun,that is all.

[quote ,please celebrate valentines day , afterall love is god. but in the name of love don't do indecent exposure in public that too in daylight. this culture india doesn't want. they want to freely move with their kids without any embrassement./quote]

Indian culture had its highs and lows,isn't it?If we visit our temples,the eroticity of the sculptures,turns me on,even today.Maybe its just me,as i get the stimulii immdly,by visual depiction.While its wholistic art.

[quote ,the media is insensitive to all these, so some conservative people react. don't silence them , already one can't watch tv with kids now./quote]

Sex education,should be taught to children.As most of the education format in India,is borrowed from western culture.That is why there is a disconnect.TV programs have censor board.If concerted effort is taken to protest,such programs will not be allowed during prime time.At least in the west,all adult programs are after 12.00 PM,when most kids are tucked into bed.Playboy,Hustler,Porn Websites are doing roaring biz in USA,despite the fact,western culture is more humane,in human infedility.

This is just my opinion,i mean no ill will to folks in India or anyone in bhu-lokam.

sb:hug:

 

[KRS]

No one is arguing for vulgar public conduct. If there are laws broken, then the concerned should be hauled off to the jail. If there are no laws, impress on the authorities to pass such laws. One inspector in UP who hauled off a couple to book, found that there are no laws against them being together!

What is at issue is the goonda conduct of a few. No one has the right to interfere in another person's conduct as long as it does not violate the law.

Regards,
KRS

it is a pity intellectuals, that too modern ones, they only pick on these ugly incidents.

hey u love , you kiss you do whatever you want , but please don't do that in public and that too in broad daylights this is what we want.

please celebrate valentines day , afterall love is god. but in the name of love don't do indecent exposure in public that too in daylight. this culture india doesn't want. they want to freely move with their kids without any embrassement.

the media is insensitive to all these, so some conservative people react. don't silence them , already one can't watch tv with kids now.

 

[KRS]

Another shocking incidence of Goondaism, involving the very people who are supposed to hold up the sanctity of law. I think the country is going to pots!

http://www.rediff.com/news/2009/feb/17subramanian-swamy-assaulted-in-madras-high-court.htm

Regards,
KRS

 

[happyhindu]

KRS-ji,

Goons masquerading as lawyers is not new. Hope SS will fight this to the finish. It looks very set up by those DK, PMK, goon-loaded useless kazhagams. The country has already gone to the dogs.

 

[KRS]

Yes. As a friend of mine, a long practicing lawyer at Madras HC told me, there are no more lawyers - only goons at the HC. Apparently the DK parties have people at the law school, living and eating at the college cafeteria for years!

It is scary - TN is viewed as one of the top few ably administered states in the nation!

Regards,
KRS

KRS-ji,

Goons masquerading as lawyers is not new. Hope SS will fight this to the finish. It looks very set up by those DK, PMK, goon-loaded useless kazhagams. The country has already gone to the dogs.

 

[KRS]

Another day, another 'honor' killing. Even the so called 'educated' when under 'stress' resort to the animalistic instinct and blame it on religion (in this case, I do not exactly know what this religion teaches).

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02142009/news/regionalnews/buffalo_beheading_155151.htm

Regards,
KRS

 

[s007bala]

re

>>The country has already gone to the dogs.<<

Dogs are the most faithful of all animals.Representative of Kala Bhairavar.Dog when anagrammed becomes God.So Indians have gone to gods..which is faith full and logical.

sb:amen:

 

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

Shri KRS,

Ofcouse one can justify - this is the main essence of Gita. A society has the right to take away one's life. A judge so powered is justified to pass a death sentence. In a proper war, a soldier is justified in killing the enemy. In all these cases, 'justice' flows from Dharma and that is why there is no Karmaphala attached to them in those instances. Killing outside of these sanctions is not justified by any means.

There you are! Now comes the question of Dharma – of Raja dharma… if a king does not use his power righteously to uphold dharma, anarchy would follow.

This is an excellent question/observation. But in a modern society, there ought to be boundaries between the civic society and religion. For example, if our Shastras are strictly followed, we would not have ant contacts with 'mlecchas' as brahmins. Yet we mix with all kinds of people from all different religions at work, which is about 50% or more of our waking time. Do we bring our religion there? We appreciate 'civic' arts, like the movies, drama, poetry readings, concerts, pop culture, etc. They do not have any religious connection. We vote for a person who we believe is a good representative of the entire community we live in, irrespective of their religion. So your question essentially stemming from thinking that Sanatana Dharma is today practiced as it was practiced during vedic times. It's practice has drastically changed.

Nay. You interpret me too literally here – it is all in the psyche. Shasthras do say about occupations for brahmins in changing society. Laws change according to the change in society, but not dharma. That is the essence here. Yes, we have degraded to a certain extent, but improved on other aspects ie., the material. The life as prescribed in the shasthras are more inclined to the pursuit of a spiritual…

It is not a question of whether the other person is 'mindless' or a 'scholor'. Words can not be a threat. Words are there to be debated and counter argued with proper deliberation. It is as bad if some people in support of someone's words raise up against other people in an illegal manner.

Thoughts and words are the cause of action. Action is the result – the momentum being the words and the origin being the thought.

Yes. But then there are laws against harrassment. 'Harrass' him with words back. It is always a two way street. With anyone when one stops listening, they would stop talking. Only when people pay attention to any words, more words come out. But unless we defend the right for anyone to say anything under the sun, we will quickly be dancing to the restrictions by the 'authority', that none of us wants. Problem with 'moral' and 'obscene' laws are that unless they are very specific, they can lead us down the slippery road. By the way, I am still waiting to hear what 'moral fabric' is disturbed?

Again, you advocate what you feel is right – this may not suit all. We have to consider all feelings when contemplating on a situation and are being judgemental.

Morality defines what is right and wrong in the current society. It has many roots, the most prominent of all being religion. Whatever morality prescribed in our religion is being shredded now due to the inaction of the state to uphold dharma.

So are you advocating a lawless society? Are you saying , for example that when there is a terrorist act by a muslim, in retaliation the 'hindu community' can kill innocent muslims?

No, your inference is wrong. What I mean to say is that when the state is impotent, people have to defend themselves, their rights and identity. Revolution would not have happened in history, if people were also inactive.

I would say – kill the offender.

Yes, I read your postings. But again, please define the 'inborn' culture. How long a culture need to exist to be 'inborn'. Is this culture static and not changing? Who is showing 'disrespect' to this culture? What is 'alien' and 'indegenous' culture?

Are you parrying words with me here? There is an element of dynamism and fixedness in any culture. When the fixedness is threatened to be rooted, there is bound to be a natural reaction.

I would leave the rest of your queries for you to figure out.

Yes, true. But it shows what you think. Morality can never be imposed. It has to be observed inwardly by people. By the way the way you think is the very reason the women everywhere are even today are suffering in almost 75% of the countries in the world!

Morality is imposed and also depends of the individual bent of mind. Left to themselves, individuals probably would not want any laws or moral code – but as a collective grouping of individual beings ie., society, we do need them.

It seems that my intention is far too beyond your grasp – you simply seem to extrapolate thoughts to specific examples. See, any thought can be used to bend or straighten. It is how we use it that the inference lies with.

This is not a logical statement. We have 'impostions' called 'laws' in the civic society. This is why in an informed democracy there is a mechanism to develop consensus. What you are talking about is a vision some of the Hindutva people have in their minds as to what our religion should be and then they try to impose it on others. Please look up at the word 'consensus'. What you mean is not 'consensus' but 'imposition'.

Consensus of what? When laws by themselves are not practiced as they ought to be, a consensus can never be achieved.

I think you have conjured up a vision of me as a hardcore hindutva and hence your postings reflect an opposite view without trying to understand the point am trying to make.

I think I have used the words correctly – I meant both consensus and imposition

Again, please define whay you mean by the indegenous 'moral fabric'. I will show you why your argument is not valid.

I have replied to this earlier.

I meant free expression and religion.
Again I partly disagree with you. Yes, free expression and religion do not go together well when we talk about the Abrahamic Religions. Judaism did not allow Jesus to speak. Christianity killed many, including noted scientists - their world was flat till aquinas inserted logic and science as a part of their religion. Do I need to talk about Islam?

But Hinduism grew up under free expression. Buddha was allowed to 'preach' till he died of ripe old age. Shankaracharya defeated the Purva Mimamsins(who dominated Hinduism) in open debates without fear for His life, Ramanuja converted a score of his desciples in to Brahmins without fear and so on. This is the grand heritage of our religion and free speech. With our religion they are not double edged sword, without one the other one would not exist. Please read a book called 'The argumentative Indian' bt Amrita Sen where he forwards a case of the free expressions role within Hinduism and vice versa.

Free speech has its syntax – one cannot blasphemise simply because one believes in another train of thought. Buddha, Ramanuja and Shankaracharya and the other greats lived their life by what they preached.

What we see now is nowhere related to free speech – it is but an expression of arrogant minds.

You need to think a bit about this.

Believe me, I thought about this long and hard. I have reflected long before opining here.

Regards,
Seshadri

 

[KRS]

Thank you for taking time and answer. My response in 'red'.

Shri KRS,

There you are! Now comes the question of Dharma – of Raja dharma… if a king does not use his power righteously to uphold dharma, anarchy would follow.

Yes, but the King has long been dead. Have you noticed? It is now we, the people who elect the King. As the famous saying goes, people desrve their leaders. This is why the Kings of todat truly reflect their subjects (majority) wishes. People can always vote them out. You need to think this through.

Nay. You interpret me too literally here – it is all in the psyche. Shasthras do say about occupations for brahmins in changing society. Laws change according to the change in society, but not dharma. That is the essence here. Yes, we have degraded to a certain extent, but improved on other aspects ie., the material. The life as prescribed in the shasthras are more inclined to the pursuit of a spiritual…

You are contradicting yourself here. If life as prescribed by the Shastras is mainly for the pursuit of spiritual and as the Varna Dharma conditions are gone (Brahmins are not supposed to work for money, which was a major Brahminic Dharmic code), the question arises are those edicts based on Varna Dharma in our Shastras applicable today, where the whole Varna system is gone? When you say 'Dharma', it seems to me you go back to the Purva Mimamsa concept of Varna Dharma and what Karma Kanda says. Gita provides 3 other paths to Moksha. Are they not equally seperate and relevant and more attuned to today's society?

Thoughts and words are the cause of action. Action is the result – the momentum being the words and the origin being the thought.
Understood. So one can put a person behind bars for just thinking about killing someone or put ex US President Carter behind bars because once he admitted to having some impure thaoughts about a woman?
Again, you advocate what you feel is right – this may not suit all. We have to consider all feelings when contemplating on a situation and are being judgemental.

Morality defines what is right and wrong in the current society. It has many roots, the most prominent of all being religion. Whatever morality prescribed in our religion is being shredded now due to the inaction of the state to uphold dharma.
This is where your argument, as I pointed out falls down. Our laws are based on morality, as ACCEPTED by everyone. Religious morality are by themselves paramount and absolute. Otherwise we would still be having Sathi, child marriages, animal sacrifices, mis treatment of widows etc. One faulty assumption of yours in all this is that ALL of our fore fathers were saints and to be venerated. There were rascals then as they are now as they will be. This is why the morals of the society change according to the times, that chage with changing civilizational needs.

No, your inference is wrong. What I mean to say is that when the state is impotent, people have to defend themselves, their rights and identity. Revolution would not have happened in history, if people were also inactive.

I would say – kill the offender.
No, my inference is right on. Instead of working within the constitutional and legal framework, which can be changed with effort, you are advocating a vigilante system. This will what lead to anarchy.

Again, killing the offender on the outside of the legal system is clearly adharmic.
Are you parrying words with me here? There is an element of dynamism and fixedness in any culture. When the fixedness is threatened to be rooted, there is bound to be a natural reaction.

I would leave the rest of your queries for you to figure out.
No, I am not playing with words here. So show you disdain about what you want to conserve with political action. If such practices are useful today for the majority of the society, you will succeed. Otherwise you are defending some practices that have little relevance today. Nostalgia about these practices when the society considers them as useless will not be enough to protect them.

Morality is imposed and also depends of the individual bent of mind. Left to themselves, individuals probably would not want any laws or moral code – but as a collective grouping of individual beings ie., society, we do need them.

It seems that my intention is far too beyond your grasp – you simply seem to extrapolate thoughts to specific examples. See, any thought can be used to bend or straighten. It is how we use it that the inference lies with.
I have a totally different view about a person's born nature. Only Avidya makes us bad. I am not saying we do not need the moral codes - my only point is a democratic society has allowed for that.

I am afraid you are not following my point either - Action is punishable because you can institute standards for it (you murder, you assault, you steal etc). What standards one can apply to the effects of a speech, an article? How does one prove that it is damaging?

Consensus of what? When laws by themselves are not practiced as they ought to be, a consensus can never be achieved.
No reason to throw the baby with the bath water. As the society improves, this will improve. No reason to dump it, because the alternative is unthinkable.
I think you have conjured up a vision of me as a hardcore hindutva and hence your postings reflect an opposite view without trying to understand the point am trying to make.
I am sorry if you feel that way. The reason I am conversing with you like this, spending my time (and yours) is because I think you are an independent thinker. I know who the hardcore Hidutva folks are in this Forum, believe me I have ceased talking with them long time ago.

I think I have used the words correctly – I meant both consensus and imposition

I have replied to this earlier.

Free speech has its syntax – one cannot blasphemise simply because one believes in another train of thought. Buddha, Ramanuja and Shankaracharya and the other greats lived their life by what they preached.

What we see now is nowhere related to free speech – it is but an expression of arrogant minds.
Believe me, I thought about this long and hard. I have reflected long before opining here.
Yes, free speech sometimes is wile. But believe me, common folks understand how to seperate it from 'good' free speech. People are smarter than you think. Unless you put it out there, for everyone to see and react, it will go underground where only the sympathizers will read them. In every closed society this has happened.

This is the reason why speech and ideas should not be censored in a free society, which can and will throw the thrash out. We need a thinking society that knows the difference between evil and good.

Regards,
KRS

Regards,
Seshadri

 

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

Shri KRS,

Yes, but the King has long been dead. Have you noticed? It is now we, the people who elect the King. As the famous saying goes, people desrve their leaders. This is why the Kings of todat truly reflect their subjects (majority) wishes. People can always vote them out. You need to think this through.

It is the state which should abide then, by raja dharma... the kings of today do not truly reflect their subjects - it is all advertising and subvert tactics... eg. two parties stand for different ideologies and hence their sympathisers vote for them... after the election if they merge to form an alliance, how does it reflect the feelings of the people? We choose the best among theives now... not just rulers... I think you need to apply your thoughts to what is happening now and then opine. The world that you speak of is only in books...

You are contradicting yourself here. If life as prescribed by the Shastras is mainly for the pursuit of spiritual and as the Varna Dharma conditions are gone (Brahmins are not supposed to work for money, which was a major Brahminic Dharmic code), the question arises are those edicts based on Varna Dharma in our Shastras applicable today, where the whole Varna system is gone? When you say 'Dharma', it seems to me you go back to the Purva Mimamsa concept of Varna Dharma and what Karma Kanda says. Gita provides 3 other paths to Moksha. Are they not equally seperate and relevant and more attuned to today's society?

I did say that shasthras provide for alternative means to a brahmin when the society changes. You should read the para in entirety and just not a sentence. Trading, commerce and business are advocated for brahmins if they are unable to eke out a living by teaching vedas etc.

Understood. So one can put a person behind bars for just thinking about killing someone or put ex US President Carter behind bars because once he admitted to having some impure thaoughts about a woman?

No, but when he translates it into words and action, then the threat manifests...

This is where your argument, as I pointed out falls down. Our laws are based on morality, as ACCEPTED by everyone. Religious morality are by themselves paramount and absolute. Otherwise we would still be having Sathi, child marriages, animal sacrifices, mis treatment of widows etc. One faulty assumption of yours in all this is that ALL of our fore fathers were saints and to be venerated. There were rascals then as they are now as they will be. This is why the morals of the society change according to the times, that chage with changing civilizational needs.

Sathi, child marriages etc are customs which are not connected with the vedas... they evolve due to particular circumstances. It cannot be generalized to refer back to morality or ethics as prescribed in the vedas. I am well aware that there was enough adharma to provoke the war of mahabharatha, the arthashasthra of kautilya etc. Seems that you are quick to presume...

No, my inference is right on. Instead of working within the constitutional and legal framework, which can be changed with effort, you are advocating a vigilante system. This will what lead to anarchy.

Working with a crooked system is not going to yield results. Vali, Drona, Duryodhana etc were not killed fairly, but their killing was essential to establish dharma. Similarly, one cannot work within the constitution if rascals are at the helm of affairs. I wonder why you dont see this simple point!!!

Again, killing the offender on the outside of the legal system is clearly adharmic.

You should correct it - killing outside the legal system would be illegal not adharmic (esp. if the state fails to do it).

No, I am not playing with words here. So show you disdain about what you want to conserve with political action. If such practices are useful today for the majority of the society, you will succeed. Otherwise you are defending some practices that have little relevance today. Nostalgia about these practices when the society considers them as useless will not be enough to protect them.

Majority is only a majority - it does not become dharma simply because it is a majority; other variables prevail depending on the particular case. I am surprised that you brush off thoughts about our practices as nostalgic...

No reason to throw the baby with the bath water. As the society improves, this will improve. No reason to dump it, because the alternative is unthinkable.

My reply was to point out that, in a soiety, there would be a mix of consensus and imposition... what is for the greater good in line with dharma has to be accepted.

I am sorry if you feel that way. The reason I am conversing with you like this, spending my time (and yours) is because I think you are an independent thinker. I know who the hardcore Hidutva folks are in this Forum, believe me I have ceased talking with them long time ago

Thanks, I stand clarified.

Yes, free speech sometimes is wile. But believe me, common folks understand how to seperate it from 'good' free speech. People are smarter than you think. Unless you put it out there, for everyone to see and react, it will go underground where only the sympathizers will read them. In every closed society this has happened.

This is the reason why speech and ideas should not be censored in a free society, which can and will throw the thrash out. We need a thinking society that knows the difference between evil and good.

I do not weigh the smartness of people generally as one cannot easily judge on the other... moreover it is a relative thing. I am with you in that free speech should not be suppressed; but the free speakers should understand their own position and the importance of society while voicing their thoughts... Not following this would lead to a stage of no-system where everyone becomes self centered...

It is in the same interest of the society that I speak for. People could be misled... but yes, they may have their own justification for being misled (if done voluntarily)... And hence, as you see the need for free speech, I too do so, but with a caution. The difference is - my parameters are different from yours.

We need a thinking society that knows the difference between dharma and adharma...

Regards,
Seshadri

 

[malgova.mango]

readers !

please visit www.gurumurthy.net

His views on Muthalik incident , the twist by the media and its implications are note-worthy.

Thanks

 

[KRS]

With all due respect, this carzy guy needs to be locked up (I mean both Mutalik and Gurumurthy).

If it is for Gurumurthy, we will throw out the Indian constitution and we all will be living in the villages under the control of Village elders (idiots)!

Regards,
KRS

readers !

please visit www.gurumurthy.net

His views on Muthalik incident , the twist by the media and its implications are not-worthy.

Thanks

 

[malgova.mango]

I love village life

even beloved gandhi loves that