Triumph of Secularism
Thursday, 18. May 2006 - 10:56 AM
The 2004 Elections is certain to go down in the records as a watershed event. It heralded the return of Indian secularism as it was practised for about 50 years. It thankfully ended the 6 years of hate-filled rule by a fundamentalist coalition, which now languishes in deserved disarray.
Among others, the current regime ensures that no minority voice goes unheard: their concerns are given equal if not greater priority. Every splinter group that dons the Minority Mantle is immediately given Special State (SPG) Protection. The State takes up cudgels on their behalf and ensures that anything that even in the imagination seems hurtful, is banned preemptively. If this seems like terrible exaggeration, look no further than this new eminence, a Stalinesque figure named Priyaranjan Dasmunsi.
(Link via a private email)
He seems to be on a fast track to attaining Secular Sainthood. This kind of jarred me when I first read it. We were comfortable with the current dispensation–in all its avatars, historically–pandering to the Muslim votebank. It’s now the turn of Indian Christians to get conned be made to feel warm in State-sponsored Wool of Secularism. Gaurav Sabnis clinches this very well:
But the Indian state is unique. It bends over backwards to not offend communities, carelessly brushing aside the piffling matter of fredom of expression. Thus Dasmunshi and his ilk will be more catholic than the pope, more shia than the Ayatollah, more Bangladeshi than Mujibur Rehman, and more soviet than the politburo.
What is more interesting is that everything was pretty normal: just last week, PVR showed impresive trailers of the Da Vinci Code slated to hit Indian theatres in May, and so far, the media hasn’t reported any Christian organization speaking negatively–worse, trying to stop this from being screened–about this film. So isn’t it reasonable to conclude that Dasmunshi’s intent is simply to egg on the Christians riding on the “hurt sentiments” horseback?
As the friend who forwarded this link remarked, Da Vinci Code (link via a private email) has not generated any controversy in Christian majority countries but India seems a queer case. The Vatican is understandably terrified because Christianity all but exists in name in Europe where, alarmingly, (Christian) funeral services are being outsourced from Kerala. The IBN report also mentions that
Speaking against the controversial film, Father Donald D’Souza of the Catholics Bishops Council said, “In a country where people are still learning about Christianity, such films can be quite harmful. We don’t want people to imbibe a wrong view of this religion in India.” . the Goa Government has passed a resolution to ban the movie and has also asked the Centre to impose a nationwide ban.
How different is this from banning Satanic Verses, which followed by other foolhardy decisions, cost Rajiv Gandhi his seat? The morons in the Congress party need to quickly learn lessons from this disastrous precedent set by none other than the direct heir of the Dynasty itself. It is pretty amusing how quickly people in power succumb to delusions.
How different is the Father’s words than those of the Mullah who got Satanic Verses banned?
It is unfair to blame this Father for his words, not that he knoweth not what he says. The blame rests with the Indian state, which has allowed this state of affairs to thrive. But then precious lot is at stake: Secularism at all costs. The Acorn sounds naive when it says:
If the Minister and the ministers give it a thumbs down after their joint viewing session, the UPA government would have succeeded in turning India into a laughingstock. Not least because Dan Brown’s book is available in bookstores and streetcorners.
Da Vinci Code was first made available for sale when the said fundamentalist government was in power, a group whose stated mission is intolerance of minorities. Had the current motley crowd coalition been in power, it would have ensured that we read the book after buying it in the “black” market. And more naivety on the Acorn’s part:
The censor board should be allowed to do its job without political interference. Its decisions can always be challenged in the judiciary. India has an institutional mechanism to deal with such things as controversial films. The Catholic Church of India is not a part of that.
What judiciary? The one that lets Manu Sharma off–whatever be the due process of evidence, etc–or the one that can’t muster enough courage to tackle the mighty Jayalalithaa? This is not to deride the Acorn’s points but it’s just that things have eroded beyond hope. Via Varnam comes this news report,
“If the government doesn’t do anything, we will try our own ways of stopping the film from being shown,” said Syed Noori, president of Mumbai-based Raza Academy, a Muslim cultural organization that often organizes protests on issues concerning Islam. “We are prepared for violent protests in India if needed.”
Several Indian Christian groups have said they would protest against the film, with one little known Catholic organization even calling on Christians to begin a fast until death.
Last week, small groups of protesters marched in Mumbai and burned a copy of the book.
The tactic implied by the underlined words have been successfully used for close to a century to cower every government to meekly accept the most lunatic of demands. And what’s the bet that these worthies have read the book much less seen the movie? The Da Vinci Code merely fictionalizes centuries of research on Jesus, Mary Magdalene, the Holy Grail and related subjects. There’s nothing in the book remotely offensive to Christians. Dan Brown hasn’t poked fun at Jesus or Christian teachings–he has only written what history tells us: that Christianity is as blood-soaked as Islam is, that several of its beliefs are as irrational as the Koranic promise of 72 virgins and such other delicacies. Only, some people saw the futility of all of this and reformed their societies and pushed the Church to where it rightfully belongs. But as this episode shows, the Church has since found other willing homes to flaunt its lost Papal authority.
This controversy has nothing to do with freedom of speech in India but is yet another manifestation of the ugly face of Indian secularism. I hate to repeat but it’s in context: an MF Hussain’s artistic freedom to indulge in his private kinks commands support of the entire establishment and media while a harmless film is unncessarily made fodder for crass political opportunism.
18. May 2006 - 12:23 PM
Sandeep,
I will not contest the charges of naïveté, but will offer that it arises from being despirited about it all. From foreign policy to reservations, from economic reforms to identity politics, what I see happening under the UPA government is tremendously depressing. What’s more depressing is the failure of the BJP to turn itself into a credible centre-right party.
People take the 6-8% economic growth for granted, and all the talk about India as a great power of the 21st century as something of a certaintly. In a way it’s like the 1950s, when everyone wanted India to win. We just underestimated our own capacity to screw things up. We seem to be pursuing the same mistaken path with greater bloody-mindedness.
18. May 2006 - 2:40 PM
Thankfully the BJP was defeated in the elections.I hope it never comes back in power.
As for christianity and Islam being irrational,what is rational about a religion having a flying monkey as one of it’s gods? It’s time you conceded that all religion (including yours) is as irrational .
Yeah the indian state legitimized the demolition of the Babri Masjid by a band of thugs.
BTW there is no Koranic text which promises 72 virgins.
18. May 2006 - 3:00 PM
Pankaj,
Your response pretty much sums up how much you know about Hinduism. I have nothing more to say. You win.
18. May 2006 - 3:56 PM
Sandeep people are reading the Hanuman chalisa,chanting Jai Bagrang Bali while fighting so and praying in Hanuman mandirs. They are praying to Him to grant thier wishes so is he is not a minor deity ?
So I don’t know much about Hinduism while you pretend to know much about other religions by reading some internet sites
18. May 2006 - 3:59 PM
what is rational about a religion having a flying monkey as one of it’s gods
Atleast the irrationality above is harmless.
What is the rational of a wife staying with a different male for 1 year before re-marrying the first husband? What is the rational of a wife being forced to stay away from her husband if he mummers talaq in his sleep?
What is the rational of praying 5 times a day? Why not 7 or 9 or 24 hrs?
Give me a flying monkey anyday !!!
18. May 2006 - 4:43 PM
Good point about how the book did not generate any protest even though it has been around for the past couple of years. But look at the protests now. IS there a pattern here? Do not know – just guessing.
All the more interesting fact is there has not been a murmur from the artistic fraternity – especially from those who are clamoring for freedom of speech – Shabana Azmi, JAved Akhtar, Nandita Das, Shyam Benegal etc.
So now here is the trailer for what will happen when Water releases. Some Hindu orgs will protest and ask for a ban. Here comes the plot twist – The minister will say ‘No this is a matter of artistic freedom. The above mentioned worthies will protest and go all over town. The protests will die down quietly. Many progressive blogs even those devoted to literature(who are strangely silent now ) will devote lines to how freedom of speech is being stifled by fascists etc etc.
18. May 2006 - 4:44 PM
As per the latest news it will be passed with cuts and a disclaimer
18. May 2006 - 10:11 PM
To the guy named Pankaj:
Actually, I don’t believe in any flying monkey. Not many Hindus I know believe in flying monkeys. We worship Hanuman for the virtues he represents: his valor, devotion to Ram, and a host of other things, not for being a flying monkey. If tomorrow some Dan Brown writes The Valmiki Code theorizing that there was no flying monkey, my faith in Hinduism isn’t gonna be shaken a wee bit.
On the contrary, any mention of the fact that it is biologically impossible for Mary to conceive Jesus Christ without getting knocked up by a boyfriend or a husband is bound to shake the Christian faith, for that means that poor Jesus was not born out of sin after all. Any speculation that he might have “freaked out” with Mary Magdalene is bound to shake the Christian faith even more so for it means that Jesus himnself committed sin left, right and center! Finally, the possibility that he did not die on the cross at all is bound to put the church out of business because that puts paid to “salvation only through the one who never sinned and shed his blood for us” racket.
And that is precisely why Da Vinci Code is making the men of the church stark raving mad . It is standing Christian theology on its head. It is questioning the rationale for the existence of the church. Mocking belief in a flying monkey, on the contrary, is the job of juvenile jerks whose idea of challenging faith does not go beyond the said mockery. Not serious stuff at all.
18. May 2006 - 10:25 PM
Sandeep, it is not a “harmless” film. It is a very “harmful” film: for the church. Many Hindus are genuinely confused and cannot understand why “Christians” are so virulently opposed to the idea that Jesus may have married. After all, it is not being claimed that he was a womanizer, is it? But that’s where we miss the point: from a Christian theological perspective, Dan Brown’s book is very serious matter. The protesting fundies may also be motivated by the desire to make the political point that a person of their faith — an Italian Roman Catholic — is ruling the country now, but their primary motive is fear: fear that the ideas propounded by Dan Brown will take root and weaken both the Church and Christianity.
18. May 2006 - 10:59 PM
hey pankaj,
you idiot….go try reading the ramayan once…And get some education on hinduism….not throught you school textbooks or through grandma who would ask you to read hanuman chalisa…but try pouring in some of your own wasted time to read this stuff…
FYI… you are a jackass
19. May 2006 - 1:15 AM
Well I thought my last message simply expressed some spontaneous fury over Pankaj’s comment.
Pankaj, I apologize but your words were very pretty hurtful, blunt and defintely spoke of your ignorance about religion as a sum total.
Let’s get to Hanuman now…
*NOTE: Btw I do not take a stand against any other religion because I dont know enough about them to make remarks. My post has nothing to do with the Dan Brown movie… But I will definitely rebutt your smart alec “flying monkey” remark.
So where does Hanuman worship come from? Is it a wierd animal worhip thing that comes from the dark history of the satanic, idolatory, polytheistic hindu faith? Hmm….when the hell did the aryans from central-asia invent that? Or..I am afraid…is it that you have been tpp unfortunate to know what hanuman worship is all about?
Hanuman worship is quite simply and very strongly connected with the worship of Ram. He is a one of the greatest devotees of Ram. And that itself makes him very special. Devotion to Ram itself is considered a very special gift in our faith.
And those who show a very exeptional devotion which is hardly even human are sometimes other celetial deities who incarnate as devotees!
Let me give you an example, if you go through the Tulsidas Ramayan, the section where Bharat goes to Ram to plead to him to return as the King of Ayodhya. There are a hundred pages here describing the love, affection and devotion Bharat has for Ram. In fact, it is an almost “superhuman” devotion that he has. Co-incidently, Bharat himself is considered a portion of Vishnu. The point I am trying to make here is that one of the things that make divine personalities divine is their “extraordinary capability” of devotion and love towards god, which in our case here is Shri Ram.
Now about Hanuman.. Hanuman is considered a devotee who compares in his degree of devotion to Bharat himself. Further more, Ram HIMSELF has an affection for him which is equal to his affection for Bharat….And that makes it a big big thing…Of course to get the feel of Ram’s affection for Bharat, you will have to read the Tulsidas Ramayan, AyodhyaKand.
The Hanuman Chalisa, which you have managed to knowingly or unknowningly riducule in your previous posts…has the following verse:
” Tum mam priya bharatahi sam bhai
As kahi Shri pati kanth lagaai”
which means:
“Brother, you are as dear to me as Bharat.
saying thus the husband of Laxshmi(i.e Ram) took Hanuman in his arms.”
Another thing that makes Hanuman very unique is that he was some one who solved God’s problems… He was someone who had the privelege to help Ram, who is the helper of the whole world. And THAT is one big reason why is he is worshipped…Somebody would could help god himself with his problem, could certainly help regular humans with theirs.
Furthermore, he is supposed to be a favorite of people for who want to be practicing celibacy ( Bhramcharya to be more accurate) and gaining physical strength. Hence you have the Hanuman Akhadas.
Hanuman worship is also supposed to give relief from astrological issues like mal-effects of Saturn, Mars and Rahu. So Hanuman Chalisa is pretty big with people who try astrological remedies.
And Finally, Hanuman is considered an avatar of Shiva.
Well I feel a little relieved now…I hope that educates you a little Pankaj.
19. May 2006 - 10:39 AM
Nitin writes:
…what I see happening under the UPA government is tremendously depressing. What’s more depressing is the failure of the BJP to turn itself into a credible centre-right party.
Yes, it is really depressing what is happening in our country today and the future too doesn’t look that good if we realise that the fastest growing party in India is Mayawati’s BSP.
19. May 2006 - 8:01 PM
Sandeep,
I doubt this would have happened before.
After all I dont think Anyonebanned last temptation of christ. It is this stupid Sonia Gandhi who is encouraging this lunacy.
Regards
19. May 2006 - 11:03 PM
Gentlemen,
There is a certain dude named “pankaj” who is posting all over the blogosphere. I must state that it has been very irritating for me that a guy who is most likely to be a rehman or a mohammad to have adopted my name as his nick and make all sorts of nonsense remarks.
I felt a need to clarify this since he might be also using my e-mail ID which is public at my blog.
Sandeep, carry on the Great Work.
Best Regards.
http://writepad.blogspot.com
19. May 2006 - 11:04 PM
Gentlemen,
There is a certain dude named “pankaj” who is posting all over the blogosphere. I must state that it has been very irritating for me that a guy who is most likely to be a rehman or a mohammad to have adopted my name as his nick and make all sorts of nonsense remarks.
I felt a need to clarify this since he might be also using my e-mail ID which is public at my blog.
Sandeep, carry on the Great Work.
Best Regards.
19. May 2006 - 11:51 PM
to the real pankaj,
wow thats messed up… I got pretty angry at the “fake pankaj”…and you will notice my foot long post above..Sorry for that.
20. May 2006 - 3:26 AM
To RR (and all those who agree with his views): You said “On the contrary, any mention of the fact that it is biologically impossible for Mary to conceive Jesus Christ without getting knocked up by a boyfriend or a husband is bound to shake the Christian faith, for that means that poor Jesus was not born out of sin after all”
This equally applies to your Goddess Kunti who gave birth to Karna outside wedlock being a virgin. (I’m sure you would agree she didn’t bed a Rishi before marriage, because that would put the legitemacy of your Gods, the Pandavas). Mahabharata isn’t another bed side novel for Hindus just like the beliefs of Christians are to them.
Respect others faiths to be respected.
20. May 2006 - 7:49 AM
Hi RR and all those who support his thoughts, when you say “On the contrary, any mention of the fact that it is biologically impossible for Mary to conceive Jesus Christ without getting knocked up by a boyfriend or a husband is bound to shake the Christian faith, for that means that poor Jesus was not born out of sin after allâ€.
Doesnt this apply to the birth of Karna outside wedlock to your goddess Kunti as well? Did she bed a Sadhu before marriage, in doing so? That way even your gods, the pancha pandavas, would be products of sin.
So easy to pick on Christianity or non hindu religions, guys. And you want the world to believe in flying monkeys gods, child marriages and caste based reservations.
21. May 2006 - 12:24 PM
“Doesnt this apply to the birth of Karna outside wedlock to your goddess Kunti as well? Did she bed a Sadhu before marriage, in doing so? That way even your gods, the pancha pandavas, would be products of sin.”
“sin” as known in Christianity doesn’t exist in Hinduism. Sex — including between married partners — is “sin” in Christianity. Mary could have been legally wed, and Jesus could have been given a birth within wedlock, but the early Christian mythologists chose not to do so because it was very important not to “taint” Jesus with the “sin” of sex at all. The human being, according to the bible, is compuslisvely a sinner by nature. No matter what he does, he can’t help sinning. If he weren’t a sinner, he would be god — like Jesus — and there would be no need to seek any saviour for salvation. What is the need for the Chruch then, if it is possible for individuals to attain salvation without help from Church or Jesus? But fortuanately, being non-sinner is not possible by design — because we are all conceived and born in sin.
I don’t believe Kunti gave birth to Karna without having a bit of “sinful” fun with Surya, but note that Karna (and Pandavas) does not have the stature of Jesus in Christianity. At any rate, he is not considered a product of “sin”.
21. May 2006 - 1:23 PM
Hey RR,
I am not sure if I would agree with your perception that the cocept of sin does not exist in hinduism…Well yes we do not go overboard with it though. But even hinduism is quite a bit about riddance of sin, or tendency of sin etc. But then it is also about love of god etc, and sin comes in the way of these things. Well that is a part and package of the ethical and moral component of most religions. And I am saying this as some one practices hinduism
Also about Kunti, her case was different since Karna and the pandavas were concieved by divine dieties and hence there was no carnal sin involved..it’s pretty similar to Jesus’s case.
So I would disagree with your statement that Kunti had some sinful fun with surya. By surya’s grace she did not icur sin and her virginity remained..
I agree Karna an his brothers dont have god like status like Jesus Christ…Nevertheless, it doesnt mean I would take the liberty to say that they were born of sin.
Well I think sometimes it is better not making statements about religious matters based only on personal opinion you are not well versed with them. You end painting a woron picture of your own faith.
By the way it was funny that you mentioned if there were a Valmiki code which claimed none of the hindu things ever happened.
Hmm….I wonder what the Aryan invasion theory is….
Hehe…this is not fair…christians should embrace the da vinci code just like modern hindus foolishly embrace the aryan invasion theory…
21. May 2006 - 1:24 PM
Hey RR,
I am not sure if I would agree with your perception that the cocept of sin does not exist in hinduism…Well yes we do not go overboard with it though. But even hinduism is quite a bit about riddance of sin, or tendency of sin etc. But then it is also about love of god etc, and sin comes in the way of these things. Well that is a part and package of the ethical and moral component of most religions. And I am saying this as some one practices hinduism
Also about Kunti, her case was different since Karna and the pandavas were concieved by divine dieties and hence there was no carnal sin involved..it’s pretty similar to Jesus’s case.
So I would disagree with your statement that Kunti had some sinful fun with surya. By surya’s grace she did not icur sin and her virginity remained..
I agree Karna an his brothers dont have god like status like Jesus Christ…Nevertheless, it doesnt mean I would take the liberty to say that they were born of sin.
Well I think sometimes it is better not making statements about religious matters based only on personal opinion you are not well versed with them. You end painting a wrong picture of your own faith.
By the way it was funny that you mentioned if there were a Valmiki code which claimed none of the hindu things ever happened.
Hmm….I wonder what the Aryan invasion theory is….
22. May 2006 - 12:12 AM
“Also about Kunti, her case was different since Karna and the pandavas were concieved by divine dieties and hence there was no carnal sin involved..it’s pretty similar to Jesus’s case.”
Because you insist that it is? Given your dogmatic method of argument, you don’t sound like a Hindu at all to me. Infact, you sound like a certain Catholic jerk I used to read a long while ago on a certain news portal and stopped reading because the fellow got boring and repetitive and became a caricature of himself. The nut never produced any proof for his arguments; in fact, he often tried to palm off lies as truth, but never mind, I’m digressing.
If you have been exposed to intellectual traditions outside of wahabism, or Catholicism, or marxism-leninism, or maoism, you’ll note that “virginity before marriage” is a social code imposed on women in many ancient societies, and imposed to this day in many communities. To conflate a social code with an extremely significant theological concept like “sin” is to be extremely confused and ignorant. Both these attributes show in your argument.
Here is to clear your confusion: in Chrstianity, sex itself is sin, before or after marriage. And to sin is to commit a crime against god. In Hinduism, sex is not sin. Kunti’s sleeping with Surya before marriage might be regarded by the norms of that time as a moral trangression, a disgrace, but it was not an act that earned her divine wrath and condemned her to eternal hellfire.
If Jesus were born of sexual union, he’d be born in sin, regardless of whether Mary was married or not at the time she conceived him.
22. May 2006 - 1:53 AM
RR,
dude …well well…its mentioned in the mahabharata that kunti did not incur any sin and her viriginity remained after concieving Karna…Its also written in the devi bhagvatam….and probably in other puranas…And it is stated that it happened that way because of Surya’s blessing.
Let me quote from the mahabhara:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m03/m03305.htm
and the devi bhagvatam:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m03/m03305.htm
Now while sex itself is not such an absolute sin in hinduism…trust me sexual indulgance does have a connection to sin…
Why the heck do you think all the sadhus practice bhramacharya and stuff?… I do agree though that the sin connetected to sex is not the eternal hell stuff in hinduism. Saying God’s name a couple of times is supposed to wipe off all sins. So I guess sin is a more variable commodity in hinduism.
Ok lets see what the hindu definition of sin is …let me give you an anology with physics …trust me I am not trying to be pseudo-scientific,just trying to explain things the way I see them…Now you have some Karma…lets call it potential energy…now sin is anything that lead to reduction in this potential energy…A small sin leads to a wee bit decrease in it… a big one leads to big drop…
You would be surprised, that there is small amount of sin incurred even if you wake up after sunrise….that sin I incur everyday
..But then maybe my faith in god washes it away.
Now lets talk about the issue of sex, sex unfortunately if done outside marriage bounds for sheer pleasure leads to a big drop, because…there is a huge loss of mental composure..its totally in contradicton to the nature of the practices of Dharma…and all the changes that the body goes through……I could even connect this to how the yogic chakras of the body get affected for someone who just plain humping around….
Another way of connecting sex to sin in hiduism would be that indisciplined sex can be considered a Tamasic activity. I hope you know what tamasic mean.
Now things are different if it were done within a nuptial commitment..because then it is a part of social conduct of raising family and all that…or…like in this case a deiety like surya is involved and taking care of things….
Hence Kunti does not incur sin…The nature of sexual union is also probably different here.
Well, I am simply trying to quote from the books here. Not trying to apply my opinions. Sin in hinduism is of a very existent psychosomatic nature and hence has to be connected with out-of-bounds sex….
I am not saying it leads to eternal hell…all I am saying it leads to a loss of your strenght…or Teja or Bala or whatever if done the wrong way….and hence it can be called a sin….but then sins come in all shapes and sizes in hiduism….some are negligibly small, and some are big…
PS: I am not saying this in context with christianity or anything so dont get me wrong…I am just saying what I know. It seemed to me Jesus’s case was similar and hence I said it so….I really am not sure about what the sexual sin of christianity is like….So dont attack me on that please
22. May 2006 - 3:22 AM
” Now while sex itself is not such an absolute sin in hinduism..”
Then what have you been purposely babbling about, all along? If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit — that sort of thing, eh?
“trust me sexual indulgance does have a connection to sin…”
Trust you?
“Another way of connecting sex to sin in hiduism would be that indisciplined sex can be considered a Tamasic activity. I hope you know what tamasic mean.”
Sure. If you’re sick and temporarily blinded, you’re said to be tamasick. That’s what tamasick is all about.
“Well, I am simply trying to quote from the books here”
You’re quoting nothing. Just dumping a lot of stuff and pretending that it makes any point.
“or Teja or Bala or whatever if done the wrong way….and hence it can be called a sin…”
Is that a tamasick definition of sin?
“I really am not sure about what the sexual sin of christianity is like”
Shows. You’re tamasick. If you don’t know what sin in Christianity is like, how can you even begin to compare with any notion of sin in Hinduism?
By the way, you’re babbling really well. I must admit you have talent.
22. May 2006 - 5:04 AM
RR,
well im sorry if I sounded stupid. I guess this whole christianity topic and context has been a wrong place to try making my point…
Well you just made a statement previously ..
“I don’t believe Kunti gave birth to Karna without having a bit of “sinful†fun with Surya”
and thats what got me involved. Maybe I didnt like your choice of words. Maybe you were just being sarcastic. I dont know. Anyway this was the statement I was trying to refute. While Kunti is not a goddess she’s is a very respected lady in the mahabharata. And you will notice that Karna’s conception was not ordinarily human.
Read the last paragraph in the following link from the mahabharata which describes Karna’s conception:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m03/m03305.htm
Now some sentences seem to be vague in the above description. Nonetheless, it does show that Karna’s conception was different from ordinary, and there seems to be lack of “physical contact” in the process.
If that gives a better idea of what I’m trying to get across. I think this has been a wrong place to make my point. Sorry about that.
Finally, I defintely dont deserve the insults you have mounted on me in your last post. You have tried to picturize me as a creep trying to bullshit everyone into something while I was really trying get across a genuine point. My communication skills have failed me, partly because this christianity backdrop has been the wrong context, and partly because hinduism is not an easy thing explain. Of course, my knowledge must be short of complete, but not as much the way you have tried to spit in my face.
I will not post further. Sorry for the escapism. It’s seems a more dignified alternative.
22. May 2006 - 12:27 PM
Hey A,
Sentimentalism is not the done thing, maybe RR went overboard, but take heart. If you notice the difference, RR’s approach is more analytical than yours in the sense that you merely quote but do nothing to substantiate it. Not done in logical argument. And again, your quote itself is misplaced.
I haven’t read your sacred texts link but I’ve read the Mahabharata in the original Sanskrit.
The original nowhere says Karna’s conception is divine or that there was no physical contact between Surya and Kunti.
I can see where you come from: you have a VERY lofty respect for Kunti and Lord Surya, that’s good because it shows you hold M.bharata close to your heart. However, think a bit realistically. Because Kunti indulged in premarital sex doesn’t make her a lesser person. In fact, she’s the glue that holds the Pandavas together even when she’s away from them during the vanvas: how? Read the portion where she advises Draupadi to keep the brothers together. Which is what Draupadi exactly does. Indirectly, it is Kunti’s presence which acts throughout.
The no-sex birth was a misrepresentation of the original, and it was entirely due to an illogical/absurd bhakti towards the epic on the part of the later authors; perhaps this distortion also had to do with the changed social mores in the time they were (re)written.
>>Now while sex itself is not such an absolute sin in hinduism…trust me sexual indulgance does have a connection to sin…
Why the heck do you think all the sadhus practice bhramacharya and stuff?…
Let me emphasize: SEX IS NOT CONSIDERED SINFUL IN HINDUISM. Consult whatever basic text you want, not fancy interpretations. Show me one verse which says “kamaah paapam.” Your point on Brahmacharya is made out of context. Brahmacharya in Hinduism is just a means to an end: it is not advocated for all. If you’re the kind who aspires for Eternal Bliss/Atma Gnana, Brahmacharya is merely an aid to reach there faster. Again, Brahmacharya doesn’t mean ONLY celibacy. The original meaning of Brahmachari is “Brahmani charati iti” meaning, “He that moves about in (the state of) Brahman.” If one were to take your meaning, it’d disqualify 99% of our Rishis who were householders. Does this answer your question about why Sadhus practice Brahmacharya? They do it because it is a hindrance to spiritual practice not because it is sinful.
A,
Take it or leave it, but I suggest you carefully read the basic texts of Hinduism which will place you in a better position to argue.
Cheers!
22. May 2006 - 1:49 PM
hi sandeep,
thanks for your post. I do confess my words and difintitions have been misplaced. I have categorized any act that interferes with spritual practice even a little as amounting to sin…And thats where I think I have gone wrong with my definitions..
I guess offically sin is supposed to be more like a breach of existing religious code, and doing something in total contradiction to defined Dharma.
This misinterpretation happened on my part in search for a more subtle definition of sin…What I have been trying to understand is what exactly is it that constitutes sin in hinduism, beyond whats written in the social code, and hence this mess. Of course I do believe that any act done with control over the senses and within dharma, including sex, is not sin.
Well I guess I have been guilt of some fanciful conclusions after all :-0
(Have been trying too hard to save myself from Kaliyuga!)
So much for my clarifications. And I think I should try not to jump onto a dicussion train by latching onto single rhetorical statements…Very foolish thing to do indeed.
Anyway Sandeep, thank a lot for your comment…I do appreciate it.
22. May 2006 - 10:13 PM
“I guess offically sin is supposed to be more like a breach of existing religious code, and doing something in total contradiction to defined Dharma”
Now I see where your confusion is coming from.
Centuries ago, when the English-speaking white Christians came into contact with Hinduism, some white Christian twit tried to comprehend Hinduism with his Christian blinkers on. Because there’s “sin” in Christianity, he reasoned, there must be “sin” in Hinduism too. He looked hard, and found it. “Breach of existing religious code, and doing something in total contradiction to defined Dharma. This is sin in Hinduism, ha ha!” declared the twit. Ever since, whole families of innocent scholars like you were fooled.
The best way to understand Indic categories is to 1) gain expertise in Indian languages and then 2) read Hindu texts in native languages. English-language (theological) terms are loaded, and when you try to interpret Hindu texts using these words, you’re willy-nilly bringing some Christian baggage to bear upon those texts.
22. May 2006 - 11:19 PM
RR,
I think you are in a better position to clarify this. So what kind of things does ‘paap’ refer to in hinduism?…At least try giving a few examples…It would help me understand your persepective on this.