Comments on: Two Flawed Views of Hinduism

By: Shweta K

Shweta K — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 10:00:45 +0000

Dear Readers,

There is a difference between politics and religion and more important still there is a difference between religion and salvation.

The former we have to understand to live peacefully in this world, only if we can do that(the destiny has it that way and it is not possible for us to live peacefully in these times, as they are destined that way).

Great Saint Kabir Das had hinted that no manner of worship will take you to the Almighty, thereby meaning no religion takes you to salvation.

I recently joined a religious panth named the ‘New Kabir Panth’ being run by ‘Deepak Kashyap’s Healing Centre http://www.dkhc.in it has so salient features, which cannot be disussed here, but I feel ultimately such a philosophy will teach people the true path to salvation, provide them freedom from false religion and ultimately the politics based on false religion.

By: KS

KS — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:58:54 +0000

Sandeep, I have been a regular reader of this excellent blog, please keep up the good work. This is somewhat OT, but I wanted to bring to your attention an interesting dialog that I have been following over the last three issues of this magazine. It started off with an article written by the authors of "Invading the Sacred" which invited a response by Paul Courtright and ended with this editorial article. Courtright had to concede his errors on both of the points that were raised though he did try to continue his pathetic defense of his stance on the Daksa-Sati story. Definitely worth a read. Thanks, KS

By: U Mahesh Prabhu

U Mahesh Prabhu — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 01:39:58 +0000

Great inputs my friends. Congrats and keepup with you good work. Also I would be glad if you could let me have your contact no. so that I could seek your permission to reprint your articles in my magazine.

By: Chandra

Chandra — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 19:40:12 +0000

Vir’s droll just seems to be a continuation of Tapar’s attack on Hinduism while paying homage to middle eastern religions. Where is the other side of the argument in these same apparently national papers? There doesn’t seem to be any push back to this bias of the so called liberals in the media.

Sandeep, I hope you posted this at Desicritic.

By: anonymous

anonymous — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 18:45:28 +0000

Sandeep,

I am posting this “off the topic” comment for all those who visit your website.
Today Ajmer shrine was blasted by terrorists. 2 people were killed. Looks like the terrorists are planning a much bigger and devasting attack coming festive season. There seems to be a pattern for these attacks.
Each attack on a muslim shrine is followed by a very devasting attack on common public case ; almost as to justify the blasts in muslims areas.

Check Malegaon, which was followed by Mumbai blasts, Check Delhi jama masjid that was followed by Diwali blasts and then of course Jama masjid Hyderabad followed by Gokul restuarant blasts.

The terrorist would seek to justify their bloody killings by planting a bomb of much smaller size in muslim areas so as to ensure that they are “only taking the revenge”.

There is a definite pattern which either the pin head Shivraj Patil is not seeing or does not want to see.

Folks in India, please stay away from crowded places during the festive season. Try to do the shopping in non-peak hours. Stay safe.

By: B Shantanu

B Shantanu — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:18:51 +0000

Great post Sandeep.

By: rawem

rawem — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 10:15:35 +0000

–In contrast, there is very little scope to argue that Jesus got things badly wrong or that the Prophet acted immorally.–

If Sanghvi had read the holey bible carefully, he would have noted jesus murdering helpless and innocent children, men and women (they were game because they did not believe in him). Very little to argue, no? And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Seek and ye shall find barbs – Revelations of rawem 0:07

By: JK

JK — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 21:30:47 +0000

Sandeep, You wrote Vir actually argues that Islam and Christianity are "out of scope" of argument but Hindu Gods, heroes and saints can be dissected at will. This "worshipful" attitude towards Christianity seems to be prevalent only among Indian intellectuals. At least Christianity is not "out of scope" among the departments of religious studies in various Western universities. Stanford University has a course called The Historical Jesus (free download on iTunes) which dissects the Bible. Prof. James Tabor has a book called The Jesus Dynasty which even goes as far as to name the father of Jesus. Thus if followers of Christianity have no issues dissecting their founder at will, why can't we at least quote them?

By: Sri

Sri — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 13:07:56 +0000

Great analysis Sandeep!
Sanghvi has used a typical sec-soc tactic.
Attack Hinduism and use phrases like “most historians”,”most scholars”,”Most people” etc.

By: AG

AG — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:58:30 +0000

Correction to my sentence:

The dhimmification and divorcing of hindus from their dharma is [a bigger risk for Veda dharma] than the [risk of attack/assault from] any marauding semitic types