Do read –

(Start Quote)Obama administration insufficiently PC

I just realized that the Obama administration has put itself in hot water with the EU. Even as Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has replaced the word “terrorism” with “man-made disasters,” the EU has decreed that the term “man-made” must be replaced by “synthetic.” Therefore, to get rid of the verboten term “man-made,” the Obama administration will have to call terrorist attacks “synthetic disasters.” It is to be hoped that public-spirited citizens will alert Secretary Napolitano as to the needed further change. (End Quote)

Now…have more fun!

“EU bans use of ‘Miss’ and ‘Mrs’ (and sportsmen and statesmen) because it claims they are sexist”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1162384/EU-bans-use-Miss-Mrs-sportsmen-statesmen-claims-sexist.html

And the offering from Obama’s America..

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,613330,00.html

“man-caused” disasters = Terrorism

Have fun!

Are there any modern-day carvakas around? Do they have a website? Any links to their philosophy in detail?

Nandini seems to have misread my “succumb” point.

I was merely trying to point out the cost incurred by me if I were to try and make India’s Hindu identity more palatable to Liberals.

Then again, Nandini confuses the cacophony within Hinduism with which I have no dispute at all, with cacophony surrounding Hinduism that is seeking to overwhelm Hindu society.

Perhaps she does not see it that way.

Nandini’s Liberal ethos impels her to a position where she sees no qualitative differences between cacophony within Hinduism and the cacophony outside of it. So, since all cacophony is now on the same plane, it goes to assert that either all cultures become India’s core identity or none of them must. Furthermore, if Hinduism is allowed that privilege it might just stamp Hinduism’s superiority over Islam. Btw, a fact that must be acknowledged.

This is simply not tolerable to the Liberal, less because it is Hinduism and more because it rubbishes their “all cultures are equal” claim.

And we are really comparing apples and oranges if we compare Islam and Hinduism. Hinduism is a confederation of many paths. Islam is quite simply a very basic religion or ideology if you will.

Nandini’s sneering about Nirad Choudhury is also on track.

It was Nirad’s choice to move to England and settle down there. By trying to be more “British than the British”, (if that were possible when the British were still sensible), he was merely fulfilling a moral obligation to his new motherland. He imbibed Western Civilization that helped him feel at home in his adopted environment. But if Nirad babu were a Liberal, he would most certainly retain and maintain his distinctive Hindu mould everywhere and at all times, in England. Why? Because he would never have been able to make the distinction between the need to imbibe Western Civilization amongst Westerners and the pull to maintain his “native” lifestyle.

It is perhaps to Christian Civilization and Hinduism’s credit that he meshed them both fairly well within himself.

On women’s “role” – My bet is that Nandini missed the point again.

When it comes to the workplace it may well be that women are as capable as men and in certain roles they are more capable; but the undeniable natural role of a woman as home-maker and bearer of children is something that cannot be “stood-in” by any man. Here again, Nandini’s Liberal ethos drives her to the “fact” that men and women are “equal” and therefore, men may as well bear children and care for the home and give women the helping hand, nay, take over that role!

That’s a larger discussion.

Her take on women in Armed Forces is again flawed. Not just in India, but in many nations are female soldiers recipients of “special” care. The article is clear enough.

Indeed, it’s getting quite ridiculous. The US Army is instituting “daycare” for children of working women soldiers who find it not possible to leave kids at home with their dads. What does the dad do? Not work? It goes on and on and on…one Liberal failure to cover for another.

*******
“All i can say is that there are bad and good parents all the time cutting across cultures. So, this phenomenon is not a result of womens lib alone.” – Huh?

- I think it’s time we made Liberals accountable for their failures of judgment.

On Indian identity,

India can definitely be identified with hinduism and vice-versa.I am not contending that. I object when this is projected as the only identity.
But then you tell me that this MUST be the central idea..and that you are not ready to succumb to the “temptation ” of including all exception within Hindusim . so what would you call these people in ‘exception list’? Lesser indians? Abberation?
A country as diverse as ours with its myriad tradition, subtle nuances and at times direct contradiction is bound to have many identities ( as opposed to “no identity” like you put it). Some identity will find more takers than others but i would certainly object to one identity being projected as “The right one”. As an aside, even when you talk about hinduism, you would face a daunting task defining ITS central theme. Would you then dismiss charavakas ( which extoll materialism and reject the notion of after-life) as an aberration? An exception?
Personally, this cacophony of identities dont bother me. When a hardcore rationalist questions the premises of religion itself, i listen with interest . But that doesnt stop me from enjoying a soulful rendition of a bhajan.
And why are we just stuck with religion. There are other aspects of life. You can also identify india with its arts, dance, music form, both traditional and contemporary. Or with common attitudes indians display in everyday life?
Do all this make you look at me in askance? Hmmm! But why like N.C Chaudhari??? ( the man who personified the adage ‘more british than british)

On Womens lib
>>I’d like to know what you think about the erasure of traditional roles.

Traditional roles like men going to work and women looking after home made sense only in cavemen times when primary occupation of human being was hunting and gathering. Primary skill set required was physical strength.
So a division of labour along the lines of physical capacity made sense.
why now? With automation, most jobs would require little or no physical strength. So women go to work. And i see no reason why they shouldnt. That reminds me. I read the article on problems faced by women in army.
Before reading it i thought this must be one biased rant against women. I was wrong, it was not only well-informed but balanced and sensitive.
I knew India accepts women in purely non-combative roles but i took the example of israel. That was deliberate. I realize and also as the article mentions – an army will mirror the society it belongs to. So i perfectly understand that even well meaning , unpatronising and a fair male colleague will find it hard to assign difficult task to women..in an indian context.
Perhaps, we are still not ready for it …but i am optimistic that attitudes will change. This is after the last male bastion and the challenge is expectedly the toughest.

>>Families breaking down..Easy “living-in” ..Single parenthood all finding acceptance amongst Liberals only because “freedom” and “independence” to decide one’s manner of living, is THE priority.
Please tell me this is not true.

No, how can i say its not true? They happen. However, i am less judgemental of these. We are the sum of all choices we make in life. Every decision we take, small or big alters our future…whether for the better or worse is for the doer to decide.
You might argue that some of our action affects others, not just us. what about the kids in an unstable family? Do they deserve it?
Yeah..i must concede i dont have an answer to that. All i can say is that there are bad and good parents all the time cutting across cultures. So, this phenomenon is not a result of womens lib alone.

>>Look forward to more “statements of fact” and fewer questions in your next post.

Accepting of ‘facts’ without question is indeed what the british wanted to propagate among indians.
We seem to be accepting many things as ‘facts’. Such as the ‘ill practices’ of our culture.

The Vedas start with invocation of Agni- Fire.
It is the fire of spiritual enquiry within us that starts off our journey to spiritual advancement that is referred here.

This attitude of enquiry is central to our scriptures and to spiritual advacement.
This attitude is also displayed by the seers of all lands too, such as Gautama Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed etc who questioned the prevalent accepted norms.
Many of their purported followers have abandoned their attitude, like us.

Vedas, Upanishads and other scriptures, unlike other books, cannot be read and understood. Not even if you have complete knowledge of sanskrit.
They are to be travelled with on our journey to spiritual progress.

This is why what goes by nowadays as translations of Vedas and other scriptures mean very little.

My purpose of posing many questions to Shradha was to prompt herself as well as all of us to examine what is given to us as ‘facts’.

Coming to the contents of the websites listed in our post, should we accept them as authoritative contents of the Vedas and other scriptures?

My recommendation is that we examine them and verify them for truth.

Upanishads are considered Vedanta, the culmination of the Vedas.

In Upanishads there is a story of Satyakama Jabala.
His father was not known to his mother Jabala.
In English, they have a word for such a person.
Let us see what Sanskrit has.
When Stayakama went to a Guru to learn the truth about life, he was told that it can be given to only Brahmanas. And the Guru asked him whose son he is.
He told the Guru that when he asked his mother Jabala that question, she had told him to say he is Stayakama, son of Jabala, his mother.
From that reply, the Guru discerned that Stayakama is a true Brahmana, one who has yearning for knowledge, asks questions and is a true lover of truth as his name suggets (Satya-kama). and is a true lover of truth as his name suggets. The Guru therefore accepted him as disciple.
He gave him hundred good thoughts and told him to nurture them in solitude until he multiplies them, which he proceeded to do in the rest of the story.
There are three things that needs to be discerned here.

1. A person who might be called ‘fatherless’ and many other bad things in English language is a ‘Brahmana’ in our scriptures.
Because he displayed behaviour of Brahmana which is yearning for spiritual knowledge, self initiated enquiry and sticking to truth.
That and that alone is the identifier of Brahmana, not lineage.
There are many such instances in our scriptures which categorically indicate that Varna is not about one’s parents.
It is contrary to what it is propagated by britishers and their followers.

2. The incompatability of English language to convey the true meaning of Vedas is also evident here.
The good thoughts that was given to Satyakama by his Guru is misinterpreted as ‘cows’ in many of the present day translations. That is because of misidentification of the meaning of Sanskrit by someone who did not understand the contextual meaning or deliberately wanted to mislead people.

3. The third thing is that understanding of our scriptures cannot be had by reading through of them in Sanskrit or their translations.
They are understood when we set off on our journey to spiritual advancement displaying the Brahmana characteristics of yearning for spiritual knowledge, self initiated enquiry and sticking to truth.
That is why it is said that Vedas can be understood only by Brahmanas, who are identified not by their parents, but by their own displayed characteristics alone.

Coming to the contents of the websites listed in our post, should we accept them as authoritative contents of the Vedas and other scriptures?

My recommendation is that we examine them and verify them for truth.

What I have seen there is that they are only shadows of the truth of our scriptures.
Like shadows, they have a distorted form of the original but is full of darkness and bereft of all qualities of the original.

Thanks

http://www.indiandefencereview.com/articles/04-06-07/Women-in-the-Armed-Forces.html

I honestly don’t know how to respond to you’re list of exceptions. Which nation doesn’t have these? But they don’t remain confused about their central identity!

If I were to succumb to Liberal pressure but still have my way, I would have to say Hinduism encompasses all exceptions and if I were to listen to the RSS, I would have to inform you that Hinduism also encompasses Jesus and Mohammed. (Without them (J & M) knowing about it, though!)

But I cannot succumb to this tempting offer.

So, why don’t you explain why this country should go without an identity? If you tell me that identity is “Indian”; I, like Nirad C Choudhary, would have to look at you in askance.

Or, is it you’re case that an “identity” is itself a very bad and rotten thing to have? Like the feeling of “Nationalism”? And so, by divesting this country of the one identity it can confidently assume, you reach you’re comfort levels with you’re Liberal psyche.

On Women’s “Lib”, you still assume too much negativity wrt relationship in families.

Family members are “providers” & “receivers” at various levels. It’s all about give and take. That’s how any normal family will work. Commitment to each other at a higher level. You seem to be confusing this relationship with a transaction; “One slip and it’s all over! Contract ends!” That’s true, isn’t it?

We are always evolving. All kinds of changes occur. Not all of them good. It’s our sense of what is right and will help us survive into the future, is what we should nurture. I have serious reservations about the “Lib” agenda.

Whose “observation” are you talking about? I’d like to know what you think about the erasure of traditional roles.

Israeli women in the forces is Israel’s survival instincts at work. They need more hands in their armed forces and the threat levels they face is amazingly high on an almost daily basis. They need all of their youth trained to handle arms and to have some combat experience. Indeed, what nation can even dream of surviving without healthy families?

I found this interesting –
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154526026305&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter

India has women in the forces too. Are all these women “Libbers”? Are we not forgetting the fact that it’s because they come from healthy families that they even get to make such tough choices?

Also, traditional India has never been without it’s female warriors.

I guess I’m trying to understand why you feel being within the family entails admission of weakness by the woman.

Even Scott Peck seems to moderate his extremist view with an – “If one’s dependency on their partner (**is so great**), that they cant live on their own – its parasitism, not love.”

I say we’re in very deep trouble because the Liberal man has allowed himself to become irrelevant by passing off his responsibility under the cover of women’s “Independence”. The Liberal woman is seen grabbing this “opportunity” in the misplaced hope of “freedom” from the man.

The result is male indifference and female exposure to danger.

Families breaking down. Easy divorces on the flimsiest of grounds. Easy “living-in” arrangements where no one takes responsibility for the other. “Unwanted” pregnancies and easy access to pills. Single parenthood…same sex parenthood…foregoing having children altogether because THAT will restrict this “freedom”..all finding acceptance amongst Liberals only because “freedom” and “independence” to decide one’s manner of living, is THE priority.

Please tell me this is not true.

Context being discussion of India Culture, you seem to believe that “Indian Culture” is that which is not entirely Hindu; it must either be religion-neutral or influenced by Islam/Christianity.

Are you conflating “Indian culture” with “Indian secularism” by any chance?

>>I’m trying to understand you’re point but what exactly is you’re case against India being synonymous with Hinduism?

I am not sure if this argument is just about the nomenclature. All i wanted to say was India is synonymous with lot of things – not just Hinduism. For mentioning hindusim alone would exclude indians of other faith as also those who happen to be atheist/agnostic/undecided etc.

And now regarding Womens lib..
>>Why should I assume “dependence” to mean servility and meekness? Are my children “servile and meek” wrt to my wife and I?

That would depend on how fair you are!
And that is the problem of a relationship defined primarily as provider-receiver. Whether the receiver will be treated equally or not depends on the fairness quotient of provider. see the point?

>>The “traditional roles” are evolved over ages. They follow experience and reason.

You are right. The operative word here is “evolve”. Womens lib is part of that evolution. Every new idea/system faces resistance when introduced and WL is no exception. Observation says that traditionally defined gender roles are getting more and more defunct . This is not even debatable when Israel accepts women in combative roles in their armed forces.

>>If as you say, man and woman should aim to “complete themselves”, you’re “liberated individuals”; why must they need each other at all?

The journey of completing oneself is lifelong. A life partner helps. However, i want to make an important distinction here. Its Help, not depend. “If one’s dependency on their partner is so great, that they cant live on their own – its parasitism, not love.”
Thats a quote from M.Scott Peck from “Road less travelled”. In other words, our partners help us grow, mature with the aim of becoming our “complete self.

>>If the basic premise of women’s lib is as you say it is; we are in deep trouble. And not just men.
Pls elaborate.

>>I’m sorry but arguing from the “macho” and “delicate” standpoints is childish.
I agree how about replacing that with strong and gentle?