Turning around the guns of religious skepticism

It's so easy to fire skeptical bullets at deluded religious believers. Because they aren't me. It's a lot tougher to turn my big guns around and point them at myself.

Yet that's what we all need to do – especially those who call themselves "churchless."

The way I see it, we often fail to recognize that while we've demolished the most obvious walls of blind faith that kept us confined within dogmatic bounds, often we've just retreated to a smaller and less obvious belief structure.

We've shrunk our religiosity from a grand cathedral to something much more humble. However, it's still a church. And there's more demolishing to do before we're closer to the bare rubble of reality.

As noted in "Is there anything to do but be?" I enjoy the comment conversations on this blog. Visitors have different styles, because everybody is different.

Some come off sounding pretty darn confident that they know what the cosmos is all about. Others express their best guess in a personal fashion and leave it at that. You could call this "I'm right" versus "I like."

I fly both ways, though I make an effort to stay within "I like" as much as possible. At least when it comes to mysticism, metaphysics, philosophy, and similar sorts of subjective speculations.

With science, claims of "I'm right" can rest on a much solider foundation. Why? Because the scientific method demands skepticism.

And a competent scientist will direct his most intense skepticism at himself. A hypothesis about the nature of reality has to be falsifiable. If there's no way you can be wrong, you can't be right.

Increasingly, the Western monotheistic religions are being rejected because the notion of a personal anthropomorphic God who intervenes in human affairs is too unbelievable.

But as Meera Nanda, a philosopher of science, observes in "Spirited Away," those who are deeply skeptical about traditional religious claims often are shallowly accepting of New Age, Eastern, and holistic ways of looking at the world.

But as secularists have begun to take on religion there is a danger that in calling for a rigorous evidence-based examination of one area they leave other areas untouched. In banishing religion from the front door some of these secularists are happily letting other forms of supernatural thinking in through the back.

… Attacks by feminists, environmentalists and others on the sins of 'reductionist western science' have created a positive aura around 'holistic science' which, it is claimed, overcomes the gap between the subject and the object. It is easy to debunk faith. Faith is by definition a relationship of trust regardless of evidence.

Spiritualism has learned to dress up its metaphysical abstractions in the clothes of empiricism, neuro-physiology and quantum physics. In contrast to the obvious irrationality of believing in an all-powerful, all-knowing invisible being, belief in 'spiritual energies' which can be 'directly experienced' by anyone simply by altering the state of their consciousness can appear so much more rational, even 'scientific'.

However, they're not. Nanda takes Sam Harris, author of "The End of Faith," to task for not being as critical of his own spiritual beliefs as he is of Islamic, Christian, and other fundamentalists.

But this bilious attack on faith, the aspect of the book which has received all the attention, only sets the stage for what seems to be his real goal: a defense, nay, a celebration of Harris' own Dzogchen Buddhist and Advaita Vedantic Hindu spirituality. Spirituality is the answer to Islam's and Christianity's superstitions and wars, he tells us. Spiritualism is not just good for your soul, it is good for your mind as well: it can make you "happy, peaceful and even wise". Results of spiritual practices are "genuinely desirable [for they are] not just emotional but cognitive and conceptual".

She makes some good points. It's easy to forget that while "God," "Allah," and "Jehovah" are abstractions, not directly observable or demonstrable, so are "Being," "Nonduality," and "Pure Awareness."

In science (Thomas Kuhn notwithstanding) anyone with functioning senses, adequate training and right apparatus can see the same star, the same DNA molecule, the same electron. But not everyone with adequate training in meditation techniques, and the right atmosphere, sees the same mystical reality: some see God, some see nothing at all and some, without any meditation at all, see what the mystics see. The mystical beliefs which Harris so approves of are every bit as unscientific, untestable and unverifiable as the religious belief he so aggressively attacks.

Comments

[Deepak Kamat]

Brian,
Meera Nanda is a dubious character. She is a comrade and has a way of demonising tradition in the post-modern fashion. Your thinking may be right but the sources are wrong. Anyway, you have quoted a lot of left fundamentalists from Hitchins to Nanda. It is their extremism which is as much disconcerting as the religious fanatics.

[Deepak Kamat]

The very fact that Nanda wants spiritual uniformity on the pretext of scientific accuracy reflects her extreme left background.

For further information: check out this link: http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/politics/bogey.html
The article makes her anti-Hindu background obvious.
It's about Hinduism, environmetnalism and the Nazi bogey.

[tAo]

My friend Deepak is quite right.

[Brian]

Well, before today I hadn't heard of Meera Nanda. Her essay made a lot of sense to me. I'm aware that she's a critic of Hindu nationalism that leads to anti-scientific bias.

In this essay Nanda takes on what seems to be the Hindu equivalent of Christian fundamentalists in the United States. The latter see the Bible as reflecting scientific truth; Nanda says the nationalistic Hindus do the same thing with the Vedas.
http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/vedic_science_Mira.htm

Anyone who is against religious meddling in science sounds fine to me. I'm curious as to what you find objectionable in what Nanda is saying, Deepak and tAo.

[Deepak Kamat]

Brian,
Half-truth is dangerous than lies. That's what Meera Nanda is an expert at. She has lumped Christianity and Hinduism which is unfair to the latter. Please spare me the work of dissecting, analysing and tearing her arguments to shreds.

THe Belgian historian Koenraad Elst has already done it. Please read:
http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/politics/bogey.html

[Deepak Kamat]

The most articulate scientist in the realms of `Hindu advaita science' happens to be a Christian. Fritjof Capta -- the author of the book Tao of Physics.
Now this debate about science, religion and politics is quite old and obfuscating. It requires more research. To sweep it under the category of religious intrusion in the domain of science or religious interference in political matters is also unfair.
It needs a totally new approach. Religion and Science as watertight compartments is also an old concept. Now there are new concepts like holistic science, quantam theory et al..... which rejects the concept of reductionism.
The new gives way to the old. There are fusion theories these days. I don't like doctrinaire approach of these leftists who view things with their compartmentalised mind. These leftists are scared about losing their base. That is why this bogey against what they call Hindu science.

Plus, let me admit that I am no authority on science as I am a commerce graduate. I would rather let the experts do the talking. I have only pointed out that worthies like Meera Nanda-- backed by political lobbies --- are not respected by the true academics in India.

Since I am a middle class Hindu born and brought up in India, I am closer to the ground realities here. That is why I am making these assertions.

[Brian]

Deepak, I don't claim to know anything about Hindu debates over science and religion. What I find intriguing, though, is that Meera Nanda is calling attention to what seems to be a parallel to Christian creationism in the United States. See:
http://www.flonnet.com/fl2301/stories/20060127003309700.htm

It's articles like these that I find appealing about Nanda. Religion doesn't have any place in science, whether it be Christian or Hindu. If something is real, observable, and testable, then it is in the realm of science. Where's the need for religious faith?

[Deepak Kamat]

To know more about Hindu nationalism, you may check my blog:
http://saffronthinktank.blogspot.com/

[Deepak Kamat]

Brian,

Let me clarify that I don't have any problems with you. Neti Neti (neither this, nor that) is a way of Hinduism. THe logical approach is quite alright.

However, I have problems with your sources. First of all, Meera Nanda's article was in Mukta Monu -- that is a left forum. Meera Nanda herself is a Left votary After that you gave me the link to Frontline. The Editor of Frontline is card holder of Communist Party of India.

My problem is that these leftists are trying to wipe out the religious traditions of India by branding it as superstitious and outdated. It is nothing but a storm in the tea cup.

Now, personally, I am all for science and non-duality. But why should the indigenous Hindus give up their faith. In democracy, people have the right to carry on their faith even if it appears to be blind to others.

Plus, I am a Hindu brahmin. I won't give up my rituals and culture just because some worthies say it is unscientific. I enjoy going to the Temples and satsangs with my friends even when I know there is little truth in it. I do enjoy simple faith although I don't endorse it.

I guess you have to be born as a Hindu to appreciate what I am saying. The Orient is far different from the Occident.

The parallels between Hindu nationalism and Christians meddling into science with their theory of creationism is also unwarranted. Of course, there are doctors like Dr. Deepak Chopra, Dr. Subash Kak who have propagated this idea that Vedic science contains scientific truth.

However, these are theories and everybody is free to promulgate their own theory. I disagree about the Left posiiton on Hindu nationalism. In fact, it is the other way round. Hindus are dominated by the Mullah, Padre, Comrade, Corporate brigade. The international lobbies are playing havoc with Hindu culture in India. I won't like to go forth on this topic in this Churchless forum. (My blog is the more appropriate place for discussion on Hindu nationalism.)

[Deepak Kamat]

Brian,

FYI, Vedic Creation (as mentioned in Frontline) is not endorsed by Hindu nationalists. It is a theory of ISKCON.

ISKCON has little takers in the circles of Hindu nationalism as well as the Hindu society.

In fact, Vedas are for evolution. Most of the Hindus are believers in evolution rather than creationism.

Further I must say that ISKCON theory of creationism is the bastard offspring of Christianity. You may go through the cult list in Steven Allen Hasan's site -- Freedom of Mind.com

[tAo]

Deepak said: "these leftists are trying to wipe out the religious traditions of India by branding it as superstitious and outdated. It is nothing but a storm in the tea cup." "The international lobbies are playing havoc with Hindu culture in India."

-- Yes, you're damn right Deepak. That is exactly what these leftist 'bitches and bastards' are doing. And it really sucks. Granted there is much superstition in some aspects of Indian culture, as there is elsewhere, but there is also an even vaster and deeper Hindu wisdom in Bharat as well.

[Deepak Kamat]

Tao,
It seems you stay in India has made you more of a native (wink).

You are right. It takes time to understand the real India (Bharat). Even those who are born and brought up in India are so much enamoured with the west that they fail to realize the greatness of Hindu wisdom.

What to speak of the professional Hindu bashers in the Left. They are paid to denigrate Hinduism and they are doing it well. The Mullah-Padre-Comrade-Corporate brigade in India has a stranglehold over the Indian media.

[tAo]

Brian wrote: "It's easy to forget that while "God," "Allah," and "Jehovah" are abstractions, not directly observable or demonstrable, so are "Being," "Nonduality," and "Pure Awareness."

-- "Nonduality" is simply a word which refers to the idea or notion of a fundamental absence of multiplicity. Is that idea an abstraction? Yes. But is a state of nonduality itself abstract? Only if it is seen from an objective point of view. But in the 'state' of nonduality, there is no such objective point of view. Therefore, the question/answer is a paradox.

-- "Pure Awareness" is simply another term which refers to the obvious existence of what humans call awareness or consciousness. And that requires awareness to even begin to consider the subject or idea of awareness. Nothing abstract about that. And "pure awareness" is not really any different than just "awareness".

-- Being is also just a word which simply refers to our existentential circumstance in all respects, physical, emotional, mental. So is "Being" an abstraction? As an idea, yes. As our fundamental primal existence as living conscious beings, I would say no.

Deepak,
What can I say. I guess I could say that I have India in my bones. I feel really and truly at home there. When I first went to live there in the late 1960s, I never really left.

[Deepak Kamat]

Non-Duality, Awareness and Being are not similar to the fantasies of Janaat (Islam) and Paradise (Christianity).

The Semetic faiths promise you the tomorrow. Advaita offers you the here and now. No false promises. Just being.

Meera Nanda is a paid bitch. She is paid for rubbishing Hindu wisdom.

[Deepak Kamat]

Check out this link. It is my take on Hindu nationalists, post modernists and intellectual dishonesty. I have mentioned Meera Nanda too.
http://saffronthinktank.blogspot.com/2008/02/hindu-nationalists-postmodernists-and.html

[poetryman69]

Lost in the clouds with Jupiter transcendent

Lost in the clouds with Mars ascendant.

Love Luck and the music of the Spheres.

Azure in the arms of Cerulean

Cast adrift in the Indigo isles

May Angel love and Moon glow light your path.

[Todd Chambers]

I do not trust Meera Nanda's agenda. She has a fellowship from the John Templeton Foundation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Templeton_Foundation#Controversies

[Helen]

Seems you've hit a nerve with this post Brian.

*Plus, I am a Hindu brahmin.*

I wonder if you would feel so passionately about this subject if you were a Hindu Dalit Deepak.

*I won't give up my rituals and culture just because some worthies say it is unscientific.*

Nobody's asking you to.

*I enjoy going to the Temples and satsangs with my friends even when I know there is little truth in it. I do enjoy simple faith although I don't endorse it.*

You ARE endorsing faith and rituals Deepak.
This is what Richard Dawkins would consider as "belief in belief", that somehow everyhting is all right with the world as long as some "simple" believes. this is nothing but sheer romanticism.

[Deepak Kamat]

Helen, Faith is personal. I don't mind being a romantic.

As for your allegation of Hindu Dalit, I would say that it is a mispropaganda of the Leftists in India. Besides, I am a HIndu nationalist. We also have movements to reform them. The Hindu nationalist movement supports reservations for Dalits and have given ample opportunity for them for reforms. Anyway, untouchability and casteism is a social evil. I feel it has to be removed.

FYI, even Dalits are proud of India's spiritual tradition. Helen, you are obfuscating the issue.

When I was against Meera Nanda, I was against her lumping India's spiritual tradition with the irrational Abrahamic faith.

What I was saying was that while the Abrahamim faiths promise you a future in the form of paradise and Janaat, the spiritual traditions offer you the present in the form of meditation, yoga and tantra (here and now).

Now Brian and Helen, answer my question. Don't you think you are mixing spirituality with religion. Is it not as much an offence as mixing science and religion or religion and politics. Don't you think it is a slur on India's lofty spiritual tradition that you are comparing it to the 'killer' Abrahamic faiths. Don't you think that you are allowing a stupid Stalinist to denigrate Hindu wisdom.

Don't obfuscate the issue. Come to the point. Obfuscation is also high on the Left Agenda.

I can very well understand that those who are disillusioned with a cult turn out to be atheists. However, remember, if you are searching for truth, you have to keep options. Don't be a frustrated ex-cultist atheist. Be open to truth. Be focussed on it. Outgrow your anti-cultish mindset. Even that cult (RSSB or ISKCON) was part of your growth. Grow up, dudes. Be balanced in your approach.

[Deepak Kamat]

Brian / Helen

Have you heard of Jehad / Inquisition while reading yoga / tantra. Have you heard of Stalinist revolutions involving mass killing.

I have not. If you have, do tell me.

[Helen]

*Have you heard of Stalinist revolutions involving mass killing.*

Of course I have. But what is your point? If it is that Stalin was an atheist, yes he was. A power hungry, murdering atheist at that. However, he did not kill in the name of atheism, but in the name of his own personal power. As a totalitarian dictator, he has more in common with religous dogmatism than say, secularism, humanism or atheism.

*Now...Helen, answer my question. Don't you think you are mixing spirituality with religion.*

No. Religious practices of all kinds has its roots in spiritual inquiry. Take away the spiritual inquiry "what is the meaning/purpose of life" and you take away meditation, rituals, churches, temples, worship and etc.

*Don't you think it is a slur on India's lofty spiritual tradition that you are comparing it to the 'killer' Abrahamic faiths.*

No. Hinduism has its own share of prejudices and opression sanctioned by religious thought. See the following links:

http://www.indiaphotos.us/indiaphotos/indiaphoto.us/index.html

http://www.nishantlalwani.co.uk/index.htm

http://www.newint.org/features/2005/07/01/combatting_caste/

I was also staying in Kovalam in Kerala when Dalits were murdered by a lynch mob on the suspicion of killing a cow. They hadn't actually killed the cow, they had bought the carcass in order to use it's hide. So I tend to believe what I can see.

*Anyway, untouchability and casteism is a social evil. I feel it has to be removed.*

If this is true, why do you claim to be a brahmin? Every time you do this, you claim your spiritual and social status as granted by Hindu spiritual thought and practise.

*Have you heard of Jehad / Inquisition while reading yoga / tantra.*

Well, I have heard about the Laws of Manu which poscribe how a Dalit shouldn't hear or speak on the Shastras: I assume that the penalty of having molten lead poured in their ears and down their throats has been suspended thesedays, but the spirit of the practise lives on in religious exclusion. So is this acceptable? The Laws of Manu verses the Inquisition? Equially horrible, I'd say.

[Deepak Kamat]

Don't compare mountains to molehills, Helen. Seems as if you are a paid bitch of the Left.

[Deepak Kamat]

Indian spirituality is a treasure for the entire world. There is no brahmin / dalit in it. Don't obfuscate the issue, Helen. By the same standard of Hindu religious traditiions, westerners are Mlecchas -- worse than Dalits. IS it not? I was defending Indian spirituality, remmeber that. I did not take up the task of defending Hindu religion. Remember that. All you links are from Left bastards and bitches -- who are paid to denigrate India. Remember that Helen.

[Deepak Kamat]

FYI, anybody can become a Brahmin by taking Gayatri initiations. Atleast, we Hindus don't convert like Jehadis, Evangelists and your revolutionary comrades.

[Deepak Kamat]

Anyway, read this link and educate yourself on caste. Brahmins have done the greatest sacrifice to protect the spiriutal tradition of India. Do you know that millions of brahmins were massacred by Aurangazeb. I am proud of my Brahmin roots. We preserved the spiritual culture of India. Remember that Helen. This has also been acknowledged by Swami Vivekananda and Mahatma Gandhi. All these Left bastards, mullahs and padres keep attacking the docile brahmins. I am a next-generation brahmin. I won't spare my detractors.

http://saffronthinktank.blogspot.com/2008/02/hindu-nationalists-and-casteism.html

[Deepak Kamat]

Keep your gutter inspectors report to yourself, Helen, I don't need it.

[Deepak Kamat]

Anyway, Helen, ask your Pope to stop converting Hindus in India through the power of wwestern dollars.

[Deepak Kamat]

Now, as I said, I don't spare my detractors. Now let me tear Helen's spurious arguments to shreds.

Helen says: “Of course I have (heard about Stalin) But what is your point? If it is that Stalin was an atheist, yes he was. A power hungry, murdering atheist at that. However, he did not kill in the name of atheism, but in the name of his own personal power. As a totalitarian dictator, he has more in common with religous dogmatism than say, secularism, humanism or atheism.
Now Helen, it is not just Stalin that is the problem, the problem is the ideology of Communism, it is an violent ideology which teaches the have-nots to kill the haves. That is what is meant by a blood revolution, my dear. The atheist Stalin killed because he was a Communist and it is the case everywhere in the world. Maoists in Nepal, Naxalites in India. Their death toll can be counted in thousands.”
Helen said: “No. Religious practices of all kinds has its roots in spiritual inquiry. Take away the spiritual inquiry "what is the meaning/purpose of life" and you take away meditation, rituals, churches, temples, worship and etc.. Hinduism has its own share of prejudices and opression sanctioned by religious thought. See the following links:”
Now Helen, you have given me links which are controlled by anti-Hindu interests. I don’t want to read those gutter inspectors reports. Besides, Hinduism has its own share of reformers. Swami Vivekananda, Gandhi and several thousands of reformers have reformed Hindu society.
Helen said; “I was also staying in Kovalam in Kerala when Dalits were murdered by a lynch mob on the suspicion of killing a cow. They hadn't actually killed the cow, they had bought the carcass in order to use it's hide. So I tend to believe what I can see..”
Now Helen, you have seen only one murder. But do you know that Missionaries, Mullahs and the Comrades have killed millions. It is a recorded fact of history – their genocides. On the other hand, the Hindu killings can be counted by fingers. Historians have not recorded any Hindu religious genocides so far.
Helen said: “Anyway, untouchability and casteism is a social evil. I feel it has to be removed. If this is true, why do you claim to be a brahmin? Every time you do this, you claim your spiritual and social status as granted by Hindu spiritual thought and practise.”
Helen, I only meant to say that casteism along with untouchability is a social evil. Casteism is not a social evil by itself. It is like different classes in society. Don’t you have class I, Class II, Class II employees in your organization. Can a Chairman and a blue collar worker sit side by side”
Helen said: “Well, I have heard about the Laws of Manu which poscribe how a Dalit shouldn't hear or speak on the Shastras: I assume that the penalty of having molten lead poured in their ears and down their throats has been suspended thesedays, but the spirit of the practise lives on in religious exclusion. So is this acceptable? The Laws of Manu verses the Inquisition? Equially horrible, I'd say.”
Helen, I am certainly not endorsing Manu Smriti, Certain wrongs did take place. But it is nowhere near the millions of death tolls by Muslims, Christians and Communists. The Islamic, Christian, Communist mass killings (of over a million) are recorded by history. Whereas Hindu killings (which can be counted by fingers) are exaggerated by the Leftists who are in control of the international media.
Now Helen, tell me. How can it be that mass killings of more than a million (committed by MULLAH, MISSIONARY, COMRADE brigade) match with a few killings here and there by a few Hindus. Certainly you are exaggerating.

The plain truth is that Christians, Muslims and Communists have resorted to mass killings in terms of millions. If you are not acknowledging it, you are not acknowledging history. It only exposes your red, green or crossed underwears.

FYI, nowhere in History is Hindu mass killings recorded. India is the only country which never attacked is neighbours. India was attacked but it never attacked other lands. That is because of the predominantly Hindu tolerance. Now you are ascribing the narrow minded anger of the Abrahamic faiths to this evolved religions. How dare you? Are you a paid bitch?

Now you say that you were in Kerala. Kerala is a Communist stronghold. I think you have been too much influenced by Communist pacifism. Kerala and Bengal are two hopeless states which have been ruined by these Marxists. Defending them, are you? I know about your secularism and humanism. These Marxists – after the collapse of the Soviet Union – changed their underwear colours overnight from red to pink. Do you know what I mean.

Any more questions, Helen.

[Deepak Kamat]

Finally, my apologies to Helen for calling her "bitch". Extremely sorry, maam. Since I posted in a hurry, it was inadvertent, the error is regretted. Just get on with the dignified version of my reply.

[Helen]

Deepak, your emotional reactions do not surprise me at all.

[Helen]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/06/0602_030602_untouchables.html

*Statistics compiled by India's National Crime Records Bureau indicate that in the year 2000, the last year for which figures are available, 25,455 crimes were committed against Dalits. Every hour two Dalits are assaulted; every day three Dalit women are raped, two Dalits are murdered, and two Dalit homes are torched.*

If 25,455 crimes against dalits happen in one year (and these are only the recorded ones), then every 10 years approxiamtely a quarter of a million dalits are murdered, rendered homeless, or raped (interesting that a woman can be untouchable but fuckable). 25 million people over the last 100 years, 50 million over the last 200 years.

I'd say that numerically qualifies as a jehad.

[tAo]

Deepak has no need to apologise. Deepak has nailed it. These slimey obfuscating leftist cowards and communists who wish to spit upon and tear down ten thousand years of Hindu culture, spiritality, and wisdom are indeed 'bitches and bastards'.

They are no better than the insane moslem and the judeao-christian troublemakers who have murdered hundreds of millions in the name of their violent tyrannical religions and politics. Not to mention the atheists who like to hide behind the facade of science. Only the agnostics, hindus, and buddhists allow peace to prevail.

[Deepak Kamat]

Therre are three lies: lies, damned lies and statistics. Here is the way Helen is lying wtih statistics. Now I will prove how safe Dalits are in India using the same statistics Helen is using.

Helen says: "If 25,455 crimes against dalits happen in one year (and these are only the recorded ones), then every 10 years approxiamtely a quarter of a million dalits are murdered, rendered homeless, or raped (interesting that a woman can be untouchable but fuckable). 25 million people over the last 100 years, 50 million over the last 200 years."

Helen: Dalits make up 16 percent of India's population. That means the entire Dalit population is 200 million in India. The entire population of USA is 300 millions.

As for the crime rate in US anually; See this link
http://gbi.georgia.gov/vgn/images/portal/cit_1210/41/45/90032275Statewide%20Crime%20Rates%20per%20100.pdf
It say, the number of violent crimes in US per 100,000 population is 500. That means for the entire US (population of 30 million), it is 1500,000 cases. So 1.5 million violent cases in US against Americans, only 25,000 cases against dalits. That means Dalits are a lot safer in India than AMericans are in US, is it not Helen. I am going through the official statistics here. HA HA HA (what a stupid bullshit argument).

Anyway, let me come to the point. Helen does not know the meaning of jehad or inquisition or bloody revolution. It is not stray killings here and there. It is organised killing for the sake of an ideology. The Muslim marauders went with quran in one hand and the sword on the other. They systematically and ethnically cleanses nations after nations. Ergo with missionaries and Comrades.

In India, 300,000 Kashmiri Pandits (Brahmins) were driven out in one go by the Jehadis and Kashmir was cleared of Hindus in one go. That is what is called ethnic cleansing.

What Hindus did at the max (as Helen says) was putting molten lead into the ears of Dalits in case they studied the vedas which was a Brahmin prerogative as per Manu Smriti. Helen, Manu Smriti is outdated. Nobody follows it today.

While your missionaries and jehadis and comrades still follow their bloody ideologies even today. Where are you? The international media is fed a lot of money to shut these cases. Anyway, the media needs ads. However, truth is obvious.

Finally, it is not faith that is dangerous. It is exclusive faith that is dangerous. When I say that my religion is the only religion and other religionists will go to hell, that is the problem. However, Hinduism is not like that. It believes in live and let-live unlike the wrathful killer Abrahamic faith.

Helen, get a course on Hinduism. The Pope should also apologise to Hindus for the bloody inquisitions in India. If you are an Indian, Helen, remember that even your forefathers were converted at sword point by Christians. Helen, study your roots. Don't defend these bloody Abrahmic faiths and comrades. Remember, your forefathers were pagans -- simple nature worshipping pious people. It was Islam, Christianity and the Comrades who destroyed their simplicity. It is Hinduism which has protected the ancient heritage. Be thankful to the Hindus and pagans, my dear.

Finally, I have met a lot of dimwits like you and am equally not surprised by your response. Nor am I emotional. I wrote in a hurry. That's all, for I am a professsional journalist writing a book. And i have very little time with me.

Exercise your grey cells. Learn more about Hinduism, Helen. Your facts are absolutely wrong. Your sources are anti-Hindu. Need I say more.

[Helen]

Deepak and Tao: If you choose to ignore statistics and photographic evidence, so be it. Personally, I think you could save all the energy of your knee-jerk self-defensive responses and actually do something about the appalling suffering that some people experience in the name of a spiritually sanctioned aparthied system. Who knows, if you did you might contribute to the end of somebody's very real suffering.

There is NO objective spiritual basis to the caste system, there is only a set of unprovable beliefs.

If you wish to be moral cowards, so be it.

[Deepak Kamat]

First of all, Helen, thanks for proving that Dalits in India are safer than Americans in US.

Secondly, I have seen your photographic evidence and statistics. I too can doctor photographs and statistics, as I proved it to you.

Caste system may not objective spiritual basis. Atleast, it is not harmful like your Abrahmic faiths and Communism.

Finally, Helen, the Hindu society is against apartheid and untouchability. That includes yours truly.

Now the question to you, Helen, do you still want to defend Islam, Christianity and Communists. If yes, then you are contributing to the total bloodshed in the world.

Now, tell me, who is a moral coward Helen. Regarding social reforms, Helen, I come from the background of the Hindu nationalist movement. We support reservations for Dalits and we are contributing to their welfare. Don't worry about Dalits. They are safe in the Hindu fold.

Worry more about these killer ABrahmic faiths and Communism. Do something to stop them. Or else theer will be more 9/11s. Now don't tell me that 9/11 was a Hindu brahmin conspiracy. I have heard many say that it is a zionist conspiracy. I am fortunate that I am not a Zionist. I am a Hindu brahmin. Anything else, Helen.

[Helen]

*Now the question to you, Helen, do you still want to defend Islam, Christianity and Communists*

If you re-read my posts carefully Deepak, you will notice that I haven't defended communism, Islam or Christianity. You simply assumed that I had. You and Tao are the ones with the agenda to prove Hinduism to be the best. As far as I am concerned there isn't a contest to begin with.

You are the one who asked me to compare Hinduism to the barbarity practised traditions. And whether you like it or not, I find that Hinduism is no better or worse than they in terms of the very real suffering wrought by unprovable beliefs.

[Helen]

Whoops, bit of a typo here:

*You are the one who asked me to compare Hinduism to the barbarity practised traditions.*

should read:

You are the one who asked me to compare Hinduism to the barbarity practised in those traditions

[Deepak Kamat]

Somewhere in America, a woman is raped every 2 minutes, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. See this link.
http://www.paralumun.com/issuesrapestats.htm

So that proves Dalit women are safe in India as Helen says only 3 Dalit women are raped everywhere. The rape rate is very low in India despite virile men like yours truly.

I don't care whether you have any agenda or not. Answer the facts presented, Helen.

Helen, your take now. Now that I have said Dalit women are safer in India than Amercan women in US.

[Deepak Kamat]

Yeah, Helen, Hinduism is the best of the lot. Disprove it.
Can you prove that Tantric and Yogic tradition of India are shit? Is it not sophisticated. This exactly is the case.
Of course, Hindu religion has defects. Hindu spirituality is beyond defects. Hindu spirituality is the gift of highly evolved souls. You have to be highly influenced by materialism or atheism to disprove it under the facade of science.

The reason why I lambasted you was because you were using highly left links. So i had to criticise the left and their cohorts of Muslims and Christians. Is that clear?

And I repeat, Hindu spirituality is evolved and is India's gift to the world. Like it or not, that is the case.

Of course, Hindu spirituality is the opposite of the Abrahmic faiths. Don't lump it with the killer religions. That is the crux of my entire arguments. Did you get it? Anything wrong with what I said?

[Helen]

*Helen, your take now. Now that I have said Dalit women are safer in India than Amercan women in US.*

You seem to be saying that numbers count here, that somehow because rape happens marginally less in Inida (ie, 9 women get raped in India instead of 10 in the USA) that it proves Hinduism is a better religion and india is safer.

What makes it wrong Deepak is that it happens at all, the numbers are immaterial. Dalit women are still raped, beaten and murdered just because they are Dalits.

1 rape is as wrong as 100. That is because rape is wrong, it is the act that is wrong, the philosphy behaind the act is wrong.

[Helen]

*Yeah, Helen, Hinduism is the best of the lot. Disprove it.*

I'm afraid the burden of proof rests with you because it is your claim. You have yet to provide any evidence for your claim.

*Of course, Hindu spirituality is the opposite of the Abrahmic faiths.*

In what way?

* Don't lump it with the killer religions.*

I will if Hindu people kill people because of their Hindu beliefs.

[Deepak Kamat]

Helen, the problem with you is that you are not seeing the larger picture. 1 murder cannot be equal to a million murders. 1 rape cannot be equal to a million rapes. Anyway, if that is what you want to say, the American state is the greatest killer. See the amount of annual crime in the USA. The Communist States are also no better. The Muslim state is the greatest offender.

The problem with you is that you have one point agenda of criticising Hinduism. That is why I object to it. Hinduism is a noble faith. I maintain it because I am a Brahmin. I have proved it by quoting the lofty texts of Hindu scriptures which pray for world peace. We don't convert others. We are happy with our faith and don't try to impose our faith on others. I wonder on what basis you are comparing the killer faith with Hindus. We Hindus don't kill each other. That is a Left propaganda which you have swallowed. Every year Hindu Samajotsava is held where Hindus -- irrespective of caste affiliations -- celebrate their common Hindu links.

The anti-Hindus (Commies, Mullahs and Padres) are jealous of that. That is why they are attempting to divide Hindu society so that they can wreak havoc. The international media is playing footsie with them.

Anyway, I have exposed your spurious arguments and dubious links. You stand exposed, Helen. Though you say that you don't have any agenda. Your single point agenda of denigrating Hindu faith is very clear. The Hate Hindu mindset has gone deep down your subconscious mind. Seek a psycologist to remove that deep Hindu hatred within you.

As for me, I am a proud Hindu brahmin who wants to ignite world peace with the power of spirituality. We did inspite of the cruel tyrant ideologies. We maintained the hoary spiritual traditions despite constant attacks from barbaric foreign invaders for thousands of years. And we will contine to do it with you, without you and despite you. We will continue it with despite a million of mutinies. That is the spirit of India, my dear.

In case you want to divide India in terms of caste, creed and religion. Go ahead, do it, it won't happen as long as there are Hindu nationalists like me around.

In case you have a conscience, you may apologise. If not, secretly go to the padre and make a confession. Ha Ha Ha.

*****

This is about rape statistics.
Helen says: You seem to be saying that numbers count here, that somehow because rape happens marginally less in Inida (ie, 9 women get raped in India instead of 10 in the USA) that it proves Hinduism is a better religion and india is safer.

Helen, Yes, numbers do count. Besides, the figure is not marginal. An American woman somewhere is raped every two minutes, whereas 3 Dalits woman somewhere is raped everyday. The chasm of statistics is wide. That is why I still maintain Dalit women are better off then AMerican women when it comes to rape.

REgarding your assertinos that Dalit women are raped because they are Dalits, you are wrong. Rape takes place because of penetration not because of caste. Even other women are raped. Why did you name only Dalit women? That shows your bigoted approach. That shows you want to divide Hindu society.

If you want to speak about women's rights, do so by all means. Why did you bring the Dalit link here. You wanted to denigrate Hinduism? Is it not?

I told you, the Hindu hatred has gone deep into your subconscious. I have two advice for you.

Go seek a psycologist. Or check my blogspot and educate yourself about Hindu nationalism, Hindutva vis-a-vis Mullah, Padre, Comrade Corpoate brigade.

Best of luck, Helen. See the larger picture and get out of your narrowminded hate. As for me, I am a Hindu brahmin who is ever ready to help others in the quest of wisdom. Feel free to contact me any time.

The link is : http://www.saffronthinktank.blogspot.com

Happy viewing, bye.

[tAo]

Deepak is again correct, and Helen is quite mistaken. There is no comparison whatsoever between the Sanatana Dharma on one hand, and the violent murderous religions of Islam and Christianity (pseudo), which when combined with Communism, have murdered many hundreds of millions of human beings, and an untold incalulable number of animals. Yet how many men women and children and animals have the Hindus murdered in the name of the culture of Bharat and the religion of Hinduism? It is infinitesimal in comparison. There is no comparison. Helen does not know what the hell she is taking about. The caste system has not tortured and murdered hundreds of millions of human beings. But Moslems and so-called Christians have done just that. But Helen still foolishly says that Hindus are no different. Go back and study your history Helen.

PS: Helen, how come you are not concerned about the extreme abuse done to millions of Moslem women? Have you ever lived in Indian society in cose proximity to Indian women? You seem to be very lacking in perspective.

[Helen]

*1 murder cannot be equal to a million murders. 1 rape cannot be equal to a million rapes.*

The equality lies in the motivation for the rape, ergo 1 rape motivated by hate is as bad as a million rapes motivated by the same hate. It is the hate that is the same. Whether the woman is American or Indian, if rape is happening in her country at all she is vulnerable to the hate that makes a man rape. Ergo, both sets of women are vulnerable, and yes, dalit women are raped for being dalit.

*Helen, the problem with you is that you are not seeing the larger picture.*

What you really mean is that you have no real arguments to back up your hypothesis and I can see and state that you can't.

*The problem with you is that you have one point agenda of criticising Hinduism.*

I have pointed out the flaws in your arguments: whether you like it or not, hinduism has the same achillies heel as all other religions when it comes to hate crimes. The construction of Hindu religious thought and the policy of hindu action (or any other religion) is not my responsibilty. It is not my fault that your religion, or any other, is vulnerable to reasoned argument. (reasoned argument, by the way, is not an attack)

*I have proved it by quoting the lofty texts of Hindu scriptures which pray for world peace.*

I could supply you with prayers for world peace by other religions, but I assume you already know they exist. Ergo, they function in the same way.

*I wonder on what basis you are comparing the killer faith with Hindus*

By the evidence that Hindus kill Dalits on the basis of religious thought. Being a Brahmin or a Dalit has no objective reality outside (or inside) the religious concepts of Hinduism. One is born with a body, a skin colour, a gender: everything else is added on by human thought.

*In case you want to divide India in terms of caste, creed and religion.*

I don't. It's already happened and not by me. You are the one who claims his caste position, you claim the divide, you like being a Brahmin. If you told me that you deplore what happens to your fellow Indians I would have been impressed: but you choose instead to tell me what your kind do for their kind.

[Helen]

Tao and Deepak, yours are the claims of Hindu exeptionalism. You are unable to prove it on your own criteria, that of murderous religous thought. The flaw then is either in your religion or your argument: so which is it?

[Deepak Kamat]

Helen is another dumb Leftist who is lumping things.

THese are several flaws in Helen's arguments. I will point them out.

FIrst of all, she says Dalit untouchables are raped.

Ho Ho Ho, if they are untouchables how can they be raped. If they are raped, they cannot be untouchables.

The next foolishness that Helen does is that she compares a few stray deaths of Hinduism is to millions of deaths in Abrahamic religions. Totally bullshit.

THe third foolishness that Helen does is attribute untouchability to Hinduism. Untoucbability is a social evil. It has nothing to do with Hindu religion. IT is not quoted in the Vedas -- which only says let all sentient beings live in peace.

The Fourth Foolishness that Helen does is lumping Hinduism along with divisive faiths like Christianity, Islam and Communism. Now these Abrahamic faiths have an "Us versus they" mentality. Hinduism does not have it.

THe fifth foolishness that Helen does is that she calls injustice to Dalits as jehad. THere is no doubt that injustice has been done to Dalits and untouchability is a social evil. It has to be removed. But to compare it to jehad and inquisition is like comparing Albert Einstein with a mental retard.

The sixth foolishness that Helen did was she quoted outright dubious Left links and she had the temerity to stop calling myself a Brahmin. I have the right to call myself whatever I want. WHo are you to decide Helen. You are a fascist who is hiding behind the facade of atheism and science.

The seventh foolishness that Helen did was when she claimed Hindus are killing Dalits. This is an outright lies. Though some stray killing of riots may have taken place, even conservative Brahmins who abide by Manu Smriti do not treat Dalits as the Muslim treats the Kafirs or the Christian treats a Heathen or as a Comrade treats a theist.

The greatest foolishness and the blunder that Helen did was when she quoted a Leftist report which appeared in National Geographic. Even National Geographic is infiltrated by Leftists. In that the report mentioned that annually there are nearly 25,000 cases of violence against Dalits.

NOw that is not a great number if you consider the Dalit population of 200 million. In any other country, the crime rate is higher than that.

There is no point arguing with a dimwit like Helen. I am a professional journalist with a larger picture. She prefers to judge events by a personal event that has happened in her life.

This is my verdict on Helen.

Her Hindu hate has gone deep into her subconsciousness.

This is my recommendation for her treatment.
Either through psycological means or hypnotic means.

There is something better. Make her visit my blogspot and make her read all my articles on Hinduism. Ha Ha Ha. I am just joking on my last recommendation, lest they call me authoritarian. Ha Ha Ha.

[Deepak Kamat]

Untouchability is of course deplorable. I never justified it.

I did justify the caste system though. You can retain your caste even by abandoning untouchability. That is what Hindu nationalists do.

[Deepak Kamat]

Helen said: Tao and Deepak, yours are the claims of Hindu exeptionalism. You are unable to prove it on your own criteria, that of murderous religous thought. The flaw then is either in your religion or your argument: so which is it?

Helen, We have already proved it. However, you are so much preconceived with your pseudo-secular-scientific-atheistic thought that things have flown your head.

The fault lies not with the speaker, but the listener. So Helen when are you going to clear your mind off all your pseudo-left leaning and look at reality in the face. This is what Hindus call sakshi bhava (the state of pure witnessing and awareness). Got it dimwit.

[Manjit]

Well, this is a bit of a strange conversation?!

Deepak, I didn't notice anything in Helen's posts which promoted communism or Abrahamic religions? She was just pointing out some of the many flaws within Indian/Hindu society?

Are you saying that India/Hinduism is somehow above such flaws, that it is a 'truely spiritual' country/religion beyond any kind of criticism? I'm sorry, but that comes across as terribly biased, naive & bigoted as any other fundamentalist of any other ilk. Violent or not.

Now I have a very special fondness for India, something I consider beyond religion, race or parental heritage, as I don't identify with these. Although being born in the UK, every time I go to India, it feels like I've come to my 'spirtual' home. I don't know why. But that also includes the dirt, corruption, caste system, poverty, disease, religous 'ignorance' etc. The whole circle of life. The sublime to the terrifying. I love it. It's in my bones. I mean it.

But is it beyond reproach? Nah.

On a, errrm, 'lighter' (??) note, here's what I considered to be the best news item of 2007:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7002695.stm

:o)

[Helen]

Deepak and tao these are my very last points.

In the abrahmic traditions faith in the creed (orthodoxy) is demonstrated by action (orthopraxis). Orthpraxis is defined by a code of conduct, usually given the title of law.

To violate the law is taboo (forbidden). The law is seen to be broken by actions that deviate from the law. The punishment is usually, though not always, death. (remember i'm talking about religious history, not modern secular states).

In Brahmannical Hinduism, orthodoxy is not considered as important as orthopraxis. Ergo, one can be an atheist and a Hindu simultaneoulsy. However, Hindu orthopraxis, like the abrahmic faiths, is governed by law. Certain of those laws relate to the preservation of purity. The purest caste is defined as Brahmin and the laws serve to protect that purity. To break those laws is taboo. The law is seen to be broken by actions that deviate from the law. The punishment is usually, though not always, death.

Therefore, in relation to taboo breaking and its subsequent punishments, Hinduism is no different to the abrahmic faiths.

[Brian]

Helen, good arguments. To my mind you make much more sense than your debaters in this comment conversation.

Hinduism...Christianity...Islam...devotees of every religion believe that their chosen faith is different from the others, somehow immune from the fundamentalist craziness that creates so many problems in the world.

If there was no religion, would the world be better or worse? The answer has to be, "better."

I think of the partition between India and Pakistan. From 200,000 to a million people were killed. Because of religion. And nationalism fanned by religion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India

Hindus killing Muslims. Muslims killing Hindus. And its continuing.
http://www.time.com/time/asia/features/india_ayodhya/cover.html

As it will, until people start identifying themselves as humans, not as Hindu or Muslim.

[Helen]

*As it will, until people start identifying themselves as humans, not as Hindu or Muslim.*

Which I believe, Brian, was the very point Guru Nanak was trying to make.

*Helen, good arguments. To my mind you make much more sense than your debaters in this comment conversation.*

Thankyou.

[Deepak Kamat]

Brian, Helen and Manjit,

You are misled. I am not blaming. The Indian media and its international cohorts is largely against the Hindu interests as it is manipulated by the Mullah-Missionary-Comrade-Corporate brigade. I will correct you on the nature of caste.

For that however, you have to read this article of mine in which I have detailed castes in detail.

Anyway this is it: According to Prof. Koenraad Elst, Jati and varna (caste) have, for the most part, helped rather than hurt Hinduism Read this article to find out why?

The Caste Paradigm in India: An important study
In an inter-faith debate, most Hindus can easily be put on the defensive with a single word-caste. Any anti-Hindu polemist can be counted on to allege that "the typically Hindu caste system is the most cruel apartheid, imposed by the barbaric white Aryan invaders on the gentle dark-skinned natives." Here's a more balanced and historical account of this controversial institution.
Merits of the Caste System
The caste system is often portrayed as the ultimate horror. Inborn inequality is indeed unacceptable to us moderns, but this does not preclude that the system has also had its merits.
Caste is perceived as an "exclusion-from," but first of all it is a form of "belonging-to," a natural structure of solidarity. For this reason, Christian and Muslim missionaries found it very difficult to lure Hindus away from their communities. Sometimes castes were collectively converted to Islam, and Pope Gregory XV (1621-23) decreed that the missionaries could tolerate caste distinction among Christian converts; but by and large, caste remained an effective hurdle to the destruction of Hinduism through conversion. That is why the missionaries started attacking the institution of caste and in particular the brahmin caste. This propaganda has bloomed into a full-fledged anti-brahminism, the Indian equivalent of anti-Semitism.
Every caste had a large measure of autonomy, with its own judiciary, duties and privileges, and often its own temples. Inter-caste affairs were settled at the village council by consensus; even the lowest caste had veto power. This autonomy of intermediate levels of society is the antithesis of the totalitarian society in which the individual stands helpless before the all-powerful state. This decentralized structure of civil society and of the Hindu religious commonwealth has been crucial to the survival of Hinduism under Muslim rule. Whereas Buddhism was swept away as soon as its monasteries were destroyed, Hinduism retreated into its caste structure and weathered the storm.
Caste also provided a framework for integrating immigrant communities: Jews, Zoroastrians and Syrian Christians. They were not only tolerated, but assisted in efforts to preserve their distinctive traditions.
Typically Hindu?
It is routinely claimed that caste is a uniquely Hindu institution. Yet, counter examples are not hard to come by. In Europe and elsewhere, there was (or still is) a hierarchical distinction between noblemen and commoners, with nobility only marrying nobility. Many tribal societies punished the breach of endogamy rules with death.
Coming to the Indian tribes, we find Christian missionaries claiming that "tribals are not Hindus because they do not observe caste." In reality, missionary literature itself is rife with testimonies of caste practices among tribals. A spectacular example is what the missions call "the Mistake:" the attempt, in 1891, to make tribal converts in Chhotanagpur inter-dine with converts from other tribes. It was a disaster for the mission. Most tribals renounced Christianity because they chose to preserve the taboo on inter-dining. As strongly as the haughtiest brahmin, they refused to mix what God hath separated.
Endogamy and exogamy are observed by tribal societies the world over. The question is therefore not why Hindu society invented this system, but how it could preserve these tribal identities even after outgrowing the tribal stage of civilization. The answer lies largely in the expanding Vedic culture's intrinsically respectful and conservative spirit, which ensured that each tribe could preserve its customs and traditions, including its defining custom of tribal endogamy.
Description and History
The Portuguese colonizers applied the term caste, "lineage, breed," to two different Hindu institutions: jati and varna. The effective unit of the caste system is the jati, birth-unit, an endogamous group into which you are born, and within which you marry. In principle, you can only dine with fellow members, but the pressures of modern life have eroded this rule. The several thousands of jatis are subdivided in exogamous clans, gotra. This double division dates back to tribal society.
By contrast, varna is the typical functional division of an advanced society-the Indus/Saraswati civilization, 3rd millennium, bce. The youngest part of the Rg-Veda describes four classes: learned brahmins born from Brahma's mouth, martial kshatriya-born from his arms; vaishya entrepreneurs born from His hips and shudra workers born from His feet. Everyone is a shudra by birth. Boys become dwija, twice-born, or member of one of the three upper varnas upon receiving the sacred thread in the upanayana ceremony.
The varna system expanded from the Saraswati-Yamuna area and got firmly established in the whole of Aryavarta (Kashmir to Vidarbha, Sindh to Bihar). It counted as a sign of superior culture setting the arya, civilized, heartland apart from the surrounding mleccha, barbaric, lands. In Bengal and the South, the system was reduced to a distinction between brahmins and shudras. Varna is a ritual category and does not fully correspond to effective social or economic status. Thus, half of the princely rulers in British India were shudras and a few were brahmins, though it is the kshatriya function par excellence. Many shudras are rich, many brahmins impoverished.
The Mahabharata defines the varna qualities thus: "He in whom you find truthfulness, generosity, absence of hatred, modesty, goodness and self-restraint, is a brahmana. He who fulfills the duties of a knight, studies the scriptures, concentrates on acquisition and distribution of riches, is a kshatriya. He who loves cattle-breeding, agriculture and money, is honest and well-versed in scripture, is a vaishya. He who eats anything, practises any profession, ignores purity rules, and takes no interest in scriptures and rules of life, is a shudra." The higher the varna, the more rules of self-discipline are to be observed. Hence, a jati could collectively improve its status by adopting more demanding rules of conduct, e.g. vegetarianism.
A person's second name usually indicates his jati or gotra. Further, one can use the following varna titles: Sharma (shelter, or joy) indicates the brahmin, Varma (armour) the kshatriya, Gupta (protected) the vaishya and Das (servant) the shudra. In a single family, one person may call himself Gupta (varna), another Agrawal (jati), yet another Garg (gotra). A monk, upon renouncing the world, sheds his name along with his caste identity.
Untouchability
Below the caste hierarchy are the untouchables, or harijan (literally "God's people"), dalits ("oppressed"), paraiah (one such caste in South India), or scheduled castes. They make up about 16% of the Indian population, as many as the upper castes combined.
Untouchability originates in the belief that evil spirits surround dead and dying substances. People who work with corpses, body excretions or animal skins had an aura of danger and impurity, so they were kept away from mainstream society and from sacred learning and ritual. This often took grotesque forms: thus, an untouchable had to announce his polluting proximity with a rattle, like a leper.
Untouchability is unknown in the Vedas, and therefore repudiated by neo-Vedic reformers like Dayanand Saraswati, Narayan Guru, Gandhiji and Savarkar. In 1967, Dr. Ambedkar, a dalit by birth and fierce critic of social injustice in Hinduism and Islam, led a mass conversion to Buddhism, partly on the (unhistorical) assumption that Buddhism had been an anti-caste movement. The 1950 constitution outlawed untouchability and sanctioned positive discrimination programs for the Scheduled Castes and Tribes. Lately, the Vishva Hindu Parishad has managed to get even the most traditionalist religious leaders on the anti-untouchability platform, so that they invite harijans to Vedic schools and train them as priests. In the villages, however, pestering of dalits is still a regular phenomenon, occasioned less by ritual purity issues than by land and labor disputes. However, the dalits' increasing political clout is accelerating the elimination of untouchability.
Caste Conversion
In the Mahabharata, Yuddhishthira affirms that varna is defined by the qualities of head and heart, not by one's birth. Krishna teaches that varna is defined by one's activity (karma) and quality (guna). Till today, it is an unfinished debate to what extent one's "quality" is determined by heredity or by environmental influence. And so, while the hereditary view has been predominant for long, the non-hereditary conception of varna has always been around as well, as is clear from the practice of varna conversion. The most famous example is the 17th-century freedom fighter Shivaji, a shudra who was accorded kshatriya status to match his military achievements. The geographical spread of Vedic tradition was achieved through large-scale initiation of local elites into the varna order. From 1875 onwards, the Arya Samaj has systematically administered the "purification ritual" (shuddhi) to Muslim and Christian converts and to low-caste Hindus, making the dwija. Conversely, the present policy of positive discrimination has made upper-caste people seek acceptance into the favored Scheduled Castes.
Veer Savarkar, the ideologue of Hindu nationalism, advocated intermarriage to unify the Hindu nation even at the biological level. Most contemporary Hindus, though now generally opposed to caste inequality, continue to marry within their respective jati because they see no reason for their dissolution.
Racial Theory of Caste
Nineteenth-century Westerners projected the colonial situation and the newest race theories on the caste system: the upper castes were white invaders lording it over the black natives. This outdated view is still repeated ad-nauseam by anti-Hindu authors: now that "idolatry" has lost its force as a term of abuse, "racism" is a welcome innovation to demonize Hinduism. In reality, India is the region where all skin color types met and mingled, and you will find many brahmins as black as Nelson Mandela. Ancient "Aryan" heroes like Rama, Krishna, Draupadi, Ravana (a brahmin) and a number of Vedic seers were explicitly described as being dark-skinned.
But doesn't varna mean "skin color?" The effective meaning of varna is "splendor, color," and hence "distinctive quality" or "one segment in a spectrum." The four functional classes constitute the "colors" in the spectrum of society. Symbolic colors are allotted to the varna on the basis of the cosmological scheme of "three qualities" (triguna): white is sattva (truthful), the quality typifying the brahmin; red is rajas (energetic), for the kshatriya; black is tamas (inert, solid), for the shudra; yellow is allotted to the vaishya, who is defined by a mixture of qualities.
Finally, caste society has been the most stable society in history. Indian communists used to sneer that "India has never even had a revolution." Actually, that is no mean achievement.

[Deepak Kamat]

Helen wrote: "Deepak and tao these are my very last points."

Helen, I would say No, they are certainly not. Because this post raises many questions that will force you to answer.

Helen wrote: "In the abrahmic traditions faith in the creed (orthodoxy) is demonstrated by action (orthopraxis). Orthpraxis is defined by a code of conduct, usually given the title of law. To violate the law is taboo (forbidden). The law is seen to be broken by actions that deviate from the law. The punishment is usually, though not always, death. (remember i'm talking about religious history, not modern secular states)."

Helen, this is the first time I am agreeing with you. You are bang on target here. However, you have not mentioned how it works differently in the cases of Islam, Christianity and Jews. OF course that will obfuscate the issue here.

Helen wrote: "In Brahmannical Hinduism, orthodoxy is not considered as important as orthopraxis. Ergo, one can be an atheist and a Hindu simultaneoulsy."

Helen, you are partly right. You are right in that a Hindu can be an atheist too for he has the freedom. Let me point out where you are wrong. Both orthodoxy and orthoproxis are western views. There is nothing called as Brahminical Hinduism. As I pointed out in the previous article, Brahmin is a class of noble men who are given to virtue. That it degenerated into a caste is another thing. This is a mistake which western scholars and even their Indian counterparts usually do).

Hinduism is not a monolith. It is a collective term for the religions born beyond the River Sindhu (Indus). However, Hinduism or Hindu dharma can be broadly divided into three : Sanatana Dharma (Eternal religion), Samaja Dharma (social religion) and Vyakti Dharma (personal religino). The mode of worship, personal beliefs et al come in Vyakti Dharma. Societal codes like constitution and the way you behave in society comes from Samaja Dharma (Manu Smriti comes in this category. It was a sort of constituion during the medieval age). Sanatana Dharma is eternal and it contains what you call humanism (love, compassion, forgiveness et al). Now Sanatana Dharma is considered the highest. IF there is a clash between Sanatana Dharma, Samaja Dharma and Vyakti Dharma, it is Sanatana Dharma that rules.

What is Sanatana Dharma: THE values of Sanatana Dharma are noble: They include verses like: May all sentient beings live in peace. May noble thoughts come from all direction. THe world is one family. Truth alone triumphs. The soul longs for union with the universal soul (Atmana mokshartham) et al. This is the real Hinduism that I am referring to.

What is Samaja Dharma: What you call class or castes comes in the domain of Samaja Dharma. The Manu Smriti comes in this category. It applies only to the age and time. It is like the Constituion (civil and criminal law) of the nation. It is not eternal. It can change from time to time. That is why Hinduism is open to social reforms.

Vyakti Dharma is personal. It includes your personal faith, your mode of worship, what you eat, what you wear, whether you want to get married or remain a bachelor. It is left to the individual.

So there is no question of orthodoxy and orthopraxis in Hinduism. What you call orthopraxis may be called Samaja Dharma (constitution of the society which changes from time to time). Don't you have rules in Amerca like left-hand drive. It may change given the nature of the society.

So both orthodoxy and orthopraxis have no base in Hinduism. It is about eternal, societal and personal freedom. WHen I meant to say that Hinduism is the best. I meant that Sanatana Dharma is the best. There may be defects in Samaja dharma and vyakti dharma. However, Sanatana dharma is noble. This was the message of Swami Vivekananda and Aurobindo as well as numerous other Hindu sages -- preserve Sanatana Dharma.

Helen said: However, Hindu orthopraxis, like the abrahmic faiths, is governed by law.

Helen, Like I told you it is only about Samaja Dharma (social laws)that are laid down by the society. In any case, it is nothing like the Abrahmic religon. It is a set of rules to govern society just like you have policemen and constituion in modern secular nations.

Helen said: "Certain of those laws relate to the preservation of purity. The purest caste is defined as Brahmin and the laws serve to protect that purity."

Helen, this is how the Mahabharata defines a Brahmin. "He in whom you find truthfulness, generosity, absence of hatred, modesty, goodness and self-restraint, is a brahmana.

Helen, so is there anything wrong in being truthfullness, generous, non-hateful, modest, god and chaste? This is what a real brahmin is all about. I have pointed out earlier. Your orthopraxis comes in Samaja dharma and not in Sanatana dharma or Vyakti dharma. Samaja dharma has its own limitation. It is a social code. It has got nothing to do with the main reliogn. It can change. Nobody follows these laws these days. And the Indian constituion as it is today is also subject to change. Indians change their social constitution from time to time unlike the orthodox Muslims and Christians. Hindus move along with time yet they preserve thier culture.

Helen said: "To break those laws is taboo. The law is seen to be broken by actions that deviate from the law. The punishment is usually, though not always, death."

Helen, this is how you are obfuscating the issue. That is the social code. If you violate the constition of your land, you will also be punished. This constitution of the land has got nothing to do with your faith. Try to smuggle some drugs in US, you will be given a death sentence to the max. That does not mean the problem is with Christianity, it is about the law of the land -- the constituion. So whatever problems you find in Hindu society is not due to the HIndu faith, you can say it is a part of the society or rather human weakness.

Let me point out the difference between religious rapes and secular rapes. Now a lustful man rapes a woman purely for sex, I woudl call that a secular rape. But if it was done after the faithful does it in compliance with the scriptures, it is religious rape. This has been the case with Muslims.

Helen said: "Therefore, in relation to taboo breaking and its subsequent punishments, Hinduism is no different to the abrahmic faiths."

This is a highly convulted arguments. It is somewhat akin to say that. There is no difference between Albert Einstein and a mentally retard because both are human beings. Don't be so dumb, Helen.

In terms of sophistication, class and nobility, Hinduism is the best. Don't compare a saint to a criminal. You are elevating the criminal and insulting the Saint. I hope you understand what I say.

Anyway the nobility of Hindu civilization has proved its longevity. It is the oldest and the most noble religion in the world. It survived without converting others. Even today, people are free to leave Hinduism, but Hinduism never converts. It is highly democratic, highly secular and scientiific too. These are time-tested truths. No amount of denigration can undo this noble truth.

This is what Swami Vivekananda said about Hinduism: Our ideal is the Brahmin of spiritual culture and renunciation. To devote your life to the good of all and to the happiness of all is religion. Whatever you do for your own sake is not religion”

Finally, I would like to end with a favourite quote of mine: There is a difference between being truthful and being logical. Helen, you are logical but unfortunately not truthful. Your commitment to truth seems to be weak. You are only interested in winning the argument.

[Deepak Kamat]

Brian and Chuchless,

I think there is a difference in our perception about religion. I believe in the Swami Vivekananda version of religion: Religion is the manifestation of the Divinity already in man.

[Deepak Kamat]

Brian, regarding Hindu Muslim clashes in India, I would like to quote, Swami Vivekananda again: I agree with him 100 percent in this regard:
The great strength of Hinduism is that it does not lay down one dogma for everybody as is the case with Christianity and Islam. ?The fault with all religions like Christianity,? said Vivekananda, ?is that they have one set of rules for all. But Hindu religion is suited to all grades of religious aspiration and progress. It contains all the ideas in their perfect form.?41 A universality which does not preserve individuality is false. ?Individuality in universality,? he continued, ?is the plan of creation... Man is individual and at the same time .universal. It is while raising the individual that we realise even our national and universal nature.?42 It is because of this spirit of universality that Hinduism has never been a persecuting religion: ?You know that the Hindu religion never persecutes. It is the land where all sects may live in peace and unity. "The Mohammedans brought murder and slaughter in their train, but until their arrival peace prevailed"

[Deepak Kamat]

This is my final conclusion and final comment: Hindu religion is pure. Whatever deformities you see in Hindu society like casteism, untouchability, sati, purdah can be categorised under social evils. I won't entertain any more post. That is the end of the matter. Anybody who reads my previous posts will easily come to that conclusion. If not visit my blogspot where the entire details of Hindu nationalism and Hinduism has been defined in detail.

http://www.saffronthinktank.com

[Deepak Kamat]

Also read Swami Vivekananda whom I consider to be the perfect modern Hindu brahmin. I endorse whatever Swami says.

[Deepak Kamat]

Finally, Helen, you have never answered my question.

Where is jehad and inquisition in Hinduism? is it not tolerant? Ahimsa Parama Dharma says the Vedas. Non-violence is the highest truth. Even you atheists don't say that.

[Deepak Kamat]

Hindus never killed anyone. In fact it is the Hindus who were butchered by the western, Abrahmic and Muslim idiots. Get your facts right, idiots.

[Deepak Kamat]

And these stupid comrades and atheists, they have the temerity to lump a tolerant faith like Hinduism with intolerant faiths like Islam and Christianity. Surely, you are having pipe dreams.

"Islamic conquest of India was the bloodiest story in the history of mankind. Eternal vigilanec is the price of freedom. Civilizations can be overrun by barbarians", said the American historian Will Durant. The HIndu genocide is deep down in the subconscious of every Hindus who will never tolerate this lumping together of religion by atheistic idiots. Of course there are atheists in Hinduism too. But comparing a saint to a criminal, you are out of your mind.

All my Churchless frineds, see things in its true colour. Don't lump everything in pure black as you are doing now.

[Deepak Kamat]

Helen said: "To break those laws is taboo. The law is seen to be broken by actions that deviate from the law. The punishment is usually, though not always, death."

Show me one case in Hindu scriptures where death sentence is awarded. Never. It is a pure mischief. You are rubbishing a noble faith. Helen. You are an intellectual fraud.

[Deepak Kamat]

Hindus never killed anyone. In fact it is the Hindus who were butchered by the western, Abrahmic and Muslim idiots. Get your facts right, idiots.

[Deepak Kamat]

Brian,
Atheistic Communism led to millions of deaths. So do you still say that absence of religions will lead to a peaceful place.

[Deepak Kamat]

Hinduism is neither concerned with orthodoxy nor with orthopraxis. It is only connected with the search for truth.

[Deepak Kamat]

Helen, who is the brain behind this orthodoxy-Orthopraxy argument. You have lumped it well anyway.

I am a Hindu. I don't follow both orthodoxy and orthopraxy.

When I mean to say that I am a Hindu Brahmin. I am a Hindu after Brahma Jnana, the ultimate truth. Stop viewing Hinduism with west/christian/secular eyes.

[Deepak Kamat]

Helen, there is no point bringing RIchard Dawkings. He is ignorant about Hinduism. Besides, he has rubbished astrology as superstiton which is in fact scientific.

[Brian]

Deepak, I respect your commitment to Hinduism. You've got every right to embrace your Brahmin heritage.

But you've got to realize that convincing readers of a churchless blog that Hinduism, or any religion, is a virtually flawless pearl -- that's a tough sell.

What I hear you claiming is what lots of Christians, Muslims, and advocates of other faiths say: "Our religion is pure; it's the extremists in our religion who screw it up."

However, that's also a tough sell. Because a religion isn't an abstraction; it's a concrete earthly reality. You've got to look at what religious believers actually do in the name of their religion.

And it can't be denied that Hindus kill in the name of Hinduism, just as Muslims kill in the name of Islam. When you say "Hindus never killed anyone" I have no idea what you mean.

The hundreds of thousands of deaths during partition, and the sectarian violence continuing in India, puts the lie to that statement.

Again, I guess you mean that a real Hindu doesn't kill. Just as a real Muslim doesn't kill. However, those who kill believe that they are defending the tenets of their religion, so I come back to my basic contention: without religion, the world would be better off.

You cite atheists who also have killed. Sure, who denies that? But why give the dark side of human nature another extra reason to kill? Religion offers another way people believe, "That person is not like me."

Instead of a human being, they see a Hindu or a Muslim. We've already got enough divisions in the world. Religion just adds on to them.

[Deepak Kamat]

Brian, Sex and violence are man's basic instincts. Only way you can curb them is through spirituality. This is what Hinduism is all about.

As for the defects of Hinduism, they have its origin in Islamic invasions and British misrule. Before that it was not so. Hinduism is democratic. THere is no single prophet, no single scripture. Anybody is free to do whatever he wants. Hinduism is the only religon where you can reject both orthodoxy and orthopraxy. This is very much unlike the ABrahmic faiths. This is the crux of my argument. Anyway my interaction in this blog have led to two beautiful articles for my next book.

Check out this link:
http://saffronthinktank.blogspot.com/2008/02/scientific-dogma-when-atheists-hide.html
It is about scientific dogma. It is about what happens when atheists hide behind the façade of science. This explains why secular humanists are wrong in lumping Hinduism with Abrahamic faiths

Also check out this link:
http://saffronthinktank.blogspot.com/2008/02/using-dalits-as-artifice-for-aggression.html
It is about the way Mullah, Missionary, Marxist brigade seeks to divide Hindu society. Happy reading.

If anybody wants to argue with me on this issue any further, he can do so in my blog. My blog is exclusively meant for Hindu thought and Hindu nationalism.

[tAo]

I definitely agree with Deepak, and I do NOT agree with Brian, or Helen, or anyone else who thinks that there is a single religon called Hinduism with followers who represent that supposed religion.

Actually Brian and Helen are both making the error of viewing "Hinduism" as being a one single solitary and unitary and cohesive religion whose followers all represent that one single Hindu religion.

Fyi Brian et al, "Hinduism" is not a unitary religion. It is not one religion at all. It is actually many different philosophies and different beliefs. It is not at all like the sub-sects of christianity or islam. There is no ONE Hinduism.

So all arguements, such as the one that Brian made, that are predicated upon the idea that the actions of Hindus represent Hinduism as a whole, as a religion, are false. The broad spectrum of so-called "Hinduism" is founded upon various diverse factors. Such factors are the Sanatana Dharma as expressed and interpreted in and by the ancient Rishis, the Vedas, the Upansihads, the Vedanta, the Agamas, the Puranas, etc, as well as the diverse sub-sects and all their different orientations that all lie within the divisions Shaivism, Vaishnavism, Shaktism.

So to say that Hindus commit violence and murder as Hindus in the name of Hinduism is utterly false. There is no one single "Hinduism", or even an umbrella of Hinduism. That mistaken idea is a western idea and fabrication and an over-simplification due to the western monotheistic religious outlook.

[tAo]

PS: Other than this little message, my previous post will be my last and final comment here in this forum. I am not interested in having other people telling me how I should and should not express myself. Good-bye and best wishes to all. I hope each finds whatever it is that they are looking for. Cheerio

[Brian]

tAo, sorry to see you go. I enjoyed your comments, even when your language wasn't as courteous to other blog visitors as I would have liked.

Allow me this observation: you were never shy about expressing your feelings and thoughts. You told other people off in very direct and often profane language when you felt the spirit.

Yet you've taken offense at some comparatively mild observations made by me and others about how people should talk with each other on the Internet. I find this surprising.

This gets at one of the points I made in my "how we should talk" post. If someone criticizes others, he or she should expect to be criticized. If someone tells people how they should express themselves, he or she should expect that others will do the same.

There has to be an equality of reciprocity in a conversation. Otherwise one person is trying to achieve a position of dominance, making conversational rules that only apply to others, not to them.

[tAo]

Brian,
I was not intending to continue posting any further comments. However, in as much as you seem to have somehow misunderstood something, let me try to address your statements and explain a couple of things in as simple and down to earth and common sense fashion as I can.

A.) I have not "taken offense at some comparatively mild observations made by me and others about how people should talk with each other". I have not taken any "offense". Rather, I am just not interested in being told as to how I should or should not express myself. I do NOT tell others HOW they should express themselves. I only criticise the assumptions that they make, and/or the various ideas and beliefs and dogma that they present as being 'the way things are', and that they also try to impose upon others here. But I do NOT care how or in what fashion people may choose to express themselves, but only the content and subject matter of what they say.

B.) You said: "If someone criticizes others, he or she should expect to be criticized." I certainly agree, and as I indicated above, I have no problem with anyone criticising the content, the ideas, and the subject matter of whatever I may say. I just don't care to be told HOW I should or should not express MY views - the manner in which I should express my views. It would be like an audience telling an artist or a musician or a poet or a writer HOW he should or should not paint his paintings or play his music or write his poems or books. It is no different in this case.

C.) You then said: "If someone tells people how they should express themselves, he or she should expect that others will do the same." Yes that's also true... BUT I have NOT told anyone HOW they should or should not express themselves. I have only criticised WHAT they may have said, the ideas and content that they may have put forth.

Therefore, because I do NOT tell anyone HOW THEY should express themselves, then I expect that no one has any right to TELL ME HOW I should or should not express myself.

Now, if you, the owner of this site, do not care for the particular manner in which I choose to express myself, then you know as well as I do that it is entirely your prerogative to say so, and to even delete any or all of my posts if you so choose.

I also think that the manner in which I sometimes choose to express myself has been unduly focused upon, and has been exagerrated and distorted by a few others here who have some particular underlying agenda to do so.

In any case, until such time as certain other individuals who now frequent this little forum learn to acknowledge, to respect, and to accept the right and the freedom of others to be able to express themselves in the manner of their own choosing (and without denigrating or censoring how others choose to express themselves), I will simply refrain from further commentary and participation.

This is really all I have to say on this matter, so comment if you care to, but please do not expect any further responses from my side.

Thank you sincerely for your many interesting contributions and for hosting this comment forum.

In the TAO...

[Deepak Kamat]

Tao,

I have another suggestion for you. You may comment in my blog. Of course, it is primarily a blog on Hindu nationalism. But mysticism, dogma, ideology et al.. (the things we talk in Churchless) are a part of Hinduism. So you are very much welcome to post in Saffron Think Tank. Besides, given your experience, I guess you can start your own blog. What we need is convergence of people dedicated to truth to combat the malicious propaganda of the internatiional lobbies in the media. I also have other ideas up my sleeve to do something in the larger interests of humanity. I am a person who has dedicated his life to Hindu nationalism. I don't have any other job. So you are welcome to join me in this mission.

[Helen]

Deepak and tao, for the sake of brevity I shall use this one point that you've both made, but taken from tao's comments:

*So to say that Hindus commit violence and murder as Hindus in the name of Hinduism is utterly false. There is no one single "Hinduism", or even an umbrella of Hinduism.*

If there is no Hinduism, what is it that you are defending? You cannot claim that Hinduism is perfect if it doesn't exist.

[Deepak Kamat]

It is the Hindu way of life my dear which you Abrahamic followers and those in the west do not understand. For that you need to have an heart, not just an intellect.

Besides, we never defended anything.
We were against lumping of Hinduism with an Abrahamic faith.

Let me again put this in a logical manner so that persons who think from the mind (and not from the heart) understand: HInduism is a commonwealth of religon that has its source in the Indic region (the land beyond the river Hindusthan). It is highly democratic commonwealth which respects truth in its multiplicity. THere is no single prophet, no single book. There is a variety of religous scriptures and prophets and even anti-prophets to choose from. Ideologies range from atheism, agnosticism and theism. From personal God to abstract God everything.

The main motto of all the religions is; Satyameva Jayate. Let Truth prevail.

The Hindu faith is highly democratic. One may choose any or choose all, reject any or reject all of the faiths. One may reject both orthodoxy and orthopraxy and yet be a Hindu. It is for this reason that I say Hinduism (for a lack of better term) is the most superior religion where it is truth that is honoured (not some petty gods and petty books and petty prophets).

Hinduism is Sanatana (eternal religion). That is why the HIndu civilization is the world's oldest surviving civilization. Got it dimwit.

Now this ancient civilization is under threat. That is why a Hindu brahmin like me is waging an intellectual war. Got it, dimwit. Besides, most of your arguments about Brahminical Hinduism is a cut and paste from the missionary perceptions about HInduism.

Does that satisfy you?

[Deepak Kamat]

Helen,
I deliberately call myself Hindu Brahmin because I know that sparks the rage of leftists/atheists/missionaries/Muslims.
I know that "Brahminism" is a much reviled word in the political lexicon. It is politically incorrect. But I have taken upon myself the task of "historical corrective" to quote V S Naipaul.

[tucson]

Tao wrote: "In any case, until such time as certain other individuals who now frequent this little forum learn to acknowledge, to respect, and to accept the right and the freedom of others to be able to express themselves in the manner of their own choosing (and without denigrating or censoring how others choose to express themselves), I will simply refrain from further commentary and participation."

--Don't worry about them. Their reactions are their problem. I hope you continue to express yourself here without reservation keeping in mind abusive communication techniques tend to elicit more defensive responses than intelligent, thoughtful ones. But sometimes people just need a good bitch-slapping.

It's like hockey. Most teams have an enforcer..a tough, rough player able to knock the snot out of opposing players who abuse his teammates. Gretsky never would have been great without his "enforcers". This is not to say the enforcer is not capable of deft play. He may be quite good at subtle maneuvers, but the team looks to him when an opponent needs to be checked and put in his place. Of course, over zealous enforcers get "enforced" themselves and usually have fewer teeth and flatter noses than the average citizen. It goes with the territory.

Hockey fans love their team's enforcers, but conversely despise those of the opposing team. It's all part of the game.

[Helen]

*It is the Hindu way of life*

And what exactly is the hindu way of life Deepak? What specifically makes life a Hindu life?

[Manjit]

Hello Deepak,

don't take this the wrong way, but I feel Hindu nationalism, or whatever it is you appear to be promoting, is as big a crock of shit as any other kind from around the world.

Sorry.

Wisdom is more a process than a set of beliefs. And your current processes are lacking any kind of self-criticism, self-awareness, self-correction etc.

Put simply, it's another us and them divisive and false dualism.

All the best sir.

[Brian]

tAo, I appreciate your bluntness. Most of the time.

But I'd disagree with your assertion above where you said, "BUT I have NOT told anyone HOW they should or should not express themselves. I have only criticised WHAT they may have said, the ideas and content that they may have put forth."

Below are some excerpts from recent comments that you've left on this blog. To my mind they go way beyond criticizing ideas and content. They are personal attacks and insults.

This is the sort of thing that doesn't contribute to any sort of meaningful dialogue. It reminds me of high school locker room talk, or NBA trash talking.

There's a place for that, I suppose, when each person is willing to play the game and take the trash talk as well as give it. However, I don't feel that it moves a churchless conversation along. It'd be way out of place in face to face coffee house conversing, and I don't like it either in cyberspace conversing.

That said, I realize that people disagree about this. I'm not out to censor comments. But I have a right to express how I feel about profanity-laced personal-insult comments, just as others have a right to say them.

Here are some examples of what turn me off:

"You can take all of your disingenuous pretense and "God" bullshit and shove right back up your ass, you stinking little creep. I am not your "friend". I don't have or want so-called friends like you. Even the thought of you makes one want to vomit."

"You can take your phony pretentious "prayers" and shove them right back up your asshole where they came from. And then go fcuk yourself while you are at it. You are nothing but a naive and whiney and dimwitted little poseur. You are way out of your league here. Go back to your usual stupid sucking on your religious guru-cult trip."

"So do us favor and take your drivel and go back to wallowing in your pathetic phony-guru-cult cesspool where puffed-up little punks like you belong."

"Like I said, you're an idiot, your're a neophyte, you act like a fool, and the role that you have chosen to take here in this blog comment discussion forum is obviously one of being an immature and impudent Radha Soami dogma touting internet troll. And you have proven that again and again."

"You are nothing more than a lame RS sycophant who is full of rubbish and nonsese, and almost everyone here knows it. In fact, you are really just another reflection of pathetic RS guru-cultism. At this point, you have proven that you do not deserve any further attention or energy or chances. Good-bye RS troll."

[Deepak Kamat]

The HIndu way of life can be lived in the following ways.

(Satyameva Jayate Truth alone Triumphs)
This is the cardinal message. Be committed to truth. If anything is inconsistent with truth, you may reject it. For in the end, it is truth that triumphs.
(Ekam Sat Vipra Bahuda Vadam Truth is one, the wise say it in many ways)
This is the second message: There may be more than one way to reach the truth. So be ready to accept several ways and several paths towards truth.
(Atmana Mokshartham Every soul longs for union)
Since every human being does not know who he is, he longs to move out of illusion and be rooted in truth. So make eforts to move towards truth. There are 84 philosophies, umpteen number of scriptures in HInduism. You are free to choose any of them/reject them/ or even follow other faiths.
(Vasudaiva Kutumbakam The World is a family)This is about universal brotherhood. That is why I call myself a Hindu internationalist.
And finally May Noble Thoughts come from all directions (Righ Veda).

This is the cardinal message of the Hindu view or way of life. There are many other interpolations and extrapolations -- perversions and distortions. After all, Hindu civilisation is the world's oldest civilization.

For a detailed view of Hinduism, you may browse Wiki. For a more detailed view, you can browse my blogspot.

[Deepak Kamat]

Manjeet says: "Put simply, it(Hindu nationalism) is another us and them divisive and false dualism."

NO way, Manjeet, Hindu nationalism is a way out of dualism and divisiveness. Read Swami Vivekananda -- whom I consider as the founding father of Hindu nationalism.

[Deepak Kamat]

Manjeet wrote: "don't take this the wrong way, but I feel Hindu nationalism, or whatever it is you appear to be promoting, is as big a crock of shit as any other kind from around the world. Sorry."

Manjeet, it only shows that you are misinformed. Your English education has de-Indianised you.
Manjeet wrote: "Wisdom is more a process than a set of beliefs. And your current processes are lacking any kind of self-criticism, self-awareness, self-correction etc."

Hindu nationalism is all about evolution and growth and self-correction. Who says it lacks self-criticism, self-awareness, self-correction. It shows that even you have swallowed the western bias about Hinduism.

[anonymous]

In defense of Tao -

Tao has his faults, but telling others how they should express themselves has never been one of them.

Of course, Brian has expressed his right and how he feels about profanity-laced personal-insult comments, just as others like Tao have a right to express themselves too. Brian says that he feels that those statements by Tao are examples of what turns him off, and yes those statements could be seen as personal attacks and insults.

But those statements by Tao are NOT at all examples of Tao telling anyone how they should (or should not) express themselves.

It is Brian who is telling Tao how Tao should (or should not) express himself, and is telling Tao what meaningful dialogue should be like. Tao has not told others how they should or should not express themselves. But other people have made all sorts of personal attacks and insults towards Tao, and have called him names too, but Brian did not said anything about that. So Brian has the double standard.

Tao has not told anybody how they should speak or write, but yet Brian is now telling Tao. Brian should please give one or more good examples of where Tao specifically told someone how or what way that person should or should not be expressing themselves.

[Brian]

anonymous, give me a break. Allow me to speak to you in the tAo'ist fashion:

"Anonymous, you're a fucking idiot. You have no idea what you're talking about. You have no right to tell me what's proper, what I can say or can't say. Go back to your tAo-worshipping hole. You obviously have no knowledge about what you're talking about. Come back and leave a comment when you're able to do something other than talking out of your ass."

So how does that strike you, anonymous? Do you feel that I'm trying to tell you how to express yourself? You should, because I'm telling you to shut up.

This is what bothers me about trash talking on the Internet. It's an attempt to suppress dialogue through insults and intimidation. In that regard, it's cowardly.

People who are confident in their opinions say, "Tell me more. Let's do more talking. That way I'll have more of an opportunity to convince you that my perspective is correct."

Attacks on the person, rather than on the person's ideas, on what they're saying, are the easy way to argue. All you need is a ready supply of profanities and insults. I've never seen this done in person. At least I can't recall a time that I heard someone talk to another person the way anonymous people do all the time on the Internet.

Which brings to mind another issue: what if you met someone at a gathering who was wearing a hood over his or her face, and when asked their name said, "Anonymous." Or "TYC638." Wouldn't you wonder why they were so secretive?

Almost always I sign posts or comments on the Internet, "Brian." I'm strange that way. I don't want to hide behind a fake name. I want people to realize that I'm a real person living in the real world.

[Deepak Kamat]

This is for Manjeet and his mentor Karunanidhi.

http://ramasetu.org/ramasetu/index.php

[tAo]

Thanks goes to anonymous for seeing with real clarity... unlike Brian's ego who turned it all round backwards.

Also my best wishes to anyone else who is able to look beyond the surface.

And here is my parting gift for my friends and folks who have not see these beautiful and moving films (as well as those who have seen):

http://www.vajrasky.com

http://www.vajrasky.com/trailer.html

http://www.directpictures.com/index.html

http://www.directpictures.com/trilogy.html

Ciao from the real person living in the real world with the "fake name" of tAo.

[Robert Paul Howard]

Dear Helen,

"Let Truth prevail": you are neither a bitch nor a dimwit. Those who say that you are, are not "committed to truth."

Robert Paul Howard

[Deepak Kamat]

To Robert Paul Howard and Helen,

Hopefully, my last comments: I love bitches becos I am a dog. I keep barking here just like all of you.

[Robert Paul Howard]

To all,

This one calling himself "anonymous" has told Brian: "Tao has not told anybody how they should speak or write...."

But this is not so.

At 1:37 P.M. on 12/29/07 (on Brian's 12/7/07 essay), this one who called himself "tAo" told me: "So the next time you get the urge to make another inane and ignorant comment, or post another incredibly stupid and shallow website, please try to do so with a bit more substance and intelligence instead."

He reiterated his same directive toward me at 3:05 P.M. on 1/4/08 (on the same essay), telling me: "So do us all a big favor and try not to reveal what a Howard-tard you are the next time you get another urge to make another inane and distorted comment...." In his typical manner he thereupon further told me: "As a matter of fact, you really suck."

Thus this "Tao has...told...[me] how...[to] speak or write" - and in his typically abusive, self-aggrandizing, egotistical way. (I commend that all ought see our full exchange from 12/28/07-->1/7/08 in the "Comments" section of Brian's 12/7/07 essay.)

At 3:23 P.M. on 1/5/07 (on Brian's 1/4/08 essay), this "tAo" stated: "And now I will leave you all to have a 'nice pleasant civil and behaved' blog forum. Enjoy.
But that kind of thing rather nauseates me... ...So this will be my very last comment, and now I'll have to BRIGHTLY say.... Adios amigos!"

Several - including Brian - thereafter asked "tAo" to stay, but his name did not reappear in the "Comments" until he made several comments at, and after, 12:34 A.M. on 1/15/08 (on Brian's 1/12/08 essay) and numerous times since then. (Personally I believe that he had already been appearing using other "false name[s]" such as "Benito Darkman" [9:10 P.M. on 1/7/08 (of Brian's 1/6/08 essay); cf. 8:08 P.M. on 1/9/08 (of Brian's 1/8/08)], "Low Rider" [shortly thereafter; somewhere], "Pearls Before Swine" at 1:52 P.M. on 1/12/08 [on Brian's 1/10/08], "Where Angels Fear to Tread" at 2:11 P.M. of 1/13/08 [on Brian's 1/10/08], and "Aunty Gravity" at 1:47 P.M. of 1/14/08 [on Brian's 1/10/08] - to which cf. Deepak's remark at 7:41 P.M. on 1/14/08 [on Brian's 1/10/08]. I now wonder if he is not in fact the very "anonymous" whose remark I am responding to. And I also wonder under how many other "false name[s]" this guy has hidden behind when addressing this blog.)

For a while,then, this one who calls himself "tAo" acted quite decently in his written speech and in his deportment. But quite soon he returned to his usual bullying verbal thuggery. Again he states that he is leaving us all behind: that he "will simply refrain from further commentary and participation."

Let's see if he keeps his word this time.

Robert Paul Howard

[the elephant]

The current unfolding reminds me of one of my first comments--if I remember well--on this site

"
Tao's delusions and contradictions will never cease to amaze/amuse me.

Posted by: JP | August 09, 2007 at 06:15 PM
"

which prompted the beautiful retort:

"
JP,
That's because you are an idiot.

Posted by: tao | August 10, 2007 at 11:52 AM
"

That is the beauty with deceptions--reality eventually catches up and then reveals, or exposes their contradictory nature.

Finally,

Tao wrote: "This is really all I have to say on this matter, so comment if you care to, but please do not expect any further responses from my side."

Suuure ... How many times have we heard that one from you by now? The poor fellow cannot help himself ...

[Deepak Kamat]

To Brian, Helen, Manjeet, Robert Paul Howard,

I am not trying to sell any ideology or religon in this blog. Nor am I trying to promote any thought. I just pointed out the flaws in other's arguments just as others attempted to point out flaws in my arguments.

FYI, I am an ex-satsangi and I reverted to my own (Hindu) tradition which I found quite great in its wisdom. I am a born conservative Hindu brahmin. I abandoned traditional Hinduism, became a RS satsangi, got disillusioned with it and reverted back to my original faith.

My spiritual view is a mix of Yoga, Tantra and Zen. My political view is Hindu internationalism. Socially, I am a Hindu brahmin. Personally, I am many things to many people (friend for a friend, backbiter to a backbiter, son to my mother, fraud to frauds et al). Not to mention, I have my own idiosycrancies, since I was a long-time admirer of Osho, JK and UG.

I hope that clarifies my stand. Any more questions? You are free to criticize me. I am not a fundamentalist to shy away from debates. In fact, I love intellectual sparring. In case, you think my approach is inconsistent with truth, you may point it out.

Not to mention, my blog and my forthcoming book is my socio-cultural-political view.

[Robert Paul Howard]

Dear Deepak,

I request that you might re-read my previous response to you at 9:39 A.M. of 2/16/08 on Brian's 2/9/08 essay. (The previous exchange[s] thereabove supply the context for my remark.)

Robert Paul Howard

[Deepak Kamat]

Mr. Howard,

I went through your last response. I missed it somehow.

You asked me if it is possible that Hindus are more spiritual or evolved rather than the rest of the world.
The same question was asked to The Mother at Sri Aurobindo Ashram Pondicherry.
What she said was that a Hindu is more receptive to the spiritual teachings if he or she is not contaminated by the thoughts of western materialism.
I agree with her. The Hindus that you see today in Indian cities and in the west (like Manjit) are largely influenced by the West.
However, you see very dedicated and devoted people in the rural region and in the hillside. I do feel that they are quite receptive to the spiritual vibes (if I may so call it).
I also don't deny that a section of the western elite is closer to spirituality since they are fed up with narrow ideologies and saturated with materialism.
That is why Indian Gurus make it bigger in US rather than in India.
All said and done, I do feel that all souls are potential divine (Swami Vivekananda) and I also hold that some souls are more equal than others. I am not applying the standards of apartheid.
My job or mission (if I can put it) is to point out the difference between the original Hindu and the contaminated Hindu.
As you pointed out earlier, the word Hindu can be used in a transcendental sense and even in a geographical sense.

You can use it in a transcendental sense if you are referring to the spirit of Hindutva (Hinduness). For me, a Hindu is a neo-romantic (a person who believes or holds that truth can be found by aligning with nature or through spirituality).

Of course, there were and are atheists and agnostics in Hinduism. But most of the traditional Hindus are neo-romantics if I can use the word in the modern world-view.

[Deepak Kamat]

Dear Helen,

In retrospect, I feel that my aggressive response towards you was unwarranted.

Normally, in polemics like the Brahmin-Dalit divide, the other side is vituperative and aggressive. That is why I employed my arsenal of pre-emptive strike to demoralise the opponents.

What I didn't factor in your case was that you didn't have any agenda or ulterior motives. I mistook your sincere queries as pointers to my hypocrisies.

I apologise for the "Bitches" and "Dimwits".

[Helen]

Deepak, thankyou for the apology. I accept it wholeheartedly.

Paul Robert Howard, and belatedly Manjit, thankyou for your comments, I found them very supportive.

"Other than this little message, my previous post will be my last and final comment here in this forum."
Posted by: tAo

"I will simply refrain from further commentary and participation."
Posted by: tAo

"I was not intending to continue posting any further comments. However"
Posted by: tAo

"please do not expect any further responses from my side."
Posted by: tAo

"And here is my parting gift"
Posted by: tAo

* * * * *

Promises, promises.
Would that it were true.
Not a snowball's chance in hell.

"Some cause happiness wherever they go; others whenever they go."
-Oscar Wilde

[tucson]

To the commenter (RPH?) above at 1:04 pm. Suggestion: Put a name, any name in the "Name:" box so that the continuity of your comments and counter-comments can more easily be followed.