Hemant Karkare - Honour for courage or infamy?

The Maharashtra government has recommended Ashok Chakra for the 19 policemen killed by the terrorists, which includes Hemant Karkare. Is dying in the line of duty the only qualification to be recommended for the country’s highest gallantry award? While some among the policemen have indeed made heroic efforts to kill the terrorists while falling to their bullets, Hemant Karkare appears to have had no idea what he was in the midst of, let alone attempt to kill the terrorists. He was, sad to say, shot dead like a dog by randomly fired bullets of the terrorists. There is absolutely nothing heroic in his death. No doubt he has to be commemorated for his long, varied and distinguished service in the police force. However, on that fateful day of 26th November 2008, he was clearly out of his depth and drowned ingloriously. Also, it is open to question whether he displayed the required professionalism in handling the so-called Hindu terrorists. In fact, he will be long remembered for his infamous attempts to corrupt a Sadhvi by showing her pornography.

Malegaon blast probe and Mumbai terrorist attack

The Malegaon blast probe against Hindu involvement under Hemant Karkare must be the most unprofessional probe ever conducted by any professional body in Indian history. What was the need for the ATS to leak unverified statements to the press? Were they bent on tarnishing the name of Hindu organizations under the aegis of a political party? If the Mumbai attacks were not carried out as a commando attack by the terrorists but instead some bombs had been planted in many locations and the perpetrators had vanished, then surely, under the circumstances, the entire blame would have come upon Hindu organizations. However, this was not to be. Not only was it a commando operation, but one commando was caught alive. If this did not happen, then even the 10 dead terrorists would have turned out, under the expert ATS investigation team, to be "unidentified Hindus". Why, they might have even said that the terrorists were uncircumcised. So the Mumbai terrorist attack not only saved the Hindu organizations, it also revealed the Muslim villains and their masters in Pakistan. The enemies of Hinduism faltered just when they had an opportunity to corner Hindu organizations once and for all. This proves that God is with the Hindus.

The incontrovertibility of Existence

Nothing dies, only changes of form occurs. Now which modern scientist said, Matter can neither be created nor destroyed...
The Wikipedia tells me:
There is a scientific law called the Law of Conservation of Mass, discovered by Antoine Lavoisier in 1785. In its most compact form, it states:
matter is neither created nor destroyed.
In 1842, Julius Robert Mayer discovered the Law of Conservation of Energy. In its most compact form, it it now called the First Law of Thermodynamics:
energy is neither created nor destroyed.
In 1907 (I think), Albert Einstein announced his discovery of the equation E = mc2 and, as a consequence, the two laws above were merged into the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy:
the total amount of mass and energy in the universe is constant.
Generally, textbooks would add, that mass and energy can interconvert.

The Creation myth

If Allah created everything, the question who created Allah is valid. If nobody created Allah and Allah always existed, then could not the so-called creation also have always existed? That which ever exists - existence - is life. The so-called creation is nothing other than life taking on different forms. We always exist, only our forms change. We are that which we call Allah.The biggest mistake in the Quran is the claim that Allah created life. It should have said Allah is life. This is what the Vedas proclaim.

Like Prophet, like followers!

Talking about the Taliban destruction of the Bamiyan statues, a Muslim commented: There is no culture in a Buddha statue.

To which I commented: How would you see culture in a Buddha statue or any statue for that matter. Mohammad did not see them in the idols he destroyed in Mecca. Like Prophet, like followers!

New interpretations of the Quran

New interpretations of the Quran will emerge in due course to adapt it to the increasing popularity of the ancient Hindu vision of Advaita - the vision that says all existence is one. In fact, Sufism is Advaita expressed by the Muslim mystics of Persia (and maybe Arabia?). Why, Sufism may have even ante-dated Islam. Sufism may well be the future of Islam if the call given by Islam to transcend idol worship reaches its logical conclusion - we cannot have an Allah separate from us. We have to internalize Allah and achieve the Advaita stage, where alone idol worship ends.

Counter terrorism and Hindu nationalists

The concerned agencies of Government of India had initiated a counter terrorism policy about 3 or 4 years back and it was reported in the media. The aim was to duplicate the mindset of Islamic terrorists to preempt their activities. Col. Purohit appears to be involved in this official strategy and co-opted Hindu nationalists, who would have been only too eager to participate in such a project. This much is evident from the reported confessions of Col. Purohit where he states that the same Muslim squad that prepared the bombs for Islamic terrorists were recruited for Malageon II blasts. The protagonists of the so-called Hindu terror network ought to be released and duly honoured for their patriotism.

http://indiatoday.digitaltoday.in/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20223&sectionid=4&issueid=79&Itemid=1

Raj Thackeray the greatest danger to India's integrity

Raj Thackeray is more dangerous than any Islamic or Naxalite terrorist is to India. I say this because the Islamic and Naxalite threat is a battle between them and the rest of Indian society whereas Raj Thackeray's threat can become a battle amongst all Indian states and this will cause India's disintegration as nothing else can. People like Lalu Prasad Yadav who criticize him are only interested in pouring oil into fire. The nationalists must come out strongly against Raj Thackeray.

The Vedantic visions

There are three positions that religions of the world take vis-à-vis God. These are that: (1) God is separate from His creation (2) God is linked to His creation and (3) God and His creation is the same. These are the positions of Dvaita, Vishista Advaita and Advaita respectively in the school of Vedanta. These positions are not contradictory positions but positions from three vantage points that afford celebration of divinity.

Hon. Dr. Manmohan Singh, Prime Minister of India:

Your government first declared Ram never existed. Then you concede Ram existed but he destroyed the bridge he built. Now you say the bridge is not worthy of being a national memorial. Your government may hold weather-cock positions about Ram because political survival is more important for you than national integrity. But being so callous about Hindu religious sentiments, particularly when you go out of your way to appease Muslims with special developmental funds, is most un-secular and undemocratic. Moreover, you never intervened when development work for Amarnath pilgrims was nullified by rescinding land allotted to the shrine board. But here you seem determined to allow Ram Sethu to be destroyed in the name of development work. Even if your government does not recognize Ram, let it at least not destroy the sanctity of Ram’s legendary bridge built to uphold Dharma.

Yours in the name of Bharath Mata.

K.Venugopal

UPA's victory better for BJP in long run

Defeat of the UPA in today’s confidence vote will spell the end of the Congress. Karat’s tag of ‘sinking ship’ will work on Congressmen to abandon ship. The beneficiaries would be BJP and 3rd front. UPA’s victory would enable the party to consolidate its position in the next 6 months with lots of globalization policy announcements. The losers would be CPI(M) and there would be much infighting in the party. The 3rd front will also wither away, being seen as just a platform for Mayavati’s ambitions. BJP would be back to positioning itself as the only alternative.

Defeat of the UPA, therefore, would spell a period of great flux and would again end in a hung parliament – this time the major contenders the NDA and Third Front – with the UPA, particularly the Congress in a dismal third position. The NDA could well loose out to the Third Front in government formation. But UPA’s victory would bring the position back to square one and the battle would be between the UPA and NDA and the NDA having a greater chance of forming the next government. It would also cause CPI(M) to be singed in its internal fires.

I think, from the BJP’s long term interest, better UPA scrapes through the confidence vote.

Om Shanti

The essence of Hindu teachings is that everything is divine. Which means everything is perfect - every individual and all circumstances are perfect. However, our experience seems to tell us otherwise. We generally feel that our life and circumstances have so many things to be corrected and changed so that we may, perchance, one day become at least free from major suffering, if not actually become perfect. The idea that we and our circumstances, whatever they are at any point in life, is less than perfect occurs because our mind is restless.

Therefore the first (and the last) lessons of Hinduism are to make our minds restful. All of Hinduism caters to this task of making us of restful minds. Since each of us are restless in different ways, Hindu culture has an array of techniques and approaches that will lead us to the calming of our minds – from simply going to a temple and following the rituals there to getting the higher insights by reading the Upanishads or listening to spiritual masters. One day, in the midst of our spiritual pursuits, we shall wake up and see it all – how perfect everything is, has been and shall ever be. This is the promise of Hinduism. A promise given by no other religion. Hinduism alone declares we are divine.

Therefore we Hindus, who are inheritors of the greatest heritage available to man, should cherish Hinduism and find therein a technique, way, method or understanding suitable to us individually and begin our pilgrimage of awakening to our own divinity. Om Shanti.

Honouring the triumvirate of Indian nationalists

The plan by Maharashtra government to build a memorial to Chattrapathi Shivaji on the model of Statute of Liberty is a praiseworthy one. There should be an all-India effort in the matter on the model of the Vivekananda Memorial. Moreover, this is an opportunity to complete honouring the triumvirate of personages who were by all accounts the greatest saviours of the Indian nation – Adi Shankaracharya, Chattrapathi Shivaji and Swami Vivekananda. In the ideal scheme of things, Chattrapathi Shivaji’s memorial should be built in the sea facing Kolkatta and Adi Shankaracharya’s memorial in the sea facing Mumbai to complement the memorial to Swami Vivekananda on the seas of Southern India – the total effect being one of transcending geographical barriers to a united India.

What money can't buy

Even in this realistic eulogy of money, you are constrained to say, “The problem is not with money but with man.” Why does man have problems even with money? The best thing that can be said about money is that money could be an opportunity, an opportunity to get us on our feet. But once we are on our feet we need to be free from money, if we are to soar to the greater heights that money can't buy.

Locals stir

Vis-à-vis Raj Thackery’s locals stir; I feel it is not wrong for ‘locals’ to be given preference for jobs in their own area of residence. But this must be based on an all-India policy. Such a policy should ensure that there would never be any curbs on free movement of Indians to all parts of India. Also allowance must be made for free transfer of employees from all parts of India in the case of companies having branches in different parts of India. However, in the absence of a suitably qualified local candidate, there should be no bar in appointing non-local candidates and candidates so appointed should have the right continue work where appointed so long as the professional relationship of the employer and employee does not run into rough weather. That is to say, the local issue should arise only at the time of fresh appointment. Last but not least, the locals stir should not lead to agitation against those already employed upto a certain cut-off date to be decided on an all-India basis.

Allah's book

Can we say that the Quran is a book sent by God because as per Islam Allah communicated to Archangel Gabriel who passed it on in bits and pieces to Mohammad over a period of 23 years, who dictated it to various people over the same period and finally a King had it all collated into a book called Quran. A book sent by God or anyone else would be just that, a book. In the case of Quran, it only eventually became a book.


It would have to contain a statement to the effect, “I, God, am sending you this book for your reading pleasure.” But this would not be proof enough unless we are convinced of the veracity of the statement

There is nothing a book can contain to prove that it was sent by God

I take the phrase “sent by God” to mean “divinely inspired” (by divinely inspired I mean a man awake to his inner potential) and since a book can contain only words, the words in the book must convince us that it has been “sent by God.”.

I am not an atheist. The difference I may have with other theists may only be about God's location. Could your question have been born out of the frustration in not getting the atheist to accept any book as being sent by God? But how could they? They don't know of any God.

For me, if man expresses himself through words, the silence upon which his words are built is God. Any work of man that takes us to the silence within us, to our divine nature, proves that we have awoken to our divine nature, however feebly. We would then need no further proof that the particular work is the work of God. There would then be no greater proof of God. The imagery of "God sending down a book" is metaphoric.

Is there God?

Is there God? Before we answer this question, I think we have to ask: Who is asking the question? You would say, I, I so and so, am asking this question. You will probably also ask, am I meant to ask this question before asking any question at all? I would say, yes. The basic question to ask is: Who or what or why is the questioner. Before the question, seek the questioner. Because when you get to know the questioner, you might no longer have any questions.

There are questions and questions. There is no end to questions. Why are we questioning at all? Is it to get answers to help us along the way? If it is help that we want, why don’t we get such a help that we would never again need any help? Isn’t that what we want? Never to have any problems, to ever live a blissful life? Of course, there is the person who gets his very thrill in living by confronting problems. For the time being we shall leave such a person alone. We shall just say that he is so conditioned that he has become addicted to his conditioning.

So the basic question is, can we have an answer after which we would no longer have any questions? Dead people have no questions, but we are here not talking about dead people. We are talking about being most alive.

I say that the basic question we ought to pose ourselves is, who or what am I? Posing the question is easy enough. But what answers can we expect? Are we, ordinary folks, competent enough to expect the correct answer? Even if we are smug about our capability, how would we know that our answer is correct? Not just for ourselves, but universally. An answer is no answer unless it is an universal answer, universal in principle at least.

There is in human tradition something called ‘authority’. Traditionally ‘authorities’ (in the realm of knowledge) have been the scriptures, acknowledged masters and science. It is they who can give any semblance of finality of acceptance to the great answers of mankind. But in the matter of knowing one’s own self, is an external authority required?

Some queries answered

1. Even if for argument sake I accept that the BJP is exploiting the Hindus for the sake of votes, I ask you - is there any other political formation that speaks for the Hindus? So my position is I would rather be ruled by an imperfect party supporting the Hindus rather than a perfect anti-Hindu party.

2. You talk about Ram being better-off before he was monopolized by Hindutva Jehadis. But you forget that the Hindus became weak a thousand years ago when the Muslims and then the British colonized India. The Hindus began regaining strength again only through movements of Sanyasis from the 19th century onwards, culminating in our independence and the betrayal of the Muslims in the formation of Pakistan. What we see now is a reassertion of the Hindus and Ram has become a symbol of this reassertion. It is only the anti-Hindus who insult Ram. Hindus are ready to protect Rama’s legacy.

3. Though many places in Ayodhya is claimed to be the birth place of Rama, consequent to the Ramjanmabhoomi movement, the Hindus have absolutely no doubt where exactly Rama’s birth place is.

4. Your perverted mind is displayed when you associate Ram with Jehadi and again with Sonia Gandhi. Jehadi and Sonia Gandhi are foreign, but not Ram, notwithstanding his claimed birth/death place in Ukraine. This is the same situation as the many so-called birth places in Ayodhya itself.

5. You talk of a Ram who cut off a Shudra’s head. What about a Ram who cut off a Brahmin’s head (Ravana’s)? And if you say Ram had reason to cut-off Ravana’s head because Ravana had kidnapped his wife, then he might also have had reason in the Shudra’s case because the Shudra wanted no less than to conquer ‘Devlok’. Rama may have seen the Raksha in such a person who was nurturing a wish to kill celestial beings.

6. About Ram being unable to protect his queen, it only shows the mighty evil that Ravana was, who dared to kidnap even a King’s wife. If Rama had not taken avatar, Hinduism may have disappeared then itself. If Rama exiled his queen, he was only showing how a King had to clear the erroneous notions of his subjects even at the cost of paying a personal price for it.

7. When you ask which Ram is the God of Hindus, be assured that it is the Ram, one and only Ram, who has an eternal place in the hearts of the Hindus, who is a God of the Hindus.

8. About Ram being an Imam e Hind, it is the opinion of a Muslim poet. At least to that extent the Muslim poet has acknowledged Ram existed.

9. Anyone, including Karunanidhi, has the right to ask who Ram is. No doubt they will be educated on the subject in due course of time.

10. About imposing Ram on all Indians, that is the Semitic creed, to impose their only true God on all mankind. Hindus do not impose any God and hence we live and let live with all the 33 crores gods we have.

Concrete and not-so-concrete idols

Muslims insist they are not idol worshippers. However, unless the mind has a focal point, it would not be able to conceive anything. God, accepted by Islam and all religions as being, per se, beyond the conception of man, has to be brought down to the level of a concept if He is to be worshipped. That “bringing down to the level of a concept” inevitably results in idolatry. In Hinduism, idolatry is obvious because idol worship is celebrated. In Islam idolatry is not obvious because their definition of idols is restricted to that which is made of concrete material. However, even the word “Allah” is an idol because “Allah” is a word and words, though not concrete things, represent that which is concrete. And all representations are idols.

Classic Islam on line

http://www.cislamonline.com/cms/showthread.php?p=4709#post4709

Complexity no argument for a creator

Oft it is said that the universe is so complex that it must necessarily have a creator to handle its complexity. However, the very complexity of the universe indicates that there cannot be a “creator” separate from the universe. (Why should we have a double set of complexities – the complexity of the creator and the complexity of the created?) It can only be a case of self-regulation by the universe itself. In other words, our answers to the mystery of the universe has to be found by studying the universe itself, either in totality or in its particulars. Studying the totality is the approach the scientific culture nurtures and studying the particular it what the spiritual culture nurtures. This external and internal discoveries are the legacy of science and religion. Positing a creator only leads to faith and faith, though a solace to the mind of man, will not enlighten us to the truths of our circumstances.

Overlap at peril

If the ‘believe’ we are talking about here is about opinions or faith, we are certainly entitled to believe the way we want to, provided we don’t foist such beliefs upon others without giving them a fair chance to accept it or reject it. But if we are talking about the rules and regulations of the work-a-day world, whether it is of court judgements, instruction manuals, traffic rules, fixing a motorcycle, writing scientific journals or ordinary correspondence - we need to be precise, there must be common meeting grounds. Both the worlds of belief and science are valid - but they overlap at peril.

Jesus' sacrifice

It is the central tenet of Christianity that God sent his only begotten son amongst mankind as a ransom for man’s sins. This should have meant that sin in mankind, which entered mankind through the original sin of Adam in disobeying God (and eating the forbidden fruit), the wages for which was death, would have been cleansed by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. This should have resulted in everlasting life for mankind since then. However, it appears to me that the ransom of Christ was hijacked by the Church which said that mankind would be assured of everlasting life only if it believes in Jesus Christ. Has Christ’s sacrifice been in vain?

My basic question is whether believe is sine-qua-non for connecting to Christ?

As far as Christianity is concerned, it is a truism that “Jesus died on the cross for our sins”. But the Church and Missionaries still say all of us are sinners. So what was Jesus’ sacrifice all about? For the Church and Missionaries it is about believing Jesus, as if his teachings weren’t good enough to transform us. Further, the Church thinks we have to couple believe with becoming members of the one true church. The missionaries think we have to denounce all religions except Christianity (the pernicious conversion enterprise!). I think Jesus himself meant it is about awakening to the divinity within and without us – as so many of the best teachers of mankind taught. The only “sacrifice” Jesus made and all of us need to make for everlasting life is to reject the hold of the material upon us. Jesus was an example. You don’t need to believe in examples. You have only to understand it.

Bring down anti-religious Chinese communist government!

The Indian government, supported by Communists and Islamic Jehadis, is not waking up to the fact that what is happening in Tibet is the interference in and suppression of Buddhist religious freedom. Indians should remember that Indian culture, which guarantees religious freedom, needs to display its potency and must call for, launch and support all forces that stand for freedom of religion. We must call for a Buddhist revolution in China. All political parties in India which swear by the name of Ambedkar should come forward to openly declare support for this Buddhist revolution in China. The Hindutva forces would be a natural ally in this endeavour to bring religious freedom to China. As a first move, India should boycott Chinese Olympics.

Paul Swaraj - Indira loyalist

Paul Swaraj has in his new book written that Indira Gandhi gave India democracy. Indira Gandhi gave India democracy? What a laugh! She actually planned to kill democracy with her Emergency. She failed because Indians are by and large democrats. However, she succeeded in destroying democracy in the Congress party and today Congress has been reduced to being a handmaiden of a foreign woman.

Not God but Allah

Once, many years ago, BBC interviewed a leading Muslim scholar/authority. He started off by saying, "I do not believe in God. I know this may shock you - that a Muslim can say he does not believe in God. But I repeat, I do not believe in God. I believe only in Allah." He went on to argue that to a Muslim Allah means much more than what God would mean to a non-Muslim. I think this is the basic conviction a Muslim has about Islam - that no one but a Muslim can ever understand what it is to be religious. It is not for nothing that the leading Islamic theologist today, Dr. Zakir Naik, says that Islam is "confirmed" like 2 + 2 = 4, whereas other religions are not confirmed! However, there is an irony here. One would have supposed that with such a "confirmed" religion Muslims in general would have been a very contended lot being blissful in their world of Allah. But far from it. They are an agitated lot. The world still remains unconquered. And worse, violence is proving less and less an option. The only consolation is "Islam is the world's fastest growing religion". Let's hope it does not hit any road breakers.

Are we God?

Many religions posit that God created the universe and then claim to have exclusive revelations as to what He expects of us. However, it seems to me that the creator-created dichotomy is artificial and even if we posit that God created it all, it is obvious that the one thing He could not have created would be life, for the simple reason that God is always alive - a dead God is no God. Creation could have started only with life. If there was no life, there would have been no creation. If life ends, then it ought to have had a beginning. So if there was a time when there was no life, life would never have come about. Thus, we can safely say that life is eternal, without beginning and end. And since we have life in us, we can logically say that we have the eternal within us. Hence, when we die, life within us does not die. It will be interesting to note that there are religions which posit that we are not the body that dies, but we are the very life that does not die. As there cannot be two eternals, eternal life is eternal God.Therefore, at least according to certain religions, we are God.