Hence, interpretation of the texts and every interpreter places their own projections in it then. Going by your post. Hence, variance and diversity. What it means is different for all. Who can claim to be the sole representative? That's the point. As you've shown. Belief is felt differently by different people, no one debates core values of their religion and what you're saying has political implications, I don't think this is the place nor do we have the requisite qualifications to discuss religion. However, that seems to be your main point. Political ramifications of religions can have various political implications such as the split of the church of England (King thought a King could be head of the church, Catholics though it wasn't so). Brahmins could be kings or warriors (other hindus thought they couldn't or shouldn't, at least), and so on. If you take a neutral view, and try to see things from anything other than ideology you'd see more but only if you want to. You're turning this into a religious debate, which it isn't this is a political one and about social attitudes. That's why we'd always have problems.
Hindu texts can only be interpreted by realized beings i.e Yogi's who have reached a certain level of enlightenment. Someone who has experienced the teaching of the vedas. People like Shankaracharya or Sadhguru etc.
Not other "interpretation" has any value.
Which is why guru is a sacred term in Hinduism.
Hinduism is not about "beliefs" its about experiences and best practices.
Brahmins could never be kings. At best they could be Prime Minister like the Peshwa's and even those were under exceptional circumstances. Those were the exceptions, not the norm.
The problem is you are trying to interpret and understand Hinduism through the prism of abrahmic religion. Trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.
Agreed and if we change labels then the guy would be willing to label people as terrorists. If ISIS does it, terror, if RSS, interpretation. We cannot have double standards but the gentleman would never admit that because he's being motivated by the dogma that he finds perfect. Sadly.
Its not the label that determine terrorists, it ACTION alone.
@Nityam sorry, brother but we're people who've fought and won against extremists and our people fight against it everyday. We can see very clearly what you believe in (love and respect to your religion but do question the interpretation you're having, who's it benefiting? What is it causing? Things like that) If you do start seeing things openly, it's of good to only you and your fellow human beings (whatever their religion may be). If you don't you're empowering something that has eerily similar characteristics to the very same type of people you're adamant on proving wrong (religious extremists). Ironic, isn't it? Rest is up to you, and I'm sure we've proven, not all of us are what you see us as. I hope you inculcate that into your database.
Fighting the fire that is burning your own home down is VERY different from setting fire to somebody's home and then putting out the fire when it spreads to your own home. Such people seldom get sympathy even when they try and play the victim.
So can see where I am going with this.
Nobody in India is empowering people who advocate civil violence. The entire Hindutva movement is to destroy people who resort to civil voilence and follow the "direct action" of Jinnah.
We just saw them trying it again in UP for CAA and we also saw how Hindutva govt. put it down in a few days. That is why there has been NO riots in Gujarat post Godhra. There is no more hope in "direct action" a.k.a Jinnah.
Hats off to you, brother for keeping cool though and to all other posters, please, look this is how you tackle hard questions. It's easy to mudsling and report and just scream. It leads no where. I realize that the thread got derailed and if I'm reported it would be justly so but I did want to show that a civil exchange is always possible. Beliefs don't change over night, attitudes don't abrupty switch because this is a process.
Regards and happy foruming. I apologize if anything I said was offensive to anyone. Please, respect all religions (that's what every religion teaches us) and decipher ideologies that are hijacking religions for political gains rather than playing into the hands of the narrative of US vs THEM and seeing everyone who disagrees with you as the enemy. It's the mentality that needs to be countered, not the people, not their belief systems.
Opinions are not offensive. Anyway Hindus need a thick skin in pdf. That is just the way it is.
