Modi will develop India into a Hindu state: Goa minister

[Makaramarma]

If it is not necessarily about nature of god or existence of god, then if falls outside the purview of the term "religion." That is all I am trying to say. It calls itself religion so as to be understood by others as an entity so that there is some distinction and it is not overrun due to the lack of that boundary.

Not necessarily about god, but inevitable god or the absence of god creeps into any dharmic philosophy, thence the tag of religion. But the philosophy itself can be independent of 'god'.

 

[Indrani]

Not necessarily about god, but inevitable god or the absence of god creeps into any dharmic philosophy, thence the tag of religion. But the philosophy itself can be independent of 'god'.

Religion is also more than a belief in god. Lot of people out there believing in God but calling themselves spiritual.

Anyway leave it, my head is not thinking clearly today.

 

[Indischer]

Not necessarily about god, but inevitable god or the absence of god creeps into any dharmic philosophy, thence the tag of religion. But the philosophy itself can be independent of 'god'.

Wassup MiLord? You disagreeing with Indrani too now?

 

[Indrani]

Wassup MiLord? You disagreeing with Indrani too now?

Hey I won't call it disagreement. In general, I need to think very hard to counter any of his points. Since our views are mostly attuned to each other so closely. I can easily tie up myself in knots if I am not careful there. LOL.

 

[abjktu]

All killings without cause and only to satisfy your greed is against Dharma.

So killing a hen or a fish or a duck is not against dharma??
how can you say that its without a cause??..cause is to suppress our appetite...even bagavath geetha says..'"margamalla lakshyamaanu pradhaanam '' margam lakshyathe saadhookarikunnu''..

 

[Makaramarma]

Religion is also more than a belief in god. Lot of people out there believing in God but calling themselves spiritual.

Anyway leave it, my head is not thinking clearly today.

I have only defined it by the definition posted earlier.

Everybody has to believe in something. If they believe in themselves (or the cold logic their mind has made up) so then do they the not practice aham brahmasmi ? If they believe in their fellow man are they not practising "atithi devo bhava" ?

What really matters is if people practices Dharma and defends and propagates Dharma.

Wassup MiLord? You disagreeing with Indrani too now?

Not this time. However there are times when I disagree even with myself. That is how one keeps an open mind. No ?

So killing a hen or a fish or a duck is not against dharma??
how can you say that its without a cause??..cause is to suppress our appetite...even bagavath geetha says..'"margamalla lakshyamaanu pradhaanam '' margam lakshyathe saadhookarikunnu''..

These are not new questions. They have been asked a million time before and they have been answered a million times.

The video by Rajiv Malhotra posted in the earlier page answers the exact same question. So clearly you are not here to seek answers to that particular question.

Both the end and the path is just as important. Only you get to use non ethical paths against people who themselves do not follow ethical paths. Hinduism does not advice people to fight for Dharma with their one hand tied behind their back.

 

[Indrani]

Everybody has to believe in something. If they believe in themselves (or the cold logic their mind has made up) so then do they the not practice aham brahmasmi ? If they believe in their fellow man are they not practising "atithi devo bhava" ?

What really matters is if people practices Dharma and defends and propagates Dharma.

No, believing in oneself is not the same as practicing or saying aham brahmasmi. No it is not atithi devo bhava if they believe in their fellow man. You are using too broad a brush. We may as well say we are all made up of atoms and molecules, hence all are the same.

Dharma is not religion. You cannot call Christianity Dharma. When you do many sins and seek absolution in Christ, your sins are forgiven. Is that Dharma?

A Christian man calling himself a Hindu in cultural sense is okay, but in religious sense is going against his faith, that is Christianity which explicitly prohibits worship of anyone else but Jesus and his father.

It makes him a good man but a poor Christian.

Myth of Hindu Sameness | Rajiv Malhotra | Infinity Foundation

 

[Makaramarma]

No, believing in oneself is not the same as practicing or saying aham brahmasmi. No it is not atithi devo bhava if they believe in their fellow man. You are using too broad a brush. We may as well say we are all made up of atoms and molecules, hence all are the same.

It is a broad brush. Point being, it does not matter what their other beliefs are, as long as they believe in Dharma and practice it.

Dharma is not religion. You cannot call Christianity Dharma. When you do many sins and seek absolution in Christ, your sins are forgiven. Is that Dharma?

You misunderstand. I meant practice of Dharma and its propagation is the essential practice of Hinduism.

A Christian man calling himself a Hindu in cultural sense is okay, but in religious sense is going against his faith, that is Christianity which explicitly prohibits worship of anyone else but Jesus and his father.

Yes, but as long as he believes in the concept of Dharma and the need to defend it and propagate it, how will it be any different from a sect of Hinduism which explicitly prohibits worship of anyone else but their own guru ? Swaminarayan sect being a case in point.

But yes, as far as the church is concerned, it will make him a poor Christian.

But there are as much poor christians and poor muslims as there are poor Hindus.

 

[Indrani]

It is a broad brush. Point being, it does not matter what they other believes they have, as long as they believe in Dharma and practice it.



You misunderstand. I meat practice of Dharma and its propagation is the essential practice of Hinduism.



Yes, but as long as he believes in the concept of Dharma and the need to defend it and propagate it, how will it be any different from a sect of Hinduism which explicitly prohibits worship of anyone else but their own guru ? Swaminarayan sect being a case in point.

But yes, as far as the church is concerned, it will make him a poor Christian.

Myth of Hindu Sameness | Rajiv Malhotra | Infinity Foundation

Point is, they do not believe in Dharma. There is an extreme exclusivity to their belief system with everyone else headed for hell.

Monotheism is not merely the cult of a single god, which would be called henotheism, but also implies the active rejection of all other gods. The recipient of monotheistic worship is not Heis Theos, “one god”, but Ho Monos Theos, “the only god”. Thus, Hindus worshipping an ishta devata, “chosen deity”, selected from among many, are henotheists but not monotheists. A Hindu who never worships any god except Shiva, but doesn’t object to his neighbour’s worshipping Krishna or Durga, fails the test of monotheism - Koenraad Elst.

 

[Makaramarma]

Myth of Hindu Sameness | Rajiv Malhotra | Infinity Foundation

Point is, they do not believe in Dharma. There is an extreme exclusivity to their belief system with everyone else headed for hell.

Monotheism is not merely the cult of a single god, which would be called henotheism, but also implies the active rejection of all other gods. The recipient of monotheistic worship is not Heis Theos, “one god”, but Ho Monos Theos, “the only god”. Thus, Hindus worshipping an ishta devata, “chosen deity”, selected from among many, are henotheists but not monotheists. A Hindu who never worships any god except Shiva, but doesn’t object to his neighbour’s worshipping Krishna or Durga, fails the test of monotheism - Koenraad Elst.

No fundoo Christians wont.

But Christians who say they are christian hindus may understand the essence of the Hindu 'culture', which is nothing but the Hindu way of life or Hindu value system, which is nothing but following Dharma as explained by the two puranas.

A Yogi or a follower of Mimamsa might not believe in ishta devata.

 

[Multani]

Hinduism is not a religion is a way of living, in India every one is considered as a Hindu. It is a Hindu state already. A Hindu already believes in different dharms and philosophies as a part of life.

Hinduism is a world religion. This religion advocates a way of life for the people who follow it.

Therefore, indian Muslims cannot be considered hindu, because they have their own way of life.

And india is a hindu majority country. If they want a hindu state, i dont think its wrong. Its their right.

 

[Indrani]

You misunderstand. I meant practice of Dharma and its propagation is the essential practice of Hinduism.


But there are as much poor christians and poor muslims as there are poor Hindus.

Who is propagating Dharma here? Of course there are poor Hindus, adharmic Hindus.

No fundoo Christians wont.

But Christians who say they are christian hindus may understand the essence of the Hindu 'culture', which is nothing but the Hindu way of life or Hindu value system, which is nothing but following Dharma as explained by the two puranas.

A Yogi or a follower of Mimamsa might not believe in ishta devata.

It does not matter if one follows ishta devata or not. As long as there is no negation of other's rights to believe what they want, then it is not monotheism at all.

It is true some Christians are adopting Hindu value system, but then they do not remain Christians in any original sense of the term.

 

[Makaramarma]

Who is propagating Dharma here? Of course there are poor Hindus, adharmic Hindus.

When you clearly define Dharma and practice it and defend it, you do play a small role in propagating it. Fighting Adhrma is another way of propagating Dharma.

I hope you got the difference in me, a hindu, calling another christian a christian hindu and foolishly believing it to be so and a Christian, calling himself a christian hindu.

For eg. a Hindu who proudly proclaim he is a Hindu and eats beef and says dharma is 'flexible' is worse off than a christian who does not eat beef and understands 'dharma' due to his traditional rooting and respects the 'hindu' value system and tries to live by it.

In any case when a christian deputy CM is open minded enough to say he is a christian hindu I am happy to welcome him as opposed to ridiculing him for being "confused" and pigeon hole him or type caste him.

It does not matter if one follows ishta devata or not. As long as there is no negation of other's rights to believe what they want, then it is not monotheism at all.

It is true some Christians are adopting Hindu value system, but then they do not remain Christians in any original sense of the term

Any negation of others right to beliefs would be Adharma.

If the church is eager to reject them then I am just as willing to accept them.

 

[abjktu]

Who is propagating Dharma here? Of course there are poor Hindus, adharmic Hindus.



It does not matter if one follows ishta devata or not. As long as there is no negation of other's rights to believe what they want, then it is not monotheism at all.

It is true some Christians are adopting Hindu value system, but then they do not remain Christians in any original sense of the term.

You are not a True Hindu because you are non vegetarian..as per Manvan's theory killing without a cause is against dharmic tradition....

 

[Indrani]

When you clearly define Dharma and practice it and defend it, you do play a small role in propagating it. Fighting Adhrma is another way of propagating Dharma.

I hope you got the difference in me, a hindu, calling another christian a christian hindu and foolishly believing it to be so and a Christian, calling himself a christian hindu.

For eg. a Hindu who proudly proclaim he is a Hindu and eats beef and says dharma is 'flexible' is worse off than a christian who does not eat beef and understands 'dharma' due to his traditional rooting and respects the 'hindu' value system and tries to live by it.

In any case when a christian deputy CM is open minded enough to say he is a christian hindu I am happy to welcome him as opposed to ridiculing him for being "confused" and pigeon hole him or type caste him.



Any negation of others rights would be Adharma.

If the church is eager to reject them then I am just as willing to accept them.

Oh I was not at all talking about the Goa Minister or his view. I could not be more glad that he understands the native religion and culture much better than the modern Hindus do. I got into the argument with That Guy over whether Muslim claims and Hindu claims of being a way of life are equally valid or not. It followed from there into definition of religion and dharma. My only debating point with you was is Christianity same as Dharma.

You are not a True Hindu because you are non vegetarian..as per Manvan's theory killing without a cause is against dharmic tradition....

Sorry, no dice.