Ruckus during sadvi pragyas oath taking

[fitpOsitive]

Naah ..... it was a Hindu who cheated her.

It was a Hindu who tortured her.

IT was a Hindu who abused her.

Just history repeating itself.

Its always the Hindus who sided with the Mughals and the British to exploit other Hindus.

No whatever Karkary did, was way later.

 

[Gadkari]

I did not question here legality of getting there mate. Why would I. I do believe in the constitution and its methods. And, because she is elected means that she has a responsibility to represent everyone. You can keep on calling me overly sensitive, reality is, you are just trying to gloss over it. This whole thing of 'do not criticise' is a classical left and right trait. But the silence and not to call it what it is would be a bigger sin...

Majority selecting someone doesn't necessarily make them right. There are enough examples of that around the world. I do not agree with her nomination and I do have a right to protest. You have a right to defend her. Tells me that we are a vibrant and vociferous democracy... But in all of that, we must must take everyone along.

Sure .... you have all the "rights", but she does not have the "right" to say "jai sri Ram"

No whatever Karkary did, was way later.

There is no evidence of her mentioning any personal fight with a muslim.

Her fight is to correct historical injustices that is still continuing under the guise of "secularism". You can see it right in this thread.

 

[mastaan]

LOL.... if Ramayana and Mahabharat is not "documented" history, then I don't know what is

They have been "documented" for Thousands of years

That is why they are traditional been called "Ithihaasa".

OTOH "jesus" is a purely fictional character. But wikipedia does not refer to him as a "myth", he is "history". So much for your rationalization.

"Raj dharma " itself comes from the Dharma shastra ..... the Hindu book of codes and laws.

I called you out based on your posts which was irrational and prejudiced against the Hindus. "Bigot" is the english words that describes such people. Not my fault, blame the english language.

Do you know that 'hindu' is a british term? Sanatan Dharma was our way of living in the sub continents before that. Anyways, I don't think this debate will get us anywhere.

Here is my last attempt at whether it is myth or history: http://devdutt.com/articles/history-versus-mythology.html

please do not some of the key sentences:
- So like fundamentalist Christians in Europe demanding a ban on the study of evolution, fundamentalist Hindus in India started demanding that Ramayan and Mahabharat be taught as part of history.
- Even today Indians bear the burden of making Ramayan and Mahabharata historical and scientific. They point to archeological sites in Dwarka. They still feel they are answerable to the West.
- Linear religions, which have a start and a finish, need history. Cyclical religions, like the ones that thrived in India, seek to outgrow history. History is seen as delusion, a foolhardy attempt of man to define and limit time in ancient Indian philosophies.

Moot point is - bhai, Sanatan Dharma is beyond the labels! it is known as a myth for a reason!

And what has any of this got to with Jesus? Don't know much about him anyways.

I do respectfully rest my case.. Work waits.. happy to engage in a healthy debate, where you don't hide behind technicalities instead of simply saying, 'my bad bhai, shouldn't have called you a name'.

Sure .... you have all the "rights", but she does not have the "right" to say "jai sri Ram"



There is no evidence of her mentioning any personal fight with a muslim.

Her fight is to correct historical injustices that is still continuing under the guise of "secularism". You can see it right in this thread.

I did not question her right. I questioned her and her colleagues 'choice' to use it where they did. They have responsibility of Raj Dharma now. Anyways, think I am miserably failing at getting this point across to you

 

[Gadkari]

Do you know that 'hindu' is a british term? Sanatan Dharma was our way of living in the sub continents before that. Anyways, I don't think this debate will get us anywhere.

Here is my last attempt at whether it is myth or history: http://devdutt.com/articles/history-versus-mythology.html

please do not some of the key sentences:
- So like fundamentalist Christians in Europe demanding a ban on the study of evolution, fundamentalist Hindus in India started demanding that Ramayan and Mahabharat be taught as part of history.
- Even today Indians bear the burden of making Ramayan and Mahabharata historical and scientific. They point to archeological sites in Dwarka. They still feel they are answerable to the West.
- Linear religions, which have a start and a finish, need history. Cyclical religions, like the ones that thrived in India, seek to outgrow history. History is seen as delusion, a foolhardy attempt of man to define and limit time in ancient Indian philosophies.

Moot point is - bhai, Sanatan Dharma is beyond the labels! it is known as a myth for a reason!

And what has any of this got to with Jesus? Don't know much about him anyways.

I do respectfully rest my case.. Work waits.. happy to engage in a healthy debate, where you don't hide behind technicalities instead of simply saying, 'my bad bhai, shouldn't have called you a name'.

LOL.... are you for real ?

It was the Greeks who called us Hindus first, not the british. Still how does that matter ? How is that even relevant ?


Since when is devdutt a "hindu scholar" ?

He cannot even read and understand sanskrit. The language that all the Hindu scriptures are written in

All he has done is read the "english translations" of Hindu texts by "white western christian" "scholars" and is now preaching to the uneducated.

What next ? you will be quoting "Wikipedia" as authentic Hindu Facts ?

I did not question her right. I questioned her and her colleagues 'choice' to use it where they did. They have responsibility of Raj Dharma now. Anyways, think I am miserably failing at getting this point across to you

Who are you to question ANYONE'S "choice" ?

The same guy who ask's a muslim girl to wear a Hijab by "choice" ?

You should stick to preaching to Muslims, pretending to be a hindu is a lot harder than you think.

 

[mastaan]

One last point, the same constitution images, among others has Shivaji Maharaj, Akbar, Rani lakshmi bai, Tipu Sultan and Guru Gobind Singh... It is an ode from nandlal bose to our rich, deep and multifaceted heritage... and it is beautiful work done!

 

[Chhatrapati]

Do you know that 'hindu' is a british term?

Oh dear, The British separated the name Hindus from Muslims, Buddhist, Sikh and Christians. The Arabs/Persians still call Indians Al - Hindu or Hindi irrespective of his religion, the Chinese called us Yindu.

 

[mastaan]

LOL.... are you for real ?

It was the Greeks who called us Hindus first, not the british. Still how does that matter ? How is that even relevant ?


Since when is devdutt a "hindu scholar" ?

He cannot even read and understand sanskrit. The language that all the Hindu scriptures are written in

All he has done is read the "english translations" of Hindu texts by "white western christian" "scholars" and is now preaching to the uneducated.

What next ? you will be quoting "Wikipedia" as authentic Hindu Facts ?




Who are you to question ANYONE'S "choice" ?

The same guy who ask's a muslim girl to wear a Hijab by "choice" ?

You should stick to preaching to Muslims, pretending to be a hindu is a lot harder than you think.

Yeah, only you decide who is a scholar or not. What is not documentarily proven is not history - Pushpak Viman, Brahmastra, Man with 10 heads, Killing of of Tadka, Kalia Vadh, Ram Sethu, Flying Sanjeevani Parvat, Lifting of a mountain on a small finger and so many other instances i can quote... can not be history.. You are debating for the undefendable. It doesn't make them any lesser.. they just don't need to fit the fight to prove that they were real.

And now i know your problems.. You don't like the name 'mastaan' This is why you bring 'Burqa', 'pretending to be a Hindu to the picture'... You think I am a Muslim preaching to a proud Hindu .... I will not give you the satisfaction of telling you my religion... you don't deserve to know that. you will only embarrass yourself further.

Remind me again, the definition of a Bigot?

Oh dear, The British separated the name Hindus from Muslims, Buddhist, Sikh and Christians. The Arabs/Persians still call Indians Al - Hindu or Hindi irrespective of his religion, the Chinese called us Yindu.

My bad, over excitement.. I meant to say, it was recent.. There was no Hindus in India.. I stand corrected on who coined the term..

 

[Gadkari]

Oh dear, The British separated the name Hindus from Muslims, Buddhist, Sikh and Christians. The Arabs/Persians still call Indians Al - Hindu or Hindi irrespective of his religion, the Chinese called us Yindu.

What that joker does not know is what the CONSTITUTION OF INDIA define as a 'HINDU"

As per the constitution, anyone who lives in India and is not a muslim, xtian or parsi, he is by default a "Hindu". LOL.

Yeah, only you decide who is a scholar or not. What is not documentarily proven is not history - Pushpak Viman, Brahmastra, Man with 10 heads, Killing of of Tadka, Kalia Vadh, Ram Sethu, Flying Sanjeevani Parvat, Lifting of a mountain on a small finger and so many other instances i can quote... can not be history.. You are debating for the undefendable. It doesn't make them any lesser.. they just don't need to fit the fight to prove that they were real.

And now i know your problems.. You don't like the name 'mastaan' This is why you bring 'Burqa', 'pretending to be a Hindu to the picture'... You think I am a Muslim preaching to a proud Hindu .... I will not give you the satisfaction of telling you my religion... you don't deserve to know that. you will only embarrass yourself further.

Remind me again, the definition of a Bigot?

YOU are the classic definition of a Bigot. No doubt about it.

Hindu religious scholars will decide who other scholars are. Not "liberandus".

What do you mean "documetarily" proven ? You mean those things mentioned in a well known and wildly popular document is not "documentariliy proven" ?

How can you decide any and all things mentioned are not "True" ? Ram Sethu still exist.

Floating rocks on the sethu still exist.

Sri Lanka exist and so does Ayodhya.

So who is to say that those other things mentioned did not exist ?


You do not need to have the integrity to disclose your "religion" to me, I already know it

You do not have to pretend to have a "mock outrage" and take efforts to hide your identity. lol.

 

[Chhatrapati]

I stand corrected on who coined the term..

This must be the last place we should argue over it, @Gadkari and you could argue without getting personal and those snide remarks.

Again, dear @mastaan I know what are you trying to say, but if you're trying to put religion and state into two and drive a wedge between them then you should start with the national motto "Satyameva jayathe" (Truth always triumph) itself comes from an Upanishad, looking further Supreme court which says "yadho dharmastadho jaya" meaning "where there is dharma, there is victory". Quote from Mahabharata epic.

There is an interesting case in the Supreme Court about the morning prayer in Central Schools, which the court itself asked if such a case would stand given they sit under Bhagawat Gita quotes. I can go on and on about the Indian philosophy that has heavily influenced our constitution. Taking it out is not possible.

And the Supreme Court itself clarified Hinduism is not a religion in the sense, but an amalgamation of a lot of traditions and practices and it cannot be used in a skewed way. That is quite different from the Western, Abrahamic concept (my words).

 

[fitpOsitive]

Sure .... you have all the "rights", but she does not have the "right" to say "jai sri Ram"



There is no evidence of her mentioning any personal fight with a muslim.

Her fight is to correct historical injustices that is still continuing under the guise of "secularism". You can see it right in this thread.

Of course, she never mentioned that.

 

[Gadkari]

This must be the last place we should argue over it, @Gadkari and you could argue without getting personal and those snide remarks.

Again, dear @mastaan I know what are you trying to say, but if you're trying to put religion and state into two and drive a wedge between them then you should start with the national motto "Satyameva jayathe" (Truth always triumph) itself comes from an Upanishad, looking further Supreme court which says "yadho dharmastadho jaya" meaning "where there is dharma, there is victory". Quote from Mahabharata epic.

There is an interesting case in the Supreme Court about the morning prayer in Central Schools, which the court itself asked if such a case would stand given they sit under Bhagawat Gita quotes. I can go on and on about the Indian philosophy that has heavily influenced our constitution. Taking it out is not possible.

And the Supreme Court itself clarified Hinduism is not a religion in the sense, but an amalgamation of a lot of traditions and practices and it cannot be used in a skewed way. That is quite different from the Western, Abrahamic concept (my words).

Since the poster decided to get personal about an elected MP, I see no reason to not play by his rules.

Kapish ?

Those blinded by their hate and contempt for Hinduism cannot see the truth even when its staring them in the face.

You can preach to them all day long, it will not make an iota of difference. Bet if pdf or any other forum.

Of course, she never mentioned that.

Oh..... so you read her Mind.

You should be a moderator. Apparently they too can read minds and "intentions".

 

[mastaan]

What that joker does not know is what the CONSTITUTION OF INDIA define as a 'HINDU"

As per the constitution, anyone who lives in India and is not a muslim, xtian or parsi, he is by default a "Hindu". LOL.



YOU are the classic definition of a Bigot. No doubt about it.

Hindu religious scholars will decide who other scholars are. Not "liberandus".

What do you mean "documetarily" proven ? You mean those things mentioned in a well known and wildly popular document is not "documentariliy proven" ?

How can you decide any and all things mentioned are not "True" ? Ram Sethu still exist.

Floating rocks on the sethu still exist.

Sri Lanka exist and so does Ayodhya.

So who is to say that those other things mentioned did not exist ?


You do not need to have the integrity to disclose your "religion" to me, I already know it

You do not have to pretend to have a "mock outrage" and take efforts to hide your identity. lol.

And that is your proof to call it history? Ram Sethu would not be under sea if they all floated. History has to have happened and there has to be a demonstrable proof. A text saying it happened, doesn't prove anything. It makes it a part of our heritage and a myth.

Your standards for proof are low. So, what is the point of debating with you. What will you present next, an ancient vedic scripture to prove that pushpak viman also existed?

You can chose to keep mixing mythology and History - doesn't change how it is.

Lanka existing and Ayodhya existing says nothing about the questions the exist and a lot of events are simply not demonstrable factually to have happened and therefore they are not facts and therefore not history. Repeating a misunderstanding 1000 times won't make it a reality.

 

[Protest_again]

@Gadkari had a point. Seems like it didn't sit well with PDF mods. Unfortunate.

 

[pothead]

they themsels know they are barking the wrong tree ... waise did you guys miss me ..

Who are u?
Are u one of those who keeps serving long bans?

 

[mastaan]

This must be the last place we should argue over it, @Gadkari and you could argue without getting personal and those snide remarks.

Again, dear @mastaan I know what are you trying to say, but if you're trying to put religion and state into two and drive a wedge between them then you should start with the national motto "Satyameva jayathe" (Truth always triumph) itself comes from an Upanishad, looking further Supreme court which says "yadho dharmastadho jaya" meaning "where there is dharma, there is victory". Quote from Mahabharata epic.

There is an interesting case in the Supreme Court about the morning prayer in Central Schools, which the court itself asked if such a case would stand given they sit under Bhagawat Gita quotes. I can go on and on about the Indian philosophy that has heavily influenced our constitution. Taking it out is not possible.

And the Supreme Court itself clarified Hinduism is not a religion in the sense, but an amalgamation of a lot of traditions and practices and it cannot be used in a skewed way. That is quite different from the Western, Abrahamic concept (my words).

Dada, I agree.. Hinduism is not a religion. It is a mix of practices and way of life that is non-abrahmic way and now dualistic - It is the only Advait while believing in many way left from the ancient civilizations and needs protection.

To your points, on upanishad giving the beautiful sentence of satyamev jayate. It is a part of our rich heritage and therefore we take that principle proudly. We also take the principle of 'vasudev kutumbkam' and the documentation of what 'Raj Dharma' meant to Lord Ram. My point here was separation of religion and state to avoid the pit fall of becoming a right wing state and not against the use of the wisdom that exists in so many of those ancient scriptures. We should be proud of our heritage and use its richness and also live the spirit of it.

The discussion that ensured on whether Ramayana and Mahabharata are mythology or history actually went in a different tangent.

And for the record.. I did not report @Gadkari