MAJORITY Vs. MINORITY

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear AnbeSivam, the label hindu is an outside usage...it is a loosely used term...but still since it has come to stay, we will use it...

This land is the land of the vedas... and hence those who live their life by it (while accepting it)... the vedic way of assimilating knowledge is one of the key identifiers of the hindus...

India should officially state that it endorses the vedic way as the official religion of this land... this would, ipso facto, pave way for:

=> a proper understanding of hinduism, &
=> preservation of cultural heritages

 

[Nacchinarkiniyan]

Dear AnbeSivam, the label hindu is an outside usage...it is a loosely used term...but still since it has come to stay, we will use it...

This land is the land of the vedas... and hence those who live their life by it (while accepting it)... the vedic way of assimilating knowledge is one of the key identifiers of the hindus...

India should officially state that it endorses the vedic way as the official religion of this land... this would, ipso facto, pave way for:

=> a proper understanding of hinduism, &
=> preservation of cultural heritages

This is exactly what we are afraid of. Redefining Hinduism to reflect the views of sectarian groups with money power and political groups.

Where do the Dalits, Tribals and the followers of Agamas, Tantras and various other Samparadhayas fit in. In fact this definition would leave the majority of the Hindus out of Hinduism. It is this talk of Vaidika dharma which has been responsible for the Dalits and the Tribals to opt for other religions. Why do you want to change the age old tradition and practices of Dalits, Tribals and other groups?

This kind of talk will only divide and weaken Hinduism.

Definition of a religion by a government?

 

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

Shri Nacchi, I stand corrected... perhaps my post was rather loose in explaining the intent...

What I had intended was the full cultural diversities that existed pre-invasion period... My choice of words were not appropriate to express it correctly...

Thanks

 

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

My point is simple... I do not call for any exodus of non-hindu groups and neither do I advocate discrimination... As humans, we all stand as one...

If the constitution allows a clause like this "Hinduism, including the cultural diversities practised within the territory of India, but not limited to, is deemed the National Religion of India".

How does this affect governance in any way? Do we infer to suggest that the Hindu kings were not secular or that secularism was unheard of in Hindu India? It was, in a different form....within the hindu groups... now we have extended it to non-hindus as well...

We compulsively force our mind to accept that by being a Hindu State, the governing cannot remain secular.... that is why I had attributed this to pablovian thinking...

The posts which have come forth as replies only suggest extremes - that of a radical Hindu State or a State where discrimination prevails... this is a misleading thought process... A Hindu State cannot and should not be understood to mean that governance is religion based.

Immediately, the question crops up - "Then there will be vicious infighting amongst the hindus'. Do we not have it now?

Definition of secularism:"A doctrine that rejects religion and religious considerations."

A governing body or a judicial body HAS to be essentially secular for proper administration and justice... we do not need this definition to know that... But, by boldly stating our status quo as regards religion, we are emphasising that "all that encompasses hinduism" has to be respected in India, since our country is the birthplace and stronghold of hinduism.

 

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

I had earlier given my interpretation of sanatana dharma in one of shri nacchi's threads - "hinduism's conquest of the west"... which would hold good for the definition of hinduism in my view...

I reproduce this below:

It seems to be a kind of evolution; when we look at all the various schools from a macro level, then more or less, they all seem to worship one or more from within the conglomerate set of deities... which are inter-connected to each other either through a Purana, Ithihasa or the Vedas and Upanishads... Again there are sub-deities (like the ellai deivam or kaval deivam) which are also seen as manifestations at a local level...

The abrahamic religions differ in that they seem to have no connection with our set of deities...

But within this complex network, they all aim for one goal - liberation... and that is what makes it an eternal truth and probably the name sanathana dharma.

http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?s...e&direction=AU

The translation of this literal infers "eternal" or "forever"...

And hence sanatana dharma could mean the religion which upholds the eternal truth...

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri SS Ji, my response is in red below:

Shri KRS,

The allegations and counter allegations, the purported absurdity in labelling the entire muslim community - all are subject to debate... Ours is not a land where something would be accepted easily.

Fine, am not commenting about invasions anymore... but I see no logic in countering a Hindu India which is secular in its governance...

I ask you again, why are you so extrapolating it to mean that a Hindu India means the varna dharma etc...?

I did not imply that a Hindu India means the Varna Dharma. What I wanted to say, and it did not come out properly is that Hinduism also has changed and is changing.

Yes, this land is the glorious land of the Sanathana Dharma; but does it mean that we demean ourselves to tolerate the other? We have allowed other groups to flourish, the essential point is that Hinduism should be declared as the official Religion.

"Accord me the status due first and then talk about equality..."

I do not understand how we 'demean' ourselves to tolerate others. We the Hindus in majority voted for and approved the secular constitution in overwhelming numbers. While you may say that those who drafted our constitution are not 'real' Hindus, the fact is that they were Hindus.

This fabric of secularism that is being practised today will not help us retain our culture for long.

Agreed. But the answer is not to throw the baby with the bath water. True secularism is the only viable governance model for the diversity of the modern India. Your assumption that a Hindu state can do better than a secular state may or may not be valid. But there will be very real danger of the minorities not accepting this. If they all accept this, then I do not see a problem in making India a Hindu state.

That is your prerogative... I can only state my views and experinces... Not everything can be supported with facts... If it were, I would have handed over to the media or the policing department first... What would be appropriate facts to make such an assertion... and can it ever happen?... please, let us be realistic while discussing. You seem to be practically discussing one view while expecting too much from the other...

I understand your point of view. I can even accept the fact that a few muslims in Coimbatore knew about the blasts in advance. But I can not accept the fact that ALL of them knew it.

I would have rather replied as a "different perception" instead of "wrong statement"... On what grounds do you label my statement as wrong?

You did not say it was your perception. You made the statement about 'All Muslims...'. This is a declarative statement. This is what I termed as wrong. I know several muslims in India and from India who do not think this way.

I am not exaggarating... and everything is not on record. There are some things which are real, though not apparent...

This is why such below the surface things must be confronted through legal and policy means.

Regards,
KRS

 

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

Shri KRS,

A statement is a view born out of a perception...you would know that... but anyway...

As regards the topic:

We all speak from our viewpoints; and in this, we see a right in what we speak... we are having the system that you speak of and it is not in the interests of the hindus... you may say that it is due to bad politics, selfish politicians, etc., but what paves way for them to act thus?

It is the base which had been created immediately after independence... India was not mentally prepared to accept such a system, but they accepted it nevertheless since it was endorsed by the "so called greats"... and hence they completely believed that it would see them through a period of progress...

Yes, there has been progress, but it is not due to the foundation laid by these "so called greats", rather, it is the essence of our society - having been spiritualistic for long, we would have eventually turned to the materialistic, for everything has its turn...

Since independence, having adorned the cloak of secularism, India has been aggressively dealing with religion and religion only, in all its agendas - both hidden and manifest.

Dont tell me that progress in science, women's reservation etc are only due to secularism...

Why this state of affairs? It is because the idea of hinduism is expressly scorned at. Minorities is a rather generic term - it depends on what level we view it from... and our govt. has conveniently viewed it from the view of the hindu... they saw from a hindu angle and made laws from an ant-hindu angle... the thrust in all the laws was to undermine the hindu majority...

Had it been declared a hindu state, I feel, that the turbulence, we see now, would not have existed... of course there would have been hindu and non-hindu clashes - does it not happen now? In fact it is more now since the majority feel threatened.

But had it been an official hindu state, the non-hindus would not have encouraged ideas of conversion or have the audacity to oppose the culture of India...

You see, an outsider aggressively questioning the locus standi of the hindu would normally make him retort aggressively... but when a hindu does, at least, a certain part of him would think... and his reaction would be softened...

The most important part is that those who questioned conveniently forgot that they are in a hindu land - the birthland of the greatest philosophy of the world... this only helped to aggravate the situation. Those who sought their saviour from mecca started behaving as if India was wrong in being hindu... this ideological stance is not something which happened after independece, rather it had its roots from the moghul dynasty itself...

Can we call the British as the greatest ruler of India? Do we do that? Then in the same breath, how can we endorse moghul rulers (not all, but some) as the greatest?

We hail Chathrapathi Shivaji, we hail Akbar, we hail Aurangazeb, we hail Rana Pratap Singh, we hail Prithviraj Chauhan... what are we? Seems to be a confused lot who have lost their identities somewhere in the melee that has taken place in the previous centuries...

Our identity lies in being a hindu, which necessarily does not affect the secular attitude... after all, we take pride in saying that hindus are the most tolerant... don't we?

Regards,
Seshadri

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri SS Ji,

It seems to me again that you want to redress the past rules by both British and the Moghuls by making India a Hindu state. Let me ask you these particular question:

1. What do you acheive by making India a Hindu State? How would you be 'secular' under that rule?

2. Do you keep democracy under that rule?

3. Do you ban cow slaughter everywhere in India under that rule?

4. Do you then pass edicts on how women should behave?

5. Do you ban ALL religious conversions?

You keep on mocking the actions of our leaders during independence! Sir, most of them sacrificed for the freedom. And they did what they thought was best. And I do not agree with you that 'secularism' is the cause of the current perceived ills of Hinduism. The red herring is conversion.

I actually think that Hinduism and our way of life is well and alive in India. India is majority Hindu. I strongly oppose a modern nation state run on religioous principles - there are no standards. But as I said if the majority wants it and the minority agrees then you can make it so. This will never happen in India. First of all except for a few people like you, most of the people do not want it. The current system allows for people to express their disdain for the 'secular' parties as you pur derogatorely.

I think that 'Secularism' is the saviou of India. India will be witnessing worse terrorism and violence if it was not. I am completely at loss of words why a logical person like you don't see it that way!

Regards,
KRS

 

[happyhindu]

Sesh-ji,

All i can say is this: as said before - perhaps those that were brahmins in the previous manvantara are not brahmins now; and those that are brahmins now may not be in the next era. At the same time, those that are brahmins now in this current time have their crucial role of responsiblity - of ensuring the preservation and carrying on of their various traditions into the future generations. Once this responsibilty is heeded to well, everything else falls in place. There will not be any need to link religion with nationalism, patriotrism, alieanating cultures, and so on.

Moreover we also need to understand that what we know as Sanatan today has also changed enormously over the years. All cultures adapt to changing times. And since sanatan is much older than present day religions it developed its various beautiful hues of cultures and traditions and so on over time. Give Christianity or Islam the same time, and they too will adapt and change and grow with time. Christianity had a rich esoteric tradition which unfortunately was stymied by the church. But now you see a revival and the mystic side will well be combined with the popular side in future. There is indeed no diff in the pattern of development of various cultures all over the world.

Various ppl have come into India at various points of time. India is home to everyone who lives in peace and love with one another. If hindusim meant rejection of other faiths, then sir, i wud not have liked to be a hindu. Thankfully, hindu faith to the likes of me means acceptance. We are just Indian first and foremost. And almost always in being Indian first, everything else, such as various other identities, get subsumed.

 

[KRS]

Srimathi HH Ji,

Very nice posting.

Sri SS Ji,

Please go and read my exchanges with Sri MM Ji under the thread on Visishtadwaitha. How do we attain Hindu unity even as Brahmins we can not agree to respect other Sambradhayams? Let alone other Jathis agreeing with us?

Because we have so many diffrences among ourselves as Hindus and loathe to give any respect to other sects/jathis what have you, within our religion, can you imagine what a Hindu state will become?

Today on the strength of TN High Court, the DMK government has taken over the Chidambaram Temple. Again, I guess you will blame the 'secular' government!

Regards,
KRS

 

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

Shri KRS,

Well well... How else can I explain the source of the problem? If you dont consider it, there can never be a practical solution...

1. What do you acheive by making India a Hindu State? How would you be 'secular' under that rule?

I have already explained this - rightfully declare what our nation's philosophy stands for, to restore the pride of hinduism, to restore peace in the society...

2. Do you keep democracy under that rule?

Yes, why not?

3. Do you ban cow slaughter everywhere in India under that rule?

Possible...

4. Do you then pass edicts on how women should behave?

Not necessary... we are not talibans...

5. Do you ban ALL religious conversions?

Possible...

You keep on mocking the actions of our leaders during independence! Sir, most of them sacrificed for the freedom. And they did what they thought was best. And I do not agree with you that 'secularism' is the cause of the current perceived ills of Hinduism. The red herring is conversion.

This type of secular setup will in fact encourage conversion - it was but expected...
As far as leaders are concerned, I too have read about their actions... maybe they did what they thought was best... but not what was right...

I actually think that Hinduism and our way of life is well and alive in India. India is majority Hindu. I strongly oppose a modern nation state run on religioous principles - there are no standards. But as I said if the majority wants it and the minority agrees then you can make it so. This will never happen in India. First of all except for a few people like you, most of the people do not want it. The current system allows for people to express their disdain for the 'secular' parties as you pur derogatorely.

I think that 'Secularism' is the saviou of India. India will be witnessing worse terrorism and violence if it was not. I am completely at loss of words why a logical person like you don't see it that way!

I think you have not fully understood the setup I meant - to declare that India is essentially a hindu country, but retaining the secular and democratic framework would not hamper anything or make things worse...

Only when we voice it publicly, do we know how many would accept my view... till then your view cannot be taken as a generalization...

Secular parties? in India? Where are they??

Again, I stress, how will declaring our country a hindu state, affect the administration and governance?

Regards,
Seshadri

 

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

Shmt HH,

Then why do we have national borders? why at all religion? If everything changes, then why do we have emotions, feelings and passion?

No, I think differently...

 

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

Shri KRS,

Please go and read my exchanges with Sri MM Ji under the thread on Visishtadwaitha. How do we attain Hindu unity even as Brahmins we can not agree to respect other Sambradhayams? Let alone other Jathis agreeing with us?

This is precisely why I stopped posting under the thread - now you are also sticking to your point... please see the right in my view also...

We are experiencing the setup and its effect now (as per your definition of secularism)... so, I feel that we have to have this change...

Because we have so many diffrences among ourselves as Hindus and loathe to give any respect to other sects/jathis what have you, within our religion, can you imagine what a Hindu state will become?

This is an everpresent problem - not only in our religion but also in others... how can this be construed to extrapolate that a hindu state would have only problems? I fail to see the difference you are trying to point out - do you mean that our citizens would fight more if left to themselves when compared to now? If yes, how can that be?

Today on the strength of TN High Court, the DMK government has taken over the Chidambaram Temple. Again, I guess you will blame the 'secular' government!

I am fully aware of the reach of politics into the judicial system... it is all not milky white justice...

Regards,
Seshadri

 

[s007bala]

S S

By far in this forum,i have noticed your replies being exemplary in nature.I agree with you about declaring India as Hindu Country,even though the fact is,its an unwritten or unspoken truth of existance.I never realised this while living in India for 37 years,becoz i just took things for granted.I had no qualms of saying i am a brahmana,a hindu,a Indian-who speaks 5 languages with Tamil as parent tongue.

The same applies here in USA,majority population,which is White Christian,take it granted,as the super-consciouness of existence.Since i am a minority,with my background,for the first time in my life,i can relate to minorities in India as well as in USA.When i say this,its not a affront to White Christians in any way-but the psyche exists.Even though the founding fathers of the USA nation drafted the original constitution,without ever mentioning religious denominations.

I think,its dangerous or not dangerous as the populations psyche is, to declare,as solely,a particular religion,as the countries existance and practice of faith.Faith by its nature,is not subjected to logic or reasoning or science.Its a spiritual consciousness,which few of us in our lifetime experiance and this experiance can never be translated in words of expression.

sb

 

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

I think,its dangerous or not dangerous as the populations psyche is, to declare,as solely,a particular religion,as the countries existance and practice of faith.Faith by its nature,is not subjected to logic or reasoning or science.Its a spiritual consciousness,which few of us in our lifetime experiance and this experiance can never be translated in words of expression.

We say that the basis of our religion is - live and let live... but then why do we reject branding our country as a hindu country?

We believe that the hindu mindset is tolerant, but why do we conclude that a hindu state would be extremist?

Attaining spiritual consciousness is an important thing... but we should have the right ambience for it... I am not saying that a hindu nation would solve everything, but it would be a step in the right direction...

 

[s007bala]

S S

>>We say that the basis of our religion is - live and let live... but then why do we reject branding our country as a hindu country?<<

We dont have to brand it explicitly.Its a unspoken,unwritten fact of life in India.Now i understand the minority contempt for Hindus.

>>We believe that the hindu mindset is tolerant, but why do we conclude that a hindu state would be extremist?<<

Omar Khalidi's brilliant article,read it.....

India is seen as a shining example of a secular state but in reality the Indian state actually privileges Hinduism over other religions and religious communities. The Indian state is in fact the defender of the dharma for at least five reasons.

http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20090129&fname=omar&sid=1

>>Attaining spiritual consciousness is an important thing... but we should have the right ambience for it... I am not saying that a hindu nation would solve everything, but it would be a step in the right direction... <<

Indians will never allow,such a broad brush,though the men folks will love the broads..khe khee

sb

 

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

Reply to the article...

Constitutional Discrimination

This is simply because our religion is the sanathana dharma... it is an assortment of various philosophies put together.... read my earlier post on sanathana dharma in this thread... hence, it is not a malignant intent, but the very character of our dharma... it is the way of life... people who look through the eyes of "isms" would not find any here... and that frustrates them

Legislative Discrimination

Since there is no conversion into hinduism, it is but natural to expect the other, isnt it? He seems to be of the opinion that a secular govt is one which encourages conversions...

Employment Discrimination

Casteism is only within hindu religion... muslims and christians claim that their religion is one where everyone has equal rights...in fact, this is one of their vantage point which aids in conversion... and hence it is natural that when an SC converts, he loses his perceived "low status"... going by his post, should we accept scheduled caste muslims, nair muslims, gounder muslims etc? this is ridiculous.

Discrimination in Army

This is done for obvious reasons... by their very nature of their religion, they could anytime sacrifice the country for their religion... the onus is on the muslims to prove their worth... simi, let, al-umma, indian mujahideen etc... have to be completely sweeped out by the muslims themselves... no more sympathy to pakistan... etc... the author seems to be living in a fool's paradise

Cultural Discrimination

He is just trying to kill the culture of hinduism here... what does he want here? Things have now changed... there are umpteen channels where one can hear blatant programmes which raise the cause of the non-hindus... there are meat shops everywhere openly selling out... ugh...

Religious Pogroms

He does not go into the reasons why the godhra incident was started... in the first place... what about the moplah riot? why is he silent about it?

As a hyderabadi muslim, he probably wants the whole of India to be atheistic as regards hinduism, but pro islam... why does he not go back in history to restore the original hindu temples....? (thousands of them were demolished, and mosques were built).

He is just trying out his hand here to prove his stance... which does not stand... in my view...

 

[s007bala]

Hmm..mukunda mukunda brinda..mukunda vanam tha vanam tha...

sb

 

[KRS]

My response is in red:

Shri KRS,


This is precisely why I stopped posting under the thread - now you are also sticking to your point... please see the right in my view also...

We are experiencing the setup and its effect now (as per your definition of secularism)... so, I feel that we have to have this change...
I appreciate your own view on the other discussions. But I disagree with you that 'secularism' causes these types of differences. I think if we become a Hindu State the differences that are at least under wrap today - they will flare up openly for all to see. Power always does that. It will be worse.

This is an everpresent problem - not only in our religion but also in others... how can this be construed to extrapolate that a hindu state would have only problems? I fail to see the difference you are trying to point out - do you mean that our citizens would fight more if left to themselves when compared to now? If yes, how can that be?
Yes. But look at the nation states that are 'secular' around the world. They seem to keep these differences at bay. I can not think of any one single nation where one religion is the 'official' religion not having problems. We have a prime example to our south in Sri Lanka! Look at Philippines - it is a Christian state. All sorts of issues. This is what I am afraid of.

I am fully aware of the reach of politics into the judicial system... it is all not milky white justice...
Yes, but it has nothing to do with 'secularism'. MK regime is not 'secular'.

Regards,
KRS

Regards,
Seshadri

 

[KRS]

Sri Omar Khalidi's article, while provocative, misses several points and is based on the wrong assumptions. He also plainly tells some non-truths. But one has to keep in mind that this is reflective of what the muslim intellectuals in and from India are saying. We need to pay attention to these types of articles and repond with truth:

1. There are different types of "Secularism'. One type is what France practices where even wearing a scarf on the head is prohibited in public institutions. In the U.S., the Judeo-Christian cultur predominates and some religious intrusions in public life are permitted - oath taking on the bible or other scriptures, vintage crosses in public spaces, prayers at schools as long as the practice is either non denominational or non religious, etc. India I think practices a more liberal secularism, where the dominant culture is reflected in the officialdom. The point is, I am sure where there is a request from someone to recite a verse from Koran or from bible during the countless Hindu ceremonies he cites, it will be permitted, in my opinion. Again, he proves exactly the same point I have been arguing for - Indian 'secularism' permits Hindu culture to permeate through out the society as I claimed. There is no need to become a Hindu State.

2. Both Rajiv Gandhi on the Sikh massacre and Modi on Godhra were found to be not involved. Again, he cites rumours and innuendos as though they were the truth.

3. His points about food/beef/egg restrictions are valid. Hindus should make sure that the minorities have proper acces to the supply of any food they want to consume.

4. I do not agree with his complaint about conversions. Only 'forced' or 'induced' conversions are barred. If a state passes a law prohibiting ANY converssion, then that can be challenged and thrown out as not conforming with the constitution.

5. I do not understand his point about Scheduled Castes. These quotas were created to do away with the 'social' discrimination. THEY ARE NOT 'NEED' BASED ALONE. So seems to me that in Islam and Christianity where they profess equality, such a social discrimination can not exist.

Regards,
KRS

 

[s007bala]

re

Shri KRS

>>Both Rajiv Gandhi on the Sikh massacre and Modi on Godhra were found to be not involved. Again, he cites rumours and innuendos as though they were the truth.<<

Rajiv Gandhi was greiving as his mother had died.The late Mrs.Indira Gandhi lacked only one thing in life at that stage,namely a martyrs death.It was no coincidence,that a Belgian TV reporter of acclaim,was actually conducting one of those rare interviews of Mrs.G.

Congress ( I ) party members,reacted emotionally and went on un-holy mass killing on innocent Sikh families.I hang my head in shame,for this dastardly act on Sikh brothers and sisters.Bhindranwale was a creation of Mrs.G coteries only,which soon became a frankenstein monster.Even poor CIA was cited behind the Sikh uprising,as if there was no internal problems.Not that CIA is an angel.They do what they got to do like RAW or vice versa.

Modi has been wrongly judged by some.The initial mischief started in the train was by Muslims.To expect Gujju bhais/behen to swallow nonsense was a wrong calculations by Gujju Muslims.It flared dormant animosity,in the Indian sub-continent to the fullest gory.But,i believe Modi is an extra-ordinary administrator as CM.But still,i am having a real bad feeling about Hindu-Muslim animus getting out of hand.Peace is the weapon of choice as always.800 years of Muslim rule plus 200 years of christian rule is enuff for India.Hindus must declare un-equivocally,the Hindu brand of the citizens forever now.Its about time India has a single code of law as Indians,from Jammu& Kashmir to Kanya KUmari.

sb

 

[malgova.mango]

sesh!

oh common! where did i show dis-respect to any sampradhayams... common this is a serious allegation. I too have many iyengar friends.

only in the context of siddhantam , i engaged in discussion... i respect all upasanas, be it on Kali,Krishna,Shiva,Ganapathy,Surya,Kumara...but if somebody say vedanta ends in upasana and there is no scope of jeevan mukthi contradicting with pramana shastra , then someone has to say that is wrong , because it is not the final say.

to us vedic followers - vedas are pramana shastras - how can one contradict that - is there anybody superior to vedas. no one absolutely no one.

my dear you mis-understood me.

regards

 

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

mango, to clarify, I did not mean that you dis-respect the sampradhayams nor are you mean minded... the implied meaning in shri krs' post was that you dont see the logic in other premises since you are staunch in your premise...

Can you please tell me what is a sampradhayam and how it evolves?

 

[malgova.mango]

one siddha purusha bent upon drawing people to worship him do tapas and get the boon from god.

afterwards he establish the cult - simple , it is happening yugams after yugams right from Hiranya kashippu kalam.

in their quest, they clash with ageless , teaching traditions of native culture and bring conflicts.
......
See apart from this , i don't take your accusation that i refuse to see the logic. this is too much.

i simply want how your siddantham connects to mahavakyas and other pramana vakyas - till now no one answers that..it doesn't connect at all is my premise.

so i didn't consider anyone anything above our pramana shastra. which is the breath of our lord.

but if it gets connected all i want to know how that's all.

but what i get ? .. all i get is , that i'm a hate monger, causing division in the community etc, etc.. which is baseless and atrocious..

regards

 

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

at ease mango... nobody is trying to fix another...

See apart from this , i don't take your accusation that i refuse to see the logic. this is too much.

That is how things are... when something can be contended, it can never taken to be the ultimate truth... this is something that cannot be proved by theoretical means... and for this reason, all three philosophies can stand their ground. However knowledgeable one may be, one has to realize this ground reality...

we are all striving in our own way to get a grasp on the perceived higher philosophical truths while engaging in the normal mundane activities of life...

anyway, further discussions on this topic here would be a digression from the intent of this thread...

i perceive you as a highly learned elder (to me at least?)... and there is much that am learning from your posts et al... in my own subtle way...

Pranams,
Seshadri