as i see it - Pt. III

[Armen]

Faith is something that happens in the hearts, minds, and souls of men. What I criticize is not faith but organized religions and the power they wield; and power is power regardless of its physical or metaphysical content.

*

Faith may be beyond criticism, but organized religions, politics and power are not.

#

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Thank you for these words Ara. I thought your last post on Chritianity was one sided. I think one must refer to Christian Church as the structure, Christian religion as the dogmatic system and Chritianity as a faith and make a clear distinction among them. Because if Chrsitianity is attributed only to the Church and critisied as such you indeed sound negativist because that way true carriers of Christian impluse like Joan of Arc or Nageratsi are being authomatically classified as non Christian.

[ara baliozian]

Monday, September 13, 2004

************************************

A TURKISH NOBELIST.

A TURCOPHILE HISTORIAN ON TURKS.

ANKARA’S ROLE IN WORLD HISTORY.

PROPAGANDA WAR.

TOYNBEE’S VERDICT.

***************************************************

In the August 30, 2004 issue of the NEW YORKER (New York) John Updike reviews a novel titled SNOW by Orhan Pamuk, a contemporary Turkish writer, several of whose books have already been translated into English and published in the U.S. and England. After comparing the author with Marcel Proust, Thomas Mann, and Dostoevsky, Updike writes: “Pamuk, relatively young as he is, at the age of fifty-two, qualifies as that country’s most likely candidate for the Nobel Prize.”

It is to be noted that the novel takes place in the city of Kars and the Armenian massacres are not mentioned in the lengthy review.

*

In the August 21 issue of the SPECTATOR (London) David Pryce-Jones opens his review of Andrew Mango’s THE TURKS TODAY with the words: “Mustapha Kemal, otherwise Ataturk, took the corpse of the Ottoman Empire and reanimated it as Turkey. Breaking both the old sultanate and the hold of Islam, he laid the foundation of a democratic state. It was an extraordinary achievement, not to be witnessed again until Mikhail Gorbachev broke the Soviet Union and the hold of the Communist party – and that was more by accident than design.” Armenians are not mentioned in the review.

*

In the August 19 issue of LE POINT (Paris) there is an interview with Semih Vaner, identified as a French expert on the Middle East, who is quoted as having said: “Ankara can play an essential role between the West and the Muslim world.” And: “It is time to view the Muslim world in all its diversity. Turkey has a parliamentary system that is competitive and democratic.”

Again, Armenians are not mentioned.

*

Is there an Armenian military leader comparable to Ataturk? General Antranik comes to mind. But he might as well be a non-person to the world at large, thanks to our own political leadership that rejected him in mid-career.

*

Did we ever produce a writer who could have qualified as a candidate for the Nobel Prize? The answer is, yes, certainly, many. But we silenced all of them. I have in mind not only writers of the Soviet period that were systematically purged by our commissars, but also writers of the Diaspora, like Zarian, Shahnour, and Massikian, who were rejected and silenced by our own political and literary establishments.

*

If we are losing the propaganda war, whose fault is it? Is it because the world has a short memory? Or is it because we have allowed our destiny to fall into the hands of mediocrities whose number one enemy is excellence?

*

I am reminded of Toynbee’s dictum: “Nations and civilizations are not killed, they commit suicide.”

#

[ara baliozian]

Nope, I am not in the habit of making invalid generalizations. I do have much appreciation for Buddhism. I criticize atheism because I believe in the existnece of God, however I don't hold anything agaist atheists. I merely say that they don't know what they are talking about.

Look what you have done, in one sentence you have lumped priests, ayatollahs and gurus together. This is something I object, it is indeed very unfair and untruthful. Ayatollahs are institutionalized and authoritative, priests are not so authoritative but they are institutionalized, and the gurus are neither authoritative nor institutionalized. Buddha was a guru, Jesus was a guru, all the Zen masters are gurus. Others may talk about God or Enlightenment intellectually and have various opinions but gurus have a direct perception of it, therefore theirs is the most valid point and closest to the truth, and if one wants to learn anything true about God/Light then the guru/master is the right source since they have the direct perception. Proof to that should be that gurus/masters do not contradict each other. As to agnosticisms, Light/Enlightenment in Buddhism is the same God of a theist given a different name. It is impersonal, therefore it cannot be called  God. You may think they are different but it only appears so superficially. A Hindu guru never tells a Buddhist seemingly agnostic master is wrong. Then of course, anyone can claim to be a guru and say anything. It is your responsibility to separate true teachers from false ones and not lump them together as one fanatic bunch. But if you do and I crticize you for making unfair generalizations it is not because I have something to hide and do not wish to be exposed.

Gandhi was a unique human being. At the same time he was deeply religious. Perhaps one fact from his life would make you see what I mean. He asked Paramahansa Yogananda, a great Hindu guru, to initiate him into Kriya Yoga. Acceptance of a personal guru speaks of a deep religious involvement. Below is a photograph of them together (Yogananda at the left and Gandhi in the center).

 

http://www.crystalclarity.com/yogananda/illustrations/gandhi1.JPG

 

I do not deny that Gandhi, as a person who had received western education had western influences. However, all his work for India was deeply rooted in Hindu values, and his movement of non-violent struggle of independence would have been hard or impossible to carry out in a different culture. Perhaps you see him as a universalist and a humanitarian, but that is what Hinduism is about.

Let me state it in a different way: religion cannot be without mysticism, all major religions have mysticism. Therefore I say mysticism is part and parcel of religions. Some people may have mystical experiences and not be practicing any religion. I am not saying it is impossible, what I am saying is if you gather all mysticism in the world the overwhelming majority of it would be mystic traditions of this and that religion.

But my argument is not about mysticism. I was saying that Vivekananda was as good a Hindu as any other Hindu and he cannot be considered as someone outside of Hindu religion.  I think the facts I brought above are more than sufficient to prove the validity of my conviction. And yes, he was opposed to institutionalized and dogmatic dimension of religions. So what? Religion is not just institution.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

was gandhi a success or a failure?

some think he was a disaster for india.

the jury is out on that.

 

i repeat: the idea of god and mysticism existed long before organized religions confiscated it and ended up issuing contradictory dogmas and creating conflict.

 

for a better understanding of hinduism i suggest Arthur Koestler's THE LOTUS AND THE ROBOT -- a fascinating study of Eastern religions. Koestler lived in India and Japan and wrote about the absurdities of hinduism and buddhism...he also exposes some of Gandhi's absurd and misguided notions....

[Sasun]

Ara, I am having trouble understanding what your position really is. It seems like you are looking for this and that excuse to blacken any religion even when facts suggest it is not as dark as you would like to present. Your replies show that you are incapable or unwilling to conduct a logical discussion using facts rather than proclamations. The only thing you successfully do is make undue generalizations. You are trying to separate religious thought from religion, while it maybe right in your opinion, it is not how religion is generally understood.

 

Another troubling behaviour is when I bring facts proving your point incorrect you make unclear references to this and that author avoiding the subject matter. This is an astonishing form of dogmatism coming from soneone who is himself criticizing dogmatism.

 

Why don't you say what you think about Gandhi? Why do you have to refer to various authors without clarifying your stance. Do you think Gandhi had absurd and misguided notions? If yes then how do you explain that we was also an outstanding leader with an outstanding vision. If you can't explain then something is wrong with your thinking as Gandhi could not be a wise man and an absurd lunatic at the same time.

 

Evidence suggests that Gandhi is considered a saintly person by Hindus. He was indeed a devout Hindu - this is what the facts of Gandhi's life and his political thoughts and activities suggest. Not only that, Gandhi himself strongly identified himself with Hinduism. There is no question about his belonging to Hinduism in quite substantial terms.

 

But then there is Ara Baliozian who doesn't like religion, therefore he revisions what and who Gandhi was. He is not quite familiar with Hinduism yet claims that Hinduism is something like a fanatical religion, and if Gandhi had some religious ideas then they were absurd. (Nevermind that Gandhi had not some but many religious ideas.)

 

Ara, your fruits are criticism, I think it is a good idea that sometimes you eat your fruits. Logic consistently avoids you half way through. Your way of learning seems to be crooked. If you want to learn about Hinduism you must first be acquinted with its basic tenets and history, familiarize with its scriptures and understand what it is about. Then only you can criticize it with an honest and informed stance. Instead you are only conducting a narrowminded and superficial bashing to promote a personal cause of intolerance to religions.

[Armen]

Thus Spoke Zarathustra

Nietzsche

 

..................

7. Reading and Writing

 

OF ALL that is written, I love only what a person has written with his blood. Write with blood, and thou wilt find that blood is spirit.

 

It is no easy task to understand unfamiliar blood; I hate the reading idlers.

 

He who knows the reader, does nothing more for the reader. Another century of readers—and spirit itself will stink.

 

Every one being allowed to learn to read, ruins in the long run not only writing but also thinking..............

[THOTH]

Sunday, September 05, 2004

 

In 1957 Bertrand Russell published a book titled WHY I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN, which contains quotations from the Old Testament that legitimize prejudice, racism, and massacre - and massacre not only of women and children but also cattle.

We now have two recent books titled WHY I AM NOT A MUSLIM by Ibn Warraq and WHY I AM NOT A HINDU by Ramandra Nath.

In the first we read: "As soon as I was able to think for myself, I discarded all the religious dogmas that had been foisted on me. I now consider myself a secular humanist who believes that all religions are sick men's dreams, false - demonstrably false - and pernicious."

In the second: "Though I agree with Buddhism in its rejection of god, soul, infallibility of the Vedas, still I am not a Hindu even in this broad sense of the term Hindu, because as a rationalist and humanist, I reject all religions."

If the world is saved it will not be by ayatollahs, mullahs, bishops, popes, televangelists and rabbis but by enlightened men like Bertrand Russell, Ibn Warraq and Ramandra Nath, who refuse to divide their fellow men into believers and infidel dogs.

 

here here!

With most people, it seems, if you repeat something long enough, they will end up believing it. This is the principle on which all organized religions and ideologies are based. The only reason most Christians are Christians is that they were born and raised in a predominantly Christian country. The same applies to Hindus, Muslims, and Buddhists. This suggests a number of things, among them:

(a) homo sapiens hates to think for himself and prefers someone else to do his thinking for him; ( he is eminently brainwashable; © he cannot discriminate education from indoctrination; (d) he is easily satisfied with what he knows even when what he knows happens to be a palpable lie; and (e) he has 20/20 vision when it comes to the lies of the opposition and might as well be blind to his own.

*

 

here here!

 

 

*

In that sense, one could say that all belief systems are in the business of dehumanizing their fellow men. To flatter the collective ego of a minority (and all religions are minorities) they dehumanize the majority.

*

 

agreed. And good job in general and specifically in regard to this discussion concerning (the absolute failure of) religion...

 

 

All wisdom begins with the realization that what we know is only a very small fraction of knowledge, and very often so small that it would be more accurate to admit, like Socrates, that all we know for certain is that we don’t know.

*

 

"...To know is not to know" - Lao Tzu

[Arpa]

here here!

style_images/master/snapback.png

Dear Tot , there goes my deffiicient Armenian pronunciation of the TH..

As nuch as I like your cynical questioning and "doubting Thomas" attitude. That makes two of us.

It is not "here,here". It is "hear,hear" as in "hark"! the aural(ear) process of hearing, or as Marc Antony would have it; "Romans and countrymen, lend me your ears".

Edited September 14, 2004 by Arpa

[ara baliozian]

Tuesday, September 14, 2004

***********************************

Persian proverb: “Adam and Eve spoke in Persian, and the angel who drove them out of Paradise spoke Turkish.”

*

I have heard it said that poets are useless, writers deal in verbiage, intellectuals are addicted to words, and you cannot cook pilaf with words. I have also heard it said that man does not live by pilaf alone; and if the man happens to be an Armenian, he will also want some shish kebab.

*

Churchill, not exactly a daydreaming poet, once said: “Jaw-jaw is better than war-war.”

*

Ludwig Wittgenstein: “The limits of my language mean the limits of my world.” It follows, to silence writers means limiting our options, and with them, our chances to survive and to achieve excellence, both of which are interconnected. To survive in the jungle, you need all your faculties.

*

Where critics are starved, crooks, charlatans and liars grow fat. Hence the old saying: “Priests have seven stomachs.”

*

You say I complain too much, but isn’t that what you are doing too?

*

“Every concept is in itself an exaggeration,” Jose Ortega y Gasset tells us. So that if you say I exaggerate, you are saying I deal in concepts, to which I can only reply, I don’t know any other way to express my thoughts, and I refuse to apply fig leaves to them.

*

Zarian was right. We don’t have literary critics. What we have are petty meddlers and frustrated commissars of culture who, given the chance, will gladly put a bullet in the neck of anyone who dares to disagree with them.

*

According to Shaw, “A thought is an assault on the unthinking.” Every unfamiliar thought is therefore bound to violate our inner balance and thus put us on the defensive. Our first impulse is not to understand it, but to reject it and to silence the thinker.

*

The hardest thing about being Armenian is to disagree with a friend without losing him, and to win an argument without making a mortal enemy.

*

By concentrating on someone else’s criminal conduct (which is what we have been doing) we learn nothing. But by exposing our own blunders we may learn not to repeat them.

#

[ara baliozian]

i believe in dialogue.

religions are as a rule dogmatic.

 

Hinduism is an exception! That's what I have been trying to communicate. It is different form other religions in several ways. One of the differences is that there is no such thing as orthodox Hinduism. There is a set of various philosophies and spiritual practices, all with their differences and disagreements, that is known as Hinduism. Differences in theology are never discouraged in Hinduism. Other religions are also accepted by Hinduism. In addition, there are many dieties and many saints that are part of Hinduism. Different Hindus worship different dieties, and some Hindus do not worship any dieties, they have a belief in impersonal God. However, none of these Hindus claims that the others are not Hindus. Sure, they disagree, and that is the norm. This is a religion that has developed further and further in philosophy and spirituality of which meditation is a central part. Old theologies have been modified and renewed and developed as the practicioners of Hinduism have become closer to Truth. This process has undoubtedly involved dialogs and debates among various directions in Hinduism. Another impotant derivative of Hinduism was the development of science and mathematics. Some of what physicists have discovered in the last century had been discovered by Hindu rishis millenia ago, and some of what they discovered back then have not yet been discovered by science! This is a separate subject...

All that said, not everything is accepted in Hinduism by default. For example there are some minor sects such as ones with suicidal doctrines are not accepted. Then again, even such sects were generally not persecuted for their beliefs. If you compare this to other religions the differences are quite obvious where even minor differences are not tolerated, for example Orthodox Christians calling Catholics un-Christian and vice versa. These antagonisms of course have nothing to do with Jesus Christ, those are misunderstandings of followers.

 

the reason i suggested you read Koestler is that he gives you many facts.

it is a mistake to read a book about hinduism written by a pro-hindu scholar.

 

Then would it not be a mistake to read anti-hindu scholars? Why not read neutral sources? I am saying all views must be acquinted with, but first of all one must be acquinted with the core Hindu scriptures which themselves define Hinduism.

 

that would be like reading a history of islam by a muslim, or a history of communism by a stalinist.

 

Not quite so, why do you assume that everyone who is for their religion is bound to lie? There are many honest religious people. Where does this mistrust come from? Look at this way, if a person gives up material life, sex life, easy life of enjoyment and becomes religious what are the chances that he will want to lie to others? But one can also verify in many ways, that is something to be discussed on case by case bases. There is no guarantee that being religious means to be honest, or vice a versa.

Nevertheless, whoever the source, I have not heard of any historical records where Hindus have massacred on religious grounds, or Hindu branches fighting between themselves, or forcibly convertint muslims or others. This is something that must be noted and appreciated.

 

if hinduism were truly what it claims to be, it would have combated the caste system. if it didn't, or if it did and failed, it cannot be said to have been successful.

 

Actually, among many debates in Hinduism one question has been the question of caste inequalities. There have been people for it and against it. The fact that it has not been completely wiped you may call a failure but that does not mean Hinduism as a whole is a worthless religion.

 

by the way, untouchables did not care for Gandhi because he called them harijans -- children of god. they thought, as i do, that it was patronizing. it is like southern racists calling negroes " boys ".

 

I believe Gandhi sincerely believed they were children of God even as all the castes would be children of God. Him being such a humble man I hardly believe it would be patronizing, he did campaign for women's and untouchable's equality.

 

as i said i have nothing against faith. I admire Gandhi as a man of faith but not as a political leader. There have been many popular political leaders who have been disasters for their country -- stalin, mao, hitler, mussolini...gandhi was not like them, but the final result for his country was not much different.

 

In my view, he was quite successful in terms of promoting peaceful coexistence and avoiding as many bloodsheds as possible. I think everyone will agree that had it not been for his efforts there would be much more chaos and blood. And as to the division of India it may be a blessing under the circumstance of growing religious hostilities.

 

Actually, there is one difference that must be noted. Unlike Christianity and other religions, mainstream Hindu directions do not center on faith. Faith is implicit, what they stress is dharma which is often translated as duty (actually what we call Hindu religion the Hindus call dharma). From Hindu point of view duty is important. Each man and each woman in every caste has a significant number of specific duties to perform. Practical religion for Hindu masses is to know and perform well ones duties. There is no question about success or failure, success is not in the outcome but in performing the duties. Whether as success or failure, the outcome depends on God and as such a Hindu doesn't think about it. The only thing a Hindu must worry about is to perform the designated duties to the best of his/her abilities.

In this light, Gandhi should be considered not as a man of faith but as a man of duty. As a man of duty he certainly succeeded more than anyone else, and there has not been the like of him in the world.

Edited September 14, 2004 by Sasun

[bellthecat]

OF ALL that is written, I love only what a person has written with his blood. Write with blood, and thou wilt find that blood is spirit.

 

Which, when taken literally, would have the additional advantage that the strain (drain!) of having to write with ones own blood would limit the number of words written. But if everyone had to write with sincerity then few would be able to last longer than a paragraph, and most would dry out after a sentence - which is why we should always mistrust short maxims.

[Sasun]

Hmm... I noticed that instead of replying to Ara's post in a new post I have inadvertantly edited his post and typed the replies in his post. My apologies, I will ask the admins if the post can be restored. They should consider stripping me of moderator powers Edited September 14, 2004 by Sasun

[THOTH]

They should consider stripping me of moderator powers

 

well, yes...but not for this silly little mistake...

[Sasun]

well, yes...but not for this silly little mistake...

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Ah, I see, they should for the grave mistake of editing the posts of Thoth

[Armen]

Which, when taken literally, would have the additional advantage that the strain (drain!) of having to write with ones own blood would limit the number of words written. But if everyone had to write with sincerity then few would be able to last longer than a paragraph, and most would dry out after a sentence - which is why we should always mistrust short maxims.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

I don't take it literally. I quoted it for Ara and I suppose he is well read on Nietzsche. This maximalist statement must be viewed in the context of his life, experience and personal spiritual crusade against Christian dogma. E.g. the Nazies took it literally.

Nietzsche, in my opinion, is one of the true representatives of the Christian impulse of modern times. His life - along with other personalities of his type and calibre over the course of history - was an accumulation and concentration of change that happened in European (and human) psyche several times in different historical periods and constituted a spiritual breakthrough, which advanced humanity to its next stage of development.

The personal tragedy and intellectual tourchers he went through at the dawn of his life reflected the spiritual sacrifice he brought to the altar of freedom...

Edited September 15, 2004 by ArmenSarg

[ara baliozian]

Wednesday, September 15, 2004

**************************************

VERSIONS OF THE PAST.

HISTORY AS THE PROPAGANDA OF THE VICTOR.

ON THE MEDIOCRITY OF OUR WRITERS.

THE NUMBER TWO IN NATURE.

*******************************************************

To appreciate the absurdities of history as taught to millions of unsuspecting children, consider a Turk's version of Armenian history. I once heard a Turkish historian say that there has never been such a thing as an Armenian nation. Christian Turks, maybe. Armenian nation, never! It follows; to speak of the Armenian genocide is to speak of the Genocide of a non-existent entity.

*

In his book, THE DA VINCI CODE, Dan Brown exposes the dark side of Christianity. When told by readers that his book contradicts everything they have been taught, he replies that history has always been written by the "winners (societies and belief systems that conquered and survived)." So that, in gauging what is true, we should ask: "How historically accurate is history?"

*

Hindus treat their cows with greater respect than their Untouchables. I should like to see a history of Hinduism written by an Untouchable, or a history of the United States written by an American Indian or a Negro. Unless of course you say the testimony of an American racist is more valid than the testimony of a Negro.

*

Even belief systems whose central idea is mercy can be merciless against their critics.

*

After silencing and starving our ablest writers, our commissars of culture say: "Our writers are mediocrities."

*

A hooligan once said to me: "Books speak about the past. I am more interested in the future." He is thinking of his next screw, I thought.

*

Nature seems to be partial to the number two: we have two eyes, two ears, two arms, two legs, and a forked tongue.

#

[ara baliozian]

millions have died in hindy-muslim massacres, so much so that even gandhi wanted to commit suicide by starvation; millions more died when pakistan was divided to bangladesh and pakistan....\

 

Hinduism is an exception! That's what I have been trying to communicate. It is different form other religions in several ways. One of the differences is that there is no such thing as orthodox Hinduism. There is a set of various philosophies and spiritual practices, all with their differences and disagreements, that is known as Hinduism. Differences in theology are never discouraged in Hinduism. Other religions are also accepted by Hinduism. In addition, there are many dieties and many saints that are part of Hinduism. Different Hindus worship different dieties, and some Hindus do not worship any dieties, they have a belief in impersonal God. However, none of these Hindus claims that the others are not Hindus. Sure, they disagree, and that is the norm. This is a religion that has developed further and further in philosophy and spirituality of which meditation is a central part. Old theologies have been modified and renewed and developed as the practicioners of Hinduism have become closer to Truth. This process has undoubtedly involved dialogs and debates among various directions in Hinduism. Another impotant derivative of Hinduism was the development of science and mathematics. Some of what physicists have discovered in the last century had been discovered by Hindu rishis millenia ago, and some of what they discovered back then have not yet been discovered by science! This is a separate subject...

All that said, not everything is accepted in Hinduism by default. For example there are some minor sects such as ones with suicidal doctrines are not accepted. Then again, even such sects were generally not persecuted for their beliefs. If you compare this to other religions the differences are quite obvious where even minor differences are not tolerated, for example Orthodox Christians calling Catholics un-Christian and vice versa. These antagonisms of course have nothing to do with Jesus Christ, those are misunderstandings of followers.

Then would it not be a mistake to read anti-hindu scholars? Why not read neutral sources? I am saying all views must be acquinted with, but first of all one must be acquinted with the core Hindu scriptures which themselves define Hinduism. 

Not quite so, why do you assume that everyone who is for their religion is bound to lie? There are many honest religious people. Where does this mistrust come from? Look at this way, if a person gives up material life, sex life, easy life of enjoyment and becomes religious what are the chances that he will want to lie to others? But one can also verify in many ways, that is something to be discussed on case by case bases. There is no guarantee that being religious means to be honest, or vice a versa.

Nevertheless, whoever the source, I have not heard of any historical records where Hindus have massacred on religious grounds, or Hindu branches fighting between themselves, or forcibly convertint muslims or others. This is something that must be noted and appreciated.

 

Actually, among many debates in Hinduism one question has been the question of caste inequalities. There have been people for it and against it. The fact that it has not been completely wiped you may call a failure but that does not mean Hinduism as a whole is a worthless religion.

I believe Gandhi sincerely believed they were children of God even as all the castes would be children of God. Him being such a humble man I hardly believe it would be patronizing, he did campaign for women's and untouchable's equality.

In my view, he was quite successful in terms of promoting peaceful coexistence and avoiding as many bloodsheds as possible. I think everyone will agree that had it not been for his efforts there would be much more chaos and blood. And as to the division of India it may be a blessing under the circumstance of growing religious hostilities.

 

Actually, there is one difference that must be noted. Unlike Christianity and other religions, mainstream Hindu directions do not center on faith. Faith is implicit, what they stress is dharma which is often translated as duty (actually what we call Hindu religion the Hindus call dharma). From Hindu point of view duty is important. Each man and each woman in every caste has a significant number of specific duties to perform. Practical religion for Hindu masses is to know and perform well ones duties. There is no question about success or failure, success is not in the outcome but in performing the duties. Whether as success or failure, the outcome depends on God and as such a Hindu doesn't think about it. The only thing a Hindu must worry about is to perform the designated duties to the best of his/her abilities.

In this light, Gandhi should be considered not as a man of faith but as a man of duty. As a man of duty he certainly succeeded more than anyone else, and there has not been the like of him in the world.

style_images/master/snapback.png

[Sasun]

millions have died in hindy-muslim massacres, so much so that even gandhi wanted to commit suicide by starvation; millions more died when pakistan was divided to bangladesh and pakistan....\

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

I do acknowledge those massacres but those were only of the recent history. Are you sure there were millions, I don't know the exact numbers? At any rate, it had to do with politics and land division and things of that nature, not purely religious disagreements something like a holy Hindu war. Muslim vs. any other religion would likely give the same result, and if there was not Gandhi to calm down then it might have been worse. Let's not forget the divide and rule role of the British.

 

I apologize for editing your post, I spoke to the admins it is not possible to recover the original. If I left out any of your original comments please feel free to post again.

Edited September 15, 2004 by Sasun

[Sasun]

Wednesday, September 15, 2004

In his book, THE DA VINCI CODE, Dan Brown exposes the dark side of Christianity. When told by readers that his book contradicts everything they have been taught, he replies that history has always been written by the "winners (societies and belief systems that conquered and survived)." So that, in gauging what is true, we should ask: "How historically accurate is history?"

style_images/master/snapback.png

The question is, is this book itself historically accurate? I have not read the book but have read criticism of it stating several facts of historical forgery and inaccuracy of the sources. If your methodology of learning/investigating is correct I should not bother reading the book myself but point out what the critics say and assume that they are not making intentional or unintentional mistakes. This would perfectly suite my dislike of anti-religious literature and I would appear knowledgable in what I would be talking about.

[ara baliozian]

Thursday, September 16, 2004

**********************************

To speak of the wisdom of propaganda is like speaking of the shadow of a non-existent object in a dark room.

*

Fascists make good speechifiers, but I see more eloquence in the braying of an ass.

*

Two individuals from two different cultural environments do not speak the same language even when they speak the same language.

*

Confucius: “Clever talk and a pretentious manner are seldom found in the Good.”

A variant translation: “A garbage-mouth cannot harbor a golden tongue.”

*

I am not in the business of changing anything. I am in the business of understanding, and whenever I am allowed, to share my understanding.

*

When a reader tells me he hates what I write, I make an effort to be more hateful. I don’t write to entertain, amuse, and flatter.

*

All censors are cowards because they are afraid of ideas, especially ideas that will expose them as cowards.

*

Judge a tree by its fruit, a man by his ideas, and a belief system by its history.

*

To say nothing is better than to call someone an ignoramus, especially if he is one.

*

An easy riddle: “What does an Armenian with an opinion have in common with the Rock of Gibraltar?”

#

[ara baliozian]

The question is, is this book itself historically accurate? I have not read the book but have read criticism of it stating several facts of historical forgery and inaccuracy of the sources. If your methodology of learning/investigating is correct I should not bother reading the book myself but point out what the critics say and assume that they are not making intentional or unintentional mistakes. This would perfectly suite my dislike of anti-religious literature and I would appear knowledgable in what I would be talking about.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

The da vinci code is a book of fiction, not history; but fiction can expres truth too.

 

many millions were massacred after independence and partition, and since the massacres were conducted on religious lines, religion had something to do with it.

 

anti-religious literature has harmed no one. But one cannot say the same of religions.

[Sasun]

but fiction can expres truth too.

Can it express truth and contradict historical facts at the same time? You mentioned about "exposing the dark side of Christianity". To me if there is something to be exposed that must be based on facts. If not then such fiction does not express truth.

many millions were massacred after independence and partition, and since the massacres were conducted on religious lines, religion had something to do with it.

Yes, something but NOT everything. It had more to do with ignorance and not practicing of ones religion for a Hindu. How hard is it to see? The only religious thing about it was the fact that people involved belonged to different religions. As far as Hinduism is concerned those massacres were not endorsed in any way by Hindu teachings. This cannot be said about Islam.

 

anti-religious literature has harmed no one. But one cannot say the same of religions.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Literature alone doesn't cause anything outright harmful. What is more important in my view if literature reflects the truth. If you keep speaking against religion and not mention that religion has done something good to the humanity then you are biased and are not speaking the truth.

[ara baliozian]

Friday, September 17, 2004

************************************

AGAINST TURKISH MEMBERSHIP IN THE EU.

ON THE ORIGINS OF PROVERBS.

WAS KOMITAS A TURK?

THE FALLACY OF CENSORSHIP.

************************************************

In an interview published in LE POINT (Paris, August 12, 2004) Pierre Moscovici, a member of the European Parliament, cites the following three reasons why Turkey cannot be admitted into the European Union: “The role of the military on the margins of the regime;

the rights of minorities, notably that of the Kurds; and

the recognition of the Armenian genocide – this final point is for me decisive.”

*

If “to kill with words is also murder” (German proverb), who among us will dare to plead not guilty to the crime of massacre?

*

Anonymous: “Let not your tongue cut your throat.”

*

More and more frequently now, in English-language books of quotations, Armenian proverbs are identified as Turkish. Since no one has ever come forward and said: “I was there when this proverb was first spoken,” I suppose, any nation can identify a proverb as its own. The same applies to the origin of dishes and folk tunes.

*

I remember to have read somewhere that in some Turkish reference works Komitas is identified as a Turkish musician, I suppose, in the same way that Mikoyan and Khachaturian are identified as “Soviet,” Saroyan as “American,” and Adamov as “French.” But since present-day Turkey has disassociated itself from its Ottoman past and its many crimes against humanity, it would be more accurate to use the qualifier “Ottoman” in reference to Armenian proverbs and personalities who were active in Istanbul before World War I.

*

By silencing a writer and suppressing his testimony, censorship attempts to arrest the advance of time, but the best it can do is to slow it down and to postpone the final catastrophe.

*

Whenever I reflect that a fellow Armenian, who insults me or bans me from a forum, would have betrayed me to the authorities or put a bullet in my neck in a different time, place, and regime, I feel like celebrating.

*

To how many of my Armenian critics I could say: “Your aim is not to contradict but to murder with words.”

#

[ara baliozian]

Can it express truth and contradict historical facts at the same time? You mentioned about "exposing the dark side of Christianity". To me if there is something to be exposed that must be based on facts. If not then such fiction does not express truth.

 

Yes, something but NOT everything. It had more to do with ignorance and not practicing of ones religion for a Hindu. How hard is it to see? The only religious thing about it was the fact that people involved belonged to different religions. As far as Hinduism is concerned those massacres were not endorsed in any way by Hindu teachings. This cannot be said about Islam.

Literature alone doesn't cause anything outright harmful. What is more important in my view if literature reflects the truth. If you keep speaking against religion and not mention that religion has done something good to the humanity then you are biased and are not speaking the truth.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

it is the function of religion to do good in the same way that it is the function of a surgeon to cut out cancerous tissue. If a surgeon fails in his task and kills the patient then he is sued...even if he was successful in performing a thousand successful surgeries.

 

Hinduism has a millennial history: if during these long centuries it failed to teach its adherents what it claims to teach, then we must assume it has failed in its task.

[THOTH]

Hinduism has a millennial history: if during these long centuries it failed to teach its adherents what it claims to teach, then we must assume it has failed in its task.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Yes!! Likewise Christ (if there ever was such a dude) is a faiure (though was Paul a success? ..in a sense perhpas ..but even he...)...yes and you gotta put the blame on all the believers...ignorance (of the message...willful or otherwise)...and hypocrisy abounds....much better off without...IMO...

 

Good points Ara! You the man!

[THOTH]

Friday, September 17, 2004

************************************

AGAINST TURKISH MEMBERSHIP IN THE EU.

ON THE ORIGINS OF PROVERBS.

WAS KOMITAS A TURK?

THE FALLACY OF CENSORSHIP.

************************************************

In an interview published in LE POINT (Paris, August 12, 2004) Pierre Moscovici, a member of the European Parliament, cites the following three reasons why Turkey cannot be admitted into the European Union: “The role of the military on the margins of the regime;

the rights of minorities, notably that of the Kurds; and

the recognition of the Armenian genocide – this final point is for me decisive.”

 

Most excellent - good to see. Turkey does have such a long way to go. But unlike many others I'm rooting for them...because it will mean (one would hope) a succesful transformation of their society/culture...as well as cleaning up some of their dirty laundry...(and also both as an example to and bulwark against the hard lined Islamist and dictator led reigems of the Middlle East/Arab world)...they must be held to task though and not shoehorned in without stepping up to the obvious conditions.

Edited September 17, 2004 by THOTH