as i see it - Pt. III

[DominO123]

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! 

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Yeh true... we must as well blame superstitions on believers that thinks they have powers like "intuition" and have premonition dreams like Mr. Thoth, whom not so long ago wrote:

 

I have had several of these [precognition dreams] - and I know then when I have them - and they have very much turned out as foretold...many of these hae concerned women BTW - but not the kind of dreams (per se) that one might expect...LOL - and at least one turned out to be a bad thing (she left me/moved away...LOL) ...but at least I wasn't surprised when she sprang iit on me (otherwise unexpectadly...)

 

Accolades are mine.

 

Or the fact that you believe having powers like feeling what is going to happen. Or maybe the fact that... (I will stop it there)

 

Must have been the fault of the believers like Thoth that believe having some paranormal powers and on the other hand don't believe in some other stuff that are not more "paranormal."

 

You see Thoth, beliefs are very personal stuff, the existantialist philosophers for instance believe that everyone have their own belief and it is their truth, not much less a truth than others belief, Yes it is the fault of the believers.

 

You remind my the editor in Chief of a Skeptic magazine that is a Christian by faith but reject any other claims of "paranormal."

 

There are some that don't comprehend that faith IS personal and an interpretation of onces reality. Like the wise astrophysicist Hubert Reeves says: "Don't ask me what I believe, this is not important, what is important is what you believe in."

 

People let you believe of your paranormal powers, just leave others alone believing what they want to believe in. Live and let live.

 

 

 

Oh and another note, this thread is Aras thread where he posts his works, when people come here they expect reading what he has to say, you don't need to repeat and tell how you agree with him, just you use that as a tool.

 

PS: I won't answer your answers.

Edited September 17, 2004 by Fadix

[THOTH]

Domino - when have I ever rejected the paranormal? (and what does this post of yours have to do with anyting in this thread or what I posted?)...anyway - I do believe in unexplainabel phenomenon and that we may have abilities and such that we cannot understand/account for. I'm not proscribing any specific cause of such though - when I don't know what it is...

[bellthecat]

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.”

 

His three reasons have no importance whatsoever, and are yet another indication that politicians are now so out of touch with reality, and so engrossed with their power-fantasies, and so lacking in care for the voters that they allegedly represent, that only firing a bullet through each of their brains is going to cure the world of them.

[ara baliozian]

Saturday, September 18, 2004

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

ON PROPAGANDA AND

RELATED ATROCITIES.

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

Propaganda is the enemy of literature because literature is the enemy of propaganda.

*

Speechifiers and sermonizers are not used to being contradicted.

*

One of our elder statesmen once told me: "Why do you bother replying to your readers? F*** them!" To which I remember to have replied: "No, I refuse to adopt our leaders as my role models."

*

I write brief sentences to fit the attention span of my readers. To write long paragraphs would be like serving gourmet dishes to addicts of junk food.

*

When a jackass brays he does not expect to have the applause of his audience. But if the jackass is an Armenian he is sure to think his braying is as good if not better than an aria from DON GIOVANNI or THE BARBER OF SEVILLE.

*

I grew up among survivors of the massacres who spoke Turkish among themselves. They had no illusions about their fellow men regardless of nationality. They may have been functional illiterates but they had an instinctive understanding of the role of destiny in human affairs. They didn't make a career of hatred and a full-time job of the massacres. If someone had said to them, by writing books, newspaper articles and letters to the editor, or by delivering speeches and sermons we may be able to persuade the Turks to apologize, they would have looked at him in silent astonishment as if to say: "Of the forty-four types of insanity I have heard about, this must be one of them."

#

[Armen]

One of our elder statesmen once told me: "Why do you bother replying to your readers? F*** them!" To which I remember to have replied: "No, I refuse to adopt our leaders as my role models."

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

You could have replyed that you don't have female readers.

[ara baliozian]

Sunday, September 19, 2004

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

SCHOOLS OF ARMENIAN CRITICISM.

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

Armenian critics come in all sizes and shapes. A tentative classification follows.

*

The Partisan: Every word he utters is a result of conditioning.

*

The Hooligan: He slings mud on a windy day and he is too dumb to know that the mud will boomerang.

*

The Kibitzer: A smart-ass whose sole ambition in life is to appear better informed rather than to know or understand better.

*

The Fanatic: His brain is so narrow that he is incapable of entertaining more than one idea at a time, and the idea he entertains is either a prejudice or a fallacy.

*

The Garbage-mouth: Imagine a skunk with bad breath that insists on getting up-close and personal.

*

The Parrot: One who operates on the assumption that if he repeats what his daddy, schoolteacher, or parish priest told him when he was a little boy, he can’t be far out.

*

The Pontiff: He can say or do no wrong because he knows better; and he knows better because he is better; and he is better because he is in constant touch with the Holy Ghost.

*

The Stalinist: A frustrated commissar of culture who puts a bullet in your neck and calls it dialectic.

*

The dogmatist: He believes every inanity he utters is the alpha and omega of human thought from the ancient Greeks to the present.

*

The Born-again: He has made a religion of patriotism and believes faith can move mountains even though so far he has done nothing to move the dunghill in his backyard.

*

The Phony: He recycles a line from the morning editorial and expects to be taken for a pundit.

*

The Hypocrite or the Forked-tongue: He believes as long as he says the opposite of what he really feels and thinks, he will be on safe ground.

*

The Fundamentalist: He identifies his verbal crapola with Holy Script.

*

Question: Is it a waste of time reading these critics?

Answer: No, if you want to understand why our past and present are a disaster area and why the light at the end of the tunnel is an oncoming train with a toxic cargo.

*

To those who say, “If you want your readers to respect you, you should respect them.” I say, I am not in the business of respecting the irrational, the irresponsible, the phony, the pretentious, and the dishonest. I am in the business of exposing them.

*

And if you were to say, “Why is it that you are the only writer who has such a negative and pessimistic view of our reality?” I will say: No, I am not, not by a long shot! Three generations of Armenian writers before me were brutally cut down before they had a chance to sound the alarm: first time in the Ottoman Empire by Talaat, second time in Soviet Armenia by Stalin, and third time in the Diaspora by our partisans. So much so that I have heard even our chauvinists admit that we have no more literary giants, only contemptible midgets.

*

But in all fairness to our lost writers, many of them predicted the coming catastrophe and were ignored whenever they were not murdered. Shahnour and Massikian come to mind; and Zarian, who said: “Our political parties have been of no political use to us. Their greatest enemy is free speech”; and “Armenians survive by cannibalizing one another.” Also to be noted: Zarian ended a chapter in his TRAVELLER AND HIS ROAD , written in the 1930s, with the words, “Vdank, vdank, vdank!” (Danger, danger, danger!) If that’s not an S.O.S., I should like to know what is.

#

[Sasun]

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.

 

If the patient doesn't listen to doctor's instructions and dies then it is patient's fault.

 

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

 

Who said that Hinduism failed to teach anything? That is not true, again I ask you to study Hinduism objectively, your view on Hinduism is biased. I sense lack of logic in your conclusions. For example, Hinduism says: dear Hindu, do not kill. A Hindu disregards this commandment and goes out and kills. Who is to blame? The Hindu, not the Hindu religion. Am I wrong thinking this way? If so please say so and explain. If not then logic dictates that you can't be right blaming Hinduism for the massacres.

 

I have made a few points above regarding the advantages of Hinduism, you simply ignored them. FYI, I am not a Hindu nor I am paid by Hindus to promote their religion. If you think my arguments are wrong then please say so, simply claiming that religion is dark won't prove anything, only that you are not open minded as regards to religion.

Edited September 20, 2004 by Sasun

[Sasun]

I write brief sentences to fit the attention span of my readers. To write long paragraphs would be like serving gourmet dishes to addicts of junk food.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Well, if I may suggest, you should really elaborate on many of your short statements.

[ara baliozian]

Monday, September 20, 2004

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

ANALYZING FANATICS.

INSURANCE CLAIMS OF GENOCIDE VICTIMS.

LIES THAT FLATTER AND TRUTHS THAT HURT.

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

To understand some Armenians it helps to read Muslim pundits on their fellow Muslims, because fanatics are fanatics regardless of national origin.

According to Chahdortt Djavann, an Iranian writer and author of a book titled WHAT DOES ALLAH THINK OF EUROPE? “Islam is a closed system that excludes non-Muslims and condemns to death all apostates…. In the Muslim world, Islam has confiscated all thinking. There is no such thing as a thought that is not religious…. [Muslim intellectuals are silent] because the alternative would be to question the legitimacy of the Koran…. Islamists know how to convert the frustrations of the young to religious energy,” (LE POINT, Paris, August 26, 2004).

*

On the subject of reparations and insurance claims, I read the following in the CHICAGO TRIBUNE: “The international Commission of Holocaust Era Insurance Claims offered victims $41.5 million in settlements while lavishing more than $40 million in expenses on itself. Neal Sher, head of the commission’s Washington office, resigned after an investigation found that he has misappropriated funds. He was later disbarred.” Had he been an Armenian, I thought, he would have run for office and would now be the Armenian minister of foreign affairs, perhaps even the prez.”

*

To some Armenians the word “kind” might as well be a four-letter word in a foreign tongue.

*

An Armenian says, “Turks are evil and Armenians good.” A Turk says, “Armenians are evil and Turks good.” Both are believed by millions of their fellow countrymen because a lie that flatters will always enjoy more popularity than a truth that hurts; and because I refuse to be a brown-noser, I have acquired many enemies who would like to see me silenced permanently.

*

But I shouldn’t complain because if it weren’t for my enemies I would probably have no faithful readers and a steady source of inspiration. As for readers who agree with me: I wouldn’t be in the least surprised if I bore them to death. I too would be bored with a writer who tells me nothing I don’t already know.

#

[ara baliozian]

If the patient doesn't listen to doctor's instructions and dies then it is patient's fault.

Who said that Hinduism failed to teach anything? That is not true, again I ask you to study Hinduism objectively, your view on Hinduism is biased. I sense lack of logic in your conclusions. For example, Hinduism says: dear Hindu, do not kill. A Hindu disregards this commandment and goes out and kills. Who is to blame? The Hindu, not the Hindu religion. Am I wrong thinking this way? If so please say so and explain. If not then logic dictates that you can't be right blaming Hinduism for the massacres.

 

I have made a few points above regarding the advantages of Hinduism, you simply ignored them. FYI, I am not a Hindu nor I am paid by Hindus to promote their religion. If you think my arguments are wrong then please say so, simply claiming that religion is dark won't prove anything, only that you are not open minded as regards to religion.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

you seem to ignore one obvious historic fact:

established religions and power structures, or regimes, or states, have always had a tacit agreement to legitimize and support one another. So that if the laws of the land legitimize discrimination or war. they will have the religion's support. Hence the phenomenon of clergymen blessing armies and guns. Even Gandhi, the quintessential non-violent man, was willing to fight the Boers in South Africa and the Japs during WWII.

[THOTH]

you seem to ignore one obvious historic fact:

established religions and power structures, or regimes, or states, have always had a tacit agreement to legitimize and support one another. So that if the laws of the land legitimize discrimination or war. they will have the religion's support. Hence the phenomenon of clergymen blessing armies and guns. Even Gandhi, the quintessential non-violent man, was willing to fight the Boers in South Africa and the Japs during WWII.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

always!

 

...and don't fret Ara - I often find that you are not boring!

[ara baliozian]

Tuesday, September 21, 2004

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

A FAILED EXPERIMENT?

DOUBLE UNDERDOGS.

INDIANS AND FORKED TONGUES.

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

“Armenia is a failed experiment,” a friend keeps telling me, “and writing for Armenians a waste of time.” Is he right? I am not sure. One reason I continue to write for Armenians is that, as an underdog, I prefer to write for underdogs – make it, as a double-underdog, I prefer to write for double-underdogs. Because, if you didn’t already know, we happen to be underdogs not only of Turkish barbarism and Western hypocrisy but also of our own incompetent leadership.

*

Consider our revolutionaries at the turn of the last century: they knew massacres to be a strong possibility, and yet, they didn’t have a plan B. They may have had a plan B for themselves (as in the Ottoman Bank caper) but not for the civilians. And they should have had not only a plan B, C, D, and E but also X, Y, and Z. But the fact remains: they did not. And what was bound to happen, happened.

*

And consider our present situation. What’s their plan B, or, for that matter, plan A, to arrest the exodus from the Homeland and the assimilation in the Diaspora ? – two ongoing processes that have been described as “white massacres.” Again, they may have a plan B for themselves, as they did the first time around…and having survived the massacres, they published copious memoirs in which they portrayed themselves as heroes and dedicated servants of the nation. How to explain their failures? Elementary, my dear Watson. They blamed the West for its double talk (as if there ever was a time in recorded history when the West had not spoken with a forked tongue) and the Turks for their bloodthirsty disposition (as if that came as a surprise too).

*

Speaking of forked tongues: that’s how American Indians described all white men long before our massacres. Which may suggest that our own leaders did not know what Indians knew before them. Why should we be surprised if a high-ranking Turkish diplomat is quoted as having said to Bush Sr. during a visit to the White House: “Armenians are our Indians.” Thus implying, “If you tried to exterminate your Indians, why shouldn’t we exercise the same right when it comes to our own?” And, “If you can speak with a forked tongue, why can’t we?”

#

[ara baliozian]

Wednesday, September 22, 2004

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

NATURAL-BORN KILLERS.

SOCRATES ON GODS.

THE NEGATIVE AND THE POSITIVE.

ARMENIAN POLITICS.

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

An Armenian is a natural-born verbal killer. Zarian put it best when he said, "An Armenian's tongue is sharper than a Turk's yataghan." Who among us will dare to plead not guilty to the charge of verbal massacre?

*

When an Armenian from Lebanon and an Armenian from Iran (or anywhere else for that matter) converse in English, nuances are bound to collide, explode, and maim innocent bystanders.

*

Socrates, who has been described as "the big-bang of Western philosophy," once said what needs to be said of all religions: "Of the gods, we know nothing." (See Plato, CRATILUS). Which is why, when it comes to religions, we should have more questions than answers. Which is also why, he who speaks in the name of God should be declared a certified charlatan, a pathological impostor, and a fraud.

*

Everything has been said before. There is nothing new under the sun. Originality now consists in saying, or rather quoting, the right word at the right time and place.

*

Patriotic sentiments spring from the gut and appeal to the gut without a detour to the brain. Unless, of course, you say, "My patriotism is good, but my enemy's patriotism is evil."

*

To those who accuse me of negativism, I ask: "If to expose charlatanism is positive and to cover it up negative, are you not the negative one?"

*

I remember, whenever I would submit an essay dealing with our present situation to the late editor of ARARAT Quarterly, he would reject it with the words, "I don't want to get involved in Armenian politics," as if Armenian politics were a pestilential swamp better left alone than drained.

#

[THOTH]

Wednesday, September 22, 2004

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

SOCRATES ON GODS.

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

*

Socrates, who has been described as "the big-bang of Western philosophy," once said what needs to be said of all religions: "Of the gods, we know nothing." (See Plato, CRATILUS). Which is why, when it comes to religions, we should have more questions than answers. Which is also why, he who speaks in the name of God should be declared a certified charlatan, a pathological impostor, and a fraud.

*

 

All right Socrates! Way to say it man! (you too Ara...)

[ara baliozian]

Thursday, September 23, 2004

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

DISAGREEMENT – ARMENIAN STYLE.

THE LANGUAGE OF PROPAGANDA.

FOUR RULES WITHOUT EXCEPTIONS.

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

There is a type of reader who disagrees with me long before he has read the first word of the first line. Such a reader is a critic only in the sense that a cobra is a critic of a mongoose and vice versa. Some cases in point follow.

*

“You don’t always mention your sources. Is it because you have none to back up your ridiculous assertions and theories?”

More often than not my sources are anonymous readers like yourself whom I sometimes identify as Jack S. Avanakian.

*

“None of your explanations makes sense to me. Why do you insist on wasting your time and ours?”

Perhaps you would like to share your wisdom with us, and if you have none to spare, perhaps you would care to mention another writer we could all read with profit. I hate to think I am the only game in town. Surely, our people deserve better than that.

*

To the gentle reader who tells me, “Haven’t you got anything better to do than produce a steady flow waste matter every day?” I can only say: What’s a major intellect like you reading a minor scribbler like me?

*

It has been the destiny of Armenian writers to live among foreigners who don’t give a damn about Armenian literature, and Armenians who care more about the false certainties of propaganda and less about the honest uncertainties of literature.

*

Power can speak only one language, that of propaganda. This is true of political as well as religious power. And propaganda and truth are as mutually exclusive as fire and water.

*

My source about the above assertion: life in three different countries – the first predominantly Orthodox (Greece); the second Catholic (Italy) and the third Protestant (Canada) all claiming to have a monopoly on truth, and when asked for proof, all pleading faith, the way cold-blooded murderers plead insanity.

*

All rules have exceptions, except the following four:

Where there are laws, they will be broken.

Where there are principles, they will be corrupted.

Where there is an ideological movement, it will be confiscated by power-hungry cynical manipulators whose number one concern will be number once.

And (I owe the following to Toynbee): Where there are chosen people, they will have been chosen by no one but themselves.

#

[Sasun]

you seem to ignore one obvious historic fact:

established religions and power structures, or regimes, or states, have always had a tacit agreement to legitimize and support one another. So that if the laws of the land legitimize discrimination or war. they will have the religion's support. Hence the phenomenon of clergymen blessing armies and guns. Even Gandhi, the quintessential non-violent man, was willing to fight the Boers in South Africa and the Japs during WWII.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Again an unfair generalization. Not that I am defending religious insititutions but it is not always the case that the latter will always cooperate with governments to do illegitimate/immoral acts. Obviously, when they do that would contradict to religious principles. In other words, the fault is not of the religion, but the followers. Why accuse all religionsfor all crimes? Don't you feel any responsibility for your words? Don't you feel obliged to be truthful and objective?

 

You are not answering my questions though, I have been arguing around specific points concerning Hinduism. What you are trying to do is make invalid generalizations about religions and say, look, religions are bad therefore Hinduism is also bad. That is not logical!

 

For the record, you have ignored my questions and arguments above. I can't help noticing that your responses are logically disconnected. Is it me or you are not much of a dialogue person?

Edited September 23, 2004 by Sasun

[Sasun]

Wednesday, September 22, 2004

Socrates, who has been described as "the big-bang of Western philosophy," once said what needs to be said of all religions: "Of the gods, we know nothing." (See Plato, CRATILUS). Which is why, when it comes to religions, we should have more questions than answers. Which is also why, he who speaks in the name of God should be declared a certified charlatan, a pathological impostor, and a fraud.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

I don't think Socrates is the absolute truth. I can quote other philosophers indicating that some people know something of God, and few others know quite a bit about God. There is evidence to suggest so. But what evidence do you have to be sure that we cannot know God? In other words, why measure the world with your own standards?

 

Let's see who speaks in the name of God... Jesus Christ spoke in the name of God. Do you think he was a charlatan? Krishna also spoke in the name of God, actually he spoke as God. Do you think that he was a charlatann too?

[THOTH]

Hmm lets see Rev Sun yung Moon claims to be god - and so many others...so yeah - I think Socrates' got it right...

[Sasun]

Hmm lets see Rev Sun yung Moon claims to be god - and so many others...so yeah - I think Socrates' got it right...

style_images/master/snapback.png

You are responsible to find out who is telling the truth and who is a charlatan, and you are responsible to not blame the truthful for charlatanism... I don't expect you to be truthful, I am just making a point.

[Anoushik]

You are responsible to find out who is telling the truth and who is a charlatan, and you are responsible to not blame the truthful for charlatanism... I don't expect you to be truthful, I am just making a point.

style_images/master/snapback.png

But how can we ever know who's telling the truth and who isn't? And how can we truly trust our own instincts about what the truth is? Don't you think that we believe what we want to believe, Sasun?

[ara baliozian]

Friday, September 24, 2004

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

WARNING.

ENFER DE MERDE.

THE LESSONS OF HISTORY.

PUNDITS & DUPES.

ON INFALLIBILITY.

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

In order not to be misunderstood, one must express the same thought in different ways, and the more ways, the narrower the gap open to misinterpretation.

*

What I am about to say you may have heard or read before. Feel free not to read what follows.

*

The world is an enfer de merde or a cesspool of conflicting interests and belief systems because, (one) only historians learn from history; (two) they invariably draw contradictory lessons; (three) they don’t have the power to put into practice what they have learned; and (four) if they had the power, the world would be in a worst mess.

*

We are all authorities on at least one subject: what’s good for us, and more often than not, we are dead wrong.

*

Where there is disagreement, either one or, more often than not, both sides are wrong, because any dupe can say, “my side is right,” and have a counterpart in the opposition who says the same thing.

*

If we agree that what we don’t know far exceeds what we know, or “of the gods we know nothing” (Socrates), or “we cannot answer the most important questions” (Chekhov), it follows, to assume being consistently right or infallible must be just about the surest symptom of being consistently wrong. This must be true not only of Muslims who speak in the name of Allah, but also of Catholics who speak in the name of the Pope, or partisans who speak in the name of the Party, or dupes who at one time or another spoke in the name of Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Saddam, and countless others who pretended to know better.

*

If millions, perhaps even billions, have been wrong in the past, who among us will dare to pretend to be right or to know better?

[ara baliozian]

I don't think Socrates is the absolute truth. I can quote other philosophers  indicating that some people know something of God, and few others know quite a bit about God. There is evidence to suggest so. But what evidence do you have to be sure that we cannot know God? In other words, why measure the world with your own standards?

 

Let's see who speaks in the name of God... Jesus Christ spoke in the name of God. Do you think he was a charlatan? Krishna also spoke in the name of God, actually he spoke as God. Do you think that he was a charlatann too?

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

we don't know if Jesus spoke in the name of God, or Krishna.

Have you ever reflected on the saying: "The kingdom of God is within you?"

If i am not mistaken, Tolstoy tried to reconcile Buddhism with Christianity, and his Christianity was an atheist religion, which is why he was excommunicated.

If the kingdom of god is within us, that means what's outside has nothing to do with us or anything else that we can speak of with certainty.

[ara baliozian]

Again an unfair generalization. Not that I am defending religious insititutions but it is not always the case that the latter will always cooperate with governments to do illegitimate/immoral acts. Obviously, when they do that would contradict to religious principles. In other words, the fault is not of the religion, but the followers. Why accuse all religionsfor all crimes? Don't you feel any responsibility for your words? Don't you feel obliged to be truthful and objective?

 

You are not answering my questions though, I have been arguing around specific points concerning Hinduism. What you are trying to do is make invalid generalizations about religions and say, look, religions are bad therefore Hinduism is also bad. That is not logical!

 

For the record, you have ignored my questions and arguments above. I can't help noticing that your responses are logically disconnected. Is it me or you are not much of a dialogue person?

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

my sources tell me Hinduism not only legitimized the caste system but it was its creator. But regardless of that, i did say that what a religion preaches is its propaganda; we should judge a religion by what it practices or what it legitimizes...and not by its propaganda.

More on this later....

[Sasun]

we don't know if Jesus spoke in the name of God, or Krishna.

 

This comes as a surprise to me. Jesus spoke as the Son of God. How can it be that he didn't speak in the name of God? Need I quote from the Bible? I can at least expect that you have read the Gospels.

 

As to Krishna, he spoke as God, as Lord of the Universe. This is abundantly said in Bhagavad Gita (the Hindu Bible). Here is one passage, Chapter 7, Verse 9-10.

 

"I am the original fragrance of the earth; I am the heat in fire and the life in all living things. I am the ascetic's inner spiritual fire. Know Me to be the seed of all creation, original and eternal. I am the intelligence of the inelligent and the effulgence of all great and powerful persons."

 

Have you ever reflected on the saying: "The kingdom of God is within you?"

I have, and I like to remind some dogmatic people of this saying to show that, as per Jesus we are divine. We could not be otherwise if the kingdom of God is within. However, there is a significant difference. Jesus, Krishna, Buddha and many others have realized their divinity, they can speak as God. For them it is not merely a theoretical knowledge of the mind, but a spiritual realization. In this sense it can be said that they have real knowledge of the kingdom of God, whereas we, the not enlightened ordinary people may understand intellectually and believe but do not know for real. Therefore, some people can speak in the name of God and be truthful and others can only pretend or imagine to be speaking in the name of God.

 

If i am not mistaken, Tolstoy tried to reconcile Buddhism with Christianity, and his Christianity was an atheist religion, which is why he was excommunicated.

 

I do not know about it. I believe that all religions, including Buddhism and Christianity (as taught by Christ, not the corrupted version as we have seen) are about the same one Truth. Some will personalize and call it God, some will recognize it as impersonal Truth or Reality or Existence, etc. However, this is the same thing viewed from different angles, and this thing is us all, or one could say within us all.

 

If the kingdom of god is within us, that means what's outside has nothing to do with us or anything else that we can speak of with certainty.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

God by definition is omnipresent. Therefore what is within us is also without. However, it is the easiest and closest to achieve realization of God (or Kingdom of God) within oneself. Why go elsewhere if something is within yourself?

 

Having said this, only rare people like Buddha can do it by the sheer power of will and faith in oneself. Most people need a guidance by spiritually advanced people. Those could be spiritual giants like Christ or Krishna or Buddha, or God-realized gurus of lesser magnitude, or ordinary priests, or one could even believe in an abstract notion of God and practice spirituality without guidance. There are many paths to the one and only objective, and many names and ways to perceive the objective. However all major realigions will say that the objective is one and call it by different names. Religions represent the intial stepping stones, or kindergarten stages of the paths. Those who are ignorant will fight for their specific name and path without realizing that such fights automatically put them outside of any paths.

Edited September 25, 2004 by Sasun

[Sasun]

my sources tell me Hinduism not only legitimized the caste system but it was its creator.

 

I did not claim the opposite. The original design of castes are given by Vedas from ancient times. But later on it degenerated and got corrupted.

 

As I have already mentioned, Hinduism for the general masses is very much about duties. Then one asks: what is my duty? Hinduism says, OK, let our society function as an integral, harmonious and peaceful body where each part of the body performs its own functions perfectly. So the caste system originated, where the society is specialized in their duties. The four castes each have their own duties and responsibilities. They are different but not higher or lower. Like in a human body, the head is different from the legs. The head appears higher than the legs, but a body cannot be perfect neither without legs nor without a head. The head should do the thinking, and the legs should do the walking. If the legs stop walking and try to start thinking then something is wrong with this body. Likewise if the head refuses to think then again something is wrong with the body. Therefore each part of the body should do exactly its function correctly, and in a similar fashion each caste in a Hindu society is supposed to do its clearly designated fuctions in order for the society to live and prosper harmoniously. This is the principle of Hindu caste system in a nutshell. I think it is a very good system for an ancient simple society.

 

At different parts and ages of Indian history this principle has been maintained by different degrees of adherance. Eventually, it has become both outdated and corrupted, basically a negative thing. And those who are outside of the caste system are at a clear disadvantage. (One should also point out that these people were originally uncivilized, some of them practiced cannibalism and did other gross things, that maybe the reason why they were supposed to be excluded from the society)

 

Things have changed now, caste system cannot function today even in its intended pure form because the world has changed, India is no longer the whole world for Indians, and the modern society is far more complex and secular.

 

However, I would not like to totally reject the caste principles. I think it is a good idea to take the best from it and throw away the negative parts. It would be good to take the example of dutifulness in society. I believe it is good to have a society where every part does its duties perfectly to the best of their abilities, so the doctors should do their duties, teachers should do their duties, writers should do their duties, computer professionals should do their duties, etc. That is not the case though, in most cases people care about getting paid, not about performing professional duties in a responsible manner.

 

But regardless of that, i did say that what a religion preaches is its propaganda; we should judge a religion by what it practices or what it legitimizes...and not by its propaganda. 

More on this later....

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Ara, lets not confuse different things. What is religion? To me religion is a set of philosophical and theological concepts, mysticism, moral codes, moral guidelines, spiritual practices like worship, prayer and meditation, various types of literature, etc. These were given by religious figures. Religion is not a person or a group of people to practice anything. It cannot do anything on its own.

 

On the other hand, there are the followers or supposed followers. Now, if you have a problem with the followers, I can understand it. Some followers may practice their religion truthfully, and others may not practice at all but instead try to use certain religious ideas for propaganda. This is not religion but abuse of religion. It has nothing to do with religion itself (unless you are against religious priniciples also). I have said it above and I am repeating again. Please tell me if my reasoning is wrong and why.

Edited September 25, 2004 by Sasun