Hindus Welcome Julia Roberts Adopting Indian Child

OneIndia ^ | Friday, October 1, 2010

[Cronos]

Also, do note that the Bhagavad Gita is also Krishna urging Arjuna to fight and kill his cousins. I have respect for Hinduism and think that it deserves the same level of respect in Christian countries as it accords to Christianity in India, also that Hindus are Christians allies in the war against Islam, BUT, I do note that there are serious differences, which mean that while we can respect each other, we must respectfully disagree on a lot.

[James C. Bennett]

It would be interesting to know of your take of Blasater1960’s comments I linked in #35 above.

[James C. Bennett]

Also, do note that the Bhagavad Gita is also Krishna urging Arjuna to fight and kill his cousins.

Who were, don't forget, evil, and the war necessitated to the adherence to a strict code which included amongst other things, prohibition from attacking non-combatants, and cession of fighting after sundown.

This is far less morally repulsive than the mandated slaughter of innocent children in 1 Samuel 15:3, IMHO.

This was the case that was discussed in the following drama:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx7irFN2gdI

[Cronos]

More rot --> Chile has a very good economy and pretty good health care, Argentina has good health-care. The rest of South and Central America is also catching up.

But in your haste to defend hinduism, you err on caww's statement -- he is not criticising the religion, but rather what it's philosophy leads to -- let me explain

The idea of reincarnation and karma has good and bad consequences: one of the good is that people who are dirt poor, even the lowest of the low castes like rat catchers, are still content as they feel this is what their life is supposed to be about. However, one of the bad points is that this leads to complacency -- and that is very apparent in the 1st millenium after Christ --> Aryabhatta led mathematic thought in the 1st century AD, but then Hindu India stagnated -- BADLY. This was right about the same time when Buddhism was pushed out of india and Brahmanical Hinduism (different from Vedic Hinduism), came in with it's strict heirarchy and strict caste-system (remember that some of sages in Vedic times were not Brahmins and the caste system was not cast in stone in Vedic times).

Hindu India stagnated for a thousand years and then had the agonising centuries of Islamic rule (or rather Islamic genocide) and developed different thoughts like Sikhism, Arya Samaj etc.

Anyway, the point is that the belief in karma, tends to lead to the neglect of the present. The focus on the inner-self leads to neglect of the outer self. An indian writer (something Patel) wrote about this in the Sunday Mint some months ago. This focus on karma leads to contentedness at the expense of progress. This focus on the inner self leads to meditation and peacefullness and clean houses at the expense of dirty streets (public property).

Christian philosophy has it's own +s and -s too of course in it's effects, but these are different from the effects of Hindu philosophy.

[Cronos]

Blaster’s post is talking about the world before Christ came to give salvation. That is different.

[Cronos]

The war's adherence to the strict code is the Aryanic code which prevailed in Aryanic lands from India-Iran to Europe. I was pointing out that Krishna in the Gita is basically urging Arjuna to fight his cousins (ok, fighting the embodiment of evil in the form of his cousins, I'll give you that).

And yet, 1 Samuel is not the Song of Solomon or the Sermon on the mount -- that is not a philosophical injunct, rather a historical statement of what happened. The parts of the Mahabharata that deal with the war and killing, I do not consider (and nor do Hindi philosophers) in the same light as the Gita. The Gita is meant to be something to take to heart, just like the Sermon on the Mount. 1 Samuel 15:3 is not something that is philosophy.

[James C. Bennett]

Buddhism is deep into karma as well, and that doesn’t seem to have retarded East Asia, or for that matter, as you yourself mentioned in your previous comment, post-Vedic India. South America is largely comprised of Brazil, and the wider region includes Mexico - both being the principle constituents, and doing miserably, if not just as well, as India, in spite of what the earlier commenter referred to as a “faith” advantage. Argentina has had, like many other Catholic-majority nations before it, its share of dictatorships. It’s the Protestant work ethic that separates the experience of the Anglosphere (and this was alluded to by Singapore’s modern architect) and Northern Europe.

I do not think it’s fair to put this accusation over to Hinduism. The Curse of Ham, for example, was used for centuries to defend slavery. Modern India’s most successful entrepreneurs and politicians aren’t really from the privileged classes. In fact, quite the opposite.

That aside, I am hoping you’d reply to #35 and the link in my previous comment. I am particularly interested in knowing how you would defend against the arguments.

Thanks in advance!

[James C. Bennett]

And yet, 1 Samuel is not the Song of Solomon or the Sermon on the mount -- that is not a philosophical injunct, rather a historical statement of what happened.

It is not a war record. It is a record of the partial failure by the protagonist to carry out the commandments to commit child-slaughter, as issued by the divinity figure, and the consequences for failing to do so. Samuel isn't merely a historian, he's a prophet - per the religion. That, therefore, does not relegate the commandments into mere "record-keeping".

The video elaborates on the above.

As far as I'm aware, the ethics or the lack thereof, in those areas and beyond, are not challenged, by later revelations.

[EDINVA]

No, because in their *minds* all intelligent American woman with an ‘inconvenient’ pregnancy abort. Thus, the only adoptable children in the US are from a mother of inferior genes. Besides, could they get any publicity for adopting a plain old American kid?

[James C. Bennett]

Is the previous “world” rejected completely? I do not think so. Blasater1960 was actually challenging the whole “fulfilment” part, and his arguments supporting it was what I wanted you to challenge.

[EDINVA]

Haven’t watched a Roberts movie since her DNC appearance, stating the Republican comes between reptile and repulsive in the dictionary. I’ll give her ‘pretty’ but not ‘bright.’

[Jack Hammer]

LOL.

[blasater1960]

You are correct JCB. I was challenging the fulfillment. The plain understanding of the text makes it clear. Jeremiah (31) was addressing the house of Israel and Judah, not the gentiles. And since Jeremiah linked a specific measureable event to that prophecy, knowlege of G-d from the least of them to the greatest, clearly that has not been fulfilled yet.

[Cronos]

I already replied to #35 and pointed out the difference between Samuel and the Bhagavad Gita -- the Gita is meant to be and is taken as a philosophical tract indicating the path to be followed. This is analogous to the Sermon on the Mount. Samuel in that verse is largely historical. This is different.

Buddhism hampered East Asia -- China too stagnated under the Ming and was overtaken by the Jurchen (Manchu), and they too stagnated. China also -- you must remember is a mixture of Buddhist and Confucian philosophies and both emphasise staticness. China lagged behind from the 15th century to the 19th as the Mandarin "caste" became entrenched.

South America is largely composed of Brazil and Brazil is largely composed of the Amazon, with it's diverse cultures and religions. As I pointed out, Chile and Argentina are pretty large too -- check them out on a map. Both are also pretty diverse religiously among the ethnic groups (Mexico in the Chiapas and Tabasco and Brazil in Amazonia).

The Protestant work-ethic is a myth -- or else how do you explain Belgium and France? What made the difference was that Northern Europe benefitted from a mixture of the Industrial Revolution, contact with the Atlantic and focus on nationalism rather than a wider expanse.

You keep neglecting my point which is that Hinduism with it's idea of karma and devotion to the inner-self leads to contentedness and spirituality as the positives and to stagnation and a dirty "outside" as negatives. Hindu philosophy would say "forget about the cleanliness of the streets, focus on yourself and your house and mind and soul", it has it's +s and -s.

[Cronos]

The curse of Ham was used from the 16th to th 18th centuries only -- prior to that, the Muslim world had slaves from Europe and India. Slavery of blacks by Europeans is comparatively recent.

What accusation are you saying I'm making?

[Cronos]

I never said that 1 Sam is a war-record — I said, and I repeat “that is not a philosophical injunct, rather a historical statement of what happened.” —> this differs substantially from the Gita which is a philosophical tract. I granted you that it could be read as an allegory against evil. Completely different from Samuel which is not read as a philosophical tract.

[Cronos]

At no point does blasater’s post or indeed Christian belief state that those holy men who lived prior to Christ’s salvation were denied it —> they were granted it after Christ’s sacrifice.

[James C. Bennett]

I’ll put it more clearly:

Is 1 Samuel 15:3 referring to a commandment from divinity, or not?

If it is, doesn’t it mean that divine sanction was provided to the act that followed?

This flawed (and purely arbitrary) categorisation of scriptures into “philosophical tract” and “historical record” leads to no useful conclusion other than to reveal an attempt to suppress objectionable portions of the texts, IMHO. By relegating the books of Samuel to mere historicity, as if to imply that its contents do not portray the intentions of the divinity figure, you make the whole “argument” disingenuous, at best. To ask in other words, how does your ethical mind square with 1 Samuel 15:3 - where a divinity orders the act, rather than it being a mere act of the said people recording what they did according to their own whims?

[James C. Bennett]

Buddhism hampered East Asia -- China too stagnated under the Ming and was overtaken by the Jurchen (Manchu), and they too stagnated. China also -- you must remember is a mixture of Buddhist and Confucian philosophies and both emphasise staticness. China lagged behind from the 15th century to the 19th as the Mandarin "caste" became entrenched.

And Europe had its Dark Ages.

South America is largely composed of Brazil and Brazil is largely composed of the Amazon, with it's diverse cultures and religions. As I pointed out, Chile and Argentina are pretty large too -- check them out on a map. Both are also pretty diverse religiously among the ethnic groups (Mexico in the Chiapas and Tabasco and Brazil in Amazonia)."

I'm not sure how the people of the region would be accepting of your implied suggestion that they do not live in majority-Catholic countries.

The Protestant work-ethic is a myth -- or else how do you explain Belgium and France? What made the difference was that Northern Europe benefitted from a mixture of the Industrial Revolution, contact with the Atlantic and focus on nationalism rather than a wider expanse.

Yet, world over, it's the Protestant-majority countries that first passed the bar with regard to modern industrial development. Your suggestion seems to imply that religion didn't play as much of a role as trade and the development of the steam engine (which I wouldn't disagree with, considering the experience of modern Asia, which is developing along the same lines, without any religious undertones).

You keep neglecting my point which is that Hinduism with it's idea of karma and devotion to the inner-self leads to contentedness and spirituality as the positives and to stagnation and a dirty "outside" as negatives. Hindu philosophy would say "forget about the cleanliness of the streets, focus on yourself and your house and mind and soul", it has it's +s and -s.

This is patently false.

"Four sorts of mortals know me: he who weeps,

Arjuna! and the man who yearns to know;

And he who toils to help; and he who sits

Certain of me, enlightened."

 

- Bhagavad-Gita, Ch: VII, L: 53-56.

 

"Yet not by Vedas, nor from sacrifice,

Nor penance, nor gift-giving, nor with prayer

Shall any so behold, as thou hast seen!

Only by fullest service, perfect faith,

And uttermost surrender am I known

And seen, and entered into, Indian Prince!

Who doeth all for Me; who findeth Me

In all; adoreth always; loveth all

Which I have made, and Me, for Love’s sole end,

That man, Arjuna! unto Me doth wend."

 

- Bhagavad-Gita, Ch: XI, L: 335-344.

 

 

 

"Cling thou to Me!

Clasp Me with heart and mind! so shalt thou dwell

Surely with Me on high. But if thy thought

Droops from such height; if thou be’st weak to set

Body and soul upon Me constantly,

Despair not! give Me lower service! seek

To read Me, worshipping with steadfast will;

And, if thou canst not worship steadfastly,

Work for Me, toil in works pleasing to Me!

For he that laboreth right for love of Me

Shall finally attain! But, if in this

Thy faint heart fails, bring Me thy failure!"

 

- Bhagavad-Gita, Ch: XII, L: 23-34.

 

 

 

  "There is right Action: that which—being enjoined—

Is wrought without attachment, passionlessly,

For duty, not for love, nor hate, nor gain.

There is vain Action: that which men pursue

Aching to satisfy desires, impelled

By sense of self, with all-absorbing stress:

This is of Rajas—passionate and vain.

There is dark Action: when one doth a thing

Heedless of issues, heedless of the hurt

Or wrong for others, heedless if he harm

His own soul—’tis of Tamas, black and bad!

 

  There is the rightful doer. He who acts

Free from selfseeking, humble, resolute,

Steadfast, in good or evil hap the same,

Content to do aright—he truly acts.

There is th’ impassioned doer. He that works

From impulse seeking profit, rude and bold

To overcome, unchastened; slave by turns

Of sorrow and of joy: of Rajas he!

And there be evil doers; loose of heart,

Low-minded, stubborn, fraudulent, remiss,

Dull, slow, despondent—children of the Dark."

 

- Bhagavad-Gita, Ch: XVIII, L: 75-96.

[Cronos]

Buddhism hampered East Asia -- China too stagnated under the Ming and was overtaken by the Jurchen (Manchu), and they too stagnated. China also -- you must remember is a mixture of Buddhist and Confucian philosophies and both emphasise staticness. China lagged behind from the 15th century to the 19th as the Mandarin "caste" became entrenched.

The Dark ages are posthumously called, whereas, these are really the middle age I when the Western Roman Empire fell due to invasions by Germanics, Slavs, etc. into Europe (430 AD to the 11th~12th century) who were mainly non-Christian and the latter Middle ages when the states were forming. These had nothing to do with existing philosophies -- on the contrary, you can see that the gradual Christianization by the Catholic Church of these peoples is what raised them from barbarism

This completely differs from what I pointed out what happened to Buddhist-Confucian China and Hindu India. Christianity does not believe in a karma, which promotes action to do "your stuff". Hinduism promotes focus on the inward side which has it's good and bad points -- as does the Christian philosophical approach. India, despite it's large % of Christians, Muslims etc. is Hindu in culture and particularly Brahminical Hindu -- Vedic Hinduism in my opinion was more dynamic, while post-Buddha Brahmanical Hinduism emphasised more on letting things stay the way they were. Modern Hindu philosophy can be more dynamic, so what hampered India from the 4th to the 15th century does not have the same relevance to modern India

South America has been a work in progress for centuries -- when the Spanish came there, no civilisation had a written language and it took centuries for the Spanish to penetrate the interior, especially Brazil. Chile and Argentina are very large, Catholic countries that have a dynamism and good health-care and care of the externals (not just a focus on the inside which was characteristic of Hindu India).

The world over --> you forget that the USA was always multi-religious, with 30% at least being Catholic in the late 19th century. Religion plays an important role, but more importantly in the philosophy it imparts, as I keep repeating.

Also, BElgium and France were/areCatholic countries that kept pace with their Protestant counterparts, don't forget, so the Protestant work-ethic is a myth. It's more closely a Germanic work-ethic (Since Franks and Belgia have Teutonic influences though they'd hate to admit that)