Many thanks to Akbar Hossain and Sentu Tikadar for their scholarly articles. Keeping full respect to their views I like to state my views on a few issues. Do we really need to defend any religious scripture? When we go through these scriptures we learn about different messages that these scriptures intend to convey. It is not the case that we always blindly accept all these messages to be useful or true. In fact we have our own conscience.So if an individual from a particular religion tries to point out harmful aspects of any message of his or any other's religion what necessitates a person from the religion under criticism to come forward in defence of it? Is he/she sure that all the contents of his/her religious scripture are pure and harmless? Why cannot we take such criticism in a constructive manner to rectify ourselves? Why do we try to conceal the fact that these religious scriptures were written long time ago and threby, contain many messages that have no relevance to the present day reality? As to Hindu religious scriptures I am very much sure that these are simply precious wealth of humanity. The spiritual appeals that they bring to us will continue to comfort the souls of humankind foever. As to social and economic aspects Hindu religious scriptures are understandably no different from the scriptures of other religions. Human society is always in a state of change and therefore, we need continuous modifications in these areas to adapt ourselves with the changes. It is of no use to critise any custom if it is not being practiced now.Hindus need not to be ashamed of caste system and its malpractice in the past. Such system was practiced in every society of the world in one form or another. Slavery was widely practiced in the past under the auspices of Abrahamic religions. What Hindus need to do now is to look into the heart of their religious scriptures and view every individual irrespective of his/her race, religion and culture as divine deity. The only way to get rid of their past sins is to show proper respect to the humanity as a whole and recognize the rights of every individual to live with dignity.
Pintu Kanungoe
Professional
--- In
mukto-mona@yahoogro ups.com, sentu tikadar <sentu92003@ ...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks for asking these questions but I am not a pundit on any subject. I profess what I personally believe. Many among us really do not understand what really Dharma is. For the sake of generalization we randomly use the word Dharma as religion. There is no doubt that the literal meaning of Dharma is religion but not in the way we stamp religion as Hinduism, Christianity or Islam etc. In the real Sanskrit terminology dharma means nature and in this discussion we are taking it as spiritual nature. So the basic meaning of Dharma here is ones commitment to virtues. The crude way of believing in a certain faith creates a vicious barrier between faith and freedom of thinking. The problem with Islamic faith starts with its very rigid conditions. If I don't surrender my freedom to certain blind conditions I am not a Muslim. This question of renouncing Islam by a Muslim is a glaring example of Islam's aims to regiment a follower's life. Martin Luther
> revolted against the Roman church and for that disobedience he was excommunicated but the Pope did not ask for his head.
>
> Thousands Hindus were converted to Islam and Christianity any Hindu gave a fatwa for their beheading? No. As a matter of fact the original Islam of 7th century had a clear agenda for the pagan Arabs of Mecca. But some overzealous mullahs starting from the Middle Ages have taken over this faith and made it a draconian cult. The aim of a faith is to discipline not to dictate its followers. It's wrong to think that if a person renounces Islam he is renouncing his commitment to virtues. This commitment is a purely personal domain which is not dependent on any specific faith.
>
> In the philosophical sense the synthesis of all traditional religions comes to rest in secularism. Islam does not recognize secular views. A Muslim must follow the strict edicts of Islam; therefore secular views are not entertained by Islam. The idea of peace is a great but peace must be based on freedom and forbearance. The predominant notion of an 'infidel" is a repulsive state of the mind which creates hatred.
> Akbar Hussain
>
>
> You have told that you are not a Pundit (Pondit). But after reading your write- up it seems that you are no less than a Pondit. You explained things in a very simple understandable way to the common people . Your humbleness is appreciated very much. Your viewpoint regarding Dharma (Dharmo) is the view point of hundreds of thousands people. Dharma means what we 'Hold' to lead our lives in a good way . The quality, the virtue, the good principles are Dharma .
>
> When some person cheats some other person, then the cheated one tells in a sad mood or in a aggressive mood " Tor ei dharmo ?"-means Do you possess this quality with you? So by this simple line we can understand Dharma does not basically means a particular Religion. But actually now-a-days it means religion because each religion tells some ethics and good principles to lead our lives in a better way. The term 'better' way is very relative word. A thief's better way of life is to steal. A pickpocket's better way of life is to pickpocket. A real sage's better way of life is to teach the morality of lives.
>
> Hindu Religion or Sanatan Dharma is very difficult to understand. Only the learned people can made us understand. Zend-Avesta ,Tripitak, Bible,Koran is read by at least 60 % people from each of those holders but Vedas, Gita, etc. as such is being read by how much percentage of the holders of these? I can tell Vedas are not gone through by one person in 1000 persons in Hindus. It is very difficult to understand. Gita's inherent meaning is very tough to understand too.
>
> It is believed that Vedas came from the mouth of Brahma, the Creator.Some one told he intercoursed Saraswati. A person who is the creator of the universe as per Hindu faith can be consider a father. In this sense Brahma might be the father of Saraswati. Bal Gangadhar Tilak (one of freedom fighter of the trio Lal-Bal-Pal) had written Sita was Ram's sister. It was his opinion. So in this way Brahma may be the father of Saraswati.
> The Hindu religion is basically based on democracy. Freedom is so much there that I read many poem regarding the relationship of Sita and Laxmana in pornographic books. Even some one drew the naked picture of Saraswati in a democratic country.
>
> Indra, the king of the Heaven (I do not consider there is any heaven in the sky or some where. I possess the same notion regarding heaven and hell like M.M. Dutta of Sagardari of Jessor) was like Bill Clinton. He was so 'sensual' that he approached to the wife of a hermit in disguise as the hermit and had intercoursed with her. I do not know it is mythology or what.
>
> The Vedas were only in the possession of the Brahmins (the learned elite of Veidic age). The four classes of castes were based on professions but later it had become the status of the society. The lowest class, the farmer or laborer class was become the untouchable class in our ancient subcontinent. They were not able to enter the temples even being Hindu. They were being prevented to enter the temple premises by the Brahmins. They were not allowed to learn Sanskrit because they were untouchable or impure. The road they used to walk had become impure. Not much long time ago, even the composer and chief editor of Indian Constitution Bhim Rao Ambedkar was not allowed to mingle with upper strata students in his pathsala (elementary school).The school teacher was very kind to him because of his intelligence and Ambedkar was allowed to sit far away from other students at the rear side in the school.
>
> Hundreds of the untouchables in south India embraced by Christian Missionaries.
> If the Elite class in ancient time would not hate them and would allow them to be educated then perhaps the untouchables would not accept Christianity.
> The caste system ruined Hindu society immensely.
>
> The ancient Brahmins did as much good as to the ancient society and simultaneously did as much as bad to the society.They made many rules and regulations to satisfy their needs and requirements.
> If an untouchable would enter the kitchen, the kitchen would become impure but the same untouchable when would collect and bring the fire woods to be used for cooking in a Brahmin family, the cooked food would not become impure.
>
> There were no mention of burning the widows in the funeral fire alongwith the husbands in Vedas or in any scriptures. Raja Ram Mohan Ray proved it and abolished the burning of widows with the support of the English. Brahmins introduced the social system that widows could not be able to marry as per scriptures. It was no where mentioned in any scriptures that widow could not be re-married again proved by Iswar Chnadra Vidyasagar . He had arranged getting married his son with a widow of Khantura (Khatura) village in north 24 Parganas of West Bengal.
>
> In the Mughal period the much conversion of Hindus to Muslim took place. Specially it was at threshold in the period of Aurangjeb.
> The reasons of the conversion were many. Equality in Muslim-ism might be one of the solid reasons to accept Islam in a caste based Hindu society.
>
> The rigidity of Muslim-ism was a requirement in 7th. century. The founder well understood it and also he understood impregnation of secular view might not help his newly funded Path to civilize the unruly and undisciplined Beduin and thus his new religion might not go further. He was absolutely right. Now there is no 7th. century.
>
> Do we need religion now? I do not know. But we know these religions have divided us. The hard line doctrines of several religions are lethal.
>
> But I think we need 'Dharma'. The Dharma for the service of mankind. The service of the needy mankind is the biggest service to satisfy God, the only one God of all mankind . The God of humanity and love.
>
> In every Dharma more or less there are some 'Adhrma' (antonym of Dharma).The Adhrma is just like Virus. We should not keep faith in those harmful virus- the virus of faith. We have much more responsibility to be united to iradicate terrorism from any sect of Faiths , to iradicate poverty, to iradicate illiteracy , to educate our women on science, to feed our malnutrition- suffering children and women. Can the Adhrma be abandoned by us and can we try to build up a new horizon of solidarity where there will be no touch of caste discrepancy, religious fundamentalism. Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Buddhists, Sikhs all will love and respect to each other from the fathom of the hearts. If we are bold and strong enough in our minds to love each other then our many problem will be solved easily.
>
> Sentu Tikadar
>
>