'Bhagvad Gita' faces 'extremist' branding, legal ban in Russia

[punjabi_khota]

read up on the life of savarkar you will find your answer.

So it is not the in-thing or a fad, that was my point all along. :dontknow: Any kind of 'athiesm' Abrahmic or not, has to be fundamentally the same. Some people realized it earlier than others, but thats not the point.

[G_B_]

Every country "meddles" in other countries' business. We meddle in the business of other South Asian countries too. But my point is, that it is immaterial to this issue. We are talking about banning of a book by their government. They have every right to do that just like Saudi has every right to be an Islamic country and not allow anything non-Islamic in their country, just like Nepal has every right to be a Hindu Rashtra by Constitution, just like the UK has the Church representation in their Parliament, just like we have a right to be a secular country. O, it's the way they pronounce Russia...they say Raashia

honestly dude, not many countries meddle beyond their immediate neighbourhood. Hence i gave the example of the Balkans. Russia has meddled in countries affairs way beyond their own neighbourhood The big difference with KSA is that they have declared themselves to be an Islamic republic. Russia have declared themselves to be a secular republic with right to free religion. Dont frame the laws if you cant stand by them PS the russians call it Rossiya, my neighbour in the uk is a slav and he says it that way.

[G_B_]

So it is not the in-thing or a fad' date=' that was my point all along. :dontknow:[/quote'] at the same time, science has nothing do with the core message of Gita. So why bring up science?

[punjabi_khota]

at the same time' date=' science has nothing do with the core message of Gita. So why bring up science?[/quote'] Well the whole point was that atheism is not a fad, and there is a reason people are turning atheists and that reason is that reading Gita/Book of mormon/ is not going to tell them how the **** they ended up where they are. Sure Gita may be more philosophical/awesome/blah than other holy books, but it is only part of the story.

[akshayxyz]

arey bhai log.. lets just keep the two things separate.. Philosophy does not solve real world problems science does, but philosophy does help many people to keep their mind at peace and stay focused on contributing to real world.

[G_B_]

Well the whole point was that atheism is not a fad, and there is a reason people are turning atheists and that reason is that reading Gita/Book of mormon/ is not going to tell them how the **** they ended up where they are. Sure Gita may be more philosophical/awesome/blah than other holy books, but it is only part of the story.

philosophy is central part of the story. Vedas yes you have a point. I mean you are in the usa and you know of the Jefferson Bible right? That book takes out the part of the bible the "founding father" did not like and presents a much more secular version of literature. Its practically written for agnostics. and i would say most people are becoming agnostic. Like me. A cultural hindu. Not atheist. Thats based on my experiences in the uk, There is a big difference between the two. I would argue that Atheism is a fad due to what is peddled in mainstream western media. We are also seeing the rise of miilitant atheists like Mr Dawkins. A hardliner who cannot live by the motto of people are free to choose what they want. To him anybody who believes even slightly in religion (even an agnostic) is just wrong. Rather than having respect for their choice.

[Vijay.Sharma]

++++ Too many worthless superstitions and rituals in the past 2000-3000 years. At least during the Chanakya - Chandragupt Maurya era onwards.

To add to your thought the history of Hinduism as a religion is as follows - Hinduism actually deals with only the Vedas. The belief in Vedic Samhitas = Hinduism. Because Bharatarsha had a migration explosion for a few thousands of years between 14k BC - 10k BC a lot of other beliefs started getting added into it. But, and key, is that none of them were entered into the Vedas...they were addendums as Upanishads, Puranas, etc. At the dawn of Bharatvarsha's modern age (around 3100 BC i.e. start of Kali Yuga) the "religion" expanded to include historical figures as avatars of some bigger Gods. Hinduisim as we know it today did not exist then. At that time there were many different forms....there was Shaivism and those people believed Krishna, Rama are avatars of Shiva. Whereas Vaishnavists believed it is of Vishnu. In the end Vaishnavism's hegemony survived and that is why we believe Krishna, Rama as avatars of Vishnu. Basically they were historical figures who were great human beings and as always happens with our species we deify great human beings. Give it a few hundred years and the world shall proclaim Sachin is an avatar of Vishnu. I am not trivializing it. I am giving a historical background to how religions develop. Case in point - many believe Gandhi is an avatar of Mahesh. Anyway, it is after the Great War of Bharata that Hinduism started moving towards one particular version called Brahminism...this is responsible for creating caste divide based on lineage and the exploitation of everyone else by the priest class. Between 2200 - 1800 BC there was a geological event - a tectonic plate shift which brought in a 300-400 year severe drought in the entire belt of Bhartavarsha and Arabia. People prayed to their "gods" but no relief. This sowed the seeds for atheistic philosophies like Buddhism to be born. As Buddhism gained ground in India Hinduism went down. More different philosophies like Jainism started gaining ground. And the one I personally consider the greatest of them all, Advaitya, which goes one step beyond atheism and says I = You = God was born in the 6th century BC. Over a period of time with the advent of Islamic invasion on India, the Vaishnavistic form of Hinduism started gaining ground. Vaishnavism saw a rebirth in Bharatvarsha around 1000 AD after almost 2500-3000 years of playing second fiddle to richer philosophies like Advaitya and Buddhism. And as is the want of the human being the best way is to combine them all in one philosophy...so deify Buddha as a version of Vishnu. But in the last couple of centuries again there has been some divide between Shaivism and Vaishnavism...although there seems to be an understanding about which deities to call whose avatars. I'd personally like to call Gandhi an avatar of Mahesh and keep Vivekananda as an avatar of Vishnu. Given cricket is a sport I find it better to call Sachin an avatar of Hanuman rather than one of the big two but somehow that wont sell. Maybe Kapil Dev = Hanuman some 500 yrs down the line. Again, this ain't trivializing. Phew!!!!

[G_B_]

arey bhai log.. lets just keep the two things separate.. Philosophy does not solve real world problems science does, but philosophy does help many people to keep their mind at peace and stay focused on contributing to real world.

governance is a type of philosophy. which is why I reiterate to "the republic" by plato. Thats his way of ruling a state or political entity. You solve problems through governance.

[akshayxyz]

governance is a type of philosophy. which is why I reiterate to "the republic" by plato. Thats his way of ruling a state or political entity. You solve problems through governance.

Not entirely correct, but not completely off the mark either. I mean, governance has some science elements to it, mostly based on past experiences, future anticipation, and then again re-calibration based on outcomes..which is why I guess, it comes under 'social science'... but certainly not as accurately defined as proper science. and I believe - philosophy has had a major role to play in development of science...yes even the imaginary god stuff...now it has become practically useless in real world problems, but still it is not going away any sooner....esp when it is a fact that these stuff are most powerful tool to control masses.

[Vijay.Sharma]

arey bhai log.. lets just keep the two things separate.. Philosophy does not solve real world problems science does, but philosophy does help many people to keep their mind at peace and stay focused on contributing to real world.

I guess it depends upon how you view science and philosophy. How does one define science? I think philosophy also is a scientific branch and the other perspective is that science is also a philosophy. Because what is philosophy but a set of governing rules and notions about the universe and our place in it. How is science any different from this? It is also a set of notions about the universe and our place in it. The job of science is to explain why things are so. The last time I checked, philosophy also does the same thing. The fight happens when science is considered to be objective only, physical only thingy. And equally philosophy is considered as a subjective only, esoteric only thingy. That in my opinion is self defeating and causes us to be more one-dimensional than we can imagine. That is why your regular theorist is useless when it comes to innovation and your regular priest is also equally useless when it comes to forwarding the cause of mankind. The people who take us further are the people who can combine the objective and subjective faculties of our mind.

[akshayxyz]

I guess it depends upon how you view science and philosophy. How does one define science? I think philosophy also is a scientific branch and the other perspective is that science is also a philosophy. Because what is philosophy but a set of governing rules and notions about the universe and our place in it. How is science any different from this? It is also a set of notions about the universe and our place in it. The job of science is to explain why things are so. The last time I checked, philosophy also does the same thing. The fight happens when science is considered to be objective only, physical only thingy. And equally philosophy is considered as a subjective only, esoteric only thingy. That in my opinion is self defeating and causes us to be more one-dimensional than we can imagine. That is why your regular theorist is useless when it comes to innovation and your regular priest is also equally useless when it comes to forwarding the cause of mankind. The people who take us further are the people who can combine the objective and subjective faculties of our mind.

You are free to have your opinion. But I think it is clearly defined what constitutes science. in short - theories & stuff that can be experimentally verified, and/or can be theoretically proved using mathematical rules. The demarcation is not because one is more/less intelligent that other, it is just convention of categorization of subjects - i would say.

[rahulrulezz]

LOL' date=' yeah, go protest against a country that is one of india's oldest, long standing allies and most reliable arms and aircraft suppliers, because they didn't think much of [b']your crappy religious book. that makes sense. on a related note, i just love seeing whats happening in europe nowadays. blanket bans on public religious expression, religious rituals, monitoring of religious institutions, shunning of stupid religious laws. step 1 in achieving a terror free society.

Try telling that ur naaniji or daadiji, I m sure they wud beat the bum out of u with all the bata chappals in the house. If u wanna be an Athiest, go ahead, all the power with u but don't u effing insult my book

[Vijay.Sharma]

Not entirely correct, but not completely off the mark either. I mean, governance has some science elements to it, mostly based on past experiences, future anticipation, and then again re-calibration based on outcomes..which is why I guess, it comes under 'social science'... but certainly not as accurately defined as proper science. and I believe - philosophy has had a major role to play in development of science...yes even the imaginary god stuff...now it has become practically useless in real world problems, but still it is not going away any sooner....esp when it is a fact that these stuff are most powerful tool to control masses.

I am not in full agreement with that Akshay. I think it has a lot to do with what you consider is God. If the God being referred to is the same as the Abrahamic God, the idiot who takes revenge, who will send you to hell for eternity, make you burn in hell for eternity, have you flogged for eternity, have you pray to Him (dunno how they decided it is a he not a she), who is jealous of others BUT he loves you - then you are right. But that concept of God is a very narrow minded, low quality philosophy. However, as is evidenced all around us (and has always been the case in the East) the concept of God is very different than the Abrahamic tyrant. And it is this, much richer perspective of what God is that is helping us in our sciences, in our inventions, in the way we deal with each other. I find God has more relevance than ever before. Yes, I agree religion has lost its relevance

[akshayxyz]

Try telling that ur naaniji or daadiji' date=' I m sure they wud beat the bum out of u with all the bata chappals in the house. If u wanna be an Athiest, go ahead, all the power with u but don't u effing insult my book[/quote'] har baat mein maar pitai.. thats why I said earlier too - you are high on hormones..perhaps you should consider donating. :icflove: well anyway, if nanaji/dadaji understood Gita properly, then they wouldn't bother what others have to say about it.

[Vijay.Sharma]

You are free to have your opinion. But I think it is clearly defined what constitutes science. in short - theories & stuff that can be experimentally verified, and/or can be theoretically proved using mathematical rules. The demarcation is not because one is more/less intelligent that other, it is just convention of categorization of subjects - i would say.

Yes that is the theoretical definition of science but there is a practical definition to it. And the practical definition goes beyond verification and theory formation. If we were to stick to the theoretical definition of science then many of today's technologies would be called unscientific because almost all of them came out because the convention of science was broken. Consider this....science wants you to observe something only then it is true? Now which human being has actually observed the hundreds of sub-atomic particles that we have today? No one. People have seen some effects and conjectured that this is because of this, and that, and therefore this and that. Where is the "Science"? Here's the thing - a theory is always born beyond "science". A theory is born in the imagination faculty of the human mind. The originator / imaginer then finds a way to create a set of rules to prove his conjecture which holds true until someone conjectures something else. So, the science of physicality, observation, etc is all gone now. The sad fact of the matter is that in today's scenario there are two categories of science. There is the establishment science (which is just another effing religion and which is what is fed to all of us as fact) and there is the science in the spirit of scientific inquiry (which many of us are not privy to unless we happen to be working in those areas).

[G_B_]

Not entirely correct, but not completely off the mark either. I mean, governance has some science elements to it, mostly based on past experiences, future anticipation, and then again re-calibration based on outcomes..which is why I guess, it comes under 'social science'... but certainly not as accurately defined as proper science. and I believe - philosophy has had a major role to play in development of science...yes even the imaginary god stuff...now it has become practically useless in real world problems, but still it is not going away any sooner....esp when it is a fact that these stuff are most powerful tool to control masses.

philosophy is vague. For eg i want to rule as a communist. Sure i will need statistics for better governance. But there is a core jist along the lines of which i will government. Its that jist which is needed for every country.

[rahulrulezz]

har baat mein maar pitai.. thats why I said earlier too - you are high on hormones..perhaps you should consider donating. :icflove: well anyway, if nanaji/dadaji understood Gita properly, then they wouldn't bother what others have to say about it.

Dude I can understand when a non-Indian Muslim or Christian makes that kinda statement. Cuz they never got the chance to get the exposure to Gita or don't know how much Geeta means to Hindus. But when a fellow Indian says what he said, he actually deserve a kick in his bum. I have no proble with Athiests but why do they have to make fun or disrespect of my religion to prove his point. Notice other Athiests in the thread, they r not abusing my religion so why can't he do the same.

[Vijay.Sharma]

Dude I can understand when a non-Indian Muslim or Christian makes that kinda statement. Cuz they never got the chance to get the exposure to Gita or don't know how much Geeta means to Hindus. But when a fellow Indian says what he said' date=' he actually deserve a kick in his bum. I have no proble with Athiests but why do they have to make fun or disrespect of my religion to prove his point. Notice other Athiests in the thread, they r not abusing my religion so why can't he do the same.[/quote']I think making fun of rather criticizing a religion is not a bad thing. There is nothing wrong in criticizing but what we want is for the criticizer to also state the reasons for his criticisms. For ex - while I may say Bhagavd Gita is a great book I'll also say "Bhagavd Gita As It Is" by Bhaktivedenata Prabhupada deserves criticism coz of the author's purports where he sez women are lesser than men in some purport to some verse. Similarly I criticize the Abrahamic faiths left, right, and center. I dont think it is wrong coz I can back it up with evidence and the source of my criticism. A Christian or a Muslim can then have grounds to show that I am wrong or misinformed. But I totally agree with you that Manny's claim of the book being crappy needs him to justify it. He has a right to his opinion and he has a right to express it too. I have no problem with that. But now that many of us have asked him to back it up with some justification, if Manny is decent enough to the challenge then he will answer back. Given he has gone absconding it is more likely he wants to get out of the mess he created for himself. Maybe making his stance clear isn't the worst thing to do after all

[Laaloo]

Dude I can understand when a non-Indian Muslim or Christian makes that kinda statement. Cuz they never got the chance to get the exposure to Gita or don't know how much Geeta means to Hindus. But when a fellow Indian says what he said' date=' he actually deserve a kick in his bum. I have no proble with Athiests but why do they have to make fun or disrespect of my religion to prove his point. Notice other Athiests in the thread, they r not abusing my religion so why can't he do the same.[/quote'] Who gives a damn when someone disrespects? This should only make your belief in the thoughts of the geeta stronger. Tell me this, how often do you read the Geeta? How often do you try to implement the thoughts in your life? And It's not a religion. Or at least it's not meant to be. And what do you mean how much Geeta means to Hindus? It doesn't matter at all. How many "Hindus" today actually try to implement the thoughts as mentioned in the Geeta. Reading is one thing, and applying is one thing.

[akshayxyz]

Dude I can understand when a non-Indian Muslim or Christian makes that kinda statement. Cuz they never got the chance to get the exposure to Gita or don't know how much Geeta means to Hindus. But when a fellow Indian says what he said' date=' he actually deserve a kick in his bum. I have no proble with Athiests but why do they have to make fun or disrespect of my religion to prove his point. Notice other Athiests in the thread, they r not abusing my religion so why can't he do the same.[/quote'] Why this Kolaveri :) ( I am using this first time.).. as I said before, and laloo below. if you understood Gita properly, you should not be bothered about what others say.. otherwise you are no different from Quran/Bible wielding fanatics, who don't understand their books.