0

ESTABLISHED FACTS: (based on readings of J Sai Deepak, Dr Omendra Ratnu, Sanjay Dixit, Koenard Elst and logic itself)

SECULARISM IS FOREIGN AND ATTEMPTS TO DESTROY DHARMA. BHARATIYA PLURALISM IS GREATER THAN SECUALRISM.

We know that Advaita philosophy says that ultimately man merges into Parabrahm and hence all beings are equal. On the other hand, we have religions like Islam and Christianity which are inherently unscientific, false and against basic logic and civilisation-promoting only destruction and patriarchal structures, without any Upanishad like philosophy at their basis. They need to be eliminated else they will destroy Dharma, and the danger lies from their infiltration into the common Hindu who wants to be distanced from Dharma because of the modernity and inferiority complex he suffers from, and in the name of Secularism, westernisation etc.

(I have drawn these conclusions from my readings of SR Goel, Ram Swarup, Rajiv Malhotra and other Indic minded scholars, so unless you can refute their points in books like the Calcutta Quran Petition, or Understanding the Hadith, please do not give me a label of religious intolerance and extremist)

Now, if they need to be eliminated completely, then in the viewpoint of Advaita, if all are equal, then who is the enemy? Adharmis, like the Kauravas? (The fact that Adharmis and kafirs or heathens are not equal classes should be admitted here)

If a person is engaged in Dharma and knowing about the Aatma, he is on the path of moksha, should he have Shatrubodh, and hence should he work towards Ghar Wapsi of converts and Dharmayuddha if the threat is existential, or remain immersed in the false claims of "All religions are same" and "Sarva Dharma Sambhav"(the source of which is unknown to me)?

Or should we simply change the defintion of Ahimsa to mean standing with Dharma, in case of which physical violence is allowed if you are against Adharma.

One more question: if you believe that a Brahman should not pick up weapons to resist Adharma on **the verge of existential crisis (where the Kshatriyas are simply not enough in number or power)*, then why did Arjun do so, keeping in mind that he saw the Vishwarup of Krishna and can hence be regarded as the knower of the Self?

Do these apparent contradictions follow because of misinterpretations of Advaita philosophy of non dualism and inclusivity?

(https://www.thejaipurdialogues.com/sanskriti/all-religions-are-not-the-same-part-1-fundamental-principles/)

Improve this question
5
  • Actually, the actual ahiṁsā even in Jaina tradition for lay men doesn't say that soldiers shouldn't fight or that people must not fight for the protection of their dharma. This is accepted even in Buddhism. Yes, the monks can't commit deliberate hiṁsā, and in Jaina, even the lay people can't commit deliberate hiṁsā. However, when a worldly person is threatened, when one is in danger or when one is doing their dharma, it is justified to protect oneself and fight for it.
    – Bingming
    Feb 14 at 3:40
  • 1
    The ahiṁsā taught by Gandhi isn't found in any of the Indic traditions. His version follows more of the Christian principles. Gandhi clearly said that if Muslims attack and kill Hindus, Hindus shouldn't fight back or defend, they should surrender and die. He told the Jews that they should die without resistance, and even told Britain to give up arms and stop fighting Mussolini and Hitler.
    – Bingming
    Feb 14 at 3:42
  • 1
    Basically, his version of ahiṁsā was selective and hypocritical, inspired by Christianity. And not shared by even the ahiṁsāvādī traditions such as Jaina or Buddhist. He would offer his left cheek if he is slapped on the right cheek. And the problem is that, it is this bastardized ahiṁsā that had been promoted by Congress all along, suppressing Hindus from raising their voices or retaliating if they are killed, destroyed or threatened.
    – Bingming
    Feb 14 at 3:44
  • 1
    In Mahābhārata, we see Bhīṣma praising and speaking highly of ahiṁsā, however he was a warrior and still fought for his dharma. Many people miss this context altogether. Although Bhīṣma fought against the Pāṇḍavas, he fought for his dharma, still he upholded ahiṁsā. As in, situations where ahiṁsā is possible. He is Kṣatriya by dharma, and its his duty to fight for his dharma. His dharma was to fight for the Kauravas and keep to his oath of protecting the King of Hastināpura. So, ahiṁsā for such people must be maintained always, unless it conflicts with the establishment of dharma.
    – Bingming
    Feb 14 at 3:48
  • I don't think this must be seen actually in the Advaitic perspective. There is too much focus given to Advaita. You can see this even from a dhārmika perspective, the same way we analyse the dharmaśāstras.
    – Bingming
    Feb 14 at 3:50

0

Reset to default

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .