random thoughts

In response to:Spirituality is the ethos of India.

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 17:57:35 +0100

hari om,

what is our true home?
how-to live life problem free? (no kidding please)
This can be your Dr. fix it or say Mr. fix it (the one who solve your problems)
Illustration of sensible life
Inspiration at its best

to find what is it read the following blog completely

http://saakshaatkar.blogspot.com

thank you

In response to:Hindus and Indian Muslims

Tue, 25 Nov 2008 19:39:55 +0100

great blog

Regards

Gary
www.lemonshell.com/lawtraining

In response to:Spirituality is the ethos of India.

Thu, 13 Nov 2008 22:56:03 +0100

http://pepeokliloo.com pepeokliloo
pepeokliloo
pepeokliloo

In response to:Love Thy Religion...!

Thu, 03 Aug 2006 06:33:24 +0200

Hi nonny!!
Thanks for the comment. There is no limit to the extend some people may go for attracting attention!! Thanks again,
Innu

In response to:Love Thy Religion...!

Wed, 26 Jul 2006 14:57:21 +0200

bet it's hot in the summer tho!

In response to:Spirituality is the ethos of India.

Tue, 30 Aug 2005 22:31:58 +0200

Yes, but even Sattva must be realized. We must apply the gunas into our daily lives. Most of what people do on average is tamasic.

And I think people put too much into karma. They believe they can manipulate it..which they obviously can not.

Dharma in its truest essence may not be filled with 'danger' rather it is the self-realization which will inherently bring dharma. Thing is..for most they can not transcend ego long enough to truly fulfil their lives.

Namaste.

In response to:More thoughts on energy crisis

Tue, 26 Jul 2005 06:37:10 +0200

I have found both your posts on the energy crisis in India very interesting.

In a few years time our biggest city Auckland, will be without lights.

Currently our government does not allow nuclear-powered vessels near New Zealand, despite continual pressure from the US. Nor will we ever consider using nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, I hope!

Another member of this blog site ianrthorpe has suggested that we use the sea water in our deep water fjords to generate power, but a feasibility study has proven this to be inappropriate, because there is so little differentiation in tidal levels.

Methane gas and bio-diesel seem to be the way to go for India, and could be considered too, for NZ.
Any energy solution for NZ will be dependent on financial aid from the government, of course.

Dawn

In response to:Secularism - Indian political toy!!

Fri, 15 Jul 2005 16:01:32 +0200

Having read this entry, I can't help wonder where we are all going. The dischord between religious India and secular government seems to me a product of the way society is changing. It is a growing pain of civilisation, where different aspects of it develop faster that others. Clearly the Indian people are very traditional and have retained most of their commitment to their respective religions, but as "progress" changes the world, namely the media's influence, government all over the world is developing at an alarming rate.
This has always been the case, and the result is usually painful.
I'm trying to work out where I stand with my morals, but I think my view on this is irrelevant. It's just the way things are. We're developing as a species, and we seem to be outgrowing our social structures like an adolescent outgrows clothes. Beliefs like religion are growing less compantible with the systems that succeeded them, like government.
We could fuck up. After all, there is no map to Utopia. But then again, we will pick ourselves up from anything. We've reached a point now, I think, where things like total collapse of civilisation are impossible, and we should, through trial and error, inevitably find a way of living where petty differences like race and religion are forgotten.
Hmmm. Just my random thoughts.

In response to:Secularism - Indian political toy!!

Sun, 05 Jun 2005 16:38:34 +0200

Dear Sir,
Thank you very much for the comments. I appreciate what you write; how important it is to have a secular attitude in public affairs. Many declare that they are ‘Secular’, but they are indulging in dubious activities, which are not secular. The word Secularism has become bigger than life size! If one declares that he is religious, does he have to be necessarily a blackguard? Does it imply that he is a fanatic? Or a fundamentalist?
What is really important in our context is that even if one is religious like the majority of the people in our country, he must have a broader outlook to see and accept the virtues of not only his own religion but other religions too. If you have difficulty in accepting that, all religions mean only good for the mankind and that they are all different ways towards the same goal, then there is a problem. It is not religiousness per se which is a problem, but the mentality of the man himself.
Nehru was truly secular, most would agree. Recently one of the senior ministers of the present Government quoted Nehru as saying that if anyone raised his hand against another in the name of religion he would fight that man till the end. But that did not happen and Nehru’s successors did just the opposite during their long rule of 50 years or so.
For the ordinary man religion is important because religion helps fill the spiritual vacuum in man. A rationalist or a secular person may scoff at this but that is the truth. One human being should be able to see another, as a human, religious or secular is not important.
Gandhiji was an extremely religious person and he respected all religions.
Jinnah was totally Secular (never followed any religious dictate) but he was the founder of the two-nation theory and leader of the Muslims.

In response to:Secularism - Indian political toy!!

Thu, 02 Jun 2005 13:22:46 +0200

Hullo Friend,

Your treatise on secularism is appears to be a result of deep thought. However, I do see some lacunae in your argument: First, it is not farcical to say that one is religious and yet secular. One can very well be secular at personal level and secular in his/her conduct. One can perform any valid religious rite at home while remaining steadfast secular in functioning.

Secularism in its ideal form is or should be about your individual religious convictions not influencing your judgment. In Indian context , secularism is more valid because of the pluralist texture of the society. Secularism in Indian context should be taken as a constitutional design to thwart effort by any ethnic or religious entity/community to claim superiority over the other communities in order to establish a stranglehold on other communities in the socio-economic sphere.

The State has to be secular. The state cannot advocate any religious convictions. The state cannot dictate your religious choices. This is exactly what our constitution makers sought. A president can be religious , he can perform pooja or perform namaaz five times a day in his precincts; but he should not be seen doing so, as if the top executive is seen doing so it can be misunderstood as having state sanction and thereby an official act.

True, secularism is tool for administering statecraft. But, it is much more than that. It is a guarantee that the subjects of the Indian state will not be favoured or disfavoured based on his religious inclinations. If anyone is indeed favoured or disfavoured , he can always be challanged in the courts of law . Secularism is a guarantee that India will never have a Hitler at helm. Secularism is a guarantee that me-too communal dictators like Narendra Modi will not be left prowling unchecked in our backyard.
Secularism is a guarantee that nobody ,irespective of his or her religious convictions , can play blatant communalism and be succesful in the long run .

Second, your attemt to mention the Congress party and others smacks of your bias and gives you away.

India cannot but be secular. Our nation-statehood is precariously hinged on our ability to exhibit true secularism. This means that the trend that we see today of political leader doing rounds of temples or mosques( at taxpayers cost) or touching the feet of sants ,mahants and mulla maulavis is grossly detrimental to the secular texture of the nation.