Kone Nakshatra - Latest Comments

Re: Hindu Samskaras - The Upanayana

Pranavathalye — Sun, 23 Dec 2012 02:09:00 -0000

In the ancient times Upanayana surely was performed even for girls and even they could wear the sacred Yajnopavita thread. You are right in saying that it's during the later times that this practice stopped. Many people who oppose this site Manusmriti which states that female Upanayana was allowed in previous Kalpa and is prohibited in the present Kalpa. But we must understand that it's just an excuse and that Manusmriti by any wildest imagination was surely not written by Vaivasvata Manu. Manusmriti is a fairly recent text. The civilization described in it is surely not the proto-vedic civilization which was reinstated by Vaivasvata Manu. Since all the Indo-European people claim to be descendants(not blood but cultural) of Manu/Mannus/Mannuz, who must have lived in a Proto-Indo-European civilization in the region of present day Haryana. Seeing other existing Indo-European religions gives us the answer. The Vedic split from the Iranians fairly recently in the history. The Parsis still carry out the initiation on both boys and girls. Also we can find proof of female initiation in our own texts as well. In Ramayana Sita mentioned performing Sandhyavandana. Women performing Yajna all alone and on their own without the presence of a man is also mentioned. Even ancient idols and statues of Goddesses can be seen wearing the Yajnopavita thread.

I think that the ancient Vedic religion was much more egalitarian that it's present form and if we want to preserve our religion in this modern and increasingly egalitarian age we must take it back to it's egalitarian roots.

Re: Square pegs in round holes

Mpr — Wed, 10 Oct 2012 06:48:04 -0000

Only a party that is supposed to fight for Hindus can be expected to counter what Ramesh said.When BJP is like a B team of Congress espousing multiculturalism, else it will not get the votes it needs, there is no reason for it to do so. one can only cry to see the once proud people reduced to penury.

Re: There is no “our” Islam to export

seadog4227 — Mon, 30 Jul 2012 00:13:10 -0000

Way back in the 70s itself, there were highly placed Muslim intellectuals who "regretted" Pakistan's loss in the war of 1971. Their mindset for internal consumption within their community is exactly that; to think otherwise is the attitude of the merest novice. Your points are well taken.

Re: Introducing Lawrence Auster

Kanjan77 — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 01:44:39 -0000

Who's palahalli named person............l.

Re: The Center-Right dilemma

Musunuri — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 12:30:45 -0000

Namaste and apologies for my long delay in responding.

I agree with you when you say these categories are debilitating and alien to our view of polity. However and in order to not use these categories, there should be an absence of such categories in polity. For instance what would our ancients do if some amongst them were to one day say - "I think you fellows are reactionaries. I will oppose your paternalistic nonsense and fight for equality!" I think the others would say something like - "we are not reactionaries and we know your drive for equality is false for so and so and so reasons". That's an ideological stance one is forced to take in order to simply maintain a sensible position.

So I would maintain that we are not in a position to claim these categories are alien since a lot amongst our people have already fallen prey to them.

Re: The Center-Right dilemma

amAtya rAkshasa — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 06:07:23 -0000

Pranaam-s Palahalli-ji,

You've made quite incisive observations. Right, Left, Xism, Yism etc. are not only alien to our civilization, they are also the by products of Abrahamistic discourses (especially the entire 'rights talks', viz. gay rights, feminism etc.). They are an anathema is our case and as you're rightly said it is but a facade for people to make themselves "feel good".

I remember an interview of KN Govindacharya who was asked to comment on the suggestions that now BJP should take the same position and possibly learn a few lessons from the conservative party of Britain. To this, he merely laughed stating that the situations are wholly different and it simply is inapplicable. (In effect, underscoring the naivety of such ideas)

I also feel that this post comes out stronger and builds an even better argument against such borrowed and superficial concepts if it is read in conjunction with your other post here (concerning "Internet Hindu-s"): http://rashtra.in/wp/?p=2103 (Why the Arundhati Roys can get away)

Thanks for sharing the link! Looking forward to more posts.

Re: The Center-Right dilemma

amAtya rAkshasa — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 23:30:32 -0000

Namaste Sanjay-ji,

While I'm still in the process of learning, allow me to venture on commenting about your observations and stance of C-R. C-R as you've rightly put probably makes them 'feel good' and not yet be called 'social right'. IMHO, this entire categorization of left-right --albeit internalized thoroughly among the more 'educated' and 'upwardly mobile'-- is uncalled for and alien to our land. If the constructs of West are to be adopted in Indic scenario, then we are at best deluding ourselves. I am particularly reminded of an interview of Govindacharya, wherein he was asked as to what is his opinion on suggestions that BJP should now model itself along the Conservative party of UK. He merely laughed at it; his message was simple: these models are not only incompatible but they are in effect death of the Hindu civilizational identity, its nature, its approach to life, its value system i.e. --should we chose to model ourselves along those lines.

They are merely part of one of those countless iterations and versions of discourses [rights discourse (worst of them all IMO) , Feminism, X movement, Y movement etc. etc.] within the West, simply inapplicable in the more organic Indic case.

PS: Just a mere observation; I find this post to be more effective and in sync with your post here- http://rashtra.in/wp/?p=2103
('Why the Arundhati Roys can get away'; loved your thoughts on the position of the so called 'Internet Hindu-s').

Thanks for sharing the link. Look forward to more discussions and learning.

Re: On Secularism

Subhash Sukumar — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 02:20:12 -0000

Good one...

Re: A confused case against Hindutva

Sucheta — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 22:32:57 -0000

Kudos Vivekananda ji, for the points you raised.

The author Harsh Gupta seems to have a limited knowledge and even more limited understanding, like a typical psedu secular 'journalist' that he is, of the basic realities of today's India which comes from yesteryear's Bharat.

He fails to realize that India does not exist in a vacuum of 'modern' moralities where Islam can be terrorist, Christianity can be evangelical but Hindu dharma needs an approval of the 'journos' to assert or even exist.

Re: A confused case against Hindutva

vivekananda — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 13:41:47 -0000

Do you regard Hinduism as being the composite of the particular customs and beliefs of the different castes? Or do you acknowledge that there are overarching Hindu literary and philosophical traditions, which are incredibly diverse, but do not belong to any one community and are universally relevant?

We must recognize that Hinduism was once prevalent in much of Southeast Asia. At its peak, it essentially dominated the culture and religion of that region, from Laos to Indonesia. The vestiges of the Khmer empire to the north of the region and the Sri Vijaya empire to the south are still evident today. Within countries like Indonesia, there developed indigenous Hindu empires like the Majapahit. In Cambodia, the Khmer Empire built the Angkor Wat, dedicated to Lord Vishnu, which is the largest and arguably the most majestic of Hindu temples.

If Indian Hindu society was devoid or incapable of the expansionary impulse, how did Hinduism come to exist among these peoples? I might be different from most modern Hindus in this regard, but I think Hinduism is perfectly capable of being propagated and 'universalized' beyond India as any of the Abrahamic religions. We have to realize that the evangelizing missions of the Abrahamic religions are an integral part of those religious traditions. They're commanded by their prophets to proselytize. They're not going to stop doing so as a result of legislation or because some Hindus claim that it is 'intolerant'. Besides, their right to propagate their religious beliefs is enshrined in the Constitution.

It is useless to rely upon the legislative apparatus as a bulwark against conversions, or to whine that Hindus are "not equipped to deal with" conversion. We certainly were in the past, and if we aren't now, we must strive to revive that capacity. The philosophical and theological traditions of Hinduism rival those of any of the Abrahamic religions. If adherents of those religions wish to argue the claim that they are the exclusive purveyors of truth, then we need to be a part of that debate at every turn rather than shy away.

Re: A confused case against Hindutva

Pritha — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 02:21:16 -0000

Errrr since when is RSS the head of all Hindu organisations??? Maybe in your dreams, certaintly not in reality!

Re: A confused case against Hindutva

∫ubra — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 17:39:56 -0000

Sitaram Goel's articulation is in sync with the brilliant clarifications in this post and perhaps hints at one of the reasons why the original article lost its way.

"There are Hindus who start the other way round, that is,
with Bharatavarsa being a holy land (punyabhumi) simply
because it happens to be their fatherland (pitribhumi) as
well as the field of their activity (karmabhumi). They
honour Hindu society because their forefathers belonged
to it, and fought the foreign invaders as Hindus. Small
wonder that their notion of nationalism is purely territorial, and their notion of Hindu society no more than
tribal. For me, however, the starting point is Sanatana
Dharma. Without Sanatana Dharma, Bharatavarsa for me is
just another piece of land, and Hindu society just another assembly of human beings. So my commitment is to
Sanatana Dharma, Hindu society, and Bharatavarsa in
that order."

and

"... Hindu society (which) has been the vehicle of Sanatana Dharma is a great
society and deserves all honour and devotion from its
sons and daughters. Finally, Bharatavarsa became a holy
land for me because it has been and remains the homeland
of Hindu society."

ref: http://voiceofdharma.org/bo...

Re: A confused case against Hindutva

constantine thambi — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 14:57:35 -0000

Nice Piece of work. thanks

Re: What will you tell your children?

x123 — Tue, 20 Dec 2011 03:02:33 -0000

lesbianism/gay relationships occur in western society, where humans r turned into inhumans, deprived of their humanness, out of touch with themselves, enticed by adverts/promises, and constrained by restrictions.

Re: The Hindu State – Initial and Hypothetical Thoughts

Vijay — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 04:19:22 -0000

Sir, could you please extend this piece with a parallel drawn with our current system. Excluding the policies. Highlighting the structural differences (again forget about the "liberals"). Even now the jatis and janajatis have local body elections. So, representation is not an issue. What all are?

Re: Dharma & Lean

Amit Kumar Gupta — Sat, 29 Oct 2011 10:52:53 -0000

A very nice article indeed. The good thing it explains is how our Dharma has an eye on ones duty towards family/society/country while deciding his/her inner growth. Even better thing is that one is always free to set goals as per ones capacity.

It will be interesting to see how the idea discussed here evolves further more and show how the concept of family and society supports the outer and inner journey of self.

Re: Thoughts on feminism

munusamy ganapathy — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 02:18:06 -0000

dear friend let us have certain situations.
a girl is in the habit of giving her salary to her mother since her first salary and getting whatever she wants from her. what is she expected to do after marriage.what will the feminists say and what will an traditionalist like you say
a girl wants to look after her parents after marriage too.what will the feminists say and whats the traditionalist response
the girl working in a govt/public sector has dependant parents and can take them on bharat darshan on LTC (free tickets provided by govt)along with her family.inlaws are not included.what will the feminists say and traditionalists say. i have come across instances of boys family getting the money spent on the girls parents for their hospitalisation(which was refunded to the girl by her company) and we have people who paint a rosy picture of women leading a happy life. imagine a male shifting homes and living in completely alien surroundings and trying to adapt totally to their tastes and habits for the rest of life or as house husband after being a postgraduate/doctor etc

Re: Thoughts on feminism

munusamy ganapathy — Sun, 16 Oct 2011 23:50:03 -0000

sir where have the feminists said that they will throw away their father and have just their mother with them or encourage all womens to become lesbians. what i understand by feminism is equal treatment of male and female children in studies,jobs,marriage,post marriage arrangements of having parents with them,having children etc and i do not find anything wrong in their demand.
you have skipped the role of male and female in the society which forces a girl to shift her home,abandon her parents and adopt her inlaws as parents which the feminists justly question and to discredit the feminists certain rare instances/individuals who advocate total absence of males from the life of female or hatred for male are being projected.
the long tested notions of female being lesser in age,height,qualifications in a matrimonial relationships too are justifiably questioned by the feminists.what is wrong in that

Re: Thoughts on feminism

M_vijayakumar — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 23:12:10 -0000

>> Feminism ..
They will always need their dark age & other.

There is indeed a 'dark age', though it is improving at
several places (but still a long way to go, at many places)

>> Women are not a segment of society that can live in
ghettoes seperately from men. They are part & parcel of everyday family
life - a basic ingredient in making the family.

Yes, women are part and parcel of families and all members
of a family can have basic legitimate rights, responsibilities, freedom,
opportunities to pursue careers, education, choose their friends, choose their
life partners etc (in an age appropriate way). They can also choose to be home
makers, or any career as mutually discussed/agreed with their life partners.

>> Each family is empowered to decide its course. Why
not allow it?

Yes, to a large extent and in societies where legitimate
rights/freedoms are already accepted. But what if a family believes in child
marriage or sati (to take extreme examples) or believes that women should not
be allowed to go outside home, not allowed education or that women should
silently suffer abuse and domestic violence etc? There is a case here to change
that society. Very good, loving families can exist without all these kind of
issues. I don’t think feminists want to get away with such empowered, loving
families. I know there are more extreme forms of feminism which asks to
discard/hate all men/family etc (which I dont agree with). These extreme forms
makes many to be wary of the word 'feminism', but let us not be boxed in
terminology. What I support is to the extent that it is a fight for basic
rights, freedom, opportunities to pursue careers, education, choosing life
partners etc

>> If it needs help, why not empower social
institutions like extended family relationships, community groups?

The kind of problems women face (listed above) are often
widespread with societal consensus. The entire society applies that pressure on
women to fall in line. So extended family will not help.

Re: Thoughts on feminism

M_vijayakumar — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 23:08:35 -0000

>> Feminism .. They will always need their dark age & other. There is indeed a 'dark age', though it is improving at several places (but still a long way to go, at many places)>> Women are not a segment of society that can live in ghettoes seperately from men. They are part & parcel of everyday family life - a basic ingredient in making the family. Yes, women are part and parcel of families and all members of a family can have basic legitimate rights, responsibilities, freedom, opportunities to pursue careers, education, choose their friends, choose their life partners etc (in an age appropriate way). They can also choose to be home makers, or any career as mutually discussed/agreed with their life partners.>> Each family is empowered to decide its course. Why not allow it? Yes, to a large extent and in societies where legitimate rights/freedoms are already accepted. But what if a family believes in child marriage or sati (to take extreme examples) or believes that women should not be allowed to go outside home, not allowed education or that women should silently suffer abuse and domestic violence etc? There is a case here to change that society. Very good, loving families can exist without all these kind of issues. I don’t think feminists want to get away with such empowered, loving families. I know there are more extreme forms of feminism which asks to discard/hate all men/family etc (which I dont agree with). These extreme forms makes many to be wary of the word 'feminism', but let us not be boxed in terminology. What I support is to the extent that it is a fight for basic rights, freedom, opportunities to pursue careers, education, choosing life partners etc>> If it needs help, why not empower social institutions like extended family relationships, community groups?The kind of problems women face (listed above) are often widespread with societal consensus. The entire society applies that pressure on women to fall in line. So extended family will not help.

Re: Thoughts on feminism

Musunuri — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 21:33:54 -0000

Ganapaty - You seem to have decided it is only the feminist who cares for women, perhaps because she/he is constantly tearing their hair out. Fortunately, that is not the case.

A family will balance its priorities in the best possible manner for itself. If it doesnt, it will suffer & will need help. The help on offer should not further splinter the family but instead work to keep it cohesive. That's the principle.

Re: Thoughts on feminism

Musunuri — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 21:23:50 -0000

Vijaykumar - Feminism has acquired the contours of ideology, an ism. This ideology has proponents & evangelists. They will always need their dark age & other.

Women are not a segment of society that can live in ghettoes seperately from men. They are part & parcel of everyday family life - a basic ingredient in making the family.

Each woman has her personality, similar to men. They think differently and cannot, should not, be herded with an agenda.

Each family is empowered to decide its course. Why not allow it? If it needs help, why not empower social institutions like extended family relationships, community groups? Where these are happening, it is good & constructive.

Re: Thoughts on feminism

Amit Kumar Gupta — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 13:30:49 -0000

Sir/Madam,

Most of your thoughts arrive from a general perception of an unjust society and an unjust male dominated family. No one has stopped girls from being doctor/engineer/collector. But thats not the topic for this discussion. The main culprit here is the sense of 'Individualness' and individual identity. Our sense of individual identity must NEVER OVERTAKE COLLECTIVE IDENTITY. The idea is to share our rights and responsibility and let everyone grow individually and make the family (society/country) grow. The individual identity which has overtaken the sense of collective identity in west has led to success of individuals there but there society have failed miserably.

Re: Thoughts on feminism

munusamy ganapathy — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 12:53:08 -0000

being blessed or cursed with 2 daughters and no sons he and his wife will lead a lonely life (as he stands for girls losing their parents after marriage and adopt the inlaws as parents which the feminists wants to change )or roam from temple to temple in search of a male child to get a adopted daughter to look after them.
   feminism stands for equal treatment of both parents. if thats considered a sin by you there can be no arguments.
knowledge doesnt belong to the males alone.a brilliant lady doctor or engineer or lawyer or architect or shooter or hockey player who can change the lives of millions/bring laurels has to resign her job to look after her family,inlaws,husband is what u want.a feminist stands for her individuality and her right to delay marriage,child bearing etc.the feminist helps the humanity and millions who will benefit by her research,acheivements while your thoughts takes us to talibanic afghanistan
   women should have the freedom to chose their own partners. it actually helps the males too as forced marriages will become a thing of the past and they getting an equal partner and not a child to look after and totally dependant upon him..
   women should fight back abuses.its the feminist who always stands with the abused victim and not the traditionalist who will suggest temple visits and karva chauths to avoid abuses.
the population control measures has effectively closed the ideas,thoughts of all traditionalists and parents of girl children have become/are becoming great liberators.no society is strong/stupid enough to accept a lower status for their own children because they are of a different gender. a district collector or doctor or pilot or army officer doesnt train his daughters to become a housewife but follow his footsteps or the line she likes.the priest may be doing this but has to comearound sooner than later

http://www.haindavakeralam....

http://www.mid-day.com/news...

Re: Thoughts on feminism

M_vijayakumar — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 10:46:31 -0000

>> 1. There is a Dark Age which women have never
really passed over

Some societies/sections/individuals have passed over (to a
large extent) many haven't.

>> 6. Elements such as family, children, the home –
are collateral in this struggle for equality with man

>> The goal is “equality”. The erasure of all natural
and complimentary distinctions between man and woman.

We cannot put up a straw man here. There are those who fight
for legitimate rights, freedom, justice, opportunities, expression etc, without
necessarily "destroying family, children, home" nor "erasure of
all natural and complimentary distinctions" necessarily. Of course, given
an unbearably unjust/abusive house or given a society using pretext of 'natural
distinction' to suppress legitimate and basic rights/freedom/opportunities to
education etc to women, they do ask to dare to stand up and speak up.

>> The moment such an argument is made, the feminist
evangelist, like her religious evangelist cousin, is quick to point out that an
unjust immoral advantage is sought to be protected by the defensive male, or
the so branded male chauvinist. Much like how the “upper Jatis” are accused of
protecting their turf against alien incursions. This invariably puts mild and
sensible skeptics on the defensive. Job done.

Many feminists do recognize that many men are genuinely
interested in giving women legitimate rights/opportunities. Just like many
dalits recognize that many upper castes are genuine in the fight for legitimate
empowerment of all etc.

>> What does feminism, with its road-roller attitude
offer in terms of support to shattered lives? Nothing but to rely on the State
and its machinery.

Not exactly. It is to awaken the society (using shock value
where needed) to the ongoing suppression of legitimate basic opportunities in
education, creative freedom of thought/expression, contribution to society in
various ways etc.

>> There is another sinister contribution from
feminism – the irresponsible male. The ideology of the “free” woman has
ironically freed the male from discharging his
responsibility towards the female.

This is like saying, the dalit movement has created an
irresponsible upper caste who no longer have to tell/enforce on dalits, their
dharma.

>> Our society is stronger than in the West. They have
failed to stem the tsunami of feminism -but we, man and woman, husband and
wife, sons and daughters will hold it in a cup and drink it at breakfast.

Let "man and woman, husband and wife, sons and
daughters will hold it in a cup and drink it at breakfast", but NOT
because we mange to suppress legitimate rights/freedom/opportunities of women,
but by genuinely awakening our society to it.