Premchand, in the preface of his Karbala, urges Hindus to read about Islam. That's funny because Hindus don't read much. And I am talking about the creme de la creme of them who are nothing but degree-holding clerks. It's another matter that these smug dudes have opinion about everything.
One of these progressive dude butted in sometime back claiming that both Koran and Gita urge to fight. At the same time these universal equalizers maintain that all religions teach peace and everybody loves peace etc. I am least interested in wasting a single word on these overweight retards anymore. But I do want to contrast Gita with that death manual, because the comparison is stupid at the first place.
This post is not going to be a theological in nature. There are experts for that. I will talk about something else.
The first thing that struck me about Gita is this - in the context of Mahabharata, Gita just happens to happen. Krishna and Arjun were friends for years, and they were not very far from each other. But Krishna never preached him. In fact, Krishna never preached anyone in the whole epic. Gita is not a sermon; it's just an answer to a question, and this answer is given only to him who asks the question. Not before, not elsewhere, not to anyone else! Krishna might not have said a word otherwise. And that's remarkable.
Coming to warmongering, the language of Gita is unmistakably contextual not only to the story but also to the specific situation in the story. And that must not be overlooked in its interpretations because it's a specific answer to a specific question instead of a general sermon by a prophet. It's entirely another matter that the philosophy of Gita has been proved to transcend contexts like nothing else.
Coming to warmongering, the language of Gita is unmistakably contextual not only to the story but also to the specific situation in the story. And that must not be overlooked in its interpretations because it's a specific answer to a specific question instead of a general sermon by a prophet. It's entirely another matter that the philosophy of Gita has been proved to transcend contexts like nothing else.
Also, Gita highlights the importance of seeking and asking questions and reasoning as per the age old traditions of the Upanishads, which is the defining characteristic of Dharma (or Hinduism). On the other hand, that death manual is nothing but a series of unsolicited sermons that's forced upon all and sundry. It has nothing to do with seeking and asking questions. In fact, it positively forbids questions and demands absolute faith and complete submission without any hint of a doubt. And that too from everybody, everywhere, all the time!
The second thing about Gita that makes the comparison look what it is - silly - is the fact that your faith or lack of faith in Gita and/or Krishna has no bearing on your Dharma. You stay a Hindu even if you know nothing about Gita. You stay a Hindu even if you accept Gita in parts. You stay a Hindu even if you reject Gita completely.
Here are some facts that must be understood. Hindus are not people of any book or followers of any prophet. They have no commandments or dogma. They need not worship God let alone idols. There is no concept of unbelievers or hell. Nobody asks them to evangelize/proselytize or wage holy wars. And if someone does, they are free to ignore. There is nothing conditional or organized in Dharma which is mistaken as just another religion for lack of corresponding idea in the West. What Hindus share in common is a tradition of quest, a legacy of scientific pursuit of spirit, and a profound ignorance about themselves. That's why they are bullied by brutes.
Anyway, unless it's factually wrong and misleading, we Hindus are least scared of criticism, even rejection, no matter how severe it is. But reject a single verse of that manual and you reject the touchy-feely prophet and his fear-based death cult. You turn guilty of apostasy, which is an unforgivable crime punishable by death.
Here are some facts that must be understood. Hindus are not people of any book or followers of any prophet. They have no commandments or dogma. They need not worship God let alone idols. There is no concept of unbelievers or hell. Nobody asks them to evangelize/proselytize or wage holy wars. And if someone does, they are free to ignore. There is nothing conditional or organized in Dharma which is mistaken as just another religion for lack of corresponding idea in the West. What Hindus share in common is a tradition of quest, a legacy of scientific pursuit of spirit, and a profound ignorance about themselves. That's why they are bullied by brutes.
Anyway, unless it's factually wrong and misleading, we Hindus are least scared of criticism, even rejection, no matter how severe it is. But reject a single verse of that manual and you reject the touchy-feely prophet and his fear-based death cult. You turn guilty of apostasy, which is an unforgivable crime punishable by death.
Need I contrast anymore?
No comments:
Post a Comment