We keep returning to the talking point of FLIPPING EARTH'S ECONOMIC AXIS and FLAT EARTH tied to today's FAKE NEWS surrounding TRUMP uniting ancient EMPIRE OF ISRAEL to understand the TIME FRAME to which MOVING FORWARD back to DARK AGES has as a goal. We discussed the time period of 1000BC-500BC because that was when the ancient EMPIRE OF ISRAEL was sacked and looted by global 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS pre-Christian CATO, NERO, SENECA. If today's news takes us back to UNITED EMPIRE OF ISRAEL----which is FAKE NEWS----then we are erasing all of what are those early 99% religious movements JEWISH TORAH, MUSLIM KORAN, CHRISTIAN BIBLE.
So, we look to EASTERN RELIGIONS to see RUSSIAN ORTHODOXY and Asian HINDI. We hear the mantra by global banking 1% even the pope of ONE WORLD ONE RELIGION---it is easy peasy to see the blending of RUSSIAN ORTHODOXY and ASIAN HINDI to return to what was PAGAN GODS AND GODDESSES both of WESTERN AND EASTERN ancient pagan religions. It fits nicely into our global 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS freemasonry/Greeks busy SACKING AND LOOTING our American civilized society.
Just briefly touching on BUDDHISM----as it was created at the same time our other more modern religions having that PROPHET ----again coming from a rich family----being called BUDDHA. BUDDHA has an origin much as MUHAMMAD----with structures tying royalty to creation of that MOSAIC LAW unique to the Asian continent. BUDDHA wrote societal law for its followers a CODE OF CONDUCT resembling MOSAIC LAW for Jewish followers----SHARIAH LAW for Islamic followers---and our CHRISTIAN GREEK DEMOCRATIC principles separate from CHURCH AND STATE. Our JEWISH, CHRISTIAN, MUSLIM early religions broke from ancient pagan gods and goddesses.
BUDDHISM is the CODE OF CONDUCT with BUDDHA as PROPHET breaking from ancient HINDI religion of many gods and goddesses.
'Prince Siddhartha)
The delivery took place on the fifth month of Vesakha, on a full moon day in 623 BC. We call it Vesak or Buddha Day. Queen Maha Maya then returned to the palace with her baby prince. King Suddhodana was very joyful and celebrated the birth of the baby with his people all over the country.
Throughout the third era of BCE, Buddhism was spread by Ashoka(BCE 270 - BCE 232), the third and the most authoritative Mauryan emperor, who created the first pan-Indian empire. After the battle of Kalinga, Ashoka felt enormous heartache due to the huge loss of lives during the war and thus decided to follow the path of Buddhism. After this, he began to apply Buddhist principles in the government of his kingdom and named the new code of conduct 'Dhamma'.
Since the US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES are MOVING FORWARD to be filled with a few billion of global labor pool immigrants from EASTERN HEMISPHERE----all US 99% of WE THE PEOPLE should educate as to these religious beliefs and how they effect PUBLIC POLICY.
If our 99% of US citizens black, white, and brown citizens simply throw their hands up and feel threatened and resentful ----all 99% OF WE THE PEOPLE Jewish, Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindi will be LOSERS. No one wants AMERICAN FREEDOM, LIBERTY, JUSTICE, PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, EQUAL RIGHTS AND PROTECTION UNDER LAW, OPEN REAL FREE MARKET ECONOMY FOR ALL 99% OF WE THE PEOPLE-----then our new global labor pool 99% new immigrants being brought from EASTERN EUROPE and ASIA. The fight is over keeping our US CONSTITUTION and US RULE OF LAW open to pathway to citizenship for our new immigrants from EASTERN HEMISPHERE.
Buddhism vs. Hinduism
Hinduism is about understanding Brahma, existence, from within the Atman, which roughly means "self" or "soul," whereas Buddhism is about finding the Anatman — "not soul" or "not self." In Hinduism, attaining the highest life is a process of removing the bodily distractions from life, allowing one to eventually understand the Brahma nature within. In Buddhism, one follows a disciplined life to move through and understand that nothing in oneself is "me," such that one dispels the very illusion of existence. In so doing, one realizes Nirvana.
In Dr Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan's words,"Buddhism, in its origin at least, is an offshoot of Hinduism."
Comparison chart
Buddhism versus Hinduism comparison chart
BuddhismHinduism
Place of worship
Buddhist monasteries, temples, shrines.
Temple (Mandir)
Practices
Meditation, the Eightfold Path;
right view, right aspiration, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration Meditation, yoga, contemplation, yagna (communal worship), offerings in the temple.
Place of origin
Indian subcontinent
Indian Subcontinent
Goal of religion
To attain enlightenment and be released from the cycle of rebirth and death, thus attaining Nirvana.
To break the cycle of birth, death and reincarnation, and attain salvation.
Founder
The Buddha (born as Prince Siddhartha)
Not credited to a particular founder.
Use of statues and pictures
Common.
Statues are used as meditation objects, and revered as they reflect the qualities of the Buddha. Common
Human Nature
Ignorance, as all sentient beings. In the Buddhist texts, it is seen that when Gautama, after his awakening, was asked whether he was a normal human being, he replied, "No".
Depends on sects.
Literal Meaning
Buddhists are those who follow the teachings of the Buddha.
The followers of Vedas are called as Arya, noble person. Arya is not a dynasty, ethnicity or race. Anyone who follows the teachings of Vedas is considered Arya.
Clergy
The Buddhist Sangha, composed of bhikkhus (male monks) and bhikkhunis (female nuns). The sangha is supported by lay Buddhists.
No official clergy. Gurus, Yogis, Rishis, Brahmins, Pundits, priests, priestesses, monks, and nuns.
Belief of God
The idea of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent creator is rejected by Buddhists. The Buddha himself refuted the theistic argument that the universe was created by a self-conscious, personal God.
Many gods, but realize that they all come from Atman.
Life after death
Rebirth is one of the central beliefs of Buddhism. We are in an endless cycle of birth, death and re-birth, which can only be broken by attaining nirvana. Attaining nirvana is the only way to escape suffering permanently.
A constant cycle of reincarnation until enlightenment is reached.
Means of salvation
Reaching Enlightenment or Nirvana, following the Noble Eightfold Path.
Reaching enlightenment by the Path of Knowledge, the Path of devotion, or the Path of Good Deeds.
Marriage
It is not a religious duty to marry. Monks and nuns do not marry and are celibate. Advice in the Discourses on how to maintain a happy and harmonious marriage.
Man may marry one woman. However, kings in mythology often married more than one woman.
View of the Buddha
The highest teacher and the founder of Buddhism, the all-transcending sage.
Some Hindu sects claim Buddha was an avatar of Vishnu. Others believe he was a holy man.
Scriptures
Tripitaka - a vast canon composed of 3 sections: the Discourses, the Discipline and the Commentaries, and some early scriptures, such as the Gandhara texts.
Vedas, Upanishad, Puranas, Gita. Smrti and Sruti are oral scriptures.
Confessing sins
Sin is not a Buddhist concept.
Repentance for unintentional sins are prescribed, but intentional sins have to be repaid through karmic consequences.
Followers
Buddhists
Hindus.
Religious Law
The Dharma.
Dharma shastras
Original Language(s) Pali(Theravada tradition) and Sanskrit(Mahayana and Vajrayana tradition)
Sanskrit
Geographical distribution and predominance
(Majority or strong influence) Mainly in Thailand, Cambodia, Sri lanka, India, Nepal, Bhutan, Tibet, Japan, Myanmar (Burma), Laos, Vietnam, China, Mongolia, Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan. Other small minorities exist in other countries.
Mainly in India, Nepal and Mauritius. Has significant population in Fiji, Bhutan, UAE, etc.
Status of women
No distinctions between men and women. Women are equal to men, and men are equal to women in the Sangha. The Buddha gave Men and Women equal rights and a major part in the Sangha. Women can become priestesses or nuns.
Women are given equal rights as men. Population 500-600 million 1 Billion.
Symbols
The conch, endless knot, fish, lotus, parasol, vase, dharmachakra (Wheel of Dharma), and victory banner.
Om, Swastika, etc.
Principle
This life is suffering, and the only way to escape from this suffering is to dispel one's cravings and ignorance by realizing the Four Noble Truths and practicing the Eightfold Path.
To follow dharma, i.e. eternal laws
Religion which atheists may still be adherents of
Yes.
Charvakas and Sankyas are atheistic groups in Hinduism. Hinduism is the only religion which accepts atheism.
Views on Other Religions
Being a practical philosophy, Buddhism is neutral against other religions.
Some scriptures say the path they describe is the only path to God and salvation. Other scriptures are more philosophical than religious. Beliefs vary. Some believe that all spiritual paths lead to the same God.
Goal of Philosophy
To eliminate mental suffering.
Salvation, freedom from the cycle of birth and reincarnation.
View of other Dharmic religions
Since the word Dharma means doctrine, law, way, teaching, or discipline, other Dharmas are rejected.
They believe that Buddhists, Jains, & Sikhs should reunite with Hinduism (which is the original Dharmic religion).
Authority of Dalai Lama
Dalai Lamas are tulkus of the Gelug school of Tibetan Buddhism. They are cultural figures and are independent of the doctrinal basis of Buddhism.
N/A.
Holy days/Official Holidays
Vesak day in which the birth, the awakening, and the parinirvana of the Buddha is celebrated.
Diwali, Holi, Janmashtami, Ganesh Chaturthi, etc.
Time of origin
2,500 years ago, circa 563 B.C.E.
(Before Common Era) circa 3000 B.C.E
Can atheists partake in this religion's practices?
Yes.
Yes.
Place and Time of origin
The origin of Buddhism points to one man, Siddhartha Gautama, the historical Buddha, who was born in Lumbini (in present-day Nepal). He became enlightened at Bodhgaya, India and delivered his first set of teachings at a deer park in Sarnath, India.
Indian Subcontinent, beginning with the Vedic civilization circa 3000 BC
Status of Vedas
The Buddha rejected the 5 Vedas, according to the dialogues seen in the nikayas.
Vedas are generally regarded as sacred in Hinduism. Post-Vedic texts like the Gita are also revered.
____________________________________
While more modern BUDDHISM sees no higher being as GOD------HINDI with many GODS AND GODDESSES does see a ranking much as our ancient Greek and Roman gods and goddesses instead of a ZEUS they have KRISHNA with the primary religious text BHAGAVAD-GITA from which we discussed the RUSSIAN ORTHODOXY word for GOD being BOG (Bhag)
“It should be understood that all species of life, o son of Kunti, are made possible by birth in this material nature, and that I am the seed giving father” (Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-Gita 14.4)
“I hate no one. I am equal to all living beings…” (Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-Gita 9.29)
“…One who has no enemies among all living beings comes to me.” (Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-Gita 11.55)
“One who is compassionate to all living beings … – These are some of the qualities of those born with divine nature.” (Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-Gita 16.1-3)
What makes us feel pretty strongly MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE RELIGION will look like this ancient HINDI religion with its gods and goddesses tied to KINGS AND QUEENS----is the term GOD IS ONE-----THE UNIVERSALITY OF THIS RELIGION.
Below we see an article placing HINDI with our other world religions and we see many of our early 99% of religious movement beliefs now being enshrined in HINDI. Here is what we spent all week emphasizing as a public policy and religious talking point for REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVES----
God Does not Incite Hatred or Violence
The real God, Lord Krishna, is the father of all living beings and thus He loves all living beings and orders His true followers to be kind and loving to all living beings.
Just as we emphasize the ways in which our Jewish, Christian, Muslim early 99% of religions were corrupted by GLOBAL 1% KINGS AND QUEENS----we can assume the same for this ancient HINDI religion. So, we do not assume these tenets are actually what exist today in THREE INDIAS.
ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS.
So, we are seeing lots and lots of discussion and writings in current media making HINDI sound very much like our early 99% of religions in WESTERN HEMISPHERE.
God is One
Based on all the World religions, there is only one religion where God is actually completely described and known. In all other religions, God is not described, thus completely unknown. This is because God is One, and only those who follow His religion have the right to know Him.
Above is the God of the Bhagavad-Gita, Lord Krishna
Above is the God of Islam (unknown)Above is the God of the Bible (unknown)
As you can see above, God is One, Lord Krishna.
The Christians say ‘Jesus is the only way’. Thus the non-Christians go to hell.
The Muslims say ‘Islam is the only way’. Thus the non-Muslims go to hell.
The Vedic followers wish for all living beings to go to the kingdom of God. This is the result of following the religion created by God and not man, the real religion of mercy, peace, and love.
Before 2000 years ago, there was no such thing as the Bible or Jesus. So did the zillions of humans who lived for millions of years before Jesus, all went to hell through no fault of their own as they did not follow Jesus?
It’s impossible for Christianity to exist beyond this Planet. So do the zillions of living beings living on millions of other Planets all go to hell as they don’t follow Jesus?
Before 1400 years ago, there was no Islam, no Koran, no Muhammad. So did the zillions of humans who lived for millions of years before Islam, all went to hell as they did not follow Islam?
Islam is a one off religion created 1400 years ago on this planet only. Thus it’s impossible for Islam to exist beyond this Planet. So do the zillions of living beings living on millions of other Planets all go to hell as they don’t follow Islam?
The Vedic scriptures state that this is the smallest Universe and there are trillions of other Universes. Within each Universe there are numerous Planets with living beings. Just think how insignificant this tiny Planet is in God’s creation. And how insignificant are a group of people who have existed for a few hundred or few thousand years out of the trillions of years that humans have existed on this Planet.
“It should be understood that all species of life, o son of Kunti, are made possible by birth in this material nature, and that I am the seed giving father” (Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-Gita 14.4)
There is only one real person who states He is the father of all living beings, that person is Lord Krishna. Every second, God is creating the Hindus/Vedic followers. This is simple proof that God wants the Hindus to exist. Thus it’s dumb for Christians and Muslims to say their way is the only way. The existence of non-Christians and non-Muslims clearly proves that it’s Gods will that they exist. And God has been creating the Hindus for millions of years and the non-Hindus (Christians and Muslims) for less than 2000 years. Thus it’s God’s will that Hindus exist and God wants the Hindus to exist much more than the non-Hindus. This means that by the will of God, the Hindus have eternally existed and the non-Hindus are not eternal.
if you read the history books, you will know that except for the Hindus. No other race, religion or creed of people have existed for more than a few thousand years. But the Hindus have existed for millions of years. This is the will of God.
Thus it’s absolutely ludicrous for the Muslims and Christians to say their way is the only way.
The Koran is based on Muslims Verses Non-Muslims
“Slay the unbelievers wherever you catch them.” (Koran 2:191)
“I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their fingertips off them” (Koran 8:12)
God is the father of all living beings, God is the most responsible person. How can the most responsible father make these kind of statements?
What kind of a father would order some of his children to hate and behead their other brothers and sisters?
It’s God who is creating the variety of humans every second. If God didn’t like certain humans then why would he create them in the first place?
Those who have no faith in God see humans as believers and un-believers. The simple fact is that the above statements are made by a man who wants to control others and not by the most responsible person, God, who is in full control.
“Fight them, until there is no more dissent and religion is that of Allah” (Koran 2:193)
The existence of the non-Muslims clearly proves that the all mighty God very much wants the non-Islamic religions to exist. And the fact that the non-Muslims have existed for millions of years and the Muslims for only 1400 years, clearly proves that the all mighty God wants the non-Muslims to exist more so than the Muslims. It’s God’s will that Muslims are not eternal and non-Muslims are eternal. Every second the Jews, Hindus, Christians and others are being created by God by his will, thus the above statements cannot be made by God.
Who Are The Unbelievers?
“And whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers.” (Koran 3.85)
It’s God who is creating the Jews, Hindus, Christians and others every second and this is simple proof that God wants the various religions to exist. Freedom of religion is a basic human right which is given by God Himself and thus those who don’t allow freedom of religion everywhere in the World are the faithless. They have no faith in God as they are against the will of God, and thus they are the real enemies of God, the unbelievers.
The forefathers of all Muslims were followers of other religions for millions of years, and thus for the Muslims to think that their forefathers all went to hell as they did not follow a recently created religion (Islam) is evil mentality.
God Does not Incite Hatred or Violence
The real God, Lord Krishna, is the father of all living beings and thus He loves all living beings and orders His true followers to be kind and loving to all living beings.
“I hate no one. I am equal to all living beings…” (Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-Gita 9.29)
“…One who has no enemies among all living beings comes to me.” (Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-Gita 11.55)
“One who is compassionate to all living beings … – These are some of the qualities of those born with divine nature.” (Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-Gita 16.1-3)
God’s Scriptures are Eternal
According to the scientists this universe is at least 15 billion years old and the simple fact is that God already created his religion (Sanatan-Dharma – The Eternal Religion) at the beginning of creation and not 15 billion years after creation (1400 years ago). The Vedic scriptures state that the Vedic religion was re-established in the current cycle, when the Vedic knowledge was given to a person called Brahma, some 155.522 trillion years ago when this universe was created in the current cycle. The Vedic scriptures like the Bhagavad-Gita was first spoken on this planet some 155.522 trillion years ago and it has also been spoken on millions of other universes by Lord Krishna himself. Thus the position of religion and God was filed by Sanatan Dharma and Lord Krishna respectively, trillions of years ago and not recently.
“The whole cosmic order is under me. By my will it is manifested again and again, and by my will it is annihilated at the end” (Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-Gita 9.8)
“Furthermore, O Arjuna, I am the generating seed of all existences. There is no being, moving or unmoving, that can exist without me” (Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-Gita 10.39)
Trillions of years before Islam, Lord Krishna appeared, declared, and proved Himself to be the one and only God. Lord Krishna has appeared in His original form more than 18,000 times in the current cosmic cycle on this planet, and each time He clearly proved that He was God. He has also appeared in millions of other universes, this is how great the real God is.
“Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another. Whoever of you seeks their friendship shall become one of their numbers. Allah does not guide the wrong-doers.” (Koran 5:51)
The existence of Jews and Christians is proof that God very much wants them to exist. The all mighty God is in full control and thus every second he is creating the Jews, Hindus, Christians, and others by His own will.
The Muslims should have faith in God, who is creating the non-Muslims every second and has been doing so for millions of years. Thus it’s God’s will that non-Muslims exist and by the will of God, the non-Muslims will eternally exist.
The fact that humans have existed for millions of years and the Koran for only 1400 years is simple proof that the Koran cannot be the only way.
The fact that Islam is created by one man who appeared on this planet, is proof that it’s impossible for Islam to exist beyond this planet.
The Vedic scriptures state that there are millions of other planets with living beings. And none of the living beings on other planets can be Muslim, thus there is no Islam beyond this tiny planet.
The Koran forbids image worship, but it’s the all mighty God who wants to be worshiped in the image form. That’s why He has been creating those who worship Him in the image form for millions of years (the Hindus).
Muhammad was the Last Prophet of God?
Millions of prophets came before Muhammad and millions of prophets will come after Muhammad, as God is great and thus he sends unlimited prophets and not just one.
Just go to a science museum and you will see the bones of humans dating back to millions of years and thus it’s foolish to think that our forefathers all lived in ignorance as they did not follow recently created man made religions which have existed for less than 2000 years(Islam and Christianity). Also, how can they say Muhammad is the last prophet of God, when it’s impossible for Islam to exist beyond this planet. Is there no religion or God beyond this planet?
The Vedic scriptures state that there are millions of planets with living beings beyond this planet and only the Vedic scriptures can exist beyond this planet, as they are based on unlimited prophets. The Bhagavad-Gita has already been spoken by Lord Krishna in millions of universes. One of the main differences between Sanatan Dharma (The Eternal Religion) and the other religions which are based on one man, is that the followers of Sanatan Dharma (Hindus) have complete faith in God. We do not hate others and we understand that people have different mentalities and thus not everyone can understand everything.
The founder of Islam married more than 20 times after the age of 50. His marriages included marrying the 6 year old Aisha (his brother’s daughter) when he was 51. Women taken captive in war, including the 17 year old Safiyyah, when he was around 54 and the 20 year old Juwairiya, when he was around 58. He even married his son’s wife (daughter in law). He was also engaged in wars. If one thinks such a person is qualified to be called a prophet of God then it’s your choice. We have free will, which is given by God and so we are each responsible for our own actions (karma) for which we will suffer or enjoy in the future. God allows the variety of religions to exist, to satisfy the variety of mentalities that humans have. The recently created religions are based on one prophet, one planet, hatred of others, one off scriptures, and a few thousand years history at most.
The Vedic religion is based on unlimited prophets who are not lusty nor violent, millions of universes, love for all living beings, eternal scriptures, and trillions of years of history. This is the difference between man made and God made. The Muslims can become peaceful and full of love if they accept the will of God by living in harmony with all of God’s creation. The Jews,Christians, Hindus, others, and animals.
Despite so many merciless statements in the Koran, the compiler of the Koran finally cools down and admits there is only one God who is worshiped by the Muslims and the non-Muslims.
“We believe in that which has been revealed unto us and revealed unto you; our God and your God is One, and unto Him we surrender.” (Koran 29:46)
All humans should reject hatred, violence, and man made ideologies. Embrace love, peace, follow a God who is loving, responsible, not a bully, who is visible, and known eternally to man. That great all loving God is Lord Krishna.
“One who is not envious but is a kind friend to all living entities, who does not think himself a proprietor and is free from false ego, who is equal in both happiness and distress, who is tolerant, always satisfied, self-controlled, and engaged in devotional service with determination, his mind and intelligence fixed on Me — such a devotee of Mine is very dear to Me.” (Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-Gita 12.13-14)
The End is Near?
For 2000 years, the Christians have been saying the end of time is near and so we should become one of them, and the Muslims have also been saying the same thing and that’s why they say Muhammad was the last prophet. The less intelligent will buy this, as they have no knowledge, nor do they esquire. Those who are inquisitive, the real human beings, will not buy this. The fact that they cannot say exactly when the end will come is simple proof that they are only fooling themselves and the fools who follow them.
According to the scientists this planet has existed for at least 15 billion years and the Vedic scriptures state the age of this planet and universe to be 155.522 trillion years and this universe will be destroyed in 155.518 trillion years time. So whether you accept the authority of recently created scriptures which give incomplete information or the eternal Vedic scriptures which give complete information, the choice is yours.
The Bible is based on Christians Verses Non-Christians
“Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.” (Exodus 34.14)
Man can be jealous because man is not in control, but how can God be jealous?
“Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the LORD must be destroyed.” (Exodus 22:20)
“Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.” (Ephesians 6:5)
Would the all merciful and loving God order humans to be enslaved?
It can be seen from the above verses from the Bible that it’s based on us verses them. Thus these and other similar statements are the words of man and not God. It’s obvious that the above and other merciless statements in the Bible are man made concoctions and not from the all loving God.
Think how insignificant are a race of people who have existed for only 2000 years out of the billions of years that humans have existed on this Planet.
“Animals are food for humans” (Bible and Koran)
Why should the animals be food for the humans? The animals also eat, sleep, mate, defend and so what is the difference between the humans and animals? The humans have a soul and so do the animals. God is the father of all humans and also of the animals. So what kind of a father would order some of his children to eat their unfortunate brothers (the animals)?
The followers of the Bhagavad-Gita, consider all living beings to be brothers and sisters and thus do not kill and eat their unfortunate brothers and sisters (the animals). They are pure vegetarians.
“It should be understood that all species of life, o son of Kunti, are made possible by birth in this material nature, and that I am the seed giving father” (Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-Gita 14.4)
The Bhagavad-Gita is not based on Hindus Verses Non-Hindus
“I envy no one, nor am I partial to anyone. I am equal to all.” (Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-Gita 9.23)
“Nonviolence; freedom from anger; compassion for all living entities. These qualities belong to godly men endowed with divine nature.” (Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-Gita 16.1-3)
“Thus I have explained to you knowledge still more confidential. Deliberate on this fully, and then do what you wish to do.” (Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-Gita 18.63)
These are the beautiful words of God. He loves us all equally. Lord Krishna is not a bully, He does not incite hate, anger or violence towards any living being. God means the all-merciful, all loving person. Only Lord Krishna full fills these qualities. After speaking the Bhagavad-Gita to Arjuna, Lord Krishna gives Arjuna freedom to do whatever he wishes. Lord Krishna doesn’t tell Arjuna that he will go to hell or hell fire if he doesn’t follow him. Lord Krishna is the real God of love, mercy, and forgiveness.
The Bible is based on Christians verses Non-Christians, the Koran is based on Muslims verses non-Muslims. But the Bhagavad-Gita is not based on Hindus verses non-Hindus. There is no mention of Hindu or Hinduism in the Vedic scriptures including the Bhagavad-Gita. As God is the creator of all living beings and thus he does not discriminate between living beings.
The Bible and Koran are man made and thus it’s based on us verses them. The Bhagavad-Gita was spoken by God himself and written by God himself and thus it’s not based on us verses them. Lord Krishna states in the Bhagavad-Gita that he is equal to all living beings. This proves that he is the God of all living beings, the God of love and peace and he is in full control.
A father may have several children, only an evil father would tell some of his children to hate the others. Lord Krishna is the father of all living beings and thus He preaches that we should not even kill our unfortunate brothers and sisters, the animals (be vegetarian). The so-called God of the Bible and Koran orders the killing of animals and humans who don’t follow their religion. What kind of a father would order the killing of some of his children?
From the above statements and pictures, it can be seen and understood that there is only one known God, Lord Krishna. And Lord Krishna is not a bully or hater of anyone, He loves all His creatures including the Hindus, Christians, Muslims and the animals. Lord Krishna is most loving and caring, He doesn’t hate anyone. He is the God of love, the real God.
God Is Not Christian, Not Muslim, And Not Hindu. God Is for All Living Beings
It’s God who creates the Christians and it’s the same God who creates the Muslims, and the same God who creates the Hindus and others.At his own will. It’s God’s will that every second Christians, Muslims, Hindus, and others are born. Before 2000 years ago there was no Jesus, no Christianity, and no Islam. Did the zillions of humans who lived before 2000 years ago live in ignorance and went to hell, as they did not follow these religions, as they did not exist? Thus how can they say their way is the only way? It has been scientifically proven that Humans have existed for millions of years. The Hindus have existed for millions of years. The Christians have existed for 2000 years and the Muslims for 1400 years. This is proof that God created his religion millions of years ago and not just 2000 years ago or 1400 years ago. And he very much wants the Hindus to exist more so than the non-Hindus. Thus it’s ludicrous for the Christians and Muslims to say their way is the only way.
So Why Does God Allow Different Religions To Exist?
God created his religion at creation, trillions of years ago. But recently in the last few thousand years. Many religions have been created by man. Although God would like all humans to follow the religion created by Him (Sanatan Dharma). God allows the man made religions to exist due to the differing desires and mentality of humans.
“Those who are devotees of other gods and who worship them with faith actually worship only me, O son of Kunti, but they do so in a wrong way. I am the only enjoyer and master of all sacrifices. Therefore, those who do not recognize my true transcendental nature fall down” (Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-Gita 9.24)
Does everyone drive the same make and model of car? Does everyone like the same color clothes? Does everyone like the same food? The answer is No. People have differing tastes in cars, clothes, food, and beliefs (religion). To satisfy everyone, God allows different religions to exist.
Human life means freedom and thus God allows humans to create and practice whatever religions humans want. Even though the teachings may be against God’s will. However, when the humans become too degraded. God incarnates himself to again establish the correct principles of religion and to destroy the demonic.
“Whenever and wherever there is a decline in religious practice, O descendant of Bharata, and a predominant rise of irreligion-at that time I descend myself. To deliver the pious and to annihilate the miscreants, as well as to reestablish the principles of religion, I myself appear, millennium after millennium.” (Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-Gita 4.7-8)
What Determines The Religion A Person Is Born Into?
A person is born into a particular religion according to the mentality of the person (the soul) at the time of death.
A person who believes killing and eating animals pleases God and does not care to know God as a person who is completely described, has the mentality of a Muslim, thus the person (the soul) resides in a Muslim body. The Muslim mentality is that God is formless and thus can never be known. The Muslims follow Islam so they can go to heaven and enjoy women and wine.
“In them will be bashful virgins neither man nor Jinn will have touched before” (Koran 55.56)
“Here is a Parable of the Garden which the righteous are promised: in it are rivers of water incorruptible; rivers of milk of which the taste never changes; rivers of wine, a joy to those who drink” (Koran 47.15)
A person, who believes killing is totally wrong, has the body of a Hindu. The Hindu mentality is that if there is a God then I want to see him. It’s pointless to believe in something without proof. The Vaisnava sect of the Vedic religion go to the temple to worship God for no material desires, just to give love to God. They offer food to God (bogh)then eat the offered food (parsadam). The Hindus believe in giving love to Guru and God and not their sins or the blood of living beings.
A person who believes killing and eating animals is ok and he can sin, and the reactions will be taken on by God’s one and only son has the mentality of a Christian. The Christians go to the Church on Sunday and ask for their daily bread and to give their sins to Jesus. The Christians want to live in sin, so that Jesus can live in pain.
The Hindus offer food to God and then eat the remnants called parsadam, the Muslims slaughter animals in the name of God as they think this pleases him, and the Christians offer their sins to God.
At the time of judgment, a sinful Hindu says ‘I will pay for my own sins (karma)’. A sinful Christian says ‘I will let Jesus pay for my sins’. A Muslims says ‘regardless of the deeds (no karma), since I followed Islam I will go to heaven and enjoy wine and women as promised by Allah’.
These are some examples of the mentality of Christians, Muslims, and Hindus. The particular mentality of a person at death determines what his religion will be in his next human body. The mentality may change after birth, that’s why people change religions.
“According to one’s existence under the various modes of nature, one evolves a particular kind of faith. The living being is said to be of a particular faith according to the modes he has acquired.” (Bhagavad-Gita 17.3)
“The living entity in the material world carries his different conceptions of life from one body to another as the air carries aromas. Thus he takes one kind of body and again quits it to take another.” (Bhagavad-Gita 15.8)
The non-Vedic religions don’t preach the theory of karma and reincarnation. They believe everything happens by chance. Thus it’s just too bad if one is born diseased or suffers more than others. It’s by chance that one is born into a particular religion in his only life and so on. Those who have some intelligence will not buy this.
Anyone Who Surrenders Unto God Can Be Liberated
“When one’s intelligence, mind, faith and refuge are all fixed in the Supreme, then one becomes fully cleansed of misgivings through complete knowledge and thus proceeds straight on the path of liberation.” (Bhagavad-Gita. 5.17)
“By following his qualities of work, every man can become perfect.” (Bhagavad-Gita 18.45)
“By worship of the Lord, who is the source of all beings and who is all-pervading, man can, in the performance of his own duty, attain perfection.” (Bhagavad-Gita.18.46)
“One can understand the Supreme Personality as He is only by devotional service. And when one is in full consciousness of the Supreme Lord by such devotion, he can enter into the kingdom of God.” (Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-Gita 18.55)
How Can A Dog Go To The Kingdom Of God?
Every living being, including the plants and animals are souls covered in a particular material body. The plants and animals are on an evolutionary process of transmigration of the soul from one body to the next. Eventually they will get a human birth. Then if they surrender and engage in devotional service onto God, they will attain the kingdom of God at death. Those humans do not surrender and engage in devotional service onto God, will fall down in the animal kingdom at death.
_________________________________________________
What we know about these Asian nations tied to HINDI/BUDDHISM is that throughout these several decades of ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE empire-building and continuous wars-----these nations are no longer tied to this peace, love, and justice philosophy we now seeing describing HINDI. It has been as CORRUPTED as our Western religions.
As always our US global banking 1% freemason STARS opened the door to FADS MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE RELIGION here we see UBER-KINGS AND QUEENS Iron Butterfly -----with all that symbolism tied to HINDI/BUDDHIST religious philosophy.
If one cannot figure why this musical group titled a song that makes no sense---it is easy to see the BLENDING of sounds bringing together central themes of CHRISTIAN and HINDI-----as below IN A GADDA DA VIDA easily heard as IN THE GARDEN OF EDEN-----and sounding much like BHAGAVAD GITA.
We LOVE all our 99% of East Asia citizens and have no problems with a HINDI or BUDDHIST religious belief-----what we know in MOVING FORWARD US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES----with a few billion global labor new immigrants coming from these ASIAN nations is the religious text BHAGAVAD GITA will be a majority religion in US.
'The Butterfly is one of the significant symbols of Easter. Its whole life cycle is meant to symbolize the life of Jesus Christ. The first stage, is the caterpillar, which stands for His life on Earth. Second phase begins from the cocoon stage, portraying the crucifixion and burial of Jesus. The third and final stage is the butterfly, representing His raising from the dead in a glorified body and peace'.
'A commonly repeated story says that the song's title was originally "In the Garden of Eden" or "In the Garden of Venus" but in the course of rehearsing and recording singer Doug Ingle slurred the words into the nonsense phrase of the title while under the influence of LSD.
Another theory is that the misspelled words are actually Bhagavad Gita, which is the name of a sacred Hindu text.........'
Of course our new immigrant citizens coming from EASTERN HEMISPHERE involved in politics would be sworn into office on their choice of religious texts----as GABBARD chooses the BHAGAVAD-GITA.
Tulsi Gabbard, First Hindu Elected To Congress, Will Swear In On Bhagavad Gita
Discussion in 'Politics and News' started by Ausm, Nov 20, 2012'.
IRON BUTTERFLY - IN A GADDA DA VIDA
- 1968 (ORIGINAL FULL VERSION) CD SOUND & 3D VIDEO
youtube.com
Iron Butterfly – In-a-Gadda-Da-Vida
as written by and Douglas Ingle.
In a gadda da vida, honey
Don't you know that I'm lovin' you
In a gadda da vida, baby
Don't you know that I'll always be true
Oh, won't you come with me
And take my hand
Oh, won't you come with me
And walk this land
Please take my hand
In a gadda da vida, honey
Don't you know that I'm lovin' you
In a gadda da vida, baby
Don't you know that I'll always be true
Oh, won't you come with me
And take my hand
Oh, won't you come with me
And walk this land
Please take my hand
_____________________________________________
Here is the concern for US 99% WE THE PEOPLE having nothing to do with negative thoughts of our new Asian immigrants---but in fighting for what makes the US the world leader in freedom, liberty, justice, pursuit of happiness, equal rights under law and equal opportunity for 99% WE THE PEOPLE black, white, and brown citizens in a REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE FREE MARKET economy. We KNOW our 99% of Asian citizens being brought to US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES are not coming to be treated as they are in third world nations overseas----many tied to HINDI/BUDDHISM.
As we see below the nations most tied to HINDI/BUDDHISM are those we KNOW here in US as the most brutal, continuous wars, authoritarian, extreme wealth extreme poverty.
Now, the US is corrupted from its BEACON of LIBERTY these few decades of ROBBER BARON SACKING OF AMERICA being the source of continuous wars tied to global 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS. So, we know that is true of our Asian nations with their team global 1% creating these same conditions in those nations.
What REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVES want for both our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE and our new 99% immigrant citizens from these Asian nations----is to KEEP AND MAINTAIN THE GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES HAVING MADE US THAT BEACON while protecting religious freedoms for all citizens----through SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE,
(Majority or strong influence) Mainly in Thailand, Cambodia, Sri lanka, India, Nepal, Bhutan, Tibet, Japan, Myanmar (Burma), Laos, Vietnam, China, Mongolia, Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan. Other small minorities exist in other countries. Mainly in India, Nepal and Mauritius. Has significant population in Fiji, Bhutan, UAE, etc'.
There is NO ENLIGHTENMENT---NO PEACE, LOVE, AND TRANQUILITY happening in these ASIAN HINDI nations. Below we see almost all are tied to TRANS PACIFIC TRADE PACT---which is why their nations are tied to continuous wars and massive injustice with extreme wealth and extreme poverty having no attachment to those nations' HINDI RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES.
The very US public policy being installed in US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES tied to TRANS PACIFIC TRADE PACT ----is what has killed our US structures of governance giving US 99% WE THE PEOPLE that freedom, liberty, justice, pursuit of happiness, equal protection under law, opportunity and access to REAL free market for all 99% of citizens black, white, and brown citizens. Our 99% of global labor pool workers are being brought by enslavement and forced EX-PAT from sovereign nations to US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES----so none of this will carry REAL 99% HINDI RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES.
TPP member countries, their GDP, population numbers and value of exports as a percentage of GDP.MX among 11 nations in new trading bloc
Trans-Pacific Partnership 'stands behind open markets and trade liberalization'
Friday, March 9, 2018
Mexico was one of 11 Pacific Rim countries that formally entered into a revised trade pact in Chile yesterday that will slash tariffs between the participating nations.
The signing of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP11, contrasted sharply with United States President Donald Trump’s formal announcement that the U.S. is introducing tariffs on steel and aluminum imports.
Economy Secretary Ildefonso Guajardo represented Mexico in the signing ceremony in Santiago that was presided over by Chilean President Michelle Bachelet and attended by trade ministers from the member nations.
“Despite rising protectionism trends, what you have collectively achieved today constitutes a clear message that we stand behind open markets and trade liberalization,” the Chilean leader said.
Chilean Foreign Minister Heraldo Muñoz agreed, saying “we will be giving a very powerful signal against protectionist pressures, in favor of a world open to trade, without unilateral sanctions and without the threat of trade wars.”
The new trade bloc includes Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam.
The combined population of the countries exceeds 500 million people and together their economies account for 13% of global gross domestic product (GDP).
The agreement was originally conceived as a counterbalance to China’s increasing economic influence.
But President Trump withdrew the United States from the original TPP deal on his first day in office, a move that many thought would kill off the agreement.
But the remaining 11 countries decided to forge ahead regardless and there is a possibility that nations including the United Kingdom, South Korea, Taiwan and the Philippines could later join.
If the United States had remained in the agreement, the TPP would have accounted for around 40% of global GDP. U.S. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin has said that he is in discussions to consider rejoining the agreement.
The TPP11 will go into effect 60 days after six of the 11 member countries have ratified the agreement domestically.
In Mexico’s case, the text of the treaty will be sent to the federal Senate for analysis and approval.
The agreement creates the world’s third largest trade bloc after the European Union (EU) and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The latter is currently subject to a contentious — and slow — renegotiation process.
In a statement, the Economy Secretariat said that “Mexican products will have access to six new markets: Australia, Brunei, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore and Vietnam” as a result of the TPP11.
It also said that “it will enable Mexico to deepen its access to the agri-food market in Japan and consolidate preferential tariffs with Canada, Chile and Peru.”
News website Quartz said the TPP11 “creates more leverage for Mexico and Canada in trade negotiations with the U.S.”
The signing of the pact comes as some analysts say the U.S. government is using the introduction of tariffs as a negotiating ploy in ongoing NAFTA talks
Trump announced yesterday that Mexico and Canada will be initially exempt from its metal tariffs although the U.S. president appeared to indicate that getting a favorable outcome in an updated NAFTA deal was a condition of them being made permanent.
Uncertainty surrounding NAFTA has spurred Mexico into seeking new trade agreements and export markets.
It is currently negotiating an updated agreement with the EU that is reportedly close to conclusion. Names of cheeses and jalapeño and chipotle chiles have been among the obstacles that have held up the trade talks.
__________________________________________
We understand that our US global banking 1% CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA want to bring US to being far-right, authoritarian, militaristic, extreme wealth extreme power dictatorship LIBERTARIAN MARXISM as exists in these Asian nations today-----but that is not what our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE or our 99% new immigrant citizens to AMERICA ----want.
'Why not abandon secularism and become more religion-centered? The short answer is that theocratic states and states with established religions will only perpetuate intra- and interreligious domination'
For our 99% of new Asian immigrants being brought to US this is what REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVES are shouting in SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE freedom of religion that has been enshrined in our US laws and cultures for 300 years of sovereignty.
The issue is NOT whether Jewish, Christian, Muslim is better than BUDDHIST/HINDI-----the issue is PUBLIC POLICY tied to building a just society meeting the principles of ALL OF THESE RELIGIONS.
We will say this with some prejudice towards Christianity when it is NOT CORRUPTED----our Jewish and Muslim religious texts do not allow PUBLIC SPACE----ancient Greek democratic republican principles because they are tied so tightly to RELIGION AS STATE.
So, how do we integrate our new immigrants from EASTERN HEMISPHERE with those religions they believe and maintain our 99% WE THE PEOPLE as CITIZENS? We must fight to keep our US SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE which without coincidence CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA these few decades of ROBBER BARON fleecing of AMERICA HAS SIMPLY IGNORED----building instead CHURCH AS STATE.
'Two Objections Look at the state of the subcontinent! Look at India! How deeply divided it remains! What about the violence against Muslims in Gujarat and against Christians in Orissa? How can success be claimed for the Indian version of secularism'?
So, this very problem exists in public policy discussions in our ASIAN nations tied to HINDI-----this will be our next week's segue to public policy surrounding NATIONALISM of course being corrupted by ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT GLOBAL BANKING 1% WE ARE GOING TO GLOBAL CORPORATE FASCISM ----
Of course the CRISIS in SECULARISM has been created by the same global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS having created the CRISIS IN OUR RELIGIONS-----we have no crises if we GET RID OF GLOBAL BANKING 5% FREEMASON/GREEK players.
This article is long but please glance through to understand these policy discussions from our East Indian point of view.
States, religious diversity, and the crisis of secularism
Rajeev Bhargava 22 March 2011
In India, the existence of deep religious diversity has ensured a conceptual response not only to problems within but also between religions. Without taking it as a blue print, the west must examine the Indian conception and learn from it, regarding peace between communities, community-specific rights, the rights of minorities, the porous divide between the modern state and religion, and the skills to accommodate the latter. They might begin by jettisoning the preoccupation with ‘equal treatment’.
Over the last three decades, secular states, virtually everywhere, have come under strain. Hardly surprisingly, political secularism, the doctrine that defends them, has also been subjected to severe criticism. Some scholars have concluded that this critique is ethically and morally so profound and justified that it is time to abandon political secularism.
I reject this conclusion. I argue that the criticism of secularism looks unanswerable only because critics have focused on mainstream conceptions developed in largely religiously homogenous societies. It is time we shifted the focus away from doctrines underpinning some western secular states towards the normative practices of a wide variety of states, including the best practices of nonwestern states, such as India. Once we do this, we will begin to see secularism in a new light, as an ethical and moral perspective criticizing - not religion as such - but religious homogenization and institutional domination. Of all available alternatives, secularism remains our best bet to help us deal with ever deepening religious diversity and the problems endemic to it.
Is it a crisis across the board?
For a start, it is worth asking if secular states and their underlying ideology, political secularism, are really under siege everywhere. Secularism was severely jolted with the establishment of the first modern theocracy in 1979 in Iran. By the late 1980s, Islamic political movements had emerged in Egypt, Sudan, Algeria, Tunisia, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Chad, Senegal, Turkey, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and even in Bangladesh.
Movements challenging secular states were hardly restricted to Muslim societies. Protestant movements decrying secularism emerged in Kenya, Guatemala, and the Philippines. Protestant fundamentalism became a force in American politics. Singhalese Buddhist nationalists in Sri Lanka, Hindu nationalists in India, religious ultraorthodoxy in Israel, and Sikh nationalists in the state of Punjab in India, as well as among diasporic communities in Canada and Britain, began to question the separation of state and religion.
In short, western conceptions of political secularism do not appear to have translated all that well to other societies. What is surprising is that such conceptions and the secular states they underpin are coming under strain even in Europe where only some time back they were believed to be securely and firmly entrenched.
Why so?
It is true that substantive secularization of European societies has also brought in its wake extensive secularization of European states. Regardless of their religious affiliation, citizens have secured a large basket of civil and political rights unheard of in religion-centered states, past or present. But still, two problems remain.
First, migration from former colonies and an intensified globalization has thrown together in western public spaces pre-Christian faiths, Christianity, and Islam. The cumulative result is unprecedented religious diversity, the weakening of the public monopoly of single religions, and the generation of mutual suspicion, distrust, hostility, and conflict. This is evident in Germany and Britain but was dramatically highlighted by the headscarf issue in France and the murder of filmmaker Theo Van Gogh in the Netherlands, shortly after the release of his controversial film about Islamic culture.[iv]
Second, despite substantial secularization, the formal establishment of the dominant religion does little to bolster better intercommunity relations or reduce religious discrimination in several European states. As it turns out, the widespread belief in a secular European public sphere is a myth. The religious biases of European states have become increasingly visible with deepening religious diversity. European states have continued to privilege Christianity in one form or another. They have publicly funded religious schools, maintained real estates of churches and clerical salaries, facilitated the control by churches of cemeteries, and trained the clergy. In short, there has been no impartiality within the domain of religion, and despite formal equality, this continues to have a far-reaching impact on the rest of society.
To repeat, the crisis of secular states in Europe is due in part to the fact that the secular humanist ethos endorsed by many European citizens is not fully shared, particularly by those who have newly acquired citizenship. Any further secularization along secular humanist lines is not likely to resolve the crisis of European secular states. Also, many of these states have formally or informally established religions, and establishment of a single religion, even of the weaker variety, is part of the problem not the solution.
Why not abandon secularism and become more religion-centered?
The short answer is that theocratic states and states with established religions will only perpetuate intra- and interreligious domination. They have historically recognized a particular version of the religion enunciated by a church as the official religion, compelled individuals to congregate for only one church, punished them for failing to profess a particular set of religious beliefs, levied taxes in support of one particular church, and made instruction of the favoured interpretation of the religion in educational institutions mandatory. In such cases, not only was there inequality among religions (Christians and Jews) but also among churches of the same religion. Societies with such states are either wracked by interreligious or inter-denominational wars or by persecuted minority religious groups.
States with substantive establishments have not changed with time: just consider Saudi Arabia. Or consider Pakistan where the virtual establishment of the dominant Sunni sect has proved to be disastrous, even to Muslim minorities. For example, Ahmedis have been deemed a non-Muslim minority and are therefore convicted for calling themselves Muslims or using the word ‘mosque’ to designate their place of worship. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are clear illustrations of this, but the result would surely be the same if a Hindu state was established in India. This would be a threat to religious minorities but also to the plural and tolerant character of Hinduism itself and therefore to a large number of practicing Hindus. The ‘democratic’ state of Israel suffers from exactly the same problem. Once it was declared a Jewish state, it could not but exclude from its full scheme of rights and benefits its own Arab citizens, let alone other Palestinians.
Moreover to some extent this is also true, as mentioned above, of many European states with formally established religion. What, in the face of this imbroglio, are European states to do? Those reflecting on this crisis have at least four conceptions of secularism staring back at them. The four conceptions flow from the different ways in which the metaphor of separation is unpacked, the levels at which separation is sought, and the manner in which ends are conceived. The first of these conceptions is thoroughly amoral and unethical because it separates religion from the state precisely because of the ethical or moral restrictions that religions place on its ends (wealth, power). These amoral secular states are inconsistent with the self-organization and self-understanding of most European states, at least to the extent that they appear to have forsaken their imperial pretensions.
A tale of two mainstream western secularisms: part of the problem
The dominant self-understanding of western secularism is that it is a universal doctrine requiring the strict separation (exclusion) of church/religion and state for the sake of individualistically conceived moral or ethical values. This dominant self-understanding takes two forms, one inspired by an idealized version of the American model of separation and the other by the equally idealized French model. Can European states be reinvigorated by these two forms of western secularism? Can they then deal better with the new reality of the vibrant presence of multiple religions in public life and the accompanying social tensions? In what follows I argue that available mainstream conceptions of western secularism are likely to meet neither the challenge of the vibrant public presence of religion nor of increasing religious diversity.
Take first the idealized French conception. In this conception, the state must be separated from religion but the state retains the power to interfere in religion. However, religion is divested of any power to intervene in matters of state. In short, separation means one-sided exclusion. The state may interfere in religion to hinder or suppress it, or even to help religion, but in all cases only to ensure its control over religion. Religion becomes an object of law and public policy but only in terms of the state. This conception which arose in response to the excessive domination of the Catholic Church in France, encourages an active disrespect for religion, and is concerned solely with preventing the religious order from dominating the secular. It hopes to deal with institutionalized religious domination by taming and marginalizing religion altogether. This may help states to deal with aspects of intrareligious domination when, for example, some members of a religious community dominate members of their own religion (e.g.anticlericalism in France). However, it has few resources to properly address interreligious domination, when members of one religious community discriminate against, marginalize, or even oppress members of another religious community.
This is because issues of radical individual freedom and citizenship equality only arose in European societies after religious homogenization had been established. The birth of confessional states was accompanied by massive expulsion of subject-communities whose faith differed from the religion of the ruler. Such states gradually found some place for toleration in their moral space, but as is well known, toleration was consistent with deep inequalities and with humiliating, marginalized, and virtually invisible existences. The liberal-democratization and consequent secularization of many European states has helped citizens with non-Christian faiths to acquire most formal rights. But such a scheme of rights neither embodies a regime of interreligious equality nor effectively prevents religion-based discrimination and exclusion. Indeed, it serves to mask majoritarian, ethno-religious biases.
These biases are evident in the many different kinds of difficulties faced by Muslims today. For example, in Britain a third of all primary school children are educated by religious communities, yet applications for state funding by Muslims are frequently turned down. At one point, there were only 2 Muslim schools compared to 2,000 run by Roman Catholics and 4,700 by the Church of England.[ix] Similar problems persist in other European countries.[x] This is also manifest in the failure of many western European states to deal with the issue of headscarves (France), demands by Muslims to build mosques and therefore to properly practice their own faith (Germany, Italy), or to have proper burial grounds of their own (Denmark). In recent times, as Islamophobia grips the imagination of several western societies (exemplified by the cartoon controversy in Denmark), it is very likely that their Muslim citizens will continue to face disadvantages only on account of their membership of their religious community.
Some sections of European societies, both on the Right and the Left, are tempted to follow the French model largely because they have bought into the view that ‘Islam is a problem’ and that the only way to exorcise the devil is to use the coercive power of the state. But this would be ultimately self-defeating because it leaves formal and informal establishments of Christianity in these societies untouched. Besides, every attempt to further intervene in religions is likely to meet with resistance not only from Muslims but from non-Muslims too. Any reliance on this model is likely to exacerbate problems.
Can such European states then turn to the idealized American model?
The idealized American self-understanding interprets separation to mean mutual exclusion. Neither the state nor religion is meant to interfere in the domain of the other. This mutual exclusion is believed necessary to resolve conflicts between different Christian denominations, to grant some measure of equality between them, but most crucially to provide individuals with the freedom to set up and maintain their own religious associations. Mutual exclusion is believed necessary for religious liberty and for the more general liberties of individuals. This strict or ‘perfect separation’, as James Madison termed it, must take place at each of the three distinct levels of (a) ends, (b) institutions and personnel, and (c) law and public policy. Levels (a) and (b) make the state non-theocratic and disestablish religion. Level (c) ensures that the state has neither a positive relationship with religion - for example there should be no policy of granting aid even non-preferentially to religious institutions - nor a negative relationship with it; it is not within the scope of state activity to interfere in religious matters even when some of the values (such as equality) professed by the state are violated within the religious domain. The Congress simply has no power to legislate on any matter pertaining to religion.
This non-interference is justified on the grounds that religion is a privileged, private (non-state) matter, and if something is amiss within this private domain, it can be mended only by those who have a right to do so within that sphere. This, according to proponents of this view, is what religious freedom means. Thus, the freedom that justifies mutual exclusion is negative liberty and is closely enmeshed with the privatization of religion.
In my view, this model of secularism encourages the state to have passive respect for religion. Idealized American secularism has some resources to fight interreligious domination (for instance, it necessitates the disestablishment of the dominant religion) but not to wage a struggle against other aspects of the same or against intrareligious dominations. Because the state is unable to facilitate freedoms or equality within religions, it forces people to exit from their religion rather than to press for intrareligious equality.
Both forms of western secularism have persistent difficulties in coping with community-oriented religions such as Roman Catholicism, Islam, and some forms of Hinduism and Sikhism that demand greater public presence and even official recognition for themselves - particularly when they all begin to cohabit in the same society. They were simply not designed for societies with deep religious diversity. Both of these versions developed in the context of a single-religion society and to solve the problems of one religion, namely Christianity. Both understand separation as exclusion and attempt to make individualistically conceived values - individual liberty or equality between individuals or both - the grounds for separation. Because of their diversity-resistant character and individualistic character, both these forms of western secularism have become part of the problem.
An Indian model of secularism
Are we then caught between ideologies that legitimate religious domination of the secular and forms of secularisms that are unable to prevent forms of intra-religious or inter-religious domination? I believe not. It is possible to get out of this impasse because, although theoretically less developed and less bruited abroad, there exists another model of secularism, one not generated exclusively in the west, which meets the needs of societies with deep religious diversity and also complies with principles of freedom and equality: the subcontinental or Indian model found loosely in the best moments of intercommunal practice in India and in the country’s constitution appropriately interpreted.
In India, the existence of deep religious diversity has ensured a conceptual response not only to problems within religions but also between religions. Without taking it as a blue print, the west must examine the Indian conception and possibly learn from it.
Several features of the Indian model are striking and relevant to a wider discussion. First, multiple religions are not extras, added on as an afterthought but they are present at its inception, part of its foundation concept. Indian secularism is inextricably tied to deep religious diversity. Second, it has a commitment to multiple values - liberty and equality, not conceived narrowly as pertaining to individuals but interpreted broadly to cover the relative autonomy of religious communities and the equality of their status in society, as well as other more basic values such as peace and toleration between communities. It has a place not only for the right of individuals to profess their religious beliefs but also for the right of religious communities to establish and maintain educational institutions crucial for the survival and sustenance of their distinctive religious traditions.
The acceptance of community-specific rights brings us to the third feature of Indian secularism. Because it was born in a deeply multi-religious society, it is concerned as much with interreligious domination as it is with intra-religious domination. Unlike the two western conceptions, which provided benefits to minorities only incidentally (Jews benefited in some European countries such as France not because their special needs and demands were taken care of but rather because of a change in the general climate of the society), in India, even community-specific political rights (political reservations for religious minorities) were almost granted and were withheld in the last instance only for contextual reasons. In fact, it is arguable that a conceptual space is still available for them within the Indian constitution.
Fourth, it does not erect a wall of separation between state and religion. There are boundaries, of course, but they are porous. This allows the state to intervene in religions, to help or hinder them without the impulse to control or destroy them. This involves multiple roles: granting aid to educational institutions of religious communities on a non-preferential basis; or interfering in socio-religious institutions that deny equal dignity and status to members of their own religion and to those of others (for example, the ban on untouchability and the obligation to allow everyone, irrespective of their caste, to enter Hindu temples, whilst potentially correcting gender inequalities), on the basis of a more sensible understanding of equal concern and respect for all individuals and groups. In short, it interprets separation to mean not strict exclusion or strict neutrality but rather what I call ‘principled distance’, poles apart from one-sided exclusion, mutual exclusion, and strict neutrality or equidistance.
Fifthly, it is not entirely averse to the public character of religions. Although the state is not identified with a particular religion or with religion more generally (there is no establishment of religion), there is official and therefore public recognition granted to religious communities.
Sixthly, this model shows that we do not have to choose between active hostility and passive indifference towards religion, or between disrespectful hostility and respectful indifference. We can combine the two: have the necessary hostility as long as there is also active respect. The state may intervene to inhibit some practices, so long as it shows respect for other practices of the religious community and does so by publicly lending support to them.
Seventh, by not fixing its commitment from the start exclusively to individual or community values or marking rigid boundaries between the public and private, India’s constitutional secularism allows decisions on these matters to be taken either within the open dynamics of democratic politics or by contextual reasoning in the courts.
Finally, this commitment to multiple values and principled distance means that the state tries to balance different, ambiguous but equally important values. This makes its secular ideal more like a contextual, ethically sensitive, politically negotiated arrangement (which it really is), rather than a scientific doctrine as conjured up by ideologues and merely implemented by political agents.
A somewhat forced, formulaic articulation of Indian secularism goes something like this. The state must keep a principled distance from all public or private, individual-oriented or community-oriented religious institutions for the sake of the equally significant (and sometimes conflicting) values of peace, this-worldly goods, dignity, liberty, and equality (in all its complicated individualistic or non-individualistic versions). Indian secularism then is an ethically sensitive, negotiated settlement between diverse groups and divergent values. This model thus embodies what I call ‘contextual secularism’. Allow me to elaborate on two features mentioned above: namely ‘principled distance’ and ‘contextual secularism’.
Principled Distance
As seen above, for mainstream western secularism, separation means mutual or one-sided exclusion. The idea of principled distance unpacks the metaphor of separation differently. It accepts a disconnection between state and religion at the level of ends and institutions but does not make a fetish of it at the third level of policy and law (this distinguishes it from all other models of secularism, moral and amoral, that disconnect state and religion at this third level). How else can it be in a society where religion frames some of its deepest interests? Recall that political secularism is an ethic whose concerns relating to religion are similar to theories that oppose unjust restrictions on freedom, morally indefensible inequalities, and intercommunal domination and exploitation. Yet a secularism based on principled distance is not committed to the mainstream Enlightenment idea of religion. It accepts that humans have an interest in relating to something beyond themselves including God and that this manifests itself as individual belief and feeling as well as social practice in the public domain. It also accepts that religion is a cumulative tradition, as well as a source of people’s identities. But it insists that even if it turned out that one religion was true and others false, this would not give the “true” doctrine or religion the right to force it down the throats of others who did not believe it. Nor does it give a ground for discrimination in the equal distribution of liberties and other valuable resources.
Similarly, a secularism based on principled distance accepts that religion may not have special public significance antecedently written into and defining the very character of the state or the nation. But it does not follow from this that it has no public significance at all. Sometimes, on some versions of it, the wall of separation thesis assumes precisely this: that as long as religion is publicly significant, a democratic state simply has to take it into account. Indeed, institutions of religion may influence individuals as long as they do so through the same process, by access to the same resources, as anyone else or any other institution, and without undue advantage or unduly exploiting the fears and vulnerabilities that frequently accompany people in their experience of the religious.
But what precisely in practice does principled distance look like?
The policy of principled distance entails a flexible approach on the question of inclusion/exclusion of religion and the engagement/disengagement of the state, which at the level of law and policy depends on the context, nature, or current condition of relevant religions. This engagement must be governed by principles undergirding a secular state, that is, principles that flow from a commitment to the values mentioned above. This means that religion may intervene in the affairs of the state only if such intervention promotes freedom, equality, or any other value integral to secularism. For example, citizens may support a coercive law of the state grounded purely in a religious rationale if this law is compatible with freedom or equality. Equally, the state may engage with religion or disengage from it, engage positively or negatively, but it does so depending entirely on whether or not these values are promoted or undermined.
A state that intervenes or refrains from interference on this basis keeps a principled distance from all religions. This is one constitutive idea of principled distance. This idea is different from strict neutrality, that is, the idea that the state may help or hinder all religions to an equal degree and in the same manner, but that if it intervenes in one religion, it must also do so in others. Rather, it rests upon a distinction explicitly drawn by the American philosopher Ronald Dworkin between equal treatment and treating everyone as an equal.
The principle of equal treatment, in the relevant political sense, requires that the state treat all its citizens equally in the relevant respect, for example, in the distribution of a resource or opportunity. On the other hand, the principle of treating people as equals entails that every person or group is treated with equal concern and respect. This second principle may sometimes require equal treatment, say equal distribution of resources, but it may also dictate unequal treatment. Treating people or groups as equals is entirely consistent with differential treatment. This idea is the second ingredient in what I have called principled distance.
I have maintained that principled distance allows for differential treatment. What kind of treatment do I have in mind? First, religious groups have sought exemptions from practices in which states intervene by promulgating a law to be applied neutrally to the rest of society. This demand for noninterference is made on the ground either that the law requires them to do things not permitted by their religion or prevents them from doing acts mandated by it. For example, Sikhs demand exemptions from mandatory helmet laws and from police dress codes, in order to accommodate religiously-required turbans. Elsewhere, Jews seek exemptions from Air Force regulations to accommodate their yarmulkes. Muslim women and girls demand that the state not interfere in their religiously-required chador. Jews and Muslims seek exemption from Sunday closing laws on the ground that this is not required by their religion. Principled distance allows that a practice that is banned or regulated in one culture may be permitted in the minority culture because of the distinctive status and meaning it has for its members.
For many republican or liberal theories, this is a problem because of their simple, somewhat absolutist morality that gives overwhelming importance to one value, particularly to equal treatment or equal liberty. Religious groups may demand that the state refrain from interference in their practices, but they may equally demand that the state interfere in such a way as to give them special assistance so that these groups are also able to secure what other groups are able to routinely procure by virtue of their social dominance in the political community. It may grant authority to religious officials to perform legally binding marriages, to have their own rules or methods of obtaining a divorce, its rules about relations between ex-husbands and ex-wives, its way of defining a will, or its laws about postmortem allocation of property, arbitration of civil disputes, and even its method of establishing property rights. Principled distance allows the possibility of such policies on the grounds that it might be unfair to hold people accountable to an unfair law.
However, principled distance is not just a recipe for differential treatment in the form of special exemptions. It may even require state intervention in some religions more than in others, considering the historical and social conditions of all relevant religions. This may allow the state to do exactly the opposite of what is mentioned above, i.e. to intervene in a community's rules on marriage, divorce, maintenance, property rights and so on. Indeed, for the promotion of a particular value constitutive of secularism, some religions, relative to other religions, may require more interference from the state. For example, suppose that the value to be advanced is social equality. This requires in part undermining caste hierarchies. If this is the aim of the state, then it may be required of the state that it interferes in caste-ridden Hinduism much more than say Islam or Christianity. However, if a diversity-driven religious liberty is the value to be advanced by the state, then it may have to intervene in Christianity and Islam more than in Hinduism. If this is so, the state can neither strictly exclude considerations emanating from religion nor keep strict neutrality with respect to religion. It cannot antecedently decide that it will always refrain from interfering in religions or that it will interfere in each equally. Indeed, it may not relate to every religion in society in exactly the same way or intervene in each religion to the same degree or in the same manner. To want to do so would be plainly absurd. All it must ensure is that the relationship between the state and religions is guided by nonsectarian motives consistent with some values and principles. A state interfering in one religion more than in others does not automatically depart from secularism. Indian secularism rejects the assumption that ‘one size fits all’.
Contextual Secularism
Contextual secularism is contextual not only because it captures the idea that the precise form and content of secularism will vary from one context to another and from place to place but also because it embodies a certain model of contextual moral reasoning.
It does this because of its character as a multivalue doctrine and by virtue of its commitment to principled distance. To accept that secularism is a multivalue doctrine is to acknowledge that its constitutive values do not always sit easily with one another. On the contrary, they are frequently in conflict. Some degree of internal discord and therefore a fair amount of instability is an integral part of contextual secularism. For this reason, it forever requires fresh interpretations, contextual judgments, and attempts at reconciliation and compromise. This contextual secularism recognizes that the conflict between individual rights and group rights or between claims of equality and liberty or between claims of liberty and the satisfaction of basic needs cannot always be adjudicated by recourse to some general and abstract principle. Rather they can only be settled case by case and may require a fine balancing of competing claims. The eventual outcome may not be wholly satisfactory to either but still be reasonably satisfactory to both. Multivalue doctrines such as secularism encourage accommodation - not the giving up of one value for the sake of another but rather their reconciliation and possible harmonization, that is, to make each work without changing the basic content of apparently incompatible concepts and values.
This endeavor to make concepts, viewpoints, and values work simultaneously does not amount to a morally objectionable compromise. Nothing of importance is being given up for the sake of a less significant thing, something without value or even with negative value. Rather, what is pursued is a mutually agreed middle way that combines elements from two or more equally valuable entities. The roots of such attempts at reconciliation and accommodation lie in a lack of dogmatism, in a willingness to experiment, to think at different levels and in separate spheres, and in a readiness to take decisions on a provisional basis. This captures a way of thinking characterized by the following dictum: “why look at things in terms of this or that, why not try to have both this and that.” In this way of thinking, it is recognized that though currently we may be unable to secure the best of both values and therefore be forced to settle for a watered-down version of each, we must continue to have an abiding commitment to search for a way to transcend this second-best condition.
It is frequently argued against Indian secularism that it is contradictory because it tries to bring together individual and community rights, and that articles in the Indian Constitution that have a bearing on the secular nature of the Indian state are deeply conflictual and at best ambiguous. This is to confuse a virtue with a vice. In my view, this attempt to bring together seemingly incompatible values is one of the great strengths of Indian secularism.
Discerning students of western secularism may now begin to find something familiar in this ideal. But then, Indian secularism has not dropped fully formed from the sky. It is not sui generis. It shares a history with the west. In part, it has learned from and built on it. Indian secularism may be seen as a route to retrieving the rich history of western secularism - forgotten, neglected, or frequently obscured by the formula of strict separation. Once this is recognized for what it is, western societies can find reflected in it not only a compressed version of their own history but also a vision of their future.
Two Objections
Look at the state of the subcontinent! Look at India! How deeply divided it remains! What about the violence against Muslims in Gujarat and against Christians in Orissa? How can success be claimed for the Indian version of secularism? This is the first of two objections that might well arise on reading my argument. I do not wish to underestimate the force of this objection. The secular ideal in India is in periodic crisis and is deeply contested. Indeed, at the best of times, it generates as many problems as it solves.
But it should not be forgotten that a secular state was set up in India despite the massacre and displacement of millions of people on ethno-religious grounds, and that it has survived in a continuing context in which ethnic nationalism remains dominant throughout the world. Moreover, it was set up to deal with the tensions continuously generated by deep religious diversity, not to offer ‘a final solution’ by expulsion or liquidation of all but the dominant religious group. Regardless of what they did in the past, would it not be described as fair to expect that European and North American states will not allow any attempt at ‘ethnic cleansing’ on their soil today?
Practitioners of Indian secularism can learn from the institutional mechanisms set up by European states to prevent intergroup violence: some facets of the institutional basis of Indian secularism can be strengthened by the example of western states. To consolidate its minimally decent character, India can still learn from the contemporary west. Yet, as different religious cultures claim their place in societies across the world, it may be India’s development of secularism that offers the most peaceful, freedom-sensitive, and democratic way forward. In any case, this account must not be read as an apologia for the Indian state but as a reasonable and sympathetic articulation of a conception that the Indian state frequently fails tolive up to. This is why my discussion focuses on the comparative value of this conception and its potential for the future, not on how it in fact has fared in India. The fate of ideal conceptions with transcultural potential should not be decided purely on the basis of what happens to them in their place of origin.
Secondly, some may object that I do not focus on the best practices of western states and privilege the more vocal articulations of western secular conceptions. But that precisely is my point. The dominant conception of western secularism is derived from an idealized self-understanding of two of its versions rather than from the best practices of western states, including the practices of the US and France. It is my view that this doctrinal conception (a) obstructs an understanding of alternative conceptions worked out on the ground by morally sensitive political agents; and (b) that by influencing politicians and citizens alike, it frequently distorts the practice of many western and nonwestern states. Further, (c) it masks the many ways in which inter- or intra-religious domination persists in many western societies. Moreover, it is this conception that has travelled to all parts of the world and is a continuing source of misunderstanding of the value of secular states. My objective is to displace these conceptions, or at least to put them in their place.
Conclusion
I hope to have demonstrated that there are at least two broad conceptions of secularism, one mainstream western (the American and the French) and the other which provides an alternative to it and is embodied in the Indian model.
Of these, the Indian conception has better ethical and moral potential to deal with deep religious diversity. I do not wish to suggest that this alternative model is found only in India. The Indian case is meant to show that such an alternative exists. It is not meant to resurrect a dichotomy between the west and the east. As I have mentioned, I am quite certain that this alternative version is embedded in the best practices of many states, including those western states that are deeply enamoured of mainstream conceptions of political secularism. My objective in this essay is to draw attention to the frequent inability of ethical and political theorists to see the normative potential in the secular practices of these different states because they are obsessed with the normative value of mainstream conceptions. Western states need to improve the understanding of their own secular practices, just as western secularism needs a better theoretical self-understanding. Rather than get stuck on models they developed at a particular point in their history, they would do well to more carefully examine the normative potential in their own political practices, or to learn from the original Indian variant.
____________________________________________
While HOLLYWOOD and global banking 1% freemason STARS sold the FAD to recruit those 5% freemason/Greeks to be ROBBER BARON 5% lying, cheating, stealing no morals and ethics, no RULE OF LAW, no GOD'S NATURAL LAW CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA far-right wing neo-liberal/neo-con nihilists-------the goal was never GOING ARABIC----
As we discussed under global population public policy NEW WORLD ORDER will shift billions of global 99% of citizens to ARABIA----AFRICA----THE AMERICAs ----but the goal is leaving these DARK CONTINENTS uninhabitable----no ability to attain fresh water, grow food, have access to natural resources---AND no world region is closest to that then our desert ARABIA----and soon to be DUST BOWL AFRICA.
This is why a distinction is being made by global banking 1% when discussing ONE WORLD ONE RELIGION goals.....what is GREEK ORTHODOXY part of what is called EASTERN CHURCH ORTHODOXY will NOT be part of the FLIPPING OF EARTH'S ECONOMIC AXIS---it will be RUSSIAN ORTHODOXY with wealth and power going to EASTERN EUROPE/EASTERN ASIAN nations.
WALK LIKE AN EGYPTIAN OVERTAKEN BY STAIRWAY TO HEAVEN 'IN A GADDA DA VIDA'
Here we see REAGAN ERA 1986 calling all 5% FREEMASON/GREEKS-------who now being thrown under the bus simply say WE DON'T CARE WE ARE LIVING FOR TODAY
"Walk Like an Egyptian" is a song made famous by American band The Bangles. It was released in 1986 as the third single from the album Different Light'
THE DARK CONTINENTS in MOVING FORWARD will be the AMERICAS---AFRICA---WESTERN EUROPE----ARABIA.
The Bangles - Walk Like an Egyptian
The Bangles' official music video for 'In Your Room'. Click to listen to The Bangles on Spotify: http://smarturl.it/TheBanglesSpotify?I…
youtube.com
So, the GORILLA-IN-THE-ROOM issue for all our US and global labor pool 99% from Asia is the same----global banking 1% are stacking 5% freemason/Greek players from these Asian nations recruited because they DON'T CARE LIVING FOR TODAY killing our 99% of citizens wanting to build wealth and stability for children and grandchildren.
Is India the only secular country in the world?
V J Seddon, former Work in UK, India, Hong Kong, Poland, Czech, Oman. (1967-2013)
Updated Oct 28 2017
Originally Answered:
Is India a secular country?
India is a secular country but only by its own definition of the word. It is taken to mean that all religions are allowed and protected.
In the rest of the world, secular means that religion is not permitted any influence in politics, government, public policy, social structures or employment.
India is not like that. There are religious parties in Parliament, religious selection for employees and students and professionals, religious schools, religious districts or ghettos, religious stores which will or will not sell certain goods. And now it is illegal to sell beef in India because it offends Hindu religious sensibilities: a clear imposition of a religious regime on all citizens. Beef is part of the staple diet for Christians, Muslims and. Chinese-ethnic people; but now they've been told by Hindu extremists they can't eat their traditional food.
From the viewpoint of an international traveller and academic, India doesn't feel secular at all. It feels like a country that is weaving a precarious path through conflicting religious requirements and limitations: and becoming increasingly Hindu-centric. That is not secular by any definition.
The other part of the Constitution defines India as a socialist republic and that is even more contentious and confusing. But let another Quoran ask that question.
So, we look to EASTERN RELIGIONS to see RUSSIAN ORTHODOXY and Asian HINDI. We hear the mantra by global banking 1% even the pope of ONE WORLD ONE RELIGION---it is easy peasy to see the blending of RUSSIAN ORTHODOXY and ASIAN HINDI to return to what was PAGAN GODS AND GODDESSES both of WESTERN AND EASTERN ancient pagan religions. It fits nicely into our global 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS freemasonry/Greeks busy SACKING AND LOOTING our American civilized society.
Just briefly touching on BUDDHISM----as it was created at the same time our other more modern religions having that PROPHET ----again coming from a rich family----being called BUDDHA. BUDDHA has an origin much as MUHAMMAD----with structures tying royalty to creation of that MOSAIC LAW unique to the Asian continent. BUDDHA wrote societal law for its followers a CODE OF CONDUCT resembling MOSAIC LAW for Jewish followers----SHARIAH LAW for Islamic followers---and our CHRISTIAN GREEK DEMOCRATIC principles separate from CHURCH AND STATE. Our JEWISH, CHRISTIAN, MUSLIM early religions broke from ancient pagan gods and goddesses.
BUDDHISM is the CODE OF CONDUCT with BUDDHA as PROPHET breaking from ancient HINDI religion of many gods and goddesses.
'Prince Siddhartha)
The delivery took place on the fifth month of Vesakha, on a full moon day in 623 BC. We call it Vesak or Buddha Day. Queen Maha Maya then returned to the palace with her baby prince. King Suddhodana was very joyful and celebrated the birth of the baby with his people all over the country.
Throughout the third era of BCE, Buddhism was spread by Ashoka(BCE 270 - BCE 232), the third and the most authoritative Mauryan emperor, who created the first pan-Indian empire. After the battle of Kalinga, Ashoka felt enormous heartache due to the huge loss of lives during the war and thus decided to follow the path of Buddhism. After this, he began to apply Buddhist principles in the government of his kingdom and named the new code of conduct 'Dhamma'.
Since the US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES are MOVING FORWARD to be filled with a few billion of global labor pool immigrants from EASTERN HEMISPHERE----all US 99% of WE THE PEOPLE should educate as to these religious beliefs and how they effect PUBLIC POLICY.
If our 99% of US citizens black, white, and brown citizens simply throw their hands up and feel threatened and resentful ----all 99% OF WE THE PEOPLE Jewish, Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindi will be LOSERS. No one wants AMERICAN FREEDOM, LIBERTY, JUSTICE, PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, EQUAL RIGHTS AND PROTECTION UNDER LAW, OPEN REAL FREE MARKET ECONOMY FOR ALL 99% OF WE THE PEOPLE-----then our new global labor pool 99% new immigrants being brought from EASTERN EUROPE and ASIA. The fight is over keeping our US CONSTITUTION and US RULE OF LAW open to pathway to citizenship for our new immigrants from EASTERN HEMISPHERE.
Buddhism vs. Hinduism
Hinduism is about understanding Brahma, existence, from within the Atman, which roughly means "self" or "soul," whereas Buddhism is about finding the Anatman — "not soul" or "not self." In Hinduism, attaining the highest life is a process of removing the bodily distractions from life, allowing one to eventually understand the Brahma nature within. In Buddhism, one follows a disciplined life to move through and understand that nothing in oneself is "me," such that one dispels the very illusion of existence. In so doing, one realizes Nirvana.
In Dr Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan's words,"Buddhism, in its origin at least, is an offshoot of Hinduism."
Comparison chart
Buddhism versus Hinduism comparison chart
BuddhismHinduism
Place of worship
Buddhist monasteries, temples, shrines.
Temple (Mandir)
Practices
Meditation, the Eightfold Path;
right view, right aspiration, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration Meditation, yoga, contemplation, yagna (communal worship), offerings in the temple.
Place of origin
Indian subcontinent
Indian Subcontinent
Goal of religion
To attain enlightenment and be released from the cycle of rebirth and death, thus attaining Nirvana.
To break the cycle of birth, death and reincarnation, and attain salvation.
Founder
The Buddha (born as Prince Siddhartha)
Not credited to a particular founder.
Use of statues and pictures
Common.
Statues are used as meditation objects, and revered as they reflect the qualities of the Buddha. Common
Human Nature
Ignorance, as all sentient beings. In the Buddhist texts, it is seen that when Gautama, after his awakening, was asked whether he was a normal human being, he replied, "No".
Depends on sects.
Literal Meaning
Buddhists are those who follow the teachings of the Buddha.
The followers of Vedas are called as Arya, noble person. Arya is not a dynasty, ethnicity or race. Anyone who follows the teachings of Vedas is considered Arya.
Clergy
The Buddhist Sangha, composed of bhikkhus (male monks) and bhikkhunis (female nuns). The sangha is supported by lay Buddhists.
No official clergy. Gurus, Yogis, Rishis, Brahmins, Pundits, priests, priestesses, monks, and nuns.
Belief of God
The idea of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent creator is rejected by Buddhists. The Buddha himself refuted the theistic argument that the universe was created by a self-conscious, personal God.
Many gods, but realize that they all come from Atman.
Life after death
Rebirth is one of the central beliefs of Buddhism. We are in an endless cycle of birth, death and re-birth, which can only be broken by attaining nirvana. Attaining nirvana is the only way to escape suffering permanently.
A constant cycle of reincarnation until enlightenment is reached.
Means of salvation
Reaching Enlightenment or Nirvana, following the Noble Eightfold Path.
Reaching enlightenment by the Path of Knowledge, the Path of devotion, or the Path of Good Deeds.
Marriage
It is not a religious duty to marry. Monks and nuns do not marry and are celibate. Advice in the Discourses on how to maintain a happy and harmonious marriage.
Man may marry one woman. However, kings in mythology often married more than one woman.
View of the Buddha
The highest teacher and the founder of Buddhism, the all-transcending sage.
Some Hindu sects claim Buddha was an avatar of Vishnu. Others believe he was a holy man.
Scriptures
Tripitaka - a vast canon composed of 3 sections: the Discourses, the Discipline and the Commentaries, and some early scriptures, such as the Gandhara texts.
Vedas, Upanishad, Puranas, Gita. Smrti and Sruti are oral scriptures.
Confessing sins
Sin is not a Buddhist concept.
Repentance for unintentional sins are prescribed, but intentional sins have to be repaid through karmic consequences.
Followers
Buddhists
Hindus.
Religious Law
The Dharma.
Dharma shastras
Original Language(s) Pali(Theravada tradition) and Sanskrit(Mahayana and Vajrayana tradition)
Sanskrit
Geographical distribution and predominance
(Majority or strong influence) Mainly in Thailand, Cambodia, Sri lanka, India, Nepal, Bhutan, Tibet, Japan, Myanmar (Burma), Laos, Vietnam, China, Mongolia, Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan. Other small minorities exist in other countries.
Mainly in India, Nepal and Mauritius. Has significant population in Fiji, Bhutan, UAE, etc.
Status of women
No distinctions between men and women. Women are equal to men, and men are equal to women in the Sangha. The Buddha gave Men and Women equal rights and a major part in the Sangha. Women can become priestesses or nuns.
Women are given equal rights as men. Population 500-600 million 1 Billion.
Symbols
The conch, endless knot, fish, lotus, parasol, vase, dharmachakra (Wheel of Dharma), and victory banner.
Om, Swastika, etc.
Principle
This life is suffering, and the only way to escape from this suffering is to dispel one's cravings and ignorance by realizing the Four Noble Truths and practicing the Eightfold Path.
To follow dharma, i.e. eternal laws
Religion which atheists may still be adherents of
Yes.
Charvakas and Sankyas are atheistic groups in Hinduism. Hinduism is the only religion which accepts atheism.
Views on Other Religions
Being a practical philosophy, Buddhism is neutral against other religions.
Some scriptures say the path they describe is the only path to God and salvation. Other scriptures are more philosophical than religious. Beliefs vary. Some believe that all spiritual paths lead to the same God.
Goal of Philosophy
To eliminate mental suffering.
Salvation, freedom from the cycle of birth and reincarnation.
View of other Dharmic religions
Since the word Dharma means doctrine, law, way, teaching, or discipline, other Dharmas are rejected.
They believe that Buddhists, Jains, & Sikhs should reunite with Hinduism (which is the original Dharmic religion).
Authority of Dalai Lama
Dalai Lamas are tulkus of the Gelug school of Tibetan Buddhism. They are cultural figures and are independent of the doctrinal basis of Buddhism.
N/A.
Holy days/Official Holidays
Vesak day in which the birth, the awakening, and the parinirvana of the Buddha is celebrated.
Diwali, Holi, Janmashtami, Ganesh Chaturthi, etc.
Time of origin
2,500 years ago, circa 563 B.C.E.
(Before Common Era) circa 3000 B.C.E
Can atheists partake in this religion's practices?
Yes.
Yes.
Place and Time of origin
The origin of Buddhism points to one man, Siddhartha Gautama, the historical Buddha, who was born in Lumbini (in present-day Nepal). He became enlightened at Bodhgaya, India and delivered his first set of teachings at a deer park in Sarnath, India.
Indian Subcontinent, beginning with the Vedic civilization circa 3000 BC
Status of Vedas
The Buddha rejected the 5 Vedas, according to the dialogues seen in the nikayas.
Vedas are generally regarded as sacred in Hinduism. Post-Vedic texts like the Gita are also revered.
____________________________________
While more modern BUDDHISM sees no higher being as GOD------HINDI with many GODS AND GODDESSES does see a ranking much as our ancient Greek and Roman gods and goddesses instead of a ZEUS they have KRISHNA with the primary religious text BHAGAVAD-GITA from which we discussed the RUSSIAN ORTHODOXY word for GOD being BOG (Bhag)
“It should be understood that all species of life, o son of Kunti, are made possible by birth in this material nature, and that I am the seed giving father” (Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-Gita 14.4)
“I hate no one. I am equal to all living beings…” (Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-Gita 9.29)
“…One who has no enemies among all living beings comes to me.” (Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-Gita 11.55)
“One who is compassionate to all living beings … – These are some of the qualities of those born with divine nature.” (Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-Gita 16.1-3)
What makes us feel pretty strongly MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE RELIGION will look like this ancient HINDI religion with its gods and goddesses tied to KINGS AND QUEENS----is the term GOD IS ONE-----THE UNIVERSALITY OF THIS RELIGION.
Below we see an article placing HINDI with our other world religions and we see many of our early 99% of religious movement beliefs now being enshrined in HINDI. Here is what we spent all week emphasizing as a public policy and religious talking point for REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVES----
God Does not Incite Hatred or Violence
The real God, Lord Krishna, is the father of all living beings and thus He loves all living beings and orders His true followers to be kind and loving to all living beings.
Just as we emphasize the ways in which our Jewish, Christian, Muslim early 99% of religions were corrupted by GLOBAL 1% KINGS AND QUEENS----we can assume the same for this ancient HINDI religion. So, we do not assume these tenets are actually what exist today in THREE INDIAS.
ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS.
So, we are seeing lots and lots of discussion and writings in current media making HINDI sound very much like our early 99% of religions in WESTERN HEMISPHERE.
God is One
Based on all the World religions, there is only one religion where God is actually completely described and known. In all other religions, God is not described, thus completely unknown. This is because God is One, and only those who follow His religion have the right to know Him.
Above is the God of the Bhagavad-Gita, Lord Krishna
Above is the God of Islam (unknown)Above is the God of the Bible (unknown)
As you can see above, God is One, Lord Krishna.
The Christians say ‘Jesus is the only way’. Thus the non-Christians go to hell.
The Muslims say ‘Islam is the only way’. Thus the non-Muslims go to hell.
The Vedic followers wish for all living beings to go to the kingdom of God. This is the result of following the religion created by God and not man, the real religion of mercy, peace, and love.
Before 2000 years ago, there was no such thing as the Bible or Jesus. So did the zillions of humans who lived for millions of years before Jesus, all went to hell through no fault of their own as they did not follow Jesus?
It’s impossible for Christianity to exist beyond this Planet. So do the zillions of living beings living on millions of other Planets all go to hell as they don’t follow Jesus?
Before 1400 years ago, there was no Islam, no Koran, no Muhammad. So did the zillions of humans who lived for millions of years before Islam, all went to hell as they did not follow Islam?
Islam is a one off religion created 1400 years ago on this planet only. Thus it’s impossible for Islam to exist beyond this Planet. So do the zillions of living beings living on millions of other Planets all go to hell as they don’t follow Islam?
The Vedic scriptures state that this is the smallest Universe and there are trillions of other Universes. Within each Universe there are numerous Planets with living beings. Just think how insignificant this tiny Planet is in God’s creation. And how insignificant are a group of people who have existed for a few hundred or few thousand years out of the trillions of years that humans have existed on this Planet.
“It should be understood that all species of life, o son of Kunti, are made possible by birth in this material nature, and that I am the seed giving father” (Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-Gita 14.4)
There is only one real person who states He is the father of all living beings, that person is Lord Krishna. Every second, God is creating the Hindus/Vedic followers. This is simple proof that God wants the Hindus to exist. Thus it’s dumb for Christians and Muslims to say their way is the only way. The existence of non-Christians and non-Muslims clearly proves that it’s Gods will that they exist. And God has been creating the Hindus for millions of years and the non-Hindus (Christians and Muslims) for less than 2000 years. Thus it’s God’s will that Hindus exist and God wants the Hindus to exist much more than the non-Hindus. This means that by the will of God, the Hindus have eternally existed and the non-Hindus are not eternal.
if you read the history books, you will know that except for the Hindus. No other race, religion or creed of people have existed for more than a few thousand years. But the Hindus have existed for millions of years. This is the will of God.
Thus it’s absolutely ludicrous for the Muslims and Christians to say their way is the only way.
The Koran is based on Muslims Verses Non-Muslims
“Slay the unbelievers wherever you catch them.” (Koran 2:191)
“I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their fingertips off them” (Koran 8:12)
God is the father of all living beings, God is the most responsible person. How can the most responsible father make these kind of statements?
What kind of a father would order some of his children to hate and behead their other brothers and sisters?
It’s God who is creating the variety of humans every second. If God didn’t like certain humans then why would he create them in the first place?
Those who have no faith in God see humans as believers and un-believers. The simple fact is that the above statements are made by a man who wants to control others and not by the most responsible person, God, who is in full control.
“Fight them, until there is no more dissent and religion is that of Allah” (Koran 2:193)
The existence of the non-Muslims clearly proves that the all mighty God very much wants the non-Islamic religions to exist. And the fact that the non-Muslims have existed for millions of years and the Muslims for only 1400 years, clearly proves that the all mighty God wants the non-Muslims to exist more so than the Muslims. It’s God’s will that Muslims are not eternal and non-Muslims are eternal. Every second the Jews, Hindus, Christians and others are being created by God by his will, thus the above statements cannot be made by God.
Who Are The Unbelievers?
“And whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers.” (Koran 3.85)
It’s God who is creating the Jews, Hindus, Christians and others every second and this is simple proof that God wants the various religions to exist. Freedom of religion is a basic human right which is given by God Himself and thus those who don’t allow freedom of religion everywhere in the World are the faithless. They have no faith in God as they are against the will of God, and thus they are the real enemies of God, the unbelievers.
The forefathers of all Muslims were followers of other religions for millions of years, and thus for the Muslims to think that their forefathers all went to hell as they did not follow a recently created religion (Islam) is evil mentality.
God Does not Incite Hatred or Violence
The real God, Lord Krishna, is the father of all living beings and thus He loves all living beings and orders His true followers to be kind and loving to all living beings.
“I hate no one. I am equal to all living beings…” (Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-Gita 9.29)
“…One who has no enemies among all living beings comes to me.” (Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-Gita 11.55)
“One who is compassionate to all living beings … – These are some of the qualities of those born with divine nature.” (Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-Gita 16.1-3)
God’s Scriptures are Eternal
According to the scientists this universe is at least 15 billion years old and the simple fact is that God already created his religion (Sanatan-Dharma – The Eternal Religion) at the beginning of creation and not 15 billion years after creation (1400 years ago). The Vedic scriptures state that the Vedic religion was re-established in the current cycle, when the Vedic knowledge was given to a person called Brahma, some 155.522 trillion years ago when this universe was created in the current cycle. The Vedic scriptures like the Bhagavad-Gita was first spoken on this planet some 155.522 trillion years ago and it has also been spoken on millions of other universes by Lord Krishna himself. Thus the position of religion and God was filed by Sanatan Dharma and Lord Krishna respectively, trillions of years ago and not recently.
“The whole cosmic order is under me. By my will it is manifested again and again, and by my will it is annihilated at the end” (Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-Gita 9.8)
“Furthermore, O Arjuna, I am the generating seed of all existences. There is no being, moving or unmoving, that can exist without me” (Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-Gita 10.39)
Trillions of years before Islam, Lord Krishna appeared, declared, and proved Himself to be the one and only God. Lord Krishna has appeared in His original form more than 18,000 times in the current cosmic cycle on this planet, and each time He clearly proved that He was God. He has also appeared in millions of other universes, this is how great the real God is.
“Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another. Whoever of you seeks their friendship shall become one of their numbers. Allah does not guide the wrong-doers.” (Koran 5:51)
The existence of Jews and Christians is proof that God very much wants them to exist. The all mighty God is in full control and thus every second he is creating the Jews, Hindus, Christians, and others by His own will.
The Muslims should have faith in God, who is creating the non-Muslims every second and has been doing so for millions of years. Thus it’s God’s will that non-Muslims exist and by the will of God, the non-Muslims will eternally exist.
The fact that humans have existed for millions of years and the Koran for only 1400 years is simple proof that the Koran cannot be the only way.
The fact that Islam is created by one man who appeared on this planet, is proof that it’s impossible for Islam to exist beyond this planet.
The Vedic scriptures state that there are millions of other planets with living beings. And none of the living beings on other planets can be Muslim, thus there is no Islam beyond this tiny planet.
The Koran forbids image worship, but it’s the all mighty God who wants to be worshiped in the image form. That’s why He has been creating those who worship Him in the image form for millions of years (the Hindus).
Muhammad was the Last Prophet of God?
Millions of prophets came before Muhammad and millions of prophets will come after Muhammad, as God is great and thus he sends unlimited prophets and not just one.
Just go to a science museum and you will see the bones of humans dating back to millions of years and thus it’s foolish to think that our forefathers all lived in ignorance as they did not follow recently created man made religions which have existed for less than 2000 years(Islam and Christianity). Also, how can they say Muhammad is the last prophet of God, when it’s impossible for Islam to exist beyond this planet. Is there no religion or God beyond this planet?
The Vedic scriptures state that there are millions of planets with living beings beyond this planet and only the Vedic scriptures can exist beyond this planet, as they are based on unlimited prophets. The Bhagavad-Gita has already been spoken by Lord Krishna in millions of universes. One of the main differences between Sanatan Dharma (The Eternal Religion) and the other religions which are based on one man, is that the followers of Sanatan Dharma (Hindus) have complete faith in God. We do not hate others and we understand that people have different mentalities and thus not everyone can understand everything.
The founder of Islam married more than 20 times after the age of 50. His marriages included marrying the 6 year old Aisha (his brother’s daughter) when he was 51. Women taken captive in war, including the 17 year old Safiyyah, when he was around 54 and the 20 year old Juwairiya, when he was around 58. He even married his son’s wife (daughter in law). He was also engaged in wars. If one thinks such a person is qualified to be called a prophet of God then it’s your choice. We have free will, which is given by God and so we are each responsible for our own actions (karma) for which we will suffer or enjoy in the future. God allows the variety of religions to exist, to satisfy the variety of mentalities that humans have. The recently created religions are based on one prophet, one planet, hatred of others, one off scriptures, and a few thousand years history at most.
The Vedic religion is based on unlimited prophets who are not lusty nor violent, millions of universes, love for all living beings, eternal scriptures, and trillions of years of history. This is the difference between man made and God made. The Muslims can become peaceful and full of love if they accept the will of God by living in harmony with all of God’s creation. The Jews,Christians, Hindus, others, and animals.
Despite so many merciless statements in the Koran, the compiler of the Koran finally cools down and admits there is only one God who is worshiped by the Muslims and the non-Muslims.
“We believe in that which has been revealed unto us and revealed unto you; our God and your God is One, and unto Him we surrender.” (Koran 29:46)
All humans should reject hatred, violence, and man made ideologies. Embrace love, peace, follow a God who is loving, responsible, not a bully, who is visible, and known eternally to man. That great all loving God is Lord Krishna.
“One who is not envious but is a kind friend to all living entities, who does not think himself a proprietor and is free from false ego, who is equal in both happiness and distress, who is tolerant, always satisfied, self-controlled, and engaged in devotional service with determination, his mind and intelligence fixed on Me — such a devotee of Mine is very dear to Me.” (Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-Gita 12.13-14)
The End is Near?
For 2000 years, the Christians have been saying the end of time is near and so we should become one of them, and the Muslims have also been saying the same thing and that’s why they say Muhammad was the last prophet. The less intelligent will buy this, as they have no knowledge, nor do they esquire. Those who are inquisitive, the real human beings, will not buy this. The fact that they cannot say exactly when the end will come is simple proof that they are only fooling themselves and the fools who follow them.
According to the scientists this planet has existed for at least 15 billion years and the Vedic scriptures state the age of this planet and universe to be 155.522 trillion years and this universe will be destroyed in 155.518 trillion years time. So whether you accept the authority of recently created scriptures which give incomplete information or the eternal Vedic scriptures which give complete information, the choice is yours.
The Bible is based on Christians Verses Non-Christians
“Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.” (Exodus 34.14)
Man can be jealous because man is not in control, but how can God be jealous?
“Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the LORD must be destroyed.” (Exodus 22:20)
“Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.” (Ephesians 6:5)
Would the all merciful and loving God order humans to be enslaved?
It can be seen from the above verses from the Bible that it’s based on us verses them. Thus these and other similar statements are the words of man and not God. It’s obvious that the above and other merciless statements in the Bible are man made concoctions and not from the all loving God.
Think how insignificant are a race of people who have existed for only 2000 years out of the billions of years that humans have existed on this Planet.
“Animals are food for humans” (Bible and Koran)
Why should the animals be food for the humans? The animals also eat, sleep, mate, defend and so what is the difference between the humans and animals? The humans have a soul and so do the animals. God is the father of all humans and also of the animals. So what kind of a father would order some of his children to eat their unfortunate brothers (the animals)?
The followers of the Bhagavad-Gita, consider all living beings to be brothers and sisters and thus do not kill and eat their unfortunate brothers and sisters (the animals). They are pure vegetarians.
“It should be understood that all species of life, o son of Kunti, are made possible by birth in this material nature, and that I am the seed giving father” (Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-Gita 14.4)
The Bhagavad-Gita is not based on Hindus Verses Non-Hindus
“I envy no one, nor am I partial to anyone. I am equal to all.” (Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-Gita 9.23)
“Nonviolence; freedom from anger; compassion for all living entities. These qualities belong to godly men endowed with divine nature.” (Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-Gita 16.1-3)
“Thus I have explained to you knowledge still more confidential. Deliberate on this fully, and then do what you wish to do.” (Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-Gita 18.63)
These are the beautiful words of God. He loves us all equally. Lord Krishna is not a bully, He does not incite hate, anger or violence towards any living being. God means the all-merciful, all loving person. Only Lord Krishna full fills these qualities. After speaking the Bhagavad-Gita to Arjuna, Lord Krishna gives Arjuna freedom to do whatever he wishes. Lord Krishna doesn’t tell Arjuna that he will go to hell or hell fire if he doesn’t follow him. Lord Krishna is the real God of love, mercy, and forgiveness.
The Bible is based on Christians verses Non-Christians, the Koran is based on Muslims verses non-Muslims. But the Bhagavad-Gita is not based on Hindus verses non-Hindus. There is no mention of Hindu or Hinduism in the Vedic scriptures including the Bhagavad-Gita. As God is the creator of all living beings and thus he does not discriminate between living beings.
The Bible and Koran are man made and thus it’s based on us verses them. The Bhagavad-Gita was spoken by God himself and written by God himself and thus it’s not based on us verses them. Lord Krishna states in the Bhagavad-Gita that he is equal to all living beings. This proves that he is the God of all living beings, the God of love and peace and he is in full control.
A father may have several children, only an evil father would tell some of his children to hate the others. Lord Krishna is the father of all living beings and thus He preaches that we should not even kill our unfortunate brothers and sisters, the animals (be vegetarian). The so-called God of the Bible and Koran orders the killing of animals and humans who don’t follow their religion. What kind of a father would order the killing of some of his children?
From the above statements and pictures, it can be seen and understood that there is only one known God, Lord Krishna. And Lord Krishna is not a bully or hater of anyone, He loves all His creatures including the Hindus, Christians, Muslims and the animals. Lord Krishna is most loving and caring, He doesn’t hate anyone. He is the God of love, the real God.
God Is Not Christian, Not Muslim, And Not Hindu. God Is for All Living Beings
It’s God who creates the Christians and it’s the same God who creates the Muslims, and the same God who creates the Hindus and others.At his own will. It’s God’s will that every second Christians, Muslims, Hindus, and others are born. Before 2000 years ago there was no Jesus, no Christianity, and no Islam. Did the zillions of humans who lived before 2000 years ago live in ignorance and went to hell, as they did not follow these religions, as they did not exist? Thus how can they say their way is the only way? It has been scientifically proven that Humans have existed for millions of years. The Hindus have existed for millions of years. The Christians have existed for 2000 years and the Muslims for 1400 years. This is proof that God created his religion millions of years ago and not just 2000 years ago or 1400 years ago. And he very much wants the Hindus to exist more so than the non-Hindus. Thus it’s ludicrous for the Christians and Muslims to say their way is the only way.
So Why Does God Allow Different Religions To Exist?
God created his religion at creation, trillions of years ago. But recently in the last few thousand years. Many religions have been created by man. Although God would like all humans to follow the religion created by Him (Sanatan Dharma). God allows the man made religions to exist due to the differing desires and mentality of humans.
“Those who are devotees of other gods and who worship them with faith actually worship only me, O son of Kunti, but they do so in a wrong way. I am the only enjoyer and master of all sacrifices. Therefore, those who do not recognize my true transcendental nature fall down” (Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-Gita 9.24)
Does everyone drive the same make and model of car? Does everyone like the same color clothes? Does everyone like the same food? The answer is No. People have differing tastes in cars, clothes, food, and beliefs (religion). To satisfy everyone, God allows different religions to exist.
Human life means freedom and thus God allows humans to create and practice whatever religions humans want. Even though the teachings may be against God’s will. However, when the humans become too degraded. God incarnates himself to again establish the correct principles of religion and to destroy the demonic.
“Whenever and wherever there is a decline in religious practice, O descendant of Bharata, and a predominant rise of irreligion-at that time I descend myself. To deliver the pious and to annihilate the miscreants, as well as to reestablish the principles of religion, I myself appear, millennium after millennium.” (Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-Gita 4.7-8)
What Determines The Religion A Person Is Born Into?
A person is born into a particular religion according to the mentality of the person (the soul) at the time of death.
A person who believes killing and eating animals pleases God and does not care to know God as a person who is completely described, has the mentality of a Muslim, thus the person (the soul) resides in a Muslim body. The Muslim mentality is that God is formless and thus can never be known. The Muslims follow Islam so they can go to heaven and enjoy women and wine.
“In them will be bashful virgins neither man nor Jinn will have touched before” (Koran 55.56)
“Here is a Parable of the Garden which the righteous are promised: in it are rivers of water incorruptible; rivers of milk of which the taste never changes; rivers of wine, a joy to those who drink” (Koran 47.15)
A person, who believes killing is totally wrong, has the body of a Hindu. The Hindu mentality is that if there is a God then I want to see him. It’s pointless to believe in something without proof. The Vaisnava sect of the Vedic religion go to the temple to worship God for no material desires, just to give love to God. They offer food to God (bogh)then eat the offered food (parsadam). The Hindus believe in giving love to Guru and God and not their sins or the blood of living beings.
A person who believes killing and eating animals is ok and he can sin, and the reactions will be taken on by God’s one and only son has the mentality of a Christian. The Christians go to the Church on Sunday and ask for their daily bread and to give their sins to Jesus. The Christians want to live in sin, so that Jesus can live in pain.
The Hindus offer food to God and then eat the remnants called parsadam, the Muslims slaughter animals in the name of God as they think this pleases him, and the Christians offer their sins to God.
At the time of judgment, a sinful Hindu says ‘I will pay for my own sins (karma)’. A sinful Christian says ‘I will let Jesus pay for my sins’. A Muslims says ‘regardless of the deeds (no karma), since I followed Islam I will go to heaven and enjoy wine and women as promised by Allah’.
These are some examples of the mentality of Christians, Muslims, and Hindus. The particular mentality of a person at death determines what his religion will be in his next human body. The mentality may change after birth, that’s why people change religions.
“According to one’s existence under the various modes of nature, one evolves a particular kind of faith. The living being is said to be of a particular faith according to the modes he has acquired.” (Bhagavad-Gita 17.3)
“The living entity in the material world carries his different conceptions of life from one body to another as the air carries aromas. Thus he takes one kind of body and again quits it to take another.” (Bhagavad-Gita 15.8)
The non-Vedic religions don’t preach the theory of karma and reincarnation. They believe everything happens by chance. Thus it’s just too bad if one is born diseased or suffers more than others. It’s by chance that one is born into a particular religion in his only life and so on. Those who have some intelligence will not buy this.
Anyone Who Surrenders Unto God Can Be Liberated
“When one’s intelligence, mind, faith and refuge are all fixed in the Supreme, then one becomes fully cleansed of misgivings through complete knowledge and thus proceeds straight on the path of liberation.” (Bhagavad-Gita. 5.17)
“By following his qualities of work, every man can become perfect.” (Bhagavad-Gita 18.45)
“By worship of the Lord, who is the source of all beings and who is all-pervading, man can, in the performance of his own duty, attain perfection.” (Bhagavad-Gita.18.46)
“One can understand the Supreme Personality as He is only by devotional service. And when one is in full consciousness of the Supreme Lord by such devotion, he can enter into the kingdom of God.” (Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-Gita 18.55)
How Can A Dog Go To The Kingdom Of God?
Every living being, including the plants and animals are souls covered in a particular material body. The plants and animals are on an evolutionary process of transmigration of the soul from one body to the next. Eventually they will get a human birth. Then if they surrender and engage in devotional service onto God, they will attain the kingdom of God at death. Those humans do not surrender and engage in devotional service onto God, will fall down in the animal kingdom at death.
_________________________________________________
What we know about these Asian nations tied to HINDI/BUDDHISM is that throughout these several decades of ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE empire-building and continuous wars-----these nations are no longer tied to this peace, love, and justice philosophy we now seeing describing HINDI. It has been as CORRUPTED as our Western religions.
As always our US global banking 1% freemason STARS opened the door to FADS MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE RELIGION here we see UBER-KINGS AND QUEENS Iron Butterfly -----with all that symbolism tied to HINDI/BUDDHIST religious philosophy.
If one cannot figure why this musical group titled a song that makes no sense---it is easy to see the BLENDING of sounds bringing together central themes of CHRISTIAN and HINDI-----as below IN A GADDA DA VIDA easily heard as IN THE GARDEN OF EDEN-----and sounding much like BHAGAVAD GITA.
We LOVE all our 99% of East Asia citizens and have no problems with a HINDI or BUDDHIST religious belief-----what we know in MOVING FORWARD US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES----with a few billion global labor new immigrants coming from these ASIAN nations is the religious text BHAGAVAD GITA will be a majority religion in US.
'The Butterfly is one of the significant symbols of Easter. Its whole life cycle is meant to symbolize the life of Jesus Christ. The first stage, is the caterpillar, which stands for His life on Earth. Second phase begins from the cocoon stage, portraying the crucifixion and burial of Jesus. The third and final stage is the butterfly, representing His raising from the dead in a glorified body and peace'.
'A commonly repeated story says that the song's title was originally "In the Garden of Eden" or "In the Garden of Venus" but in the course of rehearsing and recording singer Doug Ingle slurred the words into the nonsense phrase of the title while under the influence of LSD.
Another theory is that the misspelled words are actually Bhagavad Gita, which is the name of a sacred Hindu text.........'
Of course our new immigrant citizens coming from EASTERN HEMISPHERE involved in politics would be sworn into office on their choice of religious texts----as GABBARD chooses the BHAGAVAD-GITA.
Tulsi Gabbard, First Hindu Elected To Congress, Will Swear In On Bhagavad Gita
Discussion in 'Politics and News' started by Ausm, Nov 20, 2012'.
IRON BUTTERFLY - IN A GADDA DA VIDA
- 1968 (ORIGINAL FULL VERSION) CD SOUND & 3D VIDEO
youtube.com
Iron Butterfly – In-a-Gadda-Da-Vida
as written by and Douglas Ingle.
In a gadda da vida, honey
Don't you know that I'm lovin' you
In a gadda da vida, baby
Don't you know that I'll always be true
Oh, won't you come with me
And take my hand
Oh, won't you come with me
And walk this land
Please take my hand
In a gadda da vida, honey
Don't you know that I'm lovin' you
In a gadda da vida, baby
Don't you know that I'll always be true
Oh, won't you come with me
And take my hand
Oh, won't you come with me
And walk this land
Please take my hand
_____________________________________________
Here is the concern for US 99% WE THE PEOPLE having nothing to do with negative thoughts of our new Asian immigrants---but in fighting for what makes the US the world leader in freedom, liberty, justice, pursuit of happiness, equal rights under law and equal opportunity for 99% WE THE PEOPLE black, white, and brown citizens in a REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE FREE MARKET economy. We KNOW our 99% of Asian citizens being brought to US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES are not coming to be treated as they are in third world nations overseas----many tied to HINDI/BUDDHISM.
As we see below the nations most tied to HINDI/BUDDHISM are those we KNOW here in US as the most brutal, continuous wars, authoritarian, extreme wealth extreme poverty.
Now, the US is corrupted from its BEACON of LIBERTY these few decades of ROBBER BARON SACKING OF AMERICA being the source of continuous wars tied to global 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS. So, we know that is true of our Asian nations with their team global 1% creating these same conditions in those nations.
What REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVES want for both our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE and our new 99% immigrant citizens from these Asian nations----is to KEEP AND MAINTAIN THE GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES HAVING MADE US THAT BEACON while protecting religious freedoms for all citizens----through SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE,
(Majority or strong influence) Mainly in Thailand, Cambodia, Sri lanka, India, Nepal, Bhutan, Tibet, Japan, Myanmar (Burma), Laos, Vietnam, China, Mongolia, Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan. Other small minorities exist in other countries. Mainly in India, Nepal and Mauritius. Has significant population in Fiji, Bhutan, UAE, etc'.
There is NO ENLIGHTENMENT---NO PEACE, LOVE, AND TRANQUILITY happening in these ASIAN HINDI nations. Below we see almost all are tied to TRANS PACIFIC TRADE PACT---which is why their nations are tied to continuous wars and massive injustice with extreme wealth and extreme poverty having no attachment to those nations' HINDI RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES.
The very US public policy being installed in US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES tied to TRANS PACIFIC TRADE PACT ----is what has killed our US structures of governance giving US 99% WE THE PEOPLE that freedom, liberty, justice, pursuit of happiness, equal protection under law, opportunity and access to REAL free market for all 99% of citizens black, white, and brown citizens. Our 99% of global labor pool workers are being brought by enslavement and forced EX-PAT from sovereign nations to US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES----so none of this will carry REAL 99% HINDI RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES.
TPP member countries, their GDP, population numbers and value of exports as a percentage of GDP.MX among 11 nations in new trading bloc
Trans-Pacific Partnership 'stands behind open markets and trade liberalization'
Friday, March 9, 2018
Mexico was one of 11 Pacific Rim countries that formally entered into a revised trade pact in Chile yesterday that will slash tariffs between the participating nations.
The signing of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP11, contrasted sharply with United States President Donald Trump’s formal announcement that the U.S. is introducing tariffs on steel and aluminum imports.
Economy Secretary Ildefonso Guajardo represented Mexico in the signing ceremony in Santiago that was presided over by Chilean President Michelle Bachelet and attended by trade ministers from the member nations.
“Despite rising protectionism trends, what you have collectively achieved today constitutes a clear message that we stand behind open markets and trade liberalization,” the Chilean leader said.
Chilean Foreign Minister Heraldo Muñoz agreed, saying “we will be giving a very powerful signal against protectionist pressures, in favor of a world open to trade, without unilateral sanctions and without the threat of trade wars.”
The new trade bloc includes Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam.
The combined population of the countries exceeds 500 million people and together their economies account for 13% of global gross domestic product (GDP).
The agreement was originally conceived as a counterbalance to China’s increasing economic influence.
But President Trump withdrew the United States from the original TPP deal on his first day in office, a move that many thought would kill off the agreement.
But the remaining 11 countries decided to forge ahead regardless and there is a possibility that nations including the United Kingdom, South Korea, Taiwan and the Philippines could later join.
If the United States had remained in the agreement, the TPP would have accounted for around 40% of global GDP. U.S. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin has said that he is in discussions to consider rejoining the agreement.
The TPP11 will go into effect 60 days after six of the 11 member countries have ratified the agreement domestically.
In Mexico’s case, the text of the treaty will be sent to the federal Senate for analysis and approval.
The agreement creates the world’s third largest trade bloc after the European Union (EU) and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The latter is currently subject to a contentious — and slow — renegotiation process.
In a statement, the Economy Secretariat said that “Mexican products will have access to six new markets: Australia, Brunei, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore and Vietnam” as a result of the TPP11.
It also said that “it will enable Mexico to deepen its access to the agri-food market in Japan and consolidate preferential tariffs with Canada, Chile and Peru.”
News website Quartz said the TPP11 “creates more leverage for Mexico and Canada in trade negotiations with the U.S.”
The signing of the pact comes as some analysts say the U.S. government is using the introduction of tariffs as a negotiating ploy in ongoing NAFTA talks
Trump announced yesterday that Mexico and Canada will be initially exempt from its metal tariffs although the U.S. president appeared to indicate that getting a favorable outcome in an updated NAFTA deal was a condition of them being made permanent.
Uncertainty surrounding NAFTA has spurred Mexico into seeking new trade agreements and export markets.
It is currently negotiating an updated agreement with the EU that is reportedly close to conclusion. Names of cheeses and jalapeño and chipotle chiles have been among the obstacles that have held up the trade talks.
__________________________________________
We understand that our US global banking 1% CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA want to bring US to being far-right, authoritarian, militaristic, extreme wealth extreme power dictatorship LIBERTARIAN MARXISM as exists in these Asian nations today-----but that is not what our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE or our 99% new immigrant citizens to AMERICA ----want.
'Why not abandon secularism and become more religion-centered? The short answer is that theocratic states and states with established religions will only perpetuate intra- and interreligious domination'
For our 99% of new Asian immigrants being brought to US this is what REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVES are shouting in SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE freedom of religion that has been enshrined in our US laws and cultures for 300 years of sovereignty.
The issue is NOT whether Jewish, Christian, Muslim is better than BUDDHIST/HINDI-----the issue is PUBLIC POLICY tied to building a just society meeting the principles of ALL OF THESE RELIGIONS.
We will say this with some prejudice towards Christianity when it is NOT CORRUPTED----our Jewish and Muslim religious texts do not allow PUBLIC SPACE----ancient Greek democratic republican principles because they are tied so tightly to RELIGION AS STATE.
So, how do we integrate our new immigrants from EASTERN HEMISPHERE with those religions they believe and maintain our 99% WE THE PEOPLE as CITIZENS? We must fight to keep our US SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE which without coincidence CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA these few decades of ROBBER BARON fleecing of AMERICA HAS SIMPLY IGNORED----building instead CHURCH AS STATE.
'Two Objections Look at the state of the subcontinent! Look at India! How deeply divided it remains! What about the violence against Muslims in Gujarat and against Christians in Orissa? How can success be claimed for the Indian version of secularism'?
So, this very problem exists in public policy discussions in our ASIAN nations tied to HINDI-----this will be our next week's segue to public policy surrounding NATIONALISM of course being corrupted by ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT GLOBAL BANKING 1% WE ARE GOING TO GLOBAL CORPORATE FASCISM ----
Of course the CRISIS in SECULARISM has been created by the same global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS having created the CRISIS IN OUR RELIGIONS-----we have no crises if we GET RID OF GLOBAL BANKING 5% FREEMASON/GREEK players.
This article is long but please glance through to understand these policy discussions from our East Indian point of view.
States, religious diversity, and the crisis of secularism
Rajeev Bhargava 22 March 2011
In India, the existence of deep religious diversity has ensured a conceptual response not only to problems within but also between religions. Without taking it as a blue print, the west must examine the Indian conception and learn from it, regarding peace between communities, community-specific rights, the rights of minorities, the porous divide between the modern state and religion, and the skills to accommodate the latter. They might begin by jettisoning the preoccupation with ‘equal treatment’.
Over the last three decades, secular states, virtually everywhere, have come under strain. Hardly surprisingly, political secularism, the doctrine that defends them, has also been subjected to severe criticism. Some scholars have concluded that this critique is ethically and morally so profound and justified that it is time to abandon political secularism.
I reject this conclusion. I argue that the criticism of secularism looks unanswerable only because critics have focused on mainstream conceptions developed in largely religiously homogenous societies. It is time we shifted the focus away from doctrines underpinning some western secular states towards the normative practices of a wide variety of states, including the best practices of nonwestern states, such as India. Once we do this, we will begin to see secularism in a new light, as an ethical and moral perspective criticizing - not religion as such - but religious homogenization and institutional domination. Of all available alternatives, secularism remains our best bet to help us deal with ever deepening religious diversity and the problems endemic to it.
Is it a crisis across the board?
For a start, it is worth asking if secular states and their underlying ideology, political secularism, are really under siege everywhere. Secularism was severely jolted with the establishment of the first modern theocracy in 1979 in Iran. By the late 1980s, Islamic political movements had emerged in Egypt, Sudan, Algeria, Tunisia, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Chad, Senegal, Turkey, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and even in Bangladesh.
Movements challenging secular states were hardly restricted to Muslim societies. Protestant movements decrying secularism emerged in Kenya, Guatemala, and the Philippines. Protestant fundamentalism became a force in American politics. Singhalese Buddhist nationalists in Sri Lanka, Hindu nationalists in India, religious ultraorthodoxy in Israel, and Sikh nationalists in the state of Punjab in India, as well as among diasporic communities in Canada and Britain, began to question the separation of state and religion.
In short, western conceptions of political secularism do not appear to have translated all that well to other societies. What is surprising is that such conceptions and the secular states they underpin are coming under strain even in Europe where only some time back they were believed to be securely and firmly entrenched.
Why so?
It is true that substantive secularization of European societies has also brought in its wake extensive secularization of European states. Regardless of their religious affiliation, citizens have secured a large basket of civil and political rights unheard of in religion-centered states, past or present. But still, two problems remain.
First, migration from former colonies and an intensified globalization has thrown together in western public spaces pre-Christian faiths, Christianity, and Islam. The cumulative result is unprecedented religious diversity, the weakening of the public monopoly of single religions, and the generation of mutual suspicion, distrust, hostility, and conflict. This is evident in Germany and Britain but was dramatically highlighted by the headscarf issue in France and the murder of filmmaker Theo Van Gogh in the Netherlands, shortly after the release of his controversial film about Islamic culture.[iv]
Second, despite substantial secularization, the formal establishment of the dominant religion does little to bolster better intercommunity relations or reduce religious discrimination in several European states. As it turns out, the widespread belief in a secular European public sphere is a myth. The religious biases of European states have become increasingly visible with deepening religious diversity. European states have continued to privilege Christianity in one form or another. They have publicly funded religious schools, maintained real estates of churches and clerical salaries, facilitated the control by churches of cemeteries, and trained the clergy. In short, there has been no impartiality within the domain of religion, and despite formal equality, this continues to have a far-reaching impact on the rest of society.
To repeat, the crisis of secular states in Europe is due in part to the fact that the secular humanist ethos endorsed by many European citizens is not fully shared, particularly by those who have newly acquired citizenship. Any further secularization along secular humanist lines is not likely to resolve the crisis of European secular states. Also, many of these states have formally or informally established religions, and establishment of a single religion, even of the weaker variety, is part of the problem not the solution.
Why not abandon secularism and become more religion-centered?
The short answer is that theocratic states and states with established religions will only perpetuate intra- and interreligious domination. They have historically recognized a particular version of the religion enunciated by a church as the official religion, compelled individuals to congregate for only one church, punished them for failing to profess a particular set of religious beliefs, levied taxes in support of one particular church, and made instruction of the favoured interpretation of the religion in educational institutions mandatory. In such cases, not only was there inequality among religions (Christians and Jews) but also among churches of the same religion. Societies with such states are either wracked by interreligious or inter-denominational wars or by persecuted minority religious groups.
States with substantive establishments have not changed with time: just consider Saudi Arabia. Or consider Pakistan where the virtual establishment of the dominant Sunni sect has proved to be disastrous, even to Muslim minorities. For example, Ahmedis have been deemed a non-Muslim minority and are therefore convicted for calling themselves Muslims or using the word ‘mosque’ to designate their place of worship. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are clear illustrations of this, but the result would surely be the same if a Hindu state was established in India. This would be a threat to religious minorities but also to the plural and tolerant character of Hinduism itself and therefore to a large number of practicing Hindus. The ‘democratic’ state of Israel suffers from exactly the same problem. Once it was declared a Jewish state, it could not but exclude from its full scheme of rights and benefits its own Arab citizens, let alone other Palestinians.
Moreover to some extent this is also true, as mentioned above, of many European states with formally established religion. What, in the face of this imbroglio, are European states to do? Those reflecting on this crisis have at least four conceptions of secularism staring back at them. The four conceptions flow from the different ways in which the metaphor of separation is unpacked, the levels at which separation is sought, and the manner in which ends are conceived. The first of these conceptions is thoroughly amoral and unethical because it separates religion from the state precisely because of the ethical or moral restrictions that religions place on its ends (wealth, power). These amoral secular states are inconsistent with the self-organization and self-understanding of most European states, at least to the extent that they appear to have forsaken their imperial pretensions.
A tale of two mainstream western secularisms: part of the problem
The dominant self-understanding of western secularism is that it is a universal doctrine requiring the strict separation (exclusion) of church/religion and state for the sake of individualistically conceived moral or ethical values. This dominant self-understanding takes two forms, one inspired by an idealized version of the American model of separation and the other by the equally idealized French model. Can European states be reinvigorated by these two forms of western secularism? Can they then deal better with the new reality of the vibrant presence of multiple religions in public life and the accompanying social tensions? In what follows I argue that available mainstream conceptions of western secularism are likely to meet neither the challenge of the vibrant public presence of religion nor of increasing religious diversity.
Take first the idealized French conception. In this conception, the state must be separated from religion but the state retains the power to interfere in religion. However, religion is divested of any power to intervene in matters of state. In short, separation means one-sided exclusion. The state may interfere in religion to hinder or suppress it, or even to help religion, but in all cases only to ensure its control over religion. Religion becomes an object of law and public policy but only in terms of the state. This conception which arose in response to the excessive domination of the Catholic Church in France, encourages an active disrespect for religion, and is concerned solely with preventing the religious order from dominating the secular. It hopes to deal with institutionalized religious domination by taming and marginalizing religion altogether. This may help states to deal with aspects of intrareligious domination when, for example, some members of a religious community dominate members of their own religion (e.g.anticlericalism in France). However, it has few resources to properly address interreligious domination, when members of one religious community discriminate against, marginalize, or even oppress members of another religious community.
This is because issues of radical individual freedom and citizenship equality only arose in European societies after religious homogenization had been established. The birth of confessional states was accompanied by massive expulsion of subject-communities whose faith differed from the religion of the ruler. Such states gradually found some place for toleration in their moral space, but as is well known, toleration was consistent with deep inequalities and with humiliating, marginalized, and virtually invisible existences. The liberal-democratization and consequent secularization of many European states has helped citizens with non-Christian faiths to acquire most formal rights. But such a scheme of rights neither embodies a regime of interreligious equality nor effectively prevents religion-based discrimination and exclusion. Indeed, it serves to mask majoritarian, ethno-religious biases.
These biases are evident in the many different kinds of difficulties faced by Muslims today. For example, in Britain a third of all primary school children are educated by religious communities, yet applications for state funding by Muslims are frequently turned down. At one point, there were only 2 Muslim schools compared to 2,000 run by Roman Catholics and 4,700 by the Church of England.[ix] Similar problems persist in other European countries.[x] This is also manifest in the failure of many western European states to deal with the issue of headscarves (France), demands by Muslims to build mosques and therefore to properly practice their own faith (Germany, Italy), or to have proper burial grounds of their own (Denmark). In recent times, as Islamophobia grips the imagination of several western societies (exemplified by the cartoon controversy in Denmark), it is very likely that their Muslim citizens will continue to face disadvantages only on account of their membership of their religious community.
Some sections of European societies, both on the Right and the Left, are tempted to follow the French model largely because they have bought into the view that ‘Islam is a problem’ and that the only way to exorcise the devil is to use the coercive power of the state. But this would be ultimately self-defeating because it leaves formal and informal establishments of Christianity in these societies untouched. Besides, every attempt to further intervene in religions is likely to meet with resistance not only from Muslims but from non-Muslims too. Any reliance on this model is likely to exacerbate problems.
Can such European states then turn to the idealized American model?
The idealized American self-understanding interprets separation to mean mutual exclusion. Neither the state nor religion is meant to interfere in the domain of the other. This mutual exclusion is believed necessary to resolve conflicts between different Christian denominations, to grant some measure of equality between them, but most crucially to provide individuals with the freedom to set up and maintain their own religious associations. Mutual exclusion is believed necessary for religious liberty and for the more general liberties of individuals. This strict or ‘perfect separation’, as James Madison termed it, must take place at each of the three distinct levels of (a) ends, (b) institutions and personnel, and (c) law and public policy. Levels (a) and (b) make the state non-theocratic and disestablish religion. Level (c) ensures that the state has neither a positive relationship with religion - for example there should be no policy of granting aid even non-preferentially to religious institutions - nor a negative relationship with it; it is not within the scope of state activity to interfere in religious matters even when some of the values (such as equality) professed by the state are violated within the religious domain. The Congress simply has no power to legislate on any matter pertaining to religion.
This non-interference is justified on the grounds that religion is a privileged, private (non-state) matter, and if something is amiss within this private domain, it can be mended only by those who have a right to do so within that sphere. This, according to proponents of this view, is what religious freedom means. Thus, the freedom that justifies mutual exclusion is negative liberty and is closely enmeshed with the privatization of religion.
In my view, this model of secularism encourages the state to have passive respect for religion. Idealized American secularism has some resources to fight interreligious domination (for instance, it necessitates the disestablishment of the dominant religion) but not to wage a struggle against other aspects of the same or against intrareligious dominations. Because the state is unable to facilitate freedoms or equality within religions, it forces people to exit from their religion rather than to press for intrareligious equality.
Both forms of western secularism have persistent difficulties in coping with community-oriented religions such as Roman Catholicism, Islam, and some forms of Hinduism and Sikhism that demand greater public presence and even official recognition for themselves - particularly when they all begin to cohabit in the same society. They were simply not designed for societies with deep religious diversity. Both of these versions developed in the context of a single-religion society and to solve the problems of one religion, namely Christianity. Both understand separation as exclusion and attempt to make individualistically conceived values - individual liberty or equality between individuals or both - the grounds for separation. Because of their diversity-resistant character and individualistic character, both these forms of western secularism have become part of the problem.
An Indian model of secularism
Are we then caught between ideologies that legitimate religious domination of the secular and forms of secularisms that are unable to prevent forms of intra-religious or inter-religious domination? I believe not. It is possible to get out of this impasse because, although theoretically less developed and less bruited abroad, there exists another model of secularism, one not generated exclusively in the west, which meets the needs of societies with deep religious diversity and also complies with principles of freedom and equality: the subcontinental or Indian model found loosely in the best moments of intercommunal practice in India and in the country’s constitution appropriately interpreted.
In India, the existence of deep religious diversity has ensured a conceptual response not only to problems within religions but also between religions. Without taking it as a blue print, the west must examine the Indian conception and possibly learn from it.
Several features of the Indian model are striking and relevant to a wider discussion. First, multiple religions are not extras, added on as an afterthought but they are present at its inception, part of its foundation concept. Indian secularism is inextricably tied to deep religious diversity. Second, it has a commitment to multiple values - liberty and equality, not conceived narrowly as pertaining to individuals but interpreted broadly to cover the relative autonomy of religious communities and the equality of their status in society, as well as other more basic values such as peace and toleration between communities. It has a place not only for the right of individuals to profess their religious beliefs but also for the right of religious communities to establish and maintain educational institutions crucial for the survival and sustenance of their distinctive religious traditions.
The acceptance of community-specific rights brings us to the third feature of Indian secularism. Because it was born in a deeply multi-religious society, it is concerned as much with interreligious domination as it is with intra-religious domination. Unlike the two western conceptions, which provided benefits to minorities only incidentally (Jews benefited in some European countries such as France not because their special needs and demands were taken care of but rather because of a change in the general climate of the society), in India, even community-specific political rights (political reservations for religious minorities) were almost granted and were withheld in the last instance only for contextual reasons. In fact, it is arguable that a conceptual space is still available for them within the Indian constitution.
Fourth, it does not erect a wall of separation between state and religion. There are boundaries, of course, but they are porous. This allows the state to intervene in religions, to help or hinder them without the impulse to control or destroy them. This involves multiple roles: granting aid to educational institutions of religious communities on a non-preferential basis; or interfering in socio-religious institutions that deny equal dignity and status to members of their own religion and to those of others (for example, the ban on untouchability and the obligation to allow everyone, irrespective of their caste, to enter Hindu temples, whilst potentially correcting gender inequalities), on the basis of a more sensible understanding of equal concern and respect for all individuals and groups. In short, it interprets separation to mean not strict exclusion or strict neutrality but rather what I call ‘principled distance’, poles apart from one-sided exclusion, mutual exclusion, and strict neutrality or equidistance.
Fifthly, it is not entirely averse to the public character of religions. Although the state is not identified with a particular religion or with religion more generally (there is no establishment of religion), there is official and therefore public recognition granted to religious communities.
Sixthly, this model shows that we do not have to choose between active hostility and passive indifference towards religion, or between disrespectful hostility and respectful indifference. We can combine the two: have the necessary hostility as long as there is also active respect. The state may intervene to inhibit some practices, so long as it shows respect for other practices of the religious community and does so by publicly lending support to them.
Seventh, by not fixing its commitment from the start exclusively to individual or community values or marking rigid boundaries between the public and private, India’s constitutional secularism allows decisions on these matters to be taken either within the open dynamics of democratic politics or by contextual reasoning in the courts.
Finally, this commitment to multiple values and principled distance means that the state tries to balance different, ambiguous but equally important values. This makes its secular ideal more like a contextual, ethically sensitive, politically negotiated arrangement (which it really is), rather than a scientific doctrine as conjured up by ideologues and merely implemented by political agents.
A somewhat forced, formulaic articulation of Indian secularism goes something like this. The state must keep a principled distance from all public or private, individual-oriented or community-oriented religious institutions for the sake of the equally significant (and sometimes conflicting) values of peace, this-worldly goods, dignity, liberty, and equality (in all its complicated individualistic or non-individualistic versions). Indian secularism then is an ethically sensitive, negotiated settlement between diverse groups and divergent values. This model thus embodies what I call ‘contextual secularism’. Allow me to elaborate on two features mentioned above: namely ‘principled distance’ and ‘contextual secularism’.
Principled Distance
As seen above, for mainstream western secularism, separation means mutual or one-sided exclusion. The idea of principled distance unpacks the metaphor of separation differently. It accepts a disconnection between state and religion at the level of ends and institutions but does not make a fetish of it at the third level of policy and law (this distinguishes it from all other models of secularism, moral and amoral, that disconnect state and religion at this third level). How else can it be in a society where religion frames some of its deepest interests? Recall that political secularism is an ethic whose concerns relating to religion are similar to theories that oppose unjust restrictions on freedom, morally indefensible inequalities, and intercommunal domination and exploitation. Yet a secularism based on principled distance is not committed to the mainstream Enlightenment idea of religion. It accepts that humans have an interest in relating to something beyond themselves including God and that this manifests itself as individual belief and feeling as well as social practice in the public domain. It also accepts that religion is a cumulative tradition, as well as a source of people’s identities. But it insists that even if it turned out that one religion was true and others false, this would not give the “true” doctrine or religion the right to force it down the throats of others who did not believe it. Nor does it give a ground for discrimination in the equal distribution of liberties and other valuable resources.
Similarly, a secularism based on principled distance accepts that religion may not have special public significance antecedently written into and defining the very character of the state or the nation. But it does not follow from this that it has no public significance at all. Sometimes, on some versions of it, the wall of separation thesis assumes precisely this: that as long as religion is publicly significant, a democratic state simply has to take it into account. Indeed, institutions of religion may influence individuals as long as they do so through the same process, by access to the same resources, as anyone else or any other institution, and without undue advantage or unduly exploiting the fears and vulnerabilities that frequently accompany people in their experience of the religious.
But what precisely in practice does principled distance look like?
The policy of principled distance entails a flexible approach on the question of inclusion/exclusion of religion and the engagement/disengagement of the state, which at the level of law and policy depends on the context, nature, or current condition of relevant religions. This engagement must be governed by principles undergirding a secular state, that is, principles that flow from a commitment to the values mentioned above. This means that religion may intervene in the affairs of the state only if such intervention promotes freedom, equality, or any other value integral to secularism. For example, citizens may support a coercive law of the state grounded purely in a religious rationale if this law is compatible with freedom or equality. Equally, the state may engage with religion or disengage from it, engage positively or negatively, but it does so depending entirely on whether or not these values are promoted or undermined.
A state that intervenes or refrains from interference on this basis keeps a principled distance from all religions. This is one constitutive idea of principled distance. This idea is different from strict neutrality, that is, the idea that the state may help or hinder all religions to an equal degree and in the same manner, but that if it intervenes in one religion, it must also do so in others. Rather, it rests upon a distinction explicitly drawn by the American philosopher Ronald Dworkin between equal treatment and treating everyone as an equal.
The principle of equal treatment, in the relevant political sense, requires that the state treat all its citizens equally in the relevant respect, for example, in the distribution of a resource or opportunity. On the other hand, the principle of treating people as equals entails that every person or group is treated with equal concern and respect. This second principle may sometimes require equal treatment, say equal distribution of resources, but it may also dictate unequal treatment. Treating people or groups as equals is entirely consistent with differential treatment. This idea is the second ingredient in what I have called principled distance.
I have maintained that principled distance allows for differential treatment. What kind of treatment do I have in mind? First, religious groups have sought exemptions from practices in which states intervene by promulgating a law to be applied neutrally to the rest of society. This demand for noninterference is made on the ground either that the law requires them to do things not permitted by their religion or prevents them from doing acts mandated by it. For example, Sikhs demand exemptions from mandatory helmet laws and from police dress codes, in order to accommodate religiously-required turbans. Elsewhere, Jews seek exemptions from Air Force regulations to accommodate their yarmulkes. Muslim women and girls demand that the state not interfere in their religiously-required chador. Jews and Muslims seek exemption from Sunday closing laws on the ground that this is not required by their religion. Principled distance allows that a practice that is banned or regulated in one culture may be permitted in the minority culture because of the distinctive status and meaning it has for its members.
For many republican or liberal theories, this is a problem because of their simple, somewhat absolutist morality that gives overwhelming importance to one value, particularly to equal treatment or equal liberty. Religious groups may demand that the state refrain from interference in their practices, but they may equally demand that the state interfere in such a way as to give them special assistance so that these groups are also able to secure what other groups are able to routinely procure by virtue of their social dominance in the political community. It may grant authority to religious officials to perform legally binding marriages, to have their own rules or methods of obtaining a divorce, its rules about relations between ex-husbands and ex-wives, its way of defining a will, or its laws about postmortem allocation of property, arbitration of civil disputes, and even its method of establishing property rights. Principled distance allows the possibility of such policies on the grounds that it might be unfair to hold people accountable to an unfair law.
However, principled distance is not just a recipe for differential treatment in the form of special exemptions. It may even require state intervention in some religions more than in others, considering the historical and social conditions of all relevant religions. This may allow the state to do exactly the opposite of what is mentioned above, i.e. to intervene in a community's rules on marriage, divorce, maintenance, property rights and so on. Indeed, for the promotion of a particular value constitutive of secularism, some religions, relative to other religions, may require more interference from the state. For example, suppose that the value to be advanced is social equality. This requires in part undermining caste hierarchies. If this is the aim of the state, then it may be required of the state that it interferes in caste-ridden Hinduism much more than say Islam or Christianity. However, if a diversity-driven religious liberty is the value to be advanced by the state, then it may have to intervene in Christianity and Islam more than in Hinduism. If this is so, the state can neither strictly exclude considerations emanating from religion nor keep strict neutrality with respect to religion. It cannot antecedently decide that it will always refrain from interfering in religions or that it will interfere in each equally. Indeed, it may not relate to every religion in society in exactly the same way or intervene in each religion to the same degree or in the same manner. To want to do so would be plainly absurd. All it must ensure is that the relationship between the state and religions is guided by nonsectarian motives consistent with some values and principles. A state interfering in one religion more than in others does not automatically depart from secularism. Indian secularism rejects the assumption that ‘one size fits all’.
Contextual Secularism
Contextual secularism is contextual not only because it captures the idea that the precise form and content of secularism will vary from one context to another and from place to place but also because it embodies a certain model of contextual moral reasoning.
It does this because of its character as a multivalue doctrine and by virtue of its commitment to principled distance. To accept that secularism is a multivalue doctrine is to acknowledge that its constitutive values do not always sit easily with one another. On the contrary, they are frequently in conflict. Some degree of internal discord and therefore a fair amount of instability is an integral part of contextual secularism. For this reason, it forever requires fresh interpretations, contextual judgments, and attempts at reconciliation and compromise. This contextual secularism recognizes that the conflict between individual rights and group rights or between claims of equality and liberty or between claims of liberty and the satisfaction of basic needs cannot always be adjudicated by recourse to some general and abstract principle. Rather they can only be settled case by case and may require a fine balancing of competing claims. The eventual outcome may not be wholly satisfactory to either but still be reasonably satisfactory to both. Multivalue doctrines such as secularism encourage accommodation - not the giving up of one value for the sake of another but rather their reconciliation and possible harmonization, that is, to make each work without changing the basic content of apparently incompatible concepts and values.
This endeavor to make concepts, viewpoints, and values work simultaneously does not amount to a morally objectionable compromise. Nothing of importance is being given up for the sake of a less significant thing, something without value or even with negative value. Rather, what is pursued is a mutually agreed middle way that combines elements from two or more equally valuable entities. The roots of such attempts at reconciliation and accommodation lie in a lack of dogmatism, in a willingness to experiment, to think at different levels and in separate spheres, and in a readiness to take decisions on a provisional basis. This captures a way of thinking characterized by the following dictum: “why look at things in terms of this or that, why not try to have both this and that.” In this way of thinking, it is recognized that though currently we may be unable to secure the best of both values and therefore be forced to settle for a watered-down version of each, we must continue to have an abiding commitment to search for a way to transcend this second-best condition.
It is frequently argued against Indian secularism that it is contradictory because it tries to bring together individual and community rights, and that articles in the Indian Constitution that have a bearing on the secular nature of the Indian state are deeply conflictual and at best ambiguous. This is to confuse a virtue with a vice. In my view, this attempt to bring together seemingly incompatible values is one of the great strengths of Indian secularism.
Discerning students of western secularism may now begin to find something familiar in this ideal. But then, Indian secularism has not dropped fully formed from the sky. It is not sui generis. It shares a history with the west. In part, it has learned from and built on it. Indian secularism may be seen as a route to retrieving the rich history of western secularism - forgotten, neglected, or frequently obscured by the formula of strict separation. Once this is recognized for what it is, western societies can find reflected in it not only a compressed version of their own history but also a vision of their future.
Two Objections
Look at the state of the subcontinent! Look at India! How deeply divided it remains! What about the violence against Muslims in Gujarat and against Christians in Orissa? How can success be claimed for the Indian version of secularism? This is the first of two objections that might well arise on reading my argument. I do not wish to underestimate the force of this objection. The secular ideal in India is in periodic crisis and is deeply contested. Indeed, at the best of times, it generates as many problems as it solves.
But it should not be forgotten that a secular state was set up in India despite the massacre and displacement of millions of people on ethno-religious grounds, and that it has survived in a continuing context in which ethnic nationalism remains dominant throughout the world. Moreover, it was set up to deal with the tensions continuously generated by deep religious diversity, not to offer ‘a final solution’ by expulsion or liquidation of all but the dominant religious group. Regardless of what they did in the past, would it not be described as fair to expect that European and North American states will not allow any attempt at ‘ethnic cleansing’ on their soil today?
Practitioners of Indian secularism can learn from the institutional mechanisms set up by European states to prevent intergroup violence: some facets of the institutional basis of Indian secularism can be strengthened by the example of western states. To consolidate its minimally decent character, India can still learn from the contemporary west. Yet, as different religious cultures claim their place in societies across the world, it may be India’s development of secularism that offers the most peaceful, freedom-sensitive, and democratic way forward. In any case, this account must not be read as an apologia for the Indian state but as a reasonable and sympathetic articulation of a conception that the Indian state frequently fails tolive up to. This is why my discussion focuses on the comparative value of this conception and its potential for the future, not on how it in fact has fared in India. The fate of ideal conceptions with transcultural potential should not be decided purely on the basis of what happens to them in their place of origin.
Secondly, some may object that I do not focus on the best practices of western states and privilege the more vocal articulations of western secular conceptions. But that precisely is my point. The dominant conception of western secularism is derived from an idealized self-understanding of two of its versions rather than from the best practices of western states, including the practices of the US and France. It is my view that this doctrinal conception (a) obstructs an understanding of alternative conceptions worked out on the ground by morally sensitive political agents; and (b) that by influencing politicians and citizens alike, it frequently distorts the practice of many western and nonwestern states. Further, (c) it masks the many ways in which inter- or intra-religious domination persists in many western societies. Moreover, it is this conception that has travelled to all parts of the world and is a continuing source of misunderstanding of the value of secular states. My objective is to displace these conceptions, or at least to put them in their place.
Conclusion
I hope to have demonstrated that there are at least two broad conceptions of secularism, one mainstream western (the American and the French) and the other which provides an alternative to it and is embodied in the Indian model.
Of these, the Indian conception has better ethical and moral potential to deal with deep religious diversity. I do not wish to suggest that this alternative model is found only in India. The Indian case is meant to show that such an alternative exists. It is not meant to resurrect a dichotomy between the west and the east. As I have mentioned, I am quite certain that this alternative version is embedded in the best practices of many states, including those western states that are deeply enamoured of mainstream conceptions of political secularism. My objective in this essay is to draw attention to the frequent inability of ethical and political theorists to see the normative potential in the secular practices of these different states because they are obsessed with the normative value of mainstream conceptions. Western states need to improve the understanding of their own secular practices, just as western secularism needs a better theoretical self-understanding. Rather than get stuck on models they developed at a particular point in their history, they would do well to more carefully examine the normative potential in their own political practices, or to learn from the original Indian variant.
____________________________________________
While HOLLYWOOD and global banking 1% freemason STARS sold the FAD to recruit those 5% freemason/Greeks to be ROBBER BARON 5% lying, cheating, stealing no morals and ethics, no RULE OF LAW, no GOD'S NATURAL LAW CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA far-right wing neo-liberal/neo-con nihilists-------the goal was never GOING ARABIC----
As we discussed under global population public policy NEW WORLD ORDER will shift billions of global 99% of citizens to ARABIA----AFRICA----THE AMERICAs ----but the goal is leaving these DARK CONTINENTS uninhabitable----no ability to attain fresh water, grow food, have access to natural resources---AND no world region is closest to that then our desert ARABIA----and soon to be DUST BOWL AFRICA.
This is why a distinction is being made by global banking 1% when discussing ONE WORLD ONE RELIGION goals.....what is GREEK ORTHODOXY part of what is called EASTERN CHURCH ORTHODOXY will NOT be part of the FLIPPING OF EARTH'S ECONOMIC AXIS---it will be RUSSIAN ORTHODOXY with wealth and power going to EASTERN EUROPE/EASTERN ASIAN nations.
WALK LIKE AN EGYPTIAN OVERTAKEN BY STAIRWAY TO HEAVEN 'IN A GADDA DA VIDA'
Here we see REAGAN ERA 1986 calling all 5% FREEMASON/GREEKS-------who now being thrown under the bus simply say WE DON'T CARE WE ARE LIVING FOR TODAY
"Walk Like an Egyptian" is a song made famous by American band The Bangles. It was released in 1986 as the third single from the album Different Light'
THE DARK CONTINENTS in MOVING FORWARD will be the AMERICAS---AFRICA---WESTERN EUROPE----ARABIA.
The Bangles - Walk Like an Egyptian
The Bangles' official music video for 'In Your Room'. Click to listen to The Bangles on Spotify: http://smarturl.it/TheBanglesSpotify?I…
youtube.com
So, the GORILLA-IN-THE-ROOM issue for all our US and global labor pool 99% from Asia is the same----global banking 1% are stacking 5% freemason/Greek players from these Asian nations recruited because they DON'T CARE LIVING FOR TODAY killing our 99% of citizens wanting to build wealth and stability for children and grandchildren.
Is India the only secular country in the world?
V J Seddon, former Work in UK, India, Hong Kong, Poland, Czech, Oman. (1967-2013)
Updated Oct 28 2017
Originally Answered:
Is India a secular country?
India is a secular country but only by its own definition of the word. It is taken to mean that all religions are allowed and protected.
In the rest of the world, secular means that religion is not permitted any influence in politics, government, public policy, social structures or employment.
India is not like that. There are religious parties in Parliament, religious selection for employees and students and professionals, religious schools, religious districts or ghettos, religious stores which will or will not sell certain goods. And now it is illegal to sell beef in India because it offends Hindu religious sensibilities: a clear imposition of a religious regime on all citizens. Beef is part of the staple diet for Christians, Muslims and. Chinese-ethnic people; but now they've been told by Hindu extremists they can't eat their traditional food.
From the viewpoint of an international traveller and academic, India doesn't feel secular at all. It feels like a country that is weaving a precarious path through conflicting religious requirements and limitations: and becoming increasingly Hindu-centric. That is not secular by any definition.
The other part of the Constitution defines India as a socialist republic and that is even more contentious and confusing. But let another Quoran ask that question.
RSS Feed
