It is always “their” fault, not “ours”.
(We are Not Violent! I will go to war with anybody who disagrees!)
[Scene- Name: AnySchool, location: Anywhere...Time: Any Century]
The class was strangely quiet, except for muffled grunts, and thuds, and scratching & scuffling noises that the teacher could hear as she walked closer towards the classroom.
Reaching the door, she saw only the backs of the kids’ heads, as they all seemed to be gathered around something going on , right on the floor in front of them. She quickly rushed thru the crowd, only to see two of the class’ “big guys” rolling around on the floor, clearly in the middle of a “fight to death“. [Kill, him! C’mon, finish him!" as one exhilarated, clapping member of the crowd was yelling].
She quickly broke it up, sent the now bleeding “gladiators” to the first aid room. When they came back, with band-aid on their cuts, she tried to get at the bottom of it all (the class was wasted, anyway, no one was in the mood).
“He hit me first” said the first. “He started it all, by insulting me” said the second.
“I did not! I just said bullies are bad!” said the first. “So whom did you mean, then? Smartass?” said the second.
“Oh I was just saying generally. Why do you feel so insulted? Perhaps you are a bully, then!” said the first.
“I’m not a bully, & no one can dare call me one! I’ll teach them a lesson!” said the second.
“you’re a bully, and have been for ever & ever, and you have been stealing my power ever since you came!“
said the first, and again jumper at the second one, fists flying. Before too much further damage, they were separated again & banished to detention for the rest of the day.
She asked the rest of the class why they didn’t try to stop them, or break up the fight. No response. After much probing, she could piece together a basic explanation, one that at least could satisfy her. Both the “fighters” were the “coolest kids” in the class, good at the cool things, like sports, etc. You either accepted one, or the other, as “boss”, if you wanted to be part of the “cool crowd”.
The “good kids” you know, the ones who were good at studies, always with their books, etc, left them severely alone. But then, “everybody” who was “anybody” left these “good kids” alone, except when there was need to yell “bookworm”, “nerd” etc, or to copy from their homeworks.
She now understood what the one kid meant, when he said “…stealing my power!”
She sat back & puzzled over this. What (if anything) should she do?
[END SCENE]
——————
Pope Benedict (formerly Cardinal Ratzinger, prior to his promotion) “casually”, in an academic setting, mentioned “offhand” a conversation between a Christian Emperor & a Muslim Scholar, that Islam brought the world nothing new except Mohammed’s use of violence to spread their faith. ["Show me just what Mohammed [the Prophet of Islam] brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he has preached.”]
All “defenders of Islam” are upset, pointing out all the historical evidence showing how Christianity, since Roman Emperor Constantine’s conversion, had pretty much done the same thing through out Europe & neighborhood, & then the middle-eastern “crusades”, to the Euro-Colonization of the world, in the recent past.
So what are the others (you know, the people “not of the book”) to think?
Obviously they (these others, the “hindoos” & others) have no power to do anything about it. So they can sit back & watch, & learn. Learn how similar both “opponents” are, once you get past their superficial differences. The fact that one typically looks better than the other, is only since it has a more sophisticated marketing department, knows how to spin events, & manage its image much better. [We hurt you for your own good, Vs We hurt you for our good, cuz you hurt us]
Learn how they have the zeal & pathological need to “protect” their identity fortress (Christian, or Islamic identity) at all costs. They have to protect their “peaceful” image, even if it means a little violence. After all , what’s a little violence between “Brothers”?
Also, it’s worth considering how this Pope would behave, when he turns his “Holy” attention to India. He’s supposed to be less “liberal” then his predecessor, John Paul II, who of course, during his visit to India, flatly refused to apologize for the Goan “Inquisitions” [reputed to have been worse in many respects than the more famous Spanish one], and refused to say that local “religions” like hinduism were also legitimate paths to divine [See Ref # 4 below]. Of course, all perfectly understandable. How can one “Harvest the Souls” when the “farm” is declared a “National Park”? Our great “Secular leadership”, barring the BJP & allies, accepted meekly & did arati etc…to the “divya atithi… ["What the hay….let him make hay while the sun shines…]
We Indians have also “benefited” from the “munificence & magnificence” brought by our Islamic Invaders. [Short, interesting history of "Islam’s other Victims" at http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=4649 ]So, how do we judge these current actions above, and all actions in general, to say they are “good” or “bad”? Dumb “hindoos” like me turn to our “Wisdom literature” which we worship a lot, & rarely read. This time I took the easy way, & surfed the net (granted, I knew where I wanted to go, and amongst the many sources, good & bad, found something).The Gita has some answers, if only on looks.
In a nutshell (at my level of understanding) the behavior here seems primarily Tamasic (mode of ignorance) and Rajasic (mode of untempered passion), definitely not Sattvic (mode of balance & wisdom).
Both sides’ motivation is questionable, & so is their selective knowledge. If the pope’s remark (coming from the head of a “State” as well as a “Religion”, since the Vatican is both!) was innocent, it shouldn’t have caused this much hue & cry, & he would’ve retracted, which he’s not doing, notwithstanding his “regrets”. If the (pretty uniform, & across the board) condemnation & reaction from the muslim world would have stopped at words (in exchange for what, obviously, were mere words!), that would be fair enough. But the easy threats that are coming out of various “representatives’ mouths carry the ominous promise of more than just words.The Aga Khan [http://www.rediff.com/news/2006/sep/22aga.htm ] recently said, “We are often told these days that tension and violence in much of the world grows out of some fundamental clash of civilizations — especially a clash between the Islamic world and the West. I disagree with that assessment. In my view, it is a clash of ignorances, which is to blame.”
(“Or” the imp sitting inside my head says “we know each other only too well!” See Ref# 2 below)
Oh, for some wisdom from those in power!
—————————-
REFERENCES:1. Quoting from[http://www.bvashram.org/articles/22/1/Are-All-Religious-Paths-Equal%3F ]
A good action is judged by good results. To know whether something is actually good or bad requires us to know the results it brings in full, not superficially. For example, I may eat some food that tastes good and then say I feel this action was good because I enjoyed the taste. But if the food was poisoned, I would later die. So to judge whether something is good requires complete knowledge of the results, not partial knowledge; and those results should be universally beneficial for the action to be good.The second aspect of judgement is to know objectively what is good. Someone may judge the taste of food as being good, but if it is poisoned we can see it is not actually good to eat (the ultimate result is bad). Thus the Gita warns us that what appears sweet at first may not always be good:
Vishay-endriya-samyogad
yat tad agre ’mritopamam
pariname visham iva
tat sukham rajasam smritam
“That happiness which is derived from contact of the senses with their objects and which appears like nectar at first but poison at the end is said to be of the nature of passion (rajo-guna).”… the Gita further explains that faith or religion is also influenced by and categorized according to the three modes of nature (i.e. the three gunas: sattva guna, rajo guna, and tamo guna), and that based on the qualities (gunas) one is influenced by, his destination is determined. …………
The Gita describes actions within the modes of nature and their results as follows:
karmanah sukrit-asyahuh
sattvikam nirmalam phalam
rajasas tu phalam duhkham
ajnanam tamasah phalam
“The result of pious action is pure and is said to be in the mode of goodness. But action done in the mode of passion results in misery, and action performed in the mode of ignorance results in darkness.”The first thing we should note is that each action influenced by each mode of nature brings a distinctly different result. Actions in the mode of passion (rajo-guna) and ignorance (tamo-guna) lead to misery and darkness for the performer of the action. … clearly says those who act in passion or ignorance attain only misery and darkness.2. Quoting from
Faith, Civilization and Eurocentric Racism by George Thundiparambil at [ /expressions/articledesc.asp?cid=307432 ]The Western Legacy of Abrahamic FaithMost people living in contemporary times would agree that the world has certainly become a better place ever since rationalism gained the upper hand in Europe. An average student in Europe would attest to the fact that modern western culture as characterized by its secular credentials is much obliged to the rise of rational thought and humanism that superseded Christian faith. It is on the basis of this secular and democratic yardstick that western thinkers and statesmen justify themselves for their intent of propagating western values in the Islamic world, which is also characterized by Abrahamic faith. The Islamic leaders are resisting such efforts not only because of the misperception by some that these western values are indeed part and parcel of Christianity, but also due to the systemically ingrained intolerance, similar to Christian faith, for rationality.
Rationality forces Christianity and Islam into an uneasy partnership of sorts, though both cannot peaceably exist side by side with their opposing theological viewpoints. It is a fact of history that there had been no religious wars before the advent of these two modern religions of Christianity and Islam, two opposing ‘faiths’ with imperialistic traditions rising from the same roots of Judaism.
“As civilizations, Islam and the West – the one with its jihads, the other given to crusades – seem peculiarly well-suited to be at each other’s throat.” – A. J. Bacevich, ‘First Things’ Journal – AJB-FT.To assume faith in such an Abrahamic God or system, one has to first deny rationality. It is the study of this variety of God and faith that passes off as theology and that, which is irreconcilable with rationality, the invariable ingredient and expander of consciousness.
The simultaneous subscription to rationality and faith-without-evidence is an incongruent proposition in the psyche, but yet taken for granted by the typical western mind. This occurs because the incongruence is imperceptible at the deepest level of the unconscious, but in such a case, always carrying a potential for schizophrenia. At a conscious level, however, the search for meaning and purpose in physical phenomena has returned rich dividends, whereas the search for evidence for some meaning and purpose in life and existence remains still in the alley of darkness, leading to existential anguish. As long as modern science cannot supply that, the western mind will keep on accommodating a ‘faith’ at its deepest level, even if it is incompatible with its yardstick of measuring reality at a conscious level. The existentialist philosophy that rose in Europe and arrived at nothing was part of this search to accommodate a faith without evidence in a scientific mind. One of the most sensitive of voices of the early 20th century speaks of the cultural crisis thus:
“What are the roots that clutch, what branches grow Out of this stony rubbish? Son of man…” – T. S. Eliot, ‘The Waste Land.’The rational mind looks for meaning and reason in every phenomenon, and it is natural that it looks for a meaning and purpose in life and existence as well. This need is expressly put forward by Paul Davies in his Templeton Prize address. Davies describes the western dilemma and proceeds to pose a scientific alternative to the Abrahamic conception of religion. Before he tries to put forward a reasonable explanation, he discards the role of conventional Abrahamic ‘faith’ in modern society:
“It is clear that many religious people still cling to an image of a God-of-the-gaps, a cosmic magician invoked to explain all those mysteries about nature that currently have the scientists stumped. It is a dangerous position, for as science advances, so the God-of-the-gaps retreats, perhaps to be pushed off the edge of space and time altogether, and into redundancy…. According to James Hartle and Stephen Hawking, this coming-into-being of the universe need not be a supernatural process, but could occur entirely naturally, in accordance with the laws of quantum physics, which permit the occurrence of genuinely spontaneous events.” – PD-TPAThe western religious scenario remains and will remain hopeless as the two contrary directions taken by science and faith cannot be resolved until and unless one of the positions withdraws or becomes redundant. The problem of the modern western mind then is that rationality cannot offer an ultimate answer unless the Abrahamic ‘theological’ worldview is overturned, or that the western religious view cannot accommodate rationality, the inherent nature of humans, when it supplies the meaning and purpose of life.
3. Ref – ‘Goa Inquisition was most merciless and cruel’ [Rediff interview at http://in.rediff.com/news/2005/sep/14inter1.htm ]
Richard Zimler’s novel, Guardian of the Dawn, documents the little-known Portuguese Inquisition in India, in 16th century Goa. He points out that, apart from their laws and religion, the Portuguese also imported and enforced their infamous methods of interrogation to subdue troublemakers.Zimler has won numerous awards for his work, including a 1994 US National Endowment of the Arts Fellowship in Fiction and 1998 Herodotus Award for best historical novel. The Last Kabbalist of Lisbon was picked as 1998 Book of the Year by British critics, while Hunting Midnight has been nominated for the 2005 IMPAC Literary Award. Together with Guardian of the Dawn, these novels comprise the ‘Sephardic Cycle’ — a group of interrelated but independent novels about different branches of a Portuguese Jewish family.4. Sample some Soul Harvesters Shennanigans at
[ http://conversionagenda.blogspot.com/1999/10/missionary-activity-secularism-popes.html ]
As Swami Dayananda Saraswati writes in an open letter to the Pope:“You cannot ask me to respond to conversion by converting others to my religion because it is not part of my tradition. … Thus, conversion is not merely violence against people; it is violence against people who are committed to non-violence.” [xvi]
Recently Ashok Singhal, head of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), asked the Pope to “announce that Christianity is one of the ways that can lead to salvation and not that Christianity is the only way to salvation.” The newspapers called Singhal a “hardline” Hindu leader but did not accuse the Pope of being rigid in his views.Yet Singhal accepts a pluralism to religion and salvation but the Pope does not.
In terms of ordinary religious discourse Singhal has more liberal views than the Pope does but he is called a hardliner because he is questioning the missionary process! A very statement asking the Pope to affirm religious tolerance is itself styled intolerant!
