Musicians… please use notes other than the 7 while composing new music. Else some people might be disappointed.

Gurudev… quote points from Greek mythology next time you write an article on vedic culture.

Or you might start writing detective novels in your blog so as to keep the readers guessing.

We all like to know more. Also, we all like to know more about different things. It is in our nature. But if we do that at the cost of losing context, the entire effort goes for a toss. If a discussion has carried people from A to B once, the same logic can also carry same people from A to C via B. We need to understand the start and finish.

What Guru means is that there are always new people who visit the blog for the first time. I might not enjoy without experiencing the discussion myself and being part of it. A mere reading of past discussion might not suffice my inquisitive zeal.

Finally I would also like to complain, but I need to justify my own effort in solving the issue first. Perhaps not, when I am totally dependent on someone else for making an effort. In the later case, I have completely lost the righteousness to complain. It is like sitting in a Rolling Stones Concert and saying, “”Alright Mick, I’m here. Now entertain me! I demand the entertainment!”" I have to respect Mick Jagger for the artist he his and for his immense talent.

Please do not take any offense but I just wanted to bring a little perspective here. I fully appreciate your concern though and will try to help Guru, in fact we should all try and contribute in generating enough content without compromising its richness, authenticity, consistency and context.

If you are talking about the way I end such articles, yes I always end with a universal brotherhood message from the ancient Indian culture to reiterate our commitment for a global society.
Every time I write an article about India, I do repeat the relevant quotes/facts. When we see news in a news channel, apart from the latest news that they are reporting, everything else will be the same basic facts that has already been reported earlier, so can we tell them, ‘please dont repeat whatever you have already told in the past’

There is something called ‘context’ that a person need to understand while reading an article, and I treat every article independently of others, for there might be new readers who are reading for the first time in this blog, and I dont want to limit the information being available to them by assuming that they have already read other related articles.

As for words, yes they change here and there because I dont ‘copy paste’ every time, so in new sentences they are bound to go here and there.
As for the turn that an article takes, for most articles no need to even go through the actual article, you can get that instinct by just reading the title of the article. I am not writing any suspense story everytime to make the reader wait till the end

To summarize, my knowledge is very limited and I have to recycle the same stuff again and again to make up for my limited knowledge by changing words here and there. And yes it is really disappointing!

I believe certain outcomes based on thoughts or emotions render themselves pointless for discussion, as each individual has his/her own self construct to improve upon. A variable that invokes logic or illogic will lead to thinking. Whereas, any variable that invokes feeling will lead to emotions.

Ambiguity among the concepts of thought, speech and action lead to degradation of an individual and takes him further from his true reality. Ability is something that will lead to difference on the level of no choice. Whereas, Modality affects the circumstances in which we take an assertion to be satisfied. We should also avoid to apply different realities to the same context or try to obliterate the context to suit our choice.

When a Jeeva doesn’t understand the difference between what he thinks, what he speaks and what he does, he his not so very different from a Pashu. When he understands, he can be at three levels of closeness to the Ishvara.
When a person thinks “”A”", says “”B”" and does “”C”" , he acts as a Manava. When he thinks “”A”", says “”A”" and does “”B”" he acts as a Manushya. And when he thinks “”A”", says “”A”" and does “”A”" he acts as a Purusha.

Yet again I object most severely, to the context in which the word Hinduism has been used in the discussion above. Hinduism is not a religion at all. Infact, the usage of the term religion in equivalence to “”Dharma”" is highly derogatory to the light bestowed upon us by all revered Vedic Seer Scientists.

Yes I completely agree with you that we should never ever resort to any kind of unmindful violent or non-peaceful approach while protesting against such things. Thats simply not the way we look at the world.

Its not they vs we, its only we. As you rightly said the ‘we’ of hinduism includes the ‘entire world’ which is entire humanity+other life forms+rest of the inanimate universe

Lets all work and hope for a better world.

Abhilash (January 5, 2008 at 11:38 am): This was not expected from you . Hindus have had too much of goodwill for other religions till now and it is time to stop others misusing this good will.

First of all, its the intention of those who did it. Just because you missed being hit does not mean allow the person who attempted to hit you go scot free.

Second, such argument I believe is the misuse of logic and grammar by either generalizing things beyond scope or applying a rule of one context to a completely different context. Let me explain:

Will you place the God in your toilet and worship there and give offerings?
Or ok, let me speak scientifically, the food that we eat and the excreta in the toilet pit – both are made up of same subatomic particles. So can we eat the latter? No, why?
Because our physical body will accept those subatomic particles only when it is in a specific form, which we call food.

When Hinduism says God is omnipresent it does indeed mean it. What you should realize is that every common man is not an “”enlightened buddha”", which is why hinduism also allows idol worship where a common man who cannot comprehend its vedic depths of spirituality can to his own level of comprehension personify the God and worship it with a sanctity attached to it. Which is why we find in Hinduism people worshipping trees, some worshipping other people whom they believe are divine, some worshipping idols, some worshipping animals etc.

God is omnipresent, not common man. God is formless and opinionless, not common man. A common man classifies things as good and bad and excepts things that he
associates with good to be always found in the company of Good. An image of God and a toilet seat are classified differently by humans.
Can we leave criminals without punishing because God is also present in them? How will be law and order situation then?

There is a difference between realizing God and making a mockery of God. A person who realizes the omnipresence of God will in the first place never need a picture on the toilet seat to see God there, just seeing the toilet seat would also mean seeing God!

What we need to understand here is that, its not the God who is being offended here, for the omnipresent God of hinduism is formless, opinionless and is the eternal universe itself which lies beyond our temporary physical universe. What is offended here are the sentiments of a section of the species called human being who unlike God have something called emotions.

God according to Hinduism is both the container of the universe as well what is contained within it. And ofcourse it also includes toilet and bikinis.
If we consider ourselves to be omnipresent in our body, which we are, can we swap the functionality of our excretory organs with that of mouth, saying we are everywhere in our body? No, because physically its not possible, similarly there are certain things which are emotionally not possible, and a fellow human is expected to respect that.

By the way, I am not speaking here on my behalf, for I give absolutely no importance to such things. I normally dont believe in reaction.
I wrote this post on behalf of those readers who brought this to my notice. After all being a voice to those whose cause you find valid, is valid too.
There is no other reaction here, except an expression of a sense of displeasure on what has been said and done, and an answer to the question ‘Why not?’