The Great Seer and Great Man

by Idéfix Mon May 13, 2013 1:55 pm

There is a discussion about Chandrasekharendra Saraswati deep in another thread. Here are some more quotes from his own work. On matters like marriage, women's rights, the role of caste in society, etc. his views are rather regressive, and he comes across as a petty man attempting to keep Hindu society in the 19th century, or take it farther back. The reverence he attracts from southern Indian brahmins is rather surprising to me, given his regressive views.

On marriage

Girls must be married at least at the age permitted by the law if not at the age of seven or eight. Towards this purpose we have started the Kanyakadana Trust. Daughters of poor parents must not remain unmarried after they have attained puberty merely because they have no money...

On women going to college and working

Other communities have not degenerated to the same extent as have Brahmins. Among non-Brahmins the dowry system is not as oppressive. Their women do not go to college in such large numbers as their Brahmin sisters do, nor do they, like the latter, go about as freely wherever fancy takes them...

And this has played havoc with our family and social life. I am referring to the present phenomenon of girls going to work.

"That women are receiving higher education and are working is a great step forward", proclaim the reformists. "A great injustice done to them in the past has been undone," they add. My own view is that no injustice was ever done to women in the past and I would go to the extent of saying that, if at all any injustice was done, it was to men.

Few seem to have realised the undesirable economic consequences of women going to work.

As for the wife, she is now proud to be working. In fact, she is so used to working outside that she does not like being confined to her home. When she earns on her own she wants to spend as she likes without being questioned by her husband.

To stay at home does not mean to be locked in. There is no shortage of sastras and Puranas in Sanskrit and in other languages. If women develop a taste for them, they will keep reading them for a whole lifetime and find happiness.

Though there is much talk of women's liberation, what we actually see is that they have to work under so many people and have too be answerable to so many of them. Is there peace in such a life? In the liberation that is so much talked about, is there the bliss of domestic life? Are working women able to cook at leisure, eat and enjoy the warmth and affection of children?

If women decide not to work after their marriage it is possible that the vacancies thus created will be filled by the unemployed men. Families without any means so far will then benefit. Working women must think about this and those who try to bring equality between men and women and ought to consider the logic behind my observations.

On reducing caste divisions among Hindus

The reformists ask why the Vedas cannot be made common to all [castes]. This is not acceptable in the least. I am a representative and spokesman of the sastras. It is my duty to state that this (making Vedic dharma common to all castes) is not permitted by the sages who created the sastras and assigned the duties special to each caste. They (the sages) were known for their spirit of sacrifices and impartiality and they had no interest other than the happiness of mankind.

However vehemently you may deny the existence of hereditary factors, you find evidence of the same every day in all spheres. Those who have been the custodians of the Vedas all these centuries will find it easy to learn and chant the Vedas despite the present gap of two or three generations in their tradition. The same cannot be said of other communities.

There are today two unfortunate developments in the country. One is that of the Brahmins giving up Vedic learning and Vedic works and the second that of other communities wanting to practise the Vedic dharma. It is difficult to say which of the two is worse. Not performing the duty that belongs to us by birth is an offence. But, as the Lord says in the Gita, to take up the duty of another is a greater offence.

On birth as the true basis of caste, not innate abilities

The majority of people do not choose their jobs according to their inborn character. They somehow learn to adjust themselves to their work whatever it happens to be. On the whole there is competition for such jobs are very paying. To talk of inborn nature, quality or mental outlook is all bunkum. Would it not be ridiculous if "svadharma" comes to mean the job or vocation that brings the maximum money for the minimum of work?

Source: http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/

by Hellsangel Mon May 13, 2013 2:34 pm

I think the wussy Iyer boy was also very afraid of Iyer women running 'loose':

Like sanyasa, sahagamana has never been compulsory. I will tell you an
important reason for this. The dharmasastras deal extensively with the
conduct of widows. If everybody was expected to be a sannyasin there would
be, as I said before, no need for cremation to be brought under the purview of
the sastras. Similarly, if every widow was expected to immolate herself in
the funeral pyre of her husband, where would be the need for a separate code
of conduct for them (that is for the widows)?
Nobody can foretell when the hand of death will strike. It can come in one's
childhood or during the time one is a householder. So everyone cannot be
expected to die a sannyasin. If the sastras insist that on the death of a man
his widow must also be cremated with him, then there will be no need for
codifying "vidhava dharma"(code of conduct for widows).

From

http://ebooks.sreyas.in/hindu-dharma-chandrasekharendra-saraswati-english.pdf

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Mon May 13, 2013 2:56 pm

Looks like you are more interested in the bolded text than the average Hindu. Naastikasiromani zindabad! Ibrahim mian would love you.

by Hellsangel Mon May 13, 2013 3:07 pm

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Looks like you are more interested in the bolded text than the average Hindu. Naastikasiromani zindabad! Ibrahim mian would love you.

Guruvu gaaru, as they say in Tamil:

Amavasaikkum Abdul Kadarukkum enna sambandam?

PS: No Garibi hatao here?

by truthbetold Mon May 13, 2013 4:48 pm

oh my god. did you guys make up these things? that stuff is the deeply dark side of Hinduism and sastra . if i show it to my children they will be quite upset.
how can anybody defend stuff like that?

by Idéfix Mon May 13, 2013 5:01 pm

truthbetold wrote:oh my god. did you guys make up these things? that stuff is the deeply dark side of Hinduism and sastra . if i show it my children they will be quite upset.

No, all this is directly from the web site of the Kanchi Kamakoti peetham, which proudly showcases -- in 2013! -- these thoughts of this "great seer." And this is the authorized English translation that the peetham published.

truthbetold wrote:how can anybody defend stuff like that?

There is more in that book that I didn't have time to look up and post. I remember posting some of his views on widows on old CH... ideas that any right-minded Hindu would reject outright today.

On issue after issue, his views are stuck in the distant past and he actively sought to take Hinduism backward or stop it from moving forward. But he is treated as if he was a great man. I don't understand why he is accorded so much respect; from his written opinions, he seems a lot like the Asaram Bapu of his time.

by truthbetold Mon May 13, 2013 5:14 pm

i thought these seers are little more worldly wise.

the thing that always puzzled me is that the those who profess celibacy advice married couple about living together. these guys do not know much about sex and love and never worked for money to pay for food. that is like chess champion anand coaching Indian cricket team.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Tue May 14, 2013 12:57 am

truthbetold wrote:i thought these seers are little more worldly wise.

the thing that always puzzled me is that the those who profess celibacy advice married couple about living together. these guys do not know much about sex and love and never worked for money to pay for food. that is like chess champion anand coaching Indian cricket team.

That is called reality aka hypocrisy.

Swamys preaching celibacy while getting caught with Devoties in bedroom or preaching celibacy without knowing anything about family, kids or sex, Pedophile Padres preaching against gays, fooling around with "sisters and mothers" and preaching abstinence, Maulanas and mullahs preaching killing innocents sitting in mosques.

I see that maha Periyavaal was actually a Kannada Smartha born in Villupuram. Yet another "Tamilian" who is actually not a tamilian.

by Kris Tue May 14, 2013 2:58 am

It is a lot worse than I thought. Years ago I had heard that he had opined it was okay for one sub-caste of Brahmins to marry someone from another sub-caste. I had surmised someone had posed this as a question to him and he had said 'sure, why not?' Looks like these are the sorts of banalities he spent his waking hours pondering over. In the end, he was catering to a crowd that was sold on the idea of his "greatness". There is no business like the relig. business.

by Rishi Tue May 14, 2013 7:25 am

How many Hindus in India followed this man?

How much economic and political power his followers had to enforce their prejudices?

The so called hinduism is a decentralized system.

I bet there are millions of Punjabi Hindus who have never heard of this man. And they don't care.

The damage this man did to the society is minimal.

by Hellsangel Tue May 14, 2013 7:46 am

Rishi wrote:How many Hindus in India followed this man?

How much economic and political power his followers had to enforce their prejudices?

The so called hinduism is a decentralized system.

I bet there are millions of Punjabi Hindus who have never heard of this man. And they don't care.

The damage this man did to the society is minimal.

Paparajan, as your SuCH idol would say - are you performing your caste duty?

by Idéfix Tue May 14, 2013 11:25 am

Rishi wrote:How many Hindus in India followed this man?

How much economic and political power his followers had to enforce their prejudices?

The so called hinduism is a decentralized system.

I bet there are millions of Punjabi Hindus who have never heard of this man. And they don't care.

The damage this man did to the society is minimal.

Now you are undercutting the argument that he was a great man -- that he had power and influence, that Indira Gandhi came down in an IAF chopper to see him, etc. If you are suggesting that he was an insignificant and petty man, I agree with you.

by Idéfix Tue May 14, 2013 11:33 am

Kris wrote:It is a lot worse than I thought.

That's exactly how I felt when I first read his opinions for myself. I was raised with the notion that he was a kind, wise, knowledgeable man who deserves a lot of respect, even reverence. I expected him to be a decent religious man, who was kind to people and taught his flock to be nice to one another and to outsiders -- of the sort I respect despite my nonbelief. But his opinions are much worse than the image of him that I grew up with.

Kris wrote:In the end, he was catering to a crowd that was sold on the idea of his "greatness". There is no business like the relig. business.

That's right. I don't know if there's much literature on this, but I am mildly curious how he acquired that aura of greatness. Perhaps it was his very obscurantism that made him great in the view of his orthodox followers -- may be they saw it as "standing up to assaults on sanatana dharma" from the DKheads.

by Rishi Tue May 14, 2013 11:47 am

Idéfix wrote:
Rishi wrote:How many Hindus in India followed this man?

How much economic and political power his followers had to enforce their prejudices?

The so called hinduism is a decentralized system.

I bet there are millions of Punjabi Hindus who have never heard of this man. And they don't care.

The damage this man did to the society is minimal.
Now you are undercutting the argument that he was a great man -- that he had power and influence, that Indira Gandhi came down in an IAF chopper to see him, etc. If you are suggesting that he was an insignificant and petty man, I agree with you.

Who said he was a great man?

IMO anyone can call anyone or anything great.

Karunanidhi's followers think their leader is a great man. But others think he is a thug.

What is the big deal?

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Tue May 14, 2013 1:42 pm

Rishi wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
Rishi wrote:How many Hindus in India followed this man?

How much economic and political power his followers had to enforce their prejudices?

The so called hinduism is a decentralized system.

I bet there are millions of Punjabi Hindus who have never heard of this man. And they don't care.

The damage this man did to the society is minimal.
Now you are undercutting the argument that he was a great man -- that he had power and influence, that Indira Gandhi came down in an IAF chopper to see him, etc. If you are suggesting that he was an insignificant and petty man, I agree with you.

Who said he was a great man?

IMO anyone can call anyone or anything great.

Karunanidhi's followers think their leader is a great man. But others think he is a thug.

What is the big deal?

You are not giving Idéfix a chance to find something negative in Kanchi acharya. On top of it you are also indicating that some people think that Karunanidhi (an atheist) is a thug. In the process, you ruined Idéfix's day. It is very unfair. Let me correct this. All Hindu acharyas are morons and Karunanidhi is the most brilliant periyaval scholar in the world.

by Idéfix Tue May 14, 2013 1:55 pm

Rishi wrote:Who said he was a great man?

My guruvu gaaru.

Rishi wrote:IMO anyone can call anyone or anything great.

Karunanidhi's followers think their leader is a great man. But others think he is a thug.

What is the big deal?

Yes, anyone can call Karunanidhi a great man. I will be happy to remind them that he is a thug.

by Idéfix Tue May 14, 2013 1:56 pm

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:You are not giving Idéfix a chance to find something negative in Kanchi acharya.

Guruvu-gaaru, if you have not "found something negative" in him so far, I must congratulate you on the excellent performance of closing your eyes and mind firmly shut. Dr. Kamakoti would be proud of you!

by Rishi Wed May 15, 2013 12:23 pm

Would you call Winston Churchill a great man?

by Idéfix Wed May 15, 2013 12:30 pm

Not really, because Churchill was a bigot. But Dr. Kamakoti doesn't really compare to Churchill -- amAvasya, Abdul Qader, etc.

As I said elsewhere:

Greatness in my book does not come from a lot of power or political influence. Greatness comes from being on the right side of the big issues that matter, from truly leading one's community to positive change, from an ability to transcend the divisions between groups. The opposite of greatness -- littleness or pettiness -- is characterized by obscurantist opposition to progress, being on the wrong side of history on big issues, and clinging to the old divisions and privileges.

Churchill meets my yardstick for greatness more than Dr. Kamakoti.

by Rishi Wed May 15, 2013 12:38 pm

Idéfix wrote:Not really, because Churchill was a bigot. But Dr. Kamakoti doesn't really compare to Churchill -- amAvasya, Abdul Qader, etc.

As I said elsewhere:

Greatness in my book does not come from a lot of power or political influence. Greatness comes from being on the right side of the big issues that matter, from truly leading one's community to positive change, from an ability to transcend the divisions between groups. The opposite of greatness -- littleness or pettiness -- is characterized by obscurantist opposition to progress, being on the wrong side of history on big issues, and clinging to the old divisions and privileges.

Churchill meets my yardstick for greatness more than Dr. Kamakoti.

Churchill called Arabs filthy savages and Africans niggers. He thought Indians were an inferior race.

by Guest Wed May 15, 2013 12:39 pm

Idéfix wrote:Not really, because Churchill was a bigot. But Dr. Kamakoti doesn't really compare to Churchill -- amAvasya, Abdul Qader, etc.

As I said elsewhere:

Greatness in my book does not come from a lot of power or political influence. Greatness comes from being on the right side of the big issues that matter, from truly leading one's community to positive change, from an ability to transcend the divisions between groups. The opposite of greatness -- littleness or pettiness -- is characterized by obscurantist opposition to progress, being on the wrong side of history on big issues, and clinging to the old divisions and privileges.

Churchill meets my yardstick for greatness more than Dr. Kamakoti.

Isn't it true that your entire family are great devotees of the Kanchi Sankaracharya Chandrasekharendra Saraswati (who you are now calling Dr Kamakoti) as per your earlier posts on sulekha. Are you the Eternal Rebel?

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Wed May 15, 2013 12:50 pm

Dr. Kamokoti (You are calling him Dr. only bcz I call Mahammad as Dr. PBUH) made statements that were written in HIS scriptures, which you born and brought up in a different era don't agree.

CHurchill was a bigot and racist - something a politician is NOT supposed to exhibit, and was recognized as evil 100 years before him. So he is badder or just as bad.

The reason KamEndra Swamigal is hated by you more bcz he was a Hindu swamigal. You would not have hated him as much if it were a Pedophile Pope ji or some Asshole Ayotollah.

- I dont think it is right to call him that (will come up with a more appropriate one). YOu are mistaking him with Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal - The current Chief.

by Idéfix Wed May 15, 2013 1:11 pm

Rishi wrote:
Idéfix wrote:Not really, because Churchill was a bigot. But Dr. Kamakoti doesn't really compare to Churchill -- amAvasya, Abdul Qader, etc.

As I said elsewhere:

Greatness in my book does not come from a lot of power or political influence. Greatness comes from being on the right side of the big issues that matter, from truly leading one's community to positive change, from an ability to transcend the divisions between groups. The opposite of greatness -- littleness or pettiness -- is characterized by obscurantist opposition to progress, being on the wrong side of history on big issues, and clinging to the old divisions and privileges.

Churchill meets my yardstick for greatness more than Dr. Kamakoti.

Churchill called Arabs filthy savages and Africans niggers. He thought Indians were an inferior race.

Yes that is why I said he is not a great man in my book and called him a bigot.

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Wed May 15, 2013 1:21 pm

Idéfix wrote:Not really, because Churchill was a bigot. But Dr. Kamakoti doesn't really compare to Churchill -- amAvasya, Abdul Qader, etc.

As I said elsewhere:

Greatness in my book does not come from a lot of power or political influence. Greatness comes from being on the right side of the big issues that matter, from truly leading one's community to positive change, from an ability to transcend the divisions between groups. The opposite of greatness -- littleness or pettiness -- is characterized by obscurantist opposition to progress, being on the wrong side of history on big issues, and clinging to the old divisions and privileges.

Churchill meets my yardstick for greatness more than Dr. Kamakoti.

You shouldn't be blamed for this. You are only acting according to your vasanas. Take any issue and you will find differing opinions on it. I was watching a program on Sanjay Dutt - should he or shouldn't he go to jail - and different people were giving different (and brilliant) explanations, adding to the controversy. Two young men can look at a beautiful woman and get entirely different feelings based on their vasanas. We all act according to our vasanas but give elaborate, rational explanations. Your friend Prahlada has brought ruin to his family! Buddhists even now wonder why he kept quiet when some questions were posed to him! Silence, sometimes, is a wise explanation.

by Idéfix Wed May 15, 2013 1:38 pm

Guruvu gaaru, is silence only a virtue to be preached to one's sishyas, or is it a virtue with practicing?

by Idéfix Wed May 15, 2013 1:41 pm

Sang swype. Worth, not with.

by Idéfix Wed May 15, 2013 1:43 pm

Damn not sang Smile

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Wed May 15, 2013 1:45 pm

Both. Bodhisatvas could have chosen nirvana, instead. MT maata could have enjoyed her private life and not chosen to be the High-command. Ashwani Kumar could have kept quiet and allowed MMS to face the drama. Chandamaarkas could have kept quiet when Prahlada was eager to give explanations on everything.
Razz

by Rishi Wed May 15, 2013 2:33 pm

Your friend Prahlada has brought ruin to his family! Buddhists even now wonder why he kept quiet when some questions were posed to him!

Who is this guy Prahlada?

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Wed May 15, 2013 4:30 pm

Rishi wrote:Your friend Prahlada has brought ruin to his family! Buddhists even now wonder why he kept quiet when some questions were posed to him!

Who is this guy Prahlada?

He was Hiranyakashipu's son. Hiranyakashipu was killed by Narasimha in the dasavatara story.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfq3DQXhw7I

by Idéfix Wed May 15, 2013 4:43 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:Dr. Kamokoti (You are calling him Dr. only bcz I call Mahammad as Dr. PBUH) made statements that were written in HIS scriptures, which you born and brought up in a different era don't agree.

Actually I am calling him that because Merlot coined the name for him.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:CHurchill was a bigot and racist - something a politician is NOT supposed to exhibit, and was recognized as evil 100 years before him. So he is badder or just as bad.

Yes, Churchill was a bigot, like Dr. Kamakoti. If bigotry does not fit a politician, why does it fit a religious leader in your opinion?

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:The reason KamEndra Swamigal is hated by you more bcz he was a Hindu swamigal. You would not have hated him as much if it were a Pedophile Pope ji or some Asshole Ayotollah.

I don't hate Dr. Kamakoti. I just don't think he is a "great man." The Ayatollahs are much, much worse than him, because they just don't say or believe hateful things, but unlike Dr. Kamakoti they act on them with the monopoly of state power in their hands.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:- I dont think it is right to call him that (will come up with a more appropriate one). YOu are mistaking him with Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal - The current Chief.

I am not confusing them at all. All my comments are about the dead man.

by Idéfix Wed May 15, 2013 4:44 pm

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:
Rishi wrote:Your friend Prahlada has brought ruin to his family! Buddhists even now wonder why he kept quiet when some questions were posed to him!

Who is this guy Prahlada?

He was Hiranyakashipu's son. Hiranyakashipu was killed by Narasimha in the dasavatara story.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfq3DQXhw7I

I guess Rishi got confused because instead of calling him my son or enemy, you called him my friend. Smile

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Wed May 15, 2013 10:55 pm

Idéfix wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:Dr. Kamokoti (You are calling him Dr. only bcz I call Mahammad as Dr. PBUH) made statements that were written in HIS scriptures, which you born and brought up in a different era don't agree.
Actually I am calling him that because Merlot coined the name for him.

Ahhh...now you are doing a Rashmun...in any case, your "leader" has no originality either.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:CHurchill was a bigot and racist - something a politician is NOT supposed to exhibit, and was recognized as evil 100 years before him. So he is badder or just as bad.
Yes, Churchill was a bigot, like Dr. Kamakoti. If bigotry does not fit a politician, why does it fit a religious leader in your opinion?

Who said it fits a religious leader? Show me where I supported KamEndra Swamigal ???? You were the one who got upset at me starting a thread on Pope Nazi. So you should be the one answering why you you refuse to criticize PopeAandi at the same level as Kamendra Swamigal. I criticize Kamendra Swamigal right here and now, while you jimbly dodged from criticizing PopeAandi (like your Leader Maulana Gaywala), and diverting only towards hindu swamigal.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:The reason KamEndra Swamigal is hated by you more bcz he was a Hindu swamigal. You would not have hated him as much if it were a Pedophile Pope ji or some Asshole Ayotollah.
I don't hate Dr. Kamakoti. I just don't think he is a "great man." The Ayatollahs are much, much worse than him, because they just don't say or believe hateful things, but unlike Dr. Kamakoti they act on them with the monopoly of state power in their hands.

But, I dont see you criticize them at even half the zeal and intensity that you criticize Sri Kamendra.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:- I dont think it is right to call him that (will come up with a more appropriate one). YOu are mistaking him with Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal - The current Chief.
I am not confusing them at all. All my comments are about the dead man.

And you think this Jayendra Swamigal is better than Sri Kamendra? This Jayendra did in a period when his actions are explicitly considered anathema by the society. So you prefer Jayendrizing women than Kamendraing women?

I think you are suffering from presbyopia...

by Idéfix Wed May 15, 2013 11:15 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:Show me where I supported KamEndra Swamigal ???? You were the one who got upset at me starting a thread on Pope Nazi.

It is very clear why you felt compelled to recycle a news story about the Nazi Pope from several months ago, with a title parallel to the title of this thread. You lack the courage to openly support Dr. Kamakoti, hence you are twisting yourself into knots trying to divert attention away from his own words.

I have not been proactively criticizing Dr. Kamakoti; I only reacted to a characterization of him as a Great Man. Even there, I relied primarily on his own words. If that upsets you so much, you need to reexamine your stated position towards him.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:So you should be the one answering why you you refuse to criticize PopeAandi at the same level as Kamendra Swamigal. I criticize Kamendra Swamigal right here and now, while you jimbly dodged from criticizing PopeAandi (like your Leader Maulana Gaywala), and diverting only towards hindu swamigal.

I have criticized the Nazi Pope more than I have criticized Dr. Kamakoti. It is just that you approved of my criticism of the Nazi Pope so it didn't stand out in your recollection, while my disputing the "greatness" of Dr. Kamakoti rankles you.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:But, I dont see you criticize them at even half the zeal and intensity that you criticize Sri Kamendra.

Nonsense. I call Ratzinger the Nazi Pope. If one of his supporters showed up here and started throwing around diversions like, "you know how bad this other guy of this other religion was" whenever I criticized the Nazi Pope, you would see a lot more back and forth. But we don't have any supporters of the Nazi Pope here, so you don't see such back and forth.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:And you think this Jayendra Swamigal is better than Sri Kamendra? This Jayendra did in a period when his actions are explicitly considered anathema by the society. So you prefer Jayendrizing women than Kamendraing women?

I think you are suffering from presbyopia...

You are confused. I never said the current Dr. Kamakoti is better than the dead Dr. Kamakoti.

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Thu May 16, 2013 12:54 am

Idéfix wrote:
Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:
Rishi wrote:Your friend Prahlada has brought ruin to his family! Buddhists even now wonder why he kept quiet when some questions were posed to him!

Who is this guy Prahlada?

He was Hiranyakashipu's son. Hiranyakashipu was killed by Narasimha in the dasavatara story.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfq3DQXhw7I
I guess Rishi got confused because instead of calling him my son or enemy, you called him my friend.

The context is this: Prahlaada called Chandaamarkas his Guruvu garus while disagreeing with them on every issue. The Gurus finally confront Prahlaada and say, Guruvu gaaroo guruvu gaaroo antoo maa paruvu teesEsthunnav Prahlaadaa......... (Vangara Venkatasubbaiah acted as Chanda).

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Thu May 16, 2013 1:01 am

Idéfix wrote:
I think you are suffering from presbyopia...

You are confused. I never said the current Dr. Kamakoti is better than the dead Dr. Kamakoti. [/quote]

The statement refers to your special antagonism towards hindu swamis.

ONE question:

Are you claiming that you are ABSOLUTELY unbiased when it comes to hindu, christian, and muslim followers?

by Idéfix Thu May 16, 2013 1:33 am

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Guruvu gaaroo guruvu gaaroo antoo maa paruvu teesEsthunnav Prahlaadaa........

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Thu May 16, 2013 1:36 am

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
I think you are suffering from presbyopia...
You are confused. I never said the current Dr. Kamakoti is better than the dead Dr. Kamakoti.

The statement refers to your special antagonism towards hindu swamis.

ONE question:

Are you claiming that you are ABSOLUTELY unbiased when it comes to hindu, christian, and muslim followers?[/quote]

Why can't he do that? he is only following in the footsteps of great Indian heroes - one in Ramayana and another in Vishnu Purana. Basketball

In an old Telugu movie, two gentlemen come flying in the sky, land in front of their king and complain that the sages have been harassing them (the sages were doing yagnas and yaagas)!

by Idéfix Thu May 16, 2013 1:37 am

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
ONE question:

Are you claiming that you are ABSOLUTELY unbiased when it comes to hindu, christian, and muslim followers?

Yes, I treat bigotry with the same contempt, regardless of the religion of the prominent person who exhibits it. And I don't spend much time on ordinary followers, but on leaders who ought to know better and set a better example to those followers.

by Merlot Daruwala Thu May 16, 2013 2:12 am

Rishi wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
Rishi wrote:How many Hindus in India followed this man?

How much economic and political power his followers had to enforce their prejudices?

The so called hinduism is a decentralized system.

I bet there are millions of Punjabi Hindus who have never heard of this man. And they don't care.

The damage this man did to the society is minimal.
Now you are undercutting the argument that he was a great man -- that he had power and influence, that Indira Gandhi came down in an IAF chopper to see him, etc. If you are suggesting that he was an insignificant and petty man, I agree with you.

Who said he was a great man? IMO anyone can call anyone or anything great.

Dear Sir, by demeaning and slandering the Maha Periyavaal, revered by millions, you have committed egregious abrahmanyam. You're hereby excommunicated from the fold. Kindly cut your poonal and bury it in you backyard. Your second-birth stands annulled, so consider yourself once-born wonly. You are prohibited from speaking about BN and classical music or participating in related discussions. Any opinion voiced by you on either topic shall be drowned out by a loud chorus of la-la-la-la by all the twice-born around you. And yes, to complete your fall from grace, you may now ceremonially pollute yourself with a cheese burger from the nearest burger joint. Now kindly move aside so your lowly shadow does not fall on and pollute us.

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Thu May 16, 2013 11:38 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Rishi wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
Rishi wrote:How many Hindus in India followed this man?

How much economic and political power his followers had to enforce their prejudices?

The so called hinduism is a decentralized system.

I bet there are millions of Punjabi Hindus who have never heard of this man. And they don't care.

The damage this man did to the society is minimal.
Now you are undercutting the argument that he was a great man -- that he had power and influence, that Indira Gandhi came down in an IAF chopper to see him, etc. If you are suggesting that he was an insignificant and petty man, I agree with you.

Who said he was a great man? IMO anyone can call anyone or anything great.

Dear Sir, by demeaning and slandering the Maha Periyavaal, revered by millions, you have committed egregious abrahmanyam. You're hereby excommunicated from the fold. Kindly cut your poonal and bury it in you backyard. Your second-birth stands annulled, so consider yourself once-born wonly. You are prohibited from speaking about BN and classical music or participating in related discussions. Any opinion voiced by you on either topic shall be drowned out by a loud chorus of la-la-la-la by all the twice-born around you. And yes, to complete your fall from grace, you may now ceremonially pollute yourself with a cheese burger from the nearest burger joint. Now kindly move aside so your lowly shadow does not fall on and pollute us.

Hmm..... Where did you read this? Looks like DKheads are becoming clever with words.

by Rishi Thu May 16, 2013 1:24 pm

Idéfix wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
ONE question:

Are you claiming that you are ABSOLUTELY unbiased when it comes to hindu, christian, and muslim followers?
Yes, I treat bigotry with the same contempt, regardless of the religion of the prominent person who exhibits it. And I don't spend much time on ordinary followers, but on leaders who ought to know better and set a better example to those followers.

Carvaka,

Have you ever dared to criticize the prophet in front of your Muslim friends?

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Thu May 16, 2013 2:58 pm

Rishi wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
ONE question:

Are you claiming that you are ABSOLUTELY unbiased when it comes to hindu, christian, and muslim followers?
Yes, I treat bigotry with the same contempt, regardless of the religion of the prominent person who exhibits it. And I don't spend much time on ordinary followers, but on leaders who ought to know better and set a better example to those followers.

Carvaka,

Have you ever dared to criticize the prophet in front of your Muslim friends?

Absolutely! He will stand in front of any Muslim and criticize Moses, Jesus, Nityananda and Satya Sai Baba.

by Idéfix Thu May 16, 2013 5:16 pm

Rishi wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
ONE question:

Are you claiming that you are ABSOLUTELY unbiased when it comes to hindu, christian, and muslim followers?
Yes, I treat bigotry with the same contempt, regardless of the religion of the prominent person who exhibits it. And I don't spend much time on ordinary followers, but on leaders who ought to know better and set a better example to those followers.

Carvaka,

Have you ever dared to criticize the prophet in front of your Muslim friends?

I rarely discuss religion with friends. When I do, it is only with close friends, and I am rather candid about my views. So, yes, I have told close friends who were born Muslim that I think Mohammad is far from "the ideal man" that he is projected as, certainly not for our times. I put it as, "if a man today behaves the way he did, today's society would consider him a pedophile and a war criminal, and consider many of his claims as delusions / hallucinations."

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Thu May 16, 2013 6:08 pm

Idéfix wrote:
Rishi wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
ONE question:

Are you claiming that you are ABSOLUTELY unbiased when it comes to hindu, christian, and muslim followers?
Yes, I treat bigotry with the same contempt, regardless of the religion of the prominent person who exhibits it. And I don't spend much time on ordinary followers, but on leaders who ought to know better and set a better example to those followers.

Carvaka,

Have you ever dared to criticize the prophet in front of your Muslim friends?
I rarely discuss religion with friends. When I do, it is only with close friends, and I am rather candid about my views. So, yes, I have told close friends who were born Muslim that I think Mohammad is far from "the ideal man" that he is projected as, certainly not for our times. I put it as, "if a man today behaves the way he did, today's society would consider him a pedophile and a war criminal, and consider many of his claims as delusions / hallucinations."

Hahaaha.. Thanks for proving my point stated earlier. You want to judge kamendra Swamigal by today's standards and critize post after post each 1 page long. But, you would describe Mahamad in just 2 lines bcz you are seeing him through "today;s society".

Oh..forgot... you criticize mistakes of all religious heads EQUALLY. Is this the NEW equal in today's arithmetic?

by Idéfix Thu May 16, 2013 6:16 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
Rishi wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
ONE question:

Are you claiming that you are ABSOLUTELY unbiased when it comes to hindu, christian, and muslim followers?
Yes, I treat bigotry with the same contempt, regardless of the religion of the prominent person who exhibits it. And I don't spend much time on ordinary followers, but on leaders who ought to know better and set a better example to those followers.

Carvaka,

Have you ever dared to criticize the prophet in front of your Muslim friends?
I rarely discuss religion with friends. When I do, it is only with close friends, and I am rather candid about my views. So, yes, I have told close friends who were born Muslim that I think Mohammad is far from "the ideal man" that he is projected as, certainly not for our times. I put it as, "if a man today behaves the way he did, today's society would consider him a pedophile and a war criminal, and consider many of his claims as delusions / hallucinations."

Hahaaha.. Thanks for proving my point stated earlier. You want to judge kamendra Swamigal by today's standards and critize post after post each 1 page long. But, you would describe Mahamad in just 2 lines bcz you are seeing him through "today;s society".

Oh..forgot... you criticize mistakes of all religious heads EQUALLY. Is this the NEW equal in today's arithmetic?

You are really confused. Did you even read what I wrote? Let me break this down for you.

I judged Dr. Kamakoti not just by today's standards -- as I pointed out before, he was actively opposing the brahmins who were sending their daughters to college and to work. Even after that had become the norm in brahmin society, this Great Man was stuck in the past and was trying to pull brahmins back! Even by the standards of his own time and community, he was a backward thinker.

I answered Rishi's question whether I criticize Mohammad to my Muslim friends with the actual language I have used with Muslims to describe Mohammad. And that language is much harsher than the language I have used for Dr. Kamakoti. And you think I am being too harsh on Dr. Kamakoti! And you claim that you don't support him.

Why do you lack the courage to openly state that you support Dr. Kamakoti? My guruvu-gaaru at least had that courage.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Thu May 16, 2013 6:23 pm

Idéfix wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
Rishi wrote:
Idéfix wrote:Yes, I treat bigotry with the same contempt, regardless of the religion of the prominent person who exhibits it. And I don't spend much time on ordinary followers, but on leaders who ought to know better and set a better example to those followers.

Carvaka,

Have you ever dared to criticize the prophet in front of your Muslim friends?
I rarely discuss religion with friends. When I do, it is only with close friends, and I am rather candid about my views. So, yes, I have told close friends who were born Muslim that I think Mohammad is far from "the ideal man" that he is projected as, certainly not for our times. I put it as, "if a man today behaves the way he did, today's society would consider him a pedophile and a war criminal, and consider many of his claims as delusions / hallucinations."

Hahaaha.. Thanks for proving my point stated earlier. You want to judge kamendra Swamigal by today's standards and critize post after post each 1 page long. But, you would describe Mahamad in just 2 lines bcz you are seeing him through "today;s society".

Oh..forgot... you criticize mistakes of all religious heads EQUALLY. Is this the NEW equal in today's arithmetic?
You are really confused. Did you even read what I wrote? Let me break this down for you.

I judged Dr. Kamakoti not just by today's standards -- as I pointed out before, he was actively opposing the brahmins who were sending their daughters to college and to work. Even after that had become the norm in brahmin society, this Great Man was stuck in the past and was trying to pull brahmins back! Even by the standards of his own time and community, he was a backward thinker.

I answered Rishi's question whether I criticize Mohammad to my Muslim friends with the actual language I have used with Muslims to describe Mohammad. And that language is much harsher than the language I have used for Dr. Kamakoti. And you think I am being too harsh on Dr. Kamakoti! And you claim that you don't support him.

Why do you lack the courage to openly state that you support Dr. Kamakoti? My guruvu-gaaru at least had that courage.

Now that you are caught playing double-standard, you are trying to create a "fact" that I support Kamendra. Pointing out your lack of fairness in criticism does not amount to my support to either one.

I once saw 2 kids were playing. When the mom praised one kid the other one got upset and accused the mom of telling that the second kid was a bad kid.

Now you are talking like that second kid.

by Idéfix Thu May 16, 2013 6:33 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:Now that you are caught playing double-standard, you are trying to create a "fact" that I support Kamendra. Pointing out your lack of fairness in criticism does not amount to my support to either one.

I once saw 2 kids were playing. When the mom praised one kid the other one got upset and accused the mom of telling that the second kid was a bad kid.

Now you are talking like that second kid.

Nonsense. I called Dr. PBUH a pedophile and war-criminal, and I called Dr. Kamakoti a "not great" or "little" or "petty" man stuck in the past, and you are actually upset that I am being harsher on Dr. Kamakoti!

There is absolutely no double standard in my criticism of religions. It is just that my criticisms of Islam and its leaders go unchallenged on this forum, generating no argument, while my criticism of Hinduism and its leaders are vigorously challenged by their supporters so there is more argument about the latter.

When I started a thread titled "The Great Seer and Great Man" with the remarks of Dr. Kamakoti (because my guruvu-gaaru called him that), you started a thread titled "The Great Pope Nazi and his progressive remarks" with a recycled news article. If you don't support Dr. Kamakoti, why did you feel the need to divert attention from his own words to those of the Nazi Pope? Why does the name "Dr. Kamakoti" for him upset you so much? Why do you lack the courage to display your true feelings for Dr. Kamakoti?

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Thu May 16, 2013 7:28 pm

Idéfix wrote: Why do you lack the courage to display your true feelings for Dr. Kamakoti?

Just as soon as you get the courage to admit you are sissy scared of Muslims and that is the true reason why you dont criticize iSlamic wrong doings with the same tone as you criticize hindu wrong doings.

by Idéfix Thu May 16, 2013 8:08 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Idéfix wrote: Why do you lack the courage to display your true feelings for Dr. Kamakoti?

Just as soon as you get the courage to admit you are sissy scared of Muslims and that is the true reason why you dont criticize iSlamic wrong doings with the same tone as you criticize hindu wrong doings.

I have criticized -- on this very thread -- Dr. PBUH in a harsher tone than I have criticized Dr. Kamakoti. So, there you have it; I am not scared of Muslims or you, and I will readily criticize their leaders and yours. Now, why do you lack the courage to admit your true feelings for Dr. Kamakoti?

by Sponsored content