Why I am a HINDU?

Three Years ago, I was attending a hukka[humanities course in IITD] Tutorial class , a beautiful western girl[exchange student] was sitting on the right side. It indeed was a boring class with lots off faith, religion and such things - it would take me nearly 20 minutes to say HI.

I was surprised to see the young girl's interest and also she was reading a Bible unusual of young
western youth. After some time she smiled and we had few acquaintances
Talk.

Then suddenly the girl asked: 'What's your faith?' 'What?' I didn't understand the question.

'I mean, what's your religion? Are you a Christian? Or a Muslim?'

'No!' I replied, 'I am neither Christian nor Muslim'.

Apparently she appeared shocked to listen to that. 'Then who are you?' 'I am a Hindu', I said.

She looked at me as if she was seeing a caged animal. She could not understand what I was talking about.

A Common man in Europe or US knows about Christianity and Islam, as they
are the leading religions of the world today. But a Hindu, what?

I explained to her - I am born to a Hindu father and Hindu mother. Therefore, I am a Hindu by birth.

'Who is your prophet?' she asked.

'We don't have a prophet,' I replied.

'What's your Holy Book?'

'We don't have a single Holy Book, but we have hundreds and thousands of philosophical and sacred scriptures,' I replied.

'Oh, come on at least tell me who is your God?'

'What do you mean by that?'

'Like we have Jesus and Muslims have Allah - don't you have a God?'

I Thought for a moment. Muslims and Christians believe one God (Male God)
Who created the world and takes an interest in the humans who inhabit
It. Her mind is conditioned with that kind of belief.

According To her (or anybody who doesn't know about Hinduism), a religion needs
To have one Prophet, one Holy book and one God. The mind is so
Conditioned and rigidly narrowed down to such a notion that anything
else is not acceptable.

I understood her perception and concept about
Faith. You can't compare Hinduism with any of the present leading
Religions where you have to believe in one concept of god.

I Tried to explain to her: 'You can believe in one god and he can be a
Hindu. You may believe in multiple deities and still you can be a
Hindu. What's more - you may not believe in god at all, still you can
Be a Hindu. An atheist can also be a Hindu.'
This Sounded very crazy to her. She couldn't imagine a religion so
Unorganized, still surviving for thousands of years, even after
Onslaught from foreign forces.

'I don't understand but it seems very interesting. Are you religious?'
What can I tell to this American girl?

I Said: 'I do not go to temple regularly. I do not make any regular
Rituals. I have learned some of the rituals in my younger days. I still
Enjoy doing it sometimes.'

'Enjoy? Are you not afraid of God?'

'God is a friend. No- I am not afraid of God. Nobody has made any compulsions on me to perform these rituals regularly.'
She thought for a while and then asked: 'Have you ever thought of converting to any other religion?'

'Why Should I?
Even if I challenge some of the rituals and faith in
Hinduism, nobody can convert me from Hinduism.

Because, being a Hindu allows me to think independently and objectively, without conditioning.

I remain as a Hindu never by force, but choice.'

Not a religion like Christianity or Islam because it is not founded by any one person or
Does not have an organized controlling body like the Church or the
Order, I added. There is no institution or authority.

'So, you don't believe in God?' she wanted everything in black and white.
'I Didn't say that. I do not discard the divine reality. Our scripture, or
Sruthis or Smrithis - Vedas and Upanishads or the Gita - say God might
Be there or he might not be there. But we pray to that supreme abstract
Authority (Para Brahma) that is the creator of this universe.'

'Why can't you believe in one personal God?'

'We have a concept - abstract - not a personal god. The concept or notion
of a personal God, hiding behind the clouds of secrecy, telling us irrational stories through few men whom he sends as messengers,demanding us to worship him or punish us, does not make sense.
I don't think that God is as silly as an autocratic emperor who wants others to
Respect him or fear him.'

I told her that such notions are just fancies of less educated human imagination and fallacies, adding that generally ethnic religious practitioners in Hinduism believe in personal gods.

The entry level Hinduism has over-whelming superstitions too. The
Philosophical side of Hinduism negates all superstitions.
'Good that you agree God might exist. You told that you pray. What is your prayer then?'

'Loka Samastha Sukino Bhavantu. Om Shanti, Shanti, Shanti,'

'Funny,' she laughed, 'What does it mean?'

'May all the beings in all the worlds be happy. Om Peace, Peace, Peace.'

'Hmm ..very interesting. I want to learn more about this religion. It is so democratic, broad-minded and free' she exclaimed.

'The fact is Hinduism is a religion of the individual, for the individual
And by the individual with its roots in the Vedas and the
Bhagavad-Gita. It is all about an individual approaching a personal God

Nobody Can convert you to Hinduism, because it is not a religion, but a set of

Beliefs and practices. Everything is acceptable in Hinduism because
There is no single authority or organization either to accept it or to
Reject it or to oppose it on behalf of Hinduism.'

I told her - if you look for meaning in life, don't look for it in religions; don't go from one cult to another or from one guru to the next.

For A real seeker, I told her, the Bible itself gives guidelines when it
Says ' Kingdom of God is within you.'

I reminded her of Christ's Teaching about the love that we have for each other. That is where you Can find the meaning of life.

Loving Each and every creation of the God is absolute and real. 'Isavasyam
Idam sarvam' Isam (the God) is present (inhabits) here everywhere -
Nothing exists separate from the God, because God is present
Everywhere. Respect every living being and non-living things as God.
That's what Hinduism teaches you.

Hinduism Is referred to as Sanathana Dharma, the eternal faith. It is based on
The practice of Dharma, the code of life. The most important aspect of
Hinduism is being truthful to oneself. Hinduism has no monopoly on
Ideas.- It is open to all. Hindus believe in one God (not a personal one) expressed in different Forms. For them, God is timeless and formless entity.

Ancestors of today's Hindus believe in eternal truths and cosmic laws and these
Truths are opened to anyone who seeks them. But there is a section of
Hindus who are either superstitious or turned fanatic to make this an
Organized religion like others. The British coin the word 'Hindu' and
Considered it as a religion

I Said: 'Religions have become an MLM (multi-level- marketing) industry
That has been trying to expand the market share by conversion. The
Biggest business in today's world is Spirituality. Hinduism is no
Exception'

I Am a Hindu primarily because it professes Non-violence - 'Ahimsa Paramo
Dharma' - Non violence is the highest duty. I am a Hindu because it
Doesn't conditions my mind with any faith system.

A man/ woman who change 's his/her birth religion to another religion
Is a fake and does not value his/her morals, culture and values in life.
Hinduism was the first religion originated. Be proud of your religion and be proud of who you are.

I have posted it here with little editing.

direct download

Latest Movies::

http://bollyhollymoviehost.blogspot.com

Nuclear Deal....Pros and Cons

I have met 3 kind of people nowadays..First-die haert supporter of the deal..2nd-compare it with the british rule and the ..3rd person -has modest view..
But intrestingly all these 3 people have a common similirty....they do not know at all about this nuclear deal.

When I asked the first guy ..why should india move further with this deal??
He just replied india would get a lot..same with the second guy..he did not know ..whats wrong on the paper?
They all have theire stands..in favour..or against...and they are doing so becouse evryone else is talking about this deal..so they want to keep themselvs upadted.
At that time..I was not much diffrent from them...so I decided to make my stand on logics, facts...

The deal

As per the Joint Statement announced on July 18, 2005, President Bush said he would “work to achieve full civil nuclear energy cooperation with India” and “would also seek agreement from Congress to adjust US laws and policies”. On India’s part, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh conveyed that India “would take on the same responsibilities and practices and acquire the same benefits and advantages as other leading countries with advanced nuclear technology, such as the United States”. As per the Joint Statement, “These responsibilities and practices consist of:

• Identifying and separating civil and nuclear facilities and programmes in a phased manner and filing a declaration regarding its civilian facilities with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
• Continuing India’s unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing.
• Taking a decision to voluntarily place its civil nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards

• Working with the United States for the conclusion of a Multilateral Fissile Material Cut Off Treaty.

taking into account these points we can discuss the pros and cons fo the deal.

Cons(arguments against)

• The deal is likely to abet the nuclear weapon capabilities of India. For, if civil and military facilities are separated, the supply of international nuclear fuel will free its existing facilities, designated as military facilities, to produce plutonium and enriched plutonium exclusively for weapons’ purpose.
• The deal might provoke other nuclear weapon states like China to enter into the same kind of agreement with other implicit nuclear nations like Pakistan. In fact, Pakistan President Musharraf, during his recent visit to China, has argued for a Pakistan-China nuclear deal along the same lines.
• India has still not signed the NPT treaty. But it will enjoy all the privileges available to declared nuclear powers under the NPT regime. In the eyes of American non-proliferation lobby the nuclear deal is an American sellout to India.
  
• Arguments against the deal in India have centred around three main points. First and foremost, the proposed separation of nuclear facilities into civil and military is costly and difficult or rather impractical due to the Indian nuclear programme being unified since the very beginning. Secondly, the deal will impact India’s ability to produce requisite fissile material as all new nuclear facilities will be civilian in nature and under the supervision of IAEA. Third, nuclear power is costly in nature and an emerging county like India can ill afford it. It is a luxury that only the developed world can enjoy and India should not count on it in its energy security calculus. Last but not the least, the deal is asymmetrical in nature since it is all about American promises and Indian commitments.

• Finally, the deal does not remove the discriminatory nature of the present nuclear regime which India has been fighting all along. Why should India place all its “existing and future civilian nuclear facilities under IAEA supervision” when other nuclear powers are not compelled to do so? In terms of statistics, out of the 915 facilities under IAEA safeguards worldwide, only 11 are in the five NPT nuclear powers. Thus, India will continue to be a part of the discriminatory non-proliferation regime.

Pros(arguments for)

• First, to answer the proliferation charge, the present deal is a win-win situation for the non-proliferation regime since it brings India into the nuclear mainstream. All the past policies to bring India into NPT regime had failed. Then why not give the deal a chance? India, despite being a declared nuclear power, has an impeccable non-proliferation record that needs to be trusted and rewarded rather than questioned and punished. As India’s Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran said, “If India’s past record and current policies are not recognised, and worse still, if it is to be graded with those whose record in this respect is more than suspect, then our nonproliferation objectives may enjoy the comfort of noble intentions but not the efficacy of tactical action.”
• Second, India is a fast growing economy that is looking for all the energy resources that it can get hold of, howsoever costly they may be. True, the nuclear establishment has failed to meet its commitment of producing 2,700 megawatts of electricity from nuclear plants by 1980-81. It is roughly producing the same committed amount about thirty-five years later that constitutes three percent of India’s energy supply. The denial of nuclear fuel due to provisions of the NPT regime has been precisely the reason behind the Indian nuclear establishment’s dismal performance. History has given us the chance and we must seize it. If international nuclear fuel is available, the cost of producing electricity will also come down and will be within the affordable range.
• Third, there is nothing in the deal that asks India not to pursue its three-phase nuclear power programme. In fact, it further adds to the process. India can continue to pursue its fast-breeder reactor programme independently.
  
• Fourth, India will get access to all the facilities and technologies available to declared nuclear powers in the NPT regime without signing the treaty.
• Fifth, India has not given any commitment to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which even US and China have signed, though both are yet to ratify it. The only commitment that India has given is that of negotiating a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty with the US.
• Sixth, India is not under any obligation to not produce fissile material and can continue to do so as long as it needs, to meet its declared policy of developing credible minimum nuclear deterrence.
• Seventh, there is no provision in the deal that asks India to place its indigenously developed nuclear reactors under IAEA supervision. The deal is applicable only in the case of existing and future nuclear reactors that will be using international nuclear fuel. Technically, India can build up as many indigenous nuclear reactors as it wants for its security purposes.
• Finally, to quote the Indian Prime Minister, “It will be an autonomous Indian decision as to what is ‘civilian’ and what is ‘military’. Nobody outside will tell us what is ‘civilian’ and what is ‘military’.” We have no reason to distrust the words of our Prime Minister

So on balance I think, the India-US nuclear deal as proposed is the much-needed recipe to regenerate our nuclear establishment that is stifling under present international regulations. If the status quo is allowed to prevail, our ambitious plan for nuclear power will not only remain a pipedream but even the status quo will become unsustainable as Indian nuclear fuel sources are limited and of inferior quality that make it more costly.
Of course, there are a few conditions, which may be strict in nature, that have to be adhered to. But isn’t politics all about interest articulation, aggregation and mediation? The Indian government will be doing the same if it will be closing the nuclear deal with the USA in the coming week.

Note: next blog will be on share market crisis

my image

hello frnds

hi.......

hello everybody...