There is Liberal (as in Liberalism, the ideology) and there is liberal, the regular word (as in liberal-minded). Comparable to "Rationalists" and "Humanists" - predefined words, ideologies, which imply inclusion and exclusion in the group based on specifications - versus being just rational and humane (the regular terms).
"What is a liberal Hindu"
New term? Or the same as a secular Indian?
The meaning of 'psecular Indian' in summary (net effect):
- Gangreen.
- Cannibal's accomplice (willing or unwitting - I'm disinterested as to motivation/lack thereof).
So if a liberal Hindu is the same as a secular Indian - even if only the same in ultimate effect (enabling the terrorisms' to get hold of Bharatam) - then il n'y a pas aucune différence and it comes down to being a canniberal (someone who's liberal toward the cannibalisms).
<!--QuoteBegin-Swamy G+Jun 2 2009, 08:34 PM-->QUOTE(Swamy G @ Jun 2 2009, 08:34 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->make dharmam <b>hip</b>
[right][snapback]98220[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->This is unsound. Why do you care about 'hipness'. People should be won over to do the right thing by being convinced it is the right thing, rather than thinking it's some kind of fashion statement (is that what you mean with hip? can't be...) so that they then resort to silly behaviour again when the trend is over. What's the use?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Right now being dharmic could portray one being in the 3rd century BC. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->BC, 'before christ'?
You mean BCE? What are you comparing with? It's relative after all. (For instance, 5th century CE in free Bharatam is FAR better than 5th century christoterrorised Europe.)
As if our present centuries with their christoislamic terrorism are anything to rave about.
Just a contrast: Rome was literate, but by 5th/6th century CE christianism had turned its usurped terrain illiterate by systematically destroying literacy (see from Joseph McCabe). So it was far more barbaric in that later christian time than in the earlier Roman time. (And for an indication of liberty of life and literature, this comedy was written 4th/5th century BCE.)
Even until some centuries ago, Hindu society was far more liberal than it is now. For instance, suicide was not banned and in certain circumstances was easily recognised and understood as being part of an individual's life/choice. Now christoislamic butchery of Hindus is okay (variously called 'secularism', 'minorityism' or 'syncretic civilisation') but a Hindu woman or Jaina or Bauddha monk killing themselves out of their own choice is Absolutely Forbidden. Forbidden by christo law imposed in Dharmic nation - an imposition enabled by the ignorant secular who criminally misuses its 'right' to vote by voting to minimise and deny others' rights. Hindus in Bharatam are living in an increasingly christian theocracy now.
And yes, if all else were equal, then the 3rd century BCE or whenever does sound good when considering there was no christoislamism, hence no such terrorism. There were no lies of the terrorisms either.
There were invaders and villains of sorts and hardships, but those things are still there now in addition to unspeakably and infinitely worse things introduced by the christoclass mindvirus. And there's the bleakness of knowing there are yet worse things to come. The human mind and the human spirit are not allowed to be free now.
Secularism is facilitating the imposition of this tyrannical prison that tramples all humanity. I have not seen a nation shake off the christoislamic prison once it gets a proper grip.
I'd give anything to be free. For humanity to be <i>liberated</i> from the christoislamic terrorist meme. Instead of the Orwellian use of liberal, this is a word belonging to all Natural Traditionalists - when considered in this sense.
<!--QuoteBegin-Swamy G+Jun 2 2009, 08:34 PM-->QUOTE(Swamy G @ Jun 2 2009, 08:34 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->because dharmam encompasses liberalism, conservatism, socialism, communism, capitalism, libertarianism and ithayadi.
[right][snapback]98220[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->What.
One of the first of adharmas is to mislead people into thinking that 'anything' (including adharma) is Dharma.
Dharma has a very specific meaning in the Dharmic traditions. In Bauddha Dharma, for instance, Dhamma is the way exemplified by the Buddha, the right paths and actions. In Hindu tradition it is also a particular, well-defined code of conduct and sets requirements on people, different expectations on how different communities are supposed to behave (e.g. Kshatriyas) and when they fail in their duty, they Fail society and humanity. For Dharmics, it's the way to live. And its most fundamental principles hold for all times - not to be changed on a whim or because it suits the time.
It is NOT, NEVER communism, capitalism, or secularism and 'whatever'.
Yet it is also not relentless nor is it forceful. People choose to adhere because they agree it is right. Or, they choose not to follow it. Of course there are always consequences, as there are to all natural laws: a Dharmic society will shun any when they unforgivably misbehave, when they behave adharmically. And that is the right of Dharmic society - to protect itself from a detrimental presence - just as it is the prerogative of the individual to choose to live in accordance or in discord with Dharma.
You can look into any Dharmic (or similar - say Shinto, Taoist, Confucian) Asian society - before the poison of christowesternisation was injected - and see how it regulated, maintained and preserved itself. Look at traditional Native American society. American liberalism is obtained by purchasing amnesia of what the christian west did to the Native Americans. Yes, it is most <i>generously</i> liberal: Supposed open-mindedness after a mass genocide. What could be more exemplary.
(And before Swamy G feels slighted again: no I did not mean you are that. For that you'd need to suffer from the same convenient, feigned amnesia as America does.)
"What is a liberal Hindu"
New term? Or the same as a secular Indian?
The meaning of 'psecular Indian' in summary (net effect):
- Gangreen.
- Cannibal's accomplice (willing or unwitting - I'm disinterested as to motivation/lack thereof).
So if a liberal Hindu is the same as a secular Indian - even if only the same in ultimate effect (enabling the terrorisms' to get hold of Bharatam) - then il n'y a pas aucune différence and it comes down to being a canniberal (someone who's liberal toward the cannibalisms).
<!--QuoteBegin-Swamy G+Jun 2 2009, 08:34 PM-->QUOTE(Swamy G @ Jun 2 2009, 08:34 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->make dharmam <b>hip</b>
[right][snapback]98220[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->This is unsound. Why do you care about 'hipness'. People should be won over to do the right thing by being convinced it is the right thing, rather than thinking it's some kind of fashion statement (is that what you mean with hip? can't be...) so that they then resort to silly behaviour again when the trend is over. What's the use?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Right now being dharmic could portray one being in the 3rd century BC. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->BC, 'before christ'?
You mean BCE? What are you comparing with? It's relative after all. (For instance, 5th century CE in free Bharatam is FAR better than 5th century christoterrorised Europe.)
As if our present centuries with their christoislamic terrorism are anything to rave about.
Just a contrast: Rome was literate, but by 5th/6th century CE christianism had turned its usurped terrain illiterate by systematically destroying literacy (see from Joseph McCabe). So it was far more barbaric in that later christian time than in the earlier Roman time. (And for an indication of liberty of life and literature, this comedy was written 4th/5th century BCE.)
Even until some centuries ago, Hindu society was far more liberal than it is now. For instance, suicide was not banned and in certain circumstances was easily recognised and understood as being part of an individual's life/choice. Now christoislamic butchery of Hindus is okay (variously called 'secularism', 'minorityism' or 'syncretic civilisation') but a Hindu woman or Jaina or Bauddha monk killing themselves out of their own choice is Absolutely Forbidden. Forbidden by christo law imposed in Dharmic nation - an imposition enabled by the ignorant secular who criminally misuses its 'right' to vote by voting to minimise and deny others' rights. Hindus in Bharatam are living in an increasingly christian theocracy now.
And yes, if all else were equal, then the 3rd century BCE or whenever does sound good when considering there was no christoislamism, hence no such terrorism. There were no lies of the terrorisms either.
There were invaders and villains of sorts and hardships, but those things are still there now in addition to unspeakably and infinitely worse things introduced by the christoclass mindvirus. And there's the bleakness of knowing there are yet worse things to come. The human mind and the human spirit are not allowed to be free now.
Secularism is facilitating the imposition of this tyrannical prison that tramples all humanity. I have not seen a nation shake off the christoislamic prison once it gets a proper grip.
I'd give anything to be free. For humanity to be <i>liberated</i> from the christoislamic terrorist meme. Instead of the Orwellian use of liberal, this is a word belonging to all Natural Traditionalists - when considered in this sense.
<!--QuoteBegin-Swamy G+Jun 2 2009, 08:34 PM-->QUOTE(Swamy G @ Jun 2 2009, 08:34 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->because dharmam encompasses liberalism, conservatism, socialism, communism, capitalism, libertarianism and ithayadi.
[right][snapback]98220[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->What.
One of the first of adharmas is to mislead people into thinking that 'anything' (including adharma) is Dharma.
Dharma has a very specific meaning in the Dharmic traditions. In Bauddha Dharma, for instance, Dhamma is the way exemplified by the Buddha, the right paths and actions. In Hindu tradition it is also a particular, well-defined code of conduct and sets requirements on people, different expectations on how different communities are supposed to behave (e.g. Kshatriyas) and when they fail in their duty, they Fail society and humanity. For Dharmics, it's the way to live. And its most fundamental principles hold for all times - not to be changed on a whim or because it suits the time.
It is NOT, NEVER communism, capitalism, or secularism and 'whatever'.
Yet it is also not relentless nor is it forceful. People choose to adhere because they agree it is right. Or, they choose not to follow it. Of course there are always consequences, as there are to all natural laws: a Dharmic society will shun any when they unforgivably misbehave, when they behave adharmically. And that is the right of Dharmic society - to protect itself from a detrimental presence - just as it is the prerogative of the individual to choose to live in accordance or in discord with Dharma.
You can look into any Dharmic (or similar - say Shinto, Taoist, Confucian) Asian society - before the poison of christowesternisation was injected - and see how it regulated, maintained and preserved itself. Look at traditional Native American society. American liberalism is obtained by purchasing amnesia of what the christian west did to the Native Americans. Yes, it is most <i>generously</i> liberal: Supposed open-mindedness after a mass genocide. What could be more exemplary.
(And before Swamy G feels slighted again: no I did not mean you are that. For that you'd need to suffer from the same convenient, feigned amnesia as America does.)
Death to traitors.