Hollow understanding of religion & failure of secularism

A state wanting to be secular has to 1st ask the Q, are all religions of the same kind, but following would tell us tht Sanatan is not..

1. Unlike most religions, Hinduism doesn't regard concept of god as being central to it .Hinduism does not venerate any particular person as its sole prophet or as its founder.

2. Not recognize particular book as absltly authoritative scripture or sustained by ecclesiastical organisation

3. Hindus refused to accept falsity of either their religion or any other, while the converse was never true wrt to semitic religions.

4. For semitics,religion revolves around truth of its doctrine,while hinduism holds truth & falsity predicates don't apply to human traditions

5. Means Hindus believe there are no false Gods but different deities.

6. However Semitics hold theirs is the true religion, while others are false & God has a plan revealed through their doctrine alone.

7. They claim exclusivity on truth.1st Jews claimed that exclusivity & have not given up, then X'tians.

8. Now youngest of Semitics child Islam claims sole right over truth & willing to fight to enforce their views

"For Hindu followers, the traditions followed by humans is unsettled, they argue that, truth in human traditions doesn't make sense, a westerner might wear trousers and pants, that is his tradition and it doesn't make sense to call this tradition true or false, it need not hold true for all humans for example."

Therefore if one supports conversions, it only means that one is converting from something false to something true.Consequently, the secular state that allows for the possibility of conversion is compelled to choose between the following: (a) both the Hindu traditions and the Semitic religions are epistemic candidates with respect to truth and falsity; or (b) they are not.

The Abrahamic self-description contains a claim of universal truth, which gives rise to acts of proselytisation as duty on the zealots & foot soldiers. The Sanatan/Tradition bound or Pagan view, on the other and, implies that every ‘religion' is a tradition—that is, a specific set of ancestral practices—characterising a human community. These traditions are followed not because they contain some exclusive truth binding the believer to God, but because they bind a community together. 

Any attempt at interfering with the tradition of a community from the outside will be seen as illegitimate, since all traditions are part of the human quest for truth. 

"Consider the situation in India. Say a citizen x is a Hindu who endorses the pagan claim that all traditions are part of a human quest for truth; while citizens y and z are a Muslim and a Christian respectively, who believe that their religion is the true revelation of (the biblical) God, while all other ‘traditions' are false religions. The value of non-interference is central to the tradition of citizen x and it is unethical for him to allow Muslims and Christians to interfere in the traditions of human communities. Thus, he opposes convrsion. At the same time, the value of proselytisation is central to the religions of citizen y and z."

How can the Indian state be neutral with respect to the attitudes of the citizens x, y and z? Either the state agrees with citizen x that ‘religion' is a human quest, no ‘religion' could be false, and, therefore, bans conversion; or it will have to agree with citizens y and z that religions could be the revelation of (the biblical) God, therefore, some ‘religions' could be false, and thus allow for conversion."

A state that claims to be secular can't treat all of the traditions or faiths on the same platform as that would amount to active discrimination by giving free hand to the aggressor and not protecting the rights of people holding tradition. When a cornered Tradition fights back in defence or anger at being left holding the secularism blabber, State in compulsions of vote banks decry it.

Quotes from a note by VenuG on Bharat Rakshak

Shrishti (Creation) ,its reasons - explanation of Chhandogya Upanishad

Very interesting discussion, I stumbled upon today. The topic f discussion was, "What is the reason for Shrishti (Creation), what was before and what will be in the end"

Hearing this conversation, I forgot all my human issues, pain of failure, rejection & joys of achievement. I tried to explain, Indic (Sanatan) point of view.
With age, memory fails me often & I struggled to remember what I had read vaguely.

Sad (Sat) is the reason of Shrishti(शृष्टि) in karta as well as Kaaran (कारण ) roop (form)

शृष्टि और प्रलय क्रमिक रूप से चलते है! हम अवयक्त से शूक्ष्म और शूक्ष्म से शथूल मैं जाते हैं तो सृजन होता है और उल्टा जाते हैं तो प्रलय! 

sad eva, saumya, idam agra asid ekam evadvitiyam,
taddhaika ahu, asad evedam agra asId ekam evAdvitIyam,
tasmad asataH sat jayata 

Chandogya Upanishad 6.2.1

saumya: dear boy
idam: this (universe)
agre: in the beginning (before creation)
ekam: one
eva: only
advitIyam: without a second
sat: existence
eva: only
AsId: was
tad: about that
ekeha: some
Ahu: say
idam: this
agre: in the beginning
ekam: one
eva: only
advitIyam: without a second
asat: non-existence
eva: alone
asid: was
tasmad asat: from that non-existence
sat: whatever exists
jayet: arose (was born)


In the beginning, dear boy, there was existence alone,
one only without a second. Some people say that, in the
beginning, there was non-existence alone, one only without
a second. From that non-existence (they say), arose whatever
exists.


SAT (existence, truth): SAt is which is self-evident and
does not require any proof and does not need anything else
to exist. e.g. I exist irrespective of anything else and
this does not require a proof. Also, SAT is that which exists
the same in all three periods of time (past, present and
future) trikAla abadhitam satyam.

Now, let us look at world and creation. Creation is the name
(nAma) and form (rUpa) with qualities (guNa) in time (kAla)
and space (desha). That which exists before creation must be
nameless, formless and attributeless and not bound by time
and space. Such is SAT. SAT stands for that which is mere
existence, extremely subtle, all-pervading, ekam, pure
consciousness, and indivisible.

EVA (only): That which exists before creation of name and
forms must be beyond time and space and must be infinite.
There cannot be two infinities, and therefore SAT *alone* (eva)
existed before creation.

IDAM (this): The world that is experienced and known to us is
referred to as idam (compare with pUrNamadaH pUrNamidam). SAT is
adaH beyond purview of thought and cannot be known as this. Also,
SAT cannot be objectified by thoughts.

AGRE (before): We should recognize 'when', 'where', 'before' are
all time and space concepts and are parts of creation.

AsIt (was): The question can be raised why the word 'AsIt' (was)
was used here in the past tense. SAT is there even now and is ever
exstent, not only before creation. The word 'was' is used with
reference to our present experience of the world.

ekam eva advitIyam (one only without a second): i.e. it (SAT)
has no svajAtIyabheda (no generic difference, i.e. no difference
within the same species), no svagatabheda (no intrinsic difference,
i.e. no difference within one self), or no vijAtIyabheda (no extrinsic
difference, i.e. no difference between species). Thus, it (SAT) is
homogeneous, only one and without a second.

It is also suggested here, that some say that before creation
there was only non-existence and from that non-existence arose
existence. But, that idea is refuted in this and the next mantra.

Tat sat!