THREAD

LOGICAL REASONS WHY BHU SHOULDN'T APPOINT A MUSLIM SANSKRIT TEACHER

Certain things are SACROSANCT

I'm so fed up with the absolutely illogical arguments and the 'LIBERAL RW THAT IS ILLIBERAL WITH HINDUS' and idiotic articles that label HINDUS AS BIGOTS for their CHOICE.

Firstly Sanskrit is not just a language it is the GATEWAY TO VEDIC CULTURE. Can anybody teach law or medicine? No only the qualified can.

Vedic culture requires certain qualifications for correct interpretation and these principles are SACROSANCT. Liberalism is basically a

rebellious ideology about being liberal about everything. That kinda absolutism results in protecting nothing. Because nothing is too sacred because we're liberal about everything. That isn't out goal.

We want a civilization-al renaissance where Vedas are the core not some neo

liberal Hindu culture whatever that may be. Thus STOP VIEWING AND JUDGING EVERYTHING THROUGH THE LENS OF LIBERALISM.

Secondly the course is not Sanskrit but Dharm Vigyan. And I'm going to say that EVEN IF it is ONLY A SANSKRIT language course THEN ALSO IT MUST NOT BE TAUGHT BY

someone who doesn't believe in the Vedas. Everyone is free to learn Sanskrit and I respect the Muslim teachers commitment to the civilization and I'm truly thankful for that. However not everyone can become a Guru. Such an idea is only a perversion of Kaliyuga.

Any language is

nuanced and Sanskrit is even more so. For example Aja means goat and it also means seed. Leftist propaganda makes us believe that Hindus did animal sacrifices only and Buddhist - Jain influence stopped them. Why this misinterpretation when there were many ANIMAL SACRIFICES

WHEREIN NO ANIMAL WAS KILLED. So much confusion has been created PURELY BECAUSE UNQUALIFIED PEOPLE MISINTERPRET SHĀSTRA BY MISINTERPRETING SANSKRIT. For more on this story of animal sacrifices read this excellent article by a qualified Guru. https://www.jiva.org/animal-sacrifice-without-killing/

Sanskrit must not be taught by THOSE WHO DON'T HAVE SKIN IN THE GAME. And by skin in the game I very clearly mean that Sanskrit must be taught ONLY by those who practice and have faith in Sanatan Dharma. Following are people who not "born Hindus" but are excellent and qualified

Sanskrit Gurus who are respected and teach Sanskrit well.

Vic DiCara - Italian-American Christian but is more Vaishnava than I ever will be
David Frawley - Jewish born but practicing Santani

Many such examples exist. And we respect all of them. And if they taught I am sure the

students will even touch their feet because THEY ARE QUALIFIED GURUS.

Those who practice a different religion and may or may not have faith in Vedas are 'Nastika' and it is said in the Bhagvatam that in Kaliyuga Vedas will be perverted by Nastika interpretations.

One has to

understand a very important part of Hindu society. We NEVER punished or killed atheists/apostates/kaffirs/heretics and we accepted all in the society BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY CAN INTERPRET THE VEDAS.

For Vedic and Purānic scriptures to be interpreted correctly it HAS to

be done by those who are disciples of qualified Gurus and who actually accept Vedas and are not NASTIKAS.

Please understand Nastika doesn't mean atheist. It means those who don't accept the Vedas.

For centuries colonial and atheistic interpretations have been creating chaos

in Hindu society. Everything is perverted and misinterpreted. We have been cheated MANY MANY TIMES AND UNLIKE LIBERALS FOR WHOM NOTHING IS TOO SACRED FOR US VEDIC PRINCIPLES ARE SACROSANCT.

Another really foolish and bothersome argument is that all those who are against the

appointment of the Muslim teacher are also against KK Muhammad. A more false logical equivalence couldn't have existed. Every Sanatani is proud of and grateful to KK Muhammad. He's an archaeologist who did an excellent job of learning Sanskrit to understand archaeology. But isn't

that kinda the duty of a good archaeologist? If I want to explore Egyptian pyramids won't I have to familiarise myself with the language too?

He learnt Sanskrit to be a good and dutiful archaeologist especially at a time when everyone else was corrupt. Hence what he did was

truly amazing and heroic. But that still doesn't mean he can AUTHORITATIVELY INTERPRET SHĀSTRA.

For authentic Shāstra interpretation and teaching Sanskrit one has to accept Vedas and that principle is SACROSANCT.

Rahim, Haridasa Thakur etc were Muslims but they're ACCEPTED AS

authoritative saints whose words are very important because they accepted the Vedas. So that is the only thing here.

Darwinian Atheistic who have no skin in the game will not understand the sacrosanct principles coz nothing is too sacred for them except maybe Liberalism .

In my final point I'd like to conclude with how Nastika cannot and will not be able to understand or accept the Sanskrit words mentioned below and hence is more likely to misinterpret the language. https://twitter.com/WindsOfChange72/status/1196682670526386177?s=19

Lol our future when Nastikas take over Dharma Vigyan, Sanskrit and Vedanta https://twitter.com/WindsOfChange72/status/1196735185804496898?s=19