Tell and don't ask

The fact that I am postin this here, out of topic range is due to the fact that the Wapo has neglected once again to cover much in the way of military and veterans issues, as is typical of left wing publications. But on to the topic...

I hear that TRICARE is preparing for a 21% rate increase on it's co-pays.

Once again the government is playing bait and switch with veterans. You offer free health care then after a veteran retires you reneg on the promise. ENOUGH!

I have private insurance and TRICARE standard. My private insurance pays my medical bills and TRICARE pays the co-pays (which is mandated by federal law, that the government is always the last to pay after all other sources are exhausted), but then TRICARE turns around and bills the cost of the co-pays to my private health insurance! When I inquired as to why this is done the TRICARE people very casually remarked "Don't worry, the money all goes back to the military medical system to make it better." I have been retired for 12 years now, and I am still wondering when this alleged improvement in the military medical system is going to kick in? So far it has only gotten worse while costs have increased. If this is any sign of what Obama care will be like, the government will need a strong military in order to put down the public uprising that is sure to come from people getting tired of paying outrageous prices for truly horrible service.

India has plenty of discrimination that is just plain mean and wrong. The scriptures point out that all humans have certain desires of what reality should be.

The Gita formulates the foundation of moral behavior: detached and renounced of results. Translated: ego less and in the moment.

Hatred, of anybody or thing, rises from ego attachment. It is wrong (not in the eternal damnation way but in the ignorance is wrong way).

The Hindu idea of control, as I see it, is that you become more fully yourself. There is a merging of the subjective and objective and then an expression of that pure being within each of us - no longer controlled.

My take on soma, the intoxicant, is the body, the material existence - so many ways to be intoxicated - to forget the actual relationship of I and Self. This is not evil, just ignorant. So we drink soma at our birth, and then learn how to be the true self within us as we live.

Control is the yoga (yoking) that helps us do that.

On topic, sex is a material good, but should not define the person.

hariaum

Also, to add to the below: I like this: one thing that as a Pagan I can readily 'get.' (Gonna break it up a bit with comments, but read it all through:)

""As a Hindu, to me homosexuality is an external trait that cannot taint the immortal and immanent divinity ensconced in every being.""

As who I'm being right now, 'cannot and would not taint and is not a taint' might be the words I'd use. Taint is only at issue if people *make* it a 'taint.' Say it is one, or would be.

"" The guna, or character and traits, of a person is much more important than a label. Self-control over the senses, moderation, seeking truth and service to others are the composites of a realized soul.""

Bingo. From my point of view, anyway.

Though as a Western Pagan I'd say it even goes further: Control of *any* kind is actually quite secondary. Self-control is of course a very necessary faculty and life-skill, (certainly nothing else will control you if you cannot) but much of the idea is to actually have the 'self' be a thing, not that needs restraint, but rather whose first impulse is going to be kindness and awareness. (Oh, is *that* all, :) )

The example of alcohol is something that comes to mind. Some authoritarian religions will lean toward an *external locus of control,* saying, "Control is taking all the booze away. 'God' says so."

A slightly-less external locus of control is to say, "Your self must be controlled by you taking all the alcohol away from yourself. This is Self-Control."

Paganism has a certain amount of accepting 'In Vino Veritas.' (In Wine, there is Truth: the idea being that one actually sees a more uninhibited 'self' of someone when they're drunk, and that that says something about that Self.) The idea is that one should be cultivating a 'Self' which, even 'uncontrolled' by inhibitions some call 'internal,' there should be nothing that *ought* to be controlled.

ie, it's something more like, Ideally, the drunkest Pagan in the world should be just as kind and aware (as possible under the circumstances, and accounting for the fact that for purposes of this exercise, you are physically *drunk,*) as at any other time.

Just, likely more talkative, possibly affectionate, etc. :) That should be 'the self' :)

(continued from above)

'Control' kind of implies the question of "What is to be controlled," ...by some government, some other, some God, or even the Self acting as an extension of those external things, rather than part of what comes *out* of that immanent bit of the Divine.

It's that awareness and compassion that's to be *cultivated.*

We don't have a whole lot of 'mean drunks' in the Pagan community. At least those who choose to be among us want 'that self which is purportedly to be controlled' to be someone whose heart doesn't *need* to be controlled.

Not to say 'Self control is bad' :)

Just how people think of these things, and how to express 'power' about them are often externalized, particularly in the heavily-Christian-influenced culture we're coping with here.

These are all kinds of different approaches to, I suppose, 'The Problem Of Control.' Maybe, having thrown in another one, we can all triangulate. :) Hope it helps.

Certainly, hurting gay people in the military with deceit and silence and discrimination, serves ...none of them.

""And sexual experiences--homosexual or heterosexual--if pursued without control, mired in lust, will only lose that soul from the pursuit of Truth.""

This is certainly a highly-useful observation.

Frankly, I think that when our society tries to argue about an *external locus of control* and all the trappings of such, on this issue, it tends to lose all thought, consideration, or awareness of what a healthy attitude about sex and sexuality is or even could *be.* It becomes about "Prohibit this!" or "Make yourself prohibit this! How will people make themselves prohibit this if we don't make policies that cause them to fear!"

Personally, when a lot of people talk about 'Lust,' I don't even really know what they *mean.* It seems to be, for some, some kind of feeling involving repressed attraction or possibly aggression, having turned ugly, overwhelming inhibitions in some kind of state of disgust.

Maybe it's not about the sexuality. Maybe it's about the 'control.'

""Are you guys kidding me, about Homosexuality being condoned by hindhuism. ""

Actually, 'Hinduism' (Actually there are many different practices and forms within it: some more LGBT-friendly than others. ) is not quite the same as the Abrahamic 'book religions' ...where people can take a little piece of scripture and try to define the whole thing by it, especially not for once or ever.

India certainly has its own challenges about homophobia, partly due to the influence of Islam and the British Raj... which favored those elements more aligned with their own 'values,' certainly.

'Hinduism' isn't so ...monolithic as a Western eye may want to see: in this sense, they're very Pagan, though they don't like the term, especially given how that term has been used as a negative about them by aforementioned others.

But it actually encompasses a lot of different 'paths' and what authoritarians would call 'doctrines' and I guess 'cults' in an anthropological sense.

There's a pluralism in there that many dismiss, and sort of a whole 'scheme' that it fits into. I don't pretend to be able to speak for it, (I certainly have my own lenses to view things through, and despite taking some effort to 'get' 'it,') ...well, the best I can do right now is try and help ...translate, almost.

To say 'Hinduism Hates Gays,' though, that's not a good translation.

*Indian* *culture* certainly has plenty of homophobia *in* it, but it's hardly monolithic. Nor does it seem to see the Divine as hating homosexuality itself, never mind 'commanding' intolerance against gay people from everyone everywhere.

One thing I can't help but notice is that the columnist here describes homosexuality as an 'external trait,' ....Westerners will tend to call it an *internal* one.

But I think that's just a matter of where we respectively place the boundaries.

Are you guys kidding me, about Homosexuality being condoned by hindhuism. Go read your Manu and then tell me what hindhuism has to say about it. It is such a taboo that it is not even mentioned. Not only that many a Indians think Homosexuality is mainly western thing. So give this a rest.

Aseem ji,

Thank you for pointing out to the 'On Faith' community one more time that homosexuality, just like apostasy, is a non-issue for the Dharmic Hindus.

• How and what one is born with and what one accomplishes (or not) with what he is born with are two separate issues.
• The Abrahamic religions tend to punish one for being born a certain way - isn't that racism! DADT in the US military is one such example.
• The Dharmic religions - Hindu, Buddh, Sikh and Jain, on the other hand pay emphasis on one's duties or behavior towards oneself, family, society, and environment and so on. Here, homosexuality is recognized only as an anomaly of external traits having little to do with one's intrinsic value as a human being with hidden divinity
• No wonder peace prevails and does not need to be 'given a chance' in the Dharmic societies.

With regards -
Sucheta

P.S. Also (Read more about Hinduism, gender and sexuality at Patheos.com.) seems to present a non practicing Hindu's views of Hinduism.