sheesh murugan, so much for this head sainik. this is what i said, we are trying to protect the evils and dark forces that is hiding well under Hinduism.
---
yes, movies would help convey generations like jaylal says., not a bad choice get a way of life redefined for the youngers.. perhaps we need to find a gene rodenberry., for this.
but the crux is in India.. those evils.. plus those ignored, down trodden and poor., and whose work is relgion people, getting EJaculated from democratic norms.
Religion Thread 1
The Greeks as we know them now are not a homogenous group of people. They are a fusion of many different people speaking many different stone-age languages, from different parts with different shade of skin, hair and eye colors. In the beginning there were discriminations and prejudices especially when a yellow haired and blue eyes Alpinian comes across a sun burned brown skinned and shorter person. One dominated another and some sort of segregations existed. However, very quickly these different cultures mixed and produced a more or less common Greek. Of-course they kept warring but they were very conscious and proud of their Greek-ness which many times was their rallying point especially when faced with adversity.
I am sure in ancient times one ethnic subset dominated the rest. It is only natural. Most often it is the selfish human tendency to maintain the status-quo by whatever means. Thus, the early seeds of caste lines must have been sown. Slowly, along these lines they get embedded into the myriad methods of spirituality. These many facets of spiritual worship had no unifying factor. Each sect, village, tribal group etc had their own deity which they worshipped. Thus within caste lines, there developed sub-caste lines. With time rigidness develops and the divisions only got more entranched.
When Alexander’s cavalry marshaled along the Indus, threatening to attack, Porus was facing a small rebellion in his ranks. A commander from a caste refused to fight in the same formation with another commander who happened to be of another caste because it was beneath for the former to do so. Here is a case of a life threatening situation but stupidity and religio-cultural rigidity comes to play.
Lets face it. The Hindu faith has been on the retreat at least for the last 1100 years. It probably is still today considering that traditional Hindu bastion in B-desh and P-satan are slowly being denuded of its Hindu inhabitants.
Yet, despite this more than a milleania of onslaught, the faith or rather the followers have survived without going extinct. Why? How? Is it because it is the most righteous faith in the eyes of a higher being? Is it because of its spiritual prowess? Is it because of its intellectual/scientific prowess.
The answer lies in the wombs of the Hindu/Indian women. Yes, the Hindu mother produced and produced ever more than the marauding Mussalman troopers’ scimitar could slay or forcefully convert. While the slaughtereing Mussalman exausted his will and retired, the Hindu/Indian mother tired not. She continued producing more Indian/Hindus.
Late Will Durant in his first volume (Story Of Our Civilization) correctly alludes that there were historically three ethnic groups that procreated more than any other group. They are the Slavic, Sinic and Indic groups.
The Indian mother, most often illiterate and poor, actually helped saved the Hindu faith instead of the other way round. She probably lamented her miserable fate and that of her people. She probably cried for the intervention of motionless statue of her deity that remained ignorant of her pleas. Yet, it was she that saved a civilization.
Ancient India may have been a wealthy nation. Rightfully it was so but the wealth was concentrated in the hands of tiny few not unlike today with poverty, beggars and hunger ever present. The religion embedded with various baggages instead of becoming a unifying factor, contributed to dis-unity. Thus when Barbarians marched from without, the internal rot within contributed to its fall.
Gautama Buddha saw this poverty and starvation. It compelled him to leave his comfortable setting and make an attempt at reforming his society. Unfortunately, he went up against rigid forces that resisted his reforming ways. The most formidable was the Brahmins. Gautama’s reformation failed. His followers retreated into their own comfort zone and thus flowered a new religion. (I believe the same could be said about JC and Christianity).
We can sit down and talk for hours about Dharma, Karma, Manu, Brahma, Sanyasi/Sanyasa, Vedas, Gita, Devi, Deva, Mama, mami and mamacitas but at the end of the day, inspite of all the intellectual/spiritual dialog, the man in the street is only interested in the food he can put on the table for his family. Losing him to the enemy would be the road to losing everything. In ancient India, the majority was kept out on the sidelines of society by a powerful minority and what begot the land? Both the majority and minority paid in rivers of blood.
What the nation needs today is not a religious Hindu but a cultural Hindu with the goal to protect a shared history and some commonalities.
The nation does not need a thousand coconuts to be crushed at the feet of Ganesha for a certain favor nor three trips around the temple on foot nor the multiple processions of ornately decorated statue around the city. Nor does the nation need vastly decorated and gold laden temples. More temples and more gold laden statues does not make one a better or more religious Hindu. These money could be utilized to build more schools and or more computers that will ensure a more and vibrant future generation. (I see so many Indian Hindus here in the USA but each and every little group want to maintain their little group identity. If educated Hindu Indians in far away gora land cannot forge a uniting group it would be like asking the Himalayas for poor folks in India to find a common united ground. There are Gujarati Brahmins who want to stay away from others, the Keralite Brahmins want to do the same. Or course then you hear the cursing of “South Indian Kallahâ€
I am sure in ancient times one ethnic subset dominated the rest. It is only natural. Most often it is the selfish human tendency to maintain the status-quo by whatever means. Thus, the early seeds of caste lines must have been sown. Slowly, along these lines they get embedded into the myriad methods of spirituality. These many facets of spiritual worship had no unifying factor. Each sect, village, tribal group etc had their own deity which they worshipped. Thus within caste lines, there developed sub-caste lines. With time rigidness develops and the divisions only got more entranched.
When Alexander’s cavalry marshaled along the Indus, threatening to attack, Porus was facing a small rebellion in his ranks. A commander from a caste refused to fight in the same formation with another commander who happened to be of another caste because it was beneath for the former to do so. Here is a case of a life threatening situation but stupidity and religio-cultural rigidity comes to play.
Lets face it. The Hindu faith has been on the retreat at least for the last 1100 years. It probably is still today considering that traditional Hindu bastion in B-desh and P-satan are slowly being denuded of its Hindu inhabitants.
Yet, despite this more than a milleania of onslaught, the faith or rather the followers have survived without going extinct. Why? How? Is it because it is the most righteous faith in the eyes of a higher being? Is it because of its spiritual prowess? Is it because of its intellectual/scientific prowess.
The answer lies in the wombs of the Hindu/Indian women. Yes, the Hindu mother produced and produced ever more than the marauding Mussalman troopers’ scimitar could slay or forcefully convert. While the slaughtereing Mussalman exausted his will and retired, the Hindu/Indian mother tired not. She continued producing more Indian/Hindus.
Late Will Durant in his first volume (Story Of Our Civilization) correctly alludes that there were historically three ethnic groups that procreated more than any other group. They are the Slavic, Sinic and Indic groups.
The Indian mother, most often illiterate and poor, actually helped saved the Hindu faith instead of the other way round. She probably lamented her miserable fate and that of her people. She probably cried for the intervention of motionless statue of her deity that remained ignorant of her pleas. Yet, it was she that saved a civilization.
Ancient India may have been a wealthy nation. Rightfully it was so but the wealth was concentrated in the hands of tiny few not unlike today with poverty, beggars and hunger ever present. The religion embedded with various baggages instead of becoming a unifying factor, contributed to dis-unity. Thus when Barbarians marched from without, the internal rot within contributed to its fall.
Gautama Buddha saw this poverty and starvation. It compelled him to leave his comfortable setting and make an attempt at reforming his society. Unfortunately, he went up against rigid forces that resisted his reforming ways. The most formidable was the Brahmins. Gautama’s reformation failed. His followers retreated into their own comfort zone and thus flowered a new religion. (I believe the same could be said about JC and Christianity).
We can sit down and talk for hours about Dharma, Karma, Manu, Brahma, Sanyasi/Sanyasa, Vedas, Gita, Devi, Deva, Mama, mami and mamacitas but at the end of the day, inspite of all the intellectual/spiritual dialog, the man in the street is only interested in the food he can put on the table for his family. Losing him to the enemy would be the road to losing everything. In ancient India, the majority was kept out on the sidelines of society by a powerful minority and what begot the land? Both the majority and minority paid in rivers of blood.
What the nation needs today is not a religious Hindu but a cultural Hindu with the goal to protect a shared history and some commonalities.
The nation does not need a thousand coconuts to be crushed at the feet of Ganesha for a certain favor nor three trips around the temple on foot nor the multiple processions of ornately decorated statue around the city. Nor does the nation need vastly decorated and gold laden temples. More temples and more gold laden statues does not make one a better or more religious Hindu. These money could be utilized to build more schools and or more computers that will ensure a more and vibrant future generation. (I see so many Indian Hindus here in the USA but each and every little group want to maintain their little group identity. If educated Hindu Indians in far away gora land cannot forge a uniting group it would be like asking the Himalayas for poor folks in India to find a common united ground. There are Gujarati Brahmins who want to stay away from others, the Keralite Brahmins want to do the same. Or course then you hear the cursing of “South Indian Kallahâ€
Well said SaiK, but there are a couple of practical problems in this.SaiK wrote:j
modern hinduism should evolve not to protect 2000 yr old practice, but what is practised today, corruptionism, lalusim, ammaism, goondaism, thakerism, etc. all these are tribalistism that took shelter under hindutva, because, of the fact it can evolve.. no containment rules or laws laid, how isms could be spread. now its time for sai and a-nandmayi et al trying to get their share of the ism populated. we have enough people to jump into ideas, means the very fact we are eager to evolve.
evolve from bad to good.. thats by removing all social evil, that is not just being in hinduism, but the infrastructre given by hinduism to house such isms, should be banned.
i wish, we can come up with a "set of new rules" every day, for the evolution to take place.
a) Religion exists and a huge percentage of humanity exist whose minds are already primed to accept God.
b) Some of those minds are pre-programmed to accept only one God and to put in effort to shut out all other viewpoints.
Hinduism is defined by the acceptance of all viewpoints and all thoughts s allowable. So the very broad definition of Hinduim that you have eloquently treid to "move forward" is itself under threat from exsiting well oiled machinery designed to make it history.
So if the thought process that you speak of is to survive at all, a God will have to be offered to those who want God. But Hindus seem confused about what their own God is and seem to me to be unable to say simple things clearly.
JMT
-
negi
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 13112
- Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
- Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .
Rewarding should I say ? Anyways I would put it this way pursuing science gives you a sense of accomplishment and perhaps mental piece,eventually mental piece is what we all worship God for.Anyways what about penning down your experience with Aghori's and Sadhus.Alok_N wrote: I chose the path of science because in the end it was the most promising ...
[/b]not just that, boss ... it's my piece against your piece ...negi wrote:Rewarding should I say ? Anyways I would put it this way pursuing science gives you a sense of accomplishment and perhaps mental piece,eventually mental piece is what we all worship God for.Alok_N wrote: I chose the path of science because in the end it was the most promising ...
your piece is not ready for this ... in cricket analogy, your posts qualify as cheeky singles ...Anyways what about penning down your experience with Aghori's and Sadhus.
These are soul issues .
Lets think for a while and assume we all have become Muslim or Christian. What are we going to miss? What are we going to gain? What is that we are lacking?
The right of Spiritual enquiry, freedom to explore divine freely and most of all the path of inward journey which is forbidden by non Dharmic faiths ( Ignore Suffism). Beside spiritual reasons, there is , will be social, cultural and political price imposed on Hindus , Sikhs and other Dharmas.
Foremost, we need to protect the family structure.
Lets think for a while and assume we all have become Muslim or Christian. What are we going to miss? What are we going to gain? What is that we are lacking?
The right of Spiritual enquiry, freedom to explore divine freely and most of all the path of inward journey which is forbidden by non Dharmic faiths ( Ignore Suffism). Beside spiritual reasons, there is , will be social, cultural and political price imposed on Hindus , Sikhs and other Dharmas.
Foremost, we need to protect the family structure.
Indeed.Prem wrote:These are soul issues .
Lets think for a while and assume we all have become Muslim or Christian. What are we going to miss? What are we going to gain? What is that we are lacking?
The right of Spiritual enquiry, freedom to explore divine freely and most of all the path of inward journey which is forbidden by non Dharmic faiths ( Ignore Suffism). Beside spiritual reasons, there is , will be social, cultural and political price imposed on Hindus , Sikhs and other Dharmas.
Foremost, we need to protect the family structure.
But is there one "Hindu" from among "Hindu leaders" and Hindu stalwarts today who can say this in a manner that is appealing and understandable?
The only people who are doing it are possibly the Swamis.
Not the self proclaimed protectors of Hindus whose only "punga" is with psec political parties, not with any possible decline in Hinduism.
They are a complete waste of time as far as I am concerned.
Wikipedia shows that whole of Asia's population icreased 7.8 fold between 1750 and 2005. But Europe+North-America+South-America's combined population increased 8.9 fold.asprinzl wrote:he answer lies in the wombs of the Hindu/Indian women. Yes, the Hindu mother produced and produced ever more than the marauding Mussalman troopers’ scimitar could slay or forcefully convert. While the slaughtereing Mussalman exausted his will and retired, the Hindu/Indian mother tired not. She continued producing more Indian/Hindus.
Late Will Durant in his first volume (Story Of Our Civilization) correctly alludes that there were historically three ethnic groups that procreated more than any other group. They are the Slavic, Sinic and Indic groups.
It appers to me that Will Durant forgot to include European origin wombs that had migrated to the Americas. If Australia is also included, and recalling that native american population was much smaller in 1750, it would be clear that European origin wombs have been much more prolific than the asian ones.
-
Raju
>>Ancient India may have been a wealthy nation. Rightfully it was so but the wealth was concentrated in the hands of tiny few not unlike today with poverty, beggars and hunger ever present. The religion embedded with various baggages instead of becoming a unifying factor, contributed to dis-unity. Thus when Barbarians marched from without, the internal rot within contributed to its fall.
Avram, relations whether in ancient India or ancient elsewhere were more or less based on landlord -> serf type arrangements. Poverty & deprivation came only when these arrangements were broken by environmental factors or by invasions. This is what I think.
Avram, relations whether in ancient India or ancient elsewhere were more or less based on landlord -> serf type arrangements. Poverty & deprivation came only when these arrangements were broken by environmental factors or by invasions. This is what I think.
God! we need to find you/one now~.. that/who is in every one/where, ain't he?shiv wrote:So if the thought process that you speak of is to survive at all, a God will have to be offered to those who want God. But Hindus seem confused about what their own God is and seem to me to be unable to say simple things clearly.
.btw, we have to try these:- (honestly, imho, afaik...).. caveat: btw, this is only for the masses that does'nt understand Hinduism.
- convert Christ to a Hindu.. give him temples.. along with Ganapathi and Shiva. (they want to convert people, we will convert their God!
). Perfect, God is in you, me, and him as well. - convert allah.. kinda done near sabarimala hills
- ...mmm.. dangerous.. i don't want to say any further
-
abhischekcc
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 4277
- Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
- Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
- Contact:
ChristianISMSadler wrote:As i mentioned once, this forcible piggybacking of christianism onto the Hebrew religion was the seminal cause of christian anti-semitism as the presence/existence of a single jew meant that he/she could challenge the theft of the hebrew religion, and by association its scriptures and 3,000 yr old history, by christians.
Ahem, I am glad that at least one more person recognises the blatant religious intolerance that is inherent in the word christianITY.
For those missed the point: Christianity is an absolute term, whereas any word with 'ism' is a relative term. For, example, Hinduism, Judaism, etc.
What the christians mean to say with the word is that christianity is the actual, absolute and eternal truth, whereas other religions are only relative truths (soon to be wiped out, I suppose).
To understand Hinduism and Vedic concept of god, IMO the following may help:
1) Vedic (rituals)
2) Upanishadic Age (philsophical, theological exercises to find out the ultimate truth)
3) Vedanta (upto here god = ultimate truth)
Shankaracharya offered a mix of Gyan, Karma and Bhakti
4) Vaishnavism (incarnation theory started and then multitude of gods)
(Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, Vllabhacharya, Bhakti Marg, Idolworship)
5) Shaivism (rituals) (Mantra, Tantra, idol worhsip)
6) Tulsidas/Surdas - Bhaktakavis of Medieval age
6) Various other movement during and post Medieval age (cannot be identifed as one - All India movement)
7) Hinduism identified with Sects/Ritualistic relgion dividing hindus again as during post vedanta period
Revival of Vedanta (Swami Vivekananda)
9) Again sects/rituals and other nonsense
10) Post 1990 - revival of hinduism
11) Reinventing Hinduism - BRF
***
Ramanaji,
this thread will help a long way to counter Jihadi/EJ threats.
most of the time jingo Hindus find it very difficult to compare themselves with these 'fast growing' religions.
Jihadi/EJs put forth the argument that they are staunch followers (but only ritualistically, no spiritual approach).
When hindus compare themselves with other religions on rituals like offering prayers 5 times a day, cleaning the tool after urinating (though taking bath once a week), going to service regularly, praying before having meal, maintaining order and disciplines dictated by Dharmagurs staying thousands miles away Hindus fall pale.
Because Hindus have have also started identifying their religion with rituals, idol worship, observing fasts etc.
The base of hinduism - the vedanta, vedas and upanishads are totally forgotten. in general hindus don't have idea about these.
Success of this thread will act as a sharpened axe and understanding/knowing our own weapons - as far as the vedic hindu relgion(?) is concerned.
It will be also easy to challenge Jihadis and EJs on 'intellectual plane' vis-a-vis ideolgies (do they have?)
1) Vedic (rituals)
2) Upanishadic Age (philsophical, theological exercises to find out the ultimate truth)
3) Vedanta (upto here god = ultimate truth)
Shankaracharya offered a mix of Gyan, Karma and Bhakti
4) Vaishnavism (incarnation theory started and then multitude of gods)
(Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, Vllabhacharya, Bhakti Marg, Idolworship)
5) Shaivism (rituals) (Mantra, Tantra, idol worhsip)
6) Tulsidas/Surdas - Bhaktakavis of Medieval age
6) Various other movement during and post Medieval age (cannot be identifed as one - All India movement)
7) Hinduism identified with Sects/Ritualistic relgion dividing hindus again as during post vedanta period
Revival of Vedanta (Swami Vivekananda)9) Again sects/rituals and other nonsense
10) Post 1990 - revival of hinduism
11) Reinventing Hinduism - BRF
***
Ramanaji,
this thread will help a long way to counter Jihadi/EJ threats.
most of the time jingo Hindus find it very difficult to compare themselves with these 'fast growing' religions.
Jihadi/EJs put forth the argument that they are staunch followers (but only ritualistically, no spiritual approach).
When hindus compare themselves with other religions on rituals like offering prayers 5 times a day, cleaning the tool after urinating (though taking bath once a week), going to service regularly, praying before having meal, maintaining order and disciplines dictated by Dharmagurs staying thousands miles away Hindus fall pale.
Because Hindus have have also started identifying their religion with rituals, idol worship, observing fasts etc.
The base of hinduism - the vedanta, vedas and upanishads are totally forgotten. in general hindus don't have idea about these.
Success of this thread will act as a sharpened axe and understanding/knowing our own weapons - as far as the vedic hindu relgion(?) is concerned.
It will be also easy to challenge Jihadis and EJs on 'intellectual plane' vis-a-vis ideolgies (do they have?)
Some random thoughts in no particular order...shiv wrote:Indeed.Prem wrote:These are soul issues .
Lets think for a while and assume we all have become Muslim or Christian. What are we going to miss? What are we going to gain? What is that we are lacking?
The right of Spiritual enquiry, freedom to explore divine freely and most of all the path of inward journey which is forbidden by non Dharmic faiths ( Ignore Suffism). Beside spiritual reasons, there is , will be social, cultural and political price imposed on Hindus , Sikhs and other Dharmas.
Foremost, we need to protect the family structure.
But is there one "Hindu" from among "Hindu leaders" and Hindu stalwarts today who can say this in a manner that is appealing and understandable?
The only people who are doing it are possibly the Swamis.
Not the self proclaimed protectors of Hindus whose only "punga" is with psec political parties, not with any possible decline in Hinduism.
They are a complete waste of time as far as I am concerned.
1. Is there any inherent merit in Sanatana Dharma that it should need to survive among competitive (and aggressive) ideologies?
2. Does the Sanatana Dharma "universe" i.e. its lofty philosophies and teachings, followers is intact/lost/gaining? Are its cultural appendages like languages, sacred rituals, arts intact/lost/gaining? Does it still provide the foundation of a civilization, i.e. are the borders intact/lost/gaining?
3. Does any of the above in #2 require extra effort in our part to preserve them or protect them?
4. What are the bare minimum requirements to preserve or protect our heritage?
A dedicated center of learning? A set of laws and rules that ensures that the best of our tradition and its values are preserved? A well defined geographical context that provides an environment of security to SD adherents and provides them with a environment to refine and enrich their tradition?
I do not think Swamis are doing enough or are capable of doing it. They might be talking about SD in a spiritual context, but SD also has a cultural/civilizational context to it.
There is a lot that Hindus can guffaw at regarding other religions too, perhaps much more. But we don't see those religions getting into a defensive mode in fear of guffawing from others. Rather they press on proselytyzing however ridiculous their believes may appear a priori. Denigrators will denigrate regarding one point or another. We shouldn't have to change our religion just for that reason.Alok_N wrote: you may recall the question asked of Vivekananda whether he believed that his god resided in a piece of rock, and the subsequent guffawing that followed when the answer was "yes" ...
one has to be aware of the opposition which has its agenda of denigration ... there are several ways to mock this truth that you and I consider to be simple ...
I doubt that scientific aspects will do anything to stop the guffaws. Creationists etc are already considered anti-science morons and are loving every moment of it.which is why I advocate invocation of science into the discourse ... the point is that the the guffowing crowd will run the risk of being considered anti-science morons ...
in summary, this is what is unique about Hinduism ... it admits a scientific discourse, something that other religions shy away from ...
If we should follow the scientific method, then puting a heavy presumption that gods/goddeses are figments of our imagination, is not justifiable. Let scientific method sort that out, if science must be the arbiter.IMO, it is too late to put the genie back in the bottle and rewind the proliferation of gods and goddesses ... we need to educate the masses in Hindu Thought ... psecs will scream bloody murder, but it will not be Hinduism Studies ... it needs to be in the context of cultural studies that we teach our heritage, the most precious component of which is the gems of wisdom contained in our Thought ...
Only problem I see is that science is not yet at that stage where it can be an arbiter. It may take decades before science gets there. We need to have a working strategy in the meantime.
Budhism had tried something similar, it was a movement which was very rational and anti Gods/Goddesses of vedic pantheon. It didn't take long before Hinayana changed into Mahayana and Vajrayana and Budhism developed its own huge pantheon of deities. Deities keep popping up in the fertile land of India. There is no guarantee that they would lose the habit. Especially since numerous hindu sages keep confirming their reality, and even ordinary people in their daily lives go through their personal confirmations.
Last edited by Kumar on 15 Mar 2007 12:14, edited 1 time in total.
Shiv,
Regarding what needs to be saved in hinduism:
IMVHO, hinduism has seen a large number of reforms in the recent past, much larger than any other religion. It is time to consolidate. It is a strategy of the adversaries to keep hinduism on defensive about one thing or other and demanding reforms/changes etc while other religions remain as obscurantist as ever. This only breeds inferiority complex in hindus and makes the task of proselytizers easier.
Enough of reforms for now, It is time to consolidate and, hindus should defend hinduism in all its aspects. Which means vigorously defending all hindu Gods, Goddesses, sages, avatars, scriptures, holy places etc from external attacks. While internally keeping an open mind on points where reforms may be needed as assessed from within.
Regarding what needs to be saved in hinduism:
IMVHO, hinduism has seen a large number of reforms in the recent past, much larger than any other religion. It is time to consolidate. It is a strategy of the adversaries to keep hinduism on defensive about one thing or other and demanding reforms/changes etc while other religions remain as obscurantist as ever. This only breeds inferiority complex in hindus and makes the task of proselytizers easier.
Enough of reforms for now, It is time to consolidate and, hindus should defend hinduism in all its aspects. Which means vigorously defending all hindu Gods, Goddesses, sages, avatars, scriptures, holy places etc from external attacks. While internally keeping an open mind on points where reforms may be needed as assessed from within.
We're not fighting a war. If we start believing that, then we will see the final denigration of Hinduism into a EJ wanna-be, outmoded concept.Kumar wrote:There is a lot that Hindus can guffaw at regarding other religions too, perhaps much more. But we don't see those religions getting into a defensive mode in fear of guffawing from others. Rather they press on proselytyzing however ridiculous their believes may appear a priori. Denigrators will denigrate regarding one point or another. We can't change our religion just for that reason.Alok_N wrote: you may recall the question asked of Vivekananda whether he believed that his god resided in a piece of rock, and the subsequent guffawing that followed when the answer was "yes" ...
one has to be aware of the opposition which has its agenda of denigration ... there are several ways to mock this truth that you and I consider to be simple ...
I doubt that scientific aspects will do anything to stop the guffaws. Creationists etc are already considered anti-science morons and are loving every moment of it.which is why I advocate invocation of science into the discourse ... the point is that the the guffowing crowd will run the risk of being considered anti-science morons ...
in summary, this is what is unique about Hinduism ... it admits a scientific discourse, something that other religions shy away from ...
I think it is contradictory to say that we should follow the scientific method, and put a heavy presumption that gods/goddeses are figments of our imagination. Let scientific method sort that out, if science must be the arbiter.IMO, it is too late to put the genie back in the bottle and rewind the proliferation of gods and goddesses ... we need to educate the masses in Hindu Thought ... psecs will scream bloody murder, but it will not be Hinduism Studies ... it needs to be in the context of cultural studies that we teach our heritage, the most precious component of which is the gems of wisdom contained in our Thought ...
Only problem I see is that science is not yet at that stage where it can be an arbiter. It may take decades before science gets there. That perhaps is too long a time frame to wait for science to deliver its judgements.
Budhism had tried something similar, it was a movement which was very rational and anti Gods/Goddesses of vedic pantheon. It didn't take long before Hinayana changed into Mahayana and Vajrayana and Budhism developed its own huge pantheon of deities. Deities keep popping up in the fertile land of India. There is no guarantee that they would lose the habit. Especially since numerous hindu sages keep confirming their reality, and even ordinary people in their daily lives go through their personal confirmations.
But what I want to make clear is that Hinduism has the advantage in changing the rules of the game than in playing by the rules. Instead of trying to reconvert Christians back to Hinduism, doesn't it make more sense to create an environment, through media and public awareness, where those converts accept that Jesus is just one of many manifestations of one God of one idea? We can wreak total havoc with Missionaries... billions and billions of dollars wasted, all by spreading the knowledge that other dieties, the world over, are only a subset of the Vedic understanding of God.
Back to the movie reference.... one good movie involving characters of varied faiths and their connections with Vedic tradition or philisophy (of course in an attactive and slick presentation) could do more than trying to play a costly tug of war with people. Why not aim higher and try to capture a global audience to the ideas of Hinduism? Why not invade the turf of others? Why not have our Christians and Muslims, no matter how poor or downtrodden, find a common vein with our thoughts? After all, labels are meaningless to people that struggle to feed themselves.
I have to tend to other matters as of now, but I will be back to discuss this a little more. And I encourage all to be bold and fresh with your ideas. Its the only way to create the presence in society that Modern Hinduism so badly needs. There is no right or wrong answer here.
asprinzl:Kumar wrote:Wikipedia shows that whole of Asia's population icreased 7.8 fold between 1750 and 2005. But Europe+North-America+South-America's combined population increased 8.9 fold.asprinzl wrote:he answer lies in the wombs of the Hindu/Indian women. Yes, the Hindu mother produced and produced ever more than the marauding Mussalman troopers’ scimitar could slay or forcefully convert. While the slaughtereing Mussalman exausted his will and retired, the Hindu/Indian mother tired not. She continued producing more Indian/Hindus.
Late Will Durant in his first volume (Story Of Our Civilization) correctly alludes that there were historically three ethnic groups that procreated more than any other group. They are the Slavic, Sinic and Indic groups.
It appers to me that Will Durant forgot to include European origin wombs that had migrated to the Americas. If Australia is also included, and recalling that native american population was much smaller in 1750, it would be clear that European origin wombs have been much more prolific than the asian ones.
Your thesis sounds more like "mayavada" or not reality, just illusion...
what about the great acharya's like shankara (if you assume he is ancient), madhva and ramanuja are definitely in the lasty 800 yrs, and the countless swamis even to this day, and not to mention the great dasas like purundaradasa and thyagaraja (in the last 500 yrs) .... i am not exactly sure on the dates, but I think the dasa movement was strongest during the 12-18th century period in south india.. Probably the deep south provided them a safe sanctuary and especially with the vijayanagara empire in the later part of that era... each one of these personalities has brought countless millions into the fold and kept them to this day in the fold.... Just doing a search reveals the number of dasas who very famous in that period.. even in bengal chaitanya's bhakti movement was in the similar period.. On the otherhand, strangely during this same period hardly any significant spiritual personality emerged in the north... most probably because of the stranglehold of islam in the north during this period .. except for sikhism...
But the greatest downfall of hinduism has been during the colonial period, with hardly any notable spiritual figure has emerged throughout india... my take is that hinduism has been able to withstand the brutality of the military onslaught, but it was not able to withstand the materialistic onslaught of the british and other colonial powers.. basically it was not just the killing, but the material deprivation and theft of dignity that was snatched away from a major portion of the population pushing them into abject poverty and loss of confidence and doubt in your own dharma...
Basically my argument is that it was not the womb, but the great personalities who brought and kept people in the fold of the dharma... So even now, in the right enviroment - hindu spirituality and thought has enough depth and vitality to throw up a personality who will revitalise the whole flock... for example, a single man swami prabhupada - founder of the iskcon movement brought millions around the world into the fold within a span of a decade or so ...
I think current India is psychologically reacting to the abject poverty and loss of confidence from the colonial era by trying to regain material wealth and proving its mettle in the secular science as established and practised currently.. once indian society gets over the trauma of the colonialism and realize we have nothing to prove to the "mlechhas"
I think the society will throw one more shankara or madhva... Remember when Adi Shankara emerged more than a millinea ago, the society was in the grip of buddhism with its philosophy of shunya (emtiness or godlessness) .... and shankara reformed it.... I don't thinkwe are facing a bigger challenge today....
Last edited by anilK on 15 Mar 2007 12:38, edited 1 time in total.
-
Raju
4. How people perceive hinduism in relation to others ?negi wrote:I dont know what is it we are supposed to discuss here ?
1.Existence of God and how various religions seek the same?
or
2.How a religion 'a' is superior/different from 'b'.
or
3.Threat to a particular religion(read Hinduism) from others.
5. How people perceive their religion wrt themselves.
a. Where is the dichotomy ?
b. Where is the insecurity ?
1) I think what we need to discuss in this thread is not how to save hinduism, but how to save hindu space.. because hinduism can only be killed by dogmatism and will only thrive with free thought...
2) The society should follow atleast of modicum of hinduism.. i.e. even if most of the population does not understand the intricacies of the vedanta and upanishad's, or not well read on the commentaries of the Adishankara or Madhavacharya, or do not know the ABCD's of the brhamasurta.. still a basic hindu lifestyle founded on these texts need to be maintained .. and the easiest way to do this is follow the bhakti movement... i.e just sing, listen and dance to devotional hymns composed by the great dasas... and beyond that if you are smart enough and you have the time, enquire.. go back and research your roots on how and what the great acharya's thought and read..
3) Since the Kshatriyas no longer exist to protect the dharma, political hindutva is needed to protect the hindu space.. without this (2) will monotonically decrease.. and without the environment of the (2) no avatarapurusha or great acharya or great dasa will emerge.... And without that emergence, hinduism is not going to be revitalised.. unfortunately for "hinduism" praying 5 times a day or reading a few verses from a book once a week will not keep the fire burning.. it si the emergence of the great saints and dasas and acharyas and their thinking on which the hindu faith lives...every once in a while a mind so clear and captivating has to emerge for this faith to be revitalised.. and that is exactly why this is sanatana dharma...
my 2 cents...
2) The society should follow atleast of modicum of hinduism.. i.e. even if most of the population does not understand the intricacies of the vedanta and upanishad's, or not well read on the commentaries of the Adishankara or Madhavacharya, or do not know the ABCD's of the brhamasurta.. still a basic hindu lifestyle founded on these texts need to be maintained .. and the easiest way to do this is follow the bhakti movement... i.e just sing, listen and dance to devotional hymns composed by the great dasas... and beyond that if you are smart enough and you have the time, enquire.. go back and research your roots on how and what the great acharya's thought and read..
3) Since the Kshatriyas no longer exist to protect the dharma, political hindutva is needed to protect the hindu space.. without this (2) will monotonically decrease.. and without the environment of the (2) no avatarapurusha or great acharya or great dasa will emerge.... And without that emergence, hinduism is not going to be revitalised.. unfortunately for "hinduism" praying 5 times a day or reading a few verses from a book once a week will not keep the fire burning.. it si the emergence of the great saints and dasas and acharyas and their thinking on which the hindu faith lives...every once in a while a mind so clear and captivating has to emerge for this faith to be revitalised.. and that is exactly why this is sanatana dharma...
my 2 cents...
Last edited by anilK on 15 Mar 2007 12:50, edited 2 times in total.
Shivji
Reg the latest line of thinking..
1. There is nothing to "demonize" in christianity of islam.
2. People wake up every once in a while and decide which religion they want to follow and then pick that up just like new brand of shampoo.
While these may sound sexy I dont think either of these make sense ?
Re #1 Nobody has to "demonize" these religions, their own histories do a good enough job.
Re #2 Once again this may sound sexy but in reality massive changes in religions happen mostly because of changes in power equations. In the thread that was closed there was a quote from Sri Sita Ram Goel that talked about the numbers of christianity until it captured state power - and we all know the result after that. Same is the case with Islam.
In short I dont understand where you are going with this ?
Reg the latest line of thinking..
This is like asking why dont we get 5 bowlers who can bowl 10 maidens each ?shiv wrote:If Iran is under threat from the US should Iran attempt to destroy the US singlehandedly or is it better for Iran to shore up it's own defences?
There are 2 assumptions that you make here.Similarly, if Hindus and Hinduism are under threat, should people spend all their time demonizing Christianity and Islam or should they spend at least a little while in seeing what is valuable that all Hindus want to defend and start defending that?
1. There is nothing to "demonize" in christianity of islam.
2. People wake up every once in a while and decide which religion they want to follow and then pick that up just like new brand of shampoo.
While these may sound sexy I dont think either of these make sense ?
Re #1 Nobody has to "demonize" these religions, their own histories do a good enough job.
Re #2 Once again this may sound sexy but in reality massive changes in religions happen mostly because of changes in power equations. In the thread that was closed there was a quote from Sri Sita Ram Goel that talked about the numbers of christianity until it captured state power - and we all know the result after that. Same is the case with Islam.
In short I dont understand where you are going with this ?
-
Raju
In kalyug, nothing is without its warts. A 'work-in-progress' mode is desirable.
to say other religions are 'demonize-able' while we ourselves sit in the 'garden of eden' is a laughable concept. but if that is indeed the case then the average punter needs to be convinced about that, so that the society at large is not rattled by sporadic events/religious aggression sponsored by foreign elements.
to say other religions are 'demonize-able' while we ourselves sit in the 'garden of eden' is a laughable concept. but if that is indeed the case then the average punter needs to be convinced about that, so that the society at large is not rattled by sporadic events/religious aggression sponsored by foreign elements.
PremjiPrem wrote: Lets think for a while and assume we all have become Muslim or Christian.
Even though your point is hypothetical I think it hides one important aspect that should be extremely important in a strategic forum. I have perhaps not been able to convey this clearly and your post provides a window.
Thing is that even this hypothetical conversion cannot be expected to happen at one instant in time - or even a month or a year. This is a long drawn out process and then what happens in the interim ? Forget religions, what will Bharat loose in this process ?
-
abhischekcc
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 4277
- Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
- Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
- Contact:
-
negi
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 13112
- Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
- Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .
Hm... well then I guess before we start pouring in our views we need to define Hinduism in context of the discussion.As far as insecurity and dichotomy are concerned well they are not exactly limited to religion per se it is more to do identity of a individual itself.Raju wrote:
4. How people perceive hinduism in relation to others ?
5. How people perceive their religion wrt themselves.
a. Where is the dichotomy ?
b. Where is the insecurity ?
-
abhischekcc
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 4277
- Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
- Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
- Contact:
Yeah, allow everyone to define their personal editions of Hinduism and enjoy the flame war from a distance.abhischekcc wrote:Welcome to the Argumentative Indians thread.negi wrote:I dont know what is it we are supposed to discuss here ?
1.Existence of God and how various religions seek the same?
or
2.How a religion 'a' is superior/different from 'b'.
or
3.Threat to a particular religion(read Hinduism) from others.
PS: Seriously, if members here can agree upon a fundamental set of features that'll be a great step.
Excellent points SRoy. Seeing one post like this (although I have actually see more than one valuable post) makes this thread worth it.SRoy wrote: 4. What are the bare minimum requirements to preserve or protect our heritage?
A dedicated center of learning? A set of laws and rules that ensures that the best of our tradition and its values are preserved? A well defined geographical context that provides an environment of security to SD adherents and provides them with a environment to refine and enrich their tradition?
.
Thought has not died yet.
I'm not surprised that you don't - but I don't see Hindus led by the likes of Sita Ram Goel and his laughable Tejo Mahalaya going anywhere either and the "progress" made by Hindus with such leadership makes me think - "Go anywhere but this route".RajeshG wrote: Re #1 Nobody has to "demonize" these religions, their own histories do a good enough job.
Re #2 Once again this may sound sexy but in reality massive changes in religions happen mostly because of changes in power equations. In the thread that was closed there was a quote from Sri Sita Ram Goel that talked about the numbers of christianity until it captured state power - and we all know the result after that. Same is the case with Islam.
In short I dont understand where you are going with this ?
The fact that Islam and Christianity and Muslims and Christians have all sorts of flaws has become such a boring fact that I don't think it is necessary to hear that again. equally unnecessary is the continuous blahblahblah about how good and how endangered Hindus are.
Hindus are good only at complaining and recognizing demons - not at action
Hindus may be endangered but I think they have also been phenomenally blinkered in imagining that playing with clever words like "Islam/Christianity do not need demonization - they are demons already" does anything good for Hindus.
What are Hindus doing apart from complaining? Heck some of these people can't sell Hinduism to Hindus so laughable are their rants and theories.
Who is uniting Hindus against all these threats. Not the BJP. Not the RSS. And certainly not Sita Ram Goel. I don't see these people changing any power equations anytime soon - unles we are talking about more disunity and fractiousness.
Who has the vision to say "This is what we have, and this is the best there is, better than XYZ"?
In the absence of that - you find everone else peddling their wares using that langauge and you lose out. There is so much that can be done - but I don't see these icons as being big enough to do that. They are too busy complaining and accusing others.
Hindus have to be able to say what is good, and not constantly moan about how good it was till Islam and Christianity came on.
Now who is doing that?
This is an old article but it is a good one, regarding Sri Lanka...but can be applied to almost all countries affected by Christian evangelists.
Conversion: A Buddhist Perspective
By Ven. Dhammika from Australia
The Daily Mirror Tuesday June 29, 2004
As a fomer Christian, who has become a Buddhist, I have been observing the current 'conversion controversy' with some interest. I have read with dismay the reports of churches being burnt and of pastors being manhandled. Such behaviour is not just shameful, it probably does more harm to Buddhism than any missionary could ever do. Further, people who do such things are breaking the law and should be dealt with by the law without fear or favour.
Having said this though, there are two other aspects of these incidents which are also worth commenting on - firstly, they are new phenomena and secondly, they call for an explanation. Why is it that religious communities that have lived together in relative harmony for at least 200 years are now taking up cudgels against each other? True, there have been periods when they engaged in controversy with each other, sometimes quite vigorous controversy, but this has never led to places of worship being desecrated or people being beaten up. When the huge crowds who attended the Panadura Debate dispersed they did not march down the road and throw stones at the local church.
Is it simply that our society has become more violent? Is it that Buddhists are loosing their traditional tolerance? Is it all really part of some political plot? I would like to offer some thoughts on these questions.
But before doing so it might be helpful to be clear about the term 'Christian': Sinhalese are not always good at making subtle or even obvious distinctions and think that all Christians are the same. Today in Sri Lanka there are two main types of Christians. There are the traditional mainline ones (Catholics, Anglicans, Dutch Reformers, Methodists, etc) who have been in the country for a century or more and generally have a "live and let live" attitude towards Buddhists and Hindus. Then there are the evangelical, born again and fundamentalist Christians (Assemblies of God. Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, Charismatics etc). These Christians are relative newcomers to the country and have an agenda to convert as many people as possible. It is this second group who are raising concern although Sinhalese Buddhists do not always distinguish between them and the first group. I will refer to this second group as evangelical Christians.
FULL STORY: http://www.geocities.com/focussrilanka/perspective.htm
Conversion: A Buddhist Perspective
By Ven. Dhammika from Australia
The Daily Mirror Tuesday June 29, 2004
As a fomer Christian, who has become a Buddhist, I have been observing the current 'conversion controversy' with some interest. I have read with dismay the reports of churches being burnt and of pastors being manhandled. Such behaviour is not just shameful, it probably does more harm to Buddhism than any missionary could ever do. Further, people who do such things are breaking the law and should be dealt with by the law without fear or favour.
Having said this though, there are two other aspects of these incidents which are also worth commenting on - firstly, they are new phenomena and secondly, they call for an explanation. Why is it that religious communities that have lived together in relative harmony for at least 200 years are now taking up cudgels against each other? True, there have been periods when they engaged in controversy with each other, sometimes quite vigorous controversy, but this has never led to places of worship being desecrated or people being beaten up. When the huge crowds who attended the Panadura Debate dispersed they did not march down the road and throw stones at the local church.
Is it simply that our society has become more violent? Is it that Buddhists are loosing their traditional tolerance? Is it all really part of some political plot? I would like to offer some thoughts on these questions.
But before doing so it might be helpful to be clear about the term 'Christian': Sinhalese are not always good at making subtle or even obvious distinctions and think that all Christians are the same. Today in Sri Lanka there are two main types of Christians. There are the traditional mainline ones (Catholics, Anglicans, Dutch Reformers, Methodists, etc) who have been in the country for a century or more and generally have a "live and let live" attitude towards Buddhists and Hindus. Then there are the evangelical, born again and fundamentalist Christians (Assemblies of God. Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, Charismatics etc). These Christians are relative newcomers to the country and have an agenda to convert as many people as possible. It is this second group who are raising concern although Sinhalese Buddhists do not always distinguish between them and the first group. I will refer to this second group as evangelical Christians.
FULL STORY: http://www.geocities.com/focussrilanka/perspective.htm
AnilK, Thanks for posting this.2) The society should follow atleast of modicum of hinduism.. i.e. even if most of the population does not understand the intricacies of the vedanta and upanishad's, or not well read on the commentaries of the Adishankara or Madhavacharya, or do not know the ABCD's of the brhamasurta.. still a basic hindu lifestyle founded on these texts need to be maintained .. and the easiest way to do this is follow the bhakti movement... i.e just sing, listen and dance to devotional hymns composed by the great dasas... and beyond that if you are smart enough and you have the time, enquire.. go back and research your roots on how and what the great acharya's thought and read..
I think this has always been the case with Hinduism. Not every Hindu can be expert on all the religious texts. Most are common folks while a few are experts in some or all of the scriptures. Except that in present times, the learned people are far too few. And also the number of new people learning them is also less. Hundreds of years of foreign rule, the poverty, the struggle to make ends, constant psyops against Hinduism made it harder for people to make any kind of effort to learn them. But increasing standards, food security will allow the inclined people to learn the vedas, upanishads etc. Eventually we must build a solid body of such learned people who will keep the folks in touch with Sanata Dharma and pass on the knowledge to their pupils. It is probably an effort spanning a few generations. In the mean while, we should hold fort any way we can like you said above.
JMT.
--Ranadheer
In 2003, I made this post on BRF in a different context, but I am reminded of it here.
It is about a game called "You farted". I have edited out the bits irrelevant to this thread.
Hinduism was the faith that was "equally alien" - to both Christianity and Islam and it it was easy to brand it with the usual accusations of idol worship, devil worship, many Gods, false Gods etc.
Even today Hindus are "defensive" about "many Gods", "caste", "Idol worship" because of the dhimmitude and lost initiative of having been at the wrong end of this "You farted" game played by both Christianity and Islam.
The first thing to do is to stop being defensive about an agenda set by someone else and to start publicizing the positives in articles and commentaries.
No point continuing the usual rants about temples and all destroyed. Nobody has sympathy for that. Who in this world is bothered about Hindu temples that no longer exist? Few people give a damn when they see grumbling Hindus licking old wounds.
The thing to do is to move forward from now and say what is it in hinduism that is worth protecting. That should not just be protected by pointing out enemies and known demons, but actively strenghthened by spreading the word in an easily understandable multilingual format.
You got money? Sponsor a book or CD about what Hinduism is and see that it is given free. Don;t say anything bad about others. Just say why you are right. Let others go on the defensive and start attacking you - you have the initiative.
At this point in time, that initiative does not exist among Hindus and has not been gained in a any meaningful way by accusation or by lamenting the loss of past glory.
It is about a game called "You farted". I have edited out the bits irrelevant to this thread.
Hindus have been subjected to the "You farted" game and have been unable to pull themselves out and I see them continuously on the defensive, complaining about how bad the acccusers are - having lost the initiative.posted 14 May 2003 08:38 PM
Excuse me for this rant folks - but I need to express myself and describe a thought I have had.
There is a particularly irritating psychological trick that you may have had played on you, and perhaps you are guilty of playing it yourself. People do it all the time - but it is educative to find influential groups and nations playing that trick. India and Indians with their passive "satyameva jayate" - all is open and visible lifestyles are particular suckers for this game.
The "game" or trick is to get a person on the defensive with an unprovoked accusation. The agenda and tone is set by the accuser and the passive personality goes on the defensive right from the start.
Let me explain. For clarity I will call it the "You farted" game
A group of people are sitting together - say 6 or 7 friends in a hostel room. Suddenly the foul smell of a fart wafts up.
An accuser personality (call him 'A') picks out a passive personality ('P') and says "Hey P, you farted"
P protests "No I did not"
A: "Yes you did"
P: "Shut up and stop accusing me"
A:"He Ha. It's OK. No need to cover your guilt by getting angry. I know you farted. We don't mind - just warn us next time.
What happens in this exchange is that the Accuser 'A' has the initiative all the time. He sets the pace, and he sets the Agenda. He may actually have farted himself, but he gets away giving the impression that "P" is guilty.
Note that this is a complex human exchange and not something that can be described in a few simple words.
Now see how this is applied by groups and nations. The trick is used by Amnesty, Greenpeace, Pakistan against India and a whole load of "Western" organizations use this against many others - but I am only interested in the way it is used against India.
The usual string of "accusations" we face are:
1)***
2)***
3)***
4)***
5)Religious freedom
6)***
7)***
8 ) bride burning
9)Hindu fundamenatlists
< snip >...
The sheer volume of accusations and insinuations, initiated by a wide variety of private organizations who have the leisure to sit and do these things itself is a serious example of psywar.
I do not want to wish away what is often true in the accusations - like corruption, but I wish to make the point that multiple pinpricks from alll quarters amounts to psywar and we need to draw the line somewhere and say what is psywar and unfair vs what is a "fair accusation"
We need to recognise instances of the "You farted" game being played. In general, less influential and less wealthy nations have fewer private groups who can play this game on behalf of their nations. Often these games are not "Govenment sponsored" - but they have a wink and a nod from their governments.
< snip >
Hinduism was the faith that was "equally alien" - to both Christianity and Islam and it it was easy to brand it with the usual accusations of idol worship, devil worship, many Gods, false Gods etc.
Even today Hindus are "defensive" about "many Gods", "caste", "Idol worship" because of the dhimmitude and lost initiative of having been at the wrong end of this "You farted" game played by both Christianity and Islam.
The first thing to do is to stop being defensive about an agenda set by someone else and to start publicizing the positives in articles and commentaries.
No point continuing the usual rants about temples and all destroyed. Nobody has sympathy for that. Who in this world is bothered about Hindu temples that no longer exist? Few people give a damn when they see grumbling Hindus licking old wounds.
The thing to do is to move forward from now and say what is it in hinduism that is worth protecting. That should not just be protected by pointing out enemies and known demons, but actively strenghthened by spreading the word in an easily understandable multilingual format.
You got money? Sponsor a book or CD about what Hinduism is and see that it is given free. Don;t say anything bad about others. Just say why you are right. Let others go on the defensive and start attacking you - you have the initiative.
At this point in time, that initiative does not exist among Hindus and has not been gained in a any meaningful way by accusation or by lamenting the loss of past glory.
-
abhischekcc
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 4277
- Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
- Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
- Contact:
In fact, your opinion comes very close to the RSS mindset. There is a reason why I call them secular.asprinzl wrote:What the nation needs today is not a religious Hindu but a cultural Hindu with the goal to protect a shared history and some commonalities.
(And no, it is not a bad reason)Gandhi saw the stark truth. He chose the path of non-violent not because it was any superior than violent means. It was the means of the weak. Also it was means to avoid Indian against Indian violence. The Indian freedom seeker who marched against the British picket lines were not met by Englishmen in most cases but by Indian troopers in British uniforms.
Along the same line Nehru for all his faults, should be given credit for opting for secularist system of government. A Hindu system of government would have been a disaster because right after the bloodbath of Partition, there would have been a Hindu against Hindu blood bath to determine who is more Hindu that the rest. The destructive mentality/mindset and “emotional-animalâ€
SaiK,SaiK wrote:
- convert Christ to a Hindu.. give him temples.. along with Ganapathi and Shiva. (they want to convert people, we will convert their God! ). Perfect, God is in you, me, and him as well.
- convert allah.. kinda done near sabarimala hills
- ...mmm.. dangerous.. i don't want to say any further
No need to convert anybody. According to Vedas Hinduism has got 33 crore Gods manifestations. We kinda put Christ and Allah in this group and there you go.
Moreover the Holy Spirit Concept of Chrisitianity and concept of Allah in Islam is very very similar to the "Parabrahmam" concept in Hindutva.