Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts

[Guest dada_rocks]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts

I do agree with the fact that caste system is the weakest point and virus of hinduism' date=' and it's quite sad really that even now that practice hasn't been eradicated completely.[/quote'] detail later but I would say varnashram system degenrated into presetn day caste system is the virus the original concept has very sound labur distribution philosphy and there were provision to check any kidn of exploitation of oen by another. More on this to follow pretty soon. In contemporary form it's disgusting and has rightly been dealt with in the original constitution the idiotic amendments which we get to see these days notwithstanding.

[Guest dada_rocks]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts

But yet sometimes this tendency makes Hindus appear brusque, uninviting and close minded to many others... Even today non-Hindus are not allowed in the temple of Jagannath Puri... and I have noticed that Indian Temples in the USA make very little efforts to invite and make comfortable non-Hindus There are LOTS of people who are spiritually practicing Hinduism in USA, i.e., believe in Karma, practice Yoga, believe in reincarnation, etc. but who are not "officially" Hindu... These folks need to be invited and made comfortable in our Hindu Temples...

there are many temples of that sort where one or another group are not allowed heck there is a temple in south called sabrimala where pubescent girl are not allowed. One thing is for sure these customs have no scriptural leg. See when ur philosphy is that everyone is on right path towards same goal it does make u knd of indifferent towards inviting them to come with you on the same road. Aaye to sahi na aaye to sahi. I don't see anthing wrong with this but in theory in today's milieu we do need to send at least an invitation of course not howl them.

[gator]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts i think, i read somewhere, that the aryan invasion theory was proven as pure bull..... many of our vedic books translations are written by western authors and are very distorted..... please refrain from reading them...

[Guest dada_rocks]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts

Baloney! This author is giving such a spin that would rival Fox news when to comes to reporting Real news. And the reason for this spin would be a classical class of sour grapes wherein the author is trying to hide the shortcomings of Hinduism. It is the caste system, which prevents Hinduism from converting others into its fold. I have asked this question before to messers D_R and Bheembhai. What caste would you convert them to ? .

Nope author is right on the money when a religion which has more ritual than any other religion cobined, yet its canonical texts do not contain any rite for conversion then it does say emphatically that it never sought or encouraged conversion. Moreover conversion from what to what. Hinduism pre-dates every religion to the time when there was no other religion. So much so that they never felt the need of monikering themselves. Religion world itself meant Hinduism shashwat vendantic sanatan dharm. Some might feel offended by the fact that Hinduism had no name and actually westerners gave it its present day moniker Hinduism but if u think about it this is matter of pride. For example take for instance a village, which has one person named Ramu and another village, which has 4 persons, named Ramu. Now in first village if someone knocks at your door and u answer by saying .. kaun hai, Ramu; and if the person happens to be Ramu that will be the end of identification. OTOH in another village if u respond by saying.. kaun hai, Ramu? Further question would be asked apropos which Ramu you are talking about (kala ramu gora ramu or doctor ramu engineer ramu). Replace Ramu with religion and different attributes of ramu kala gora etc with names of different religion. Now we are Ramu the religion hence we never bothered to name ourselves. The new religions, which followed, are this or that Ramu. History is witness to the fact that in our country a King (Ashoka incidentally of OBC, changes his religion form Hinduism to Buddhism and we don?t find any public unrest over this, we have always kept religion as the private personal choice which has to come on its own without any kind of inducement. we have always welcomed anyone persecuted in the world for their religious belief be it Jews or Zoroastrians or Christians without putting condition on them to convert to our ways.) The phrase "sour grapes" used by you kind of has underlying tone that this evangelical proselytizing agenda of the abrahmic religion is the ultimate desired philosophy and any religion which doesn't subscribe to this is basically making excuses for its inability to win converts. I have problem with that; in Hinduism philosophy this is at best an undesirable thing and we must not succumb to this anti-religious ideology of thou shall must walk with me lest u are bound to end up in hell. Next is let us say we did stoop to their level and decided to take part in this proselytizing race then as per you caste system comes in the way. I have mentioned this in past too caste system is not the pillar of spirituality in Hinduism. First of all little detail on what is caste system. Actually in scripture it is four-varnashram system which finds mention these myriad castes are the social phenomena. But one thing is sure none of this owes exploitations of one by another for its advent. This used to be strictly equitable labour distribution based on birth but there was no provision of not allowing inter-Varna crossing. Greatest example of this is Mahrishi Balmiki, Mahamantri Vidoor etc. So brahmin were given the job for preservation and propagation of knowledge and they were disallowed from indulging in meat-eating etc since it gives rise to tamsik tendencies. Kshatriya had the responsibility of border patrolling and normal law and order. No one was allowed to hoard anything beyond his or her basic needs wealth was to be meant for public good. Vaishya's were given job of business and then there were shudras for menial work and this particularly section along with kshatriyas were allowed to eat meat. Mind you least paid among them all were brahmins yes u heard me right even lesser than shudras. It's no surprise today that among brahmins BPL line is at 55%. Best paid used to be warrior class since they put their life on line. Other two were in the middle. The myriad caste today u see is basically social evolution of the groups involved in some particular work under the larger division of Varna system but this sub-division has no scriptural backing. One thing is sure these labour distributions worked for thousands of years since people were adhering to the edict no hoarding o wealth beyond your needs. And we also had finest skilled workers that were the fruit of this labour distribution system. Even today scientist are grappling with how the hell that so-called Qutub minar made by king Vikramaditya doesn't rust even after 1500 years, 100's meters of silk could fit through small ring. Even today you would find particular community are good at some particular job and this fact was acknowledged in that Varna system and there was no force applied against those who anted to cross the boundary. I have given u examples. In course of time greed crept in and people in power started exploitation ad that kind of screwed this all and it happend under western influence Muslims could not break this system. Westerners started giving doles to brahmins for their knowledge and they succumbed to the wealth charm form there on whole system collapsed. Had there been exploitation and complete shunning of boundary crossing from one Varna to another we would not have had 60% of rulers from vaishya and shudra community. Varna vyavastha bad name under western propagandists otherwise we are the nation who celebrates ashoka and Chandragupta Maurya as the greatest samrat without giving regard to his Varna. So your question is which caste you convert anyone to answer is this is meaningless you don't have to pigeonhole someone to any caste one is free to choose in today?s time any profession without even giving himself any caste name. Go to Varanasi you will find many white saints and nobody ever asks them of which caste you are.

Also, all our application forms that we need to fill pertaining to education, Govt job etc have this question "What religion and caste you belong". What are the new converts going to write here. Also, tell me how many Muslims, Christians, Buddhism etc convert to Hinduism. The number other way around is staggering. Also, what next by this author. You cannot change your caste of birth? .

That application form asking caste is political thing for reservation purpose, I am sure you won't have to write anything if u don't want to only diff will be that you won't be considered for reservation doles. I have already answered this; Hindus look at this race as lowly exercise in futility as far as spirituality is concerned so they better not be judged on that basis. We don't seek converts never have and we refuse to be dictated by the rule of game fixed by these abrahmic religions. This is neither religion nor spiritualism refer back to OP and my response in the beginning of this post. Viz a viz change of caste well as I mentioned it was supposed to be laborer distribution system where the moment shudra Balmiki takes the garb of spiritual leader he becomes brahmin no rites needed. Varna Vyavstah was completely functional description that acknowledged the fact that people born among certain community are good at certain sort of skills. A hockey player more or less always comes from tribal hinterland of Jharkhand or planes of Punjab.

Also D_R, their is no archeological proof that Vedic religion extended in New America, Mexico or Latin America. They have done thorough study of Mayan ,Aztec civilization etc and yes some of them believed in pagan gods because earth wind fire sun was something everybody worshipped , feared ,revered etc. In fact Dravidian civilization believed in them too and I suspect Aryans imposed their gods and whatever Dravidian culture they incorporated was a token of gesture and that could explain why pagan gods like indra , Varuna , Surya etc have become secondary gods and not the main ones.

Archaeological proof for things beyond 3-4000 BC is unheard of people do report once in a while but this is not the norm. I have mentioned in the beginning identification by the moniker Vedanta Hinduism is the new phenomena back then there was no need of identification by name the religion word itself meant what we today know as larger Hinduism. They have done thorough study of Mayan ,Aztec civilization etc and yes some of them believed in pagan gods because earth wind fire sun was something everybody worshipped , feared ,revered etc. Do you see the contradiction in this statement and your claim. So they worshipped nature just like Hindus but that must be somehow discarded because everyone did that back then. Well HELLOOOOOOOOO that?s the point, that?s exactly what I am saying everyone was what we know today as Hindu , back then. Obviously everyone will worship the nature. In Africa still certain tribes are untouched by modern world and their worship style if resembles to anyone it?s Hinduism. Nature worship is the big part of Hinduism so much so that we have gods for every whims of nature. If you are looking for the exact replica of today?s Hinduism practice in India well then u need to read more about evolution of religion in general and Hindu religion in particular. Regarding Aryan invasion well see my earlier post this is the biggest baloney that there ever was. No historical backing no archaeological proof nothing but bunch of big names hair-splitting the language aka philology. And coming with theory. It was bound to fail and I am glad it did eventually thanks to genome project. I mean how could u justify the alleged intolerance of a people who otherwise wherever it could be confirmed with evidence come of as spotlessly tolerant. IN THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE YOU MAY FIND CERTAIN THINGS NOT THAT CONVINCING BUT WORTH A READ NONETELESS> In the dim past what we call Hinduism today was prevalent all over the world. Archaeological studies reveal the existence of relics of our Vedic religion in many countries. For instance, excavations have brought up the text of a treaty between Rameses II and the Hittites dating back to the 14th century B. C. In this, the Vedic gods Mitra and Varuna are mentioned as witnesses to the pact. There is a connection between the name of Ramesses and that of our Rama. About 75 per cent of the names of places in Madagascar have a Sanskritic origin. In the Western Hemisphere too there is evidence of Hinduism having once flourished there. In Mexico a festival is celebrated at the same time as our Navaratri; it is called "Rama-Sita". Wherever the earth is dug up images of Ganapati are discovered here. The Aztecs had inhabited Mexico before the Spaniards conquered that land. "Aztecs " must be a distorted form of "Astikas". In Peru, during the time of the holy equinox [vernal? ] worship was conducted in the sun temple. The people of this land were called Incas: "Ina" is one of the Sanskrit names of the sun god. Don't we call Rama Inakula-tilaka? There is book containing photographs of the aborigines of Australia dancing in the nude (The Native Tribes of Central Australia, by Spencer Killan, pages 128 & 129). A close look at the pictures, captioned "Siva Dance", shows that the dancers have a third eye drawn on the forehead. In a virgin forest in Borneo, which, it is said, had not been penetrated by any human being until recently, explorers, have found a sacrificial post with an inscription in a script akin to our Granthas characters. Historians know it as the inscription of Mulavarman of Kotei. Mention is made in it of a sacrifice, the king who performed it, and the place where the yupas was installed. That the king gave away kalpavrksass as a gift to Brahmins is also stated in this inscription. Europeans, the very people who ridicule our religion, discovered all such details. Now something occurs to me in this context, something that you may find amusing. You know that the Sagaras went on digging the earth down to the nether world in search of their sacrificial horse. An ocean came into being in this way and it was called sagara after the king Sagara. The Sagaras, at last found the horse near the hermitage of Kapila Maharsi. Thinking that he must be the man who had stolen the animal and hidden it in the nether world they laid violent hands on him. Whereupon the sage reduced them to ashes with a mere glance of his eye. Such is the story according to the Ramayana. America, which is at the antipodes, may be taken to Patala or the nether world. Kapilaranya(the forest in which Kapila had his hermitage), we may further take it, was situated there. It is likely that Kapilaranya changed to California in the same manner as Madurai is something altered to "Marudai". Also noteworthy is the fact that there is a Horse Island near California as well as an Ash Island. Another idea occurs to me about Sagara and sagara. Geologists believe that ages ago the Sahara desert was an ocean. It seems to me that Sahara is derived from sagara. Some historians try to explain the evidence pointing to the worldwide prevalence of our religion in the past to the exchange of cultural and religious ideas between India and other countries established through travels. I myself believe that there was one common religion or dharma throughout and that the signs and symbols that we find of this today are the creation of the original inhabitants of the lands concerned. The view put forward by some students of history about the discovery of the remnants of our religion in other countries- these relating to what is considered the historical period of the past two or three thousand years- is that Indians went to these lands, destroyed the old native civilizations there and imposed Hindu culture in their place. Alternatively, they claim, Indians thrust their culture into the native ways of life in such a way that it became totally absorbed in them. The fact, however, is that evidence is to be found in many countries of their Vedic connection dating back to 4, 000 years or more. That is, with the dawn of civilization itself, aspects of the Vedic dharama existed in these lands. It was only subsequently that the inhabitants of these regions came to have a religion of their own. Greece had an ancient religion and had big temples where various deities were worshipped. The Hellenic religion had Vedic elements in it. The same was the case with the Semitic religions of the pre- Christian era in the region associated with Jesus. The aborigines of Mexico had a religion of their own. They shared the Vedic view of the divine in the forces of nature and worshipped them as deities. There was a good deal of ritual in all such religions. Now none of these religions, including that of Greece, survives. The Greek civilization had once attained to the heights of glory. Now Christianity flourishes in Greece. Buddhism has spread in Central Asia and in East Asia up to Japan. According to anthropologists, religions in their original form exist only in areas like the forests of Africa. But even these ancient faiths contain Vedic elements. Religious and philosophical truths are often explained through parables, stories, so that ignorant people can understand them easily. Since metaphysical concepts are difficult to grasp, either they have to be told in the form of a story or they have to be given the form of a ritual that is they must find expression as religious acts. For the common people the performance of a rite is a means of finding the truth present in it in the form of a symbol. I do not, however, agree with the view that all rituals are nothing but symbolic in their significance and that there is no need to perform them so long as their inner meaning is understood. Ritual as ritual has its own place and efficacy. Similarly, I would not say that stories from the Puranas are nothing but illustrations or explanations of certain truths or doctrines. As stories they are of a high order and I believe that they really happened. But, at the same time, they demonstrate the meaning of certain truths. As for rites, their performance brings up benefits. But in due course, as we learn to appreciate their inner meaning we shall become purified in mind. This is the stage when we shall no more yearn for any benefits from their performance and will be rewarded with supreme well-being (that is, liberation). It is likely, though, that, with the passage of time, some stories or rites will become far removed from their inner meaning. Or, it may be, the inner meaning will be altogether forgotten. So it must be that, when new religions took shape abroad, after the lapse of thousands of years-religions not connected with the Vedic faith that is the root-the original Vedic concepts become transformed or distorted. You must be familiar with the story of Adam and Eve, which belongs to the Hebrew tradition. It occurs in the Genesis of the Old Testament and speaks of the tree of knowledge and God's commandment that its fruit shall not be eaten. Adam at first did not eat it but Eve did. After that Adam too ate the forbidden fruit. Here an Upanishad concept has taken the form of a biblical story. But because of the change in the time and place the original idea has become distorted-or even obliterated. The Upanishad story speaks of two birds perched on the branch of a pippala tree. One eats the fruit of tree while the order merely watches its companion without eating. The pippala tree stands for the body. The first bird represents a being that regards himself as the jivatman or individual self and the fruit it eats signifies sensual pleasure. In the same body (symbolized by the tree) the second bird is to be understood as the Paramatman. He is the support of all beings but he does not know sensual pleasure. Since he does not eat the fruit he naturally does not have the same experience as the jivatman (the first). The Upanisad speaks with poetic beauty of the two birds. He who eats the fruit is the individual self, jiva, and he who does not eat is the Supreme Reality, the one who knows himself to be the Atman. It is this jiva that has come to be called Eve in the Hebrew religious tradition. "Ji" changes to "I" according to a rule of grammar and "ja" to "ya". We have the example of "Yamuna" becoming "Jamuna" or of "Yogindra" being changed to "Joginder ". In the biblical story "jiva" is "Eve" and "Atma" (or "Atman") is "Adam". "Pippala" has in the same way changed to "apple". The Tree of Knowledge is our "bodhi-vrksa". "Bodha" means "knowledge". It is well known that the Budhha attained enlightenment under the bodhi tree. But the pipal (pippala) was known as the bodhi tree even before his time. The Upanisadic ideas transplanted into a distant land underwent a change after the lapse of centuries. Thus we see in the biblical story that the Atman (Adam) that can never be subject to sensual pleasure also eats the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. While our bodhi tree stands for enlightenment, the enlightenment that banishes all sensual pleasure, the biblical tree affords worldly pleasure. These differences notwithstanding there is sufficient evidence here that, once upon a time, Vedic religion was prevalent in the land of the Hebrews. Let me give the another example to strengthen the view that however much a custom or a concept changes with the passage of time and with its acceptance by people of another land, it will still retain elements pointing to its original source. Our TiruppavaiT and TiruvembavaiT are not as ancient as the Vedas. Scholars ascribe them to an age not later than 1, 500 years ago. However it be, the authors of these Tamil hymns, AndalT and ManikkavacakarT, belong to an age much later than that of the Vedas and epics. After their time Hindu empires arose across the seas. Even the Cola kings extended their sway beyond the shores of the country. More worthy of note than our naval expeditions was the great expansion in our sea trade and the increase with it of our foreign contacts. As a result, people abroad were drawn to the Hindu religion and culture. Among the regions that developed such contacts, South-East Asia was the most important. Islands like Bali in the Indonesian archipelago became wholly Hindu. People in Siam (Thailand), Indochina and the Philippines came under the influence of Hindu culture. Srivijaya was one of the great empires of South-East Asia. [Here the Paramaguru briefly touches upon the stages representing the emergence of various religions]. In primeval times the Vedic religion was prevalent everywhere: this was the first stage. In the second stage new religions emerged in various parts of the world. In the third stage these decayed and Buddhism, Christianity or Islam took their place. In the subsequent stage the Hindu civilization became a living force outside the shores of India also, particularly in South-East Asia. This was the period during which great temples reminding us of those of Tamil Nadu arose with the spread of our religion and culture: Angkor-vat in Cambodia; Borobudur in Java, Indonesia; Prambanan, also in Java. Now it was that our Tiruppavai and Tiruvembavai made their passage to Thailand. Even today a big festival is held in Thailand in December- January, corresponding to the Tamil Margazhi, the same month during which we read the Tiruppavai and Tiruvembavai with devotion. As part of the celebrations a dolotsava (swing festival) is held. A remarkable feature of this is that, in the ceremony meant for Vishnu, a man with the make-up of Siva is seated on the swing. This seems to be in keeping with the fact that the Tiruppavai and Tiruvembavai contribute to the unification of Vaisnavism and Saivism. If you ask the people of Thailand about the Pavai poems, they will not be able to speak about them. It might seem then that there is no basis for connecting the that festival with the Pavai works merely because it is held in the month corresponding to the Tamil Murgazhi. But the point to note is that the people of that country themselves call it "Triyampavai- Trippavai". Those who read the Bible today are likely to be ignorant about the Upanisads, but they are sure to know the story that can be traced back to them, that of Adam and Eve. The Thais now must be likewise ignorant about the Pavis but, all the same, they hold in the month of Dhanus every year a celebration called "Triyampavai - Trippavai. " As part of it they also have a swing festival in which figures a man dressed as Siva. Here the distortion in the observance of a rite have occurred during historical times- one of the distortions is that of Siva being substituted for Vishnu. Also during this period the Thais have forgotten the Pavis but, significantly enough, they still conduct a festival named after them. Keeping these before you, take mind back to three thousand years ago and imagine how a religion or a culture would have changed after its passage to foreign lands. It is in this context that you must consider the Vedic tradition. For all the changes and distortions that it has undergone in other countries during the past millennia its presence there is still proclaimed through elements to be found in the religions that supplanted it. How are we to understand the presence of Hindu ideas or concepts in the religious beliefs of people said to belong to prehistoric times? It does not seem right to claim that in the distant past our religion or culture was propagated in other countries through an armed invasion or through trade that is at a time when civilization itself has not taken shape there. That is why I feel that there is no question of anything having been taken from this land and introduced into another country. The fact according to me, is that in the beginning the Vedic religion was prevalent all over the world. Later, over the countries, it must have gone through a process of change and taken different forms. These forms came to be called the original religions of these various lands, which in the subsequent period- during historical times- came under Buddhism, Christianity or Islam as the case may be.

[CC1981]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts

Even today you would find particular community are good at some particular job and this fact was acknowledged in that Varna system and there was no force applied against those who anted to cross the boundary.

Clearly, you have not read the Manu Smriti or been to villages in Bihar/Bengal recently for you'd see caste animosity rampant everywhere. Hinduism has several different schools of thought and implementation and if one is to read the evil book called manu smriti, it is quite evedent that there is extremism and religious intolerance in hinduism as well. Ofcourse, its far far less than Islam/Christianity but its there nonetheless. As per seeking/not seeking converts argument, the response posted was eloquoent but it has one fatal flaw : it discounts the possibility of God(s) not existing and is totally God-oriented. It even misses the point that many of hindu philosophy is devoid of Gods in the first place. This is why i prefer the Buddhist/Jain school of thought over classical hinduism - it is far more grounded and does not involve God or Gods/Goddesses in your personal fate. Granted, the concept of God has crept into those as well but unlike hinduism/christianity/islam, Gods are irrelevant in those philosophies. Also,the idea that hinduism is the oldest religion is on contentious grounds. What is accurate is that it is the oldest surviving religion but there is no credible evidence to suggest that hinduism preceeded the Egyptian religion/Mesopotamian religions which ultimately perished. I think Hinduism failed its biggest test in years a few years ago when a whole host of Marathis converted to Buddhism and it created furore amongst hindus and they even tried to change the rules (don't know if they succeeded) to stop conversions. That indicates a religion that is hostile to the idea of personal freedom to choose one's religion/philosophy.

The fact according to me, is that in the beginning the Vedic religion was prevalent all over the world.

You must be reading too much of that lunatic P.N.Oak. For there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that ancient Greek/Egyptian/Babylonian religions were of Vedic origin or had any vedic influences. There are extensive lores concerning Egyptian Gods such as Amun, Ra,Isis, Osiris, Aten or Bablynonian Gods like Marduk, Ishtar, Baal, etc. True, some stories have remarkable overlap in various cultures ( story of Krishna in the reed basket, Isis-Osiris,Moses, etc) but the roles, power and events associated with those Gods have very little in common with Hindu pantheon of Gods. Hell, there is no evidence to suggest that Hinduism predated Egyptian religion or Babylonian ones- some of their lores and religious artifacts found (Such as the epic of Gillgamesh) predates any surviving hindu artifact or lore. It is nothing but fundamentalist hinduvta thinking to consider that Hinduism was the 'worldwide religion' of antiquity or that it is the oldest religion of them all. No more and no less baseless and deluded than Jews believing in them being the chosen people or Christians believing that 5000-6000 years ago there were only 4-5 people alive on this planet ( Noah and his family). For just like those Christian/Jewish 'theories' on human past, hinduism's theories are precisely as credible.

[King]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts Oh my goodness it's DR v CC. Expect tonnes and tonnes of posts in this thread. I have to say you guys are well learnt about this topic to speak at this length. I will of course be a mute spectator and grasp all that is written here. Looks like you guys have done fair bit of researching and that will help me to know our culture more.

[CC1981]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts Thanks for the compliment Ravi but these days i do not have the inclination or the time to get into debates. All i can say is that this notion of 'hinduism is the oldest religion and original religion of the world' is unsubstantiated and a lot of wishful thinking from the part of hindus at this stage. Sure, it could be true, we don't know but there is ZERO evidence to suggest that it is so. Not even a hint. Infact, logic and reasoning all argue against this position. Consider the fact that archaeological artifacts from Egypt talk about Egyptian Gods like Amun, Ra, Isis, Osiris,Horus, etc etc. Forget the fact that there is very little phonological similarities between those abovementioned Gods and Indra, Varuna, Agni, Vayu, Surya, Vishnu, Shiva, Brahma, etc etc. - there is not even any similarity between what Amun did or what his powers were compared to any of the hindu Gods. Same is with the Babylonian Gods such as Baal, Marduk, Ishthaar, etc. There are some fragments where similarities stack up such as the story of Krishna in the reed basket and Isis/Osiris or Moses in the reed basket. But the dissimilarities are very pronounced. Or consider the whole spring-winter lore of Baal that is extensively documented from Phoenician/Caananite days. There is very little paralell between the story behind that and the harvest festivals in India. No God/Demon in Hinduism keeps dying in the winter and being born in the spring over and over and over again to the tune of the seasons. And if anything, the evidence of baal, marduk, ishtaar, amun, ra, isis, osiris, etc. are older than that of any hindu Gods. Thus, based on evidence, i can only say that Hinduism is the oldest surviving religion. I am not inclined to argue or comment on this unless i see any research or evidence well constructed against this position. If that is so, i'll acknowledge it or comment on why it is baloney like i did in this thread. I simply do not have the time or inclination to post on a consistent basis anymore.

[King Tendulkar]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts It is indeed the oldest surviving religion. Which is what everyone means when they say it is the oldest religion in the world. :shrug:

[CC1981]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts

It is indeed the oldest surviving religion. Which is what everyone means when they say it is the oldest religion in the world. :shrug:

I think there is a subtle difference and my post is talking about it. It is fact that Hinduism is the oldest surviving religion. But when someone says 'its the oldest religion', it means that it was the very first one of all religions ever created by man/God/beings. I see no evidence for that and i see many counter-evidence towards that as i commented on earlier. This is reflected in D_R's thinking when he claims to believe that all the world was vedic in ancient times.

[King Tendulkar]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts I am with you on this one CC. No way it can be called oldest religion ever ever. No one knows It is though the oldest surviving religion.

[Guest dada_rocks]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts first of all welcome back i hate to see people disappear at the end of debate . Judging caste-system based on manu-smriti is judging it based on its later year distortion. manu smriti has no scriptural leg you won't find this book any hindu home sitting beside deity. Judge it based on what Veda Purana etc says. Many religion without socaleld inhernt discrimination vainshed like zorashtrain yet this one suvived despite having internal conflict in socity as per the citic claim makes you wonder. Again in case of hinduism being oldest religion you didn't pread it throughly. Veda is not some book revealed by some god to some particular sage, in fact none really knows how and when veda or other text came. it was not writen in one day. So when u are going to look for vedantic evidence in 10000 BC well then u don;t have understnading have this ever-evolving religion. In fact in this day and age one is forced to choose some name otherwise vedantic , hinduism etc is recent moniker ethos is same even egyptian religions which ua re trying to somehow diferentiate from si nto different same theme of nature worhsip sun temple etc plays..... If u are looking for exact pattern matching then well I would say u are ill informed about hinduism and its evolutionary nature. more later got to go

[Guest dada_rocks]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts

The fact according to me, is that in the beginning the Vedic religion was prevalent all over the world. Later, over the countries, it must have gone through a process of change and taken different forms. These forms came to be called the original religions of these various lands, which in the subsequent period- during historical times- came under Buddhism, Christianity or Islam as the case may be.

Chew on thsi part little more exact patetrn matching is a futile exercise if I start doing that even today then I mgiht come to erroneous conclusion in idnia itself about Sai Baba sect heck even in my own village 10 years down the line it was all village deity Barham Baba today he has disappeared from the scene. Point is philopshical convergence of name of gods evolving into different forms aside. VEry fact that today's hinduims was nto pigeon-holed wiht some name tells me there was no other religion on the scene otherwise it wouold have made sense to name it. Your all theory is based on well there may have bene some religion which disappeared well it could be anything who knows but I don;t point this conjecture convincing at all. I have already elucidated comomn thread from mexico to australia and even in today's uncorruptedd tribal region too same theme plays. PS: I have sene u going over-board with your rah-rah in order to somehow brandish hinduims's all enomcopassing world ideology with JEws claim that they are the chosen one they only will land into heaven., Chrstian simial claim. islamists similar claim. I suppose you are smart enough to know you come of as stupid when you draw this comparison. how the hell can you compare an exclusivist world view to inclusivist is beyond me. To add to that brandish the inclusivist as extremeist views. We believe everyone ios right can you claim the same for the paths which ou have deigned to compare Hinduism. Hope you are aware of the idiocy in this line of thought. Yes Buddhism is nothing but elaborate yogic tradition of hindu philopshy get acquainted with that you will not harp on buddhism is something out of this world; well no god kind of philosphy u will find there too everything ending in SHUNYA. you never have to go to any temple worship any god and can still attain highest order of spirituality. That's why I have claimed hinduism is super-set you would say exactly the same thign but claim opposite it has buddhist ideology too in its tenets. Good for you if you love this aspect more. I wonder why existance of this line of thought could have bene an impediment in evangelical activities if hindus so willed. Yes I don't know what beef u have with Oak character but last time we checked he had written that piece viz a viz Tajmahal and there I did accept that other than carbon dating I won't read much into the arguments. But point was even there you guys other than outrightly dicarding him could nto back your claim. I asked shwetbah well his debate sometimes means whatever he says accept that do not question an but even you left thescene brandishing your yet to be completed engineering degree. Carbon dating if anything confirmed his point of view. Hope you are aware of ad-hominem and the moment anyone without rhyme or reason says sthg about author well u are smart enough to know what's at work. Phonologi philology can go only that far I see functional similarity there you once again are going for exact pattern matching which is a meaningless exercise based on that logic either I am not hindu or my great-grand father was not one.

[audioman]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts Before we go into nitty-gritties, I just have one simple question. When Hindu scriptures were written, were there any other religions at that time? That is the answer to why Hindusism does not talk about conversion etc.

[Guest dada_rocks]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts

Before we go into nitty-gritties' date=' I just have one simple question. When Hindu scriptures were written, were there any other religions at that time? That is the answer to why Hindusism does not talk about conversion etc.[/quote'] Good question but Hoinduism was nto sthg like someone sat and wrote it all or someone presumably got it from God in his lifetime. it has been ever evolving religion Things have been being added continuously of course bad things too so why not one more bad thing rite akin to conversion. Doesn;t take rocket scientist everyone is doing it. Puran like Bhavishya puran were added in post-christ period so if they really would have liked noone stopped them from adding yet another rite. If it's not there then it means it's by design for everything else we got sthg and moreover sounds like conversion issuccessfulway of strengthening herd count so why not. You can't really claim it never crossed their mind

[audioman]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts

Good question but Hoinduism was nto sthg like someone sat and wrote it all or someone presumably got it from God in his lifetime. it has been ever evolving religion Things have been being added continuously of course bad things too so why not one more bad thing rite akin to conversion. Doesn;t take rocket scientist everyone is doing it. Puran like Bhavishya puran were added in post-christ period so if they really would have liked noone stopped them from adding yet another rite. If it's not there then it means it's by design for everything else we got sthg and moreover sounds like conversion issuccessfulway of strengthening herd count so why not. You can't really claim it never crossed their mind

But that is because till the 19th century, all other religions were considered to be impure, save perhaps a few broad-minded people like Ramakrishna and his followers etc. As Colbert says, every religion leads to the same path and everybody has their own way of looking at Christ as their saviors. :lmao:

[Guest dada_rocks]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts Akam Brahmam vipra bahudha vadanti This is not some new addition it has been there in hindu ethos since ages.

[audioman]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts Am no sanskrit scholar. Plz tell me what it means.

[Guest dada_rocks]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts There is one Brahm God reality truth , wise call it by different names.

[Birbal2]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts Hinduism needs to GET OUT OF casteism... if it does no power can prevent it from spreading...but if it doesnt it will eventually wither away... or remain irrelavant like it was for many centuries...

[kumble_rocks]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts My response to D_R 's earlier post - While your post is well articulated , it lacks substance pertaining to my beef with this author. What canonical texts are you talking about here.Obviously the cannonical text from Prasthanatrayi wether taken from Upanishads or brahmasutras or Gita will not talk about conversion because these were formulated when HINDUISM was the only main religion in Bharat. In fact the Muktika canon which inludes the list 108 canonical Upanishads and which are based upon the 4 vedas will also not talk about conversion . Assuming even Atharvaveda to be 3000 years old , then it is fair to conclude that , the conversion was never mentioned because Hinduism was the only religion prevalent during the time of 4 Vedas .All the founders of the three major schools of Vedanta, viz, Adi Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhva wrote commentaries on these Prasthanatrayi texts. So , you won't find mention of conversion even in the Bhakti movement. Now, keep mind that Bhakti movement was started in South and quickly beginb to spread by alvars like Ramanujaharya to the North which was under Islamic rule during that time. Therefore , their was an effort by HINDUS to preserve their religion and PREVENT new conversion. Now, coming to the OT by the author , my beef with him is , he wants you to be faithful to religion of birth and not convert as you are demeaning your old religiom. Going by this logic , how and why the hell should subjects especially belonging to lower caste be loyal to their religion which is failed them time and again . So the point about "So there is no need to abandon the religion of your birth and embrace another" is bull crap. And he is indirectly demeaning great saints/god like Buddha , Mahavir Jain , Guru Goind who were all born HINDUS. Also , author suggesting "Converts demean not only the religion of their birth but also the one to which they convert. Indeed they do demean God. " means that great souls like Buddha , Mahavir Jain , Guru Goind have DEMEANED GOD because techincally speaking even they are CONVERTS. Also, I don't buy into this theory that all religions are one and all that crap . In fact , why the heck , then you have so much beef with Islam and here you are agreeing to this author. Now don't tell me that you have problems only with the way Islam is implemented , because after reading your older posts , one can guage that you have problem with the religion itself. Coming back to the other point I raised about "sour grapes" , I still maintain this to be true. Like they say , the proof of the pudding is in the eating. We all know , Islam and Christainity are still the FASTEST growing religion in the world. You can cite the example of few Non White saints that number consititutes to NOTHING in comparsion with the number of Hindus converting to Islam , Christanity and Buddhism. Rather than acknowledging the failures of the Hindusim that got evolved to what it is now , the author is BS****g here by making blanket statements like "Converts demean not only the religion of their birth but also the one to which they convert. Indeed they do demean God". And please tell me who are these converts generally in India. These are usually the people belonging to lower castes. In fact , many states are planning to have anti-conversion law to preserve Hindutva and I have no problem with that because Islamic countries do the same sh*t. Also author's statement that "Why do people embrace a new faith? Is it not because that the continuance in the religion of their birth would mean a denial of the blessings of the God of the new faith to which they are attracted? This means that they place limitations on their new religion as well as on its God. When they convert to a new religion, apparently out of respect for it, they indeed dishonour it" is blatantly FALSE.People convert because they were as alienated in the society vis a vis Dalits. I have already established that. Also another classic case of "Sour Grapes" is that , since Hinduism is confined mainly in the Indian subcontinent and it is unsuccessful in attracting foreginers in huge numbers unlike Islam , Buddhism ( East and S East Asia) , Christanity therefore the author is making that statement. Now don't tell me that Hidusim didn't try to prevent convsersions.Read your history about the demise of Buddhism and it is pretty aparent that Hindusim tried to prevent the spread of buddhism and was successful in it's endeavors. And force was used in certain cases during the four centuries between AD 600 and AD 1200 to achieve this goal vis a vis Huna kings. Also , absorption into Hindusim as buddha being one of the Visnhu Dashaavatara also helped the cause. Also, now coming back to my quote "sour grapes" it is got nothing to do with evangelical proselytizing agenda of the abrahmic religion, but the harsh reality that Hiduism as practised from the last 5000 years is riddled with caste system . You give the example Varnashrama dharma to support your case . While I partly agree with Varnashrama dharma concept , but the way Hidusim was implemented for the last 5000 years is that it is riddled with caste system . Example , Dhorna and Eklavya or the treatment of Sutputra Karna. Varnashram is flawed because the basis of it is that Varna refers to the belief that most humans were created from different parts of the body of the divinity Purusha. According to from which part they were created, Varna defines their social standing for issues such as who they can marry and what jobs they can do. So marriage between Shudra and Brahmin was NOT ALLOWED untill shudra becomes brahmin. Also, their is no concrete proof about Varna syste and the Hindu tradition holds this system as a dharma ("sacred law") sanctioned by the scriptures. While the above is the general belief and interpretation by some, there is no mention except at one place in Purusha Sukta (Yajurveda),of various Varnas or castes or classes, either natural or created, in any of the Vedas.Only Manu smriti as mentioned by poster CC1981 talks about caste systems and their duties. Therefore we can conclude that CASTE SYSTEM was prevalent from the last 5000 years . Heck , how do we know the caste of khatriya Vishwamitra or Vyasa if it wasn't prevalent right from the start. I can go on and on , but time is at a premium for me. Also, Based on all these facts , I still stick to my "Sour grapes" quote about this author's writing. Also your quote "Varna Vyavstah was completely functional description that acknowledged the fact that people born among certain community are good at certain sort of skills. A hockey player more or less always comes from tribal hinterland of Jharkhand or planes of Punjab. " is false, IMO.Their is NO BIOLOGICAL PROOF that certain community are good at certain skills. Don't give me the example of Marwaris and Gujaritis being good in business and family traditions . Most of the time , it's got to do with good networking. Then why is Brahmin Narayan murthy successful with INFOSYS. The same analogy was used by WHITES to prevent BLACKS from becoming Quaterbacks in NFL for so long. Even that fool IMRAN KHAN was saying that India should look for fast bowlers from Punjab , whereas the truth of the matter is that it was Karnataka and now kerala which has produced real fast bowlers. Another faux paus by the author I feel is when he quotes "One big difference between Hinduism and other faiths is that it does not proclaim that it alone shows the path to liberation. Our Vedic religion alone has not practiced conversion and the reason for it is that our forefathers were well aware that all religions are nothing but different paths to realise the one and only Paramatman. The Vedas proclaim: "The wise speak of the One Truth by different names. " Sri Krsna says in the Gita: "In whatever way or form a man worships me, I increase his faith and make him firm and steady in that worship. " And says one of the Azhvars: "Avaravar tamatamadu tarivari vahaivahai avaravar iraiyavar". This is the reason why the Hindus have not practiced- like adherents of other religions- proselytisation and religious persecution. Nor have they waged anything like the crusades or jehads" My take on this is Krishna did not talk about other religions because assuming Gita/Kurekshtra war to be 5000 years old.During that time people used to worship different HINDU gods based on hierachy of species and Krishna was refering to this and not different faiths. Coming back to the author's quote "In my opinion the Vedic religion was once prevalent all over the world. Certain ruins and relics found in various regions of the planet attest to this fact. Even historians who disagree with my view concede that in the past people in many lands accepted Indian culture and the way of life willingly and not on account of any force on our part. " I see that poster CC1981 has already provided sufficient rebuttal and I will still add my 2 cents. Again your statement that "Archaeological proof for things beyond 3-4000 BC is unheard of people do report once in a while but this is not the norm" is not true because late Neolithic civilizations, invention of the wheel and spread of proto-writing where all Archaeological proof of things dating back to 5000 BC. Also, you may choose to believe that Vedic religion was once prevalent all over the world. But their is NO PROOF that paganism of Egyptians , Greek , Mayan , Aztecs had anything to do with Vedic religion. On the contrary , it could be that Vedic religion evolved from Pagan gods of Ancient Near East including Egypt around 5th Millienium. I will come back to Aryan /Dravidian topic and add more beef to the Vedic religion prevalent in the world later. P.S. I really do not have time for these long discussions , so can you please post short and concise rebuttals and I promise , I will do the same if I get time.