Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts

[audioman]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts Long posts are fine, but what is the point in quoting an entire post. Take DR's post out of ur response. Makes for easier scrolling. :hic:

[kumble_rocks]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts

Long posts are fine' date=' but what is the point in quoting an entire post. Take DR's post out of ur response. Makes for easier scrolling. :hic:[/quote'] I will implement your point next time around , Sir . :hic:

[Guest dada_rocks]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts Point about Hinduism being the only religion hence no need of conversion is well taken. Incidentally I am debating on the same thread this same face and having hard time convincing people that yes it was the only religion and whence no need of nomenclature. But you missed one thing even after the advent of other religion modfications have been on in fact Bhavishya Purana allegedly was modified in post-christ time zone. So obviously if they will there was noone to stop them for adding conversion rites. Again the Buddhist and hindus bein at loggerheads is no-leg theory just like Aryan invasion theory. Unfortunately as of today for your claim I have just counter-claim and few rational facts which go like this. (1) Biggest repository and propagator of budhist teaching was the greatest Hindu king of all time and not even a token protest was seen. (2) Nalanda Taxila Vikramshila universities being centre of both Hinduism and Buddhist philosophy Yes there was debate on intellectual level going on in intial years and one such we all know between Mandan Mishra and Shakaracharya. Buddhism lost this intellectual battle and number game for two reasons internal babble between Mahayan and Hinyaan and inability to pitch itself as something different then karma-gyan yoga philosphy of Hinduism.

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.

In my view this was perfect opportunity to initiate conversion rites why not you are at loggerheads with some adversary who uses some tactics then why deny urself access to the same weapon. But they didn?t and there is reason for that. Exploitation is political thing and u can fight political battle. I have mentioned in other thread if the caste persecution would have been as worse as it have been depicted to be then the left over hindus in Pakistan despite every trick being utilized by Islamic folks would not have been shudras. Yes politically for sometime shudras were exploited lot by the rest vaishya Brahmin kshatriya but that?s not in line with scripture. You need to read perennial philopshy of Huxley the question of mahavir Buddha being converts u won?t raise. These guys are visionary who brought emphasis on certain aspects of the spiritualism. Now islam particularly muhd my favourtie subject well going through the biography of this gentleman I can say oen thing he was anything but spiritual guru. Good military general yes astute politician yes ruthless fighter yes but man of god no, if u want to know why u can open another thread . Well if u don?t buy in this theory that all religion lead to same god , then are there several God sin that case. ??? Yes Islam of muhd I have beef with Islam of certain sufi saint I don?t have beef with. U may find ti contradictory but it?s not. You see this character God is liberal he could care less about the character of prophet u follow as long as ur own concience is clear, he only cares about what u did with ur conscience. What Sufi saint like farid and others did in name of islam muhd never intended. Now it?s the greatness of these people that they gleaned and saw beauty even in a war code.

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.

Again making the same mistake who gets to decide what constitutes pudding. It sounds as illogical as me one morning deciding to run marathon on my own all alone and at the end declaring myself winner. Fact was noone was running with me and worse is that the rest might consider this exercise of mine irrelevant and idiotic. You judge someone in some competition if he is taking part in it. This herd-count increasing exercise by hook or crook may be a desirable trait of political party certainly not of religion according to Hinduism. Well converts are lower castes induced by some monetary doles . 99 out of 100 cases conversion happens through either marriage or some kind of monetary inducement. Again refer to Pakistani hindus example . People are smart enough to know it?s not the religion which fails them it?s political system, Heck today Brahmins have higher number below poverty line people than any other group bar few tribal people so as per your theory they have been failed by their religion. I would say no they once again have been failed by political system. And yes trying to check conversion out of your lot and looking for converts is not the same thing. Well Buddha was considered avatar and what can I say that?s the beauty of this religion called hinduism it?s inclusivist. See in Drona Aklavya story do u see the endorsement of the drona behavious in scriptures do u see endorsement of Arjuna?s repeated call of Karna as suta-putra. Krishana specifically berates arjuna for this. These are allegorical tales to highlight these are wrong practice. At same place there was Vidur do u see anyone deriding him for being born in shudra caste. Nooooooo. Do u see anyone complaining about balmiki being born in lower caste in Ramayana tales . noooooooo. Again u are talking about manu-smriti drop that book I consider the whole book as distortion for abetting some caste?s interest. Yes Casate system based on functional description was prevalent which recognized the fact that certain people are good at certain things or you can say that fro the very childhood they see their parents doing something and in turn become expert at that and it aids efficiency of the work force. There was no insulated boundary which could not be scaled if one wanted to leave its caste trade. What kind of biological prof are u looking for heck how much of brain mapping science can do not much. You will have to rely on statistical data here. Heck we are cricket lovers and aussies is naturally athletic . Therecertainly are correlations no full-proof research exists but u can?t drop this outrightly. Well imran khan may be talking in terms of hugely built people. I am sure if same kind of discipline of training a huge tall guy shows then he is bound to be a better fast bowler. Point is basic trait being there now how u use it is upto you. Again I have already mentioned the preventionto choose any trade thing is distortion scripture doesn?t endorse that

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.

You are right but the very fact that he accounted for all the differing thoughts existing at that time means a lot you can extrapolate it in today?s milieu. Well I have already addressed this in post directed to CC. I hope u come up with something substantial other than phonology and philology in support of Aryan Dravidian bull crap. Because so far it?s just a theory with no leg moreover in llight of recent findings doesn?t remain even a theory.

[CC1981]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts

Point about Hinduism being the only religion hence no need of conversion is well taken.

There are no 'official' forms of conversion into Zoroastrianism or Egyptian religion or Mesopotamian religions either. There are no official forms of conversion into Greek religions. I guess you missed that point in your zeal. :duh:

Again the Buddhist and hindus bein at loggerheads is no-leg theory just like Aryan invasion theory.

I think you are slipping into the realms of 'believing what you want to believe'. There are extensive documentation from buddhist and hindu sources (eg: works of Nagarjuna) where there is no disputing the fact that Buddhists and Hindus were at loggerheads. Ofcourse, this did not fall over into genocidal battles though it is recorded in history that some hindu kings persecuted Buddhists.

(1) Biggest repository and propagator of budhist teaching was the greatest Hindu king of all time and not even a token protest was seen.

Are you talking about Ashoka ? If you are, then realize that Ashoka became great after he adopted Buddhism. His track record as a hindu is not something you want to be proud of.

Buddhism lost this intellectual battle and number game for two reasons internal babble between Mahayan and Hinyaan and inability to pitch itself as something different then karma-gyan yoga philosphy of Hinduism.

Actually, Buddhist philosophy is significantly more profound than Hindu philosophy and its impact on hindu philosophy is evident to any who are willing to approach it without a biased eye. Why do you think i gave up Hinduism ?!? Buddhism didn't lose the intellectual battle - Buddhism got annihilated by Islamic and central Asian invasions of India which happened to coincide with the Bhakti movement that resurged hinduism. It is a well accepted fact that from the time of Ashoka to the Pal empire ( a period spanning over 1000 years), Northern/Central India was predominantly Buddhist or at the very least, the hindu-buddhist balance was close to 50-50. Gupta art, Kushan art, Mauryan Art, etc. were predominantly Buddhist in its nature threby lending credibility to the above.

Well if u don?t buy in this theory that all religion lead to same god , then are there several God sin that case. ???

No. There is no God and nobody is gonna help you/judge you or come to your defence. That is the fundamental precipit of Buddhism. The reason i said Buddhism makes more sense is because it makes God an irrelevant topic.

Again u are talking about manu-smriti drop that book I consider the whole book as distortion for abetting some caste?s interest.

It is irrelevant whether Manu Smriti is an official part of Hinduism according to you or not. What is relevant is it HAS been used in history to subjugate people in the name of Hinduism. Disassociation of nefarious behaviour from one's own faith by claiming it has no spiritual basis is a common trait not just in Hinduism but also in Christianity and Judaism - where Protestants will disassociate themselves from Christian past. What matters is that Manu Smriti was used in the name of Hinduism and it was not rejected by the said Hindus of that period.

[Anakin]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts Buddhism is Hinduism, stripped off for export according to Alan Watts, who probably spent much longer than you to study both religions. And the philosophy of Buddhism isn't all that different or better than Hinduism really.

[CC1981]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts

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.

I have highlighted the essential truth in your statement : No one really knows how and when the Vedas or other texts came. Now, lets extrapolate. If no one knows where it came from or when it came from, how can anyone justifiably claim that it was the first/global religion ? There is no proof in that and if you want to point towards various different ancient religions having common ground, its not surprising since all religion is creation of mankind and mankind when not fighting or killing each other tend to think about the same things in general : how to get along. However, what *IS* categoric is that based on evidence, Egyptian religion and Mesopotamian religions, both currently extinct, predate hinduism. The religious artifacts and texts found from those religions are older than anything found in hinduism. Therefore, based on evidence, we CANNOT claim that hinduism is the oldest religion of all. The simple answer is we don't know. If we don't know, lets leave it at that instead of getting into fanciful thinking that does nothing more than tickle the ego.

how the hell can you compare an exclusivist world view to inclusivist is beyond me.

I am comparing an instance where there is similarity. Every religion and philosophy has some common ground and if you think otherwise, you are sadly mistaken.

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

One thing i am not fond of is people who got no idea pronouncing a judgement. I doubt you've read much buddhism first hand and most of your interpretations of it comes through hindu/non-buddhist sources. For if you have read Buddhism, you cannot be dumb enough to think that it is nothing more than an elaborate yogic tradition. Several religions have meditative inclinations - the sufis dance to the music, the early christians went to monasteries where they meditated to Gregorian chants, etc etc. Buddhism adopted the yogic practices from Hinduism and Jainism but its goals are very different than hinduism's. If you have read any buddhist and hindu philosophy (not articles or second hand knowledge of the Gita through anecdotal recitals of the Mahabharata but actually read the texts) you'd realise that the role of Karma, the meaning of Karma and the goals in life are very very different. To say that Buddhism is just a different and elaborate variation of yogic practices is just as ignorant and displaying of topical knowledge as saying an electronics engineer is same as a computer science student because both have to do a course in C++

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.

He has zero credibility in history and archaeological circles - both within and outside of India simply because most of his work has very little scientific basis in them and openly panders to hindu superiority/fascist beliefs similar to the ones propagated by another infernal, lost and confused being : Vinayak Savarkar. He once argued in BHU (and got humiliated horribly, which resulted in him walking off in anger) that Christianity is derived from Vedic religion (despite having very little similarity) and ultimately was exposed to've based his entire work on the dubious (and completely erroneous) claim that Christianity is just a mutation of the word Krishna-neeti. Infact, it was pointed out to Oak that Christianity might've had influence from Buddhism because it is documented in Greek and Syriac archives that Buddhist monks from India were travelling through the region since before Christ and many of Christ's life stories mirror those of Buddha. This explained the similarities Oak was harping on, since it is known that Hinduism and Buddhism have several similarities between themselves. Needless to say, i don't trust anything comming from him as credible. If you think the subject he is commenting on has credibility,i'd need some other credible historian to endorse Oak's view before i even consider it. PS: The most credible reasons i've read explaining Hinduism's lack of official conversion protocol are: 1. Hinduism being an inclusive religion and comming from an area which traditionally had high population didn't care particularly about converts 2. The existance of caste heirarchy made conversions problematic. Caste system became rigid atleast around 600 BCE since that is the period when Mahavira and Siddharta rose to cleanse the system and the rigidity of caste system is oft commented in Jain and Buddhist commentary of that period. True, caste system's rigidity waxed and waned depending on who the emperor/king was, it still presented the problem of where to slot in the new converts. Obviously you cannot slot them in as untouchables/shudras for then you'll not get any converts.But you cannot make the new converts brahmins or kshatriyas straight off the bat because the 'mlecchas' were considered impure.

[CC1981]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts

What matters is that Manu Smriti was used in the name of Hinduism and it was not rejected by the said Hindus of that period.

A bunch of vested interests with power abuse Hinduism for their gains and it becomes a fault of Hinduism ? Exactly how ?

Same way how the crusades, even though very very far from Christ's message is fault of the Christians. Anything done under the name of a religion is that religion's official responsibility unless that religion openly and categorically denounces the act. If Hindus in the past openly and categorically denounced the Manu Smriti then it'd be seen independent of hinduism.

[Anakin]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts The very basic goal/root of hinduism is exactly the same as buddhism, which is moksha/nirvana. Buddha found a better way I suppose to attain that, rather than strictest version of yoga. The idea of emptiness is present in both.

[CC1981]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts Well the Buddhist perspective ( ie, that of the writers and its philosophers, not necessarily that of the followers only) is that there's always been one ultimate reality and its principles are best contained in Buddhism so far. As such, Buddhism tries to explain the reality as is without invoking the supernatural as a 'fill in the blanks for parts i dont know/understand'. In the Buddhist perspective, Hinduism started out with its philosophy and viewpoints very similar to Buddhism but it deteriorated through time, as everything does and slowly Gods and various malpractices crept in the system and made hinduism as we identify it. That is when the last Buddha came and tried to 'set things right' again. Its interesting to note that Jainism has similar viewpoints too and both Jainism and Buddhism's founder (Mahavira and Gautama) said that they arn't the first ones to be enlightened and neither will they be the last ones.

[CC1981]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts

If Hindus in the past openly and categorically denounced the Manu Smriti then it'd be seen independent of hinduism.

No that is the fault of manusmriti and its proponents. Ditto with Crusades. If corrupt politicians with power abuse their power and twist the democratic setup then its not democracies fault .. its the individual. The institution always ranks higher.

That is true if and only if the institution itself does not change to incorporate the abusive aspects into it and endorses it. Manu Smriti is endorsed in several purans as well, indicating that Manu Smriti was considered a part of hindu philosophy/way of life and accepted as such by hindus. I am not saying that Manu Smriti defines hinduism - i am saying that it is a part of it and a very bad part of it that is indicative of the flaws in hinduism. A religion's merit/demerit is not just based on its philosophy alone - it is also based on its practices. Infact, practices are ultimately what counts, since action amounts to more than just words.

[Anakin]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts Yeah, but see Hinduism isn't a typical religion, it's more like a culture than a religion like islam or christianity. The concept of gods might look inferior, but it's really not that bad when taken with a pinch of salt. The "problem" might be when people believe in them literally, although that's just another lesson in the circle of life and death I suppose. Also those characters are devas, not strictly gods, just some divine characters. But my point was the basic ideology is very very close in both religions. The principle of tat vam asi is probably the most profound idea human beings ever came up with. edit: Buddhism suggests more clearer methodology of attaining nirvana, but those were present in hindu yogic practices as well, even though may be not as clearly. But I don't see how Buddhism has better principles (agree that there are no devas or gods, but hinduism also works both ways, with or without them) about ultimate reality than hinduism, that section (aruni and his son) alone is enough to explain the basis of both religions.

[CC1981]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts

I am not saying that Manu Smriti defines hinduism - i am saying that it is a part of it and a very bad part of it that is indicative of the flaws in hinduism.

actually the very fact that we still recognize the difference between True Hinduism and the Manusmriti inflicted version .... absolves "true" Hinduism of any faults. To say anything would be like saying that the vedas should have forecasted such "blips" and their remedial measures. Simply put manu smriti and its founders did their bit as is the wont of Greedy power hungry individuals.

There is no such thing as 'true hinduism'. We'd like to throw away the Manu Smriti but the fact is, we have no idea how old it is, when did it come into the religion, who raised opposition against it, etc etc. There are a zillion different schools of hinduism all claiming to be 'true' but all different from each other. As far as i am concerned, a religion is not just a philosophy or a culture on theory, it is also what it is on practice. THerefore, regardless of what it says by the books, if it accepted as norm and followed by the population, it is a part of that faith. It does not matter whether the bible categorically argues against or for crusades- the very fact that christians participated in crusades and the leading christian philosophers of that era asked for crusades makes the crusades Christian. Same with manu smriti. Hinduism is the whole bucket of what passes as hinduism- same with any other religion/faith. Its not what we want to accept after excising the parts we don't like.

[CC1981]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts

Sure there is .... the one defined by 4 vedas and these precede the Manu smriti by a considerable amount of time.

In that case, lets forget Brahma-Vishnu-Maheshwar and get back to Indra,Vayu,Varuna and Surya. Lets also praise Gods like Indra for butchering people and destroying cities like Rig Veda does.

In fact I have not seen any Hindu scholars thumping the manu smriti and lamenting the current state of affairs that prevails in current day society by and large.

That is the same reason we do not see the average Jew proposing to keep his woman indoors and bar women from public service as demanded by the Tanakh. We do what is fashionable in the times. It doesn't negate the fact that before our times, something completely different was fashionable.

Not if the current day population recognizes the mistake of the past Crusades. I can understand your point if the Pope endorsed the crusades and followed their example.

The pope is irrelevant. One person cannot speak for all. What matters is that most Christians to this day see the Crusades as a 'just' cause and look over the barbarity of the crusaders, who, ironically at that point in history were far less civilized and bloodthirsty than the Arabs. The caste system too, is alive and doing well in India - i saw this first hand in my recent trip to India. As much as we'd like to deny its role, the Manu Smriti is very much alive and an integral part of hinduism to this day in practice. And as i said, action speaks louder than words.

[CC1981]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts

The system(institution) is always flawless ... its the upholders that corrupt or polute it

'The system is always flawless' is nothing more than an assumption to transfer the misdeeds spawned by a particular faith/philosophy on to an individual or group of individuals. This is done by Christians too who see the misdeeds of the vatican as misdeeds of the pope rather than of christianity- despite the fact that it was based on christian philosophy and done by not one or two but dozens of popes. The system is not flawless for a flawless system would not incorporate a flawed perspective into it.

As of current day that said imperfection has been acknowledged as a manmade and attempts are being made to irradicate it.

Yes. However, it does not change the fact that the imperfection is from within hinduism rather than something foreign and introduced into it. Manu Smriti is a part of hinduism whether we like it or not and has been part of hinduism for millenias.

[CC1981]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts

Going by your logic the institution of Democracy is at fault.

Ofcourse the institution of democracy is flawed- there is no such thing as 'flawless' on this planet. I hope you realize that in a democracy, there is nothing preventing the rise of a racist or fascist party to power, for democracy = one with most votes wins. What i am trying to say is that the worth of an idea is not just the theory but also in its application. Ie, Christianity is not just what the bible says but the actions of the people. Same with hinduism,buddhism,jainism,islam, etc. What you are assuming is essentially that ' i'd consider any good philosophy to've come out of India to be a component of Hinduism but any bad ones are corruptions of hinduism'. I'd say that perspective is flawed because it is artificially assuming that something like, say Swami Vivekananda's works ( anti-caste system and equality of humanity) is somehow more 'hindu' than Manu Smriti. There is no credible reason to assume that manu smriti is somehow 'disassociated' with rest of hinduism and it is a 'seperate and independent mutation of hinduism'. For the ideas expounded on Manu Smriti are all borrowed from the Vedas and Purans. Only difference is, Manu Smriti was written by someone far more hardline and totalitarian than someone who wrote the Vedas. But ultimately, its the same concept and the presence of Manu Smriti's influence on Hinduism in the last 2500 years is emphatic and significantly more than the Vedas. Hinduism is a just a word. To you it may mean the a particular form you like idolizing (not too early or else its patchy, not too late or else its corrupted). To me, Hinduism is everything that it represents : from culture, religion, philosophy and the actions of hindus through time. I see religions and philosophies not just as theories on paper but also as what is practiced by the masses. Its useless to contemplate what it says on theory only when in practice it is much different, for thats like wondering 'what might've been'. Just as i cannot disassociate Jihad from Islam or Crusades from Christianity, I cannot disassociate Manu Smriti from Hinduism either. Anyways, i am done talking on this. No use arguing. You don't agree. Too bad. Oh well. I guess my fundamental gripe is seeing this sort of 'we-are-better-than-you-yippiee' type of sanctimonious behaviour from fundamentalist hindus like D_R, which is really no different than sanctimonious pissing contest between fundamentalists of various religions. This whole thing is 'ego massaging' for hindus, no different from 'ego massaging' for various other religions or nationalists. Our forefathers- hindu,buddhist, christians,jews,jains,muslims, whatever. etc. were not perfect. Most of these so-called prophets and sages didnt know what they were talking about or the message got unrecognisably corrupted. Its not a perfect world and there is no perfect system either in it. All religions/philosophies have their shortcommings and limitations. I just wish we could deal with it better without getting into these type of 'ego-massaging' posts about how Hinduism > rest or how India > rest etc etc.

[Guest dada_rocks]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts Too much this and that has flwon as usual.. (1) Ashoka was great ruler even before buddhism, kings rulers were not decided by how big a proponet of buddhist they were my poiunt is if such a pan nation ruler changes a religion and not even a pip is heard then is says alot about Hinduism (2) You have confiremd my point again yes intellectual debate was always on in great universities of that time betwene buddhims and hinduims and dare I say buddhism lost this intellectual battle. (3) Provide some proof of hindu massacre of budhdist or vice versa crap based on philology phonology remains a crap. Just like your big bosess in arytaj dravidian crap have been stripped naked I am sure this too will face the same fate. (4) Yes we are discussing hinduism not having conversion rites , and existance or non existance of conversion rites in zorashtrains has no bearing on this topic. (5) I see all of you keep avoiding the aryan dravidian crap given that in wake of new advancement u have nowhere to hide. When will u toouch this topic. (6) Have u proven even a single proof so far that hindus indulged in forcible conversion at any poin in time. Or mere bakbaas should be taken as proof. No meandering BS please I have numbered these so that discussion doesn't get lost in pontification.

[Guest dada_rocks]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts

I guess my fundamental gripe is seeing this sort of 'we-are-better-than-you-yippiee' type of sanctimonious behaviour from fundamentalist hindus like D_R,

I hate to say that but for a educated person u don;t get things that easily. So you compare exclusivist abrahmican faith with inclusivist hinduism faith and don't see any problme wiht that and when i point tthe inherent idiocy of this comparision out you get ur panties in wad. Nowhere it says hinduism is best:.At least thousand times I have posted the sentiment "Akam braham vipra bahudha vadanti" .Only a moron can interpret this sentence in a manner u are doing. I know what your beef is with hinduism being a self-loathing individual u find it hard to reconcile with the fact that some faith can be so inclusivist after all ur favourtie ones are exclusivists so hinduism too must join that bandwagon, so that ur opponets be deprived of the biggest tool against crticism of likes of you. All your efforts is geared towards somehow blowing the inclusivist face of hindu ideology. Well not happening anytime soon. Hinduism has given much sterner test than people like uand has still kept its inclusivist ideology intact . KR albeit unknowingly is doing the same thing he expects hinduism to join the rat-race of exclusivist (u know the kind where if u don't preach the way they do u are going to hell rules the roost) faith and thereby be judged by that lowly yardstick of herd count. Again not happening anytime soon. You can call it sour grapes all day you want but that will remain a cheap way to drag Hindusim down in this mud-fest. Reminds me of my friend's father who used to use tactics like .. Tumse UPSC hoga nahin isi liye lecture dete ho on rampant corruption amongst IAS/IPS.. His stand was I consider those jobs lowly and so u might as well drop this charade for tricking me into it. PS: There is much room for word polay and opinion being passed off as truth in dharma debate and that's why u hang around CC had it been naked data based debate as incidentally happens in case of post-historic time topic like communism u by now would have left the scene as usual. So save me from drivelous tantrum throwing viz a viz ego-massage. For me if anyone who could interpret words like "Akam Brahmam vipra bahudha vadanti" as hinduism thinks it's better than the rest he/she has to be a moron. Anyoen who thinks egyptian worship stupel whwre Sun god was the big party of it as something other tha hinduims just because his phonology doesnot gell well again is hair-splititng nothing else. Hinduims is a philopshy whihc has endeavoured to grapple with understanding the concept of God and there is boudn be little difference in approach form one regipon to another. Hek even Shaivates and Vaishnavites used to be kind of at loggerheads for sometime as far as intellectual debate was concerned. It got so out of hand that great Tulsidads had to incorportae this sentence in his epic RamCharit Manas.. Here God Rama is saying in Ramcharitmanas "Shiv Drohi mama daas kahawa, So nar sapnehu mohi nahin bhawa" [Any anti-shiva whoi called himself my disciple can never be in my good book] PPS: Suggestion study of religion can't be done through commentaries of individuals. If u want to study Geeta read Getea not max muller's commentary If u want to study Ramcharitmans buy a book and go throught it not some this or that person; commentary. Most of the time I get impresison all ur opinion gets shaped from reading the commnetary of some other individuals and obviously are loaded.

[talksport]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts

So let us see how many of us at least could name five upnishads. No googling please..

I can recite whole of Taittiriya Upanishad .... I wish I can understand it :hic:

[Guest dada_rocks]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts

So let us see how many of us at least could name five upnishads. No googling please..

I can recite whole of Taittiriya Upanishad .... I wish I can understand it :hic:

Sanskrit is an easy language to learn.. put an effort for a month or so u will start understanding for ur recital achievement.

[CC1981]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts

Anyoen who thinks egyptian worship stupel whwre Sun god was the big party of it as something other tha hinduims just because his phonology doesnot gell well again is hair-splititng nothing else.

I will make this simple : There is zero, i repeat, zero connection between Ra and Surya. Forget phonology - they are both Sun Gods but their roles, powers and 'story' are very much different. So please point towards evidence that suggests Ra was the egyptian variation of the 'vedic' Surya.

Ashoka was great ruler even before buddhism,

No he wasn't. He was a bloodthirsty butcher before that. Incase you forget, Ashoka before Buddhism = chandashoka

dare I say buddhism lost this intellectual battle.

You say wrong. Intellectual battle didn't demolish buddhism since buddhist intellectuals like Nagarjuna, bhaskara etc. were significantly more learned and common than their hindu counterparts of their era. I've already explained to you why Buddhism faded from the subcontinent. Something that is intellectually deficient does not take hold and flourish the way Buddhism did for a thousand years in India.

Provide some proof of hindu massacre of budhdist or vice versa crap based on philology phonology remains a crap.

Laxman Sen has been recorded in history (of Gaur) to've slaughtered the buddhist population he took over from the Pal kings. Pushyamitra Sunga is also recorded to've put a price on the head of Buddhist monks.

(4) Yes we are discussing hinduism not having conversion rites , and existance or non existance of conversion rites in zorashtrains has no bearing on this topic

Ofcourse it has a bearing. When you assess that the reason Hinduism has no conversion rites is because it is the oldest religion of them all and it didn't need conversion rights because there was 'no other religion around to convert from', the Mazdan religion also not having conversion rights sure blows a hole in that theory.

I see all of you keep avoiding the aryan dravidian crap given that in wake of new advancement u have nowhere to hide. When will u toouch this topic.

Perhaps in a thread to do with Aryan-Dravidian crap ??

Have u proven even a single proof so far that hindus indulged in forcible conversion at any poin in time.

You are not Bengali, so i wouldn't expect you to've read about Laxman Sen's massacres but you must've read about Pushyamitra Sunga's massacres. Oh right, i forgot - you refuse to accept that hindu kings ever indulged in forceful conversions or massacres on religious grounds.

So you compare exclusivist abrahmican faith with inclusivist hinduism faith and don't see any problme wiht that and when i point tthe inherent idiocy of this comparision out you get ur panties in wad.

Yes i compare. Not on all aspects but on aspects where there is common ground. I've already clarified this.

I know what your beef is with hinduism being a self-loathing individual u find it hard to reconcile with the fact that some faith can be so inclusivist after all ur favourtie ones are exclusivists so hinduism too must join that bandwagon, so that ur opponets be deprived of the biggest tool against crticism of likes of you.

My 'beef' with hinduism is that it makes less sense and is more conflicting in theory and practice than Jainism and Buddhism- which i consider to be intellectually more developed and stable philosophies.

If u want to study Geeta read Getea not max muller's commentary

I've owned a copy of the Gita ( English edition, Prabhupada) for the last 5 years.

Hinduims is a philopshy whihc has endeavoured to grapple with understanding the concept of God and there is boudn be little difference in approach form one regipon to another.

There is zero evidence and 100% wishful thinking in asessing that ancient egyptian religion = variation of hinduism.