Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts

[CC1981]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts

1. Which hindu text that Laxman Sen / Pushyamitra Sunga used to their advantage to discriminate/commit genocide against the Buddhists like the Islami haramis did and are still doing ?

Laxman Sen just had a grudge, much like the Chinese emperor in 900 AD time. He saw Buddhism as 'destroying his original faith' like the Chinese emperor saw Buddhism 'destroying' daoism. Pushyamitra Sunga actively used the manu smriti (and its hardline interpretation of what must be done to those who break faith) to further his agenda.

2. How many Buddhists were killed or how does it rank among the Crusades and Jihads?

I dunno numbers. But the scale and intensity of those incidents in history i've seen ( ie,history of hindus slaughtering buddhists) is very very small and almost insignificant compared to the crusades and jihads.

Why does no Buddhist worth his salt raise stink about this so called Grandiose Genocide (atleast its in your mind)

Because it is not the perspective of buddhist philosophy. According to that philosophy, life is transitional and one must be aware of priorities - which is essentially to try and be happy in life and going through life without much conflict. Most buddhists won't die for their faith or kill for their faith either. In one interview i saw of Dalai Lama last year ( China had nominated a particular chinese-backed monk to the second most important post in tibetan buddhism and dalai Lama was asked to comment), when the Dalai Lama was told that monks in Tibet were being beaten and tortured because they refused to renounce him, he flatly told ' they should renounce me. Don't die for something as small as that - life is far more important'. I cannot explain further given the limited scope here. However, if you investigate Buddhist philosophy, you'll realize why Buddhists don't raise a stink about small issues like a temple being razed or buddha statues being gunned down.

4. Why do we see Buddha in so many Hindu temples

Because when Buddhism declined in India, it got absorbed into Hinduism.

Lastly what part of "WE NO LONGER DISCRIMINATE INDULGE IN JIHAD BASED ON RELIGION unlike the islami's or Christians

Babri masjid incident shows otherwise. I'd say hindus don't indulge in religion-based fightings as much as christians or muslims do.

[CC1981]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts

But you are wrong. BR Ambedkar and Dharmapala the revivalists of Buddhism in India have gone on record to lay the blame squarely on Islam for the downfall of Buddhism. If Buddhism lost anything during pre-Islamic times it was mainly due to the well rounded nature of Hinduism and not a sustained military campaign by any rulers with a agenda to suppress Buddhism especially backed by any Hindu texts ... (as is the case with Islam).

I've read BR Ambedkar and i agree on some thngs with him. And i agree essentially with the above text of your's. No doubt, Islam is the main thing to blame for the downfall of Buddhism in the subcontinent ( its no surprise- the places where Buddhism still flourish today have little or no muslim population). However, Islam alone couldn't have demolished Buddhism so completely and case in point is Hinduism : Despite comming under brutal pressure and undergoing centuries of decline due to this pressure, Hinduism survived. Yet Buddhism did not survive except in the remotest corners of India. And Hinduism played a part in that too - because Hinduism was going through the Bhakti revival movement just before the Islamists arrived. Its the two coinciding that drove Buddhism to near extinction in the subcontinent. People also forget that when the Islamic empire showed up, India was already weakened from fighting the Huns. People in the west still speak of Atilla the Hun in awe-filled tones because he brought the Roman empire to its knees. Well, according to the Hunnic chronicles, the larger portion of the Huns came to Afghanistan and overwhelmed Afghanistan, which was a province of the Sassanid Empire at that time (in Iran). Infact, the genesis of the modern term 'Afghan' is from 900 AD onwards, 300 or so years after the Huns showed up. Some scholars think that the huns adopted the Indo-Iranian suffix '-stan/-san' to name their territorry and 'hunistan/hunisan' became 'afghanistan/afghans' through the years. They came into a 100 year long conflict with the Gupta empire which the gupta empire withstood- but it weakened the empire severely and led to its eventual demise.

So why do you keep harping on this subject in every debate concerning Islamic jihad ... if its not comparable in any which way ?

Just to prove the point that Hinduism isn't infallible in this respect.

The way I see it we are well within our rights to serve justice in that regards. Preserving our interests is what it is.

The way i see it, 'if I do stuff same as the one I am criticising, I am no better and furthermore, I am a hypocrite'. What Babar did ( demolish/adapt a hindu temple to muslim shrine) was wrong. What happened at Babri masjid was equally wrong and its taking a page out of Babar's book.

If you continue to burry your head in sand you deserve what you get - i.e annihilation.

In the book 'lucid expositions of the middle path', written by Nagarjuna, he expounds on the concept of why religious zeal is futile : If you truely believe that 'this way' is the 'right way' and the 'natural order of things', then that way will never disappear completely. It may be erased on paper but it will exist as an undercurrent only to resurface later. The periodic Buddhas/Tirthankaras are the revivalists of the dying 'right way'. If you fight or try to enforce your way, then your way is not the right way nor is it the natural way and therefore, it is of no use to enforce it, for it'll ultimately fail. And look at history : Hinduism/Buddhism/Jainism etc. managed to survive the onslaught and the last 2000 years despite all the turmoils in the world. For most of it is the 'right way'. If Dharmic faith is viewed as a whole school of thought ( ie, Hinduism,Buddhism,Jainism, Sikhism etc. all as one) then one thing becomes obvious : in a stable environment, the dharmic faith flourishes. But view the Abrahamic faiths : Christianity tore itself apart and its demise was not caused by other faiths trying to impose its viewpoints or ban christianity but because people started realizing that its BS. Islam is starting to undergo the same process though in a less accelerated form. So you see - there is no point in trying to have plan A or plan B or C or D to save the a$$ of Dharmic faiths/philosophies - they will come back because it is in tune with the natural order of things. There is no point either in trying to have plan A B C or D to resist the abrahamic faiths - for they'll crumble from within because they are abnormal in their theory. This is precisely the reason why most Buddhists/Jains and even many Hindus don't get too hot under the collar and ironically, the ones who do (Such as many Hinduvta types) start behaving more like muslims/christians than hindus.

[CC1981]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts

You just accepted that there wasnt any proof of substantial and sustained damage caused by Hinduism and if there was any it was far too negligible !

Negligible compared to Islam or Christianity i meant. What i meant is that Hinduism's record is far better but is not perfect either.

how do we right that ?

By letting things be and not continue the cycle of 'i-demolish-this-religious-building-you built'. Nothing was righted by Babri Masjid.

[varun]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts

There is no point either in trying to have plan A B C or D to resist the abrahamic faiths - for they'll crumble from within because they are abnormal in their theory. This is precisely the reason why most Buddhists/Jains and even many Hindus don't get too hot under the collar and ironically, the ones who do (Such as many Hinduvta types) start behaving more like muslims/christians than hindus.

Very nicely put Although I agree with Bheem's explanation of the Kshatriyas being an essential element in Hinduism. That's what makes Hinduism a bit more "practical" (if I dare say) than Budhism. Their role wasn't however to make the decisions in most cases in the ancient hindu scheme of things. The scholars (or the Brahmins made them, and they carried them out).

[talksport]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts A discussion on Hinduism no mention of Sankaracharya.... Surely the unsung Hero

[CC1981]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts

Are you now saying that we should just shut up and put up with this nonsense?

No i dont mean we should put up with temples being razed and mosques being built on top- but there is no excuse for demolishing a mosque either- whats bygone is bygone- it matters not what the babri masjid was built on top of - its the past. In trying to 'undo the past' we perpetuate the cycle. Rectifying a wrong done hundreds of years ago by doing exactly the same ( demolishing a place of worship) is just as bad as the original act.

If this does not get you hot under the collar and necessiate a Plan A (never mind Plan B) what else will ?

Nothing. Hinduism didnt survive the muslim onslaught by getting hot under the collar. As i said, if you truely believe in the hindu/dharmic way, then resistance is futile - it will prevail. There is no need to defend the truth for truth always 'is'. Nobody needs to 'rescue' hinduism or 'protect' it - its core philosophies will survive and in times of peace,flourish. The truth never needed any defending - its the falsehood that needs defending. Losing geographical land is meaningless and what matters is the culture of people in itself.

[CC1981]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts

That's what makes Hinduism a bit more "practical" (if I dare say) than Budhism.

In terms of survival, i agree. Traditionally, India has always been a soft power - relying on its culture and philosophy to influence the world rather than its military.

[CC1981]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts

A discussion on Hinduism no mention of Sankaracharya.... Surely the unsung Hero

Yes. A great scholar and teacher who is largely ignored by the masses. 'tis a pity.

[CC1981]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts

BTW just curious as to what would you do if you were given the option to flee or convert with a gun pointed at your head ?

Flee. Duh. If the option was to convert or die,i'd convert on the surface.

And you keep shying away from my point on how there is a lot of difference between Babars act and 1992.

I dont see much of a difference except for the 'ma, he hit me first!' line of thought you find in kids fighting their siblings. As i said, the fundamental act is what i have a gripe against - destruction of a religious place of worship of another religion inorder to promote your own religion. This is the fundamental act i take offence to and this fundamental act has no difference between Babur and the hinduvta fanatics in 91/92.

That is factually incorrect. Case in point are Rajputs, Marathas , Krishnadev raya , Jats , Sikhs and plenty of small rulers made sure that the Islamic rulers did not get to go about their Agenda.

ultimately,their military action failed, didn't it ? Even under Shivaji, the marathas were a 'camp on the run' and could only resort to 'hit and run' tactics against a much larger and better equipped Mughal army. Sure, loyalties of the land was contentious throughout but at the end of the day, the muslim rulers got the taxes- mostly- and they controlled the regional affairs of most of india for a 700-800 year phase. But more to the point, hindu philosophy did not survive by getting antagonistic towards muslims. It survived because it is more 'natural'.

.....then force is the only way to preserve your interests.

But force never ultimately succeeds - witness the fact that there are only two civilizations from the ancient world that has survived into the modern world- China and India- and both were mostly soft powers for most of their history. The way of force as propagated by the colonialists, mongols, islamists, crusaders, rome, etc. all ultimately crumbled and withered away. But my point (which i think Varun might've understood) is that there is no reason to fight for the right cause. Not to spread it or to defend it. For, if a cause is truely right, it cannot be extinguished permanently and will resurface later on. It will exist without any outside intervention and even under extreme and malevolent intervention, it will manage to survive- just like Indian culture has. You only need to defend what is not right or what is flawed- for without defence and nurture, the flawed idea will vanish. Its like saying ' i am fighting to preserve gravity' or 'i am fighting to preserve the sun' - its not necessary. You do not fight for what is natural and in the 'true state'. A plane does not fight for gravity- it fights against gravity because gravity is natural and it requires no 'bodyguard'. Truth and 'justice' does not require a crusader or a vigilante or righteous indignation to keep it alive. Even if hinduism had vanished almost completely like Buddhism has from India, it'd have made a comeback eventually. Simply because, it is 'natural' and far more in tune with the universe than Islam is. This is the point where i disagree with hindu scriptures which demands that a righteous hindu fight against 'adharm'. If it really is 'adharm',then the 'adharm' will kill itself over time like Christianity is in the process of doing. That is why Buddha emphasised that there is simply no reason to resort to violence, barring when you or your immediate friends/family are threatened with bodily harm. There is no reason to fight 'adharm' or fight for 'dharm'.

[kumble_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.

Buddhist Hindu conflict is not even the side point of my discussion which is pertaining to my beef with OT of the author in question although I have already provided you sufficent proof about how Hindus tried to prevent conversion. Agreed , it wasn't in paper , but in priniple , buddhism died due to three factors 1. Islamic Rulers ( AD 1200 onwards) which is the main reason. 2. Between AD 600 and AD 900, it was the Huna kings. Later , Huna kings were Hindus.The first Huna king in India was Toramana (early 6th century), whose inscriptions have been found as far south northern Andhra Pradesh.His successor was Mihirakula, a patron of Saivism, is recorded in Buddhist tradition as extremely cruel. Their are kings like Mihirakula and the Bengal king Sasanka (early 7th century)--are reported to have been active persecutors, destroying monasteries and killing monks. 3. Absorption of Buddha into Hinduism as Vishnu Dashavatar. Here, I would tend to agree with you about the fact that Hindu religion tends to be inclusive and tried to incorporate Buddhism and Jainism into it's fold. Although it could also be because of it's own insecurity and the fact that Buddhism was spreading rapidly. Again , This topic was NEVER meant to be Hindu- Buddhist conflict. And as far as I am concerned , I find monolithic Vishnavism concept of Hinduism more appealing than any other religion.

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.

Read my original post , I have clearly stated that I have no problem with Indian states implementing Anti Conversion Bill as Islamic countries do the same sh*t. But , somebody wants to convert to Christanity or Buddhism , he/she should be allowed to do so,IMO.

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.

You yourself have stated that Hindusim is a way of life . Going by that logic , the way it is practised becomes part of Hinduism . If you choose to call it political , then that is ur prerogative, that doesn't make it right . TOPIC AT HAND here is , my beef with author wherein he wants you to be faithful to religion of birth and not convert as you are demeaning your old religion. I don't want to read Huxley . You still haven't answered this straight forward question to the point. Rather than beating around the bush answer the following questions especially when u tend to agree with the authjor . a) DO you think great saints like MAhavir , Buddha , Guru Nanak have demeaned their religion as they were not faithful to their religion of birth which happens to be Hindusim ? b) DO you think these great saints DEMEANED their god of birth because technically they are "CONVERTS". And keep in mind authors quote is "Converts demean not only the religion of their birth but also the one to which they convert. Indeed they do demean God." . Also , My analogy for your reference to Pakistani Shudra would be if the religious persecution under Islamic rule would have been as worse as it have been depicted to be then the most of the hindus in India would have been muslims. That proves nothing !. Then accept the fact that going by your logic , Islam is not that intolerant entity that you make it sound it to be. Islam of the Sufi did accept Mohammed to be a great prophet and while I would agree that Sufism is more pacifist , it still owes it's origin to Quran. Also, u start posting numerous posts blasting Islam and ur mention of Sufism is ususally just a side note in ur posts. Again , I don't necessarily have a problem with that , because as I have stated before , you are always willing to debate ur position and that's good trait to have.

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.

It may sound illogical to you , but it sounds pretty logical to me. Again what are we debating here. The author has some beef with people converting from Hinduism and you have agreed with his POV. If numbers mean nothing to you , then why are you AGAINST CONVERION . To me it's all about numbers. If herd-count is nothing but increasing exercise by hook or crook may be a desirable trait of political party certainly not of religion according to Hinduism , then pray tell me , why is the author against CONVSERSION. Why does Hindus leaving the fold bother him or you. After all it's no marathon right . Krishna does not berate Draupadi for refusing to marry Sutputra karna during the Swayamwar but , gladly endorses Arjuna who is in the disguise if Brahmin. How do you explain this. Isn't this condoning caste system. Also Do you see the admonishment of the drona behaviour in scriptures do u see admonishment of Arjuna?s repeated call of Karna as suta-putra. I don't . We are talking about incident 5000 years ago and do u agree that Caste system was prevalent right from that time. Yes or No answer please. How DO YOU KNOW that converts are lower castes induced by some monetary doles and the fact that 99 out of 100 cases conversion happens through either marriage or some kind of monetary inducement. Do you have any statistical proof. On the contrary , I believe that Intercaste marriage hardly takes especially between Rajputs or Brahmins with Dalits. Again you are contrading your self by attaching poltical system with failures of Hinduism vis a vis Caste System . Hindusim should take responsibilty for how it is practised because you yourself have stated that it is more a way of life/philosophy. Forget the manu-smriti , even Atharveda has reference to some sort of caste system and it certainly would not be labor based I would assume. Even your Varnashrama dharma is flawed because it does not talk about marriages between different labor division. I will stick to my position regarding "Sour Grapes" because I have already stated my POV regarding the shortcomings of the author's POV.

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.

I do see your POV and it could be valid one. But the jury is still out on this and even you should admit that majority Indians believe in what you call Aryan Dravidian bull crap. But , keep in mind that nothing has been proven to be conclusive inspite of the IBM project. Believe , I have touched on this subject before and we can start a separate thread to be discussed later . Also, explain to me how the Negorites landed in Andaman Nicober Island. Anthropologically Andamense people are classified as Negorites. And that is the reason why in my earlier post , I have stated that Dravidian could be mixture of Negorites(indigenous East Asian ) and West Eruropean and they could be the orginal inhabitants of India. Aryans could be the of West Europe /Persian race and they could have come later and the resulting mixture is what you see most of present India. Again , I have no concrete proof to support this claim.

[CC1981]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts

How does self preservation now suddenly become a jihadic activity ?

Oh please ! Self preservation is not taking agressive action against another's place of worship.

Once again ... exactly how do you find 1992 to be an act of promoting Hinduism at the expense of Islam ?

I dont think you are understanding well enough. I said that my gripe is with people who destroy other people's religious places of worship to promote their own. In that respect, Babri Masjid and Babar were no diferent. I don't care who did what first, second, third, fourth or fifth. What I care about is that BOTH the hinduvta fanatics and Babur did the same exact thing : destroy a place of religious worship to promote their own religion. Babur destroyed/converted a hindu temple to promote Islam, those hinduvtas destroyed the masjid to promote hinduism in that place again. Same stuff, zero difference.

ets say amreeka or any other country wouldnt take any more refugees ... then what ?

I already answered this - i said i'd convert on the surface.It'd be foolish to die simply because i cannot say 'allah hu akbar' when i see some strangers. Dalai Lama said - 'dont die for me- if renouncing me lets you get on with your lives, renounce me!!' That should answer your question.

Ehh? how exactly do you think you are still not a Muslim ? Its not by your choice I can assure you.

I am not a muslim because my parents were not muslim. I dont know who in my ancestry was muslim and neither do you for your own ancestry. There is no reason to assume that if you are a hindu today, your family tree has been hindu for the last zillion years. For all you know,your ancestors could be arab or huns or a zillion other things. But hinduism's survival has nothing to do with token resistance and insurgencies created by Shivaji and a few others. The religion didnt survive by fighting against the muslims because that is a battle that Hindus slowly and steadily lost horribly repeatedly.

what part of our current state of existence is honourable ... especailly in light of the numerous partitions the destructions the genocides the constant fleeing ?

The part that says India is 85% non-abrahamic in following and that India is rising again without having to resort to plunder,slavery or colonization

Which Hindu scriptures prescribe such methods of Survival ?

None. Which is why i consider hindu scriptures to be flawed in this respect. As Buddha said, truth requires neither defending nor vigilant propagating- for truth always 'is'. Which is why the idea of 'fighting adharm' is flawed. If it is 'adharm', it won't last. For ultimately, in our philosophy, dharm is what is natural order of things and adharm is anything that is unnatural. Therefore, by logic, if its adharm, it won't last. If it won't last, there is no point fighting it. To fight against something that is destined to fail or fight for something that is destined to succeed is futile and pointless.

[varun]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts

there is simply no reason to resort to violence, barring when you or your immediate friends/family are threatened with bodily harm. There is no reason to fight 'adharm' or fight for 'dharm'.

In the natural course of things, the priorities for a person in order of diminishing importance would be for the protection of self, immediate family, extended family/village/town, state, country. You need to stand up and fight injustice against all of these as this is what binds us a family, a community and a country. The fervor for fighting for the country or a community might not be as high as fighting against injustices to you or your family, but it needs to be there. You owe it to being part of a family, a community and a country.

[varun]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts In fact, I'd like to generalize my above statement to include humanity as a whole, and moral responsibility. You cannot subscribe to "inaction" if you encounter injustice. Especially if you are in a position to do something about it. That is the simple concept of "dharma". For example, if you see a young indefensible boy being beaten by a drunk man, it is your duty to help the kid out if you can.

[CC1981]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts

In the natural course of things, the priorities for a person in order of diminishing importance would be for the protection of self, immediate family, extended family/village/town, state, country

So would you and Bheem be fighting for America in the future ? It is, afterall, your country now - if not officially, then atleast, ethically since this is the country(America) that provides for you and your family. I think the point Siddharta was trying to make is that fighting never solved anything and you do not need to oppose an ideology by force. Its better to convert than to fight and die for by continuing to live, you can still spread your message or change the system from within. Its no coincidence that a large number of hindus/buddhists converted -some willfully, most by force and due to incentives- in modern day Pakistan/Afghanistan and that Sufism rose in that area- for that area was staunchly dharmic and the ones who converted 'worked from within' to change the system and i dare say that Sufism is the 'best face of Islam'. Sure, if someone is invading your land or raping people/committing crimes then it requires intervention/police action but there is no need for 'constant vigil to preserve the faith' for if it is made of the right stuff, it requires no preservation.

[varun]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts

So would you and Bheem be fighting for America in the future ? It is, afterall, your country now - if not officially, then atleast, ethically since this is the country(America) that provides for you and your family.

It does provide for my family, but do I feel a sense of communal belonging to America ? Not yet. I don't feel like a part of the "american community" but more like an outsider. It's social conditioning that I've gone through while growing up in India and it doesn't go away.

I think the point Siddharta was trying to make is that fighting never solved anything and you do not need to oppose an ideology by force. Its better to convert than to fight and die for by continuing to live, you can still spread your message or change the system from within.

Yes I understand that. He was a very compassionate man and after seeing so much misery he understood the ideology that is needed to prevent all this misery. In that way he was advocating practicality without ego and the passionate-gung-ho attitude that causes a person to react. But humans per-se are reactionary creatures. It takes a very-enlightened soul to keep suppressing anger and taking injustices again and again while realizing the pettiness of it all. Not everyone is capable of that.

[CC1981]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts

No I dont think you understand the simple concept of right and wrong

LOL Sorry but i cant help but smile at this. In the philosophy i follow, there is no such thing as absolute right and absolute wrong. It is discouraged to try and view the world in simplistic 'black and white' of 'right and wrong' and it is encouraged to understand causality(karma) in action.

2. Any attempt to undo the above wrong is merely an act of justice which is well within the parameters of Hinduism and any definition of natural justice

No, it is not an act of justice to destroy someone's place of worship simply because it is built on top of your former place of worship hundreds of years ago. Thats like trying to undo history which in itself is futile. By that logic, half of india should vacate and go back to Arabia/Afghanistan/Central Asia/etc(note: nothing to do with Aryan stuff- but it is indisputable that lots of huns, central asians, iranians, afghans and arabs came to india through the ages and in all invasions before Islam, they got absorbed into hinduism/buddhism) You cannot do the exact same thing as what you are decrying and simply claim 'well he did it first, i am just trying to right that wrong'. Murdering a murderer still makes you a murderer. Breaking a place of worship is the same whether done today, in next 100 years of in the past 1000 years. There is zero difference between what Babar did and what those hinduvta fanatics did in the fundamental act : destroying a place of worship of another faith because your own interpretation of the faith you follow demanded it.

Yes if you choose to live like a hermit then yeah all this materialistic things dont mean zilch ... but practical world is quite different.

Regardless- India is thriving as it is today and therefore, it is ultimately dharmic culture surviving because it is simply more natural.

So What the West did to Hitler was wrong then .. they should have just let him be and he would have let you be or better yet he would wake up one day and realize his mistake and shoot himself because he was on the side of 'adharma' and it would eventually get him ?..

Arrey baba, i am talking about fighting an idelogy- not an action. I am talking about 'fighting to keep our way of life/culture alive'- which is unnecessary. I am not talking about policing or punishing criminals, am i ?

You dont act they will get you always have and always will ... how hard is that to understand ?

The very fact that India is rising is proof enough that they will fail and always will. How hard is it to understand that if you think a concept to be the ultimate reality, then that ultimate reality cannot be erased ? If it cannot be erased, why fight to protect it ? Even if it disappears momentarily, it will be born again. Why do you think Buddhists in general don't fight to preserve their faith ? They just either convert or pack up and move. Or if they die, the rest mourn their loss and take evasive action. For they believe that their way of life is the ultimate reality- that their philosophy is the true 'universal equilibrium' phase and as such, cannot be erased. If they convert for their survival, they arn't abandoning the defence - for you dont defend something that you consider to be impregnable.

[varun]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts

The correct order should be the reverse of what you listed.

I was merely mentioning the natural order Bheem. Tell me honestly, if tomorrow one of the females in your immediate family is violated, would you feel more strongly about it than if country is invaded and violated by an outside entity ? The latter is a bigger event and effects many more people.. Hence even if your feelings aren't as strong, the sheer numbers make up for it. However, the former case is more personal to you and you and your family are alone in dealing with it, thereby causing a stronger reaction.

[CC1981]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts

It takes a very-enlightened soul to keep suppressing anger and taking injustices again and again while realizing the pettiness of it all.

It takes training but is doable by all ( a claim which i am unable to personally verify as of yet mind you).

[varun]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts

It takes training but is doable by all ( a claim which i am unable to personally verify as of yet mind you).

Yes, but it isn't natural :hic:

[CC1981]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts

and there in lies the reason for our failure to survive as one entity - Bharat Rashtra . Why because we always put our country last. The correct order should be the reverse of what you listed.

As far as i am concerned, Bharat Rashtra is meaningless. So is America,Canada, China, etc etc. All these are arbitary lines drawn on a map to reflect political power. They've changed through the centuries, they will change through the millenias. Personally, i don't care about the land or have a particular affinity towards it - land is land - tropical or subtropical or temperate- its all just land. What matters at the end of the day is the culture, the conciousness and the philosophy of our way to survive. It matters not if its survives in India or migrates to Russia or gets to Argentina. As long as our way of life survives in the world, i couldn't care less where it survives. For the beauty of India is not in its land (though it is quite stunning, mind you) but it is in the culture of the people.