Will Hinduism become extinct?

[Laaloo]

Hindus won't become extinct but seeing how Israel is surrounded by ideologies that want them exterminated, that same goes for us. We will have to pick up shastras again. Napunsak ghandi really made us napunsak as well. An eye for an eye makes the world blind. FU

[ravishingravi]

For me, we should learn to be practical about the matter. Weaker civilizations not rooted to their core, will get uprooted. Western civilization is going to go down first if that is any consolation. Judeo Christian / Roman values are slowly being overcome. Rot usually sets from within combined with focused nemesis.

[Nikhil_cric]

18 hours ago, Lone Wolf said:

Imo decline had started way before... Its not a coincidence that Invaders started getting more and more successful post the advent of Jainism and Buddhism.  There was no concept of Charvaka ideology in Hinduism. It totally took away the tribalistic approach towards our religion and culture.

We are talking about people who repelled mighty Assyrians and Persian invasions & even held their own against Alexander.  The technological and military tactics back then were mostly on par with outsiders.

 

NW India was severely affected due to spread of Buddhism & had cascading effect on entire North India.  

Indo Greeks then Huns Kushans thereafter everyone made hay invading India.

Mihirkula persecuted Buddhists Monks in decent numbers & also tells us the scale it which it was prominent in NW India.  We all have heard stories of Pushyamitra Shunga's adventures in Taxila.

No wonder when Qasim came they were the ones who got slaughtered first in Sindh.

Then of course Afghanistan couple of centuries later. 

I don't agree with this completely.  As late as the 7th century AD,   the Ummayad Caliphate incursions into India were not stopped by the Brahmin Sindh kingdom or anyone else. .

 

It took a Kannada speaking Chalukya king of possibly Jain persuasion to stop the Arabs at the battle of Navrasi

 

Jainism and Buddhism cannot be blamed for the cultural regression of the brahmanical faith. 

 

This particular  cultural and genetic stasis played a bigger role than many even here want to admit 

 

https://youtu.be/7OfV16_xngQ?si=XxVCFWRi5LgoczNA

 

 

 

 

[coffee_rules]

3 hours ago, Nikhil_cric said:

I don't agree with this completely.  As late as the 7th century AD,   the Ummayad Caliphate incursions into India were not stopped by the Brahmin Sindh kingdom or anyone else. .

 

It took a Kannada speaking Chalukya king of possibly Jain persuasion to stop the Arabs at the battle of Navrasi

 

Jainism and Buddhism cannot be blamed for the cultural regression of the brahmanical faith. 

 

This particular  cultural and genetic stasis played a bigger role than many even here want to admit 

 

https://youtu.be/7OfV16_xngQ?si=XxVCFWRi5LgoczNA

 

 

What is so brahminical about a faith who constituted 3-5% of population at any time in history? That is a left narrative , the basis of all atrocity litreture. 

David Reich's study was based on a sample of population as is most ggenetic analysis. There are many research papers that refute his claims of ANI and ASI. One of them clearly says that Andaman and nicobar tribes have been added to ASI (I think), so that this artificial distiction is created between ANI and ASI variants. Journalist Tony Joseph even wrote a funny comical book about Aryan Invasion based on DR's generic analysis!!

 

That aside, even by his study, the ad-mixing stopped at around 1000 BC saying that the rigid caste system was well established at that time, it was way before all the foreign invasions and also before the Jains/Buddhists. I guess you are attributing the decline to the "brahminical" caste system.  Earlier foreign invaders like the Huns and Persians didn't impose their religion and accepted a mix of of culture and religion. They fought only armies and didn't involve local populace to impose their languange and culture. It was only after the Islamic invasions in the 11th century that language, culture and religion was forced on local population as well. Hence, we can see this decline.

 

I am not saying there was no caste system or discrimination before, but the modern version of caste system description you read is all after the 16th century and the formal / legal heirarchy was more after the 1880 caste census that Brits did.

[Nikhil_cric]

7 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

 

What is so brahminical about a faith who constituted 3-5% of population at any time in history? That is a left narrative , the basis of all atrocity litreture. 

David Reich's study was based on a sample of population as is most ggenetic analysis. There are many research papers that refute his claims of ANI and ASI. One of them clearly says that Andaman and nicobar tribes have been added to ASI (I think), so that this artificial distiction is created between ANI and ASI variants. Journalist Tony Joseph even wrote a funny comical book about Aryan Invasion based on DR's generic analysis!!

 

That aside, even by his study, the ad-mixing stopped at around 1000 BC saying that the rigid caste system was well established at that time, it was way before all the foreign invasions and also before the Jains/Buddhists. I guess you are attributing the decline to the "brahminical" caste system.  Earlier foreign invaders like the Huns and Persians didn't impose their religion and accepted a mix of of culture and religion. They fought only armies and didn't involve local populace to impose their languange and culture. It was only after the Islamic invasions in the 11th century that language, culture and religion was forced on local population as well. Hence, we can see this decline.

 

I am not saying there was no caste system or discrimination before, but the modern version of caste system description you read is all after the 16th century and the formal / legal heirarchy was more after the 1880 caste census that Brits did.

I was using that as an example of cultural regression .  Caste system is one of the many factors but not the only one.

 

 

[Lone Wolf]

9 hours ago, Nikhil_cric said:

I don't agree with this completely.  As late as the 7th century AD,   the Ummayad Caliphate incursions into India were not stopped by the Brahmin Sindh kingdom or anyone else. .

 

It took a Kannada speaking Chalukya king of possibly Jain persuasion to stop the Arabs at the battle of Navrasi

 

Jainism and Buddhism cannot be blamed for the cultural regression of the brahmanical faith. 

 

This particular  cultural and genetic stasis played a bigger role than many even here want to admit 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You left a extremely important part of History.  The Ummayad Caliphate invasion into India was three pronged.

North Central and South.

If not for King Lalitaditya of Kashmir who finds his name in Arab as well as Tang Dynasty's Chinese records.. North India might have fallen to Arabs.

His alliance with his bitter enemy King Yashovarman of Kannauj & Gurjara Pratihars stopped Arab advance in modern day Rajasthan.

The name of Rawal Pindi is named after Famous Pratihara warlord Bappa Rawal who faught Arabs in modern day Rajasthan.

I'd rank that battle among Top 3 among Indian achievements considering how Dominant Arabs actually were.

Only Western Europe and Western Indian Front stood up to them.

 

 

 

https://medium.com/dwar-yatra/the-lost-warriors-part-2-lalitaditya-muktapida-of-kashmir-da1c7d8a6192

 

Edited September 24, 2024 by Lone Wolf

[Lone Wolf]

5 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

 

What is so brahminical about a faith who constituted 3-5% of population at any time in history? That is a left narrative , the basis of all atrocity litreture. 

David Reich's study was based on a sample of population as is most ggenetic analysis. There are many research papers that refute his claims of ANI and ASI. One of them clearly says that Andaman and nicobar tribes have been added to ASI (I think), so that this artificial distiction is created between ANI and ASI variants. Journalist Tony Joseph even wrote a funny comical book about Aryan Invasion based on DR's generic analysis!!

 

That aside, even by his study, the ad-mixing stopped at around 1000 BC saying that the rigid caste system was well established at that time, it was way before all the foreign invasions and also before the Jains/Buddhists. I guess you are attributing the decline to the "brahminical" caste system.  Earlier foreign invaders like the Huns and Persians didn't impose their religion and accepted a mix of of culture and religion. They fought only armies and didn't involve local populace to impose their languange and culture. It was only after the Islamic invasions in the 11th century that language, culture and religion was forced on local population as well. Hence, we can see this decline.

 

I am not saying there was no caste system or discrimination before, but the modern version of caste system description you read is all after the 16th century and the formal / legal heirarchy was more after the 1880 caste census that Brits did.

I agree with most of what you said but Huns Kushans were actually on par with say Timur and we know he is the most devastating invader in Indian history nobody comes closer.

 

Some historical account have  said Mihirkula once invaded the heart of Gupta Empire and Patliputra was completely destroyed & was in ruins & never returned to its glory afterwards.

God knows what Huns did in North India and in Mathura which used to be launch pad of Hun invasion into Eastern India.

All of those records were most likely lost in Nalanda.

While those people somehow assimilated with our culture kinda but it didn't made them any less brutal.  

Invaders were always brutes... Softies stand no chance to invade a foreign country & subjugate natives.

It's only that we lost the edge probably during Mauryan rule.  The irreversible decline of Hinduism 

[AKane]

4 hours ago, Lone Wolf said:

I agree with most of what you said but Huns Kushans were actually on par with say Timur and we know he is the most devastating invader in Indian history nobody comes closer.

 

Some historical account have  said Mihirkula once invaded the heart of Gupta Empire and Patliputra was completely destroyed & was in ruins & never returned to its glory afterwards.

God knows what Huns did in North India and in Mathura which used to be launch pad of Hun invasion into Eastern India.

All of those records were most likely lost in Nalanda.

While those people somehow assimilated with our culture kinda but it didn't made them any less brutal.  

Invaders were always brutes... Softies stand no chance to invade a foreign country & subjugate natives.

It's only that we lost the edge probably during Mauryan rule.  The irreversible decline of Hinduism 

Well at least Draupadi and the Pandavas were looked after....after them there was not much  attention left to be spared for Hindus by the "protector" element of the trinity. .

Edited September 24, 2024 by AKane

[Lannister]

17 hours ago, Nikhil_cric said:

Jainism and Buddhism cannot be blamed for the cultural regression of the brahmanical faith.

 

 

13 hours ago, Nikhil_cric said:

I was using that as an example of cultural regression .  Caste system is one of the many factors but not the only one.

 

 

A society that allows inequality against its own people is destined to perish and rightfully so.

[Nikhil_cric]

8 hours ago, Lone Wolf said:

I agree with most of what you said but Huns Kushans were actually on par with say Timur and we know he is the most devastating invader in Indian history nobody comes closer.

 

Some historical account have  said Mihirkula once invaded the heart of Gupta Empire and Patliputra was completely destroyed & was in ruins & never returned to its glory afterwards.

God knows what Huns did in North India and in Mathura which used to be launch pad of Hun invasion into Eastern India.

All of those records were most likely lost in Nalanda.

While those people somehow assimilated with our culture kinda but it didn't made them any less brutal.  

Invaders were always brutes... Softies stand no chance to invade a foreign country & subjugate natives.

It's only that we lost the edge probably during Mauryan rule.  The irreversible decline of Hinduism 

 

It might be incredibly reductive on my part but whenever we abandoned the wisdom/pragmatism of Chanakya in favour of the code of Manu is when we signed our own death knell .

 

 

[coffee_rules]

9 hours ago, Nikhil_cric said:

 

It might be incredibly reductive on my part but whenever we abandoned the wisdom/pragmatism of Chanakya in favour of the code of Manu is when we signed our own death knell .

 

 

 

You got it reverse. Arthashastra is more recet than Manusmriti. There are references to Manusmriti even in Mahabharata when Yudhistra answers the YakhaPrashne . Code of Manu what you call is a mere commentary on morals and societal policies. Smritis are supposed to apply only for the times the live in and be changed as per the living societal laws. It is the British that made it a formal code. Muslims had shariat and the Hindu Pandits didn't have anythiing equivalent of the Shariat. There are no book of laws that is revered in every Hindu's home. In fact, there are very small historical references to Kings in the first mllenium using this as the book of laws. It has some basic structure on chaturvarna (not on jathi pratha), punishment supposed to be meted on crimes etc. The Bristish EAC took this as the code for Hindus. I have never met anybody having read Manusmriti and has kept a copy of it in his home (like the Quran). We are all supposed to be ashamed of Manuwaad that we have never heard of, practically.

 

Our death knell was signed because of not interpreting other religius texts, welcoming all foreigners with sarva dharma sabudana being served to all. All pathis to god are the same BS. 

[Lone Wolf]

3 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

 

 

 

Our death knell was signed because of not interpreting other religius texts, welcoming all foreigners with sarva dharma sabudana being served to all. All pathis to god are the same BS. 

That ideology never existed in Hinduism....

 

That was pushed through in  our psychology by Jainism and Buddhism.

They even attacked dietary customs and altered food habits of Indians.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.slurrp.com/amp/article/exploring-the-impact-of-vegetarianism-on-indian-cuisine-and-culture-1674550290471

[Muloghonto]

On 9/22/2024 at 5:27 PM, Lannister said:

I'm not sure where you're getting this from. I've come across many westerners online who attribute it to Buddhist philosophy and some even openly reference Advaita Vedanta.

Classic western slave: thinks that what westerners attribute an indian practice to, is more valid than what indians attribute it to. must be result of your inferior western ideologies like socialism infecting your brain.

 

[Muloghonto]

On 9/21/2024 at 7:08 PM, AKane said:

Really? You want to talk about  Hinduism vs Christianity when it comes to science?

 

Let us look at what Christianity has done with Science - Newton and Calculus and everything, Pasteur and vaccinations, Nikola Tesla and alternating current,  Fleming and penicillin/antibiotics etc. Then the industrial revolution and ships and submarines and planes and rockets and satellites and electronics and surgery and dentistry etc etc etc and don't even talk about Christianity and science.

 

 

Half the names there are non-christian names. Christianity directly caused the dark ages and it wasnt till re-discovery of pagan greco-roman sciences that kick-starts science in christendom. 

 

[Muloghonto]

On 9/23/2024 at 3:57 AM, Lone Wolf said:

Controversial but Hinduism lost its edge after the advent of Jainism and Buddhism.

Back in Ancient times Hindus used to perform Ashvamedha & Rajasuya type yagyas...   Those were the kind of people that laid the foundations of our great culture.

The Charvaka ideology born out of J& B psychologically weakened Hindu masses & eventually paved the way for Turkic invasions.

Sindh and Gandhar are prime examples.

A legendary centralized empire like Mauryas fell after adopting similar ideology.

It's a miracle we pushed through but our psychology is scarred.

Our ancestors must be extremely disappointed in us.

Centuries of indoctrination cannot be undone.

 

This opinion is more or less nonsense.

The invasions of india coincides with rise of cavalry warfare, something that is india's weakness due to lack of horses till the marwari & kathiawari horses ( arabian horse hybrids) pop up around the 14th century. 

Furthermore, its a misnomer that the NW of India was predominantly buddhist. it was not. Gandhara has yeilded pretty much even amount of buddhist, zoroastrian and hindu gods and figures on their coinage, same with Punjab region. 

 

[Muloghonto]

On 9/23/2024 at 9:52 AM, Lannister said:

You know Jainism and Buddhism wouldn't have emerged if the caste system hadn't existed in our society. That said, in the 21st century, no religion aligns more closely with truth than the philosophical foundations laid by Buddha. We should be grateful for him.

hinduism aligns better with real world than buddhism does, given that hinduism survives better against inferior desert cult religions and inferior western ideologies like socialism.

 

[BacktoCricaddict]

Not specific to Hinduism; it mainly talks about the exodus from Christianity, but there are some general points made, so it is tangentially related to this thread.

 

https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/why_people_quit_religion_and_how_they_find_meaning_again

 

Yes, it's from UC Berkeley, the bastion of libbu thinking that we all love to hate, but an interesting read nonetheless.

 

Quote

 

By 2070, many project that Christianity will no longer be the majority religion in America. And among those who don’t identify as religious—called “nones”—more than three-quarters are religious “dones,” having left a religion they were raised in.

 

Perhaps the most challenging aspect of navigating life after religion is coming to terms with some of life’s biggest questions, or existential concerns. Each human has to find some way of making sense of deep, pressing questions: Who am I? Am I all alone in the world? What is the meaning of life? What happens after I die?

Because religion used to answer these questions, those who have left religion are uniquely predisposed to anxiety around these concerns. Having had the answers and no longer being able to rely on them to provide comfort and security, religious dones feel a unique sense of loss that those who were never religious do not likely experience—not just a lack of presence, but a palpable loss or absence. If they were raised in a high-control, authoritarian upbringing, they might not have had the opportunity to develop the skills required to assemble a coherent worldview that addresses these ultimate concerns. If someone simply told you what to believe, you might be looking for that again. For religious dones, existential anxiety is usually quite high, and it can be incredibly unsettling.

Of course, this also takes place in the backdrop of navigating relationships with people who may not understand someone’s religious change, and striving to find a new authentic identity apart from religion. These are formidable challenges.

 

 

 

Edited September 26, 2024 by BacktoCricaddict

[BacktoCricaddict]

One thing is not clear to me regarding the premise of this thread. Is there any evidence - in terms of numbers or anything else - that suggests that Hinduism is in decline?

 

The only data I have seen are from Pew (2010 onwards), and they don't seem to indicate any decline in the short-term.

 

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2015/04/02/hindus/

 

The above graph may provide a good premise - lower fertility rates compared to overall fertility rates.

 

 

 

 

[Muloghonto]

On 9/24/2024 at 2:54 AM, Nikhil_cric said:

I don't agree with this completely.  As late as the 7th century AD,   the Ummayad Caliphate incursions into India were not stopped by the Brahmin Sindh kingdom or anyone else. .

 

It took a Kannada speaking Chalukya king of possibly Jain persuasion to stop the Arabs at the battle of Navrasi

 

Jainism and Buddhism cannot be blamed for the cultural regression of the brahmanical faith. 

 

This particular  cultural and genetic stasis played a bigger role than many even here want to admit 

 

https://youtu.be/7OfV16_xngQ?si=XxVCFWRi5LgoczNA

 

 

 

 

 

There are 3 chalukya dynasties. The OG one : Badami ( Vatapi) Chalukyas of Pulakesi II fame, the Western Chaulkyas who were the major arch-rivals of the Chola empire and the Eastern Chalukyas of Vengi, who ruled vengi and were object of contest between Cholas and W.Chalukyas. 

The OG-chalukyas, who beat the Ummayad Khilafat were hindus, given that the majority of temple construction during Badami Chalukya period are usually Shiva temples. 

 

[Muloghonto]

5 hours ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

One thing is not clear to me regarding the premise of this thread. Is there any evidence - in terms of numbers or anything else - that suggests that Hinduism is in decline?

 

The only data I have seen are from Pew (2010 onwards), and they don't seem to indicate any decline in the short-term.

 

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2015/04/02/hindus/

 

The above graph may provide a good premise - lower fertility rates compared to overall fertility rates.

 

 

 

 

Your data literally shows otherwise in terms of relative decline.