Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts

[CC1981]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts

Would you condone somebody who leaves his wife and young child to fend for themselves just to attain personal manic nirvana ?

Fend for themselves ? Buddha was the crown prince ! I don't care how small your kingdom is, if you are the prince, your wife and kids definately don't have to 'fend for themselves'. Nirvana is not personal. It cannot be,since the path to nirvana is through compassion and realizing that 'self' does not exist. Therefore, it cannot be seen as a selfish motive. Buddha went away very shortly after his son was born and he was 'gone' for four-five years, after which,he kept in regular contact with his family (his son ultimately became a disciple too). Hardly any damage done to his son's development emotionally or financially.

Why marry in the first place and worst still , have kids if your priorities are attaining nirvana.

Siddharth didn't care one hoot about Nirvana at that time. He was a regular standard prince growing up in a regular standard royal household, never been subject to the sufferings of people or even witness to them. He started his quest after he saw the suffering when he was out of his palatial grounds. Also, you are forgetting one thing : Buddha was the crown prince. For a crown prince in any country/culture, it is not a choice, but an obligation to have a child to continue your dynasty.

[Anakin]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts

If you read my posts, I am not a big fan of Abrahamic religions and I , unlike the so called psecs( term which you and others use) am willing to state my position very clearly without fear or favour example being Sharia , Burqa , Double Standards of Islamic countries etc I am not a big fan of Islamic teachings ,but I find it funny that posters indulge in selective criticism and post irrational and dogmatic arguments in support of their gods and beliefs. I have studied basic principles of Hinduism and Buddhism and I am willing to represent my view point pragmatically. I asked a very simple question about Buddha , why don't you answer it.

CC already answered your questions about the buddha quite well. But what I don't get is how the hell do you or anyone else talk about or compare the buddha and the prophet?

[Guest dada_rocks]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts

U need to read about buddhism first Buddha doesn't expect this from anybody he was the guru went in search of truth fully aware that hsi wife and children will no starve ......after attainmet of nirvan he did pay visit and clarify it.. And yes answering the original question I will condone the peson with higher morals who thinks for larger goods of socieity beyond his wife and son anyday... see the difference; in order to criticise buddha how high of the morality ground u have to transcend even there it's matter of opinion, but with muhd well noone ever touches these things hiding behind it was oke in those days to kill heck i say if we are goign to defend his actions based on thsi logic then where is the need to preach a new doctrine whatever he wanted to change was oke in those days so if killign could be justified so could other things........ comparisn buddhua to thsi individual is like abusing that great soul called buddha..

Read my post , where did I compare Muhammed and Buddha . I asked a you question and got my response . Why marry in the first place and worst still , have kids if your priorities are attaining nirvana. That's why we had the 4 stages in Hinduism with brahmachari being the last stage. As regards to the Prophet , I am not a big fan of him , but billion people are and their must be something right about his teachings. Also, Your posts always reflect selective criticism and you to tend to be dogmatic when it comes to defending our religion. I question Indian Gods like Rama , Krishna etc . You don't and that's where lies the difference.

again u sud read about buddha if anything marriage was forced on to him and th clarity which u are seeking doesn't come at the age he was married off.. You don't have any idea how much I have questioning since I could think go ask my father he will give u a mouthful on this.. but yes the kid fo questioning I do with islamsit i don't do with any other religion because and it's big because , I am yet to find in this day and age a group with sword acid govt legislation etc etc in their tow forcing people fall in line with their beleif. i am yet to find a country who prohibits people form preaching their religion publily except islamists...yes they might look down upon you but that's where it ends. doigmatic where how jsut because i told u caste system's genesis is not in institutionalized exploitation what it morphed into notwithsanding just because I gave u proof that aryan dravdiian is leg-less theory... Go ahead question krishna rama every one it's good exercise noone is goign to blow u up for thsi for sure. But I am not microcosm of UN and do nto need to ration my criticism towards everyone equally lest I might be construed as this or that. I believe islam is the only intolerant cult which forcs its crap down others throat at sword point even in this day and age and to me that is most pressing need, and I much rather channel my energy toward this. I am fully aware of the fact that illogical and difficult text are part of every religion. have read Bhagwat purana found very unscientific things there and tere and then i told myself it's just an account of attempt by people like me to understand larger truth so is bound to have errors. Talking of what hinduism prescribes for a man: first of all had buddha been satisifed with what it said he won't have left home for search fo truth and established a new religion so fi u must judge him judge by rules of buddhist. Moreover hinduism I guess prescribes leaving any attachment altogether be it with wife or son or anyone so I am nto sure even on that count Buddha can be faulted. He had already fathered a son so that kidn of takes care of vansh-propagation duties. mid u scriptures doesnt giver permission to indulge in sexual activity for the heck of it other than with an intention to procreate and being a king their wordly needs got taken care of by Buddha's wealth. So where is the problem.

[Guest dada_rocks]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts

If you read my posts, I am not a big fan of Abrahamic religions and I , unlike the so called psecs( term which you and others use) am willing to state my position very clearly without fear or favour example being Sharia , Burqa , Double Standards of Islamic countries etc I am not a big fan of Islamic teachings ,but I find it funny that posters indulge in selective criticism and post irrational and dogmatic arguments in support of their gods and beliefs. I have studied basic principles of Hinduism and Buddhism and I am willing to represent my view point pragmatically. I asked a very simple question about Buddha , why don't you answer it.

CC already answered your questions about the buddha quite well. But what I don't get is how the hell do you or anyone else talk about or compare the buddha and the prophet?

That's what I have problme with too .. it's chalk and cheese.. i do understand KR's sentient thoguh how can he leave his wife . On same lines even rama gets questioned over how could he leave his wife. Different people attach diff priorities to responsibilities towards wife/son or praza or larer society; but one thing is sure noone got killed.

[kumble_rocks]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts

If you read my posts, I am not a big fan of Abrahamic religions and I , unlike the so called psecs( term which you and others use) am willing to state my position very clearly without fear or favour example being Sharia , Burqa , Double Standards of Islamic countries etc I am not a big fan of Islamic teachings ,but I find it funny that posters indulge in selective criticism and post irrational and dogmatic arguments in support of their gods and beliefs. I have studied basic principles of Hinduism and Buddhism and I am willing to represent my view point pragmatically. I asked a very simple question about Buddha , why don't you answer it.

CC already answered your questions about the buddha quite well. But what I don't get is how the hell do you or anyone else talk about or compare the buddha and the prophet?

Again , when did I compare Buddha and Prophet . It was D_R and now you , who is assuming that I am comparing. Between the two , I find Buddha FAR MORE APPEALING. It's funny how you guys can come with all sorts of dogmatic , irrational explanation when it comes to our gods and refuse to extend the same courtesy to Islamic people and their beliefs. Do you want me to start posting the ills of our religion and our gods . I will start probably from next weekend. Don't club as a PSec , because I take stance based on Rational Reasoning not some script from Vedas or Quran . That's why I am in a postion to criticize caste system , Sharia , Apostacy , Muslim Hypocrisy . Just read my post about Inzy and I feel that their is no need to bring Allah's name in a public domain. I am consistent in my posts and unlike others I will not dodge any question . You still haven't answered a straightforward , I asked about Buddha. Can somebody leave a young child to attain Nirvana ? I wan't to hear your rational views , not CC's who happens to be Buddhist and obviously defends Buddha and rightly so .

[kumble_rocks]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts

U need to read about buddhism first Buddha doesn't expect this from anybody he was the guru went in search of truth fully aware that hsi wife and children will no starve ......after attainmet of nirvan he did pay visit and clarify it.. And yes answering the original question I will condone the peson with higher morals who thinks for larger goods of socieity beyond his wife and son anyday... see the difference; in order to criticise buddha how high of the morality ground u have to transcend even there it's matter of opinion, but with muhd well noone ever touches these things hiding behind it was oke in those days to kill heck i say if we are goign to defend his actions based on thsi logic then where is the need to preach a new doctrine whatever he wanted to change was oke in those days so if killign could be justified so could other things........ comparisn buddhua to thsi individual is like abusing that great soul called buddha..

Read my post , where did I compare Muhammed and Buddha . I asked a you question and got my response . Why marry in the first place and worst still , have kids if your priorities are attaining nirvana. That's why we had the 4 stages in Hinduism with brahmachari being the last stage. As regards to the Prophet , I am not a big fan of him , but billion people are and their must be something right about his teachings. Also, Your posts always reflect selective criticism and you to tend to be dogmatic when it comes to defending our religion. I question Indian Gods like Rama , Krishna etc . You don't and that's where lies the difference.

again u sud read about buddha if anything marriage was forced on to him and th clarity which u are seeking doesn't come at the age he was married off.. You don't have any idea how much I have questioning since I could think go ask my father he will give u a mouthful on this.. but yes the kid fo questioning I do with islamsit i don't do with any other religion because and it's big because , I am yet to find in this day and age a group with sword acid govt legislation etc etc in their tow forcing people fall in line with their beleif. i am yet to find a country who prohibits people form preaching their religion publily except islamists...yes they might look down upon you but that's where it ends. doigmatic where how jsut because i told u caste system's genesis is not in institutionalized exploitation what it morphed into notwithsanding just because I gave u proof that aryan dravdiian is leg-less theory... Go ahead question krishna rama every one it's good exercise noone is goign to blow u up for thsi for sure. But I am not microcosm of UN and do nto need to ration my criticism towards everyone equally lest I might be construed as this or that. I believe islam is the only intolerant cult which forcs its crap down others throat at sword point even in this day and age and to me that is most pressing need, and I much rather channel my energy toward this. I am fully aware of the fact that illogical and difficult text are part of every religion. have read Bhagwat purana found very unscientific things there and tere and then i told myself it's just an account of attempt by people like me to understand larger truth so is bound to have errors. Talking of what hinduism prescribes for a man: first of all had buddha been satisifed with what it said he won't have left home for search fo truth and established a new religion so fi u must judge him judge by rules of buddhist. Moreover hinduism I guess prescribes leaving any attachment altogether be it with wife or son or anyone so I am nto sure even on that count Buddha can be faulted. He had already fathered a son so that kidn of takes care of vansh-propagation duties. mid u scriptures doesnt giver permission to indulge in sexual activity for the heck of it other than with an intention to procreate and being a king their wordly needs got taken care of by Buddha's wealth. So where is the problem.

D_R , I am off to bed now and will not be able to access the net the whole of next week as I am at client site. But will respond later , if you want me to .

[Guest dada_rocks]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts see word play even i can do.. have I ever claimed Buddha was perfect.. i simply said comparisn buddha and muhd evokes laughter. Since ur post was in response to that so it was natural that people assumed u have the problme with that........... other thigs I have explained.. on caste system my stance is clear it started with good intention and frittered itno crap hence gtg and good thing is in India we have legislation to that efefct and don't see anyone blowng people p pver this issue saying how dare govt do this... if u want to just keep harpign on in light of no better issue then go ahead do that by all means... Now give me similar kind of understanding my sialmsit around the world on any issue starting point would be allow preaching other on public TV , I will forget what the original text says about thsi matter. No but you expect people to extend them courtesy in vacuum. heck there is fundamental difference even among extremist of let us say Hindus and muslims. In idnia for instance there could not be bigger adovcate of hidnu ideology than Praveen Togadia but even this person brings himself to say now pay attention u guys have this habit of using selective vision and not reading the parts which doesn;t suit you.. Praveen Togadia addressing mslims in general : "Let us sit together and purge our religious texts from the verses which we may find offensive to each other." All he heard was deafenign silence and media whipping up frenzy that he wants to prge quran of ofensive verses.. Can you find me even the most liberal muslim exuding this sentiment. I will love to know if anyone like this anywhere exists. I know what u will get the same old trade of ours is perfect religion hence we can't drop anything out of it. Meaning of perfect is lost on them, nowhere I see it working but it still somehow is perfect. Saying anyone who criticies islam why don't u criticise this and that relgion is akin to saying critics of nazism why don't u criticise some chance murderer. Yes, go ahead discuss whatever vices and virtues of any religion u want where i woudl find illogical may point out where nto will aid ur voice.

[Anakin]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts

Again ' date=' when did I compare Buddha and Prophet . It was D_R and now you , who is assuming that I am comparing. Between the two , I find Buddha FAR MORE APPEALING. It's funny how you guys can come with all sorts of dogmatic , irrational explanation when it comes to our gods and refuse to extend the same courtesy to Islamic people and their beliefs. Do you want me to start posting the ills of our religion and our gods . I will start probably from next weekend. Don't club as a PSec , because I take stance based on Rational Reasoning not some script from Vedas or Quran . That's why I am in a postion to criticize caste system , Sharia , Apostacy , Muslim Hypocrisy . Just read my post about Inzy and I feel that their is no need to bring Allah's name in a public domain. I am consistent in my posts and unlike others I will not dodge any question . You still haven't answered a straightforward , I asked about Buddha. Can somebody leave a young child to attain Nirvana ? I wan't to hear your rational views , not CC's who happens to be Buddhist and obviously defends Buddha and rightly so .[/quote']Find me one post where I said there is nothing wrong with hinduism or caste system. You WON'T. And I don't dodge questions, didn't think you need my response literally. But as I have always said, it's flexible unlike islam. You can criticize parts of hinduism, might not follow it yourself, or even make a new one, all of which are impossible for islam which billions follow. And I have absolutely no problem with devas. In fact they exist in islam too. How would you define their messengers, or the guy holding the siren to signal the end of the world? I still am not sure if how you can see only from one POV. I agree it doesn't look good that he deserted his family, but then again it was a sacrifice on himself too and for the greater good. Also it's not like his family was not taken care of well enough and he left them for luxury. In the worst case if you still decide he left them for selfish reasons, which he didn't, let me know how many people suffered for this sin or got killed for this. If you are that strict, then there are too many implications, no man will be able to go to war to defend his country or fight tyranny, eg. leaving his family behind. On the other hand you said when billions of people follow one guy there must be something right about it, and I don't believe it at all.

[King Tendulkar]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts A religion/cult which oppresses people, like women will always find takers among the backward.

[Guest dada_rocks]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts bump for kr.. others just go meandering in circle so will let them enjoy their nirwana.. and kr if u want to typecast rss with ml u better substantiate it this rank generalisation without providing anything in support well might behoome a congreess or communist leigslator but certainly not an independet eye

[King]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts Bottomline is all religions are pretty much man made and suits the agenda of the person preaching. People blindly follow without reasoning or rationale. No religion is perfect but it does provide a bonding. Religion's more of a tool for uniting people of similar thoughts than freakin path to god as it usually claims. Blessed are the ones that care a hoot for a religion and get on with their lives. The best place to start ameding the damage already caused by these religions is to take the religious leaders to task and make sure they don't get much publicity.

[kumble_rocks]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts

bump for kr.. others just go meandering in circle so will let them enjoy their nirwana.. and kr if u want to typecast rss with ml u better substantiate it this rank generalisation without providing anything in support well might behoome a congreess or communist leigslator but certainly not an independet eye

You still haven't responded to my earlier post in this thread yet ! I will REPOST for your convienience. Please answer based on OT by the author and your acceptance of his POV , whether Buddha demeaned Hinduism and God. Also some others and I will answer your queries ...... Here goes the old post - Quote: 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. Quote: 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. Quote: 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. Quote: 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. Quote: 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

[Guest dada_rocks]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts

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.

This part is unadultarated exaggeration by Romila Thapar scholl of thought. first of all Huna dynasty was not pan India and even among hun one particualr ruler is credited with buddhst persecution. Mind u the Gupta dynasty( hindu rulers) in same time-line kept fighting huns and remained a patron of buddhist all along. Instead of seeing this one-off ruler as excpetion wholetheory has been propounded by likes of psec historian romila thapars. Fact remains all along hindusim buddhist coexisted.. Somewhere ruling class were buddhist while subject hindus and somewhere it was other way round. Culture of intellectual debate existed but this physical persecution at most was an exception . Generalision over here is nothing but goss misinformation campaign.

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.

Read those anti-conversion bills it doesn't forbid conversion in principle it prohibits the one which comes through monetary inducement and other doles..

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.

Accusee CC for that i am sur ehe sut have inserted this somwhere buddhist being diff from hinduims is his idea incidentally in other thread he is peddling exactly the opposite view point.. anyway

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.

I have also expressed the view the hindu scripture never had any rigidity asociated with it, it's ever evolving religious world-view.. Let us get one thign right about casteism. In present day or form the way it has degenerated was never the intention particualrlry the one which Vivekanand mentions existed ins south malabar region was the most apallign discimination ever done by mankidn against one of their own. There is no ifs and buts about it but that was the rank bastardization of the original concept. It got throughly bastardized and hecne got to go and u will se that happening in india it has been illegalized already and next sage will follow.. REgarding marriage conundrum I don't know what this is. Its not just rajputs or brahmins or shudras cling to their own in this regard. Each and every caste sticks to marrying in their own. There are pros and cons of this but I certainly not see this as a debilitating evil. Heck forget inter-caste I am increasingly seeing people restricting themslevs to the certain caste from certain region. I guess cultural affinity is the reason behidn this. I am not sure krishan was the arbiter in who married draupadi it was her swaymavar and she gets to decide who she wants to marry. First of all sufism is not all hunky dorey (it does love to bad-mouth rest fo the faith only diff is that it doesn't have the aggressive edict fo quran in it). Why I don't mentione sufism well I am not doing academic lecture where every strands must be discussed. I am discussing islamists aroudn the world and need less to say sufism doesn't find many takers among them so its virtues or vice is a moot point. tomorrow if whole islamic ummah adopts this sufi world view well then I will stop talking about islamist in the pejorative terms they deserve due to their present day beleif system.

Islam is not that intolerant entity that you make it sound it to be.

This is the most ill-informed pc psec bullcrap u would ever deliver. I will ask u too shomw me even a single muslim majority state on this face of earth which geven in principle gives equal riots to any other faith befitting to what it reserves for isam. Show me even a single muslim majority state where u can preach ur religion on public TV. You have audacity to claim it;s not all that intolerant. I say intolerant word doesn't even begin to capture the level of intolerance rampant among them. prove me wrong, i will be waiting. I mean hello malaysia of all country where there 40 % non-muslim u can't preach any other religion on public TV. What greater damnign evidence u are waiting for. YEah they do not do butchering on other religion's auspicious days like they used to do from that exalted standard they certianly have toned down but to claim they are not all intolerant is ignorance speaking.

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." .

These great saints highllighted aspect of hinduism, to say they were not faithful to hindu ethos is bull in my view. Nanak never wanted a new religion for instance but today there exists in his name. Buddha never said hinduism is bull-crap he went in search of truth and found some basic tenets and wanted them to be emphasized, ditto with mahaviras .. all these gurus view-point is mostly in harmony with hinduism. Authors premise is for the kind of religion particualrly abrahamic ones who advocate either u consider jesus as son of god or go to hell, or muhd as last prophet or go to hell.

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 .

You are indulging in comparison of robbing others and defending one's own home and trying to make both of them sound one and same, which I find ridiculous. U take allegorical tales of Drona and construe its presence as some kind of edorsement of the stand adopted by the character. You got to read those tales for its meaning. It's there to remind people of the idiocy of those stands. I too have read mahabharats it's story what reader takes out of that is not dictated in those stories. You can find characters of every hues in that story. Yes, caste system with four division has been there since kind of ever. It has even worked well for quite some time but today not working so gtg. Even iN aramayan period there is mention of nishad-raz i guess fisherman caste so it has to be there. See the kind of deduction u indulge in seeing some character is fraut with drawing illogical conclusion. For instance sample this. Ravana was Brahmin ( a akashas) now should this be construed as brahmins are rakshas. Although I am are of some people peddling lies of Ravan as shudra because it doesn't gell with their vilification agenda of hinduism. Point is u will find shady characters of every hue in every caste in scriptural tales.

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 don't think there is any stats available would try to look for it but just personal experience, i am no greenhorns either and have been around. When i talk conversion I mean inter-religion never heard of inter-caste conversion. Every caste remains fortified iamong's own as far as marriage is concerned. A yadav will never marry in brahmin and vice-versa and to pass it off as it's brahmin's fault is again gross misinformation. Personally I won't even call it fault. If u are nto comfortabl with marrying someoen with different culture who is anyone to point fingers. heck i won't marry anyone from even my community beyond north bihar such is the cultural gap. Hinduism has already taken responsibility for it otherwise indian street wud have bene burnign against illegallizing caste-based discimination legislation. This is where I have problem with ponga psec pandits, they will bloody beat this dead horse where the people have not only accepted its failure but even brought legislation to that efefct but they will get prickly over u mention the institutionalied intlerance discimination rampant in islamic and to make matetrs worse total intransgience on part of this society to even accept that somethign like this even exists let along address it in some way... This dead caste-horse has turned into a bogey. NO matter what they will keep harpong on it. Numerous states have dalit CM, in all jobs and services there are rservations after all how much atonement wud be enough. No u have hardly given any proof that Hinduis at any stage has emabrked on aggressive conversion spree hence the sour grape premise remains a baseless premise. We have discussed everythign udner the sun except thing. Yes u expect them to lie flaton their back and get run over then only u will buy they don't care but I for one distinguish betwene these two one is robbery another is self-defence .

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

Jury is still out. :lmao: When there was no evidence in support or against then aryan invasion theory propounders never even allowed the one with contaray view even speak . Mere absence of any evidence was free for all ground and they propunded a legless theory and forced down the throat of everyone. OTOH now when the evidence is there which trashes their theory then we get those patronizing statements like jury is still out. On what basismay i ask , there is no confususon other than in the jaudinced eyes of that theory propounders. Picture is crystal clear, anywaythe theory should not have been there in first place if not for the intellectual demagoguery of leftist academicians.

[CC1981]

Re: Why Hinduism doesn't seek converts

Buddha never said hinduism is bull-crap

Actually, he highlighted the most universal aspect of hinduism - worship of God- and said that is bullcrap. So yes, Buddha did say hinduism is bullcrap. He just didn't propose any drastic steps against this sort of bullcrap because this sort of bullcrap aint hurting nobody and its not the nature of buddhism to do so.