[QUOTE=dharma66;45082]Surya/Nietszche. No. You are so wrong. You do not represent Hindu thought. You only represent your own hatred. Neither of you are any different from Christian or Muslim radicals. You are simply Hindu radicals, preaching hatred, division and supremacy.
I am ashamed to call myself Hindu if it means having views such as yours. Fortunately, it does not mean that. But I cannot remain on the forum for fear that I will be tarred with the brush that you both cause Hinduism to be tarred with.
I wish you both well, and hope that some day your eyes are opened to the beauty of Sanatana Dharma, and the scales of hatred fall from your eyes. In the meanwhile, I leave you here to continue to hijack any thread on religion with your hatred and intolerance.[/QUOTE]
This is only your opinion and it comes from your feelings. I will treat it as such. Thank you for sharing your opinion. However, I cannot do much with your opinion. I am concerned with the truth - valid statements.
In your opinion Adisankaracharya, the most respected Hindu sage and founder of Advaita was a Hindu radical who preached hatred, division and supremacy. In your opinion Swami Vivekananda, who made similar criticisms of Abrahamic religions is also a Hindu radical who preached hatred, division and supremacy.
[QUOTE=dharma66;45082]Surya/Nietszche. No. You are so wrong. You do not represent Hindu thought. You only represent your own hatred. Neither of you are any different from Christian or Muslim radicals. You are simply Hindu radicals, preaching hatred, division and supremacy.
I am ashamed to call myself Hindu if it means having views such as yours. Fortunately, it does not mean that. But I cannot remain on the forum for fear that I will be tarred with the brush that you both cause Hinduism to be tarred with.
I wish you both well, and hope that some day your eyes are opened to the beauty of Sanatana Dharma, and the scales of hatred fall from your eyes. In the meanwhile, I leave you here to continue to hijack any thread on religion with your hatred and intolerance.[/QUOTE]
Hey, don’t go.
I don’t know much about Hinduism, and it would be nice to see your perspective too.
You do learn a helluva alot about Hinduism/Sanatana Dharma …call it what you will with SD around here.I think it’s pretty fascinating!!..only because i practice yoga. I’ve learnt a great deal.You don’t need to agree Dharma with what is being said but you know folk just love a good old debate around here.lol
I go with the religion of peace & love…
I think you can couch your views in a way that should’nt be either offensive or intolerant or agressive sounding or overly so…i.e gentle.But that might i say might be reflection of my own personality or temperament…i say[I] might[/I].Some people love locking their horns intellectually so to speak.You just need to read people’s posts to discern if they’re in combative mode( i.e their discursive style is such that winning the argument,being the purveyor of truth is the goal) in an unhealthy or intolerant way or sincerely after truth. It is the tone that usually gives it away. You could call it a combative style although some might say they are in defense of the free & open i.e unhindered pursuit of truth.
You can all be like Socrates at least for a day and try to keep an open mind.Well what do you think? Welll…Mmmmmm…Let us hear what you’re thinking or what you might want/have to say.
Absolutely. Loka Samastha Sukhino Bhanvantu - Let all beings everywhere be happy and prosperous.
It is not Christians and Muslims me and Nietzsche condemn, it is the doctrines of their religiion. I said earlier that people need to learn how to separate concepts from people, and learn to debate concepts without letting their emotions getting involved.
Hinduism is a very violent religion when it comes to fighting with ignorance. Like I said since the very beginning a culture of debate has existed in India. These debates were ferocious. You really had to be on the ball to participate in them and be able to think clearly and formulate water-tight arguments on the spot. The outcome for the loser was to admit defeat and convert to the winning position. This is how Buddhism was driven out of India. They lost in debates with the Hindus.
Hindus who shy away from debates are not real Hindus in my eyes. The Vedas very clearly teach that we must develop our intellect like a razor sharp blade. They clearly tell us to develop our powers of reasoning. The art of reasoning and debate(tarka) is as old as the Vedas. Even the Risis had no problem questioning even what the Vedas said.
I think a Westerner is not really use to this liberty of freedom of thinking because they are use to censorship. Michelle Foucoult made this point about Western philosophy as well that in Western intellectual tradition that one has to always fight for their truth and risk even getting killed for saying it. Like Socrates. Later, under Roman catholicism this was continued by executing or imprisoning dissinters. Even during the age of reason people feared speaking the truth, including philosophers like Hume and Descartes because the consequences were often dire. Galileo was executed for speaking his truth.
But I do not identify as a Westerner, but a Hindu. In our culture one is free to say anything, even criticise the Vedas. Buddha did it, so did Mahavira and nothing happened to them. The Charvaka had no problem being atheists and hedonists in India, nobody persecuted them.
The death of a society is when you censor freedom of thinking, expression and speech.
In the meanwhile, I leave you here to continue to hijack any thread on religion with your hatred and intolerance.
There is no hatred and intolerance. These are negative emotional states and I rarely experience these states. I have Christian and Muslim friends, and I certainly do not hate them. Nor do I feel hatred or intolerance for the religions of Christianity and Islam. It is foolish to feel hatred and intolerance for a concept. Rather, I approach ridiculous concepts as those found in Christianity and Islam in humour. I delight in demonstrating their absurdity
As someone who started a single honours philosophy then later switched to single english over 5 years of academic study because i got i dissilussioned with the western philosophy side i can say that what much of what you wrote and continue to write looks sound to me and my knowledge of eastern philosophy has significantly improved.You knowledge is impressive indeed.
Yes and what you say is true; that the whole of western philosophy can be deconstructed to suit it’s own set of premises and it own political agendas. I use to think of western philosophy as in some sense at risk of, pardon the expression, “dissapearing up it’s own ass”. By that i mean it tries to cut of it’s own arms and legs.Or it’s predicated on methods and an overly rational apporach that is not scientific. But i think it’ll catch up and like you say the greek philosophers and inturn all of western philosophy may be show to have much older multi-cultural and multi-geographic origins.
The history of ideas is a bit like the history of intellectual slavery.Open debates in Alexandria or the Greek schools was encouraged without the shackles of religion. These people sometimes risked being made martyers for it. Socrates charge was irrelligiion as well as corruption of the youth…okay let’s not go there.
The death of a society is when you censor freedom of thinking, expression and speech.
Now i don’t see anything wrong with this.I completely and utterly agree. I think the cloking of views in the name of religion could rub people’s backs up but then i thinnk religion is for people that need some sort of authority where none is apparent.
Maybe you’re a kind of cyber hindu-hacker radical SD.A cyber jnani. I’m sure Sage Abinavaguptha would have been proud.LOL:D
I don’t see any hatred in you SD. Zeal yes, pride perhaps but hey these are all good things. They show the indominatbleness or indefatigibility of the human spirit. That it will always triumph in the end.The pursuit of truth annd all that…
Nothin more than concepts. Do concepts harm?-well perhaps it’s the people using them that perhaps could potentially cause harm.They can be powerful weapons, propaganda but we each must discern what seems true for us.Intuition…i tend to go along with…how somethiing feels as well.I don’t always get things right, even rather mixed up but it’s the effort, the human spirit, the capacity for good etc that counts.
I personally have found some of Christianity a bit oppressive and dogmatic in it’s teachings but that is just my experience especially the emphasis on sinnners and blindly following a perceived authority,moral or otherwise.Also alot of christains can appear at times intent on converting others rather than focusing more on their own journey.But admittedly you could lay that charge at any door of dogma.Everyone can decide for themself I guess.I think you have to be suspicious of any kind of perceived authority, always question and so forth…
I have to say your debating skills SD are exemplary and your knowledge impressive to say the leasst.I don’t find anything unsound in what you say.And i’m glad you’re here.You’re a lovable guy & character SD.You have alot of conviction about you that i admire.My hat comes off to you:cool:.
Yes, you are right Western philosophy is not scientific. It is highly speculative. The love for truth was not cultivated in the West because the climate did not allow it. Greek Philosophy was not a smoothe ride, first it had to face the rheotric from sophists and then persecution from the state. The Roman catholics ultimately dubbed it as a pagan activity. The Western philosopher has always had to face oppression for saying the truth.
Even today, this is still the case. In Western philosophy departments the amount of prejudice against Eastern philosophy is staggering, and if an academic says something which is pro Eastern philosophy, they risk losing their reputation/job. The same is true for scientists who go to far into metaphysics(parapsychologists) or archaologists and historians who challenge accepted history.
Philosophy could not really fly in the West because its wings were clipped. It never achieved maturity as it did in India where it became a full fledged science.
Even today, this is still the case. In Western philosophy departments the amount of prejudice against
I know about those…as i say i spent 3 years in one before i switched to english literature single and learnt about deconstructionism and post-modernism and some continental philosophy. Stuffy and clinging to tradition- in worship of it,somewhat anachronistic,empirical?,sicentific??ovely historical when the real history is buried and those departments are due for a shake-up i think…East must meet west ,science with art and global culture.Anyone that is a free-thinker, outside their time & accepted culture is often or sometimes deemed by the state to be a heretic.
Inevitably we come out of the dark ages even if we are kicking and screaming into more enlightened times.
People like their nice little boxes.Look at alot of the most oriiginal research;it is often done by folk that have broken away from the ivory towers, from tradition and accepted ways of looking at things.The mavericks and those that look or think/unthink outside the box.Sometimes we need to not cling so blindly to tradition and out-moded ways of looking.
You are right though these academics could lose their jobs if they started looking at east’s contribution to philosophy,art,science & human culture. We speaking as westerner and for humanity at large have a lot to learn and benefit from from listening to and learning from each other. It is pride of an insular kind ;it maybe religous,intellectual or cultural.But we can all learn so much from each other.
Humanity benefits in the long-term from this kind of intercultural cross-fertilization like the percolation of ideas and knowledge.What rises to the surface will triumph in the long-term;it is the triumph of the human spirit.You might or could call it truth.You can’t beat man down and enmesh him/her in ideas and rigid belief structures for too long as he is only going to rise above it.We can even transcend mere concepts by recognising that is just all they are.The illusion of separation, is it this or is it that?.Raising the global consciousness on the micro-cosmic and the macro-cosmic level is where it is at or atleast moving in that kiind of direction over the the long-term. All an inevitable part of our ongoing evolution/involution of course.
Like you i am inclined to think we can all become Gods if we put in the effort,receive and be open to divine grace,allow it to transform us all…no-one left out,not one soul etc How could it be any other way. As Aurobindo said our own indivdual evolution is part of a much largeer collective evolution ;in fact the two are almost like recpirocally linked and dependent on the other.The nurturing works in all directions, in all ways, in all people, all souls etc.
This nurturing is regardless of any race,creed,religion,culture or any imaginary or superficial/gross differences that might just appear that way or [I]look[/I] like they might divide us all…
Although I previously said, that my contribution to this thread was finsihed, I’d still like to make some corollary comments. Allow me to summarise a few things in this thread for the sake of clarification and to assure that the tone is kept friendly. SD, if I am wrong in my conclusions about your opinions, please correct me.
the Hinduism SD speaks about, is not the Hinduism as most people/laymen know it. Rather it is the essence of true Hinduism, stripped from the superstitions, not as a polytheism-only religion (what most western people think it is). A good summary of true Hinduism by SD can be found in post #624. It is a vision I adhere to. (It reminds me of Star Trek: “It’s life Jim, but not as we know it”).
Despite of the sometimes perceived belligerent tone, the discourse of SD is not intended to be violent. His proposed Hinduisation of the world (see post #629) is not intended to take place by means of the sword, but rather by means of the debate.
So far my analysis. As much as I appreciate SD’s version of an ideal world based on Vedanta (see post #629), I cannot but consider this as a Utopia in the present era.
The world is so deeply captured in ignorance. This is the Kali Yuga (for Thomas: the 4th period in a cycle of 4, where ignorance is predominant). I don’t expect any good from it. It is said in the Vedas that after the Kali Yuga, a Satya yuga (Golden era, the first of a cycle of 4) will follow, but this is still far away. You and I will not experience it in this physical body. This does not mean that we should sit still and let the world deteriorate. It is indeed important to help others realise their ignorance and suffering and help to set them free. The means by which to achieve this requires great tact. I am a father and I have been a teacher. I know how difficult it is to convince others. But with the right tone and the right debate one will get there. My advice to SD and Nietzsche: continue your debate, but be tactful. Being sharp as a razor blade pertains to the strength of the argument. It does not mean that violent words can be used. They are never convincing, they are a sign of weakness. So terms as “stupid, stupidity, arrogance etc.” can be replaced with less offending terms like “irrational, illogical” etc. Ahimsa (for Thomas: non-violence) is not only about physical violence, violence is also in words. I disagree with those who state: “shouting does not hurt”.
Now, one interesting thing I noticed is that SD stated “Bhakti Hinduism also has to go”. Surya, can you explain me why you think this is so or rather what you understand by this term? Bhakti as I know it (It’s Bhakti Jim, but not as we know it ):
Bhakti (for Thomas : Love) is the shortcut yoga whereby via surrendering to God (isvara pranidhana), via Love for God, one can attain enlightenment. The advantage is, that you don’t have to go through all the steps of the heavy ashtanga (eightfold) yoga. The disadvantage is, that it is the most difficult form of Yoga. Can’t see what is wrong with it, except for the fact that people may think there is an easy way to attain enlightenment and thus obviate the heavy ashtanga Yoga. That is simply a misconception: Isvara pranidhana is the most difficult part and I personally think that if you (i.e. a normal person) don’t go through all the 8 steps, you won’t get there either. I think it is via ashtanga yoga, that Bhakti can be achieved. Those who have apparently been able to take this path as a shortcut, probably have gone through the other steps in previous lives. What do you think?
Or do you consider Bhakti to be a sign of weakness, just like good old Friedrich Nietzsche (not the “Nietzsche” of this forum) considered charity etc. to be a sign of weakness?
I have to say your debating skills SD are exemplary and your knowledge impressive to say the leasst.I don’t find anything unsound in what you say.And i’m glad you’re here.You’re a lovable guy & character SD.You have alot of conviction about you that i admire.My hat comes off to you:cool:.
Thanks for educating me.
Scales put it nicely “Well played Sir”.
Namaste core,
Thank you for your compliments. I am humbled
Aurobindo was onto something when he talked about the next stage of human evolution that is coming. Let us hope it is sooner rather than later.
Of course nobody has to wait for humanity to evolve or wait for the coming of a great soul, they can themselves speed up their evolution by using the divine science of Yoga and become that great soul that the world is waiting for.
It is true that each and everyone of us are gods in the making. We simply need to realise this fact and start to work towards realising this. If you can retire into an ashram then do it now. You will develop there much more than you will develop anywhere else in the world. If you have commitments, then fulfill those commitments quickly, in order to make way for your spiritual journey.
“I have identified them [Christianity and Islam] as an obstacle in our path to a Vedic world.”
Let’s try a little game of word substitution:
“I have identified them [Christianity and Hinduism] as an obstacle on our path to a Sharia world.”
or
“I have identified them [Islam and Hinduism] as an obstacle on our path to a Christian world.”
Please explain the difference. And don’t give me that nonsense about Hinduism being special because it is non-violent. Tell that to the Muslims whose Mosques are burned down in India.
Actually, don’t bother explaining. I only came back because I had a PM from another member.
Yes, pure Hinduism is Vedic Hinduism. I prefer using the word Santana Dharma(eternal religion/eternal way/natural religion/natural way) for it summarizes what Hinduism is all about. It is a natural or scientific religion, based on actual laws of nature. It is valid, reliable and can be tested. You cannot go wrong by accepting this religion. However, accept it only if it passes your test, never on faith.
Ultimately, a religion needs to fulfill the following criteria
It must teach actual knowledge that can be verified. This knowledge must be articulated clearly in simple and precise language
Islam and Christianity have already failed this test for they teach wrong knowledge like geocentricism, flat earth, resurrection and bad psychology(confessions and repenting) As scientific people we need to recognise this and discard them.
Hinduism has passed this test for everything it says exists has been proven to exist. It said that the world was made out of atoms, which in turn are made out more minute atoms(a single atom aggregates to make a binary atom, a binary atom aggregates to make a tertiary atom) Today, knowledge of molecules, atoms and subatomic particles is common knowledge.
Hinduism explained the mechanics of objects in the world in terms of force vectors, a falling object falls due to gravity(gurutva) The motion of an arrow is due to the initial momentum energy provided by the conjunction of the volition of the bowman with the bow. The arrow moves in a straight line by reproduction of the original force, but falls due to gravity working against it. This also is common knowledge.
Hinduism says the universe itself contracts and expands repeatedly. It began originally as a singularity as just a point when the fundamental forces(gunas) were in balance. The balance was offset by one of the forces breaking out(rajas become predominant) and there was a sudden expansion. Big bang theory is also common knowledge today.
Hinduism says that matter does not really exist, rather it is a holographic projection made of vibrations of the gunas, which only appears to the human senses and mind as solid matter. Original matter(moolaprakriti) is unmanifest and superpositioned. The observer collapses this superposition state and causes matter to manifest as a particle. Quantum Mechanics is more or less common knowledge today.
Hinduism says that there are different levels of the mind: conscious mind, subconscious mind, unconscious mind. All actions we conduct are driven by unconscious habitual patterns which we internalize through living. All actions create impressions of those actions in our unconscious mind(samskara) which when presented with a stimuli manifest. Again, common knowledge today.
Hinduism says that there is an akasha, a pure space that is permeating all of time and space and which at every point infinite energy can be tapped. This akasha has special quantum channels via which prana travels across the universe. Today, the existence of a universal energy field(zero point energy field) which interconnects all of time and space, via which information travels through quantum channels is a scientific fact.
Hinduism says that consciousness is pre-existent before matter and is the cause of matter existing at all. It describes how this consciousness becomes associated and identified with matter, and how this same consciousness disassociates from matter and enters into other planes of reality. Today, QM has proven that matter does not come into being until an observer is present. Scientific studies into OBES, NDE and past life memories proves the pre- existence of the soul.
In other words it is very clear that Hinduism is a true religion by a scientific people. It is teaching actual facts about nature. This is why anybody of a scientific or rational mindset would be silly not to accept this religion.
It must actually deliver results that can be verified here and now. If you do the methods prescribed by the religion they must deliver what they say they are going to deliver. Again the predictions about the method must be clearly illustrated and delinated.
Islam and Christianity fail this test miserably. First of all, they promise you results in the afterlife. They ask of you to follow their rules, regulations, rituals, dogmas through faith alone by bribing you with childish fantasies of a heaven with hundreds of virgins(Islam) They exploit this blind faith in you by exploiting you sexually and economically. If you are too far in you render your service to them in missionary activity or holy wars. They incalcate negative emotional states in you like fear and anxiety. You fear the wrath of god for breaking any of their rules and you worry abour your “sin” You witness so much hypocrisy in the clergies of this religion, but you keep quiet because you think that the clergy members are somehow better than you.
Hinduism passes this test with flying colours. First of all it tells you from the outset that you can only get salvation in the here and now. It in this life alone that you must reach salvation. It gives you methods to apply in the here and now to address your immediate needs: the health and fitness of your body, the concentration, will power and sharpness of your mind, emotional management for your interpersonal relationships. These methods are so effective that anybody who applies it ends up living a much more fuller, vibrant, happier and harmonious life with a healther body and mind.
The results are instant as soon as the methods are applied results are noticed. If one does an asana and pranayama routine, one feels energized at the end of it. If one commences meditation, one immediately starts to watch their mind and acquire detachment.
The higher states of being all the way to the ultimate realization of god are given in very detailed maps detailing every step from the moment one sits for meditation to the final stages one reaches through sustained meditation. All of which have been verified by millions of meditators in the wold.
In other words it is very clear Hinduism is a pragmatic religion which delivers actual results. It does not merely promise you a happier, fuller, vibrant and harmoniois life, it actually gives you direct methods to achieive it for yourself. It does not merely tell you believe in god, it gives you methods to directly experience god for yourself. It does not incalcate negative emotional states in you, but positive emotional states. Again, somebody who is pragmatic and wants actual results would be silly not to accept Hinduism.
They exploit this blind faith in you by exploiting you sexually and economically. If you are too far in you render your service to them in missionary activity or holy wars. They incalcate negative emotional states in you like fear and anxiety. You fear the wrath of god for breaking any of their rules and you worry abour your “sin” You witness so much hypocrisy in the clergies of this religion, but you keep quiet because you think that the clergy members are somehow better than you.
You are lumping two entirely different religions together.
You should stay within your sphere of knowledge until you inform yourself thorougly about Christianity. These are not facts you are stating, but opinions based on bias.
Despite of the sometimes perceived belligerent tone, the discourse of SD is not intended to be violent. His proposed Hinduisation of the world (see post #629) is not intended to take place by means of the sword, but rather by means of the debate.
So far my analysis. As much as I appreciate SD’s version of an ideal world based on Vedanta (see post #629), I cannot but consider this as a Utopia in the present era.
Yes you are correct. You cannot convince anybody by the sword. All that does is install fear in them(negative emotional state) and this breeds negativity, which is the very opposite of a Hinduized world. A Hinduized world is not based on fear but freedom, spirituality, harmony, peace and love. To achieive a Hinduized world we must convince the world to accept a Hinduized world.
We convince them through two means
We demonstrate to them how the alternatives are not desirable and good
We demonstrate to them how a Hinduized world is desirable and good
A convincer must have two qualities in order to achieive success
They must be an exceptional debator. They must have the art of debate and persuation sharpened like the legendary sword of damascus. They must be able to provide valid and rational arguments that nobody can deny and which are spoken in a language the other person can understand.
They must be exceptionally developed spiritually. Their very presence must command respect and awe. They must an exude an aura of majesty and power. Their words must carry power and energy. Such that whatever they say will make people listen.
The first quality can be developed by training in philosophy and logic and experience in debate. Hindus were taught this art from a very young age. Logic, philosophy and grammar were compulsory subject at Hindu schools. However, the second quality cannot be taught. It has to be cultivated within. There are countless Hindu intellectuals in the world who have the first quality who spend their time writing books, articles in academic journals and attending seminiars and debates. I could, if I want, join them and many have told me to take this route because of my knowledge and intellect. However, I understand that without developing the second quality, these efforts are futile.
Academics do not change the world. They spend most of their life arguging, debating, writing books and are surprised when nobody listens. It does not matter how valid, well reasoned and well formed their arguments are, if there is nobody there to listen to them they are wasting their time and energy. An academic first has to be approved by a panel of peers and this process is political. If a Hindu intellectual is arguing against Aryan Invasion theory and wants to get published in a journal where one of the peers is a strong proponent of Aryan invasion theory, he is going to struggle. No matter how well evidenced his position is.
It is people like Buddha and Krishna who change the world, not academics. They do not even have to make too much effort. They just need to be there, and wherever they walk, people cannot help but be inspired by them. They too have very sharp intellect and can formulate superb arguments, but the difference is their words carry spiritual energy which behave like arrows when uttered. They permeate the being of the listener.
This is why I have decided not to take the academic route, but the master route. I will contribute to Hinduizing this world most assuredly, but only once I have attained the consciouisness of an avatar. I will bring the Vedic religion back in this world, whether in this life or the next. I will come back to this one day as a great avatar. I hope, before that happens, many other avatars come.
“I have identified them [Christianity and Islam] as an obstacle in our path to a Vedic world.”
Let’s try a little game of word substitution:
“I have identified them [Christianity and Hinduism] as an obstacle on our path to a Sharia world.”
or
“I have identified them [Islam and Hinduism] as an obstacle on our path to a Christian world.”
Please explain the difference. And don’t give me that nonsense about Hinduism being special because it is non-violent. [/quote]
The difference is clear if you ask yourself: Do you want to live in a Sharia world? Do you want to live in a world where women have to wear Bukhas, get stoned to death for commiting adultery or getting raped and where your limbs are chopped off for petty crime. Do you want to live in a world where you risk getting beheaded for questioning the Quran or an immam?
I think you need to visit a country where Sharia law is law such as Saudia Arabia and live there for a while to see if you really want Sharia law.
Do you want to live in a Christian world? Do you want to live in a world where the Church controls everything you do. Where you must constantly obey doctrines authored by clergy members in the Church. Do you want to attend mass everyday and hear depressing stories of how Jesus sacrificed his life for you and mourn his crucification? Do you want to spend the rest of your life trying to convert non-Christians to Christians? Do you want to live the life of poverty?
We once lived in a world like that and it is known as the dark ages. It was during this time we suffered inquisitions, plagues, witch burnings and crusades. The average life span was about 30 years and disease and poverty was rife.
Do you want live in a Vedic world? Do you want to live in a spiritual world where there is no clergy to rule your life. A world where education and health is the most important value - where you learn Yoga and meditation from an early age at school. Where you are given the freedom to think, speak and act freely and question to your hearts content. Where society is structured as to faciliate your personal-development in order to develop noble character, healthy and fit body and an intelligent mind. A society where everything is taken as sacred and one lives in harmony with nature, animals and each other.
Tell that to the Muslims whose Mosques are burned down in India.
Burning down others places of worship is not a Hindu value. It is not taught anywhere in Hinduism. Please cite one scripture, any scripture from Hindusim that ordains a Hindu to burn down the holy place of another human being.
I can indeed cite from Christian and Islamic scripture that tells you very explicitly to destroy the idols and places of worship of non-Christians and non-Muslims. I can even give you hundreds of historical examples of how Christians and Muslims destroyed the temples and idols of other people.
The Muslims in India alone systematically ransacked every holy institution in India from temples, libraries to universities, numbering in the thousands.
The example you are giving of a Muslim mosque being burned down is the Babri Masjid. It was not actually burnt down, it was demolished by a radical political Hindu group very amateurly using iron rods. This mosque laid on the site of a very holy and sacred site for Hindus where Lord Rama was said to have been born. It was demolished by the Muslims rulers several centuries ago. Since then, because it was so holy to Hindus, Hindus use to frequent that site and worship there.
Now if we are fair about it, this site was originally a highly sacred place of worship for Hindus, so Hindus always had a right to this place. The Babri masjid was constructed there illegally. In a recent and landmark court hearing in India this verdict was arrived at that the Babri masjid was constructed there illegally, and therefore the court awarded the site to the Hindus.
In recent times a minority of Hindus have become nationalistic because they are sick and tired of the injustice against them. I personally do not support violence, I think everything should be resolved through debate and diplomacy, and violence is only permissable as the absolute last resort(as Krishna prescribes in the Gita) The demolishing of the Babri Masjid was by a group of frustrated Hindus who had been demanding a temple be constructed there for centuries, but their pleas fell on deaf ears. So they took action. In the end it worked: they got their temple.
We Hindus have had to face a massive amount of injustice for the last 1000 years. First, we were invaded by the Muslims who killed tens of millions of Hindus, destroyed all our places of worship and learning, and were abused as second class citizens in our own country. Our women were raped, our children were molested. Then we were invaded by the British, who looted all our wealth, impoverished us, let tens of millions of us starve to death, and abolished our education and industry and created massive division and conflict. Then they distorted our history and heritage, leading to a highly self-alienated class of people, who lacked self-esteem.
This is why Hindu nationalism developed because Hindus were sick of being persecuted in their own land. We have had to fight for independence, for recognition and for restoring our country. It has not been easy we have had to deal with constant terrorism by Muslims and evangalism by Christians. This is why Hindus are growing to resent Muslims and Christians so much. Unfortunately, if things continue as they are, we will see holocausts in India against Muslims and christians. I don’t want this to happen, and in order to prevent this Muslims and Christians are going to have take responsible action against the extremist elements in their religions to win the trust and good will of Hindus.
Whether you like it or not, Islam and Christianity is a problem in this world and if there is any hope for salvation of this world, Islam and Christianity will need to seriously reform. If you do not want these religions to reform, then you are also part of the problem.
They are similar enough to be lumped together. However, rest assured, I do understand the major differences as well.
You should stay within your sphere of knowledge until you inform yourself thorougly about Christianity. These are not facts you are stating, but opinions based on bias.
I do not claim to know Christianity through and through. However, I do understand it generally enough to make general statements about it. What I have said is common knowledge about Christianity and it’s history.
I have nothing against you, as you are much more open minded than your religion. However, you are an exception in your religion, and not the rule.
First of all you do Yoga and meditation, you spend time on a Yoga discussion forum and you are openminded to Eastern religions and learning about them.
I am not sure the clergy in your religion would approve if they knew what you did. They definitely would not have approved a few centuries ago, they may have even sent you to the inquisitions.
You have to be honest with the history of your religion Thomas and recent events of the child molestation that has gone in your religion and abetted by your current Pope.
I know you are capable of being rational. Try to maintain that rationality when you look at your own religion as well.
[QUOTE=dharma66;45082]Surya/Nietszche. No. You are so wrong. You do not represent Hindu thought. You only represent your own hatred. Neither of you are any different from Christian or Muslim radicals. You are simply Hindu radicals, preaching hatred, division and supremacy.
I am ashamed to call myself Hindu if it means having views such as yours. Fortunately, it does not mean that. But I cannot remain on the forum for fear that I will be tarred with the brush that you both cause Hinduism to be tarred with.
I wish you both well, and hope that some day your eyes are opened to the beauty of Sanatana Dharma, and the scales of hatred fall from your eyes. In the meanwhile, I leave you here to continue to hijack any thread on religion with your hatred and intolerance.[/QUOTE]
Dharma66. No. You are so wrong. You do not represent Hindu thought. You are no different from biased Western chauvinists. You are simply a Christian/Western influenced Hindu, preaching tolerance of evil.
I am ashamed to call myself Hindu if it means having views such as yours. Fortunately, it does not mean that. But I can remain on the forum in the hope that more Hindus will not be tarred with the brush that you caused Hinduism to be tarred with.
I wish you well, and hope that some day your eyes are opened to the beauty of Sanatana Dharma, and the scales of political correctness fall from your eyes. In the meanwhile, I leave you to propagate your ignorance and political correctness and hijack the minds of unsuspecting and naive Hindus with your toleration of evil.
