This is because Hinduism is probably the only religion that I know of, which doesn’t claim to be the ONLY path to God and allows followers to explore paths that best suit their spiritual needs

I am not an expert on this matter but this statement isn’t technically accurate. My mentor has taught me that different vedanta schools (dvaita, advaita, vishitaadvaita) have doggedly maintained their own paths for realizing Brahman and have gone to the extent of saying that their approach is the best route to moksha (salvation). Madhavacharya’s Dvaita is a good example.

Nevertheless your larger point is right. I haven’t read about any case of conversion for gains insofar as Hinduism is concerned.

Dilip, to me the best approach to understanding Hinduism is the Bhagavadgita, which is really a compilation of these various schools of thought. According to the Bhagavadgita of course, every path is in the end a means to reach to God and we should follow whatever suits our needs and temperament best.

I know different interpreters and versions have different ways of seeing this, but I think Gita makes it simple and brings it to the masses to choose their path - not the elites who were really behind the philosophical schools of thought, IMHO.

Children, Christian Missionaries… sounds familiar.

Nothing to do with this post, but I came across an interesting article about Reagan in TIME and was reminded of our discussion on another post a few days back where you said that Bush should not be held accountable Reagan’s mistakes. An excerpt.

One of the odd plot twists of George W. Bush’s presidency is his claim to be more Reagan’s heir than Poppy’s. This is, among other things, an advantage when it comes to appealing to a Republican base that likes its populism meaty, its tax cuts nonnegotiable, its foreign policy undiplomatic, in strict black and white. Before there was any “axis of evil,” there was the “evil empire.” There are more hard-line Reaganauts in the second Bush White House than there were in the first; Bush’s staff, his rhetoric, his world view, his habits, his virtues and faults, all give rise to descriptions of this as Reagan’s third term. And so the principles that emerge from Reagan’s letters provide not only a source book for a past presidency but also a guide to a present one.

This is because Hinduism is probably the only religion that I know of, which doesn’t claim to be the ONLY path to God and allows followers to explore paths that best suit their spiritual needs

What about Buddhism or Jainism?

Prashant, both those religions are essentially off-shoots of Hinduism, with a much more narrow focus on the path to reach God.

CBN.com ??!!?!
CBN=Pat Robertson & co.
These guys aren’t about conversions or religion at all, thats just a cover….its all about the money.

They are the most virulent form of blood sucking parasite i know of. They are all over Africa, they own TV stations, they own politicians, they run guns, they cause conflicts where they were none.
Their style of preaching revolves around putting down people and making them feel guilty of their cultures and traditions.

Their TV channel is unbelievable: total distortion of history and facts, encouraging violence (they forgot the “turn the other cheek” stuff???)…
(of course, all the shows end with : 1-800-give-us-money or buy my book-about-fairy-tale-history)

They have a tv travel show, where a couple of duffs travel across India (they do various countries, now they are in India) by train and bus (journey alway excalamated with words like ‘oh its terrible’, ‘i dont know how the locals enjoy this’… as if it is a savage thing to travel in these modes of transport) — they try ‘saving’ people living in small towns — and the typical attitudes is you are a ‘pagan’ and a ‘savage’ and your existing belief system, whatever it may be doesn’t count, potrayal of local people is always done in a freaky and weird manner.

And Its not just hindus or muslims, these guys dont even like other varieties of christians (catholic, orthodox, protestant…)….they are actually quite similar to Nazis!

There are a lot of christian organizations that do a lot of good work (and most of them are always extremely embarrased of these CBN people)

Sorry for the long post, but I am a very liberal person, yet I can’t help hating these CBN guys. You should meet them in person;I’ve meet a few…, its the only time I’ve almost sunk into the depravity known as physical violence!

Ashok - no apologies required - that was some pretty good information you gave us. I agree that normally I am really not bothered about evangelizing - I have had a couple of really sweet Mormon girls come over to my apartment a few years ago pretty regularly and try to convert me and my heathen husband :) It didn’t exactly work for them, but they didn’t offend me any either.

If someone thinks their religion is so great that they would like to tell the whole world about it, I have absolutely no problem with that. It is when they move into the “putting down other religions to make me feel better about my religion” territory that people begin to piss me off.

Not to be a quibbler but while Buddhism and Jainism are offshoots of Hinduism, in a way (more like rebellions against Brahmanism, ritualism, and the caste system), neither of them claim to show the path to God. Jainism is atheistic, while Buddhism is agnostic. :beam:

On another note, would love to see the reaction of those sections of our media/ intelligentsia that are always fulminating against “Hindu fundamentalism” , to this CBN drivel. Or is it a Sisyphean task to expect consistency from such like ;):tongue3:

Prashant, that was really a rhetorical question now, wasn’t it? ;)

Yeah, though we love to call Buddhism and Jainism offshoots of Hinduism, they were actually protests against the prevailing system.

Anyway, I am of the firm belief that there is no such things as “hinduism”….it is not an organised religion like islam or chirstianity….but this is a subject for a blogpost on my own blog later.

Dilip,
>>My mentor has taught me that different vedanta schools (dvaita, advaita, vishitaadvaita) have doggedly maintained their own paths for realizing Brahman and have gone to the extent of saying that their approach is the best route to moksha (salvation).

Your anwer lies in this statement of yours. The fact that Hinduism, in the larger scope of things ALLOWS the existence of separate schools of thought is proof to the fact that it doesn’t claim to be the ONLY path to God. Moreover, Hindusim is the only religion that allows you to question the validity of any school of thought. Dvaita was, in a way of speaking, actually a rebellion against Advaita. Madhvacharya was for some reason disgruntled with the Advaita philosophy and founded his own brand of philosophy.

>>the Bhagavadgita, which is really a compilation of these various schools of thought.

Shanti,

I’m sure you are aware that the Gita was written much before these schools of thought came into existence. The reason I made this point is that all these schools have interpreted the Gita so that it is in harmony with their school of thought. For instance, Shankaracharya has written an elaborate treatise on it, so has Madhva and Ramanuja. Just my 2 bit worth!

Sandeep/Shanti

I discussed that point about Bhagavad Gita with my mentor and he sent me a fairly extensive email explaining the genesis behind the tome and where exactly it stands in terms of God and Bhakti. I can CC it to both of you and we can have a discussion going without diverting this post OT. What do you say?

I don’t have your emails… so you guys can catch me at (meerkatroy AT yahoo DOT com)

If the existence of subsects within a group is an indicator of tolerance, then you can’t get much better than Christianity :beam: .

I’m not sure about Sanskritic literature, but I know my history, and Hindus, Bhuddists and Jains all did persecute each other pretty badly, inclusing some Inquisition style stuff. When it comes to intolerance, every religion is pretty much the same. Hinduism’s image of tolerance is perhaps derived from its lofty philosophy(s) as well as the fact that it had a monopoly over most of India for a long time, with no significant minorities to persecute. When there where minorities in numbers large enough to persecute, they where in fact persecuted.

Kingsley,

I beg of you to re-read your history. You can for instance start with a book on Indian History by Majumdar.

>>but I know my history, and Hindus, Bhuddists and Jains all did persecute each other pretty badly, inclusing some Inquisition style stuff.

Inquisition style stuff is a pretty strong thing to say about persecution w.r.t Hindusim. The nature of persecutions you talk of has never existed in Hinduism. Also, Buddhism and Jainism are merely offshoots of Hindusim, rather, they were rebellions against a very elaborate (and cruel) brahminical ritual practices. At a later date, say before the Islamic incursions, these “persecutions” were more in the nature of violent disagreements over philosophical debates.

The important aspect you’ve overlooked is that Hindus NEVER persecuted minority religions because of the fact that they belonged to a religion other than Hinduism. If this were the case, we wouldn’t have had so many religions/communities in India today. In fact, the persecutions as you call it, almost always happened WITHIN Hinduism (say, the upper castes illtreating the lower castes, and so on).

>>When there where minorities in numbers large enough to persecute, they where in fact persecuted.

I’m afraid your facts are wrong here. Or I might have no knowledge of this. Please give me one specific instance of this. Any violent movements that emnated from Hinduism were mere reactions against the threat of a foreign force. The Vijaynagar Kingdom is a solid example of this. Please read the book titled, “The Rise and Fall of the Vijaynagar Kingdom/Empire” (forgot the author’s name) to get an idea.

Buddhists were persecuted and driven out of india during 300-900 AD, this is a well documented fact. India was dominated by Hinduism most of the time with no significant minorities. Even in these circumstances people within Hinduism such as lower castes were and are being oppressed since centuries. So much for the tolerance of Hinduism. As for persecution of minorities today u dont have to go farther than Narendra Modi.

Anonymous, can you show me one teaching in Hinduism that actually supports and actively preaches oppression and I will concede the point to you. Don’t blame misinterpretations and stupid people on the religion - atleast be brave enough to use your actual name when you are walking around flinging insults.

>>Buddhists were persecuted and driven out of india during 300-900 AD, this is a well documented fact.

Agreed. I don’t dispute that at all. But for a religion like Hinduism that DOES not preach:

1. Conversions
2. Animosity towards other religions/races/faiths
3. That the only way to realizing God is through the tenets of Hinduism,

persecution is a far cry. Coming back to the point of driving out Buddhism, did you ever pause to think about the reason? The Buddhism of 900 AD had degenerated to such depths that in a way, it was good to get rid of these unsavoury practices—and I’m not condoning whatever persecutions had been visited upon them.

Unless you are not aware, the HIndu mythology—Dashavatara—also includes the name of Buddha as an avatar of Lord Vishnu. This means he is held by some people in equal veneration to Rama/Krishna/Narasimha. Again, most Buddhists were converts from Hinduism—people that were disgruntled with extreme ritualism. Further, in the period you speak of, Buddhists were actively engaged in conversion activities—you say the persecutions are well documented, but why are you silent about the point that in kingdoms where Buddhism received royal patronage, they sent out Missionaries (much like our Christian brethren today) to nations such as Ceylon, China and Japan? Buddhism did not disintegrate so rapidly in India because of persecutions but more because of a philosophical revival of Hindusim, with Adi Shankara spearheading the movement. He defeated the Buddhists on their own ground by means of verbal duels, not violence.

I can go on and on, but I’ll end with just one point: have you heard of a certain Kumarila Bhatta, a staunch proponent of Vedanta philosophy, who at the age of 80+ years spent many years at the Nalanda university to learn Buddhism so he could compare/contrast it with his own school of thought. He was even willing to convert to Buddhism if that proved a superior philosophy. If this isn’t tolerance/open-mindedness, what else is?

BTW, Kumarila Bhatta was thrown from a cliff and left to die by the Buddhists.

I’m not telling Buddhists are cruel/inhuman/barbaric or whatever. Because, as Shanti said, followers of a certain religion commit crimes in the name of that religion doesn’t mean that the religion is intolerant.

I rest my case.

From Tamil history, from stanzas of poems I’ve actually read: Pouring molten lead into the ears of Bhuddists and Jains - around 3rd century. Throwing Hindus into vats of lime (chunam) to shrivel to death - 11th century. Razing Bhuddist viharas to the ground to build Hindu Temples and forcibly infusing Hindu culture into South East Asia - 11th century Cholas. I do think that is inquisition style. Forget about all that Saivites and Vaishnavites considered each other opposing religions (their words, not mine) and imprisoned and killed each other. And this is just the history I have found out about, by reading literature written in the period. The history I was taught is quite different though - that we where a peaceful tolerant blah blah culture.

Shanthi, as for whether any religious text of Hinduism supports such a practice: I’m pretty sure that most Muslims/ Christians / Bhuddists beleive that their religious texts advocates love for the fellow human and the people who indulged in these barbaric acts where misinterpreting these texts.

So my point is, I don’t care what the philosophy says, but Hindus, Christians, Muslims, Bhuddists have all reacted in the same way when threatened politically by growing numbers of other religions - get them before they get us.

kingsely,

there is some truth in what you say-there are records of persecution of jains & buddhists by hindus, and vice versa, but they were an order of magnitude different than christia/muslim tendencies. all religions are not the same, there are some general clusters with general tendencies-monotheistic religions tend to be a bit more aggressive about purging “deviant” belief systems.

as for buddhism & jain being “offshoots” of hinduism-i understand the sentiment, but i think that the way it is being stated on the blog is kind of patronizing. it’s like saying that christianity & islam are offshoots of judaism, or that judaism is an offshoot of west semitic paganism. buddhism especially has been transmuted by its experiences in eastern asia and is far different from hinduism now (it has a different take on karma and god(s) aren’t really important to it in the long view).

as for tolerance & pluralism being a hindu privilege-i think you are thinking of christianity & islam in particular, which are pretty intolerant and exclusive (usually) in comparison to other world religions (usually). china, japan and non-muslim (and even muslim) southeast asia have a long history of religious tolerance, and unlike hindus, almost apathy, toward religious issues. you don’t have shintoists, confucianists or daoists preaching in the streets.

p.s. buddhism remained vital in places like punjab & bengal until the advent of islam. in fact, there is still an indigenous bengali buddhist community called the “baruas”-who can often ben pin-pointed by that last name. and the idea that some have expressed that “buddhism was debased” expresses the same sort of intolerant contempt that my muslim ancestors had toward you hindus-so i begin to wonder-how broad-minded are hindus? humans are humans, so i guess it’s good that the hindu religion doesn’t promote itself as a universal religion to give vent to our less flattering sides like islam or christianity.

I will remain anonymous because this discussion has nothing to do with my name and I am an aetheist. I did not fling any more insults than u have been flinging at Christianity.

1. If u want a reference to opression in Hindu texts read the Ramayana where Ram kills a person offering penance because he is from a lower caste.

U think this is acceptable but religious texts that claim that salvation can be had only through their way are reprehensible.

Now u have examples of Hindu intolerance both in the religious text and in practice against buddhists and even today towards lower castes. Add ur choosing of Modis and Thackerays to demonstrate intolerance towards other religions. Tolerance in Hinduism is a joke.

The only period in history when other sects were not discriminated against by Hindus was during Islamic rule between 1300-1700 AD. (Not that Islamic rule did not have its share of intolerance). And even during that period lower castes were routinely discriminated against.

And here u r criticizing Christianity bcoz (hold ur breath) they dare to preach their religion (ever heard of free speech ma’am) and insist that salvation can be had only thru Jesus (big deal, who cares)

First of all, I did not criticize Christianity perse, but some followers of the religion who find the constant need to put others down so they evangelize - see my reply to Ashok.

Secondly, Ram killed a man of lower caste for offering penance? Never heard of the story - can you supply to me the name of the guy, please? In case you didn’t know, Ram actually worked with monkeys and bears of the jungle to build the bridge to Lanka. He ate fruit that were already bitten into by Sabari, who was a tribal and thus lower caste woman. He left his wife because a lower caste man cast aspersions on her. Please don’t talk about things you don’t know about.

ROTFL !!!

U insist on putting ur foot in the mouth dont you.
Ramayana has an episode in which Rama kills Shambuka because he is from the lower caste and attempts to study the vedas.

And as for working with bears and monkeys, that is the worst form of casteism and racism described in ancient literature. Dravidians who helped Ram build the bridge were described by him and his followers as “Vanaras” - monkeys and bears just because they were dark skinned. There can be no greater insult. You talk of Rama biting a bit of fruit as if it were some great act of benevolence. Shows how casteism still persists in the Indian psyche. Just treating a lower caste person as a normal human being is considered a tremendous achievement.
Leaving his wife because a lower caste man cast aspersions on her proves that he is free from bias !!! What kinded of twisted logic is that.

I know what I am talking about. OTOH u just come
up with “facts” as per convenience. Oppression
of Buddhists was merely “violent disagreements over philosophical debates”. Blah. Next time be careful when u shoot ur mouth off.

Yeesh - will you just shut up before you start throwing around insults without the least understanding of what you are talking about? The dark-skinned Dravidians were described as vanaras? Hello, idiot! Rama is described as being “neela megha syama” - the color of dark clouds - does that sound fair-skinned to you? dumbass!

He is benevolent for eating fruit that Sabari has already tasted, since you don’t eat stuff someone else has already eaten, do you? Stop talking nonsense and think a little before you scream racism over every little thing, moron!

BTW, if I were you, I would be really careful posting such insults from your work place (I know you cannot possibly be living at the place your IP points to) - the abuse email is a very tempting option to take.

I am sure anonymous is simply taking things a bit too far but, sadly, some of his points are very valid.

The Shambuka story is spot on. It is one of the lesser known “kilai kathai” in Ramayana. He was beheaded by Rama just because he was a Shudra (the lowest of castes) trying to learn the Vedas. To be fair, this episode features in the Uttarakanda section of Ramayana which is a later addition to the tome. But contemporary seers seem to think Valmiki definitely wrote it himself.

Even Mahabaratha has an instance of Ekalavya being shunned by Dronacharya because he came from a lower caste (the official explanation is he was not a Kshatriya). Later Arjuna even pleads with Drona to put an end to Ekalavya’s mastery as he had to be the greatest archer in the world.

I wouldn’t go as far as to cite Hinduism practised persecution but caste-based oppression is nothing new among the Brahminical sect of the Hindus.
It is precisely this orthodoxy that gave rise to Buddhism and their ilk.

I only see one person throwing insults around. I’m sure they’re not necessary.

MadMan, I don’t see any reason to be civil to someone who has to hide behind anonymity while provoking me with an abrasive tone of comment. I am much more tolerant about people who are willing to discuss things in the open than those who feel they have to wear a mask while talking to others.

The story of Ram killing a shudra is not in valmiki ramayana. It was written later on , more specifically in a version which was supposed to be written by some indonesian hindus.
Always the incidents of mentioned in Valmiki Ramayan are taken to be genuine because he was a contemporary of Lord Ram. All other versions are just imaginations