i got my numbers to support what i write. what u have is some mumbo jumbo no one follows. 300 million shoodars didnt come out of the blue dear..... now u can change ur cult over and over again and hide it by putting lots of make up on it..... whats nasty stays nasty.
So it's a question of practice as opposed to spirituality, huh?
Good one. That discussion led to the closing of this forum for 3 days.
I think it is similar to whether u would call Islam and Christianity to be offshoots of Judaism. For an outsider all Abrahmic religions look similar. Islam looks more aggressive. But when Christian faith was younger, it was very aggressive as well.
Astrofan said:
[quote]
Hindutva is a movement to take back from Christians and Muslims what they have stolen from the Hindus ... It is a movement to return Hinduism to its former glory
[/quote]
How is it that so many hindus come here talking about secularism and then spouting stuff like the above quote. If this is how you feel about your own citizens in India, albeit of a different religion, then what can you expect other than the eventual Balkanisation of India?
You talk of being bullied for over 1500 years of modern history, but let's face it, your own hindu texts over that period of time show Hinduism to have been the most inhumane religion in that time. Why did Buddhists and Sikhs leave hinduism otherwise? You can pretend that muslims and Christians were converted forcibly, but it's a bit harder to explain, Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains isn't it?
Let's face it, your version of history tends to change as regularly as the accepted beliefs of Hinduism. One minute it's passive, next it's vengeance-seeking. Sometimes you believe in caste system, sometimes you don't.
[quote]
Originally posted by Mr Xtreme:
**
You talk of being bullied for over 1500 years of modern history, but let's face it, your own hindu texts over that period of time show Hinduism to have been the most inhumane religion in that time. Why did Buddhists and Sikhs leave hinduism otherwise? You can pretend that muslims and Christians were converted forcibly, but it's a bit harder to explain, Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains isn't it?
**
[/quote]
How do u explain one of two brothers being Sikh and other Hindu if the conversions took place due to some hostile attitude.
The arguments about castes would make sense if there was no caste system in Sikhs or other religions. That is not true.
Pakistanis try to paint Buddhism as a some kind of reform movement in social system, This is far from true. Jatak kathas which tell about life in Buddhist times shows that social system essentially remained intact. If u read Tripitakas, how much Buddha talks about social aspect of religion. For him, they are irrelevant an what matters is inner peace. That is precisely the reason why Buddhism did not bring any changes in society in China or Japan as well. In fact, Korea and Japan had caste system till 200 years ago.
Hinduism has changed over years and will change. But why not? Only dead man does not change, just decomposes.
[This message has been edited by ZZ (edited September 07, 2000).]
ZZ says:
[quote]
Hinduism has changed over years and will change. But why not? Only dead man does not change, just decomposes.
[/quote]
I have no problem with that, but then what is the Hindutva movement all about? How can hindutva claim to be harking back to past glories yet be changing at the same time? You can either go forwards or backwards but it's pretty hard to do both at the same time.
i had a brief glance at some of the links provided by Astrofan, and it was mainly hindus bashing Islam for what is written in the Quran. Yet when we ask hindus about what is in their own texts, they claim they have progressed beyond that. Then we have Hindutva. Does that make sense?
Xtreme,
Before we continue, let me say that I do not agree with hardline Hindutva fundamentalists. That is more or less how I was introduced to this site - I voiced my displeasure on a Hindu forum on the amount of anti-Islam aggression being spewed forth. They told me to come here, and to take a gander at the Pakistani mailing lists.
The problem becomes that fundamentalists always shout louder than moderates, and end up being the only ones left to make their voices left. I'm somewhat unsurprised that this forum is not much different - the discussions that caused the admin to close this forum lead me to believe that we are more similar than perhaps some want to believe. The amount of anti-Hindu stuff here simply matches the amount of anti-Christian and anti-Muslim stuff on the Hindu sites. It is completely against my own Interfaith upbringing, and just shows how much we have to go as a subcontinent before peace can be achieved.
You asked me about Hindutva and I answered. Doesn't mean I am part of the movement myself. I am a counselor for HSS and VHPA camps, and I help teach a shaka for the HSS, because I enjoy working with kids, but my political viewpoints mostly clash with them.
Why the change from pacifism to aggression? It was explained to me thus - given 1500 years of oppression, the Arjuna in the Hindu consciousness has awakened, to fight the adharma around them, and can you (I) blame them for some mishaps here and there?
When it comes to the actions of the Sangh Parivar, there are people who I respect (and some who I dont' respect) who tell me that Muslims are not earnest in their secularism in India, and that Hindus are being blamed for things they are not doing. You would tell me different, but since I don't know you, I can't simply throw away what people I respect tell me vs what you tell me.
That's my issue here, I will digest what you say, but in the end, since I don't know you, I can't be 100% sure of your agenda.
[This message has been edited by astrosfan (edited September 07, 2000).]
I have talked to many hindus and they have trouble defining hinduism....It is really many religions rolled into one...front line are two major cults(?) shivaism and vishnuism...former is popular in south and bengal and latter in north india...but they get rolled into one religion....there is even a deity "Arri Appa" who is the child of vishnu and shiva where vishnu changed into a women to have this child with shiva.....
SO hinduism is like blotting paper it absorbs easily any other religion by taking in their deities and/or creating new ones...
Two good beginner books on Hinduism are:
"The Hindu Mind" by Bansi Pandit
&
"Am I a Hindu" by Ed Vishwanathan
They do a good job of covering the pluralistic Hindu tradition.
Well this is a nice clean discussion that I have started?
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/smile.gif
I have just looked through the Indian constitution and found the articles where it DOES actually imply that Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists are merely Hindu’s - Article 25 of the Indian Constitution
http://alfa.nic.in/const/p03025.html
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
Right to Freedom of Religion
- Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion.-
(1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion.
(2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law-
(a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice;
(b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus.
Explanation I.- The wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion.
Explanation II.- In sub-clause (b) of clause (2), the reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly.
-
NOTE WHAT EXPLANATION II (ABOVE) SAYS??
-
SO ITS TRUE THE “SECULAR” INDIAN CONSITUTION DOES REFER TO SIKHS, JAINS AND BUDDHISTS AS MERELY HINDU’S!
[This message has been edited by Malik73 (edited September 08, 2000).]
To continue this "clean" discussion -
Not having read the Indian constitution, I would have to ask exactly what it means when it says "Hindu".
IF it meant that all "Dharmic" religions are part of the Hindu tradition, then the term dharmic is generally broad enough to include jainism, buddhism, and sikhism. IF instead, it means Hindu as "Vedic", then your contention is valid.
I guess you would have to look up what Ambedkar was thinking when he wrote up these sections to the consitution.
Astrofan being a good Muslim I cannot describe the history and philosophy of the Hindu faith which made the Indian "founding fathers" draw up a constitution which refers to Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists as merely Hindu's.
What is clear is that Islam AND Chistianity are NOT referred to in the same light or compared as such. This only stengthens the argument that Hindu's DO see Sikhs, Jains
and Buddhists as JUST separate twigs or branches of the Hindu "faith"??
[This message has been edited by Malik73 (edited September 08, 2000).]
Religions like Buddihism & Jainism have been practiced in India for 2000 years and I don't think really care what the Indian Constitution refers them as.
btw, there used to be many Jain Temples in present day Pakistan...I wonder whatever happened to them.
[This message has been edited by bigb (edited September 08, 2000).]
bigb I think it matters very much to Sikhs, Buddhist and Jains in India to know if they are viewed as merely Hindu's or separate religions. I would think it would be an affront to these people to be viewed as Hindu's, and makes a mockery of so-called Indian secularlism!
As a practicing Jain, I really do not care what the Indian Constitution says about Jainism nor did anyone in my family in India. Jains (like many other religions) are very comfortable with their views/beliefs thus do not get worked up about legal classification. Such classification really comes into picture when it comes to separate Civil Codes for different religions.
I had no problem whatsoever in practicing my religion in India, if that is bad Secularism I will like to have bad Secularism. btw, respect Jain Scholars have pointed out that many Jain Temples were destroyed in present day Pakistan....none in India that I can think of. I will try and find the link.
[This message has been edited by bigb (edited September 08, 2000).]
bigb its nice to hear from a Jain for a change
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/smile.gif
But I wonder what the likes of Rani, ZZ, and dhir and other Indian Hindu’s have tosay about the Indian constitution’s Hindu bias?
. worshipping lingum is perverted<<
Mundyaa can you please give Hindus a break and acknowledge your history?
Worshipping a stone universal lingum is better than sucking up to a LIVE ARAB ONE
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/biggrin.gif
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/biggrin.gif
(b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus. <<
the reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly. <<
That means in my book atleast that the constitution is saying those following other religions are as as good as those following Hinduism.
That has more to do with casteism and untouchability among Hindus that existed then.
You seem hellbent on prooving Indian constitution is Hindu oriented and not secular.
Andhra - then do you mean that Islam and Christianity are not good enough religions in the eyes of the Hindu framers of India's constitution?
Hindu framers of India's constitution?<<
Malik as it happens the guy behind the Indian Constitution is a Dr. Ambedkar, who belongs to the so called untouchable caste and who will be very offended if you call him a Hindu.
Infact he advised all untouchables of India to convert to Budhhism.