True - there was no attempt made to spread Hinduism by sword unlike Islam/Christianity.
And what about other attempts?
I can't see the lower castes in South Asia wanting to embrace Hinduism of their own free will.
Hinduism was brought to India and enforced upon the locals and mixed with local traditions/beliefs/religions.
Hindu fanatics can reject the Aryan invasion theory all they like but the truth remains...
There is nothing called Aryan Invasion.............. I myself is an Aryan and so my family and my ancestors..........
True - there was no attempt made to spread Hinduism by sword unlike Islam/Christianity.
If it was spread by sword, India would be muslim, and no other faiths would be spared from remaining intact. India was under muslim rule for well over 600 years, yet there remained those who practiced Hinduism.
The brutality has been one sided. Jews, Muslims, and Christians alike were massacred by Knight Templars during their Crusades/Conquests. When Salahuddin conquered Jerusalem, all those who were seiged in the Holy City were free, and could either stay or migrate.
Hinduism never spread by sword, because it didn't have to. It's a remnant of Paganism (belief in many different gods, and their worship). Much of the world was pagan before the message of monotheism came in the specific shape of Judaism/Christianity/and Islam.
Islam has spread, but for a majority of the time it has been embraced, not imposed. Case in point, today's USA and Europe.
You guys contradict yourselves. Yes Hindu Kings conquered India, no they didnt spread Hinduism ‘by sword’.
You give Malaysia/Singapore as example, do you think the acceptance of Hindu kings there was NOT through the usual means of conquest? Where there is sizable Hindu presence today, for example Bali, there was also a Hindu empire previously. An empire formed through conquest. Here is how the first Malay kingdom was formed:
This was defeated by this Hindu empire, and the struggles involved are hardly non-violent.
What is true though is with the advent of more powerful powers like Islam and Christianity, the impact of Hinduism outside India was summarily curtailed. Subsequently, they could not advance beyond the limits they were circumscribed to, and later revisionists try to paint that as a progressive choice that they made.
They were simply unable to, in the face of superior powers.
There is nothing called Aryan Invasion.............. I myself is an Aryan and so my family and my ancestors..........
How do you know that you are aryan?
You are right in saying that hinduism spread in south east asia because of conquest.
The conquest of south east asia was by a chola king (a shivite). Even now the budhism practiced in Thailand and areas around has a very much shivite influence.
But unlike Islam, Hinduism did not have missionary zeal. When cholas collapsed hinduism veined in these regions. As described above, their influence still persist in some part of these areas.
Portugese had a very missionary appeal to their conquest while British was mostly secular. The Turk and Persian invasion also had a very missionary aspect to it. The respective missionaries had a lot of help from the patronizing powers. This is why Christianity and Islam survives to this day in India. They were organized and even when their powers weakened the missionaries could continue their work (because of secular British). But these missionaries would not have been here in the first place if there was no invasion.
India was mostly Budhist till Shankarachary came along to revive Hinduism. India would have been budhist if there was no Shankaracharya.
Re: Why did Hinduism never become an 'organised' religion like Christianity or Islam?
The title of the thread is: Why did Hinduism never become an 'organised' religion like Christianity or Islam?
I ask you so what? That means Hinduism is "disorganized". Every is doing what they want.
NO rules no regulations no one telling how to practise Hinuism? or am i wrong?
Nothing about how to pray to whom to pray. You can choose anyone and regard him as God??
I am just trying to learn what the creator of this thread whants to convey!!!???
I ask you so what? That means Hinduism is "disorganized". Every is doing what they want. NO rules no regulations no one telling how to practise Hinuism? or am i wrong? Nothing about how to pray to whom to pray. You can choose anyone and regard him as God??
You are partly correct. Hinduism assumes that humans have intelligence to choose between right & wrong. So it does not tell you how to pray, what to eat, what to wear, what is acceptable and what is not. However, it does prescribe broad guidelines, and one is free to practice their religion within those guidelines.
You are partly correct. Hinduism assumes that humans have intelligence to choose between right & wrong. So it does not tell you how to pray, what to eat, what to wear, what is acceptable and what is not. However, it does prescribe broad guidelines, and one is free to practice their religion within those guidelines.
Well the broad "guidlines" that Hinduism is supposed to have
....is there in these "guidlines" any mention against Human Rights Violations?
Occupying hundred thousands of people against their will?
Regarding 200 million untouchables who are considered by Hindu priests as filthy and untouchable?
You are right in saying that hinduism spread in south east asia because of conquest. The conquest of south east asia was by a chola king (a shivite). Even now the budhism practiced in Thailand and areas around has a very much shivite influence. But unlike Islam, Hinduism did not have missionary zeal. When cholas collapsed hinduism veined in these regions. As described above, their influence still persist in some part of these areas. Portugese had a very missionary appeal to their conquest while British was mostly secular. The Turk and Persian invasion also had a very missionary aspect to it. The respective missionaries had a lot of help from the patronizing powers. This is why Christianity and Islam survives to this day in India. They were organized and even when their powers weakened the missionaries could continue their work (because of secular British). But these missionaries would not have been here in the first place if there was no invasion. India was mostly Budhist till Shankarachary came along to revive Hinduism. India would have been budhist if there was no Shankaracharya.
Not really sure what the point is here. You say Hinduism spread through conquest, but it didnt have missionary zeal?
There is nothing called Aryan Invasion.............. I myself is an Aryan and so my family and my ancestors..........
My Shud Brahmin friend, you are not an Aryan, you are mixed like everyone else, the Aryan invaders succumbed to the beauty of the local dark beauties and so even the Brahmins are mixed, some actually look more Dravidian than Aryan.
Hahaha, why are Hindu fanatics/nationalists so hell bent on denying the Aryan invasion thoery?
An alternative theory might have been proposed and Hindu fanatics latched on to it but it doesn't make it true, and the Aryan invasion theory has not been disproved.
Well the broad "guidlines" that Hinduism is supposed to have ....is there in these "guidlines" any mention against Human Rights Violations? Occupying hundred thousands of people against their will? Regarding 200 million untouchables who are considered by Hindu priests as filthy and untouchable?
This has been discussed in a couple of other threads. Hindu religious texts do not encourage/condone/support casteism. The concept of "varna" has been misunderstood and twisted by people for their own selfish interests.
Let me give you an example that will be easier for you to understand - Islam does not ask Muslims to kill innocents (as far as I know). Why then are most terrorists Muslims, and more importantly why do they kill in the name of Islam ??
...and the Aryan invasion theory has not been disproved.
True, but its not been proven conclusively either.
This has been discussed in a couple of other threads. Hindu religious texts do not encourage/condone/support casteism. The concept of "varna" has been misunderstood and twisted by people for their own selfish interests.
Let me give you an example that will be easier for you to understand - Islam does not ask Muslims to kill innocents (as far as I know). Why then are most terrorists Muslims, and more importantly why do they kill in the name of Islam ??
U are mislead in ur own assumption.
Its not, WHY DO... its more like... WHY HAVE.
Gotcha?
U are mislead in ur own assumption. Its not, WHY DO... its more like... WHY HAVE.
Gotcha?
WHY HAVE implies that its a thing of the past...which we both know is not correct. WHY DO conveys that its still happening and will keep happening. 100+ people died in Peshawar a few days ago....
;) Gotcha ??
There is nothing called Aryan Invasion.............. I myself is an Aryan and so my family and my ancestors..........
You're Irani?
Re: Why did Hinduism never become an 'organised' religion like Christianity or Islam?
Ram, Ram, Ram... Punjabi tum adharam ko dharam kar rahey ho aur dharam ko adharm. Ganga mein ashnaan kar ke aao varna shamba ji tumhen kabhi maaf naheen karen ge. Aaj kal ke modern bachey, kalyug hai kalyug....
The varna/caste system as practiced is rooted in the Rig Veda.
How can you not say it's not from the Hindu religion unless you reject the Rig Veda and other scriptures which enjoin the caste system.
WHY HAVE implies that its a thing of the past...which we both know is not correct. WHY DO conveys that its still happening and will keep happening. 100+ people died in Peshawar a few days ago....
;) Gotcha ??
You can't say why DO, 'cos only a HAND FULL of those so called Muslims do what they do, so we say after the incident has occurred, why HAVE they done that.
Understood?
U say as if this kinda act is just glued to us, and NO OTHER religion follower does anything as such. Hence no justification.
Gotcha?
Pls substantiate the Rig Veda reference.
Btw, who is “shamba ji” ??
You can't say why DO, 'cos only a HAND FULL of those so called Muslims do what they do, so we say after the incident has occurred, why HAVE they done that.
Understood?
U say as if this kinda act is just glued to us, and NO OTHER religion follower does anything as such. Hence no justification.
Gotcha?
"DO" implies something thats ongoing -"HAVE" makes it look like its a thing of the past. Both of us know that terrorism in the name of Islam is "clear & present danger" and is ongoing.
And yes, Islam is the only religion where its followers have resorted to such acts in the name of Islam. While there have been non-Muslim terrorists eg. LTTE, IRA etc. they never killed in the name of religion.
Hope you finally "gotcha" ??