Intrafaith Dialog - Hinduism, Buddhism And Jainism

10-12-2006, 10:26 PM

QUOTERe: [hc] Are Buddhists and Jainas Hindus?

Dear Harikrishna,

1. What I provided was not merely the etymological origins of the word
Hindu. As early as the 6th century BCE, the Behistun inscriptions use this
tag for the people that lived in the land where the Sindhu flowed.
2. Historically, the word Hindu has encompassed every Indian
tradition. Even Babur called those that were not Muslims and Christians
Hindus. There is no evidence that the Buddhists and Jainas, until recently,
differentiated themselves from the Hindu identity any more (or less) than
any other Hindu sect.
3. You are arbitrary relying upon the colonial definition of the word
Hindu, and insist that it should accepted as historical.
4. You bring up the straw man of the VHP when nothing that I have
stated has anything to do with the VHP. There is strong evidence that the
term Hindu is geographic in its origins. So, it includes the Buddhists and
Jainas.
5. I merely stated that the Buddha did not rebel against the Vedas or
the Varna system as you claimed. Now you demand evidence that he accepted
the Vedas! Where did I say that in the first place? Why set up a straw
man?
6. The Buddha displays no knowledge of the Vedas. Buddhism merely
condemned the Vedic sacrifices â something anybody that has observed a
sacrifice could do. Beyond that, the Vedas were irrelevant to Buddhism. If
you claim that the Buddha opposed the Vedas, the onus of proving is upon
you!
7. It is very arbitrary to define Hinduism as something that accepts
the authority of the Vedas. You have to show me traditional â i.e.,
before the Islamic period, when Hinduism was thus defined. I have pointed
out that the early Hindu orthodoxy such as the Mimamsakas would have
considered all Vedantic schools of Hinduism as a deviation from the Vedic
path because the Mimamsakas used only the mantra as pramana. They would have
seen the Vedantic usage of the Upanishads and Vedanta Sutra, and later the
Gita, as pramana as deviation from the Vedic tradition.
8. You cannot just wish away the Mimamsaka argument. If you can deny
the Buddhists and Jainas a Hindu identity based on colonial definition, I
can use the Mimamsaka definition as basis to deny all Vedantic and Bhakti
schools a Hindu identity.
9. The Buddha did not leave any writing behind. His teachings were
recorded by his disciples. I have cited (in the old IC list) many cases
where the Buddha praised his Kshatriya Varna as number one, and even
advocates incest to preserve the purity of the Kshatriya blood! Rhys Davids
is a very good starting point. I am surprised that you have uncritically
absorbed the colonial propaganda regarding this.
10. Varnashrama is central to Hinduism. It started as a bipartite
system and evolved into a four-fold system. But you are going into a tangent
making accusations of revisionism when I have not even made any claim to the
contrary!
11. Nanda Chandran has shown that Advaita is a continuation of
Buddhism. One does not require Advaitins to accept that. If that were the
criteria, one should then wait for the Christians to concede that the Sermon
on the Mount is an almost word to word borrowing from the Buddha's
teachings! Other two major Vedantic traditions â Visishtadvaita and Dvaita,
use the Advaita as a standard to differentiate themselves. So, the
dependence on Buddhism â either to agree or differentiate, is obvious.
12. I gave the example of Manimekhalai and Nagarjuna to prove that
terms like nastika or vaidika have had different meanings over times.
13. Many schools of Buddhism, that of Bhutan for example, are tantric.
Tantra is an inalienable component of the Veda mantras. If the author of the
Manimekhalai claimed that the Buddhists are vaidikas, he was correct. After
all, mantras are very central to Buddhism.

Regards,
KV

10-12-2006, 10:27 PM

This thread will be moved to Indian-Culture forum in a couple of days.

10-13-2006, 12:11 AM

QUOTE(rajesh_g @ Oct 12 2006, 12:56 PM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE13. Many schools of Buddhism, that of Bhutan for example, are tantric.
Tantra is an inalienable component of the Veda mantras. If the author of the
Manimekhalai claimed that the Buddhists are vaidikas, he was correct. After
all, mantras are very central to Buddhism.
[right][snapback]58984[/snapback][/right]
</div>

Even the Nath sampraday (of Sri Goraksha Nath and Sri Matsyendra Nath) either originated from, or deep rooted in, or heavily influenced by Tantrik Buddhism. Does that mean Nath practiceners are not Hindu?

Good writing by KV. Where do you find his posts, Rajesh?

10-13-2006, 12:18 AM

Bodhiji

Yahoo group called hinducivilization.

Husky · (This post was last modified: 10-26-2006, 03:16 PM by Husky.)

Don't know if this has already been posted - it's about Sri Lanka. It is instructive as similar methods are employed in Sri Lanka and India.
Sri Lanka is under siege. By German journalist Christian Eckert (June 2005)
QUOTEIn my essay The next Tsunami coming is a religious one originally published by The Lanka Academic May 23rd and two days later in The Asian Tribune, I should have been more precise. The next Tsunami - which is already sweeping through Sri Lanka and other countries of this world - is a religious one, yes, we have witnessed so, but it is also an ideological one. Just like the Tidal Wave did not only crush countless lives and homes, it also crushed the moral integrity of the people surviving. "Their shirt is closer to them than their pants," a German saying goes for people who have very little choice left. The Lankans are weakened, maimed by the Tsunami. And there are organizations which are utilizing and exploiting this situation for their own benefits.

It has been planned and prepared for a long time. Roughly ten months ago, in August 2004, the Bush administration created the Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization, itÂ´s head being Carlos Pasqual, a former Ambassador. The presidential order: draw up "post-conflict plans" for countries that were not (yet) in conflict - either by war or natural disaster.
According to the office, it will be able to coordinate three full scale reconstruction operations in three different countries at the same time, each lasting five to seven years.

The Bush administration will go into history not only for inventing pre-emptive deconstruction ('preventive war') but also for pre-emptive reconstruction. And with the Tsunami relief, they're putting their plans into action.QUOTEA closer look into what this obscure office is up to makes the picture clearer - and also shows, what the corporations are up to.
The plans of this office are drawn to "changing the social fabric of a nation". In other words the mandate of this office is not to build or rebuild according to what the people of these countries want, but to "create democratic and market-orientated" environment that would fit into their big plans of American goals.

Rebuilding in this sense means "tearing the old apart". These ever so fast acting reconstructors might help sell off "state-owned enterprises that create a nonviable economy". In short: Where there is deconstruction, there is a chance to grab hold of - business opportunities.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently described this as "a wonderful opportunity", that "has paid great dividends for us."

In Sri Lanka this means that for the business-politicians who seem to have a major influence in this country, the Tsunami was a secret prayer come true, as it wiped the coastal area clean - and along with it, the people who where opposing plans of mostly foreign corporations for even bigger hotels and resorts. Paranoia? But take a look: All the major - mostly western owned - hotels along the southern and western coastline have been built up already, better than before. They are "back to business" as claimed proudly on their web sites and in their catalogues. But the ordinary people have been prevented from building up again along the coastal belt by law.The stooges for the west (i.e. the Christian converts in Sri Lanka and India) will be overjoyed to serve their gawd acting through Boosh and his babble-worshipping buddies. Just like Christo converts did when Britain was lording it over India. Christo converts might imagine they have some higher purpose, but no. Let's face it, they just make good minions.

Also check out The next Tsunami coming is a religious one mentioned above. The first section is about scientology missionaries, but it's mainly about Christo missionaries (aka agents of genocide) in Sri Lanka.

10-26-2006, 03:39 PM

QUOTEAlso check out The next Tsunami coming is a religious one mentioned above. The first section is about scientology missionaries, but it's mainly about Christo missionaries (aka agents of genocide) in Sri Lanka.

And we must care why? <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/dry.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='dry.gif' />

Let's not forget, these Lankan Buddhists are as violent as Christofascists, which was amply proved during 70s when (Tamil) Hindus were murdered and raped, and generally treated like 2nd class citizens. So these buddhists and christians deserve each other. No need for a hindu to cry over this.

10-26-2006, 04:30 PM

QUOTEAnd we must care why?Â
Let's not forget, these Lankan Buddhists are as violent as Christofascists,(1) You must care about the Christo-missionary-tsunami going on there, because it is affecting the Tamil Hindus at least as much. Christian Eckert's article, though it has not discussed the affects of the missionary-tsunami on the Hindus in Lanka, still holds true for the Hindus there as well. And between the Hindu and Buddhist population, the former are worse off: a greater proportion of Hindus are being converted (often by force, other times through fraud). There are many Lankan Tamil converts now. I don't care that they are Tamil anymore, because Indian 'Tamil' Christos and Lankan 'Tamil' Christos are both the same: equally intolerant and anti-Hindu. So yes, what the Christo missionaries are doing in Sri Lanka bothers me very much.

(2) There's no meaning in lumping even those Buddhists who had nothing to do with the violence against the Hindus with all the rest. Neither Buddhism nor Hinduism has anything to do with Sri Lanka's civil war. In that way, I do care about the Buddhists (I care more about Lankan Tamil Hindus, but that's my community-bias speaking).

If all Lankan Buddhists are tainted by association - even if they have nothing to do with murder of any Hindus - just for being Buddhists, then does that mean that, by extension, Korean Buddhists deserve the Christoterror they've endured because they are Buddhists too? Buddhism has nothing to do with what Lanka's Hindus are facing. Though it's true that religion has now become an easy way to identify the two groups in Lanka: the Tamil Hindus and the Sinhalese Buddhists. (And although both are Indian by ethnicity, they've been identifying themselves by their sub-ethnicities.)

I'm not speaking out of wishful thinking here. My family has close friends from Sri Lanka: Tamil Hindu refugees who fled their land for fear of the Christo LTTE (not for fear of the Buddhists). Until I spoke to them, my sympathies were entirely with the LTTE. But I've learnt that things are not as clear cut as they appear. The LTTE is another arm of the Christoterror in Lanka.
Support the Lankan Hindus, don't support those pushing only the secular 'Tamil' label, because that is what the Christos in general and the LTTE in particular are hiding behind.

Bharatvarsh · 10-26-2006, 05:09 PM

QUOTENeither Buddhism nor Hinduism has anything to do with Sri Lanka's civil war. In that way, I do care about the Buddhists (I care more about Lankan Tamil Hindus, but that's my community-bias speaking).
Wrong, read the writings of people like Angarika Dhammapala and you will see how Buddhism has been distorted into some anti pagan crusading religion. In 1983 riots several Hindu temples were destroyed, in the 1971 war Srilanka supported Pakis, so we shouldn't forget all this in the name of sentimental slogans like "Hindu-Buddhist unity".

10-26-2006, 05:45 PM

Husky,

BharatVarsh is right. It seems to me that you have a two-point agenda:

#1 Blame Christofascists, even though others are doing the exact same thing.

#2 Justify non-christian atrocities, for the sake of 'pagan unity', whatever that means.

Which is why your worries about buddhists in korea or lanka are misplaced. Are you even aware of how these people view Vaidika Dharma? <!--emo& Sad

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /> Suffice it to say their views coincide with those of christofascits you hate so much. Why then attack chritofascists and defend those who are just as bad, if not worse? Defies logic.

You have the wrong idea that anyone who is NOT a christo/muslim must be sympathetic to Hindus and Hinduism. That's far from true. A non-muslim or non-christo cannot by default become an ally of Hindus. Only a person who knows a thing or two about Hindu religion or history, can become an ally, because he has knowledge, he's aware of what's happening to Hindus and their homeland.

I'll give you a good example from your own sig., namely Faith Freedom. Because many people over there are blasting Islam, a naive hindu may get the idea that they are allies of Hindus, as in enemy's enemy is my friend. But read some of the posts and you'll see they have neither brain or integrity, they just want an outlet for their hatred, and Islam qualifies as a splendid choice. Nothing more. The same people will attack Hinduism just as viciously (many of them have done that already, abusing hindu gods, rituals and the rest), given the chance.

Bottom line, they're bad news. They are hate-filled people, and incidentally, their hatred revolves around Islam, the keyword being "incidentally." Tomorrow, they may train their guns on Hindus, because their very nature is to hate, hate, hate. It's not as if they really care about the world being taken over by Islam, or that Islam is a cruel ideology, and so forth. They are barbarians and they need a reason to hate, it's that simple. If Islam doesn't provide an outlet for their malice, it may be Hinduism or any other "ism."

So the question is: should hindus really care about such people, just because they're anti-muslim? Obviously not, because to be pro-hindu is a totally different proposition. That requires intelligence and understanding, not the blind hatred that most of your 'allies' possess. This goes for Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains, whoever. Under the pretext of unity, we cannot consider hate-filled people as allies, or even as Hindus, for that matter. To follow Vaidika Dharma is not so easy.

Sorry if I've offended you in any way.

Regards,
Maruti

Husky · (This post was last modified: 10-27-2006, 04:24 PM by Husky.)

QUOTEWrong, read the writings of people like Angarika Dhammapala and you will see how Buddhism has been distorted into some anti pagan crusading religion. I'll try and find his writings. If that is, has been or has become the dominant Buddhist expression in Sri Lanka, then it is very dreadful.
QUOTEIn 1983 riots several Hindu temples were destroyed, in the 1971 war Srilanka supported Pakis, so we shouldn't forget all this in the name of sentimental slogans like "Hindu-Buddhist unity".In the Sri Lanka thread I was not talking about any Hindu-Buddhist unity in that country - I was trying to explain that the Hindus there need a wholly Hindu organisation representing them instead of their cause being hijacked by the LTTE and the Christos in charge of it. People get easily deceived into thinking that today, the 'Tamil' cause means the same thing as the Hindu cause. And it actually doesn't. A Hindu organisation might have more chance of succeeding in negotiating Hindu terms and could get more support from the international community to press their issue.

QUOTESo the question is: should hindus really care about such people, just because they're anti-muslim? Obviously not, because to be pro-hindu is a totally different proposition. That requires intelligence and understanding, not the blind hatred that most of your 'allies' possess. This goes for Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains, whoever. Under the pretext of unity, we cannot consider hate-filled people as allies, or even as Hindus, for that matter. To follow Vaidika Dharma is not so easy.

Sorry if I've offended you in any way.

Regards,
MarutiNot offended in the least. You're correct about many things in your post. For instance, FaithFreedom. When I first came across the site 2 years ago, I also noticed that a lot of people there were blindly bashing all religions just because Islam was a dangerous rip-off. Others were pretending Christianity is not the same as Islam, although it has all the same hallmarks. (The reason I included the FaithFreedom link is because some of the material written by Ali Sina on the Hadiths and the Koran is very informative and it's not available from other sites. Wasn't trying to advertise the site as the final word on all spirituality. Will reconsider the inclusion of the link tomorrow - or link only to the relevant page(s) thereof.)
QUOTEBecause many people over there are blasting Islam, a naive hindu may get the idea that they are allies of Hindus, There are very few ex-Islamic sites with articles exposing Islam online that are not set up by Christians, which is why I linked to FaithFreedom.

QUOTEWhich is why your worries about buddhists in korea or lanka are misplaced.Buddhists in Korea do matter to me, because I have a few Buddhists friends from Korea. I have several Buddhist and a few Taoist friends from Taiwan and China. I had a very good Shinto friend (exchange student) from Japan. They sincerely appreciate Hinduism, and I learnt a lot about their religions from them.
QUOTEbecause to be pro-hindu is a totally different proposition.They (the particular people I know) are thoroughly pro-Hindu. Hence they are allies.

I know no Sinhalese person, nor any Lankan Buddhist - only Lankan Tamil Hindus. My generalisation of Buddhism follows from what I know about Buddhists (Korea, Taiwan, China only). Admit I could be very wrong about Lanka's Buddist population, as you might know some personally to know they are anti-Hindu. It is conceivable they are more like the anti-Hindu Buddhist movements in India today (although the modern Buddhist movements in India are not Buddhist at all and I expected Sri Lankan Buddhism to be genuine).
All I know is that the Sri Lankan (Hindu, Tamil) family of my acquaintance are far more afraid of the LTTE than even the Lankan government; because the LTTE were the ones that made them refugees.
For the rest, I only got the Lankan Buddhist view of Hindus from reading articles on-line. None of them indicated a hatred of Hinduism (even if they might not consider Hinduism on an equal footing with their religion), but Bharatvarsh's suggestion proves I have not read a wide enough range.

QUOTEIt seems to me that you have a two-point agenda:
#1 Blame Christofascists, even though others are doing the exact same thing.
#2 Justify non-christian atrocities, for the sake of 'pagan unity', whatever that means.Agenda is too strong a word. I feel Indians ought to learn about ChristoIslamism before they defend it by blindly stating all religions are the same.
Your points are not exactly appropriate. There are many 'pagan' religions I do not support: like Vedism/Vedic reconstructionism or whatever it's called.

ChristoIslamics are to blame for the demise of many cultures. I keep pointing to other religions, like Shintoism and Taoism, only as an example of how other religions are not like ChristoIslamism.
Admittedly, in some cases Indian religions have taken an anti-Hindu turn thanks to the negative propaganda against Hinduism that ChristoIslamism has spent centuries creating. Hence some Sikhs today deny they had members who committed Sati and that there is caste-discrimination among their communities. Some Jain writers deny that Jainism has any relation to Hindu Dharma and strangely argue for the p-sec view (maybe they are not Jains). Modern Indian Buddhism (neo-Buddhism) is often completely anti-Hindu.
I am not defending these groups at all. But I am defending those Jains and others of India who have no anti-Hindu sentiments, and the Buddhists of Korea, China and Taiwan. Hence blaming the religions of Jainism, Buddhism and the like for being anti-Hindu is not right. There is a unity there, because they have no fundamental quarrel with us and I find I get along very well with them.

ChristoIslamism is another thing altogether: they have an in-built hatred of all other belief systems. They seek to destroy other ways of life. Regular people are totally changed when they start following ChristoIslamism, and become unbelievably intolerant. These religions house a fundamental flaw - an unwillingness to get along with anyone. Buddhism does not have that flaw - though some? many? most? Lankans who are Buddhists are persecuting Hindus.

ChristoIslamics persecute us and others because we are what we are: not christian, not muslim. Buddhism has no religious tenets saying 'behead the infidel' or 'burn the heathen'. So defending Buddhism is not wrong. It is not the same as defending ChristoIslamism. Christianity and Islam are fascist religions, because they teach and insist on destruction of all other ways of life. I have a right and am correct in accusing these religions and pointing out the zombie nature of their adherents (blaming the religions themselves for this).
There are (and have been) violent Buddhists, but Buddhism does not teach violence against peoples of other faiths. Outside of ChristoIslamism, most religions (to varying degrees) allow a certain level of freedom in using one's conscience to abandon out-of-date or objectionable teachings. This means that any sane person of these religions will opt out of meaningless violence, unless they are just naturally flawed characters.

10-27-2006, 04:22 PM

By the way, the article in post 70 of this thread (Sri Lanka is under siege) is instructive because it shows the motivations of the US in their 'pre-emptive reconstruction' of various countries (which is why I posted it in this thread, as being informative on what it might mean for India).
Missionaries are employed to achieve this. It's a new form of colonization, coming in a package we might not immediately recognise. Conversion would make the population facilitate their plans, because converts are willing to do anything to please their masters.

Bharatvarsh · 10-27-2006, 04:28 PM

Husky at the mass level there are many Hindu practices among Sinhalese including the worship of Hindu deities but there has been a section of Buddhist clergy (not all of them) that have done some anti Hindu activities, some Sinhalese (whether Buddhist or xtian) have destroyed several Hindu mandirs wilfully because they hated Tamils although it is not a religious conflict, just like the Muslims in the East have destroyed several kovils under the Muslim home guards even though LTTE did not use any religious reasons to expel them from Jaffna.

Also the lankan gov't has taken an anti Indian position (as in 1971) several times.

10-27-2006, 04:36 PM

QUOTEDo watch. Knowledge is power. Knowledge helps one to develop the correct perspective. There are many Hindus, well-meaning as they may be and are not psuedo-secular, who are completely ignorant about the extent of christianity's deceptions and misdeeds, because they have been brought up surrounded by the myths propagated generously by the christian institutions and the Indian media, including Indian movies, that portray the christian as always the good guy and the hindu as always the villian. The hindus thus lack awareness on christianity's true face. When they come over to the west, and hear for the first time the numerous cases of sexual abuses, money laundering, cheating, extortion, etc., by christian church and priests, they are extremely surprised. Such news never makes it most of the time in the Indian press. For many hindus, true education on christianity starts when they come to the west.My warning was an auto-reaction. I've gone through exposes and articles before. Made me sick to my stomach and was detrimental to my state of mind for weeks.
Knowing is good, but one pays a price for it, which we need to be aware of. But the information ought to be made compulsory for the p-secs and the people who regularly chant 'ChristoIslamism is the same as Dharma'.
The rest ought to make the choice themselves, so you're right in informing them about the program.

Husky · (This post was last modified: 10-28-2006, 05:24 AM by Husky.)

Post 81,
Just noticed the summary now. Thanks for the info.
QUOTEmany Hindu practices among Sinhalese including the worship of Hindu deitiesThat reminds me, when we stopped for a day in Thailand, on our way to India, I noticed how many Buddhist temples had statues of Brahma in front of them. Even the stopover hotel that our airline booked everyone into, had several Hindu Gods next to their Buddhist ones. I guess Thai Buddhism has a lot of Hinduism in it (even more than Buddhism further east, I mean).

Bharatvarsh · 10-28-2006, 05:59 AM

QUOTE I guess Thai Buddhism has a lot of Hinduism in it (even more than Buddhism further east, I mean). 
Yes, they worship Ganesha, every Thai Monarch is called Rama, the present monarch knows Sanskrit and can speak it, so there is a lot of Hindu influence in Thailand.

10-28-2006, 11:51 AM

QUOTEFor instance, FaithFreedom. When I first came across the site 2 years ago, I also noticed that a lot of people there were blindly bashing all religions

It's not just faithfreedom, that was just an instance i gave, because it happened to be your sig. There are plenty of sites, books and articles, where our 'allies' including sikhs, buddhists, jains bash us over and over. If these people are allies despite their hindu-bashing, one might as well consider christofascists as allies.

QUOTEI know no Sinhalese person, nor any Lankan Buddhist - only Lankan Tamil Hindus. My generalisation of Buddhism follows from what I know about Buddhists (Korea, Taiwan, China only). Admit I could be very wrong about Lanka's Buddist population,

Since you don't know, you shouldn't assume that buddhists are peace-loving, or that they're different from christofascists. One should at least admit the possibility that they're just as bad, considering their track record.

QUOTEAgenda is too strong a word. I feel Indians ought to learn about ChristoIslamism before they defend it by blindly stating all religions are the same.

Which is exactly what most of us are doing, either unknowingly or in an effort to make alliances which, sadly, never materialize. Most Hindus, who never miss an opportunity to point out differences between Vaidika Dharma and Christianity/Islam, are surprisingly quiet when it comes to understanding the irreconcilable differences that exist amongst "Indian" religions. In what way are these 'patriots' different from secularists who also chant the same mantra?

QUOTESo defending Buddhism is not wrong. It is not the same as defending ChristoIslamism.

I am afraid it is. If Buddhists, Sikhs and Jains don't have the decency to defend Hindus (or in the least, try NOT to offend hindus), why do Hindu bend over backwards to accommodate them? I find this puzzling. Have you ever come across any debate on defending hindus on a sikh/jain/buddhist forum? Impossible, because either they bash hindus or ignore them, but NEVER consider hindus as friends. But in hindu forums, including India-Forum, we are 'fighting' each other to defend those who spit on us. Amazing! Need I say more on why Hindus are getting thrashed all over the world? This is what pathetic people deserve.

Bottom line, Hindus need to focus more on how to consolidate people who call themselves hindus, rather than speculate on whether or not buddhists, sikhs or whoever are worthy of our compassion. They are determined to do without hindus, so let them handle christoislam on their own. So the question is not whether christoislam is dangerous, we all know it is. But to break one's head over what buddhists are gonna do about it is utterly pathetic. Instead, let's worry about what we're gonna do about it.

agnivayu · 10-28-2006, 08:20 PM

Thailand managed to stay semi independent from Euro-fascist colonial rule, and are not brainwashed like the Indian commies.

Husky · (This post was last modified: 10-29-2006, 05:32 AM by Husky.)

QUOTESince you don't know, you shouldn't assume that buddhists are peace-loving, or that they're different from christofascists. One should at least admit the possibility that they're just as bad, considering their track record. I said specifically that I did not know any Lankan Sinhalese or Lankan Buddhists. I know many non-Lankan Buddhists.
So I do know Buddhists and they are not 'bad' and they are nothing like Christians. No comparison.

QUOTEThere are plenty of sites, books and articles, where our 'allies' including sikhs, buddhists, jains bash us over and over. There are most definitely some Sikhs and Indian Buddhists and possibly (?) Jains who knock Hinduism. (There was a site where a 'Jain' was writing about how Hindus were communalist and only trying to unify with Jains so as to fight ChristoIslamism. The writer made at least 4 mistakes about Jainism and I got suspicious. Turns out the site was a Christian propaganda site.)
QUOTEIn what way are these 'patriots' different from secularists who also chant the same mantra?Anti-Hindu Indians are no different from the secularists. I never said they weren't. But the religions of Jainism and Buddhism (eastern Buddhism at least) are not inimical to Hindus and Hinduism at all. These religions do not advocate converting and conquering us or anyone else by force or other unethical means.

QUOTEHave you ever come across any debate on defending hindus on a sikh/jain/buddhist forum? Impossible, because either they bash hindus or ignore them, but NEVER consider hindus as friends. Then you are visiting the wrong fora. I have a Jain friend, very pro-Hindu - rather like Sandhya Jain and her family. My family had Jain neighbours in India, who insisted they were a Hindu community (even if they hadn't they would still have been on amicable terms with Hinduism). Perhaps you are going to the wrong places and forming opinions based on bad apples.
My experience with ChristoIslamism and from reading about these 2 religions is that I have yet to find good apples that are properly professing their faith.

QUOTEBottom line, Hindus need to focus more on how to consolidate people who call themselves hindus, rather than speculate on whether or not buddhists, sikhs or whoever are worthy of our compassion.Don't know Sikhs, won't speculate. I know Buddhists and Jains and all of them are very much appreciative and respectful of Hinduism and they do not do this in spite of their religion (they are very knowledgeable Buddhists and Jains). If any Jains and Buddhists you have in your circle is antagonistic to Hinduism, I am sorry. But you are making the wrong generalisation in this case.

Please show me True ChristoIslamics (that is, proper followers of their faiths) who do not at the very least think unbelievers are going to hell/jekinnah and so advocate or hope for converting Hindus and other non-ChristoIslamics.

This post won't resolve our differences, I'm sure. So guess we'll have to agree to disagree. In any case, I am not going to change my opinion on this matter.

10-29-2006, 06:29 AM

<img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/specool.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='specool.gif' /> In addition to what Husky has said:
Jains:
For the 1st time, I, ever, came to know that Jains are different, was when SC refused to declare them minority.
Recently, Gujrat Govt has included them amongst Hindus (incidentally that includes Budhists also) and my guess is that they can't prove themselves as not being Hindus. At the best, u can call them a sect of Hinduism who don't believe in reincarnation. And let me tell u point blank that I, too, don't believe in reincarnation.
Sikhs:
The only period when Sikhism went astray was during extremism of '80s. And that too was misled by foreign sikhs. As many of u might be aware that Prez of SGPC is:
VEDANTI
Otherwise Sikhism's foundation is known as:
Hindu Dharam di rakhia layi Sikh Dharam banaya.

Bharatvarsh · 10-29-2006, 07:48 AM

QUOTEOtherwise Sikhism's foundation is known as:
Hindu Dharam di rakhia layi Sikh Dharam banaya. 
This is rubbish, no Sikh I know accepts this, in judging a religion we should go by what it's followers and scriptures say and there is no evidence to support this idea in Sikh scriptures or history at all.

Guru Nanak is known as the founder of the Panth and he certainly did not do any fighting, he was more of a saint, the main reason that the Mughal empire crumbled was because of Maratha (Hindu) efforts.

Anyway why are Hindus obsessed with Sikhs and in proving them as Hindus when they deny such things, it makes Hindus look like a bunch of clowns, we should be concentrating on our community, not bothering with people who don't want to call themselves Hindus.

Login




Remember me Lost Password?