<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Wrong, read the writings of people like Angarika Dhammapala and you will see how Buddhism has been distorted into some anti pagan crusading religion. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->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.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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".<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->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.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Not 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.)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Because many people over there are blasting Islam, a naive hindu may get the idea that they are allies of Hindus, <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->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.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Which is why your worries about buddhists in korea or lanka are misplaced.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->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.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->because to be pro-hindu is a totally different proposition.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->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.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->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 <i>are</i> 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 <i>not</i> 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.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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".<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->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.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Not 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.)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Because many people over there are blasting Islam, a naive hindu may get the idea that they are allies of Hindus, <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->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.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Which is why your worries about buddhists in korea or lanka are misplaced.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->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.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->because to be pro-hindu is a totally different proposition.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->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.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->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 <i>are</i> 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 <i>not</i> 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.