Post 23 (Bodhi):
Agree with all your points.
Not sure what we can do about the media, though. The main English-language papers are purposefully lying all the time. No journalistic outlet could get all the information wrong all of the time precisely when it concerned Hindus. It points to a wilful smear and disinformation campaign.
Hindus need to set up more media outlets (in English too) that report only the truth, whatever the truth might be - as long as it is verified and is not manufactured 'fact' (the kind the unreliable newspapers like to bandy around).
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Traditionally, and I consider it a strength and not really a weakness, not ever Hindu was supposed to be very religious.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
About your point (d), I agree. Though there are philosophical differences, they never created an insurmountable disagreement like doctrinal differences do in christoislamism. We've all generally accepted the differences between the Dharmic religions. Differences exist in all things in the world, so too in spiritual paths, so that has been fine with all of us.
The animosity we see on-line today has been created by the meddlesome colonials and missionaries and the untruths in history books. The colonials needed to project internal enemies to foster division and take focus away from their own activities, the missionaries need(ed) it for their divide-and-conquer routine, the history books need it to malign Hinduism and instill guilt about non-historical events.
Concering (f), Hinduism needs to be well-organised. Not a hallmark of old religions, I'm afraid. Old religions are a personal matter and not businesses or organisations, that's why this is going to problematic. We need to approach it differently. Hinduism itself ought not to be changed, of course, but our way of dealing with the problem of christoislamism (which is highly organised) has to change. Like you said, organised shuddhi movements are essential.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Also let us study how Japan avoided getting converted.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Yes. I think one of the factors was that they knew a thing or two about war tactics, that's why they instantly recognised christianism's attempts at cultural domination.
If you speak to Japanese today, many dislike christianism still. They know it very well, even though they haven't had christian friends. We have a lot to learn from them.
Agree with all your points.
Not sure what we can do about the media, though. The main English-language papers are purposefully lying all the time. No journalistic outlet could get all the information wrong all of the time precisely when it concerned Hindus. It points to a wilful smear and disinformation campaign.
Hindus need to set up more media outlets (in English too) that report only the truth, whatever the truth might be - as long as it is verified and is not manufactured 'fact' (the kind the unreliable newspapers like to bandy around).
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Traditionally, and I consider it a strength and not really a weakness, not ever Hindu was supposed to be very religious.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> About your point (d), I agree. Though there are philosophical differences, they never created an insurmountable disagreement like doctrinal differences do in christoislamism. We've all generally accepted the differences between the Dharmic religions. Differences exist in all things in the world, so too in spiritual paths, so that has been fine with all of us.
The animosity we see on-line today has been created by the meddlesome colonials and missionaries and the untruths in history books. The colonials needed to project internal enemies to foster division and take focus away from their own activities, the missionaries need(ed) it for their divide-and-conquer routine, the history books need it to malign Hinduism and instill guilt about non-historical events.
Concering (f), Hinduism needs to be well-organised. Not a hallmark of old religions, I'm afraid. Old religions are a personal matter and not businesses or organisations, that's why this is going to problematic. We need to approach it differently. Hinduism itself ought not to be changed, of course, but our way of dealing with the problem of christoislamism (which is highly organised) has to change. Like you said, organised shuddhi movements are essential.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Also let us study how Japan avoided getting converted.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Yes. I think one of the factors was that they knew a thing or two about war tactics, that's why they instantly recognised christianism's attempts at cultural domination.
If you speak to Japanese today, many dislike christianism still. They know it very well, even though they haven't had christian friends. We have a lot to learn from them.