Should Hindus Confront Western Politics In Eastern Religions

[brag]

It seems like for political reasons all followers of Christ are lumped together and referred to as Christians even when some are not the original protestants of the original teachings of Christ.

Not all followers of the Vedic teachings are called Hindus or Sanathanist Hindus. The other Aryan religions or offshoots of the Vedic religion, Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs are never referred to as Hindus or Sanathist Hindus even though the Vedas are the foundation of their beliefs.

Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs can also be called Protestant Hindus since they protested some of the Vedic teachings and founded their own religions on the original Vedic teachings.

[Babygirl]

Well that's an interesting perspective. On one of the religious forums I'm on they are grouped under "Dharmic Religions." :) It would make sense to call them "Protestant Hindus" just like "Protestant Christians" but Christianity came afterwards so the terminology couldn't be borrowed. Perhaps we all follow Sanathan Dharma itself...the Eternal Truth...the Eternal Religion. :)

[Amelia]

I'm assuming that the labels were ascribed based on the fact of some commonality. As well as ignorance/disinterest. Perhaps the 'offshoots' of hinduism sought to identify themselves by a different name and the westerners, not knowing enough of any to know that there is a common basis in all, cannot connect the dots to label generally as they do christianity. Or maybe the ignorance/disinterest works the other way - that they dont care enough to learn what distinguishes one christian belief from another so they just lump them all together beased on the Christ commonality.

Either way, to answer your question, no, I dont believe confrontation is nec. What would we be confronting to achieve? - that we all be identified collectively as hindus? Wouldnt that be a step backwards? It is good that the world knows that there are subtle differences in eastern phlosophies and religions. Isnt that in itself part of hinduism? That there are many paths to God? So recognition of the fact of these varied paths is a step in the right direction.

[mammadon]

How did the different sects of Hinduism come about then?

[brag]

The differences may have come about perhaps in the same way they came about in Christianity. One learned man who later became a saint and the leader of a new movement differed with what he read in the Vedas, the original scriptures of Hinduism. He challenged some of the teachings because he said it was not truth. Some did not believe that the rituals so common in Hinduism were necessary for liberation from the cycle of birth and death, so they dispensed with many of them, and kept what they believed were helpful.

[brag]

The politics of numbers in religion have been in use for ages and can have much influence on many in the same way they do in politics. While the reality of numbers can be used to paint a true picture of what numbers depict, they can also be manipulated conveniently to produce an outcome that can be a distortion of the reality of the true and whole story.

[guyguy]

brag,
I thought Hindus, and by extension, Hinduism, was non-confrontational. Didn't Mahatma Ghandi lead a nation to independence whose core belief/tenet was non-confrontation? Christians, by definition and historically, are those that follow the teachings of Christ - not the Bible, per se, but the teachings of Jesus. Therefore, Catholics & Protestants are still Christians. Protestants, along with other things, just don't believe in the infallibility of the Pope nor the belief that someone can be designated a Saint through an edict of a man or religious body.

[brag]

Oh boy guy, no the confrontation I am speaking about is not the same as initiating violence, but initiating challenges to how numbers are reported and what they mean in the overall picture being reported. Many wonderful debates are nothing but confrontational and educational. The present national debates are examples of confrontation about the political, social and economic climate, the facts and truths. Mahatma Gandhi was a staunch believer in confrontation of another kind, but he did not go far enough in confronting the partition of India.

Historically, it was the Kshatriya (chathree) class of Hindus who lead other Hindus to learn self protection and the protection of Indians/Hindus from the invaders. As Mrs Rajan said in the Youtube presentation about subverting the Hindu mind which I posted, the Kshatriya spirit (spirit of defense) in Hindus have almost disappeared. The whole world is considered by Hindus to be one family (Vasudeva Kutumbakam), and yet one has to be sure that one is not trying to eliminate charactestics that make everyone a unique individual that enriches the diversity.

Indians/Hindus have been induced/seduced into accepting a characterization that falsely labels them as historically non confrontational, non violent, always accommodating and tolerant in attitudes. This characterization makes them the highest, most noble and most admired people for tolerance. To be non-tolerant would be a damage to the Indian/Hindu psyche, and Indians/Hindus will be losing everything their religion stands for, while at the same time everything they stand for is being destroyed by "intellectual subversion".

To me, tolerance is a piece of self imposed lack of will that is a substitute for fear of another fifteen hundred more years of slavery of Indians/Hindus by foreigners. It speaks more about historical trauma than anything else, and which has left Indians/Hindus an almost emasculated people, lacking in greater will to confront those who now take and those who took advantage of them and now show pleasure in accepting them as tolerant as doormats.

Indian Hindus have allowed themselves to be "stuck" with the label "tote rant" and they seem not to know what to do about it, and how to shake off this label that gives them a certain amount of pride in themselves. But it has slave implications, and the pay off in disrobing themselves of it has to be studied well before they can be prepared to move on and accommodate another kind of characterization for years to come.

Peace, prosperity and non violence do not include allowing everyone to walk all over you, and it certainly does not exclude initiating aggressive means for preserving self respect and self protection of people, land, culture, religion, etc. Wars are ugly, but the ugliness of chronic injustices are worse and which must not be allowed to go unchecked for years. The Mahabharata war was deferred for fourteen long years of negotiations before it came to a head on by Krishna's advocacy for dealing with the injustices to people by those with the power to prolong miseries and injustices.

[guyguy]

Well, the Mahatma did preach non-violent confrontation! On the other hand, I disagree that Indians/Hindus are accepting of the characterization and practise of non-violence. Recent events, just a couple of weeks ago in India demonstrate this lack of tolerance as Hindus forced Christians to renounce their religion and convert to Hinduism or else, they'sd be killed and their property destroyed. Even the Hindus are hypocrites!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oc ... y-hinduism (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/19/orissa-violence-india-christianity-hinduism)

[brag]

The behaviors of a few do not characterize the whole. But I would want to see the details of the report and the full investigation before I accept what I read as true.

The cause of the train fire in the investiagation of the Gugerat riots a few years ago were found to be a deliberate provocation by bottle flames thrown into the train in protest of the trip by some Gugeratis to Ayodya. The uncontrolled angry reactions of some people in one state is not an excuse for the deaths of hundreds of innocent people.

Such flare ups cannot be described as a characteristic of a whole nation comprising of 85% Hindus. It came as a great surprise to many around the world since Hindus are known for patience and tolerance, and tolerant they are up to a certain point, I suppose. But the emotions of people cannot be taken for granted, and once they are provoked over time anything can be expected, even to discredit their character.

[guyguy]

The behaviors of a few do not characterize the whole. But I would want to see the details of the report and the full investigation before I accept what I read as true.

The cause of the train fire in the investiagation of the Gugerat riots a few years ago were found to be a deliberate provocation by bottle flames thrown into the train in protest of the trip by some Gugeratis to Ayodya. The uncontrolled angry reactions of some people in one state is not an excuse for the deaths of hundreds of innocent people.

Such flare ups cannot be described as a characteristic of a whole nation comprising of 85% Hindus. It came as a great surprise to many around the world since Hindus are known for patience and tolerance, and tolerant they are up to a certain point, I suppose. But the emotions of people cannot be taken for granted, and once they are provoked over time anything can be expected, even to discredit their character.
brag,
I'm certain that if I expended the effort and take the time necessary I could provide incontrovertible proof that throughout India, in every State, and even from the days when India comprised of fiefdoms, that there existed and still exists intolerant and extremely violent Hindus. So, shall we just leave it at that and agree that in every single religion since time immemorial, there have been those that were intolerant and violent along with others that were tolerant and non-violent? The point is that the tolerant and non-violent "badge of honor" is not unique to Hindus and/or Hinduism.

[brag]

Intolerant Hindus and criminal Hindus do not make the historical Hindu ethos (non violence and peaceful coexistence) intolerant and criminal. When people discuss criminal activities in the context of a religion it is obvious that another agenda is at play. No one doubts that extremist Hindus like extremist Muslims and Christians are minorities in the larger society, but no one should go around insinuating that the religion is itself promoting such extremism.

[guyguy]

Intolerant Hindus and criminal Hindus do not make the historical Hindu ethos (non violence and peaceful coexistence) intolerant and criminal. When people discuss criminal activities in the context of a religion it is obvious that another agenda is at play. No one doubts that extremist Hindus like extremist Muslims and Christians are minorities in the larger society, but no one should go around insinuating that the religion is itself promoting such extremism.
brag,
One of the basic tenets of all religions is The Golden Rule in some form or fashion. Therefore, all religions preach peace toward others, goodwill to all men, live in harmony, help those that are less fortunate, belief in a supreme being, and the list goes on. So Historical Hindu ethos such as tolerance and non-violence are not unique to Hinduism nor Christianity nor Mohommedanism, nor any other religion. Similarly, extremists and violent people belong to all religions. To try and persuade me that tolerance and non-violence is unique to Hinduism is preposterous and pure folly.

[brag]

Perhaps you have not noticed that I am seldom interested in persuading anyone of anything. However, when I know or believe that one may be false in their presentation, misinformed or misleading, I feel a sense of duty to point that out or present another point of view when I think it is important to do so. You may want to reflect on how you now moved from what seems like a misleading agenda to a red herring.