PDA

View Full Version : this is what happens when you give room for people



Kumar_Das
10 June 2010, 03:21 AM
edited

Avazjan
10 June 2010, 05:31 AM
Then that's what happens.

Do you feel this affects your own sadhana?

Kumar_Das
10 June 2010, 06:15 AM
edited out

Avazjan
10 June 2010, 07:27 AM
no i think these little... should be deported back to the middle east where they belong and let the muslims deal with them.

give them leeway what happens? they start their nonsense with the very people who accepted them as refugees.

Their religion tells them it's okay. Your interpretation of your own tells you it's not okay, and that you need to act against them and their religion.

I'm sorry to say that both pursuits are empty of purpose.

Warring against the encroachment of another religion will not help either your religion, or the people who subscribe to it one iota, in fact it will injure both. It is contrary to the spirit of the dharma to act in such a reactive fashion.

Not one person will be brought closer to God by trying to combat these imaginary, paranoiac forces made manifest to you through the guise of other religions and their converters stealing those you have falsely identified as your flock.

The problem lies not in the other religion, and the other groups, in lies within us. It is due to the state of poverty - material poverty, intellectual poverty, moral poverty and spiritual poverty, that people trade the great wealth of sanatana dharma for counterfeits. It is entirely the responsibility of India and Indians that India. It may not be India's fault, but it is India's responsibility. Nobody else will, or is capable of, repairing India other than Indians. Indians must take responsibility for all of the wretchedness in India because that responsibility is synonymous with the motive power to make the necessary changes.

If you really want to do something about this problem, rather than getting upset (which does nothing but destroys your own peace of mind, which is essential to meditative praxis), and acting out against perceived aggressors, work to deliver the people of India of their burden of delusive suffering by relieving them of all forms of poverty.

Do we really think a prosperous, educated, smoothly-functioning India will fall prey to any sort of conversion efforts by mlecchas?

What matters is that the actual dharma is taught as completely as possible, and subdivided into different paths to suit different kinds of people, from different cultural, personal and karmic backgrounds. These people feel they are promulgating a universalized path, but the content of that path betrays it as bereft of the vast majority of true teachings. Anyone with any knowledge whatsoever of these true teachings, that is to say anyone educated in sanatana dharma, knows better than to abandon them for cheap imitations found elsewhere. Knowledge is useless without practice, so if these persons who are educated in sanatana dharma, but do not practice the dharma, become converts, then nothing of value is being lost to the dharma.

Your two strategies here are to act against those who convert people from sanatana dharma to inferior religions with xenophobia, and to establish only more false barriers, or to instead correct the conditions which allow this to happen. Poverty.

Doing the former is a betrayal of fundamental principles of the Dharma. Doing the latter is service to it, and upholds it both in yourself and the world.

It is not the amount of practitioners that lends value to dharma. It is dharma that gives us all value.

It is not the cultural imprimatur that matters, it is the teachings, and their assembly into a coherent lens through which the jivatman sees the light and the void, and the shakti which constitutes ahamkara instead transmutes into kundalini.

I'm aware that there is a popular train of thought, more like a bandwagon, that people get on, that is xenophobic in nature and vigorously stakes its claims to physical, spiritual, and existential 'territory.'

It fears that if it gives any ground, allows any other entity to become manifest in itself, that entity will parasitize it, because all other entities are inherently enemies.

The territory it claims is mapped by projections of the ego. Its atomic element is the separation felt by the individual from his environment. The individual is the building block of all forms of inequality, injustice, tyranny, etc. All of this is experienced and enacted due to the ego's sense of separation. Ahamkara is like a cell membrane veiling itself. Hiding from the rest of reality, and indeed even hiding from its internal self. As defense mechanisms, it enacts the entire play of existential insecurity. These manifest in society as disparate individuals united against common adversaries. It is a system entirely built on a monstrous myth of a boogey man, and that is the nature of our own egos.

The problem with this is that it makes you lose sight of face of god, as it is presented to we who are individuals. That face is the oneness of all things, of all groups, of all individuals. Establishing this oneness in the consciousness of the sadhaka, or in the world at large, is not accomplished through divisive, biased partisanship.

Too long, didn't read version is: don't worry about it, unless you're going to devote service to solving this problem by giving material succor and spiritual knowledge to others, particularly Indians. You won't benefit anyone else with aggressive actions.

Riverwolf
12 June 2010, 12:24 PM
I'm somewhat reminded of a story I heard that I think was in the Mahabharata, about the family who sacrificed their lives so that a starving guest could eat for the day.

TatTvamAsi
13 June 2010, 12:16 PM
Their religion tells them it's okay. Your interpretation of your own tells you it's not okay, and that you need to act against them and their religion.

I'm sorry to say that both pursuits are empty of purpose.

Warring against the encroachment of another religion will not help either your religion, or the people who subscribe to it one iota, in fact it will injure both. It is contrary to the spirit of the dharma to act in such a reactive fashion.

Not one person will be brought closer to God by trying to combat these imaginary, paranoiac forces made manifest to you through the guise of other religions and their converters stealing those you have falsely identified as your flock.

The problem lies not in the other religion, and the other groups, in lies within us. It is due to the state of poverty - material poverty, intellectual poverty, moral poverty and spiritual poverty, that people trade the great wealth of sanatana dharma for counterfeits. It is entirely the responsibility of India and Indians that India. It may not be India's fault, but it is India's responsibility. Nobody else will, or is capable of, repairing India other than Indians. Indians must take responsibility for all of the wretchedness in India because that responsibility is synonymous with the motive power to make the necessary changes.

If you really want to do something about this problem, rather than getting upset (which does nothing but destroys your own peace of mind, which is essential to meditative praxis), and acting out against perceived aggressors, work to deliver the people of India of their burden of delusive suffering by relieving them of all forms of poverty.

Do we really think a prosperous, educated, smoothly-functioning India will fall prey to any sort of conversion efforts by mlecchas?

What matters is that the actual dharma is taught as completely as possible, and subdivided into different paths to suit different kinds of people, from different cultural, personal and karmic backgrounds. These people feel they are promulgating a universalized path, but the content of that path betrays it as bereft of the vast majority of true teachings. Anyone with any knowledge whatsoever of these true teachings, that is to say anyone educated in sanatana dharma, knows better than to abandon them for cheap imitations found elsewhere. Knowledge is useless without practice, so if these persons who are educated in sanatana dharma, but do not practice the dharma, become converts, then nothing of value is being lost to the dharma.

Your two strategies here are to act against those who convert people from sanatana dharma to inferior religions with xenophobia, and to establish only more false barriers, or to instead correct the conditions which allow this to happen. Poverty.

Doing the former is a betrayal of fundamental principles of the Dharma. Doing the latter is service to it, and upholds it both in yourself and the world.

It is not the amount of practitioners that lends value to dharma. It is dharma that gives us all value.

It is not the cultural imprimatur that matters, it is the teachings, and their assembly into a coherent lens through which the jivatman sees the light and the void, and the shakti which constitutes ahamkara instead transmutes into kundalini.

I'm aware that there is a popular train of thought, more like a bandwagon, that people get on, that is xenophobic in nature and vigorously stakes its claims to physical, spiritual, and existential 'territory.'

It fears that if it gives any ground, allows any other entity to become manifest in itself, that entity will parasitize it, because all other entities are inherently enemies.

The territory it claims is mapped by projections of the ego. Its atomic element is the separation felt by the individual from his environment. The individual is the building block of all forms of inequality, injustice, tyranny, etc. All of this is experienced and enacted due to the ego's sense of separation. Ahamkara is like a cell membrane veiling itself. Hiding from the rest of reality, and indeed even hiding from its internal self. As defense mechanisms, it enacts the entire play of existential insecurity. These manifest in society as disparate individuals united against common adversaries. It is a system entirely built on a monstrous myth of a boogey man, and that is the nature of our own egos.

The problem with this is that it makes you lose sight of face of god, as it is presented to we who are individuals. That face is the oneness of all things, of all groups, of all individuals. Establishing this oneness in the consciousness of the sadhaka, or in the world at large, is not accomplished through divisive, biased partisanship.

Too long, didn't read version is: don't worry about it, unless you're going to devote service to solving this problem by giving material succor and spiritual knowledge to others, particularly Indians. You won't benefit anyone else with aggressive actions.

This type of garbled nonsense is the stepping stone to self-destruction and annihilation. Obviously, it comes from an outsider who is neither Hindu nor Indian; completely oblivious to the tribulations of Hindus in the motherland.

Half-knowledge of anything is more dangerous than complete ignorance. It is analogous to the US preaching to India about retaliation while it has systematically murdered hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq & Afghanistan because of some fire in a building. People who neither understand philosophy nor action are surely quick to give advice to others.

These are the types of "people" that should be disbarred from learning Hinduism altogether. Vivekananda, Yogananda, Mahesh Yogi have done tremendous harm in taking Hinduism to the west. Throwing pearl before swine is sure to bring about trouble for Hindus.

Regarding the original topic, if Bahai's are engaging in forceful and deceitful conversions, they should be arrested, jailed, beaten, and then deported in a can. Knowing these troublemakers' intentions and goals, we Hindus need to become assertive and act.

JAI HIND!

Ramakrishna
13 June 2010, 10:35 PM
Regarding the original topic, if Bahai's are engaging in forceful and deceitful conversions, they should be arrested, jailed, beaten, and then deported in a can. Knowing these troublemakers' intentions and goals, we Hindus need to become assertive and act.


Namaste,

I agree, although not with the beating part. Using deceit and doing anything to incorporate Hinduism into your own religion to convert Indians is just wrong. I just think all missionaries from any religion should now be banned from India. I suppose I don't have a problem if missionaries are honestly preaching their religion and giving the Indians a choice of whether or not to convert. But unfortunately it seems that the majority of missionaries now are using lies, deceit, and incorporating Hinduism into their own religion just for the sake of converting Hindus. They must be stopped. I have seen and read about a lot of the garbage that Christian missionaries are doing in India, and I thought it was just Christians being Christians. But now, I seriously believe that all missionaries from all religions should be banned from India. They have already done enough damage to the bastion of Sanatana Dharma.

Jai Sri Krishna

Odion
14 June 2010, 02:50 AM
Using deceit and doing anything to incorporate Hinduism into your own religion to convert Indians is just wrong.

Mmm, I know a Bahá'í, so I'd like to explain a few things, since this seems to be misunderstood. Not defending them, or anything, but I would like to clear up a few possible misunderstandings (not necessarily you, Ramakrishna, but for anyone who may be reading) here.

They do believe Krishna and Buddha are "manifestations of God" - they aren't deliberately adding it to gain Hindu convert (like what some Christians and Muslims may do, adding Krishna as a prophet of Christianity or something). Pointing it out to gain converts, maybe, but it was already in their faith to begin with.

They also believe Bahá'ulláh is the Kalki Avatar - not only the Kalki Avatar, but also the Mahdi (and Third Imam, and return of Isa) of Islam, the Second Coming of Jesus of Christianity, the Messiah-figure of Zoroastrianism, he whom God shall make manifest of Bábism (the forerunner religion of Bahá'í), AND the Maitreya Buddha. :rolleyes: Very cute - literally, he is supposed to be the expected figure of all the main religions.

They believe all religions are through progressive revelation, which is why the religions are different, yet still from the same deity - so naturally, anyone important from a religion before his, also comes from God as a messenger within their theology. What kind of an off days their version of God had when he started with Islam, Christianity, Judaism etc I don't know. :D

They have a large tendency to homogenise their religion to fit the culture they are in, even down to the way they pray.

Oh, and it has a cultish feel to it.



I just think all missionaries from any religion should now be banned from India. I suppose I don't have a problem if missionaries are honestly preaching their religion and giving the Indians a choice of whether or not to convert. But unfortunately it seems that the majority of missionaries now are using lies, deceit, and incorporating Hinduism into their own religion just for the sake of converting Hindus.
Sounds good to me, but how would that be put into practise? Especially, how could that be done against like say Zakir Naik or any of the Christian-Indian preachers (I don't know any by name), without them using the martyr card?

Ramakrishna
14 June 2010, 10:02 PM
Namaste Odion,



They also believe Bahá'ulláh is the Kalki Avatar - not only the Kalki Avatar, but also the Mahdi (and Third Imam, and return of Isa) of Islam, the Second Coming of Jesus of Christianity, the Messiah-figure of Zoroastrianism, he whom God shall make manifest of Bábism (the forerunner religion of Bahá'í), AND the Maitreya Buddha. :rolleyes: Very cute - literally, he is supposed to be the expected figure of all the main religions.

I don't understand how they could believe Bahá'ulláh to be all those things. It really makes no sense at all. He didn't fulfill the things that were prophesied of those figures.




Sounds good to me, but how would that be put into practise? Especially, how could that be done against like say Zakir Naik or any of the Christian-Indian preachers (I don't know any by name), without them using the martyr card?

You raise a good point. All foreign missionaries should definitely be banned, but I don't know what could be done with Indian Christian missionaries. I suppose they will just have to stay. But then Christians will just start recruiting more Indians to go become missionaries in their homeland. They will never fully be stopped, but at least the damage can be minimized.

Jai Sri Krishna

Eastern Mind
15 June 2010, 07:34 AM
Vannakkam:

I think what they need to ban is proseltysing regardless of nationality. You could ban importing of foreign money designated for church building. You can easily ban any distribution of pamphlets, and signs. You can also ban conversion. At the very least require a long government red tape form that proves sincerity, and has to be signed by 25 friends and relatives in order to be valid. That might stop the destruction of the family from it.

Aum Namasivaya

amith vikram
16 June 2010, 01:31 AM
but the big question is,who will bell the cat?nothing has happened in india from past so many years other than loots and tragedies.even in a 'democratic' world,great leaders like indira gandhi and lal bahadur shastri tried to do something honestly.but what happened in the end?shastri was poisoned and indira was shot and the country came under an italian(mafiotso?).india desperately needs another chanakya...............

Odion
17 June 2010, 06:07 AM
I don't understand how they could believe Bahá'ulláh to be all those things. It really makes no sense at all. He didn't fulfill the things that were prophesied of those figures.
Haha, me either. :D

However, people can be talked into many things; there are people who believe really Rael spoke to the god of the Abrahamic religions, who is actually an alien and wants free love across the world (what made him change his mind from 'stone the adulterer' to 'don't get married and enjoy free love, I have no idea :D).

I think it's something about their charisma, it leads people to believe them. Many famous cults have charismatic leaders. Jim Jones, David Koresh... etc.

BryonMorrigan
17 June 2010, 01:06 PM
Regarding the original topic, if Bahai's are engaging in forceful and deceitful conversions, they should be arrested, jailed, beaten, and then deported in a can.

W00T! If anyone is engaging in forceful and deceitful conversions, regardless of their religion or the country that they are doing the conversions in, then they should be arrested, jailed, beaten, and then deported in a can. :D


All foreign missionaries should definitely be banned, but I don't know what could be done with Indian Christian missionaries. I suppose they will just have to stay. But then Christians will just start recruiting more Indians to go become missionaries in their homeland. They will never fully be stopped, but at least the damage can be minimized.


I think what they need to ban is proseltysing regardless of nationality. You could ban importing of foreign money designated for church building. You can easily ban any distribution of pamphlets, and signs. You can also ban conversion. At the very least require a long government red tape form that proves sincerity, and has to be signed by 25 friends and relatives in order to be valid. That might stop the destruction of the family from it.

I'm not gonna tell the Indian people what to do in their own country. All I can do, as someone who has studied history a lot, is present my opinions based on my study of history.

Christianity feeds on martyrdom, distorts history and religion, and uses force and coercion to gain strength. In every case of Christianity becoming more prevalent in a society, these aspects are always present. (Though, like the Muslims in India, they do their best to distort the historical record of their atrocities...) I will address these 3 major points and discuss how I think is the best way to deal with each one.

1. Martyrdom. Whenever you strike hard against the Christians, they always claim to be the victim. If you saw a Christian beating someone up, and you stopped them from killing the person, the Christian would probably claim that you were "violating their religious freedom." If Christian terrorists kill 100 Indians, they will never be called "Christian," and people will shrug, and say, "Oh, those bad old Communists..." but if a single Christian is murdered, then it is an atrocity committed by "Hindu Terrorists." The trick is to make them "martyr" themselves. I will explain further as we go.

2. Distorting History and Religion. This is an extremely powerful tool in their arsenal. They exploit the suffering of the poor, and claim that their situation is due to Hinduism. They always say how horrible Hinduism is because of the Caste System, but never mention the atrocities caused by Christianity. And anyone who doesn't believe that Christianity had a "Caste System" up until recently, really needs to read their medieval and early modern history. I would venture to argue that the average people of the peasant class in medieval England suffered far worse under the noble class than any Dalit ever did. And even internally, Christians have been fighting and killing each other over their interpretations of scripture for 2000 years. Compared to the history of Hinduism, it's amazing that Christians have reinterpreted history to make themselves appear as the "bringers of peace and justice," when they are nothing of the sort.

They change history to suit whoever they are conquering. In the Dark Ages, when they were trying to convert the Vikings (Often by beheading thousands of people or launching a Crusade *) they created a version of the Bible where Jesus was this conquering warrior, so that he would seem more "palatable" to the Norsemen, who viewed battlefield prowess as more important than charity. So, to the Dalits, Jesus is a kind man who gives them things, and to the Vikings, he's a bloodthirsty war-hero. They change their scriptures to suit whoever they are conquering.

3. Using Force and Coercion. And speaking of force and coercion, make sure that you remember that Christianity never spread anywhere in the ancient world unless the government (usually Rome) was threatening people with death if they didn't convert. And yet, many modern Christians complain about Islam being a "religion of the sword," not even realizing or admitting to themselves that Christianity is every bit as violent as Islam ever was.

My Solution:

Step one is education! Chances are, most of the people reading this don't even know the bloody history of Christianity. Heck, most CHRISTIANS don't know anything about it, either. They demonize other religions, but have no clue about the atrocities committed in Jesus's name, or dismiss it as "Not Real Christianity" or something. Hindus, often being non-confrontational or pacifistic on these matters, are an easy target. It's like Christianity is a con-artist, and India is the nice old lady who likes to believe the best about people. Heck, a great deal of people in the West think Mahatma Gandhi was a CHRISTIAN. An ignorant society is an easily-controlled society. Emperor Constantine I knew this, and that is why he, a Pagan, made Christianity the official state religion of the Roman Empire. He knew it would allow him to control people far more easily than under the Religio Romana.

Step two is ridicule! Yes, ridicule! It's the one major weakness that Christianity has in the modern world, and it's working wonders in the West. It's easy to make fun of, because it's a ridiculous belief system. Laugh in their faces.

Step three is pro-Hinduism! I think if more celebrities, whether in sports, music, movies, or whatever, were more open about their Hindu beliefs, you'd see a much greater strengthening of Hindu solidarity. Christians do this all the time. In a pluralistic society, it is good to be reminded of who is on your "team," especially for young people who often look up to celebrities as role models.

Step four is language! Language is POWERFUL. Don't say "God" when you mean Brahman, Vishnu, Shiva, Kali, or whatever. Muslims don't say "God" even though they are praying to the same Abrahamic deity as the Christians and Jews. You say "God" as a singular in English, and you are playing the game by THEIR rules.

______________________________________________________________

(*) Most people have never heard of the Massacre of Verden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_Verden), when 4000 Pagan Saxons were beheaded because they would not convert to Christianity, or the "Northern Crusades (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Crusades)" in Scandinavia, designed to root out all remaining Norse resistance to Christianity. This is how Christianity conquered Europe...as brutally as anything the Muslims did.

Sahasranama
17 June 2010, 04:19 PM
Good post, bryon.



They change history to suit whoever they are conquering. In the Dark Ages, when they were trying to convert the Vikings (Often by beheading thousands of people or launching a Crusade *) they created a version of the Bible where Jesus was this conquering warrior, so that he would seem more "palatable" to the Norsemen, who viewed battlefield prowess as more important than charity. So, to the Dalits, Jesus is a kind man who gives them things, and to the Vikings, he's a bloodthirsty war-hero. They change their scriptures to suit whoever they are conquering.

And now Jesus has become a meditating yogi who travelled to India who is being compared to Krishna.


Step four is language! Language is POWERFUL. Don't say "God" when you mean Brahman, Vishnu, Shiva, Kali, or whatever. Muslims don't say "God" even though they are praying to the same Abrahamic deity as the Christians and Jews. You say "God" as a singular in English, and you are playing the game by THEIR rules.

Good point, we should use Ishvara, Bhagavan or Paramatma for example.

Riverwolf
17 June 2010, 05:35 PM
Guess I'm the only Universalist Hindu here... :(

Eastern Mind
17 June 2010, 07:23 PM
Guess I'm the only Universalist Hindu here... :(

Vannakam Riverwolf;

One way to look at it is if somebody claims to be a universalist, then they are most likely Hindu, because Hinduism is the only faith that doesn't claim to be the ONLY way. No self-respecting Abrahamic would have many universalist leanings.

If you want to look into it deeper, search for radical universalism, and you'll discover the point of view of why many Hindus are against it.

For me personally, I love mankind, but I see absolutely no need beyond my Dear Saivism, as it contains everything I would ever need spiritually. Tolerance is far far different from acceptance or taking on the belief system. There are plenty of somewhat universalists here like the ones who view Christ as a real being, unlike me.

@Bryon: Yes, we need to do all that and more. My name is a conversation starter for me. You would not believe how many times I get asked and I stand tall when I say 'Murugan. Hindus have this silly body language of slouching when they say they're Hindu.

Aum Namasivaya

Riverwolf
17 June 2010, 09:54 PM
Vannakam Riverwolf;

One way to look at it is if somebody claims to be a universalist, then they are most likely Hindu, because Hinduism is the only faith that doesn't claim to be the ONLY way. No self-respecting Abrahamic would have many universalist leanings.

You'd be surprised...


If you want to look into it deeper, search for radical universalism, and you'll discover the point of view of why many Hindus are against it.

I think you mean the idea that everybody is equally right. I do not believe that. However, I do believe that Dharma isn't limited to any religion, and that most religions just teach Dharma, at least pieces of it, using different words. Distortion is present in most of them, however.


For me personally, I love mankind, but I see absolutely no need beyond my Dear Saivism, as it contains everything I would ever need spiritually. Tolerance is far far different from acceptance or taking on the belief system. There are plenty of somewhat universalists here like the ones who view Christ as a real being, unlike me.


Well, I'm one of those. ^_^ After all, Christ isn't like the fundies.

atanu
18 June 2010, 01:05 AM
You'd be surprised...



Namaste Riverwolf

:) Wow.

IMO, the world is as is but history is a convenient tool. Using history, Muslims are made to grieve of inequity and induced to terrorism. Using history, Christians are induced to plot subterfuge. Reading history, hindus fume and fret (but are induced to do little else:) ). Of course every group asserts that the other groups are devil and evil. So, goes on the merry go round.

Hitler has killed people. What was his religion? What was Stalin's religion? On the other hand, some leaders may use name of religion for their own purpose, since that way it is easier to gather people, who would be the pawns.

Om Namah Shivaya

Note: Count me in as another 'sort of universalist' --- who also sees guna acting everywhere.

SethDrebitko
19 June 2010, 11:23 AM
I think what they need to ban is proseltysing regardless of nationality.
This would be a great response!


You can also ban conversion.
I don't agree with this. Accepting conversions is not wrong, seeking them is. By telling someone they do not have the legal right to practice religion as they choose is both wrong and un-hindu.

I personally think the religion is so vast and requires more personal responsibilities than others that a definitive 101 primer need to be agreed on. Non sectarian intro to the basics of the faith, as well as reading guides to the basic holy texts. There could then be an introduction to the sects and their beliefs.

I think a big barrier is that people from smaller rural places in India often have a very narrow focused understanding of the religion as a whole primarily knowing about their own personal sect.

[I don't claim to be an expert on these subjects, and could be totally wrong.]

PARAM
19 June 2010, 12:28 PM
Namaste All,

Bryon Morrigan's post was great, I should add one more thing

Instead of the word religion we should use 'Dharm' - This word is always used as translate of word Religion, but Hindu scholars have found no other word to translate this 'Dharm'
Even here this is Hindu Dharma Forums and not Hindu Religion Forums
Religions are Not Dharm and Dharm is not religion

Dharmatma is no Religious Soul

Ramakrishna
19 June 2010, 07:29 PM
I think what they need to ban is proseltysing regardless of nationality.

Namaste Eastern Mind,

So you believe an Indian who converts to Christianity should be banned from proselytizing in his own country? I am against foreign missionaries entering the country and trying to convert people, but I don't think people should be banned from spreading their ideas in their own country. Or do you think that most Indians who convert to Christianity would end up using lies and deceit to convert other Indians? In that case maybe something should be done, but I'm not sure.

Jai Sri Krishna

SethDrebitko
19 June 2010, 07:56 PM
I think it is one of those situations where it is just easier to ban it in general. It just makes sense for a country like India whose foundation is built upon a religion which denies proselytizing. It is kind of racist to say, "well your not allowed to share your opinions because your not Indian.

Now for a country like America not built on religious foundation this would not be appropriate.

Ramakrishna
19 June 2010, 09:21 PM
I think it is one of those situations where it is just easier to ban it in general. It just makes sense for a country like India whose foundation is built upon a religion which denies proselytizing. It is kind of racist to say, "well your not allowed to share your opinions because your not Indian.

Now for a country like America not built on religious foundation this would not be appropriate.

Namaste Seth,

I think you are misunderstanding me. My view is that all foreign missionaries should be banned from India. It seems like the majority of them use lies and deceit to convert Hindus. But I believe that if someone is born and raised in India, either as a Christian or who converts to Christianity, that person should not be banned from spreading his/her ideas in their own country. Maybe I am looking at this from an American perspective with a strong emphasis on freedom of speech, but I see that you are from America as well. I just think it's wrong to ban people from expressing their ideas in their own country. Obviously it's a whole different story with Westerners entering India with the goal of converting Hindus to Christianity by any means necessary. I think they should be banned. But native Indians should retain their right of free speech. If they end up using lies and deceit on their fellow Indians to convert them, then there should be restrictions. But as a whole, they should be allowed to express their views in their own country. This is just my POV.

You must also remember that India is a secular country. Even the prime minister is not Hindu. I think there's a very low chance of India banning foreign missionaries, let alone native Indians from spreading Christianity.

Jai Sri Krishna

upsydownyupsy mv ss
23 June 2010, 12:24 PM
Kumar Das, Its true that Krishna is God. I have accepted it, but isn't it true that God is his own messenger in that sense. He is not only a messenger, but he is also the supreme one. Yes, it is utterly wrong to compare him to so called western prophets like Muhammed. You may call Jesus a devotee as we know he forgave people, even though he was brutally killed in that manner. Its shows he is a devotee of God (as Jesus calls himself son of god, like most devotees).

RamKrishna, I think the reason for spread of other religions is not due to their will to convert, but due to the ignorance of the people themselves, yet, they are not to be blamed of their ignorance, as many have to time to gain knowledge, either due to poverty or over indulgence in business. This was due to the foreign rule. The Foreign governments have forcibly tried to spread their beliefs in the past through missionaries, as they too were ignorant. The Missionaries are not to be blamed here either, as they feel that they are right and don't know anything about Hinduism.

I'm not being soft here, I'm just logically analysing things.

Instead of trying to search for the cause for the happenings of the past, lets change the future with the aid of the present. Lets make sure the future generations don't suffer the fate of this same evil idiotic moronic ignorance!:po:

Eastern Mind
23 June 2010, 01:34 PM
Namaste Eastern Mind,

So you believe an Indian who converts to Christianity should be banned from proselytizing in his own country? I am against foreign missionaries entering the country and trying to convert people, but I don't think people should be banned from spreading their ideas in their own country. Or do you think that most Indians who convert to Christianity would end up using lies and deceit to convert other Indians? In that case maybe something should be done, but I'm not sure.

Jai Sri Krishna

Vannakkam: The Indian Christian is just an extension of the western Christian and he is only there because of the original western guy converting him. Often the eastern Christians do even worse types of manipulating than the western ones do. Proselytizing is proselytizing, no matter who the culprit is.

Let me tell you the story of the field trip and the snake farm. I heard it long ago, and am not sure of the source or even if it is true. I certainly believe it. A certain school was on a field trip to see snakes, and the children are all excited. At a pit stop, when the bus is set to go again, it doesn't start. (An unscrupulous Christian driver has unhooked a cable in the engine.) So they all pray to Ganesha for help. Then they all pray to Siva, then Krishna, etc. Just before they pray to the Almighty Jesus, of course the driver hooks the wire back up. This is the kind of stuff that goes on ... with children! The story when I heard it was about Indian Christians. There is no harm in being deceitful as long as you can mark another conversion on the chart. That type of thing is just plain wrong.

Now I have no problem with an individual studying and comparing religions and then deciding what suits him best, but the deceit. No way. I wrote about Samaritan's Purse on here a while back too. Same thing.

Aum Namasivaya

Ramakrishna
23 June 2010, 06:35 PM
Vannakkam: The Indian Christian is just an extension of the western Christian and he is only there because of the original western guy converting him. Often the eastern Christians do even worse types of manipulating than the western ones do. Proselytizing is proselytizing, no matter who the culprit is.

Let me tell you the story of the story of the field trip and the snake farm. I heard it long ago, and am not sure of the source or even if it is true. I certainly believe it. A certain school was on a field trip to see snakes, and the children are all excited. At a pit stop, when the bus is set to go again, it doesn't start. (An unscrupulous Christian driver has unhooked a cable in the engine.) So they all pray to Ganesha for help. Then they all pray to Siva, then Krishna, etc. Just before they pray to the Almighty Jesus, of course the driver hooks the wire back up. This is the kind of stuff that goes on ... with children! The story when I heard it was about Indian Christians. There is no harm in being deceitful as long as you can mark another conversion on the chart. That type of thing is just plain wrong.

Now I have no problem with an individual studying and comparing religions and then deciding what suits him best, but the deceit. No way. I wrote about Samaritan's Purse on here a while back too. Same thing.

Aum Namasivaya

Namaste Eastern Mindji,

Thank you for that explanation. I now better understand your point of view. It makes sense that Indian Christians are usually as deceitful or even more deceitful than the Westerners who converted them. I remember reading that after converting them, the Westerners tell the Indian Christians to sever ties with their Hindu family. I guess a lot of them end up converting their families by any means possible.

I heard about that story also. How horrible. I heard it was done by a Christian missionary organization that was taking Indian children on a sightseeing tour. It's kind of hard to believe, but I do believe it happened, and probably multiple times. It is for reasons like that that missionaries should be banned from India. But I understand what you are saying now about Indian Christians as well.

Jai Sri Krishna

upsydownyupsy mv ss
24 June 2010, 05:55 AM
@ Ramakrishna and Eastern mind : Agreed 200%.
They accept Jesus' existence as History and portray the Indian devatas as Myth, while they should know better. There's everything wrong with deceit conversions!

PARAM
29 June 2010, 10:34 AM
There is one more and very important fact
All Hindu texts are based on historic events, but Christians did not wanted to belive it

In 1813 two Christians James Mills and Charles Grant from Helebary college wrote History of India classifying Itihas as Myath
They claimed according to Father James Usher the date of creation of earth was 9 AM, 23rd Oct, 4004 BC, and the events of Hindu texts goes beyond that date, so they could not be real and must be imaginary.

Thats how they made their 'fact', modern cosmology and traditional archeological finds has already proven it wrong; this premise of has been found to be flawed.

Riverwolf
29 June 2010, 08:18 PM
There is one more and very important fact
All Hindu texts are based on historic events, but Christians did not wanted to belive it

In 1813 two Christians James Mills and Charles Grant from Helebary college wrote History of India classifying Itihas as Myath
They claimed according to Father James Usher the date of creation of earth was 9 AM, 23rd Oct, 4004 BC, and the events of Hindu texts goes beyond that date, so they could not be real and must be imaginary.

Thats how they made their 'fact', modern cosmology and traditional archeological finds has already proven it wrong; this premise of has been found to be flawed.

In all fairness, most Christians, from what I've seen, don't believe in the 6000 year old earth, anymore.

Ramakrishna
29 June 2010, 09:25 PM
In all fairness, most Christians, from what I've seen, don't believe in the 6000 year old earth, anymore.

Namaste Riverwolf,

I live in what is known as the "Bible Belt" in the United States, and you'd be amazed at how many Christians here actually believe that the earth is around 6,000 years old. They also believe that is when God created the first humans and that humans also coexisted with dinosaurs.

If I had to make a guess, I would indeed say that a little over half of all Christians don't believe that stuff anymore. I would like to think that. But there still is a large number that do. Where I live, with all the fundamentalist evangelical Christians, over half of them probably do believe that the earth is around 6,000 years old and humans and dinosaurs coexisted. It's pretty disturbing.

Jai Sri Krishna

Eastern Mind
29 June 2010, 09:25 PM
In all fairness, most Christians, from what I've seen, don't believe in the 6000 year old earth, anymore.

Vannakkam Riverwolf:

Yup, there is a lot of picking and choosing going on. I think it says something about a religion when it evolves, and adapts to the times. But this one example of dropping a belief is an indication of them dropping more core beliefs, mainly the "There is only one way" which all of us find so irritating. We have politicians here in my cioutry who take great pains to hide this particular belief of theirs because they know the general populace (the voters) know it's just plain dumb.

Aum namasivaya

Riverwolf
30 June 2010, 12:02 AM
Namaste Riverwolf,

I live in what is known as the "Bible Belt" in the United States, and you'd be amazed at how many Christians here actually believe that the earth is around 6,000 years old. They also believe that is when God created the first humans and that humans also coexisted with dinosaurs.

If I had to make a guess, I would indeed say that a little over half of all Christians don't believe that stuff anymore. I would like to think that. But there still is a large number that do. Where I live, with all the fundamentalist evangelical Christians, over half of them probably do believe that the earth is around 6,000 years old and humans and dinosaurs coexisted. It's pretty disturbing.

Jai Sri Krishna

Yeah, I live in California, so most of the Christians I've interacted with have been fairly liberal. Heck, my girlfriend's mom is a Christian, but there's a statue of the Buddha (and three Hoteis lol) in their family room. ^_^

On another forum that I'm a part of, I saw a thread title that said about 40% of Americans were YECs. (Young Earth Creationists.)

Ramakrishna
30 June 2010, 02:17 PM
Yeah, I live in California, so most of the Christians I've interacted with have been fairly liberal. Heck, my girlfriend's mom is a Christian, but there's a statue of the Buddha (and three Hoteis lol) in their family room. ^_^

On another forum that I'm a part of, I saw a thread title that said about 40% of Americans were YECs. (Young Earth Creationists.)

Namaste Riverwolf,

I used to live in New Jersey, where most of the people were either Jewish of Catholic. But then my family moved down south to Tennessee and all of a sudden there are fundamentalist evangelicals everywhere! Of that 40% of Americans, over half of them have to be from my area of the country.

Man, I'd love to live in California or up in New England somewhere. Much more open-minded people there. But at this point here the evangelicals have already tried converting me and they failed miserably :D

Jai Sri Krishna

Riverwolf
30 June 2010, 06:46 PM
Namaste Riverwolf,

I used to live in New Jersey, where most of the people were either Jewish of Catholic. But then my family moved down south to Tennessee and all of a sudden there are fundamentalist evangelicals everywhere! Of that 40% of Americans, over half of them have to be from my area of the country.

Man, I'd love to live in California or up in New England somewhere. Much more open-minded people there. But at this point here the evangelicals have already tried converting me and they failed miserably :D

Jai Sri Krishna

Only religiously open-minded. Unfortunately, it's not so for everything else. lol

And we do get our door-to-door JWs every now and then.

BryonMorrigan
30 June 2010, 11:49 PM
Only religiously open-minded. Unfortunately, it's not so for everything else. lol

And we do get our door-to-door JWs every now and then.

I'm actually writing a suspense screenplay right now about an Indian Hindu couple that move to a small town in the USA so that the husband can open a medical practice...but they keep getting harassed by these nosy "door knocker" type Christians, who steadily resort to more and more vicious ways of coercing the family into going to their church.

Mwa ha ha... I love being a writer...

-Aashna_Namaste-
01 July 2010, 03:14 AM
I love living in california. My Boyfriend's mom is hindu and her boyfriend is christian. In there house I will see Hindu gods, Jesus, And saints. It's wonderful how diverse the family is. My family is extremely catholic and it was forece upon me for so many years that I have finnaly decided to break off and find a new religion. I feel in love with Hinduism that moment I found out about it. I love Krishna Das's music. Such an insperation to me on my speritual journey.

-Namaste! May The Gods Bless You All!-

BryonMorrigan
01 July 2010, 11:43 AM
http://www.campuscrusade.com/promos/byb/sandwich.html

See. This is the kind of garbage that is promoted by Christian organizations in the USA. They think they're in some kind of f@#$ing war or something, and have to make everyone else join their little religious Ponzi-scheme.

This was being promoted as an ad on my FaceBook today. Some big money was spent to get it there. It makes me want to go all "Black Metal" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZGa40Hl4zI) on some people. Aargh!

Odion
12 July 2010, 07:50 AM
<<snip>>
That sounds like an interesting read! Kindly let me/tell me where to read it when it's finished. :)

ramkumar1213
23 July 2010, 03:41 AM
THERE ARE LOT OF SIMILARITTIES BETWEEN JESUS AND HORUS.

HORUS WAS SON OF GOD.
THE ORIGINAL NAME OF EGYPT WAS AJAPATI.i think paraoh rameses is same as parasu ram.

When a english historian was investigating one brahmin told him the source of river nile exactly placed between two mountains.i forgot the name.so our people know egypt very wel.

there is a famous painting by poussin which says " et arcadia ego"
which many historians are teling must be the burial place of a long lost king of shepherds.
i think it must be krishna n balram because it says arcadia.The akkadian civilization must be a indian one because i firmly believe sumerians and mesopotamians were indians.
They had names like indian names.




For convenience I begin by reproducing the "thumbnail sketch of Horus' life" given in Encyclopedia of Religions as offered by Miller, which also lays the groundwork for Osiris:
"In ancient Egypt there were originally several gods known by the name Horus, but the best known and most important from the beginning of the historic period was the son of Osiris and Isis who was identified with the king of Egypt. According to myth, Osiris, who assumed the rulership of the earth shortly after its creation, was slain by his jealous brother, Seth. The sister- wife of Osiris, Isis, who collected the pieces of her dismembered husband and revived him, also conceived his son and avenger, Horus. Horus fought with Seth, and, despite the loss of one eye in the contest, was successful in avenging the death of his father and in becoming his legitimate successor. Osiris then became king of the dead and Horus king of the living, this transfer being renewed at every change of earthly rule. The myth of divine kingship probably elevated the position of the god as much as it did that of the king. In the fourth dynasty, the king, the living god, may have been one of the greatest gods as well, but by the fifth dynasty the supremacy of the cult of Re, the sun god, was accepted even by the kings. The Horus-king was now also "son of Re." This was made possible mythologically by personifying the entire older genealogy of Horus (the Heliopolitan ennead) as the goddess Hathor, "house of Horus," who was also the spouse of Re and mother of Horus.
"Horus was usually represented as a falcon, and one view of him was as a great sky god whose outstretched wings filled the heavens; his sound eye was the sun and his injured eye the moon. Another portrayal of him particularly popular in the Late Period, was as a human child suckling at the breast of his mother, Isis. The two principal cult centers for the worship of Horus were at Bekhdet in the north, where very little survives, and at Idfu in the south, which has a very large and well- preserved temple dating from the Ptolemaic period. The earlier myths involving Horus, as well as the ritual per- formed there, are recorded at Idfu."

Ramakrishna
29 July 2010, 01:37 PM
Namaste ramkumar1213,

Yes, I also have heard and read about the remarkable similarities between Jesus and Horus. I am currently studying the historicity of Jesus and currently leading towards believing that he never actually existed. There are also a few similarities between Jesus and Lord Krishna, although not as much as with Horus. The combination of all these similarities just makes them too much to be thrown out as mere coincidences.

Jai Sri Krishna

BryonMorrigan
29 July 2010, 02:17 PM
Namaste ramkumar1213,

Yes, I also have heard and read about the remarkable similarities between Jesus and Horus. I am currently studying the historicity of Jesus and currently leading towards believing that he never actually existed. There are also a few similarities between Jesus and Lord Krishna, although not as much as with Horus. The combination of all these similarities just makes them too much to be thrown out as mere coincidences.

Jai Sri Krishna

Have you read Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's papers on the similarities between Christianity and Mithraism? (Yes, THAT MLK, Jr....) Pretty interesting that he was doing this kind of research back in the late 1940s...

http://books.google.com/books?id=jzEqRY71zv0C&pg=PA211&lpg=PA211&dq=martin+luther+king+mithras&source=bl&ots=lJ-NSBwGem&sig=qFx2XBYsTpOLdxDM-PBjEcbEvbE&hl=en&ei=BdNRTNKxBcT_lgeJ1NCmBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false (http://books.google.com/books?id=jzEqRY71zv0C&pg=PA211&lpg=PA211&dq=martin+luther+king+mithras&source=bl&ots=lJ-NSBwGem&sig=qFx2XBYsTpOLdxDM-PBjEcbEvbE&hl=en&ei=BdNRTNKxBcT_lgeJ1NCmBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false)

It's still written from a Christian perspective (He WAS, after all, getting his graduate degree in theology at a Christian school, IIRC...) but it's still interesting to note that this guy was noticing that Christianity really wasn't as "original" as they like to pretend.

Ramakrishna
29 July 2010, 09:00 PM
Have you read Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's papers on the similarities between Christianity and Mithraism? (Yes, THAT MLK, Jr....) Pretty interesting that he was doing this kind of research back in the late 1940s...

http://books.google.com/books?id=jzEqRY71zv0C&pg=PA211&lpg=PA211&dq=martin+luther+king+mithras&source=bl&ots=lJ-NSBwGem&sig=qFx2XBYsTpOLdxDM-PBjEcbEvbE&hl=en&ei=BdNRTNKxBcT_lgeJ1NCmBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false (http://books.google.com/books?id=jzEqRY71zv0C&pg=PA211&lpg=PA211&dq=martin+luther+king+mithras&source=bl&ots=lJ-NSBwGem&sig=qFx2XBYsTpOLdxDM-PBjEcbEvbE&hl=en&ei=BdNRTNKxBcT_lgeJ1NCmBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false)

It's still written from a Christian perspective (He WAS, after all, getting his graduate degree in theology at a Christian school, IIRC...) but it's still interesting to note that this guy was noticing that Christianity really wasn't as "original" as they like to pretend.

Namaste Bryon,

I've never heard of that before, but I'm reading it now. Thanks for the link, very interesting.

I also got the documentary "The God Who Wasn't There" and I'm going to watch that soon. It should be very good.

Jai Sri Krishna

Kumar_Das
04 September 2010, 07:53 AM
I dont know where this discussion has gone. But I looked up on Baha'ullah, and he seems like a man that I can respect.


However... what I dont understand is...


Mmm, I know a Bah&#225;'&#237;, so I'd like to explain a few things, since this seems to be misunderstood. Not defending them, or anything, but I would like to clear up a few possible misunderstandings (not necessarily you, Ramakrishna, but for anyone who may be reading) here.

They do believe Krishna and Buddha are "manifestations of God" - they aren't deliberately adding it to gain Hindu convert (like what some Christians and Muslims may do, adding Krishna as a prophet of Christianity or something). Pointing it out to gain converts, maybe, but it was already in their faith to begin with.

They also believe Bah&#225;'ull&#225;h is the Kalki Avatar - not only the Kalki Avatar, but also the Mahdi (and Third Imam, and return of Isa) of Islam, the Second Coming of Jesus of Christianity, the Messiah-figure of Zoroastrianism, he whom God shall make manifest of B&#225;bism (the forerunner religion of Bah&#225;'&#237;), AND the Maitreya Buddha. :rolleyes: Very cute - literally, he is supposed to be the expected figure of all the main religions.

They believe all religions are through progressive revelation, which is why the religions are different, yet still from the same deity - so naturally, anyone important from a religion before his, also comes from God as a messenger within their theology. What kind of an off days their version of God had when he started with Islam, Christianity, Judaism etc I don't know. :D

They have a large tendency to homogenise their religion to fit the culture they are in, even down to the way they pray.

Oh, and it has a cultish feel to it.



Sounds good to me, but how would that be put into practise? Especially, how could that be done against like say Zakir Naik or any of the Christian-Indian preachers (I don't know any by name), without them using the martyr card?

this.[bolded part]

anyways, I just think "live and let live" and not descend to the level of muhammadans.

Kumar_Das
04 September 2010, 08:13 AM
Step four is language! Language is POWERFUL. Don't say "God" when you mean Brahman, Vishnu, Shiva, Kali, or whatever. Muslims don't say "God" even though they are praying to the same Abrahamic deity as the Christians and Jews. You say "God" as a singular in English, and you are playing the game by THEIR rules.

You're right... didnt think about that. I'll keep that in mind.

Most Hindus think this way, as advised by Sri Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita that He is the ultimate goal since spirituality is all about attaining Him. Therefore we are to simply following His words. It doesnt matter whether someone is a Shakta or a Shaiva or a Vaishnava. Because He is the focus.

Its both a genuine way of thinking and also a tactic used by Hindus to deflect enemity from other religions.

"Ishwara or Allah..."

You really think Madhvacharya gave a damn about muhammadanism when he boldy crossed Badri and as a result was brought forward to the muhammadan invader who conquered the area at that time? He simply said that the deity that the muhammadan was worshipping was the same as his, just so that he could continue onward with his work.

Hindus know that the only way of keeping the mouths of the muhammadans shut is to appeal to them by pretending to be nice and making them think that they are on their side.

Kumar_Das
05 September 2010, 09:32 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_world_order_(Bah%C3%A1%27%C3%AD)

The phrase "New World Order" was first used in the sacred texts of the Bahá'í Faith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%A1%27%C3%AD_Faith) by its founder Bahá'u'lláh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%A1%27u%27ll%C3%A1h) in the late 19th century. In the Kitáb-i-Aqdas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kit%C3%A1b-i-Aqdas), considered the most holy of the Bahá'í Faith's many texts, Bahá'u'lláh states,

“The world's equilibrium hath been upset through the vibrating influence of this most great, this new World Order. Mankind's ordered life hath been revolutionized through the agency of this unique, this wondrous System – the like of which mortal eyes have never witnessed.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_world_order_(Bah%C3%A1%27%C3%AD)#cite_note-3)


In another text, Bahá'u'lláh stated,

“Soon will the present-day order be rolled up, and a new one spread out in its stead.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_world_order_(Bah%C3%A1%27%C3%AD)#cite_note-4)”