<B>Hinduism is on the Decline!!! (Pls vote this Poll)

[sapr333]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

[

Just one clarification from my end just in case you have not come across the right info by now:

The ones who merged in (i do not use the word invaded, since there was no invasion) were not brahmins.

HH,

I agree with your post.. One should know on what context/on what thread/amongst which crowd, that point was debated, then it makes sense..I think those debates quoted by KRS was mostly political/Social debates. If you happen to debate with North Indian Kshatriyas, they would say, South Indian Brahmins are not brahmins, but black curly haired dravidians.. Its a political debate, not spiritual.So lets understand the context of the debate..

Thats one reason, while quoting Kancha' book, I also asked KRS to read MSV Seshadri's critique also. If one wish to know about Islam, he should give al ook in to 'Satanic Versus' also..If one wants to know about Christianity, he should read 'Davinci Code' also.. For leaning Buddhism, one should attenmpt to know hinduism first... Then use, reasoning, the power of critical examining to evaluate it.

PS: You did a small funny job of googling.. Look how things are getting distracted now: :tape:

 

[sapr333]

Moderator, could you please close this thread.. Thanks in advance

 

[KRS]

sapr333,

The reason I have 'cut and pasted' your past postings from elsewhere is not to anyway humiliate you! We do not have an idea as to where you come from, and as I have said we did not know why you would make an assumption about Hinduism dying (which is not true) and set up some poll. I needed to know what your intent was.

Believe me, I do not need to know your religious background nor any other birth details. From your above posting it seems to me that you do not have have any ulterior motives - that is enough for me. The very reason I posted your views from elsewhere was because of the very point you make: your views are the basis of judging your intent and not your religion/birth.

I did not think I was emotional. On the same token there is no need for you to get emotional either. No need for you to apologize as I have not seen any harsh words from you. On the same token accept my apologies for putting you in this uncomfortable position, but again, in the interests of this Forum I wanted to make sure that your intentions are above board.

By the way, you have mostly done what I have done ever since I have ventured in to the cyber space. I have used only one handle. This is not either right or wrong, it just tells me that you are ready to stand behind what you post.

No need to close the thread. Please continue. I'll not raise this issue again.

Regards,
KRS

 

[KRS]

sapr333,

One more point:

After finishing Kancha's book, I'll post. I do not need to read any critiques by others - I want to critique it with my own views. When one wants to analyze something one needs to understand the original, not from other's views, even though those may help to add to ones' views.

I do not know whether you have read the original works by Sri Adi Shankara. If you have not, please do so. There are number of scholorly books available on the history of his times too. Likewise there are number of books on AIT and the history of Brahmins. I am currently reading a History of South India from pre-historic times till the fall of Vijayanagar by one K.A.Nilakanta Sastry, which is a scholorly work.

I guess what I am saying is that, please learn to differentiate between biased propaganda viewpoints promoted as 'scholorly' works versus truly scientific scholorly works with proper research going in to making them.

I am afraid, if you have done so, your views on Brahmins, Sri Adi Shankara, God Rama, the decline of Buddhism would all have been different, if not at least well informed and yes, 'educated'.

Regards,
KRS

 

[KRS]

Why Buddhism disappeared from India?

sapr333,
Here is an excellent overview on the reasons for Buddhism disappearing from India. The author, Dr. Lal teaches history at UCLA and has particular interest on Buddhist history:

Buddhism’s Disappearance from India
Vinay Lal
---------------------------------
PART 1
One of the supreme ironies of the history of Buddhism in India is the question of how Buddhism came to disappear from the land of its birth. Many scholars of Buddhism, Hinduism, Indian history, and of religion more generally have been devoted to unraveling this puzzle. There is no absolute consensus on this matter, and a few scholars have even contended that Buddhism never disappeared as such from India. On this view, Buddhism simply changed form, or was absorbed into Hindu practices. Such an argument is, in fact, a variation of the view, which perhaps has more adherents than any other, that Buddhism disappeared, not on account of persecution by Hindus, but because of the ascendancy of reformed Hinduism. However, the view that Buddhists were persecuted by Brahmins, who were keen to assert their caste supremacy, still has some adherents, and in recent years has been championed not only by some Dalit writers and their sympathizers but by at least a handful of scholars of pre-modern Indian history. [1]

What is not disputed is the gradual decline of Buddhism in India, as the testimony of the Chinese traveler, Hsuan Tsang, amply demonstrates. Though Buddhism had been the dominant religion in much of the Gangetic plains in the early part of the Christian era, Hsuan Tsang, traveling in India in the early years of the 7th century, witnessed something quite different. In Prayag, or Allahabad as it is known to many, Hsuan Tsang encountered mainly heretics, or non-Buddhists, but that is not surprising given the importance of Prayag as a pilgrimage site for Brahmins. But, even in Sravasti, the capital city of the Lichhavis, a north Indian clan that came to power around 200 AD, established their capital in Pasupathinath, and in a long and glorious period of reign extending through the early part of the ninth century endowed a large number of both Hindu and Buddhist monuments and monasteries, Hsuan Tsang witnessed a much greater number of “Hindus” (ie, non-Buddhists, such as Jains and Saivites) than Buddhists. Kusinagar, the small village some 52 kilometres from Gorakhpur where the Buddha had gone into mahaparinirvana, was in a rather dilapidated state and Hsuan Tsang found few Buddhists. In Varanasi, to be sure, Hsuan Tsang found some 3000 Bhikkus or Buddhist monks, but they were outshadowed by more than 10,000 non-Buddhists. There is scarcely any question that Hsuan Tsang arrived in India at a time when Buddhism was entering into a state of precipitous decline, and by the 13th century Buddhism, as a formal religion, had altogether disappeared from India. [2] But even as Buddhism went into decline, it is remarkable that the great seat of Buddhist learning, Nalanda, continued to flourish, retaining its importance until the Muslim invasions of the second millennium. Moreover, it is from Nalanda that Padmasambhava carried Buddhism to Tibet in the eighth century. Consequently, even the story of Buddhism in India cannot be unequivocally written in a single register of decline.

To consider the question somewhat more systematically, we might wish to consider in serial order the various reasons advanced for Buddhism’s decline and disappearance from India. The various arguments can be grouped under the following headings: sectarian and internal histories, focusing on schisms within the Buddhist faith, the widening differences between the clergy, Bhikkus, and laity, and the growing corruption within the sangha; histories focused on Buddhism’s relations with Brahmanism, dwelling on the alleged persecution of Buddhists by Brahmins, the defeat of the Buddhists by the great theologian Shankara in public debates, as well as on the supposedly characteristic tendency of Hinduism, or rather Brahmanism, to absorb its opponents; and, finally, secular and political histories, which emphasize the withdrawal of royal patronage from Buddhism and, later, the Muslim invasions which had the effect of driving into extinction an already debilitated faith.

Turning our attention to what I have described as sectarian histories, it is generally conceded that the Buddhist clergy paid insufficient attention to its laity. Buddhist mendicants kept their distance from non-mendicants, and as scholars of Buddhism have noted, no manual for the conduct of the laity was produced until the 11th century. Non-mendicants may not have felt particularly invested in their religion, and as the venues where the mendicants and non-mendicants intersected gradually disappeared, the laity might have felt distanced from the faith. The contrast, in this respect, with Jainism is marked. Some scholars have also emphasized the narrative of decay and corruption within a faith where the monks had come to embrace a rather easy-going and even indolent lifestyle, quite mindless of the Buddha’s insistence on aparigraha, or non-possession. The Buddhist monasteries are sometimes described as repositories of great wealth.

The secular and political histories adopt rather different arguments. It has been argued that royal patronage shifted from Buddhist to Hindu religious institutions. Under the Kushanas, indeed even under the Guptas (325-497 AD), both Buddhists and adherents of Brahmanism received royal patronage, but as Brahmanism veered off, so to speak, into Vaishnavism and Saivism, and regional kingdoms developed into the major sites of power, Buddhism began to suffer a decline. The itinerant Buddhist monk, if one may put it this way, gave way to forms of life less more conducive to settled agriculture. The Palas of Bengal, though they had been hospitable to Vaishnavism and Saivism, were nonetheless major supporters of Buddhism. However, when Bengal came under the rule of the Senas (1097-1223), Saivism was promulgated and Buddhism was pushed out -- towards Tibet. (contd.)

Regards,
KRS

 

[KRS]

Why Buddhism disappeared from India (Part 2)

PART 2
Though Buddhism had already entered into something of a decline by the time of Hsuan Tsang’s visit to India during the reign of Harsha of Kanauj in the early seventh century, it has also been argued that its further demise, particularly in the early part of the second millennium AD, was hastened by the arrival of Islam. On this view, Buddhism found competition in Islam for converts among low-caste Hindus. Even Ambedkar, whose animosity towards Hinduism is palpable, was nonetheless firmly of the view that Islam dealt Buddhism a death blow. As he was to put it, “brahmanism beaten and battered by the Muslim invaders could look to the rulers for support and sustenance and get it. Buddhism beaten and battered by the Muslim invaders had no such hope. It was uncared for orphan and it withered in the cold blast of the native rulers and was consumed in the fire lit up by the conquerors.” Ambedkar was quite certain that this was “the greatest disaster that befell the religion of Buddha in India.” We thus find Ambekdar embracing the “sword of Islam thesis”: “The sword of Islam fell heavily upon the priestly class. It perished or it fled outside India. Nobody remained alive to keep the flame of Buddhism burning.” [3] There are, of course, many problems with this view. The “sword of Islam” thesis remains controversial, at best, and many reputable historians are inclined to dismiss it outright. Islam was, moreover, a late entrant into India, and Buddhism was showing unmistakable signs of its decline long before Islam became established in the Gangetic plains, central India, and the northern end of present-day Andhra and Karnataka.

Many narrative accounts of Buddhism’s decline and eventual disappearance from the land of its faith have been focused on Buddhism’s relations with Hinduism or Brahmanism. Nearly 20 years ago the historian S. R. Goyal wrote that "according to
many scholars hostility of the Brahmanas was one of the major causes of the decline of Buddhism in India." The Saivite king, Shashanka, invariably appears in such histories as a ferocious oppressor of the Buddhists, though the single original source for all subsequent narratives about Shashanka’s ruinous conduct towards Buddhists remains Hsuan Tsang. Shashanka is reported to have destroyed the Bodhi tree and ordered the destruction of Buddhist images. Hindu nationalists appear to think that many Muslim monuments were once Hindu temples, but partisans of Buddhism are inclined to the view that Hindu temples were often built on the site of Buddhist shrines.

If some scholars focus on outright persecution, others speak of a long process during which Buddhist practices became absorbed into Hinduism. The doctrine of ahimsa may have originated with the Buddha, and certainly found its greatest exposition in the Buddha’s teachings, but by the second half of the 1st millennium AD it had become part of Hindu teachings. The great Brahmin philosopher, Shankaracharya (c. 788-820 AD), is said to have engaged the Buddhists in public debates and each time he emerged triumphant. Monastic practices had once been unknown in Brahminism, but over time this changed. Shankaracharya himself established maths or monasteries at Badrinath in the north, Dwarka in the west, Sringeri in the south, and Puri in the east. The Buddha had, as is commonly noticed, been transformed into an avatara (descent) of Vishnu. The tendency of Hinduism to absorb rival faiths has been commented upon by many, though one could speak equally of the elements from other faiths that have gone into the making of Hinduism. Was Buddha absorbed into the Hindu pantheon so that Buddhism might become defanged, or is it the case that Buddhism stood for certain values that Hinduism was eager to embrace as its own?

Though many Dalit and other anti-Brahminical writers would like to represent Brahminism as a tyrannical faith that wrought massive destruction upon the Buddhists [see www.dalistan.org], the matter is more complicated. A recent study of the Bengal Puranas indubitably shows that the Buddhists were mocked, cast as mischievous and malicious in Brahminical narratives, and subjected to immense rhetorical violence. But rhetorical violence is not necessarily to be read as physical violence perpetrated upon the Buddhists, any more than accounts of thousands of Hindu temples destroyed at the hands of Muslim invaders are to be read literally. Similarly, the absorption of the Buddha into Vishnu’s pantheon may have represented something of a compromise between the Brahmins and Buddhists: since so much of what Buddhism stood for had been incorporated into certain strands of Brahminism, the Buddha was at least to be given his just dues. This anxiety of absorption continues down to the present day, and one of the more curious expressions of this anxiety must surely be a letter from the All India Bhikkhu Sangha to the-then Prime Minister of India, P. V. Narasimha Rao. In his letter of 23 February 1995, the President of the Sangha complained that the actor Arun Govil, who had played Rama in the TV serial Ramayana, had been chosen to play the Buddha in the TV serial by the same name. Could anyone really play the Buddha? “As you know,” the letter reminds Rao, “the Buddha was never a mythological figure as Rama & Hanuman but very much a historical figure.” [5] If nothing else, we might at least read the disappearance of Buddhism from India as a parable about how myth always outlives history.

Notes:
1. See, for example, D. C. Ahir, Buddhism Declined in India: How and Why? (Delhi: B. R. Publishing, 2005).

2. For Hsuan Tsang’s travel narrative, see the translation by Samuel Beal, Si-Yu Ki: Buddhist Records of the Western World (London: Trubner & Co., 1884; reprint ed., Delhi: Oriental Books Reprint Corporation).

3. Vasant Moon, compiler and ed., Babasaheb Ambedkar, Writings and Speeches (Bombay: Government of Maharashtra, 1987), Vol. 3, pp. 232-33.

4. S. R. Goyal, A History of Indian Buddhism (Meerut, 1987), p. 394.

5. See Detlef Kantowsky, Buddhists in India Today: Descriptions, Pictures and Documents (Delhi: Manohar, 2003), p. 156.

Short Further Reading:
Padmanabh S. Jaini, “The Disappearance of Buddhism and the Survival of Jainism: A Study in Contrast”, in Studies in History of Buddhism, ed. A. K. Narain (Delhi: B. R. Publishing Co., 1980), pp. 181-91.


Regards,
KRS

 

[sapr333]

KRS, thanks for the wonderful engaging response..

>>We do not have an idea as to where you come from, and as I have said we did not know why you would make an assumption about Hinduism dying (which is not true) and set up some poll>>>

First of all, lets take out the notion, US/WE/THEM..Here the subject matters, not the person/group.Btw, please read my header msg below the poll graph, I said its on deline, and never used the word DYING.. Please have a relook.

Coming to the point,I have come across my a forum where members get worried about huge conversions.ots in Maharashtra are changing towards Buddhism. Islam is having its own fast growth in India both by large families/conversion in villages. Some unofficial figures claim 7% decline through conversion in the last ten years, though the Church denies blatantly (quoting census).Counter argument goes, that,for the record of reservation benefits/for fear of anti conversion law, they remain as hindus on record. By reading many a peoples view in the forum, im clear there is a decline, slow decline..Hence, I wanted to find the reason/catalyst for this decline.


>>I do not know whether you have read the original works by Sri Adi Shankara>>>

When I was looking out for "Logical proof of existence of God', I have stumbled upon two important scholars.. ie, Adi Shankara and St.Thomas Aquinos's philosophies. I have read both of them faily well, but data limited to what's available on net only.Happy Hindu handle also shared some link, which I went through.You should also visit some of the buddhist forums, and find out what they speak about Adi Shankara.. Its better to know the points of both the sides.


>>>I have used only one handle. This is not either right or wrong>>

Frankly, I use different handle for each religious category forums. Thats just to protect myself being polarised/or refrain biased views.Also I would like to refer your point "Thats Im harsh in using words against holy persons''.. Yes I did..I never get tensed up or fall in to emotions if some one calls "Mohammed as Pedophilia/Jesus Christ dating Mary Magdalene/Krishna Stealing clothes/Buddha dying of loose motion after eathing pork etc.. Each one is entitled to air his views,and its our responsiblity to give respond back with wisdom,than getting emotional, Oh Ye!! He hurt me! etc..Im sure you would agree with me.


>>>if you have done so, your views on Brahmins, Sri Adi Shankara, God Rama, the decline of Buddhism would all have been different, if not at least well informed and yes, 'educated'.>>


1) I enjoyed reading Sri.Adi Shankara's work (not finished yet, may take an year or so to fully understand it), and still Im pondering/reading over it in my comparative religious study,But Historical events tell me, he did what Portuguese Catholics did in the name of Inquisition.. History says so. No one has convincingly answered me this so far..I learned about this only in a buddhist forum.

2) Regarding Lord Rama, my basic question remains still un-answered. Can Gods be un-holy? If so, why we need gods? Islamic apologetics give a different convincing answer to it, when questioned about Mohammed's un-holy acts!! Christians thinkers,close this argument,by stating, "Moral is rooted in God'


>>>>I guess what I am saying is that, please learn to differentiate between biased propaganda viewpoints promoted as 'scholorly' works versus truly scientific scholorly works with proper research going in to making them>>

Yes,thats one reason, I hang out with different forums, to get different perspectives of all the sides. If I were to host Kancha's forum in a Communist/Christian sites, I may not get the counter-views.Thats why I have choosed this places,to find out how far Kancha was true in writing..

All said and done, KRS, thanks indeed for the wonderful response.

 

[KRS]

sapr333,
My reponse in 'blue'.

KRS, thanks for the wonderful engaging response..

>>We do not have an idea as to where you come from, and as I have said we did not know why you would make an assumption about Hinduism dying (which is not true) and set up some poll>>>

First of all, lets take out the notion, US/WE/THEM..Here the subject matters, not the person/group.Btw, please read my header msg below the poll graph, I said its on deline, and never used the word DYING.. Please have a relook.
Yes, such a universal brotherhood is possoble ONLY if each of us trusts the other. While I can argue logically with anyone without reservation, I do not want that person to have a hidden agenda.

This is from your survey header message above:
Its a widely accepted fact, that Hinduism is on the decline (may be towards slow death)..
Did I miss something about 'dying'?
Coming to the point,I have come across my a forum where members get worried about huge conversions.ots in Maharashtra are changing towards Buddhism. Islam is having its own fast growth in India both by large families/conversion in villages. Some unofficial figures claim 7% decline through conversion in the last ten years, though the Church denies blatantly (quoting census).Counter argument goes, that,for the record of reservation benefits/for fear of anti conversion law, they remain as hindus on record. By reading many a peoples view in the forum, im clear there is a decline, slow decline..Hence, I wanted to find the reason/catalyst for this decline.
This is not the argument you gave me first. Nevertheless, it is your opinion and can not be at present time proved coclusively.

>>I do not know whether you have read the original works by Sri Adi Shankara>>>

When I was looking out for "Logical proof of existence of God', I have stumbled upon two important scholars.. ie, Adi Shankara and St.Thomas Aquinos's philosophies. I have read both of them faily well, but data limited to what's available on net only.Happy Hindu handle also shared some link, which I went through.You should also visit some of the buddhist forums, and find out what they speak about Adi Shankara.. Its better to know the points of both the sides.
Reading items on the net, which are usually slanted towards the Forum's viewpoint (including this one at times), will give you not facts, but opinions, that too based on shaky facts. I know how some Buddhists view Sri Adi Shankara - they view him as the originator of what they call 'evil' Brahminism. So, they say all sorts of things about him. The best way to spread propaganda is to repeat a lie many times without proof and to demonize. This is the problem with your approach. You seem to take unfounded allegations and opinions as truth from one side, but have not cared to change your opinions even after discussing these things with one Prof. V. Seshadri. Why would you take what the Buddhists say as true, and not what other scholors say (like the article I have posted from Prof. Lal?). I have read those view points about Sri Adi Shankara by the Buddhists.

>>>I have used only one handle. This is not either right or wrong>>

Frankly, I use different handle for each religious category forums. Thats just to protect myself being polarised/or refrain biased views.Also I would like to refer your point "Thats Im harsh in using words against holy persons''.. Yes I did..I never get tensed up or fall in to emotions if some one calls "Mohammed as Pedophilia/Jesus Christ dating Mary Magdalene/Krishna Stealing clothes/Buddha dying of loose motion after eathing pork etc.. Each one is entitled to air his views,and its our responsiblity to give respond back with wisdom,than getting emotional, Oh Ye!! He hurt me! etc..Im sure you would agree with me.
You have every right to call anyone by any name you want. But in the real world, words do have impact. While I do not care about what you call Sri Adi Shankara, by calling him names, since he is my sambradhaya Guru, you are automatically creating an emotional gulf between us. This name calling is a teenage activity, along with defending it. If you want to find out the 'truth', please approach everything under the sun with empathy. A man is not his brain alone. Almost every balanced intellectual I know still get intellectual sustenance from his/her heart.

By calling the long gone by names, you do not hurt them, but you do hurt the sentiments of the followers. Any educated man must, in my opinion learn to self censor. Otherwise one can not learn through stone throwing.

>>>if you have done so, your views on Brahmins, Sri Adi Shankara, God Rama, the decline of Buddhism would all have been different, if not at least well informed and yes, 'educated'.>>


1) I enjoyed reading Sri.Adi Shankara's work (not finished yet, may take an year or so to fully understand it), and still Im pondering/reading over it in my comparative religious study,But Historical events tell me, he did what Portuguese Catholics did in the name of Inquisition.. History says so. No one has convincingly answered me this so far..I learned about this only in a buddhist forum.
Let me see - 1) Portugese Catholics had a well developed form of inquisition methodology where they tortured anyone even suspected of 'heresy'. 2) Sri Adi Shankara was a monk who would not think of even hurting a flea because of the principles of advaithic philosophy.

So you compare these two - can you give me specific example where Sri Adi Shankara persecuted or told others to persecute anyone? Please do not give me hearsay, but rather firmly established historical facts.

2) Regarding Lord Rama, my basic question remains still un-answered. Can Gods be un-holy? If so, why we need gods? Islamic apologetics give a different convincing answer to it, when questioned about Mohammed's un-holy acts!! Christians thinkers,close this argument,by stating, "Moral is rooted in God'
Religion is mainly cultural/social rooted in faith. Holiness of a God comes from the faith of the worshippers. This is why, to criticize a religion you need to be within it and must have proper credentials accepted by the followers. Just calling names, judging Gods from outside the religion has no more effective than trying to clean up a person by throwing human refuse at him. By the way, while the Christian thinkers say 'Moral is rooted in God', history shows that their Church in the crusades killed all sorts of people during the crusades and the inquisition against the very code that Christ preached. Every religion evelves over time, not necessarily according to the founding principles.

>>>>I guess what I am saying is that, please learn to differentiate between biased propaganda viewpoints promoted as 'scholorly' works versus truly scientific scholorly works with proper research going in to making them>>

Yes,thats one reason, I hang out with different forums, to get different perspectives of all the sides. If I were to host Kancha's forum in a Communist/Christian sites, I may not get the counter-views.Thats why I have choosed this places,to find out how far Kancha was true in writing..
Okay.

All said and done, KRS, thanks indeed for the wonderful response.

Regards,
KRS

 

[sapr333]

KRS, I have brushed aside few valid points, inorder to stay focussed on my quest for God.. some of the important points i feel to debate here is....

1>>Yes, such a universal brotherhood is possoble ONLY if each of us trusts the other>>>

Matter of fact, one dont need any TRUST, to evaluate two different ideologies or doctrines. Newton didnt asked for the TRUST Ptolemic scientists.. Truth is one..and to prove the truth, one doesnt need any trust.

>>statistics on decline of hindu populations>>

Bharath 2000 years ago was a 100% hindu nation following SanatanaDharma.. Now it says, onlly 85% follows S.D... Do you call this as increase or decline... Let me try this crude logic.. What was that about conversion of 10% Hindustanis to Islam? Is that not a decline..?


>>>Reading items on the net, which are usually slanted towards the Forum's viewpoint (including this one at times), will give you not facts, but opinions, that too based on shaky facts. I know how some Buddhists view Sri Adi Shankara - they view him as the originator of what they call 'evil' Brahminism. So, they say all sorts of things about him>>>

So what stops you from making me convinced. .. Why are you worried about pondering about my mindset.. Please attempt to convince me,and share the truths... I may be wrong in seeking the TRUTH with the available information on net.. But you can always express your convincing views and facts ...right!!..Please correct me if Im wrong, rather than finding, if Im truly a brahmin/hindu/ etc etc... Lets speak the facts


>>>Holiness of a God comes from the faith of the worshippers.>>>

I have shared this point with many here.. and i would re post it again.. There is community in Madurai called Kallars.. They have Kallar God.. And they worship and do pooja to Kallar gods, for helping them to get a good booty, on their forthcoming gang robberry... And once they accomplished their mission, they share a booty to their god, and run an grand festival... And they stronly believe in their god to, that they pray daily,that they dont end up with the cops...Now, do you agree with this concept of God? Can a God support stealing? If so, why we need such gods....[/COLOR]

PS; I have gone through that article on decline of Buddhism..Monstric life must have been a negative one.. Yes, monastic life might have helped them with a good spiritual life, but that life has not contributed anything to the public.. Thats yet another reason, why England banned all Christian monastries in the 16th century.. Islam, never had such monastic culture..

 

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

>>>Holiness of a God comes from the faith of the worshippers.>>>

I have shared this point with many here.. and i would re post it again.. There is community in Madurai called Kallars.. They have Kallar God.. And they worship and do pooja to Kallar gods, for helping them to get a good booty, on their forthcoming gang robberry... And once they accomplished their mission, they share a booty to their god, and run an grand festival... And they stronly believe in their god to, that they pray daily,that they dont end up with the cops...Now, do you agree with this concept of God? Can a God support stealing? If so, why we need such gods....[/COLOR]

Kallazhagar -> One who captivates by his beauty... the Lord's beauty is called by such a name... the Lord is also known as 'Sundararajar'...

It is true that there are a sect called 'Kallars', some of whom earned their living by theiving... there is a famous story of how Raja Thirumalai Naickan had issued a challenge to steal the necklace of his queen, and the Kallars after worshipping the Lord had accompolished the task... but that cannot be inferred to mean that the Lord supports stealing!

Also, a group of Kallars were faithful bhakthas; sure they used to steal, but donated part of their loot to the Lord (and thus to the society)... similar to Robinhood...

This folklore has been transferred down so much so that it has come to be accepted that it is believed that this Perumal is the God of the theives alone! How much ridiculous can it get!

If we were to dig into the history of knights templar or the hospitallers, it would be horrendous; and to think that such people were the crusaders... the crusade has seen more blood, gore and human deceit than anything else...

So, please refrain from mixing up specific beliefs with the broader concept of God... in the end, it is bhakthi that counts... and in the process, if anyone has done any karmic deeds that binds him, he definitely would pay for it...

Your argument stems from the view that the Lord is specifically for the theiving community... there is also another view... hope you can see it.

Thanks,

 

[happyhindu]

Matter of fact, one dont need any TRUST, to evaluate two different ideologies or doctrines. Newton didnt asked for the TRUST Ptolemic scientists.. Truth is one..and to prove the truth, one doesnt need any trust.

trust is prana.

trust is bhakti.

trust is surrender.

trust is faith.

trust is love.

trust is truth.

trust needs no proof.

trust exists unseen like the wind, permeating everything sentinent and unsentinent.

trust does not figure in the domain of ideologies and doctrines and religion and science. ideologies and doctrines are religion, not faith.

 

[KRS]

sapr333,
My response in 'blue'.

KRS, I have brushed aside few valid points, inorder to stay focussed on my quest for God.. some of the important points i feel to debate here is....

1>>Yes, such a universal brotherhood is possoble ONLY if each of us trusts the other>>>

Matter of fact, one dont need any TRUST, to evaluate two different ideologies or doctrines. Newton didnt asked for the TRUST Ptolemic scientists.. Truth is one..and to prove the truth, one doesnt need any trust.
Your statement is true for anything to do with logic and science. Because the ground rules are the same for everyone and are known. So even if there is a mal intention for debate by one party, it doesn't generally matter.

But here we are discussing systems involving faith. So, if the two parties do not have mutual trust that there are no mal intentions, then a level playing field can not be had. "Truth' in the matters of faith can not just be discussed without trust, because we are comparing apples and oranges.

>>statistics on decline of hindu populations>>

Bharath 2000 years ago was a 100% hindu nation following SanatanaDharma.. Now it says, onlly 85% follows S.D... Do you call this as increase or decline... Let me try this crude logic.. What was that about conversion of 10% Hindustanis to Islam? Is that not a decline..?
Are you talking about total Hindus in the world or just Hindus in India? Are you talking about absolute numbers of Hindus in India or percentages? Percentages don't tell the story, because as I said before when the pie gets bigger and a slice while getting bigger but some other slice got bigger more, does not mean that the first slice is shrinking. 10% conversion to Islam when? Again, please cite proper numbers where the numbers of Hindus are shrinking (towards dying). Sorry sir, you have not proved the foundation towards your assumption, because it is wrong.

>>>Reading items on the net, which are usually slanted towards the Forum's viewpoint (including this one at times), will give you not facts, but opinions, that too based on shaky facts. I know how some Buddhists view Sri Adi Shankara - they view him as the originator of what they call 'evil' Brahminism. So, they say all sorts of things about him>>>

So what stops you from making me convinced. .. Why are you worried about pondering about my mindset.. Please attempt to convince me,and share the truths... I may be wrong in seeking the TRUTH with the available information on net.. But you can always express your convincing views and facts ...right!!..Please correct me if Im wrong, rather than finding, if Im truly a brahmin/hindu/ etc etc... Lets speak the facts
If you want me to convince you, how about you convincing me first. You see the game works this way. You make your assertion with proper SCHOLORLY facts first. I will correct you then if you are wrong with a refutation based on SCHOLORLY facts. But in your case, I still made an exception. I posted a whole scholorly note by Prof. Lal. How about you refuting his assertion that Sri Adi Shankara DID NOT 'exterminate' Buddhism? How about you proving that Sri Adi Shankara was just like those Potugese Inquisitors (how come you make this assertion and when I challenged you, you do not back up what you said?)

Why should I waste my time convincing you refuting your wild statements that you can not even substantiate?

>>>Holiness of a God comes from the faith of the worshippers.>>>

I have shared this point with many here.. and i would re post it again.. There is community in Madurai called Kallars.. They have Kallar God.. And they worship and do pooja to Kallar gods, for helping them to get a good booty, on their forthcoming gang robberry... And once they accomplished their mission, they share a booty to their god, and run an grand festival... And they stronly believe in their god to, that they pray daily,that they dont end up with the cops...Now, do you agree with this concept of God? Can a God support stealing? If so, why we need such gods....
As you already said about Carvakas, Hinduism allows for many practices. If this particular group sees Paramatma in a particular God who am I to question it? From your view point, are you saying that murderers and theives can not worship any God? what do you mean by 'Can a God support stealing?'. What is a 'God' in your opinion? What is your idea of that God's 'support?'.
[/COLOR]

PS; I have gone through that article on decline of Buddhism..Monstric life must have been a negative one.. Yes, monastic life might have helped them with a good spiritual life, but that life has not contributed anything to the public.. Thats yet another reason, why England banned all Christian monastries in the 16th century.. Islam, never had such monastic culture..
On the contrary - at least for Buddhism one of the reasons for decline was that many monasteries were filled with wealth and the monks were too indulgent, as the article says.

 

[sapr333]

Kallazhagar ->
1>>>>If we were to dig into the history of knights templar or the hospitallers, it would be horrendous; and to think that such people were the crusaders... the crusade has seen more blood, gore and human deceit than anything else...

2>> please refrain from mixing up specific beliefs with the broader concept of God... in the end, it is bhakthi that counts... and in the process, if anyone has done any karmic deeds that binds him, he definitely would pay for it...

Seshadri,

I condemn Knights of templars,Inquition,witch hunt etc in the name of God... But according to you, you may not be able(dont want) to condemn neither 'god ordained theives' nor Knights of templars?.

This stems to another point.Kancha says in his book, his gods drank arrack/whisky, and he was happy with that, and didnt agree ghee/curd offering to elite God Rama/Krishna/Vinayagar.

The point is, Can we conceptualize our own gods, like Kancha or Kallar,based upon our own tastes? Then it defeats the very purpose of Concept of Brahma or Supreme God.. For eg, refering Sri.Adi Shankara's debate/Concept of God, I can easily prove the concept of Kallar god is wrong..Do you agree with me?

 

[sapr333]

TO KRS:-

SAPR333>>>>Yes I did..I never get tensed up or fall in to emotions if some one calls "Mohammed as Pedophilia/Jesus Christ dating Mary Magdalene/Krishna Stealing clothes/Buddha dying of loose motion after eathing pork etc.. Each one is entitled to air his views,and its our responsiblity to give respond back with wisdom,than getting emotional, Oh Ye!! He hurt me! etc..Im sure you would agree with me.


KRS Responds>>>>You have every right to call anyone by any name you want. But in the real world, words do have impact. While I do not care about what you call Sri Adi Shankara, by calling him names, since he is my sambradhaya Guru, you are automatically creating an emotional gulf between us. This name calling is a teenage activity, along with defending it. If you want to find out the 'truth', please approach everything under the sun with empathy.>>

Dear KRS, before responding to your post, I thought I would write you this quickly..

I appreciate your openness in expressing your emotions with regards to your Sambradhaya Guru.. I do agree with you, that, if any emontional gulf is created, then it will not lead to an engaging dialogues.

Apologize,had I hurt you. But for sure, henceforth, I would be bit more cautious,when using names of holy persons.

 

[sapr333]

KRS,

Please have a look in to the statistical analysis of census from 1960-2001, from Population Reference Bureau. Yes, every religions count has increased due to population rise. But the percentage of Indian Hindus & Christians has definitely fallen.

http://www.prb.org/Articles/2009/indiareligions.aspx?p=1

 

[KRS]

sapr333,
Quote from the summarization of the study you have provided the link to:

Differing growth rates can be a cause for alarm but the actual figures show that the changing balance is much less significant than it first appears. Looking at the absolute numbers, Hindus increased by 140 million between 1991 and 2001, while Muslims grew by 37 million. Even over the 40-year span between the 1961 and 2001 censuses, the Hindu proportion of the total population showed a scant decrease, from 84 percent to 81 percent. The Sikh proportion remained unchanged throughout the entire period at 2 percent. Thus, census data show that, decades from now, India's religious makeup will look very much as it does now. And, with the use of family planning rising among all groups, the prospects for further stabilization are quite real.

Regards,
KRS

KRS,

Please have a look in to the statistical analysis of census from 1960-2001, from Population Reference Bureau. Yes, every religions count has increased due to population rise. But the percentage of Indian Hindus & Christians has definitely fallen.

http://www.prb.org/Articles/2009/indiareligions.aspx?p=1

 

[KRS]

sapr333,

Thank you for your response.

You did not hurt my sentiments/emotions personally. I only pointed out why in discussions, especially concerning religions/faith one has to be careful. Thank you again for acknowledging it.

Regards,
KRS

TO KRS:-

SAPR333>>>>Yes I did..I never get tensed up or fall in to emotions if some one calls "Mohammed as Pedophilia/Jesus Christ dating Mary Magdalene/Krishna Stealing clothes/Buddha dying of loose motion after eathing pork etc.. Each one is entitled to air his views,and its our responsiblity to give respond back with wisdom,than getting emotional, Oh Ye!! He hurt me! etc..Im sure you would agree with me.


KRS Responds>>>>You have every right to call anyone by any name you want. But in the real world, words do have impact. While I do not care about what you call Sri Adi Shankara, by calling him names, since he is my sambradhaya Guru, you are automatically creating an emotional gulf between us. This name calling is a teenage activity, along with defending it. If you want to find out the 'truth', please approach everything under the sun with empathy.>>

Dear KRS, before responding to your post, I thought I would write you this quickly..

I appreciate your openness in expressing your emotions with regards to your Sambradhaya Guru.. I do agree with you, that, if any emontional gulf is created, then it will not lead to an engaging dialogues.

Apologize,had I hurt you. But for sure, henceforth, I would be bit more cautious,when using names of holy persons.

 

[sapr333]

sapr333,
Quote from the summarization of the study you have provided the link to:

Differing growth rates can be a cause for alarm but the actual figures show that the changing balance is much less significant than it first appears. >>>>>Thus, census data show that, decades from now, India's religious makeup will look very much as it does now. And, with the use of family planning rising among all groups, the prospects for further stabilization are quite real. [/COLOR]


Regards,
KRS

KRS, please have a look at this link from SangParivar.I'm not sure if its an official site.. It has interpolated the census data, and concludes that by 2035 Islam will become the majority in India.

http://www.sanghparivar.org/forum/w...ia-india-will-be-declared-islamic-country-if-

In most of the sites I had hung out, there is a wide spread feeling amongst participants about this prediction.. Few years ago, even BJP was making an issue out of it.. Its widely known that 2002 census didn't carry the data on Kashmir,citing turbulant atmosphere. Opponents say, Congress did it intentionally.

Keeping in mind,this issue, I intentionally didnt add this point in the survey, cos I wanted to have some entirely new perspectives,from forum members..

 

[KRS]

sapr333,

This is exactly why I made the point previously about not relying as the truth the 'information' (disinformation) propagated by these websites with other agendas. I would rely on the sites like PRB, which seem to have taken in to all information available and studied the issue scientifically.

Now to the Sangh Parivar site information:

1. I thought you are trained as an engineer. I am surprised you would not question straight lining a 61 year growth to come up with annualized growth percentages! Populations have compound growths. And these growth rates change year to year based on various circumstances. Please apply the 61 year growth rates to each community and see what are the populations of each community 61 years hence (which is to show you how wrong the calculations are, because one can not even project like that).

2. India has 13 states and New Delhi area where the muslim populations exceed 1 million. States where they are a larger percentage (UP, Bihar, Assam etc.) are some of the states which are very poor and lag other states in advancement. So, if you look at state by state, you will realize that even in these states, the muslim growth are may be a couple of percentages more than Hindu population. Population can not grow on a straight line indefinitely. There have been 'scientists' sounding alarm in the past of about the end of the world due to unbirdled population growth in the past. What they did not take in to account is that ALL communities limit their familiy growths once they are more educated and economically well off. So, the lesson is this: In India one can not apply the average growth across all India muslim population. One should go state by state, look at the support structures available to sustain each communities growth and above all literacy and progress. If you do this, you will realize that the PRB study is very close to the mark.

Again, please learn to differentiate between propaganda and science.

Regards,
KRS

KRS, please have a look at this link from SangParivar.I'm not sure if its an official site.. It has interpolated the census data, and concludes that by 2035 Islam will become the majority in India.

http://www.sanghparivar.org/forum/w...ia-india-will-be-declared-islamic-country-if-

In most of the sites I had hung out, there is a wide spread feeling amongst participants about this prediction.. Few years ago, even BJP was making an issue out of it.. Its widely known that 2002 census didn't carry the data on Kashmir,citing turbulant atmosphere. Opponents say, Congress did it intentionally.

Keeping in mind,this issue, I intentionally didnt add this point in the survey, cos I wanted to have some entirely new perspectives,from forum members..

 

[Nacchinarkiniyan]

I read an article during the recent presidential elections in the U.S as to how whites will become a minority in the U.S in a couple of decades.

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics" said Mark Twain

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is part of a phrase attributed to Benjamin Disraelihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Disraeli and popularised in the United States by Mark Twain: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." The statement refers to the persuasive power of numbershttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number, the use of statisticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics to bolster weak argumentshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument, and the tendency of people to disparage statistics that do not support their positions.

 

[sapr333]

I read an article during the recent presidential elections in the U.S as to how whites will become a minority in the U.S in a couple of decades.

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics" said Mark Twain

Fine, for the argument sake, let me keep aside the statistical approach..

Here is a link from the most respected daily in our country..It talks about the leaders opinion,(not statistics)..Would you rely on this?

http://www.hindu.com/2005/03/13/stories/2005031305951000.htm

I'm neither relying on crude statistical analysis with insufficient data(As KRS points it out) nor on the political talks of self interest groups.. Having said that, this points of concern, seems to be a expressed by many a people,incl,press,media,politicians and forum members etc..There is definitely a 'Mass Sentiment/opinion" attached to it

 

[sapr333]

sapr333,

I am surprised you would not question straight lining a 61 year growth to come up with annualized growth percentages! Populations have compound growths.
KRS

Definitely, I did not rely on that simple arithmetic.. Rather,I took just 2 simple parameters, ie Current Growth Trend (% share) & and current family growth (larger family among muslims). Both seems to be on the positive side. OR comparing overall national growth Vis-a-vis Muslim poulation growth itself idicates,that, there is a consistent rise.. One can conclude that, without a calulator.

Yes, I agree with you, its not easy to predict future, with the possible data..As you said,there are lot of variables like 'Future Economic & Literacy growth (Vs) Small family concept, future conversions & Reconversion rates, life expectancy of particular community,even natural clamities, governmental policies etc etc could be vital variables in predicting the future .. But, to start with, in any analysis,smaller factors are always not taken to consideration, and data are initially analysed only with the broader spectrum.Im sure, even a 4th or 5th or 6th degree equation cannot find an answer to this..

While we break our head here, a small decision taken by the politicians with a theocratic approach, can easily make this statistical projection, upside down, as we have seen it with the pre independence hindu population in Pakistan/East Bengal.

Having said that, mass opinion also shares my point of view..One may tend to brush it aside as propaganda!!

 

[KRS]

sapr333,

So the issue is not that 'Hinduism is declining (or dying)' but rather that the mix of religious populations are changing. Now, if you had put it this way then I would not have had any quibble with you. This is the concern shared in the RSS news item in the Hindu.

But this is a totally different issue and thesis than what you have been putting out. By the way, this is not a 'religion is in decline' issue rather a political issue of changing demographics.

Even on this issue, projections for the future vary.

I think we have whipped this horse enough.

Regards,
KRS

 

[sapr333]

Thanks KRS..

As said earlier, lets use this thread exclusively for opinion polls.. Once we get raesonable votes, then, will start debating here,based upon the poll results..

Now Im sure you would accept my request of casting your vote here.. Also, lets request all the participants to share their opinion here.

 

[sapr333]

sapr333,

So the issue is not that 'Hinduism is declining (or dying)' but rather that the mix of religious populations are changing.

I think we have whipped this horse enough.

Regards,
KRS

Yes, we have whipped the horse enough.. Deep in our hearts, we all know what the truth and ground reality is.

Its time, we should stick the objective of the post .... POLL..OPINION..