The professional approach behind the sustained hinduism

[cs19844]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

How come there is a sustained strong culture and religion in India when no one in India live with an intention of upholding the culture or religion?

How come continued heavy funding by christian missionaries in establishing numerous schools, colleges and hospitals did not have any considerable impact on religious conversion? Whereas they are overwhelmingly successful in every other place in the world.

How come Mughals were not successful in spreading islam as much as the effort that they had taken for the same? In the end after failed attempts they resorted to forceful conversion.

If you notice, almost all the countries in the present day are heavily influenced by American culture, everyone changed their lifestyle very similar to american lifestyle, american media rule their places but India alone is an exception. Why is this the case?

Ever wondered why Buddhism, which was widely accepted in many parts of the world, have no presence in its birth place - India?

I repeat no one in India live with a strong intention of upholding the culture or religion.

Because you should understand there is a science behind "cultural influence" and everyone in India is being controlled by the conscious effort of few people who are experts and thorough professionals on this subject.

About 1000 years back when buddhism was growing at a rampant pace, Adi Shankara came up with a revolutionary concept of 'Self' in order to combat ever growing influence of Gautam Buddha in India. According to this concept, if one person live with the importance of 'Self' then that spreads among everyone in the society who has attachment to that person. So he had setup four mathas (and also in Kanchi) where the shankaracharyas follow the process defined by him thereby living a life giving importance to 'Self'. As a result, it got spread to everyone in India living with the importance of 'Self' (unconsciously) and are not impacted by anything external whatsoever. The system is so strong even today. The continued efforts by different religions, like Mughals and Christian Missionaries, through campaigns, establishments and various other means could not disturb the strong system. As no one in India ever live with strong intention of maintaining the culture or religion, the sense of culture remain strong because of strong influence of these four mathas across India. Adi Shankara came up with a thoughtful and professional approach to establish a process in order to have a continued strong cultural influence across India. Even god was not considered external, right now if you think god as someone as an external entity or a third person whom you can rely on then you will realize that the life is actually worse. We unconsciously believe god to be part of 'Self'.

Before Adi Shankara, everyone lived life being influenced by external entities at large. If you look at the history of Tamilnadu it was largely a competition between shaivaites and vaishnavaites, people were vigorously involved in literature contributions in praise of either shiva or vishnu mainly because of competition. The race got so intense that some of the shaivaite kings used to attack vaishnavaite temples and vice versa. It is worth to note that such a competition between shaivaites and vaishnavaites stopped abruptly ONE FINE DAY, there was no more than 63 nayanars or 12 alwars and no more temples being constructed on praise of shaivaites and vaishnavaites, this is mainly due the fundamentally revolutionary concept of 'Self' and the corresponding process implemented by Adi Shankara.

You should always understand that you lead a life that you are unconsciously strongly influenced by the hindu culture. Any culture is successful if it can influence the people towards itself, it is not through the intention of individuals to stick to culture and such a coordinated intention based society is deemed to fail. Even today, rest of the world is largely influenced by the external influencers. An article or a campaign or any kind of recognition with motive make a large impact on everyone's life, contradictory to indians who are least bothered by the same.

Adi Shankara achieved it through a thorough professional approach.

 

[prasad1]

Sir,

Not all Christians are alike, and similarly, all followers of Islam are not alike.
You painted them with a broad brush, but they too have their differences and regional variations.
You are conveniently forgetting the conversion in the Indian subcontinent. If you consider that a one time Hinduism or Sanatan Dharma was widespread from present-day Afganistan to Indochina.
The conversion was very large. Even today Northeast India is heavily influenced by Christianity.

Christians and Muslims in India are influenced by Hindu culture.

It makes no sense to compare the situation with e.g. Australia or New Zealand, where the population now consist mostly descent of European immigrants and not indigenous people.

Was conversion really widespread anywhere during colonization except South-America? I'm skeptical about the claim that India is an exception here. I think The Americas and Australia/New Zealand are the exceptions. There is the fact that at the time Europeans settled in Africa, it was very sparsely populated with some tribes whereas India was quite densely populated by then.

One can fill an empty vessel it is impossible to fill a full one.

It's because Hindusim is not a religion at all.Even if it is now considered as a major religion in India, it is having features of a culture more than a religion.
The term "Hinduism" was coined recently. The culture in India is known as "Sanathana Dharama", which means "eternal dharma" or "eternal order". Actually it is a culture passed by ancient rishis and yogis in India through years.
In order to equate Hinduism to a culture, we need to define the culture. Culture can be defined as a way of life. It includes various traditions and customs to be followed by it's followers. Mainly it includes

1. Customs and traditions
2. religion
3. Arts
4. Literature
5. Science
6. Government
7. Festivals
8. Language

- Hinduism instruct people to follow certain customs and traditions which are generated years before. Basically, there are two kinds of texts in Hinduism which are "Smrithies" and "Sruthis".

• Smrithies contains the code of conducts to be followed by people following a culture. Each Smrithi is followed in a region for a particular period according to it's nature and weather conditions. Smrithies are allowed to edit whenever needed. If some 1000 years old books are saying that, you should follow some rule which were followed 1000 years ago, nobody is going to obey that rule. That means, the ancestors were aware of changes in future and they clearly defined this in texts. So the rituals and habits to be followed can be changed according to Hindu culture. That's why so many states in India have different rituals and festivals related to Hinduism at different times and the secret of diversity in India.
• Most of the rituals in Hinduism is related to nature and weather conditions of India. The major hindu festivals in each states are closely related to agriculture seasons. For example, Onam in Kerala and Pongal in TamilNadu.
• Religion is definitely a part of Hinduism and unfortunately people only see this part as the prominent one. Vedas act as the base of the spirituality in India.
• Arts have crucial role in this culture. It has a Goddess named 'Saraswathi' to look after arts and education. There are various art forms such as Kathakali which is a part of temples in India. Hinduism also has a long tradition in various music forms. For eg. Carnatic music. Dance of Shiva (Thandava) is very famous and he is also known as 'Nataraja' (means king of dance). In ancient texts called puranas we have so many instances of these art forms.
• Literature : It's a very important point. Hinduism have various ancient texts including Vedas, Mahabharatha, Ramayana and numerous other texts known as 'Puranas'. It includes stories, poems and teachings from ancient people. Even with this amount of literature, Hinduism have no Holy book.
• Science : Many of the rituals in Hinduism is based on nature and weather conditions. Ancient rishis knew about science of human body. They have their system of medicine which is Ayurveda. 'Sushruta Samhita' is believed to be a part of Atharva veda. 'Sushruta Samhita'(Sushruta's compendium), which describes the ancient tradition of surgery in Indian medicine is considered as one of the most brilliant gems in Indian medical literature. Astronomical knowledge of these culture was very vast. In various ancient texts, it is clearly stated that earth was more like a sphere than flat and also about the various planetary movements and solar system.
• Together with physical health the practices in Hinduism also concentrated on mental health too. Yoga is now practiced around the world and we have a Yoga day on June 21st. Meditation is helping people to strengthen their minds. Refer Patanjali's Yoga Sutra
  • With many invasions, the ruling system in India was changed. Earlier, there were various kingdoms in India. For clear reasons of invasion, this element of culture is not seen in Hinduism.
  • Language : The vedic language is Sanskrit and puranas are written in this language.

So what's the point of religious conversions here? How can semetic religions can replace all these features in the Hinduism? The religious conversions does not have a major role here as it is a vast culture with abundant features.

Why weren't Indians converted en masse to Islam or Christianity?

India was ruled by Muslims from around the 12th century until 1857, and then by the British till 1947. However, India still has a large number of Hindus. Countries like Indonesia, Afghanistan, Mala...

history.stackexchange.com

 

[prasad1]

India, in fact, was mass converted by Islam and to a lesser extent by Christianity. I believe most of the answers here see India as it is present in the current form. However if you historically see, the entire subcontinent could be called as India and sub-continental religions (Hinduism/Jainism/Budhism) even reigned far beyond the sub continent to cover most of South-east Asia as we know today. The boundaries would be roughly bordering the Persian empire in the west to Indonesia in the east, which was ruled by enterprising empires from South that had brilliant naval capabilities.

Mass conversion was more successful in the extremities and that is clearly visible from the current religion map of the region including present day India. The reason why the entire populace is not yet converted can be multiple as mentioned by the other answers but one major factor is the vast area and the true population of the entire region. Both of which would make it one of the largest ever in the history.
As we know today only the core was able to withstand the continuous onslaught for over a millennium now.

Why weren't Indians converted en masse to Islam or Christianity?

India was ruled by Muslims from around the 12th century until 1857, and then by the British till 1947. However, India still has a large number of Hindus. Countries like Indonesia, Afghanistan, Mala...

history.stackexchange.com

 

[cs19844]

Sir,

Maybe you are not aware. America & Africa are great examples of overwhelming success stories of Catholics. Do you have any idea how much cash is spent on religion from Catholics and from US on India?
Do you have any idea whom is funding most on Indian media? US Churches.
Do you have any idea what is possibly the funding source behind building churches every nook and corner in Tamilnadu?
Can you name a single person in India who is not associated with Christianity either through hospitals, education and other needs?
Let me tell you one example, Loyola recently opened an engineering college in Chennai, and whoever enroll in that college will get a free trip to France for two months. Do you think it is entirely selfless motive of giving indians a touch of french experience, probably also ask them to taste best of wines out there so that the management is intensely satisfied with the act? You should understand that everything on this earth is done with a motive.

What I have outlined is just the tip of an iceberg. I recently came across an article that the total funding for christianity in India is close to $1 Billion annually. I might be wrong with the exact number but the situation is exactly that.

Culture is something that does not happen with every individual having strong intention of upholding the same (Quite contrary to the west where everyone live with the intention of cultural importance). Such a system is bound to fail in India mainly because it goes against the individual freedom. There is something that binds everyone to the culture through a strong influence. But yet the culture in the west is strongly based individual intentions and they do give up on certain freedom, that is why Indians lead life with more freedom compared to west.

Coming back to american culture, almost all the countries gave up to the US culture more or less. Countries including the south american, european, australia and most of asia more or less follow the american lifestyle. American media rule these places, market is dominated by americans (which is true even in India).

Clearly, there is a big war going on those lines of cultural influence between the west and India in India.

 

[prasad1]

Sir,

Maybe you are not aware. America & Africa are great examples of overwhelming success stories of Catholics. Do you have any idea how much cash is spent on religion from Catholics and from US on India?
Do you have any idea whom is funding most on Indian media? US Churches.
Do you have any idea what is possibly the funding source behind building churches every nook and corner in Tamilnadu?

For your information, John Kennedy was the first Catholic President of The USA.
Before that, you had to be a WASP, White Anglo Sextan and Protestant to be elected.
So Catholics are not even powerful among American Christians.

 

[KRN]

How come there is a sustained strong culture and religion in India when no one in India live with an intention of upholding the culture or religion?

How come continued heavy funding by christian missionaries in establishing numerous schools, colleges and hospitals did not have any considerable impact on religious conversion? Whereas they are overwhelmingly successful in every other place in the world.

How come Mughals were not successful in spreading islam as much as the effort that they had taken for the same? In the end after failed attempts they resorted to forceful conversion.

It is mostly due to pride in caste and religious customs. In ancient India, even the lowest Castes lived with pride in their practices and would always court death rather than be forced to change them. Hence the only way in which successful conversions could be carried out, is to convert entire communities enmasse, while allowing them to maintain their customs. Most missionaries considered these customs barbaric, and were against them. And as a result, despite their many advantages, they never got much attention from even the backward castes.

If you notice, almost all the countries in the present day are heavily influenced by American culture, everyone changed their lifestyle very similar to american lifestyle, american media rule their places but India alone is an exception. Why is this the case?

With the ubiquitous mobile phone, India too is on the verge of such changes. We live in a very exciting period in Indian history.

Ever wondered why Buddhism, which was widely accepted in many parts of the world, have no presence in its birth place - India?

Because Buddhism sought a monastic identity for all and to destroy the caste consciousness of the masses. Hence when the invafers came in, the Buddhists were easy prey. Wherever Buddhism held sway at the time of invasions (like under the Palas of Bengal) you now see huge numbers of non Hindus (Bangladesh). There area few exceptions, like in Malabar where Tipu's forced conversions on the predominantly Hindu community led to vast demographic changes but by and large, the Hindus showed admirable resistance.

I repeat no one in India live with a strong intention of upholding the culture or religion.

Because you should understand there is a science behind "cultural influence" and everyone in India is being controlled by the conscious effort of few people who are experts and thorough professionals on this subject.

About 1000 years back when buddhism was growing at a rampant pace, Adi Shankara came up with a revolutionary concept of 'Self' in order to combat ever growing influence of Gautam Buddha in India. According to this concept, if one person live with the importance of 'Self' then that spreads among everyone in the society who has attachment to that person. So he had setup four mathas (and also in Kanchi) where the shankaracharyas follow the process defined by him thereby living a life giving importance to 'Self'. As a result, it got spread to everyone in India living with the importance of 'Self' (unconsciously) and are not impacted by anything external whatsoever. The system is so strong even today. The continued efforts by different religions, like Mughals and Christian Missionaries, through campaigns, establishments and various other means could not disturb the strong system. As no one in India ever live with strong intention of maintaining the culture or religion, the sense of culture remain strong because of strong influence of these four mathas across India. Adi Shankara came up with a thoughtful and professional approach to establish a process in order to have a continued strong cultural influence across India. Even god was not considered external, right now if you think god as someone as an external entity or a third person whom you can rely on then you will realize that the life is actually worse. We unconsciously believe god to be part of 'Self'.

In Adi Sankara's time Buddhism was already on deep decline. The Huns who invaded India in the 5th, 6th Centuries had already destroyed Buddhism. You would find this in the lamentations of Hieun Tsang a Chinese visitor a century before Sankara's birth. Sankara had little hand in the elimination of Buddhism. In the Brahma Sutra Bhashya Sankara refers to Buddha, but with contempt and dismissively while he deals with other opponents with more respect.

I also doubt your conclusion about the influence of the Sankara Mathas in directing the course of Hindu history.
In none of Sankara's works is there even a remote hint that he established (or was going to establish) these Mathas. I am not saying that he didn't, but there is no conclusive proof in his writings.

Before Adi Shankara, everyone lived life being influenced by external entities at large. If you look at the history of Tamilnadu it was largely a competition between shaivaites and vaishnavaites, people were vigorously involved in literature contributions in praise of either shiva or vishnu mainly because of competition. The race got so intense that some of the shaivaite kings used to attack vaishnavaite temples and vice versa. It is worth to note that such a competition between shaivaites and vaishnavaites stopped abruptly ONE FINE DAY, there was no more than 63 nayanars or 12 alwars and no more temples being constructed on praise of shaivaites and vaishnavaites, this is mainly due the fundamentally revolutionary concept of 'Self' and the corresponding process implemented by Adi Shankara.

The fight was between Saivas, Vaishnava, Buddhists, Jains, with each group gaining strength in different periods and geographuc locations in TN. I believe the confrontation btw Saivas and Vaishnava continued till the 19th Cent though I am not sure. Post Sankara, the fights likely got aggravated. Even today you would see in TN some temples with defaced inscriptions that state, it used to be a Saiva place of worship but got converted to a Vaishnava one later on, or vice versa. So I doubt if Sankara had the kind of influence you suggest.

You should always understand that you lead a life that you are unconsciously strongly influenced by the hindu culture. Any culture is successful if it can influence the people towards itself, it is not through the intention of individuals to stick to culture and such a coordinated intention based society is deemed to fail. Even today, rest of the world is largely influenced by the external influencers. An article or a campaign or any kind of recognition with motive make a large impact on everyone's life, contradictory to indians who are least bothered by the same.

Adi Shankara achieved it through a thorough professional approach.

 

[renuka]

American culture?
No one follows American or any other country culture in Malaysia.
Out here everyone follows their own culture and a cultural that has fused all the local cultures.