Not at all cruel or thoughtless. And i am in no way offended frankly and have enjoyed these threads and the civility involved in general amongst seemingly plenty divergent viewpoints.. The bolded part is what is the crux of the Newsweek article. The moment you want to be inclusive, one does take a stepback from excluvism and i won't say becomes 'Hindu', but tends to think basically like one. I'd consider the Supreme Truth/ God to be of infinite attributes and not limited to a set of rituals and procedures. From what i have been taught there cold be an infinite amount of was to realize the absolute Truth and be one with it..someone had posted a very good essence of the Vedas purel from a logical perspecive, if i get it i will post and share that..it's got nothing to do with religion, but with the nature of the Absolute Truth..that ma also provide a deeper reason and understanding/ more spiritual and less literistic undersanding of some of Christs sayings..

Juglin 5: Some of those incidents bomb blasts and stuff were not carried out by Hindu organizations..thats false. Juglin 5: While i don't deny there may be intolerance in those who claim to be Hndu's it by no means is what many want to convey..just an example from what you quoted.. Guess who were responsible? I remember that time lots of people and vested interests blamed Hindu's..but: It's a bit more complicated than simply blaming Hindu's for intolerance. Anwywas here's some American views on the same incident: http://212.150.54.123/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=121 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/838213.stm http://news.indiamart.com/news-analysis/deendar-anjuman-bann-5879.html

Juglin 5: While i don't deny there may be intolerance in those who claim to be Hndu's it by no means is what many want to convey..just an example from what you quoted.. Guess who were responsible? I remember that time lots of people and vested interests blamed Hindu's..but: It's a bit more complicated than simply blaming Hindu's for intolerance. Anwywas here's some American views on the same incident: http://212.150.54.123/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=121 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/838213.stm http://news.indiamart.com/news-analysis/deendar-anjuman-bann-5879.html

Another very ancient Hindu/ Vedic prayer probably originating around 2 millenia before Christ..at the least: Cultivating the mind for coexistence...why cannot we pray these in interfaith meetings? Will it lessen anyone's 'core' religion? Will praying this lead people away/ astray from God? Do people who do this prayer go to hell?

I can understand why it would be difficult to explain Hinduism to them. English is clearly not her first language and she was not born and raised here, so she certainly isn't used to the need to defend her faith against prosletyizing (sp?) "friends". Different religions are generally well accepted in India and unless you live in a very poor village, missionaries don't really tap on your shoulder there. Being that she was able to immigrate here, I don't think that was her situation. Ironically missionaries do tap around the most backward regions in India. Thats a big controversy. I saw that video. One thing apparent is she's sort of shocked someone would look down on her religion in the way her friends did. My parents too never taught me ever anything against another religion. When i met Christian missionaries in the malls in the US and Islamists in Jordan asking me to give up Hinduism first time, it sort of shocked me, anyone could disparage faith like that.. I had a similar reaction, of not being able to tell them 'One God many Paths'. I think i like Sara blurted 'Many Gods'. little realizing the doctrinal hate in these relgions against 'uttering' multiple Gods. Though i never meant i worship 'many Gods'. Later only i realized, that our upbringing was much more spiritually free and doctrinally tolerant than many in the developed and Islamic world. The same reaction goes with Sara. Give you a typical Hindu prayer, ..read it, you'll realize anyone can pray that, withot changing religions/ converting etc.: Sara must have been shocked, that when she internally wishes peace for all, why do these people talk about 'hell' for her? I personally felt there was 'aggression' in the approach. I doubt most Americans share the thinking of Molly and her 'regular' friend. Shanti= Inner Peace..

I'm again going to sort of supplement, or adjust actually, the above statement. Claiming "my path is the best for all mankind" is not essentially contradictory to the Hindu tenets (although as prady poetically stated, it does "wander away")... the problem arises when you say that "my path is the only path for all mankind" to achieve salvation or heaven or whatever. The difference is slight really because if you are saying it is "the best" it is in fact another way of saying "the only" because who wants anything but the best? Nevertheless, it is a distinction that must be made for purposes of clarity. Thats an excellent post Jay, and thanks for the clarification indeed. That distinction is indeed significant and goes a long way in understanding the nuances involved.

This is a line of thought a friend an me were discussing and he came on with this: What organizations like USCIRF seem to demand is exactly that - Basic Freedom of Spiritual Quest. However they demand this in physical terms. Everybody should be free to pursue his spiritual quest. Nobody should be allowed to physically obstruct him, including through law. There is nothing here to criticize. However this is often applied to people who are external to the ideological context in which the individual resides. It happens where strong and aggressive religious groups physically obstruct minority and/or weaker religious groups from exercising their 'spiritual quest'. It is also applied to when the State undertakes measures to subdue the 'spiritual quest' through law, law enforcement agencies, paramilitary groups, vigilante groups enjoying the protection of those in power, etc. What most organizations active for religious freedom fail to condemn is when the system internal to the ideological context in which the individual resides obstructs an individual's freedom for 'spiritual quest'. That is, the religion to which the individual belongs is in itself an impediment to this 'spiritual quest'. While i have no qualms that faith is sacrosanct, i do have qualms if religions themselves act as impediments to the freedom of spiritual quest.

Again, a cyclical universe has been disproven again and again by the very strong evidence of a universe that is expanding at an INCREASING rate. Yes i am aware and so are the proponents that it is expanding. But it's not that if something is expanding it cannot contract. So disprove the 2002 theory. Give some link. Moreover the time scales favor the the Hindu cosmology don't they? But a materialist/monist cosmology is not compatible with any theological cosmology, period, and, *again*, they aren't the same thing, anyway. Why, theological cosmology IMHO should be IMHO compatible with scientific studies. I don't believe the Earth was created 5000 BC, even if theology says that. Compatibility with scientific evidence gives a fillip and boost to theology. Don't you agree? Do you think that if Christianity and Islam had the same cosmology that Hindu's have, they would'nt have reminded you and others every instance? But here how many have heard that the Hindu cosmology timescales do really come close to the scientific ones? And to be exceedingly blunt, comparisons of Hinduism to scientific discoveries and/or theories is disingenuous itself and betrays either deliberate falsification or "magic brown person" thinking that does little credit to anyone. Here i am not defending or propagating Hinduism as much as i am exposing obsurantism. Why do you believe me? Verify the Hindu version cosmology, it's so easy on the net. Disprove me. Find one fallacy in the Upanishad or Bhagavad Gita. Everything is on the net. The first question when anyone says, "Well, Hindu scriptures say THIS!" is "Which ones?" and "Interpreted by whom?" These are questions that have so much more significance than most Westerners can understand (and I'm including Islam in this), coming from a background of very short religious books and a very limited number of levels of religious authority. Multiple scriptures mention Brahmas days and Yuga, Kalpas connotations of timescales in scriptures so old when mankind was finding it difficult to count sheep in the flock. These have been studied to death. However they attract seekers. But the evidence is all there. I do not mean to say Hinduism is superior or anything. I mentioned before it's a sort of charter akin to the Liberty, peace, Life and happiness one that is aright of all Americans in the constitution. But the charter includes a powerful and yet wide framework on spiritual freedom. Primary being not to berate faith.. Translation / quote n° 4329 : Rig Veda, most ancient of the Vedic collections of hymns http://www.onelittleangel.com/wisdom/quotes/book.asp?mc=291

Coming from a Christian standpoint, the only perfect positive ways to be, would be through Christ. Fair enough, looking from a Hindu point of view you'd be practising Bhakti Yoga..:001_smile: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhakti So in reality you are not philosophically exclusive in your form of worship from Hinduism really.. However it's only when you claim 'My path is best for ALL mankind' you wander away from Hinduisms core flexible tenets. Most Americans i doubt today believe in the latter. [/url]

I met a Hindu man some years ago who told me that he became a follower of Christ as a result of his study of the Vedas! He told me that there were verses in the Vedas alluding to Christ as the God-man bringing salvation to the world. It was a fascinating. I've met lots of Christians who became Hindu's after reading the Vedas..;)

The only positive elements that other religions could have would be worldly, and thus less perfect than that offered by Christianity How do you come to that conclusion? I don't think most people in the West would agree to that. :confused:

I was speaking of philosophical cosmology, just as I was speaking of a philosophical anthropology, not the cosmology in physics or the anthropology of comparative human cultures. So, no, I wouldn't say that the Hindu cosmology is "more similar to our belief" at all. :-) I agree, and it is a fact that Hindu cosmology is not at all related to Christian or Islamic. But that is not the point. The point is whether the author's point in the article is relevent or not. Tell me if more people in the US/ West seriously believe in the Biblical version of cosmology or the scientific one? If indeed more people in the West believe in the scientific one they are coming pretty close to the Hindu version, at least by default..if not you are right the author makes a mute point. Meanwile this is what Carl Sagan says.. This is another comparison.. http://www.rediff.com/news/jan/29sagan.htm A discussion on metaphysicotheologicocosminology i agree is meaningless..:001_smile:

EACH has a different soteriology, anthropology, and cosmology, and they are not inclusive. Will deal with only the cosmology part.. Oldest theory: ---Different models and theories in the interim--- latest theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmology Do you find any similarities between what modern science believes now and what the Rig Veda said more than 4 millenia ago? So people are indeed believing in a way more in Hindu cosmology (maybe without knowing it or acknowledging it) than the cosmology of other religions. Would you believe the Christian or Islamic given cosmology is more similar to our belief than the Hindu one? One necesarily does not realize that one is changing, one need not be conscious of that change, but it does happen. Also check up on the Hindu cosmological timescales..i would say more Americans are believing Hindu cosmology more than Christian or Islamic or Bahai..thats the sort of thing the article wanted to convey, so indeed it is relevent.

Kate, thanks for your fine words and disagreements are absolutely fine with me. I think if everyone agreed with everyone else on everything, we'd have one really dull planet..:)

Allow me to add that I'm pleased to find a reasonable discussion which does not start by dissing Hinduism and trashing its many manifestations. Although most of us are quite used to it and tend to disregard it, it is quite refreshing to find people willing to simply discuss without acrimony or ridicule. I certainly second that and would like our opinion if my posts are reflecting the correct perspectives. As a matter of basic principle, the idea of "conversion" is rather a redundant one from the Hindu worldview because if you really believe and respect other faiths/religions/whatever, why would you want to "convert" them? They will find their way to god, if there is one (yes, you can choose not to believe god and remain a Hindu), through one path or another. Very well put. Conversions do imply in a way that the person converting holds the potential convertees present faith/ dogma in low regard. Thats specially applicable when dealing with cultures with little access to knowledge/ verification of claims and chances of being induced with material goodies.

Sleepymom, thanks for the welcome indeed. I think there is no proselytization in Hinduism. There has been a lot of concerted propaganda against Hinduism over the years and it is indeed a hard religion to explain for the common Hindu not very familiar with doctrine and thus misunderstood or easily ridiculed by some of those keen on attracting converts. This has raised angst in certain sections. Negative Literature by evangelists spreading Hinduism that it is about worshipping monkeys, elephants, snakes and cows doesn’t exactly gel well with those who are familiar with it. Hinduism absorbed/ created Animists, Polytheists, atheists, Dvaita, Nyaya (logic), many different traditions within it’s charter of evolution to the supreme (so for many who understand only organized religion it can be confusing). Over time many of these groups have turned into mainstream Hinduism pretty near to it's core doctrines. But it has been largely a voluntary and self effort by members and not induced. The core doctrine in Hindism as i mentioned in some posts above is very clear. But it's only the seekers who delve into these doctrines. But concepts like Dharma, Karma, Moksha are pretty well ingranied and undersood by the general population. Moreover monetary inducements are also used to convert and they create friction among populations which have otherwise existed peacefully over centuries. Conversion through inducement/ coercion is banned in some Indian states. Voluntary conversion is allowed and is a provision within the constitution of India. Doctrinally Hinduism encourages seekers of truth, and revealing verses to only those who seek it in sincerity. While it’s common to see Muslims and Christians quoting verses from the Bible and Koran on the net, you’ll find Hindu’s rarely doing so unless it is very pertinent, despite the fact that fundamental doctrinal scriptures are much more voluminous than those of other religions. Because when one does that, in a way one is saying look my scripture is better than yours. And that act itself negates the fact that Hinduism does allow for many paths and intrinsically Hindu’s don’t tend to say/ think my ONE God is superior to yours. What hurts them is forced or induced conversions, and belittling the religion without understanding it’s tenets. But there are Hindu missions/ sects like the Hare Krishna which do try and create awareness and take on converts. I doubt however there’s any formal ‘baptizing’ ceremony in Hinduism in general. (Brahmin do have a thread ceremony of sorts), but thats about it. Hope that clarifies on the conversion bit.

I'm so glad you posted that. Thank you. However, I meant the God of the Old Testament, the Hebrew God. I think the discussion was about whether or not Buddha could be in heaven (Christian heaven), and my point was that I didn't know if Buddha would have had any knowledge of the Hebrew God. Thanks for clarifying. When you mentioned the ONE God, i did'nt assume it was THE Hebrew ONE God. :) But heaven in Hinduism/ Buddism has a different connotation than what is used in Chrisianity and Islam. Moksha for example is escaping the cycle of birth and rebirth in the material universe. 'Heavens' in the material universe are given to people who are not comfortable seeking Moksha in this life. So good deeds supposedly earn 'heaven'/ planets that have little illness, very long lives, extremely high standards of living, intelligence, long lives compared to planet Earth..ofcourse like in Hindu mythology and doctrine there is mention of Indras heavens where residents live lives of millions of years and there are extremely beautiful women, handsome men..but that too is considered 'ephemeral'/ temporary. Moksha/ Nirvana is supposed to be beyond the material heavens..and supposedly easier to achieve from planets like Earth than he comforting environs of Indralok.. Writing that maybe i think i too am not ready for Moksha just as yet..;)

With all due respect, these are not the adjectives that leap to mind when I think of India. It has had, and continues to have, inter-religious conflicts that are substantially more intense in size and violence than anything I have heard of in the US. Consider the neighborhood: Northern neighbor documented persecution of minorities in Tibet. Nations fear giving a visa to the Dalai Lama for fear of offending China, India boldly hosts the Tibetan Govt in exile and the Dalai Lama along with hundreds of thousands of refugees, much to the chagrin of China. To the West we have a nation whose minorities have declined from 15% to less that 3% in 60 years, under a Sharia that discriminates against minorities blatantly. Both nations are proliferators of Nuclear and missile technology. Both nations openly talk about playing one ethnicity/ religious group in India against another and have significant inroads to cause nuisance. Both neighbours are basically run on totalitarian fundamentals with little regard to democratic procedure. Meanwhile all minorities in India not only have multiplied, they have risen as a percentage of the majority population. India has never attacked another nation in it’s known recorded history over 7 millenia. It has been attacked consistently over millennia though. Yet it has harbored little ill will or revenge against those who have plundered it. It has never conducted a genocide on ANY minority group ever in it’s entire history. Do you know of any other nation on this planet with that record? On the contrary it has welcomed persecuted religious groups from Bahai, Jews, Armenians, Zorastrians, Tibetans and allowed them to open their own townships and maintain their traditions and religons witot interference. Having said that, it is not that there are no fundamentalists in the Hindu fold that feel very exremely uncomfortable with proselytizing religions like Islam and Evangelists moving in tribal areas. Afghanistan and Pakistan were a part of Hindu/ Buddhist heritage for millennia before Islam came in. How many Hindu’s or Buddhists are left there now? How much are other religions and their practices tolerated in Saudi Arabia, or Iran or the Middle East? Even in China the authorities have sleepless nights about sects that carry out breathing exercises. Exceptions to the rule don’t blemish the rule. The propagandists will take the exceptions and try portray that as rule. It may fool some people for some time, but it cannot fool everyone forever. For that reason I concentrated on doctrine. My first post quoted an explanation in 3 contexts why spiritual freedom in India has always flourished and it's similarity to the principles of Political freedom in the US, using simple analogies. And that certainly has been because of it’s inherent plurality and tolerance.

Peela, thanks for your kind words! I just wanted to give the core doctrinal basics why Hinduism and other religions brancing from it have been tolerant and pluralistic. For example the English word 'Wisdom' itself has it's roots in Sanskrit 'Ved' (from te Veda). Questioning, debate and introspection have been key qualities in seekers of truth anywhere in the world. This applied to the spiritual thinkers in India's past too. Thus pluralism had it's doctrinal roots well laid out right from the outstart. My perception of Lisa Millers Newsweek article was that pluralism has become inherently acceptable in the West/ US to the extent it does not mind taking the best from wherever. The scope intended IMO of he article is broader than some authoritarian value systems being imposed on an unaccepting population. It is not surprising to see in the political sphere also calls and statements on 'shared value systems' between the US and India. While there may be some way to go, what no one denies is that Western pluralist practises and tendencies are increasingly being reflected in Indian society. An example, the President of the ruling parliamentary party in India is Catholic (Italian origin), the PM is a Sikh, a year or so back the President was a Muslim..the Air Force Chief of Parsi (Zorastrian) descent. Not many countries would be comfortable with such a dispensation at the helm of as large a democracy as India. Despite it's man problems, a society that is basically culturally and religiousl tolerant and flexible would such a dispensation raise little to no eyebrows. JMT/ And thanks once again. Regards Prady

But to clarify further on the very core concept in Hinduism that of Brahman is as follows: When one puts forward an abstract concept like Brahman as the supreme realit it yields multiple question and answer sessions, multiple debates. Tha basic premise is the basic root of questioning, reason and tolerance. Common folks could only have respect for the seekers of the absolute Truth. That itself built in inherent tolerance amongst Hind's for multiple paths. These concepts are at the core of Hinduism. These do not conflict with approaching the Absolute through mediation, going into he forest or mountain and meditating on him, doing ones work and being steadfast or just plain giving God a name and devoting oneself to that truth. Thus multiple paths are acceptable depending on a persons individual nature. The US as a society in general is becoming tolerant and realizing that multiple paths to the supreme reality are acceptable and welcomed. This is something that has always existed in India from the beginning.

I imagine the area of India where Buddha lived, he would not have been exposed to the belief in the one God. The concept of THE ONE GOD is so prominent in Hindu scriptures, i can sense the source of confusion when people from cultures that had auhoritarian spiritual tradition entered India faced. Seeing many different paths of worship to the ONE God and no single path being enforced in an authoritarian way must have been confusing to those used to http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/gita/bg08.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman These concepts were very well ingrained in society millenia before Buddha himself was born. Hindu scriptures including Buddhism, Jainism arose due to a process of deep search, meditation. Yoga itself means Union (with the Absolute Truth/ Supreme Brahman) in Sanskrit. The English 'Yoke' originates from the Sanskrit word root. No offense intended. Just clarifying a post a few pages back.

I picked this again up on the net, some points may be debatable to groups, but by an enlarge there are points here people would acknowledge no differences with.

Hi Rosie! I don't know a whole heap about Hinduism, but I think that article shows the religion to be a lot more flexible than the culture it lives in has played out. By my first post, i had intended to convey something to the effect what you stated above. Hinduism is one religion that has welcomed persecuted people from all over the world for ages. Where did the Zorastrians go when Persia was being consumed by radical Islam? They found a home in India. Even the Jews escaped persecution and came to India and several thousand still reside there. Han persecution of Buddhists in Tibet again led to India plaingg host to persecuted minorities. No other religion possibly offers a scriptural base so wide as Hinduism, take Dvait, advait, Nyaya, Sankha the list is so exhaustive that these thoughts and related philosophies could not have entered mainstream India without massive debate. However only a climate of tolerance and pluralism would have produced these literatures. So i am not so sure that cultural inflexibility is at odds with religious flexibility.. What have the Hindus done to court everyone's attention, anyway? Actually nothing much. Proselytization is not very encouraged in Hinduism, unlike Islam and Christianity. The reason is not maintaining some esotericity, but the very basis of why this article in Newsweek makes sense.

I'd like to give a small well written concise writeup i found on the net on Hinduism. Would like to share your thoughts and opinions on this: I thought this was a neat write up and explains the authors views quite well. Regards Prady