Sanitising Hindu History is not enough

[tramp]

Yes, they did. The Renaissance was initiated by Christians. The Reformation was initiated by Christians. The secularization of the Church, the Scientific Revolution, and the Enlightenment were initiated by Christians. If Christians did not reform themselves, then who reformed them?

Come on, you cannot refuse to look at facts and pretend you do not see. It is clear that Christians, as in the Church, did not take upon itself one fine morning to change itself. It happened because of individuals, who denounced the Church and its beliefs and many got persecuted for that. There is a vast difference.
And are you trying to imply that Christians are somehow superior to others because of their faith? Then I am not going to debate with you, because you will remain blind.

 

[civfanatic]

Come on, you cannot refuse to look at facts and pretend you do not see. It is clear that Christians, as in the Church, did not take upon itself one fine morning to change itself. It happened because of individuals, who denounced the Church and its beliefs and many got persecuted for that. There is a vast difference.

The individuals who denounced the Church were also Christians. More importantly, they were members of Western Christian civilization. So yes, the Christians did reform themselves.

Was Martin Luther, the man who publicly denounced the Church and was later excommunicated, not a Christian?

And are you trying to imply that Christians are somehow superior to others because of their faith? Then I am not going to debate with you, because you will remain blind.

Where in my post did I imply that Christians are "somehow superior to others because of their faith"? How did you divine that?

 

[tramp]

The individuals who denounced the Church were also Christians. More importantly, they were members of Western Christian civilization. So yes, the Christians did reform themselves.

Was Martin Luther, the man who publicly denounced the Church and was later excommunicated, not a Christian?



Where in my post did I imply that Christians are "somehow superior to others because of their faith"? How did you divine that?

The way you were harping on how Christians did this and did that, it was beginning to sound they could do that because they were Christians. Ok, I withdraw my comment. No issues.
But my friend, it is not denied that much of the movements that changed human history during the latter half of last millennium began in Europe where the predominant religion was Christianity. But the point is that the changes were initiated by people who challenged the Church's hegemony and not just a few of them got persecuted for that.
That is why your argument that its Christians who initiated those changes falls flat.
And If you know your history, you will know that Europe borrowed heavily from the Arab and Indian mathematics and science that had flourished long before Europe came to the fore.
When you say Christians started Renaissance, it would mean in the context of an organised religion like Christianity, that the Church facilitated them. No, In fact the Church opposed them and haunted them.

 

[civfanatic]

That is why your argument that its Christians who initiated those changes falls flat.
When you say Christians started Renaissance, it would mean in the context of an organised religion like Christianity, that the Church facilitated them. No, In fact the Church opposed them and haunted them

It was indeed Christians who initiated these changes, and that is indisputable. However, it was not because they were Christian, that they were able to initiate these changes. It was because they were able to reject the dogmas of the Church, and pursue a more rational and scientific course. Nowhere did I say that it was the Church which facilitated these changes.

India too was home to many rational thinkers who could be called "social reformers". Siddhartha Gautama, Mahavira, Basavanna, Guru Nanak, Guru Ravidass, and many others could be called "reformers". However, these individuals were unable to bring about decisive, lasting changes in Indian civilization, like the European reformers were able to bring about in their own civilization. The caste-based discrimination and hatred which these individuals opposed so many centuries ago remained prevalent even in the early 20th century.

 

[ashdoc]

Amount of self-hate spewed by pseudo-analysts is nauseating.

admittedly one should be proud of what he is....

and the achievements of our civilization are considerable .

maybe it was the rigidity of the caste system that protected the hindu religion during the era of islamic invasions , or else we all would have been converted .

i am not saying that hinduism is a bad religion , but that there are some defects .

 

[tramp]

It was indeed Christians who initiated these changes, and that is indisputable. However, it was not because they were Christian, that they were able to initiate these changes. It was because they were able to reject the dogmas of the Church, and pursue a more rational and scientific course. Nowhere did I say that it was the Church which facilitated these changes.

So many were excommunicated and burnt on the stake!! Why? Because the Church pronounced them progeny of the Satan and non-Christian.

India too was home to many rational thinkers who could be called "social reformers". Siddhartha Gautama, Mahavira, Basavanna, Guru Nanak, Guru Ravidass, and many others could be called "reformers". However, these individuals were unable to bring about decisive, lasting changes in Indian civilization, like the European reformers were able to bring about in their own civilization. The caste-based discrimination and hatred which these individuals opposed so many centuries ago remained prevalent even in the early 20th century.

You mean Buddha was not able to make lasting changes to the social order? Are you in your senses, friend? And Guru Nanak? You need to change you West tainted glasses.
You do not seem to accept a change as change unless the dogma-riddled Church approves it.

 

[A chauhan]

Why Hindus failed to reform ?

One line answer:- Hindus were under direct threat of foreign invaders, looted enough and hence in a conservative mode, and they were not rich like Christians who used to capture other countries for financial gains.

I wonder why people fail to understand this simple thing.

 

[civfanatic]

So many were excommunicated and burnt on the stake!! Why? Because the Church pronounced them progeny of the Satan and non-Christian.

So what? The Christians were able to ultimately overcome the dogmas of the Church and advance their civilization far beyond those of others.

The Hindus, however, were not able to overcome the dogmas in their own religions.

You mean Buddha was not able to make lasting changes to the social order? Are you in your senses, friend? And Guru Nanak? You need to change you West tainted glasses.
You do not seem to accept a change as change unless the dogma-riddled Church approves it.

What lasting change to the social order did the Buddha make? Buddhism became all but extinct in the land of its own birth. The orthodoxy of the Vedas prevailed over the Buddha and his teachings.

Guru Nanak had more of a lasting change, but his following was restricted to a small portion of the subcontinent. His direct influence on Indian civilization as a whole, therefore, was rather limited.

I do not accept a change unless the dogma-riddled Church approves it? What is the basis for these statements that you make?

 

[civfanatic]

Why Hindus failed to reform ?

One line answer:- Hindus were under direct threat of foreign invaders, looted enough and hence in a conservative mode, and they were not rich like Christians who used to capture other countries for financial gains.

I wonder why people fail to understand this simple thing.

Same BS, repeated over and over again. Kerala was not ruled or looted by any evil Muslims. Why did not Kerala reform, at least? Hindus were not rich, are you serious?

Blaming "foreign invaders" is always easier than introspection.

 

[A chauhan]

Same BS, repeated over and over again. Kerala was not ruled or looted by any evil Muslims. Why did not Kerala reform, at least? Hindus were not rich, are you serious?

Blaming "foreign invaders" is always easier than introspection.

Well unfortunately that's the truth, and no one can escape it. You just can't say that "foreign invaders" didn't affect the Indian society negatively.

Kerala was still a part of Indian subcontinent adjacent with other states, so influences were high.

 

[ashdoc]

Since when were you against Caste System? I remember one post of yours where you collected data for upper caste percentage in all Indian states, with big thumbs up for the ones with highest.

you do have a great memory , especially because that particular thread was deleted on DFI :cool2:

here i am giving link to that thread on echarcha forum , where it was not deleted---

Which are the core and peripheral states of the Indian union - eCharcha.Com

the reason for giving thumbs up to uttaranchal having high percentage of upper caste hindus is the fact that they have the highest stake in the country and hence are likely to be extremely loyal to it .

 

[tramp]

So what? The Christians were able to ultimately overcome the dogmas of the Church and advance their civilization far beyond those of others.

The Hindus, however, were not able to overcome the dogmas in their own religions.

What lasting change to the social order did the Buddha make? Buddhism became all but extinct in the land of its own birth. The orthodoxy of the Vedas prevailed over the Buddha and his teachings.

Guru Nanak had more of a lasting change, but his following was restricted to a small portion of the subcontinent. His direct influence on Indian civilization as a whole, therefore, was rather limited.

I do not accept a change unless the dogma-riddled Church approves it? What is the basis for these statements that you make?

If the Church excommunicates somebody, he ceases to be a Christian, right? It is true for all the organised religions. So it is those who were outside the Church who made the Church change.
You should not just believe what is fed to you by your religious teachers, dismissing everything non-Christian as insignificant and not worthy of consideration... read up more and you will find Buddhism did hold sway over large swathes of the subcontinent and beyond for centuries... in fact teachings of Buddha had reached even the Middle East influencing pre-Christian thoughts. And you will still say Budha did not have lasting impact? However, to a large extent Buddhism did get amalgamated into Hinduism. It is often becomes difficult to define boundaries of two faiths that existed side by side for centuries especially when they are not the organised variety that believes in exterminating everything that is different from themselves by a combination of proselytization and use of force.
No wonder the caste system was not completely removed from the society in the Indian subcontinent and gathered strength with the decline of Buddhist kings and rise of Brahmanism.
The way you dismiss the changes that Asian greats brought about makes me think you need the Western Church's approval to see a change as a change.
By that token you would not like to have evolution taught in schools and a tight lid on abortions because your church does not approve of them.

 

[civfanatic]

Well unfortunately that's the truth, and no one can escape it. You just can't say that "foreign invaders" didn't affect the Indian society negatively.

The "negative social effects" of the invasions are greatly exaggerated and are used to explain everything wrong in modern Indian society by some people. The majority of Indians were not even affected by these invasions in any significant way.

Kerala was still a part of Indian subcontinent adjacent with other states, so influences were high.

What does this even mean? Be specific.

Kerala was never ruled or invaded by Muslims during the Medieval period. Kerala even had its own thriving school of mathematics and astronomy during that time. So why weren't the Hindus in Kerala, if not those under the evil oppressive Islamic rule, able to reform their society?

 

[civfanatic]

If the Church excommunicates somebody, he ceases to be a Christian, right?

No, he doesn't. He simply ceases to be Catholic. There are other Christians besides Catholics.

Martin Luther, who was excommunicated by the Church, was still a Christian. No one would call him anything but a Christian,

You should not just believe what is fed to you by your religious teachers, dismissing everything non-Christian as insignificant and not worthy of consideration...

My "religious teachers"? You think I am a Christian? You are quick to make baseless assumptions of other people. I was raised a Hindu, and I utterly despise Christianity.

read up more and you will find Buddhism did hold sway over large swathes of the subcontinent and beyond for centuries... in fact teachings of Buddha had reached even the Middle East influencing pre-Christian thoughts. And you will still say Budha did not have lasting impact?

I am talking about India specifically. In India, Buddhism's "lasting impact" was indeed quite limited. Buddhism had more of a lasting impact in places outside India.

However, to a large extent Buddhism did get amalgamated into Hinduism. It is often becomes difficult to define boundaries of two faiths that existed side by side for centuries especially when they are not the organised variety that believes in exterminating everything that is different from themselves by a combination of proselytization and use of force.

Buddhism is not a "faith". It is not a religion, but a philosophy. It was made into a religion long after the Buddha's lifetime. The Hindus who worship Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu are not "Buddhist" in any way.

 

[A chauhan]

The "negative social effects" of the invasions are greatly exaggerated and are used to explain everything wrong in modern Indian society by some people.

Remember 1971 genocide and guess what those invaders were capable of and motivated to do so, rest is history, no matter how people reject the bad effects of invasion but they can't change the history. Under such serious threat people can not live normally let alone the reforms. You didn't disprove the evil effects of invasion by merely calling it BS or exaggerated.

The majority of Indians were not even affected by these invasions in any significant way.

Who were Mughals then ? How did MBQasim managed to rule the current area of Pakistan? The same majority of Indians were poor, illiterate and couldn't manage to live under a single Hindu rule because of those invaders, hence there was no opportunity to reform Hinduism.

What does this even mean? Be specific.

And what does Kerala proves? nothing! It had no authority on Hinduism which was a prominent religion of this part of Asia.

Kerala was never ruled or invaded by Muslims during the Medieval period. Kerala even had its own thriving school of mathematics and astronomy during that time. So why weren't the Hindus in Kerala, if not those under the evil oppressive Islamic rule, able to reform their society?

By quoting Kerala you didn't prove anything, it was a small part of big Indian subcontinent which itself has no authority or effect to change the Hindu rules for reform as Hindu faith wasn't limited to Kerala, Hinduism takes the whole subcontinent from Mansarovar to Kanyakumari as a sacred geography, you just can't reform it sitting in one small place, you need a complete authority over the subcontinent, no particular small place can reform Hinduism until it has an authority over all the religious places.

 

[tramp]

thats because hindus are half vegetarian and therefore are cowards---another reason for them to convert to christianity . at least it will inject some manliness in them .

Are you mocking or are you serious about these arguments? whats your concept of cowardice? do you mean to say all those who eat flesh is brave? whats your concept of manliness? A quality attained by things dead or allive?

 

[Virendra]

Women are no longer oppressed in Western Christian countries. The point is that Christians reformed their society, while Hindus did not.

Firstly the Western countries didn't have constant invasions and foreign occupations to suck them dry.
Second, that the people in west are less harsh on women now has nothing to do with Christianity.
Rise of America is a good example. Much to the dismay of Church, America declared at its very foundation that the State and the Church would be two different entities and Church's influence was no longer as it was before.
That was no sacrifice by the Church or people's insipration from anything that the Church represents. That was pure and hard social revolution.
Christianity has not evolved immensely, it still says the same thing that it said before.
The new Pope is against same sex marriage, against use of condoms even in married couples and against their use even for protection from AIDS.
That doesn't sound like a reforming religion. It is the people who had toiled enough and rose to a revolution. That is how nations like America came to be formed (with minial European history's baggage) and the results are there for all to see.
Post civil war the founding fathers of America were in a superb position to start afresh and they did a mervelous job at that.
American society can't thank them enough even if they thank them 100 times more than to the Pope.

Regards,
Virendra

 

[Das ka das]

Congratulations to @civfanatic for completely derailing this thread about the Goan Inquisition with the usual venom spewed about Hinduism and Brahmins. Very becoming behavior for a supposed mod. :thumb:

 

[nrj]

Western countries didn't have occupation or invasions, because they could protect themselves.

Indians couldn't protect themselves and were rather happy denouncing each other.

Asking Vatican to apologize for Goa or any Indian territory is emphasizing Indian historical weakness.

 

[Das ka das]

Western countries didn't have occupation or invasions, because they could protect themselves.

Indians couldn't protect themselves and were rather happy denouncing each other.

Asking Vatican to apologize for Goa or any Indian territory is emphasizing Indian historical weakness.

India resisted the combined weight of several brutal Islamic armies for over 400 years. I consider that pretty damn impressive. Also Mongols would have conquered Western Europe and destroyed your beloved Christianity if it was not for the death of the great Khan Ogodei.

And part of Europe was occupied for example Balkans and Greece and there's nothing in those countries to write home about today.