Hinduism

[IndigoChild5559]

Yes I also find this interesting, Hindus tolerate Christians and Jews far more than they do Muslims.

Being also “not people of the book”, and obvious polytheists, I think it’s clear who threw the first stone at whom…

Oh no doubt the Muslims in India are giving it as much as they are taking it. SMH

Are you following the violence in Manipur?

 

[GoodAttention]

As an example, the Tamil sage Tirumular supposedly possessed a cowherd's dead body, bringing it back to life, so he could bring Vedic knowledge to the south of India, in the Tamil language. But nobody focuses on it.

At one time Tamil vs Sanskrit, or more specifically Shaivism vs Vaishnavism was as dramatic like an East coast West coast rapper feud.

Possessing a cowherds body is a slight against Krishna and Vaishnavism, but yes it isn’t right to focus on such triviality.

 

[GoodAttention]

Oh no doubt the Muslims in India are giving it as much as they are taking it. SMH

Are you following the violence in Manipur?

I have not, but violence in a patriarchal world is part and parcel.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I have not, but violence in a patriarchal world is part and parcel.

Are you really trying to say that matriarchal cultures aren't also violent? Sheesh. I'm no fan of the patriarchy, but people are people, the good, the bad, and the ugly.

 

[GoodAttention]

Are you really trying to say that matriarchal cultures aren't also violent?

For some people, non-violence means exactly that. Unfortunately such people, if they ever existed, do no longer.

Sheesh. I'm no fan of the patriarchy, but people are people, the good, the bad, and the ugly.

I agree, lest I invoke further negativity. SMH.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

For some people, non-violence means exactly that. Unfortunately such people, if they ever existed, do no longer.

The Navajo aka the Diné are a matriarchal culture, and have been for as long as anyone have known. Although today they are as peaceful as anyone else in the US, there was a time when they were known as fierce warriors who would raid the Pueblo tribes.

 

[GoodAttention]

The Navajo aka the Diné are a matriarchal culture, and have been for as long as anyone have known. Although today they are as peaceful as anyone else in the US, there was a time when they were known as fierce warriors who would raid the Pueblo tribes.

I hope the blood, sweat, and tears shed on the long walk to leave their home 300 miles behind was worth it.

For some GPS coordinates are far less important than who their mother is, and her wellbeing..

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I hope the blood, sweat, and tears shed on the long walk to leave their home 300 miles behind was worth it.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Worth what?

 

[LuisDantas]

Sure, as long as these variations occur within the boundaries of Hinduism. But when it comes to other religions, such as Islam, it is amazing how incredibly intolerant Hindus can be.

That says a lot about Islam, if you ask me. And probably also if you do not.

I have on occasion criticized Hinduism for being too willing to accomodate non-Hindu religions (and still do).

And with no sarcasm whatsoever, I admit that I often criticize Islam for, indeed, being Islam. I will be glad to elaborate, but this thread may not be the best place for that.

Yes I also find this interesting, Hindus tolerate Christians and Jews far more than they do Muslims.

Most communities that meet Muslims show that trait for some reason.

Being also “not people of the book”, and obvious polytheists, I think it’s clear who threw the first stone at whom…

Hindus aren't always polytheists. It is not even clear that they "usually" are.

Come to think of it, I am not all that certain that the average Hindu even has a firm stance on whether he is a monotheist, a polytheist, or something else. I suspect that it is not a big deal either way - and I do not think that it is supposed to be a big deal.

 

[GoodAttention]

That says a lot about Islam, if you ask me. And probably also if you do not.

I have on occasion criticized Hinduism for being too willing to accomodate non-Hindu religions (and still do).

And with no sarcasm whatsoever, I admit that I often criticize Islam for, indeed, being Islam. I will be glad to elaborate, but this thread may not be the best place for that.





Most communities that meet Muslims show that trait for some reason.

If anything historically Hindu communities were the most accepting, such as Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia.

“Too accepting” does, however take away from why such a void was there to be filled in the first place.

Perhaps many believed it to be a return to what “Hinduism” was originally, which in my opinion was closer to monotheism.

Hindus aren't always polytheists. It is not even clear that they "usually" are.

Come to think of it, I am not all that certain that the average Hindu even has a firm stance on whether he is a monotheist, a polytheist, or something else. I suspect that it is not a big deal either way - and I do not think that it is supposed to be a big deal.

Ofc. But in the eyes of Muslims, all Hindus are either polytheists or unbelievers.

Apparently our “fathers” were told we only have one soul, and there is no reincarnation.

 

[LuisDantas]

If anything historically Hindu communities were the most accepting, such as Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia.



Ofc. But in the eyes of Muslims, all Hindus are either polytheists or unbelievers.

Apparently our “fathers” were told we only have one soul, and there is no reincarnation.

Islam has a very hard time attempting to understand certain subject matters that it supposedly cares a lot about.

Oddly and worryingly, they only very rarely notice that despite being rather obvious to any external observers.

 

[GoodAttention]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Worth what?

Bowing to the patriarchy that marched them on.

 

[GoodAttention]

Islam has a very hard time attempting to understand certain subject matters that it supposedly cares a lot about.

Oddly and worryingly, they only very rarely notice that despite being rather obvious to any external observers.

I added to my comment you responded to fyi

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I have on occasion criticized Hinduism for being too willing to accomodate non-Hindu religions (and still do).

We must be reading different newspapers. I get a steady diet of Indian publications in my news feed, and I'm flabbergasted the amount of religious violence that goes on in India.

Go to whatever your news feed is, and search for "Manipur violence."

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Bowing to the patriarchy that marched them on.

I honestly have no clue what you are talking about. Since I asked for clarification already, and your answer still doesn't make sense to me, I'm just gonna move on.

The point I was trying to make with you is this: Whether a culture is matriarchal or patriarchal is not a factor in how violent it is. I gave you an example of a violent matriarchal society. If you still don't get it, it's okay. We can agree to disagree.

 

[GoodAttention]

We must be reading different newspapers. I get a steady diet of Indian publications in my news feed, and I'm flabbergasted the amount of religious violence that goes on in India.

Go to whatever your news feed is, and search for "Manipur violence."

Imagine if all Arabs and Jews in the world lived alongside all the Iranians in Iran for perspective, and this could hopefully mean you are less flabbergasted.

 

[GoodAttention]

I honestly have no clue what you are talking about. Since I asked for clarification already, and your answer still doesn't make sense to me, I'm just gonna move on.

The point I was trying to make with you is this: Whether a culture is matriarchal or patriarchal is not a factor in how violent it is. I gave you an example of a violent matriarchal society. If you still don't get it, it's okay. We can agree to disagree.

You have an example of a “violent” matriarchal society but you didn’t give much of an explanation.

I gave you a rebuttal that, whatever “violence” they possessed, they still ended up being marched from their homeland at the hands of the patriarchy.

I hope this explains why

(A) Your example was lacking in brevity
(B) Your example seemed full of pretence

 

[Aupmanyav]

Does Hinduism have anybody that’s living in the flesh that’s considered to be a manifestation of God with divine qualities? If so, exactly what are these divine qualities?

There are people who are staunch Hindus but do not accept existence of any God or Goddess (Advaita, yours sincerely). So, no question of having a manifestation of God or Goddess, no progeny of theirs, no messengers, no saviors, no mahdis.
I believe all things living or non-living are Brahman and none else, Brahman being the substrate of the universe.
The so-termed 'divine qualities' are qualities which a society would like its people to follow for its peaceful existence.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yes, but you still haven’t answered my original question. What are these divine qualities?

See my post #38, last line, if others have not answered your question.

There's a teaching that "We are That.", namely that we are all essentially from God.

Also that we all are (living forms or non-living substances), none other than Brahman, the substrate of the universe.
(Like Salixincendium said)

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Imagine if all Arabs and Jews in the world lived alongside all the Iranians in Iran for perspective, and this could hopefully mean you are less flabbergasted.

I never said India was the only hot spot of religious hatred. Only that it WAS one, since the conversation was about Hindus, and the suggestion was given that Hindus were OVERLY tolerant, which is obviously NOT the case.

What just happened in the quote above is called deflection -- trying to cast the bad light off one's self by pointing out the flaws of others. It's like when my kids were little and my son would say to his sister "You're mean! I'm not a baby!" and his sister would reply, "Well you always call me annoying and that's mean too." It was her manipulative way of avoiding responsibility for calling him a baby.