Is hinduism a peaceful religion?

[Aupmanyav]

Why only the Abrahamic religions, why not murder anyone who teaches falsehood?

That can happen only in Islamic countries or in dictatorships. India is toooo democratic for that. We have 8 National political parties, 54 state political parties and 2796 unrecognized parties (they are legal but do not have the necessary voting percentage or elected representatives to be recognized by the Indian Election Commission. They are 'wanna-bees'). Then we have a very strong Supreme Court.

 

[Clara Tea]

Is hinduism a peaceful religion?

World Religion Map

Click on the religion map when you get to the website (above), and you will see where the various religions reside.

You can see a tiny dot where Jews are predominant. So, it is rather difficult to believe the Nazis, and radical Islamics who blame them for controlling and owning the world.

The map shows a huge Christian faith, even in the former Soviet (Russian, etc.) areas.

The recently expanding Muslim religion has taken over northern Africa, often slaughtering whole tribes in our modern era.

It is difficult to separate the actions of a country from the actions of the dominant religion in that country.

When Did Alexander the Great Invade India?

India has the largest percentage of Hindus in the world. It has long had a reputation for military strength. It repelled Alexander the Great, while many other empires crumbled at his feet. Their elephants were daunting in war. (Source: above)

Actually, Al was Macedonian, not Greek (but the two were very close by....just like Iraq and the terrorists that W. Bush meant to attack.

India–Pakistan nuclear escalation: where could it lead?

The hypertext link, above, says that the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute estimates that Pakistan (the aggressor against India) has about 160 nukes, and India 140.

I keep arguing with physics professors and military nuke experts about the existence of more nukes, and they insist that we know about all of them....followed a year or two later by "oops....we didn't see all of those." The military experts that I spoke with are my personal friends, and some told me that it is their job to analyze heat signatures from satellites to detect the decay of nuclear materials, and they found none. My response was that they could mask that heat. Their response was that they could not (with 20-20 hindsight, after the discovery of nukes....I was right, they were wrong).

My professors had to frequently stop teaching to go to military facilities to analyze possible nuclear facilities (refining ore, making nuke bomb parts, making nukes, missile silos, etc). They could recognize the tell-tale signs of nuclear weapons....but they always miss a lot.

According to the link above, India and Pakistan have had a lot of military skirmishes, and many of them almost resulted in nuclear war.

What would happen if a religious zealot, who believes that they will get 72 virgins in heaven if they nuke the world (as some Muslims do), has the ability to launch nukes and destroy all life on the planet?

SALT PACTS:

Most of the world cheered when Soviets and Americans had SALT pacts (Strategic Arms LImitation Talks). Those resulted in the destruction of various nukes (especially long range). The rest of the world, at the time, didn't have the ability to make nukes. Japan was still under rules imposed after WWII not to have weapons. Since then, the US graciously (and stupidly) lifted those sanctions.

Iraq (a peaceful nation that was thoroughly checked for Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) by UN and United States inspectors, was invaded by President W. Bush without cause. Now, after decades of fight Iraq, the US military is geared for minor skirmishes with minor, unarmed, third world nations, but not at all ready for an all out nuclear war with a super power. Part of a nuclear war includes rocket delivery. Lets face it, the US is using 1950's technology in the 2020's.

Recently (after the Covid pandemic), China took Hong Kong, Taiwan, and chased ships off of the China Sea (open ocean). Trump sent an air craft carrier, Putin (Russia) sided with Communist China and sent his own ship, and China fired mach 10 missiles over the top of the US ship, as a threat...and very palpable one. The US, at best, has mach 4 missiles.

So, while SALT limited the arms build up of the Soviets (and now former Soviets), and the US, the rest of the world caught up and surpassed us. While the US was building helicopters with machine guns, to fight Iraqis, Russia made its "Satan rockets," (as they dubbed them), and China, and a host of smaller nations built nukes.

W. Bush had threatened North Korea not to have nuclear power plants (to generate electricity for their people), because those could be used for nuclear wars. As a result, there was much friction, and the result was a build up of nuclear arms in North Korea. Californians were notified that North Korea can now reach their state with nuclear warheads. That was when the US had all those Orange Alerts that Tom Ridge (head of Homeland Security) said were phony.

So, despite the SALT pacts, the world is a much more dangerous place, and India (Hindus) are as much a nuclear power as the US, and heavily embroiled in threats and actions of war with Pakistan.

ISSUE OF UNITED STATES USING NUKES:

As President W. Bush continued using carpet bombs near major cities (which make 1/2 mile crators), Donald Rumsfeld said that there were no casualties. W. Bush and Rumsfeld were lying so that they could continue their useless wars (otherwise public opinion would side agaisnt them).

But, the carpet bombs, they thought, were not big enough. That is when President W. Bush said that "nukes are not off the table" and proposed bombing Iraq with nukes.

I wondered why the "nuclear clock" people had given President Bill Clinton such a hard time about nukes...moving the hands of their imaginary clock to 5 minutes before world destruction, yet didn't give a posturing and threatening warmonger like W. Bush any notice at all. So I wrote ot the "nuclear clock" people (who ran their website) and I asked them why they are not alarmed that W. Bush threatened to use nukes, and they wrote back to me and explained that they could not object to W. Bush's use of nuclear bombs because that might discourage the use of nuclear bombs against Iraq (which they perceived as a counter attack for 911).

Thus, we see that antinuclear activists are playing politics with nuclear bombs....allowing them for some, and disallowing them for others.

MAD (MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION)...IF THEY LAUNCH...WE LAUNCH....ALL DIE:

MAD deterred the use of nukes for decades, following the Rosenberg's uncle giving Soviets nuke tech. But MAD doesn't work very well now, because the US is so very far behind in nuke technology. Now, virtually any tiny nation may weild a mighty weapon and hold the whole world ransom.

China does anything that it wants....and who can stop them? Certainly not the US....the US is outgunned and outmanned.

India (Hindu), though they were a starving nation and not strong militarily, is now becoming a nuclear super-power, and threats of nuclear war persist beside the conventional war that they still pursue.

 

[Clara Tea]

That can happen only in Islamic countries or in dictatorships. India is toooo democratic for that. We have 8 National political parties, 54 state political parties and 2796 unrecognized parties (they are legal but do not have the necessary voting percentage or elected representatives to be recognized by the Indian Election Commission. They are 'wanna-bees'). Then we have a very strong Supreme Court.

Though India doesn't murder infidels, they are at war (threatening nukes) with Pakistan.

 

[Clara Tea]

Why only the Abrahamic religions, why not murder anyone who teaches falsehood?
(This question is rhetorical, I do not consider it sound practice to murder those we consider liars).

In my opinion

Oh no......they were only thinking of murdering Abrahamics....now you pointed out that they could go after everyone. When I sell a used car, I'm not taking you along during negotiations.

 

[Clara Tea]

And there is a reason. IMV, just because they may be illiterate and poor, the Arahamic religions should not mislead people and teach them falsehood. It shows that they are interested only in numbers.

Maybe it's okay to lie if no one is paying attention? I asked my little nephew to stop picking his nose, and he said that it's okay if nobody is watching.

Forums.....too many witnesses.

 

[Clara Tea]

Thank you, Aup. I did not know this about Hindu warriors in the ideal war situation. Fascinating. I've always thought that if I were a warrior or solider, I would not feel enmity or animosity toward the enemy. To me, another solider, inspite of holding a different allegiance, would be someone I would have much in common with in nature, temperament, and calling. Plus, there is a kind of sanctity that warriors have that criminal gangs and the sort utterly lack. Although I am not the kṣatriya type, I admire it, which explains why my favorite avatāra is Rāmacandra.

When the US sanctioned Iraq, the starving Iraqis suffered while Saddam continued to build palaces.

When the US declared war against Iraq, the shopkeepers were shoved rifles, and pushed to the front liines. The elite republican guard (body guards of Saddam) were safe behind enemy lines with most of the professional soldiers.

The shopkeepers were told that if they refused to fight, they'd be murdered by their own military.

Those fighting wars often don't care to. Some are gung ho, defending their nation. When the 911 attack occurred, many young men joined the military to "defend the nation" but ended up "attacking the wrong nation."

One can only be as honorable as the one they follow. If the president orders an unjust war, and a soldier follows orders, they must fight an unjust war.

 

[Clara Tea]

Nice post, Mangalavara. In the ideal war situation, Hindus put down the arms at sunset, and could meet their adversaries in peace and love in the evening. The fight was for reasons. There should be no personal enmity. The warriors used to meet each other freely. Pandavas would go to Bhishma. That Arjuna killed Jayadratha after sundown at the instigation of Krishna in Mahabharata, though unavoidable, is considered a serious misdoing. Interested people can read about 'Jayadratha Vadha' (Killing of Jayadratha).

Orthodox Jews must not fight on the Sabbath (Friday night til Saturday night). Knowing this, their enemies choose their most holy holidays and the sabbath to attack. The military looks for weaknesses, they don't take that opportunity for diplomacy.

 

[Clara Tea]

Yes. Hinduism is not out to make war against every other religion, Also, as others have pointed out, ahiṃsā, which can be translated into English as 'non-injury,' is a core virtue in Hinduism. As a virtue, it is part of dharma. From my perspective, ahiṃsā promotes peace. When we refrain from wrongly injuring other beings, there is more peace. Even when warriors must fight, there will be peace afterward in their country because the warriors' purpose is to maintain peace in their country. Knowing that a warrior class or profession is necessary, it is apparent that ahiṃsā is not pacifism or a total lack of injury, rather, it is the practice of non-injury in the form of minimal harm. After all, children must receive their vaccines, surgeons must cut flesh, and even green life must be injured in order for human beings to be nourished.

It is this peace and minimal harm that has drawn so many to the Hindu religion.

Modern Christians defy God, make wars and torture camps. They don't realize that they don't have to insult and discredit other religions to gain members, they just have to be peaceful and fair, as God wants.

You can catch more bees with honey.

 

[Clara Tea]

It is peaceful except when its hands are forced by others. As for the warrior class, all nations have armies to safeguard their borders. Hindus society created a separate division for them, as they did for other professions. The family environment makes them better soldiers. Even now there are military families (not just from the warrior class) where generations have served in Indian army.

Pakistan is the aggressor in the war with India (India is primarily Hindu).

 

[Clara Tea]

Yes and no. The teachings are peaceful, but people often aren't.

Same with Christianity and Judiasm. The fiercest warriors in the world are Jews, but they really don't want to be.

Jews dispelled riots with rubber bullets, until they realized that didn't deter riots, and they realized that the riots were killing people. They had to switch to real bullets (reluctantly).

Harmony is the key to religion.

 

[Clara Tea]

I have no idea. Hinduism is an umbrella term for different faiths that all hold the Vedas as inspired. Some teachings are peaceful. Some may not be. I don't know any specific negative ones off the top of my head.

Swats Ashoka's head with a flyswatter. (There were nonspecific negative faiths standing on the head). I think I got them.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Though India doesn't murder infidels, they are at war (threatening nukes) with Pakistan.

Remember, India entered Kashmir at the request of Kashmiris and after they signed the act of accession. They were attacked by Pakistani soldiers and tribals who had reached the outskirts of Srinagar. The UN asked the Pakistani forces to retreat, they did not. They still hold a sizable part of Kashmir. Now Pakistan wants to annex Kashmir by terror. Would we allow that? In what way do you blame India?

We needed nukes against China, just in case. We did not acquire nukes to just bolster our ego. It was a necessity. We are not a vassal of USA. Actually, Nixon deployed the Seventh fleet in Bay of Bengal to frighten us during the 1971 India-Pakistan-Bangladesh war.

Maybe it's okay to lie if no one is paying attention? I asked my little nephew to stop picking his nose, and he said that it's okay if nobody is watching.

Your nephew will grow out of this habit in time. But I think you will want to advise him that bad deeds are bad deeds even if no one is watching.

The military looks for weaknesses, they don't take that opportunity for diplomacy.

Indian Army will always go by rules. Our army never contravenes Geneva convention. It is a very disciplined army. And we do not hesitate to punish soldiers who go against rules.

Pakistan is the aggressor in the war with India (India is primarily Hindu).

ALWAYS. Otherwise we have many worries of our own to take care of. India is not an expansionist nation. We are satisfied with what we have.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Is hinduism a peaceful religion?

The two countries of teh world where I see the most religious intolerance of teh common people are Pakistan and India. And in India we are talking about Hindus. They have even passed laws against Hindus converting to other religions. There was a problem earlier this week surrounding a Hindu holiday with Hindu religious leaders going on the internet and saying to kill Muslims, encouraging a genocide. As Hindu Extremists Call for Killing of Muslims, India’s Leaders Keep Silent

 

[JustGeorge]

T They have even passed laws against Hindus converting to other religions.

Its against forcible conversion. An Indian can convert to whatever they want, but, if my understanding is correct, in order to have it recognized on paper, they must go in and sign off on it themselves.

There was trouble with missionaries coming in and saying they had converted X,Y, and Z, but X, Y and Z hadn't actually wanted that(or worse, they were holding food over their heads to get them to convert).

I read something about this not long ago, but I realize I'm not explaining in superbly. Maybe someone in India can explain better than me...

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Its against forcible conversion. An Indian can convert to whatever they want, but, if my understanding is correct, in order to have it recognized on paper, they must go in and sign off on it themselves.

There was trouble with missionaries coming in and saying they had converted X,Y, and Z, but X, Y and Z hadn't actually wanted that(or worse, they were holding food over their heads to get them to convert).

I read something about this not long ago, but I realize I'm not explaining in superbly. Maybe someone in India can explain better than me...

The law is supposed to be about forcible conversion, but as recent incidents in India show, Hindus tend to view any conversion as forcible. The law will be a way to brow beat voluntary conversions. There is absolutely nothing wrong with things like having a party at which a group gives a spiel for their religion -- this is called freedom of religion.

 

[Metempsychosis]

The law is supposed to be about forcible conversion, but as recent incidents in India show, Hindus tend to view any conversion as forcible. The law will be a way to brow beat voluntary conversions. There is absolutely nothing wrong with things like having a party at which a group gives a spiel for their religion -- this is called freedom of religion.

Try converting a bunch(at least 1000) of Indian Muslims back to Hinduism publicly on TV or youtube- I challenge you cannot come out alive.The punishment of apostasy and blasphemy is death and it is implemented informally by Muslim goons in India.Christian missionaries don't convert Indian muslims because if they do that they will hanging upside down on a tree without their heads on their shoulders.

As far as Christian conversions are concerned,their population has already reached 8%(formally just 2%) thanks to policies of Indian constitution- which does not place any protection of Indian religions against Abrahamic Conversion factories.Entire states in North east India have become almost completely Christian and the rate at which they are paying and converting poor people require immediate change in laws.Also a ton of Crypto-christians in South India are asked to keep their Christian identity secret lest Christianity lose the preferential status of minorities and these crypto christians say they are hindus because they want the Caste protections only available to members of Indian religions.Also Christian and Muslim will keep getting preferential treatment as long their individual population does not become greater 49.999%.In Kashmir,where Muslims are majority they want minority status as per Indian constitution,but the majority Hindus who are minorities there have been raped and kicked out.The common Hindu population are liberal and secular from their very upbringing did elect a roman catholic as a defacto head of country just a few years back -only to see Christian population explode and efforts to criminalize Hindus for every riots which our minorities begin.

Our forefathers who wrote our constitutions did a mistake when they placed no caps of Conversion factories of Islam and Christianity while taxing the Hindu temples heavily.Expect more such anti-conversion laws and anti-minority laws in future.

 

[firedragon]

Is hinduism a peaceful religion?

Hinduism is not monolithic. In all honesty, religions of the region were not called "Hinduism" until the British advent.

Anyway, I think this question is not fair because Hinduism is just religion, like any other religion. If Hinduism is taken as one entity, and is made of human followers, IT would react to situations. It will be peaceful, and warring when necessary.

I am not an expert in Hinduism so this is my opinion based on limited knowledge only. I am giving a general finding given in sociology of religion.

From what I know, if you are looking for peace, Hinduism will give you some of the most peaceful theories, philosophies and sentiments, and it will be the opposite if you are seeking war and tyranny. The Bagvad Gita will give you war strategy that even business adopted heavily.

Its fascinating really.

 

[firedragon]

One thing I dont understand is how this thread which is about Hinduism has turned into Muslim, Christian blame games, and Indian politics and their regional political issues. I really cant understand it.

Fundamentally, if anyone believes the Buddha is an Indian, he was a Hindu, and Buddhism is definitely considered Hinduism. Think to it.

 

[metis]

What do you mean with sometimes?

It's not always been peaceful as we've seen historically.

 

[Ashoka]

It's not always been peaceful as we've seen historically.

A lot of that, I think, is reactionary due to missionaries and centuries of oppression. That doesn't make killing right ever, but it does explain why it's happening.