Two approaches towards reforming Islam: the Bahai Faith and Ahmadiyya Islam.

[Dawnofhope]

Returning to India from the sugar diaspora is unrealistic. After 4 to 5 generations, they no longer hold any Indian rights. Just as you or I couldn't easily move there, so too for them. Ancestry means nothing. So Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, because of the once British Commonwealth, easier immigration, and better opportunity, are far better options.

The sadness is that any group anywhere feels so unwelcomed they have a desire to flee. But the benefit is far more diverse communities word wide. This city has 2 Fijian run temples. Many felt uncomfortable at the Indian temples. Five generations changes how things are done.

Yes. I've been to India. Pilgrimage.

The Indian communities add to the richness and diversity of New Zealand culture. They are generally welcomed here and seen as good citizens. The Hindus in my town are trying to set up a community centre or temple that is independent of either the Hare Krishnas or Sai Baba.

 

[Marcion]

I think the diversity within India itself is due to historic circumstances, particularly with being colonised by Muslims and then Christians.

India or rather South Asia is so diverse culturally and racially because it lies at a crossroads where major cultures meet and the major human races have mixed partly following the main rivers. From the direction of China has come the Mongolian culture, from the direction of Iran has come the Caucasian culture and more indigenous were the Dravidyan/Austric and the Negroid cultures of peoples who had entered India much earlier. The Caucasians were the last to enter India and brought their vedic culture with them into India. Before that time India was mainly tantric and on a deeper level it still is.

In that sense India is a kind of navel point of the world and is the most rich and diverse among human culture.
The Muslim and Christian influences came relatively late and have had a relatively minor impact.

 

[Vinayaka]

The Indian communities add to the richness and diversity of New Zealand culture. They are generally welcomed here and seen as good citizens. The Hindus in my town are trying to set up a community centre or temple that is independent of either the Hare Krishnas or Sai Baba.

I think all ethnicities add richness to existing cities. Where I live is an incredibly diverse area of town. Mosques, Gurdwaras, Asian churches, Buddhist and Hindu temples, all within a 10 minute drive. The city itself has several 'Little _____'s now. The racist people often migrate away from large cities if they can afford to do so. Rural areas remain predominantly white, although that too is changing slowly. Change takes time.

In New Zealand, there are also Sri Lankan war refugees. The Sri Lankans, of all Hindu groups, are the most likely to build temples. We're pilgrimaging later this fall to Toronto, and will probably go to at least 20 Sri Lankan temples there.

 

[Vinayaka]

India or rather South Asia is so diverse culturally and racially because it lies at a crossroads where major cultures meet and the major human races have mixed partly following the main rivers. From the direction of China has come the Mongolian culture, from the direction of Iran has come the Caucasian culture and more indigenous were the Dravidyan/Austric and the Negroid cultures of peoples who had entered India much earlier. The Caucasians were the last to enter India and brought their vedic culture with them into India. Before that time India was mainly tantric.

In that sense India is a kind of navel point of the world and is the most rich and diverse among human culture.
The Muslim and Christian influences came relatively late and have had a relatively minor impact.

My analogy for India's diversity has always been 'think Europe'. A slight alteration to history and there would have been 20 - 30 separate countres on the subcontinent. In due time, that might yet happen.

 

[Dawnofhope]

You seem to be treating both the so-called 'Abrahamic' and so-called 'Dharmic' traditions as two separate blocks. That could say a lot about the way you look at the concepts of religion and spirituality.
Dharma is a universal concept which has nothing to do with religious traditions but is associated with the spiritual direction that people are moving in regardless of their religious or non-religious culture. So a christian or a muslim or even an atheist could also be more or less following his or her dharma if he or she follows a certain systematic life style that promotes spiritual growth or expansion.

That is why the founder of my tradition could say that it is most closely related to Sufism, which you would probably place in your 'Abrahamic' camp. And you would probably place my preferred tradition in the so-called 'Dharmic' camp.

My point is that looking at traditions on the level of religions or religious blocks is a superficial even a non-spiritual way to view traditions and their significance.
Which is why I applaud people who embrace tantric, yogic or mystic practices in whatever form or tradition they are implemented and I frown upon people who want to divide up the world in 'believers' and 'non-believers' on superstitious, ignorant or xenophobic grounds.

As a Baha'i I believe in an invisible essence called God and that Krishna, Moses, Buddha, Christ and Muhammad are all Manifestations of God. In that sense there's no division and we are all one people, with One God, following one religion. That is my believe but it is not the belief of those who I converse on this thread. That's fine. We're all entitled to our beliefs as you are.

The Abrahamic and Dharmic Faiths do represent two lineages if you like.

Buddha as you know emerged out of Hindu India and then His Teachings spread throughout Asia.

Christianity emerged from Judaism. 600 years later Muhammad encouraged his peoples to turn away from paganism to follow monotheism in the traditions of Moses and Jesus and announced the Qur'an was the next revelation from God surpassing the gospels and Torah.

My RF associates here will argue that the Abrahamic and Dharmic Faiths have such different paradigms as to be irreconcilable. I don't believe that a all of course. Nor do you.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I found it troubling that two races that had lived side by side for over a century did not have a better relationship with each other. Eventually the indigenous Fijians felt threatened by the Indians and that is what resulted in the coup.

Who is at fault. If Indians did better, take away their rights by use of force? Indians will continue to do better wherever they go. Fiji is/will be at loss. Chinese or the Americans will take over.

However it appears an enormous loss, if we are unable to appreciate the beauty and richness of our own spiritual traditions or never reconnect with it.

The 'beauty and richness' of your spiritual traditions is for you. Why do you want to force it on us? We are happy with the 'beauty and richness' of our own spiritual traditions.

Returning to India from the sugar diaspora is unrealistic. After 4 to 5 generations, they no longer hold any Indian rights. Just as you or I couldn't easily move there, so too for them. Ancestry means nothing. So Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, because of the once British Commonwealth, easier immigration, and better opportunity, are far better options.

Vinayaka, the Fiji Indians can get dual citizenship, since they are people of Indian origin. We would welcome them. But finally, it is their choice. If they prefer to go to more developed countries (though there are ample opportunities in India too), we have no problem with that. Wherever they go, they would still remain Indian diaspora.

 

[Aupmanyav]

India itself is culturally and racially diverse but Hinduism doesn't seem to be.

You are right. We do not want to loose our various traditions and we don't want others too to loose their individuality. With that too, we can live together happily and prosper. That is India. Jews, Christians, Muslims have history in India older than Muslim invasions or the Zoroastrians who came later. We never asked them to relinquish their identity or denied them any right which Hindus enjoyed.

 

[Aupmanyav]

A slight alteration to history and there would have been 20 - 30 separate countres on the subcontinent. In due time, that might yet happen.

That will never happen, Vinayaka. We have the wherewithal to deny that.

Army 1,444 million Reserves 1,155 million
Paramilitary 87,000
Other Armed Forces 1,404 million Reserves 988,000
And nuclear missiles (which can easily reach Beijing, our main adversary).

My RF associates here will argue that the Abrahamic and Dharmic Faiths have such different paradigms as to be irreconcilable. I don't believe that a all of course. Nor do you.

Beg to differ. I think they ARE irreconcible.

Maybe you see it all too clearly and that’s why you have become an atheist.

I have not become an atheist in contravention to Hindu scriptures. I still remain a staunch Hindu. But the way you write, the hidden meaning, shows me that you too do not really believe in existence of Gods.

 

[Marcion]

As a Baha'i I believe in an invisible essence called God and that Krishna, Moses, Buddha, Christ and Muhammad are all Manifestations of God. In that sense there's no division and we are all one people, with One God, following one religion. That is my believe but it is not the belief of those who I converse on this thread. That's fine. We're all entitled to our beliefs as you are.

The Abrahamic and Dharmic Faiths do represent two lineages if you like.

Buddha as you know emerged out of Hindu India and then His Teachings spread throughout Asia.

Christianity emerged from Judaism. 600 years later Muhammad encouraged his peoples to turn away from paganism to follow monotheism in the traditions of Moses and Jesus and announced the Qur'an was the next revelation from God surpassing the gospels and Torah.

My RF associates here will argue that the Abrahamic and Dharmic Faiths have such different paradigms as to be irreconcilable. I don't believe that a all of course. Nor do you.

You (again) used the expression "Dharmic faith". I explained that Dharma had nothing to do with any faith, it is a universal concept, not something associated with a "faith" or a particular local culture. So to speak of a Dharmic faith makes no sense at all to me.

Even speaking of Abrahamic faiths is debatable because the essence of Christianity does not seem to really build on Judaism but rather on Hellenistic ways of thinking.
So I don't see that there are 'two lineages' and the separation seems to me artificial (perhaps only useful for the sake of classification on Wikipedia).
This whole idea of making such an artificial separation probably stems from the idea that so-called monotheism is an important or even essential criterium for classifying traditions. Jesus himself speaks of the Abba (beloved Father), the Holy Spirit (Supreme Consciousness) or Rule of God (Self-realisation) which seems philosophically/cosmically more in line with a tantric-mystic outlook than anything to do with Judaism.

It is unlikely that Buddha the person ever thought of himself as "emerging out of Hindu India". He was just trying to find a better way of following and teaching Dharma as so many other teachers in Asia had tried before him (and after him). Buddhism was once popular inside South Asia as just another way of following the Dharma. Of course the pandits disliked Buddhist hinduism because buddhists had no need for their paid ritualistic services and defied their caste system (although buddhists in South Asia probably ended up in their own caste).

So there is no need to "reconcile" imaginary lineages, it is in my opinion much better to abandon such divisive thinking altogether and look at the underlying basic spiritual or mystic teachings that really matter to spiritual life and ignore the more superficial differences over which religious people like to quarrel.

 

[Vinayaka]

That will never happen, Vinayaka. We have the wherewithal to deny that.

Army 1,444 million Reserves 1,155 million
Paramilitary 87,000
Other Armed Forces 1,404 million Reserves 988,000
And nuclear missiles (which can easily reach Beijing, our main adversary).Beg to differ. I think they ARE irreconcible.

You clearly know more about India than I do. But the point remains as to it's diversity within the boundaries. I felt a substantial shift between Madurai and Delhi. I can't pinpoint it, but it was substantial. Greater than the feeling I get in crossing borders between Canada and the US, and that too is substantial.

Yes the Abrahamic and Dharmic paradigms are irreconcilable. The idea that they're not is just simplistic universalism at it's worst. Still it's possible we could agree not to kill each other.

 

[Vinayaka]

Vinayaka, the Fiji Indians can get dual citizenship, since they are people of Indian origin. We would welcome them. But finally, it is their choice. If they prefer to go to more developed countries (though there are ample opportunities in India too), we have no problem with that. Wherever they go, they would still remain Indian diaspora.

Not from what my Fijian friends have told me, but what do they know?

 

[Aupmanyav]

But the point remains as to it's diversity within the boundaries. I felt a substantial shift between Madurai and Delhi. I can't pinpoint it, but it was substantial.

Go to Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh, Ngaland, Mizoram, Meghalaya; you would not find North or South India there. That is diversity and we delight in that.

Not from what my Fijian friends have told me, but what do they know?

Yes, it is a step-by-step process. They can get Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI). They get mutiple-entry life-long visa They get parity with Non-resident Indians in financial, economic and educational fields. Then they can apply for an Indian citizenship which they will get in due course of time. There will be a step-by-step process wherever they want to go, except in places where one can buy citizenship by paying money. More information at India Dual citizenship

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes the Abrahamic and Dharmic paradigms are irreconcilable. The idea that they're not is just simplistic universalism at it's worst. Still it's possible we could agree not to kill each other.

I very much agree.

 

[Vinayaka]

Go to Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh, Ngaland, Mizoram, Meghalaya; you would not find North or South India there. That is diversity and we delight in that.Yes, it is a step-by-step process. They can get Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI). They get mutiple-entry life-long visa They get parity with Non-resident Indians in financial, economic and educational fields. Then they can apply for an Indian citizenship which they will get in due course of time. There will be a step-by-step process wherever they want to go, except in places where one can buy citizenship by paying money. More information at India Dual citizenship

Still quite a few restrictions though, like no voting rights. Perhaps my friends were just indicating they didn't want to go back.

 

[Aupmanyav]

As I said, their choice. I will always consider them as 'ours'.

 

[Vinayaka]

As I said, their choice. I will always consider them as 'ours'.

India is my Mother, and culturally I had naught to do with her, although my paternal uncle died there.

 

[paarsurrey]

You clearly know more about India than I do. But the point remains as to it's diversity within the boundaries. I felt a substantial shift between Madurai and Delhi. I can't pinpoint it, but it was substantial. Greater than the feeling I get in crossing borders between Canada and the US, and that too is substantial.

Yes the Abrahamic and Dharmic paradigms are irreconcilable. The idea that they're not is just simplistic universalism at it's worst. Still it's possible we could agree not to kill each other.

"Still it's possible we could agree not to kill each other."

I agree with the above sentiment. All religions and non-religions could co-exist peacefully and must co-exist peacefully. There is no need to kill one another. G-d is for everybody* and has amply provided for everybody, so why kill anybody?

Regards
___________
*Quran
[1:1]
In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.
[1:2]
All praise belongs to Allah, Lord of all the worlds,
The Holy Quran - Chapter: 1: Al-Fatihah

 

[Vinayaka]

@ Aupmanyav Two diasporas over 2 centuries for Indians. I didn't realise the Fijians now have their own diaspora. Little wonder the faith has become quite different. The same is probably true for Trinidad, Guyana, South Africa and others, with the majority settling in former Commonwealth countries. Perhaps the exception is Surinam and The Netherlands.

Fijian Indian diaspora - Wikipedia

 

[paarsurrey]

You (again) used the expression "Dharmic faith". I explained that Dharma had nothing to do with any faith, it is a universal concept, not something associated with a "faith" or a particular local culture. So to speak of a Dharmic faith makes no sense at all to me.

Even speaking of Abrahamic faiths is debatable because the essence of Christianity does not seem to really build on Judaism but rather on Hellenistic ways of thinking.
So I don't see that there are 'two lineages' and the separation seems to me artificial (perhaps only useful for the sake of classification on Wikipedia).
This whole idea of making such an artificial separation probably stems from the idea that so-called monotheism is an important or even essential criterium for classifying traditions. Jesus himself speaks of the Abba (beloved Father), the Holy Spirit (Supreme Consciousness) or Rule of God (Self-realisation) which seems philosophically/cosmically more in line with a tantric-mystic outlook than anything to do with Judaism.

It is unlikely that Buddha the person ever thought of himself as "emerging out of Hindu India". He was just trying to find a better way of following and teaching Dharma as so many other teachers in Asia had tried before him (and after him). Buddhism was once popular inside South Asia as just another way of following the Dharma. Of course the pandits disliked Buddhist hinduism because buddhists had no need for their paid ritualistic services and defied their caste system (although buddhists in South Asia probably ended up in their own caste).

So there is no need to "reconcile" imaginary lineages, it is in my opinion much better to abandon such divisive thinking altogether and look at the underlying basic spiritual or mystic teachings that really matter to spiritual life and ignore the more superficial differences over which religious people like to quarrel.

I like many contents of one's post that I have given different colors.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

My analogy for India's diversity has always been 'think Europe'. A slight alteration to history and there would have been 20 - 30 separate countres on the subcontinent. In due time, that might yet happen.

May be.

Regards