Are we too soft? (religion, Hinduism)

[Pariah]

Originally Posted by michaelm

There is a great danger in blaming 'outsiders' for any problems a nation, culture, religion faces.

I don't blame the Britishers. It's a fact that colonialism coupled with several hundred years of Muslim occupation of played havoc with the Hindu mindset, it's conception of history, and the pride with which every country has its basis. The current lot of Hindus are the ones to blame.

As an Indian, Hinduism plays a large role in the culture of the sub-continent. Unlike America which was founded on secular values and now has a secular culture, India is not the same.

What pride can one have in a mass of land?

[Don Penguinoini]

India's problems lie within itself. It's the hindus themselves who are being idiots. You see a strong muslim unity, but never strong hindu unity, or not at the same level. Among others, that is what we could learn from muslims.

[Hema]

Yes I think that Hindus are too soft. We love to pray a lot and follow Ahimsa but God also taught us that when we have no other choice, we must stand up for what we believe in and fight if we have to. This was how Shri Krishna and Shri Ram lived their lives. In the Ramayana, Shri Ram did not even want war. He sent a messenger to peacefully discuss matters with Ravana, but Ravana refused leaving Shri Ram no choice.

[ankilla]

talking about regarding body structure or personality behaviour

[Don Penguinoini]

Take a logical guess.

[zenzero]

Friend Don Penguinoini ,

Are we too soft as hindus?

First of all you are saying *WE* and then saying *Hindus*
When there is nothing called Hindus how can anyone be a hindu?
This is the misconception which is carrying on till date and so we have people killing each other in the name of religion.
During Vedic times there were no me, we, I etc. and if you have read the post by Venugopal where he mentioned about some ashrams in Kerala where they live freely and they even do not own there children except breast feeding them till they are young.
Those times everyone lived as ordinary beings and shared all that existence has to offer.
The culture then was that every being maybe new to this place are equal and welcome as nobody owns anything in REAl they maybe a custodian for name sake. And this very aspect was misused by all your invaders till AKHBAR came to the scenme and he understood the culture to a great extent to accpet / unite /merge with the society as one.
The whole objective of life is to surrender the EGO / I / WE / etc. and in that surrender does one realises god and so this land here is the best and so it has been able to assimmilate so many cultues, languages, etc. So many differences but still living as ONE. There is no land where this has happened. Beides noone can take anything. The Moguls ruled for 7 generations and what is the fate of their present generation? just about hand to mouth. Like wise what is on this earth will remian here, humans will come and go. Only those who realise themselves may not come back.
So, kindly understand what you say and only in the understanding that you grow.
Love & rgds

[Aupmanyav]

Stop worrying about India. It is happy even with the bourses down 33%, inflation at 11%, and oil at $146 per barrel. Poet Mohammad Iqbal said:

'Kuchh baat hai ki hasti mitati nahi hamaari;
sadiyon raha hai dushman, daure jahan hamaara.'

(There sure is something that our might is never destroyed,
though times have been against us for centuries.)

[GodAgain]

I am saddened by the ego expressed here.
"We" are too soft? There is no "we."
"too soft?" You think that is a bad thing?
But mostly, then, the defensive Nationalist comments.


This is a silly view. No one should ever take pride in their nation: you did not build it. It isn't yours. Nationalism is a childish and terrible egotism. Anyone's nationalism. It's like being proud of your race or ethnicity. Such things are accidents of birth, not accomplishments.

Once you understand how silly it is to be proud of your race or your ethnicity (and the OP is talking about Hindus as an ethnic group, I hope, not a religion), then you understand how equally silly it is to ever feel shame about it.

OP seems to have shame in being Hindu. Responding posters try to counter that view with statements of pride. Both approaches are futile and show no understanding.

[GodAgain]

Originally Posted by Somkid

I'm not sure, If you mean India, I think India has done a good job defending itself, while the people are not violent they don't run away from a fight. Keep in mind that India is one of the oldest countries in the world and Hinduism is the oldest religion we know of.

"Good job?" Better than some, worst than others. But even if we were the never- conquered Americans (I can't think of anyone else who has never been conquered), where is the pride? Understand: when a nation is conquered wrongfully (as opposed to when there is simply a battle between kings or dictators, neither of whom has a moral claim), then it is the conquering people who should feel shame, not the victim. In truth, most victors are only guilty of winning, of doing to others what the others would gladly do to them.

"India is one of the oldest countries in the world" No, India is very young, as a nation, beginning only after the English left. Even the culture isn't old. Parts of it are. But parts are very modern. Film is hugely important to Indian culture. How old is that aspect of culture? And how borrowed?

And please, let us not come forward with the tired egotism of "Hinduism is the oldest religion we know of." First, you mean oldest religion still somewhat practiced in the old way. We are very aware of ancient religions long faded. But even still, what difference does it make that Hinduism is old? Horse and carriage is an old form of transport. The age doesn't make it better than a car. The Vedas age is irrelevant to it's truth and it's truth irrelevant to it's age.

And mostly, please, understand that to be either proud or ashamed of your religion is to fail to understand the essence of spirituality.