Why is Hinduism Hardly discussed in this forum?

[ratikala]

A typical response from another Hindu. Ignore all criticisms, white wash the whole issues and pretend were all one unified, peaceful and tolerant people singing loving hymns around the campfire.

yeah ! .....more bhajans , more rejoicing in the lord ,...and less drunken debauchery and self'indulgence , the more we familiarise ourselves with the sacredness of the entire planet worshiping every aspect of it as sacred , the less often we would allow this degraded society to pump **** in to it !therefore we would allow the gunga to become poluted ......

Like I said, it is better the criticism comes from internally than externally. Do you think non-Hindus reading thread cannot see how you are ignoring my very legitimate criticisms, the same criticisms raised by many outspoken intellectuals and human rights organizations?

yes , but let your criticism be of your self and of your own actions as such criticism will bear fruitfull fruit !
there is much also to be criticised by "outspoken interlectuals and human rights organisations" all over the globe not only in the hindu nation , let the hindu nation come together and deal with its own problems and let the interlectuals tackle their own egos and some of the problems in their own societies . this whole world is corrupt and unjust . remember also that the hindu nation much like any other nation has its saints and sinners , saddly saints are a rare comodity these days where ever you go !
science and technology will not bring them back only moral conciousness .

 

[Jainarayan]

...the less often we would allow this degraded society to pump **** in to it !

Oh no she did not just say "****"!

 

[Surya Deva]

Right, because taking exception to an attempt to dismantle the remaining vestiges of Hindu unity is whitewashing. Puh-leez. There are many things I disagree with in Hinduism - and moreso, Hindu culture which purports to justify its excesses and abuses with Hinduism, which is historically the main catalyst behind distortions in Hinduism itself - and work actively to bring about their end. Thanks for the strawman though.

By all means, bring up these criticisms, and do try to think about how to make them more than just criticisms. But let's not conflate issues when it's convenient to distract from the topic.

What Hindu unity? I agree with that Ajah just said, this notion of Hinduism as single religion is laughable. It is a term for a collection of different religions, and is about as valid as the term 'Abrahamism' is as a religion. However, even if the Abrahamism religion existed, they would still have more agreement among each other than Hindus do, for example

1) There is only one god(theism)
2) Personal creator god
3) Heaven and hell
4) Ten commandments, especially no idol worship
5) Prayer is the means to worship God

Hinduism on the other hand is a catch-all fallacious label that unites atheism, theism, pantheism, Gnosticism dualism, non-dualism, animism, ancestor worship, shamanism, satanism and pretty much any ism! Everybody and nobody is a Hindu. It is very much a joke. Like I said calling Hinduism a single unified religion, is like calling schizophrenia coherent thinking.

Seriously why are Hindus so stubbornly and obsessively defending a bad religious classification by 19th century colonial scholars? These colonial scholars also classified human into races and posited a master race called the Aryan race. Early 19th century colonial scholarship in soft sciences was pseudoscientific, even in areas like psychology(like Freudian psychoanalysis) they created all kinds of bad ideas like Social darwinism, coining diseases for homosexuality and black people revolting against their masters, or the size of the head determined how intelligent you were. The 19th century thinkers produced some really bad ideas, and Hinduism as a religion was one of them.

Hinduism is not a religion, BUT it can be a religion IF we agree to the definition that Hindu thinkers like Swami Vivekananda coined: Santana Dharma and if we accept as an absolute doctrine the Shruti as our canon. This means the Puranas and Puranic Hinduism(Vaishnavism, Shiavism, Shaktism ) will have to be accepted as pure mythology and human construction and purely defunct.
The new testimant of Hinduism are the Upanishads

We can undo the bad religious classification the British did, by redefining Hinduism as Santana Dharma and only accepting Sruti as our canon and the Upanishads as our New Testimant. This will unify all Hindus as one single comprehensive religion with a single set of doctrines and all the questions I outlined can then be definitively answered. I will answer very briefly:

1) When and who founded Hinduism? The Vedic people, an Indo-European nomadic people which started the Vedic tradition which ended with Vedanta likely in in the period of 7000BCE to 1000BCE. It was founded by Risis(seers)

2) What is the central canon of Hinduism? The central canon are the Vedas, and the Upanishads are considered the new testimant and revelation. The Upanishads started the great Jnana tradition of the Vedic tradition from which the Darsanas arose and all the core Vedic philosophies were formulated, culminating in Advaita Vedanta.

3) What is the Hindu concept of god? Hindus accept the existence of only one ultimate supreme reality known as Brahman which is a substance of pure consciousness and bliss, everything else is an illusion produced by a creative power of consciousness. God or Ishvara and Jiva or soul are products of this power and disappear when one attains enlightenment.

4) How was the universe created in Hinduism? There is no creation. The entire universe is a holographic projection of the creative power of consciousness. Hence creation is an illusion. The universe that we inhabit which is the holographic projection exists in several dimensions ranging from the purest and lightest(sattva) in the causal dimension, to intermediate and energetic the in subtle dimension(rajas) to the impure and heaviest(tamas) in the physical dimension.

5) What is the cause of suffering and evil in Hinduism? Ignorance. The soul or 'jiva' is an illusion produced by the superimposition of consciousness on the material product of mind, the mind then falsely thinks it is an agent or doer i.e., the jiva is a natural AI. The jiva not knowing any better than evolves gradually through various organisms, experiencing pain and pleasure and suffering and performing wrong and ignorant acts(evil)

6) What is the doctrine of salvation in Hinduism ? When the Jiva gains real experiential knowledge(jnana) that its existence is in fact not real, it only a material product, a complex of forces of nature and realizes consciousness as the only existent reality.

7) How does one practice Hinduism? Gnosis and Yoga. The Jiva through experimental knowledge gradually negates every limiting adjunct, all superimpositions that create the illusion of separation between it and consciousness. This is achieved through a mental training process or Ashtanga Kriya Yoga whereby all the activities of the mind are gradually stilled, to the point of absolute stilling at which point the Jiva and the whole world disappears, leaving only pure consciousness.

8) What happens after we die in Hinduism? The subtle body(jiva) separates from the physical body and enters into the subtle dimension which is the dream state of the mind, which one enters everyday while sleeping. There the Jiva enters planes of reality as real as the waking reality(if not more real) and enjoys or suffers as per its karma and then returns to the physical dimension in a new physical body.

I know my Hinduism through and through and I know what is true Hinduism and what isn't true Hinduism. If all Hindus would agree with all the core doctrines and practices I have outlined above we would have true unity and easily the most advanced and scientific religion in the world. Why do Hindus oppose this?

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Because it's alternately misrepresentation and fantasy. Let me try, once again, to spell it out simply. Wall of text and batteries not included: you don't need conformity of doctrines for unity of religion. This is where Abrahamic religions fail and Hinduism triumphs, and the social dynamics of South Asia show this over and over again, wherever you go - Hindus are united by that common denominator regardless of their sect, say whatever you want about other social dynamics - I'm not whitewashing anything.

Only a few fanatics of this or that view run around telling everyone else their sect, or religious self-classification is invalid... rather like this.

 

[Surya Deva]

Because it's alternately misrepresentation and fantasy.

No it's not, this is exactly what Vedanta teaches. If any of the above answers ive given are wrong then prove them wrong, and just state it. Claims are not arguments.

The real fantasy part is the myths of 330 million gods and goddess, Krishna, Shiva, Vishnu, Hanuman, Ganesha. I mean come on: Hanuman, a flying monkey god, who when he was a baby flies up to the sun thinking it is a mango and swallows it! God Indra angry at this, curses Hanuman and smites him down with his lightening bolt weapon; Ganesha, an elephant god, the son of Shiva and divine mother Parviti, who is naughty so Shiva chops of his head as punishment, then they find an elephants head to replace it. Or child Krishna saves the day when god Indra gets angry because Krishna tells the villagers not to worship him, so he sends storms and torrential rains, and child Krishna saves the day by lifting the Govardhana mountain on the tip of his finger, so all the villagers can take shelter underneath it.

Seriously, anybody who believes in stories like this should not criticize anybody else religion or philosophy as "fantasy"

Advaita(which is what I describe above) is considered the most subtle, sublime and elevated thought the human has ever conceived by philosophers like Schopenhauer, the most scientific account of reality by scientists like Schodinger and the most advanced and greatest metaphysics ever produced by logicians like Whitehead. Today we have experimental proof and scientific evidence for almost all of Advaitas doctrines.

I don't understand why Hindus have a problem with Advaita and treat it likes its some heretical philosophy. Its the ONLY Hindu tradition which is directly based on the Shruti.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

By and large, we don't, I'm an initiated advaitin. I didn't learn advaita out of a few books - though I have studied the source material. As far as I know, only one person on this forum regards advaita as 'heretical.'

Nonetheless, advaita is astika and upholds the Vedas, the context of which is no less mythological/allegorical/mystical than the stories you describe - which are just that, allegory.

 

[Surya Deva]

you don't need conformity of doctrines for unity of religion.

Seriously, what a ridiculous thing to say. If there is no common set of doctrines in a religion how can you have a religion in the first place? What would Buddhism be without the four noble truths and the theory of dependent origin and anatman? If Buddhists did not even know who their founder was and what their core scriptures are, how could they ever decide what constitutes Buddhism?

I think this recent 'argument' you made has reached a new height of irrationality.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Seriously, what a ridiculous thing to say. If there is no common set of doctrines in a religion how can you have a religion in the first place? What would Buddhism be without the four noble truths and the theory of dependent origin and anatman? If Buddhists did not even know who their founder was and what their core scriptures are, how could they ever decide what constitutes Buddhism?

I think this recent 'argument' you made has reached a new height of irrationality.

Do you seriously believe there is conformity in Christianity?

There merely have to be enough commonalities, and enough common roots, to make the religious identity. There is more than enough for Hinduism.

That we Hindus identify as such and operate on this basis as a lived reality is more than sufficient proof.

Do you enjoy arguing that what exists doesn't (or maybe that's the neo-advaitin position these days? but then again, even neo- has enough advaita to recognize the essential lack of difference and embrace the root commonality.)

I think, rather, you just enjoy arguing and wallowing in divisiveness. Not very advaita.

What would Buddhism be without the four noble truths and the theory of dependent origin and anatman?

Anatman is actually very poorly understood in Buddhism - especially Western transmissions, and some texts speak of an atman-analog or even, as in the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana an outright satya-atman.

The Four Noble Truths is largely dispensed with in the vajrayana, as it is turned to a different, esoteric meaning. As are the 5 precepts. Mahayana also modifies them to large extent.

There are about as many doctrinal conflicts in Buddhism as well, including who founded it, what the proper source texts are, how things began - or didn't begin, the ontological status of just about everything, the theory of consciousness, rebirth, correct path of practices, etc.

If Buddhists did not even know who their founder was and what their core scriptures are, how could they ever decide what constitutes Buddhism?

As a whole? We don't. Too many different sub-religions of Buddhism. But we're all Buddhist.

 

[Surya Deva]

Nah, the fallacy of a false balance created again.

Buddhism is a religion which has sects. Christianity is a religion which has sects. Islam is a religion which has sects. Hinduism is a term for a collection of religions.

You are no longer being rational, so I am ending our debate.

 

[Pleroma]

What Hindu unity? I agree with that Ajah just said, this notion of Hinduism as single religion is laughable. It is a term for a collection of different religions, and is about as valid as the term 'Abrahamism' is as a religion. However, even if the Abrahamism religion existed, they would still have more agreement among each other than Hindus do, for example


Hinduism on the other hand is a catch-all fallacious label that unites atheism, theism, pantheism, Gnosticism dualism, non-dualism, animism, ancestor worship, shamanism, satanism and pretty much any ism! Everybody and nobody is a Hindu. It is very much a joke. Like I said calling Hinduism a single unified religion, is like calling schizophrenia coherent thinking.

All Hindus are One, the wise ones know what the truth is.

I outlined can then be definitively answered. I will answer very briefly:


2) What is the central canon of Hinduism? The central canon are the Vedas, and the Upanishads are considered the new testimant and revelation. The Upanishads started the great Jnana tradition of the Vedic tradition from which the Darsanas arose and all the core Vedic philosophies were formulated, culminating in Advaita Vedanta.

The Vedas are far more important than the Upanishads, your biased views towards the Vedas is a fallacy. With no Vedas there is no Upanishads.

3) What is the Hindu concept of god? Hindus accept the existence of only one ultimate supreme reality known as Brahman which is a substance of pure consciousness and bliss, everything else is an illusion produced by a creative power of consciousness. God or Ishvara and Jiva or soul are products of this power and disappear when one attains enlightenment.

No, the official Hindu deities are,

The main devas are (vide 6th anuvaka of Chamakam): Aditya, Agni, Antariksha, Ashwinis, Brahma, Brihaspati, Dishas, Dyaus, Indra, Ganesha, Marutas, Mitra, Mitravaruna, Moordha, Prajapati, Prithvi, Pusha, Rudra, Savitr, Shiva, Soma, Varuna, Vayu, Vishnu, and Vishvedavas.

The Thirty-three gods is a pantheon of Hindu deities, some of Vedic origin and some developed later. It generally includes a set of 31 deities consisting of 12 Ādityas, 11 Rudras, and 8 Vasus; the identity of the other two deities that fill out the 33 varies, though their roles are generally a creator deity, presiding over procreation and protector of life and the 33rd is an all powerful supreme ruler.

The 31 are:

Twelve Ādityas (personified deities) – Mitra, Aryaman, Bhaga, Varuṇa, Dakṣa, Aṃśa, Tvāṣṭṛ, Pūṣan, Vivasvat, Savitṛ, Śakra, Viṣṇu. This list sometimes varies in particulars.

Eleven Rudras, consisting of:

Five abstractions – Ānanda "bliss", Vijñāna "knowledge", Manas "thought",

Prāṇa "breath" or "life", Vāc "speech",

Five names of Śiva – Īśāna "ruler", Tatpuruṣa "that person", Aghora "not terrible", Vāmadeva "pleasant god", Sadyojāta "born at once"

Ātmā "self"

Eight Vasus (deities of material elements) – Pṛthivī "Earth", Agni "Fire",

Antarikṣa "Atmosphere", Vāyu "Wind", Dyauṣ "Sky", Sūrya "Sun", Nakṣatra "Stars", Soma "Moon"

Other sources like the Vedas include the two Aśvins (or Nāsatyas), twin solar deities.

Indra also called Śakra, lord of the gods, is the First of the 33 followed by Agni

Prajāpati "Master of creatures", the creator [Prajāpati "Master of creatures", the creator is Brahma who resides over the thirty three.]

The generic title, though not the particular names of the deities, was borrowed in Buddhist sources as a name for the heaven "of the Thirty-three gods" (Trāyastriṃśa).


These are the official Gods of Hinduism and they all exists. This is Hinduism, if you don't accept it then you're not a Hindu.

4) How was the universe created in Hinduism? There is no creation. The entire universe is a holographic projection of the creative power of consciousness. Hence creation is an illusion. The universe that we inhabit which is the holographic projection exists in several dimensions ranging from the purest and lightest(sattva) in the causal dimension, to intermediate and energetic the in subtle dimension(rajas) to the impure and heaviest(tamas) in the physical dimension.

Stop this nonsense and this stupidity, our seers knew nothing about the holographic principle or anything as such, it is a modern pesudo-scientific term with no evidence what so ever.

According to Hindu philosophy, Hiranyagarbha is the source of the creation of this universe and it emanated from a golden egg.

Hiraṇyagarbha (Devanagari: हिरण्यगर्भः ; literally the 'golden womb' or 'golden egg', poetically rendered 'universal germ') is the source of the creation of the Universe or the manifested cosmos in Indian philosophy,[1] it finds mention in one hymn of the Ṛkveda (RV 10.121), known as the 'Hiraṇyagarbha Sūkta', suggesting a single creator deity(verse 8: yo deveṣv ādhi devā eka āsīt, Griffith: "He is the God of gods, and none beside him."), in the hymn identified as Prajāpati.

The Upaṇiṣad calls it the Soul of the Universe or Brahman,[2] and elaborates that Hiraṇyagarbha floated around in emptiness and the darkness of the non-existence for about a year, and then broke into two halves which formed the Svarga and the Pṛthvi.

5) What is the cause of suffering and evil in Hinduism? Ignorance. The soul or 'jiva' is an illusion produced by the superimposition of consciousness on the material product of mind, the mind then falsely thinks it is an agent or doer i.e., the jiva is a natural AI. The jiva not knowing any better than evolves gradually through various organisms, experiencing pain and pleasure and suffering and performing wrong and ignorant acts(evil)

No, both good and evil are rent in us, its inevitable we need to bear it and get through it, there is no escape from both good and evil.

6) What is the doctrine of salvation in Hinduism ? When the Jiva gains real experiential knowledge(jnana) that its existence is in fact not real, it only a material product, a complex of forces of nature and realizes consciousness as the only existent reality.

Don't act like you know what happens to a person who has achieved liberation, it sounds like you were there watching it.

I know my Hinduism through and through and I know what is true Hinduism and what isn't true Hinduism. If all Hindus would agree with all the core doctrines and practices I have outlined above we would have true unity and easily the most advanced and scientific religion in the world. Why do Hindus oppose this?

You know nothing about Hinduism and when you don't even know what true hinduism is how can you call it scientific, we have no desire of making hinduism scientific, science deals with empirical things where as hinduism deals with metaphysical things and there is value in both if we keep them separate and learn about the nature of reality from both of them.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Suffice to say, Pleroma's position is almost equally myopic.

 

[Surya Deva]

Btw you keep comparing Hinduism to Christianity and Islam and claim Hinduism is much united? Ahem, was it not Christianity or Islam that eventually conquered India and occupied it for several centuries?

Ahem, isn't it Christianity and Islam which have spread as world religions in every part of the world and were able to unite whole empires including the Islamic empire and Christian empire, and ushered in an age of science and technology.

I am the one here who is truly trying to unify Hinduism. It is not I who am creating divisions for I am arguing for reform and organizing the religion with a common set of doctrines so that future Hindus have a single comprehensive religion and can work together as one people, it is other Hindus insisting on remaining fragmented and keeping dead traditions like caste system, widow burning and superstitious practices. Fine, then remain fragmented - if Hindus did not learn their lessons when foreign invaders invaded their civilization left right and center because of how fragmented and divided they were, then they maybe delivered the final lesson by the great red Dragon fairly soon.

I am taking Hinduism from Indian-Hindus. It is no longer their property.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Ahem, was it not Christianity or Islam that eventually conquered India and occupied it several centuries?

Anglican Christianity, and two forms of Sunni Islam which later fragmented. It wasn't Christianity itself that conquered India, rather it was the British East India Company - through a policy of divide and conquer, later establishing itself as the Raj. Christianity was almost incidental, and used as a cynical tool of separation.

With Islam, it's due to Islam's inherently militant, aggressive, expansionist, proselytizing and xenophobic character and the political fragmentation of the Indian states. The Islamic invasion itself was catalyzed by the Mamluk inheritance of a vast empire full of resources and soldiers, and their singular drive towards expansion especially after contact with the Mongols, defeating them and expanding into the power vacuum left behind. After 400~ years of resisting Muslim incursions as a united front, the then-disunified Indian states succumbed to this united force.

Ahem, isn't it Christianity and Islam which have spread as world religions in every part of the world and were able to unite whole empires including the Islamic empire and Christian empire, and ushered in an age of science and technology.

Hinduism did too, all across South Asia & Southeast Asia. Both Christianity and Islam however were spread by the sword.

Buddhism also spread thus, itself fragmenting into many doctrines/sects as divided as Hinduism (actually moreso now that I think about it: Buddhists are divided between (atheists, ignostic transtheists, theological transtheists and theists - pseudo-atheistic Hindus as in Samkhya and neo-advaita interpretations are nearly non-existent) - and not by the sword.

I am the one here who is truly trying to unify Hinduism.

Yes, and you're the only true Hindu™ too. Sorry for not recognizing how true and **** you are earlier. My bad.

It is now I who am creating divisions for I am arguing for reform and organizing the religion with a common set of doctrines so that future, it is other Hindus insisting on remaining fragmented and keeping dead traditions like caste system, widow burning and superstitious practices. Fine, then remained fragmented - if Hindus did not learn their lessons when foreign invaders invaded your civilization left right and center because of how fragmented and divided they were, then they maybe delivered the final lesson by the great red Dragon fairly soon.

Your way of "unifying" is to deepen the divisions. Nobody's just going to abandon their entrenched position, and cross over no-mans-land thanking you for making it all suddenly clear to them what the proper, official, true™ beliefs of Hinduism are, the one single, almighty doctrine we must absolutely adhere to point by point.

I am taking Hinduism from Indian-Hindus. It is no longer their property.

1 vs 1 billion. Hm... goodluck.

 

[Pleroma]

I am taking Hinduism from Indian-Hindus. It is no longer their property.

It is not your property either. It belongs to the people of the world.

 

[Pleroma]

Suffice to say, Pleroma's position is almost equally myopic.

I have not put Sanatana Dharma as my religious-title, the title of my religion is esoteric religions of the world, my position is more universal than you might think.

 

[paarsurrey]

This mentions people who believe in One God. What of those who do not?

As I said and quoted from Quran; hell is not everlasting as compared to the heaven. Hell is like a nursing-home for treatment of the wrong psyche of the wrong-doers; those who don't believe in ONE GOD or the atheists and like are no exceptions.

If one has some particular verse in this connection; please quote it

 

[Astravalon]

Why is Hinduism Hardly discussed in this forum?

I was wondering why there is such a low amount of threads on Hinduism? It is after all the biggest religion in this world currently. What are your thoughts on this my fellow members?

Yes, well, I think it’s safe to say it’s being discussed, now.

 

[Surya Deva]

Anglican Christianity, and two forms of Sunni Islam which later fragmented. It wasn't Christianity itself that conquered India, rather it was the British East India Company - through a policy of divide and conquer, later establishing itself as the Raj. Christianity was almost incidental, and used as a cynical tool of separation.

History of Western colonialism shows that Christianity and colonization by the Empire went hand in hand(Such as the Portguese and the colonization of Goa) The Western powers were able to unite because of common religious doctrine. Christianity was able to unite the entire Byzantine empire.

With Islam, it's due to Islam's inherently militant, aggressive, expansionist, proselytizing and xenophobic character and the political fragmentation of the Indian states. The Islamic invasion itself was catalyzed by the Mamluk inheritance of a vast empire full of resources and soldiers, and their singular drive towards expansion especially after contact with the Mongols, defeating them and expanding into the power vacuum left behind. After 400~ years of resisting Muslim incursions as a united front, the then-disunified Indian states succumbed to this united force.

India would have done exactly the same thing the Muslims had done had it united say as a Vaishnavist or Shaiva state. India is no different to any other region in the world, there were constantly wars and battles going on between different Indian kingdoms. The boundaries of India expanded to encompass Sri Lanka and Afghanistan at one point.

The Muslims conquered India because India was divided into hundreds of kingdoms and the other kingdoms did not unite with the first Indian kingdom that the Muslims attacked to repel the Muslim forces. The Muslims forces kept on attacking the first kingdom to fall Ghandara, and then eventually they were able to weaken it through constant attacks and then invade it. Compare this to the time when the Alexandra attacked India, Chanakya was able to unite much of India under the Maurayan empire and Alexandra and his mighty armies had to flee. The Muslims would have also fled if India was united. But it wasn't. Hindus have themselves to blame for why they were conquered.

Hinduism did too, all across South Asia & Southeast Asia. Both Christianity and Islam however were spread by the sword.

No it did not. The notion of 'Greater India' is a myth. The religion of Hinduism spread across to South Asia and Southeast Asia due to activity by some Indian kingdoms, such as the Sri Vijaynagara empire to Indonesia, but there was no single overarching political body. There was only one point in India's history that all of the Indian subcontinent was united, it was under the Asoka empire, and the Asoka empire was Buddhist. Ironically, this was during the times of the Upanishads. India existed as a united country during the times of the Upanishads and Buddhism. Then Puranic Hinduism came along and it fragmented. India fell because it became divided. This is a HARD fact. India will fall again soon because it is divided.

Buddhism also spread thus, itself fragmenting into many doctrines/sects as divided as Hinduism (actually moreso now that I think about it: Buddhists are divided between (atheists, ignostic transtheists, theological transtheists and theists - pseudo-atheistic Hindus as in Samkhya and neo-advaita interpretations are nearly non-existent) - and not by the sword.

Again fallacy of false balance. Buddhism is a religion that was founded by Buddha in 500BCE and then centuries after his teachings were codified and formal sects of Buddhism appeared. Much like Christianity.

Yes, and you're the only true Hindu™ too. Sorry for not recognizing how true and **** you are earlier. My bad.

I practice true Hinduism based on Sruti. You yourself have said Sruti is the common doctrine of Hinduism. Then why do you object when I base the entire teachings of Hinduism on the Sruti? Our scriptures very explicitly say that only Vedas are Sruti

Your way of "unifying" is to deepen the divisions. Nobody's just going to abandon their entrenched position, and cross over no-mans-land thanking you for making it all suddenly clear to them what the proper, official, true™ beliefs of Hinduism are, the one single, almighty doctrine we must absolutely adhere to point by point.

I know, and this is why I think Hindus are a hopeless cause. They are a civilization that are condemned by the last 1000 years of history. They have lost everything they had and now they will lose what they have remaining. Indian Hinduism will sink along with India. It's a gonner.

Santana Dharma has successfully been passed onto the West by Hindu gurus shifting their base to the West, for they have jumped ship. The Western civilization are the true torch bearers of Hinduism today - but they don't call it Hinduism - they call it spirituality.

1 vs 1 billion. Hm... goodluck.

Do you think I am alone in spreading Sanatana Dharma? Great thinkers, reformers and saints like Vivekananda and Swami Rama Tirtha were doing the same. Indian Hindus criticized him as a Western sell-out, while Western people praised him and learned from him.

 

[Breathe]

You Hindus sure are sensitive and hostile.

Hee. If only.

I said what does Ravi Zacharias's parents status have to do with how many God's there are. I am very well aware that how many Gods you believe in has been posted. I have even posted that I accept those numbers twice so far.

It took you a long time to succeed that, though; and you keep making Ravi Zacharias into an amazing Hindu scholar; he isn't.

Who is ignoring who here?

You, us.

There is no need to get this technical for me. I conceed that you know more about your faith than I do. You could have simply said that it does not exist in the teachings of Hinduism.

If I'd done that, you could have argued against it. I've seen enough people argue against the caste system when it's denied as Hindu.

If you guys keep being so hostile and sarcastic after complaining of such when it doesn'y exist, I am going to seriously debate you.

We're not "so hostile and sarcastic"; we just don't like rudeness and facetious insults; show some niceties, you'll get them back. Fact. Think of it like karma.

Also, it takes a fair amount of knowledge to 'seriously debate' people; since you asked about the number of gods and of caste, I doubt you truly have much to what is actually Hinduism from credible sources. It'd be in your best interest to learn about what the religions of Hinduism teach first before trying to blindly debate it.

I mentioned caste a single time and would have taken whatever you said as fact. I was just curious.

And you got an answer; so where's the problem?

 

[ratikala]

I practice true Hinduism based on Sruti. You yourself have said Sruti is the common doctrine of Hinduism. Then why do you object when I base the entire teachings of Hinduism on the Sruti? Our scriptures very explicitly say that only Vedas are Sruti


I know, and this is why I think Hindus are a hopeless cause. They are a civilization that are condemned by the last 1000 years of history. They have lost everything they had and now they will lose what they have remaining. Indian Hinduism will sink along with India. It's a gonner.

religions are declining and fragmenting allover the world people are becoming more and more atheistic and materialistic that is why it is important for us to uphold our traditions and stop bickering between ourselves . it is not only hinduism which is sinking many religions are sinking .

Santana Dharma has successfully been passed onto the West by Hindu gurus shifting their base to the West, for they have jumped ship. The Western civilization are the true torch bearers of Hinduism today - but they don't call it Hinduism - they call it spirituality.

then they are not torch bearers of hinduism !!!
they are torch bearers of spirituality !
Yes , I am fond of the term sanatana dharma but I would not use it to extinguish hinduism , hindus are practitioners of sanatana dharma ,lets not split hairs and lets not be responcible for destroying hinduism from within .

Do you think I am alone in spreading Sanatana Dharma? Great thinkers, reformers and saints like Vivekananda and Swami Rama Tirtha were doing the same. Indian Hindus criticized him as a Western sell-out, while Western people praised him and learned from him.

do you honestly think you are spreading sanatana dharma ?

how often do we hear you talk on upholding the principles of sanatana dharma ?