newhindu05

I really wish India and Asia in general, would of never heard of christianity or islam. That's only a wish that can't be granted. I'm frustrated, because I agree with you on most things. I want India to be stay India and not become a prototype of America. Being new to Hinduism I feel I have to follow it correctly. Meaning following all scripture and living a dharmic life. Muslims can justify, in the koran, killing people who aren't muslims. Hindus can't do the same without obtaining bad karma. I wish India could be 100% hindu again, but reality says that's unlikely. Hindus just need unity and Bharat will be safe.

The problem is nobody knows how to do that. It does prove that sometimes diversity can make unity harder. There are Shavitees, Vaishnavas, Sikhs, Buddhist, and Jains who all go under the catergory of a Hindu. They've been divide by foreigner who've invaded their land. To promote unity you have to get everyone on the same page. Know the only question is when will it be done?

I'll follow your advice.

I wish I could be actively helping India know. I'm seventeen and I have no immediate resouces to contribute. I will fight peacefully to better India and preserve vedic culture. I feel sad, because I'm not there to help. I will learn Sanatana Dharma and act responsible in all my actions. I hope the situation isn't as bad as you described it. I want to see Bharat prosper and maintain it's culture and heritage. I'll be in college soon. I planned to take economics, and south asian studies as my two majors. Some of my schooling will hopefully be in India.

I'm not indian, sorry if I gave that impression. I also new to Hinduism. I do plan to study sanskrit in India. Anyways India won't lose it's culture and heritage. It's the media's fault for interpreting western culture as fashionable and modern, when in reality it's trashy and morally bankrupt. I see it as a passing trend. Listen, time changes all, trends go in and out of popularity. I do want to work for the benefit of Bharat. I do have a backbone and I do want to fight for Hindus and Hindu causes, but are we jumping in a little too early? Let's fight when it actually comes to our doorstep, not provoke something prematurely. We need unity among ourselves. Shavitees, Vaishnavas, Sikhs, Buddhist, and Jains are Hindus. We need to unite, because muslims don't care, were still all non-believers to them. I agree with you, asian countries should be closely allied with each other, because the west is only has there interests in mind. They do nothing out of the goodness of their heart. Indian kids need to work for their country. They need to stop coming to western countries to help boost up foreign economies. Or at the very least stay in Asia. India will never lose it's culture to to the west. One is steeped in tradition, and lives to better the society. The other is based on decaying morality, money, vanity, and a winner take all mentality. Trust me, I live here. India will stay India, but it is time to shut out foreign influence that do nothing to benifit society. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Come on, Hindus aren't going to displace or kill 160,000,000 indian muslims and 18,000,000 indian christians. It's just not logical. Those people are indians and they have a legit claim to Bharat more then a white or black convert to Hinduism. When India becomes a superpower it can do what all superpowers do. Promote their philosophies and way of life on a international scale. That's what I'm counting on. The bottom line is the damage is done. All you can do is get rid of missionaries and get all anti-Hindus of your government. It is very important that you do act know. Sacrificing a 160,000,000 for 1 billion does seem worth it when were just talking numbers. In actuality when human people enter the equation it changes things quite a bit. What would you do with all these people? Send them to Pakistan or Bangladesh. Then you have 160,000,000 million new enemies who hate Bharat. Then this will mean jihad for then, which means they can justify killing you, because you pushed them off land they believe is their's. So know we have another Israel/Palestine type issue on our hands. These thing will go on for an eternity, because it can be justified in their beliefs. India needs to focus on gaining international clout, this can be used in your advantage in the near future. Christian missionaries came from western countries that had enough money to send then. When India gets enough money and clout it'll do the same. India is about 79%-80% Hindus and that's enough to take control know while you still have the numbers. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

They can do what they want. The only problem is Hindus probably won't go for it. I seriously doubt they would ban Islam and Christianity. You have a muslim president, and that Sonia Gandhi lady. It would take alot of working backward to accomplish. Besides Hindus are too sentimental to ban something as personal as religion. Also India is on the verge of being a potential superpower. By banning a specific religion that would cause even more strife within the country. Making it even harder to become a world power. If you have 160,000,000 indian muslims angry, than that would put them off, from being patriotic towards India. They would work against your country and walla a terrorist organization is born. To much trouble for nothing, but more trouble. Besides indian hindus seem to go out of their way to promote other religious philosophies.

I said it was a joke! I get it, one or two kids. So I'm not ignorant, ok!

You need to start with telling nominal indian muslims who were forced into islam, that it's ok to come back to Sanatana Dharma. Alot of muslims see islam as the end all of religious beliefs. Meaning you are born a muslim you die one. Also believing you can't convert from islam and fearing the penalties of doing so. Another solution is get rid of missionaries runnig around willy nilly using deceitful lies to convert poor Hindus. These people tell lies to convert Hindus into christianity, like they did after the tsunami. I mean how more disgusting and pathetic can you get. People who are suffering and dying and your main issue is still trying to recruit. They operate under the umbrella of charity, but are up to much more. Also what would be of great help is a Religious Hindu Acadamy, llike Catholics have for christianity. I don't know if there's one, but it would benefit those who want to learn their faith from a non-biased or non-western point of view. I highly doubt India will take a step back from secularism and ban Islam and Christianity. Another idea is give any muslim, who hates India and think they get unfair treatment, a ticket to Pakistan for a week to live as a minority Hindu there. Them when they get home tell them to write an essay about the differences between Hindu(Indian) hospitality Muslim(Pakistani) hospitality. Ask them which country do you think you'd rather be a minority in. Let them decide what they want to live under. I wonder what they'd choose. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm...... /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Thanks, I'll pay more attention to what I read online and elsewhere. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

http://www.sankeertanam.com/brahma_sutras.htm Isn't Bhagavad Gita also called smriti prasthAna? Ok maybe I shouldn't read Hindu scripture online. Pleas give me better sources to read from so I can get things straight. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

http://autofeed.msn.co.in/pandoraV15/output/20B755B8-917A-41AE-9D64-A06C661384AE.asp I couldn't really find anything about Russian Hindus, but I heard they do exist. Ok my question is, are the people Hindus or Hare Krishnas. I get the impression on this forum that people don't consider Hare Krishna's as Hindus. If that's true than what else would they be. Also would it be because their only religious text is Bhagavad Gita. As a Hindu you should also recognize Vedas and all Shruti and Smriti text. Since Bhagavad Gita is a Smriti text, they are basically ignoring the foremost important texts to follow. So basically if a Indian Hindu brought home a Hare Krishna follower, would they be considered the same as a proper Indian Hindu, why or why not./images/graemlins/grin.gif

Yeah, put that's not possible, living in a democracy. Only communist countries can ban religion and they'd ban all religions. What I'm counting on is time. Over time women will get sick of being suppressed. Over time people will get sick of being tortured under the flag of religion. Eventually people will grow tired of daily bombings, rapes, and murders. The soul will grow wary and the people will revolt. The question is, when? Saldy I doubt it'll be in our lifetime.

Hindus say it is, to shy away from explaining Sanatana Dharma. This myth should be debunked forever. Hinduism's whole train of thought is different from the Abrahamic religions. I also think part of the other problem is Hindus not having fully grasped an understanding of their own religion. Also there's so much that can go under the umbrella of Hinduism, that it can create contradictory ideas and became confusing.

I was trying to say that Islam is growing, because of bigger families. I'm not promoting it. I wouldn't want 12 kids nor does anyone with common sense. Obviously you don't share my sense of humor, because I was joking. The bottom line is women are having less kids, and that's a good thing for society. I agree with totally, but I was just making a point.

I signed the petition. I hope the petition is successful enough to to save the temple. No Hindu temple in Bharat should be sacrificed for a church. This is seriously disturbing and hopefully a wake up call for all Hindus.

All you have to do is have 12 kids per marriage and allow polygamy. The reason why islam is the fastest growing religion is largly due to having more kids per family. I really could careless if they eventually became the majority in the west. If by conversion or more kids per family. As long as they don't become majority in Bharat, which is home to Sanatana Dharma. Bharat is a place were all Hindus, whether born there or not, should pay homage to./images/graemlins/grin.gif

Myth of Hindu Sameness Rajiv Malhotra from: http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/column.asp?cid=305972 This is a very long article, but I think it's an important read. Sample... This essay examines the often repeated claim by Hindus and non-Hindus alike that Hinduism is the same as other religions. Some common factors that cause many Hindus to slip into sameness are as follows: Hindus arrogantly assume that other religions want to be the same as Hinduism, and hence they feel that they are doing these other religions a favor. Against this one may point out that the traditional Hindu teachings make a clear distinction between valid and not valid religious claims, by separating them as dharma and adharma, sat (truth) and asat (falsity), devika and asuric, etc. Many Hindus misapply teachings about the Unmanifest when dealing with the diversity of the manifest, and the unity of transcendence in dealing with the diversity and conflict found in the worldly. Furthermore, they fail to distinguish between shruti and smriti. The unity of all shruti is assumed to mean that all smritis must be the same. In particular, Hindus fail to understand the critical history-dependence of the Abrahamic religions and the way their core myths and institutions are built around these frozen smritis. Often what Hindus really mean is that all religions are equal in the respect and rights they deserve, but they confuse this with sameness. At the same time, there are strong arguments that religious differences lead to tensions and violence. Many Hindus have internalized these arguments, over simplifying the Hindu thought about there being one truth and all paths leading to it. To address these and other issues, this essay presents a new theoretical framework for looking at religions and global religious violence. It classifies religious movements as History-Centric and non History-Centric. The former are contingent on canonical beliefs of their sacred history. Non History-Centric religious movements, on the other hand, do have beliefs about history, but their faith is not contingent on history. The essay advances the thesis that non History-Centric faiths offer the only viable spiritual alternative to the religious conflicts that are inherent among History-Centric religions. In analyzing the predominantly non History-Centric Hinduism through this framework, the essay looks at the two main Hindu responses in its interface with the predominantly History-Centric religions of Christianity and Islam. These are: (1) how Hinduism is trying to become History-Centric, and (2) how Hinduism is self-destructing under the Myth of Sameness, by offering itself as a library of shareware for "generic" spirituality. The essay cautions that Hinduism runs the risk of becoming either (1) History-Centric itself, or (2) losing its identity and becoming digested into Christianity via the Sameness Myth. My analysis of the article gave me a great perspective of how different Hinduism is from other religions. Also an understanding of why that should remain the same. Hinduism isn't History-Centric like the Abrahamic religions. That is your whole belief system won't come crashing down if a certain event didn't happen in history. This is why non-Hindus and even Hindus can call Hinduism mythology and no one starts a riot. Christianity depends on Jesus Christ being god incarnate, who sacrificed his life to pay for our sins. If that wasn't true, then where does that leave Christianity. Same for Judaism and Islam, all their beliefs need to be historically true to validate there religion. So in the process, every other religion has to be incorrect. I think it's important to stop saying Hinduism is the same as other religions, because it's not. There's not the same dogma and ideology, that constitutes the biggest and most important difference. I think Hindus need to stop letting other people, who don't have any idea what there talking about, define what Sanatana Dharma means. Hindus try to shy away from explaining their religion, by saying it's the same as all religions. In truth, it's not, Hinduism has a different train of thought than any other religion. Bottom line a Christian, Muslim, and Jew, can't worship Rama, Krishna, Ganesh etc. and still be in there respective faiths. Hindus can add Jesus, Mohamed etc. to their incarnations of god and still be a Hindu. This is the important and most vital difference that seperates Sanatana Dharma from the rest. BTW read the article, it's long, but good food for thought. Tell me your thoughts after your done.

I said earlier, I would talk to my parents about my formal conversion to Hinduism. I told them before I have an interest in Hinduism. They took me to our local Hindu temple. I spoke to temple priest Shri Nagabhat Vidyashankar about the basic tenets of Hinduism. I'm not converting for namesake, but for actual beliefs. I also wanted to change my name, but didn't know how to pick a name. Thanks you for lecturing me about being a real Hindu. The essence of Hinduism is what attracted me to this religion. Hindu Temple Limited http://www.hindutemplenebraska.org/Priest-VidhayShankar.jpg http://www.hindutemplenebraska.org/

My parents are non-religious and they don't mind me being Hindu. Having them picking my name would probably take some effort and some explanations of why. I doin't thing they'd get it. They're not really spiritual at all. I'll still try, though.

Question: Should I go with Sanskrit Birthstar system or just pick something I like?

from: http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/hbh/hbh_ch-8.html http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/hbh/hbh_table_of_contents.html This is a website talks about full and formal conversion to Hinduism. One section talks about choosing a Hindu name. They think it's essential for purpuse of dedication and also getting into temples in India. I don't mind, but wouldn't it seem weird for a non-indian to have a indian name. Please tell me your opinion, thanks.

from: http://www.atributetohinduism.com/Glimpses_XII.htm Is UPA Government anti-Hindu? A Muslim President, A Catholic Super PM and a Sikh PM At a time, when the term secular in India seems largely to be equated with Hindu-baiting, much disquiet is being generated by some events that appear in the nature of an assault on the Sanatan Dharma. Whether by design or coincidence, after the ascent to power of the Congress-led UPA Government at the Centre, and the party in states like Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, there has been an increase in Christian missionary activities in the south. Synchronous with this development is the offensive against the Kanchi peeth and its custodians, the senior and junior Shankaracharyas and their aides. These events, along with the revival of the Ayodhya demolition case against BJP President L K Advani and the UC Banerjee report on the Godhra disaster, fosters the impression that the present regime is anti-Hindu. If its predecessor was seen by many to be selectively pursuing a communal agenda for political ends, the UPA Government has recoursed to the old game of majority bashing. Much to the dismay of their detractors, Hindus still comprise 80.5 per cent of the population, as per the 2001 census. Their numbers then totaled 827.5 million. Muslims, at 138.2 million, comprised 13.4 per cent, the second largest group but minuscule when compared to the majority community. The 24 million Christians were placed third, at 2.3 per cent. Sikhs, at 1.9 per cent, numbered 19 million. In view of this data, the civilisational ethos of the country remains overwhelmingly Hindu, despite most of the northeast and many tribals becoming Christian. Yet, there is good reason to believe that there is no one at the helm to take care of the interests of Hindus, or feel their pain when their beliefs or gurus are assailed. The two top positions in the Indian state - those of President and Prime Minister - are currently occupied by non-Hindus. The UPA chairperson's religious affiliation remains ambiguous, since Ms Sonia Gandhi was born a Roman Catholic and presumably nurtures sentiments for her natal faith. Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister YS Rajasekhara Reddy being Christian, he could not have been expected to rush to the Shankaracharya, Sri Jayendra Saraswati's aid when the Tamil Nadu police arrested him in his state. (From Filipe Neri Rodrigues in Goa to Stephan Marandi in Jharkhand -loyally assisted in the holy crusade against the satanic BJP by Margaret Alva, Ajit Jogi, Oscar Fernandes, Rajashekhar Reddy, Ahmed Patel, Jamir and Razi - Sonia was all set to turn the hand into a clenched fist, to muzzle democracy and attain absolute authority. (source: Holy Roman Empire in Delhi - indiacause.com - newsletter). Refer to Of Course She Needs the Left to Christianize India and Coercive Religious Conversion: A Crime against Humanity - By Dr. Babu Suseelan). Sonia Gandhi (the Congress President), attending Ramakrishna Mission function, propounded that "India remained secular because Hinduism, both as a religion and a way of life, respected other religions and people. Truth is one, the wise pursue it variously." If truth is one, what is the justification for conversion? Does not conversion by external means constitute violence? Surely Ms. Sonia Gandhi realizes that people need freedom to pursue the truth variously; that attempts at conversion deny this basic freedom; and proselytization, however subtle or coarse (as in the Dangs), is ultimately an assault on the integrity and dignity of other faiths." (source: Conversion to Christianity: Aggression in India - By Dr. M S Srinivasan p. 96). The Centre's Communist allies have made a career out of zealously guarding minority interests, however recondite, while its Bihari socialist component, the RJD, survives on Muslim-OBC support. They both thrive on populism, that challenges the status quo. The disturbing conclusion is that the ruling coalition's policies are subversive in the context of the dominant ethos. Two events, in particular, fuel suspicion of a hidden design to alter India's religious and cultural identity. The first is the rapid descent of Christian missionaries in tsunami-hit areas in the south, and their shameful attempts to trade charity for conversions among the victims of the natural disaster. A January 24 report of Rediff on the Net is edifying. The writer, at the site of temporary shelters, built for tsunami victims in Pattancherry village in Nagapattinam, witnessed "a minor scuffle in a corner" between some inmates and a Christian priest and two nuns. The former were resisting the missionaries' attempts to convert them. Eventually, the three were forced to leave the place. Elsewhere, said the reporter, the locals complained to the police that a missionary group had taken away their belongings and the relief they had got from NGOs and the Government, which they had kept inside the temple. There was immense anger over the effort to capitalise on their misfortune. At Karakkalmedu village in Karaikkal, for instance, the fact that they had survived the disaster had led to a resurgence of faith in local Hindus. Their faith in their goddess was stronger than before. The second such episode concerns the American evangelist Benny Hinn's healing mission in Bangalore, that saw Chief Minister Dharam Singh gracing the event with his presence. Either the Chief Minister was in need of the preacher's intercession himself, or had been instructed to attend the jamboree. There could be no other reason for Karnataka's political supremo to take time out of his busy schedule to give his seal of approval to an exercise, aimed against Hindu idolatry. Why the evangelist was allowed the freedom to launch such an attack begs an answer. It was left to the media to highlight his excesses and force his hasty exit from the country. As its indifference, if not hostility, to the majority community's feelings becomes evident, the Congress and its allies may soon have to brave Hindu anger. (source: Is UPA Government anti-Hindu? by Anuradha Dutt - dailypioneer.com - January 26 2005). We need a Nationalist Front – says Subramanian Swamy Swamy calls for nationalist front against Congress. The Janata Party President, Subramanian Swamy, on Thursday called for the formation of a nationalist front, which would include political parties and organisations such as the RSS and the VHP, to oppose and defeat the Congress. Dr. Swamy, a former Union Minister, said here that the fundamental danger today is "to the Hindus in the Indian nation." "There is a need to trounce the Congress and its allies. For this I am trying to assist in the formation of a nationalist front which will include the RSS and the VHP," he told presspersons. (source: We need a Nationalist Front – says Subramanian Swamy - hindu.com). Refer to VINDICATED BY TIME: The Niyogi Committee Report On Christian Missionary Activities - Christianity Missionary Activities Enquiry Committee 1956 and The Sunshine of Secularism. I think it's great that Hindus are so tolerent, but it seems to be at there own detriment. It's important to remember non-hindus don't have your best interest at mind. No western country has had a non-christian president, no matter how secular they are. It's well known that India has imbraced secularism to the core. What do you think that means for Hindustan's future? Also is Hindutva a potential solution? Hindutva: http://www.hindutva.org/ Hindu Unity: http://www.hinduunity.org/ Definition of Hindutva: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindutva

I wanted to know are there indian universities that teach sanskrit. Also what source could I formally learn Hindu scriptures from. Would it be at a university or one on one with a teacher. I plan to attend college in India and I need some advice.

Hi, thanks for your replies. I'm from Omaha, Nebraska. I'm 17 yrs. old. I'm mixed with black, native american, white. No south asian blood in me, though. ***sigh of depression***