Ask a Hindu/Ask an Indian

[aneeshm]

Is the cow still considered holy in india?

Probably not "holy", but still respected and unkillable. Hindus do not eat beef.

Is the average indian superstitious?

The mean deviation is far too high to make a blanket statement.

 

[aneeshm]

Does the food in India taste like the food in Indian Resturants in other countries?

I've never eaten the food in Indian restaurants in other countries, so I don't know.

But one of my relatives who migrated to the USA founded and ran two restaurants there, and she tells me she had to make a few changes in her cooking to accommodate the American palate.

 

[aneeshm]

As a Hindu, what are your views on Sati?

Quite deplorable if forced, and better banned outright. Which it is, thankfully.

 

[aneeshm]

Also, if all animals are really just humans that had a bad Karma when they died. Why is the cow holy if it has a bad soul?

All animals are not humans who have bad karma.

Each soul passes through many stages, the culmination of which is the human incarnation.

Souls are not "bad" or "good", they are merely attached to the fruits of their actions. And usually, once the human stage has been reached, people don't go back.

 

[aneeshm]

What is the key difference between Hinduism and Buddhism? Just curious on which would be best for me to integrate one of them into my faith.

In the briefest possible terms, it is that Buddhist posits that there exists no ultimate reality, whereas Hinduism posits that it exists.

As for the "integrating" bit - you can pick and choose ideas, but ensuring coherence will be a hell of a job.

 

[aneeshm]

Though there are many distinctions between the two(and many which have evolved over the millennia), but the most fundamental may be that of the atman/anatman dichotomy.

Hinduism propagates the Brahmin (probably most similar to the Christian God, though not really the same) but also Atman, or self (what a Christian would call the "soul", more or less). Buddhidm denies this separation whole-heartedly. This was arguably the Buddha's initial realization.

That's not really correct.

And Brahman is very different from the Christian god, because he is impersonal and attributeless.

The advaitic (non-dualist) position (the most popular one):

Brahman is not personal, and does not possess any attributes. Also, nothing other than Brahman exists. The Atman is also Brahman. Yes, that's right, your consciousness itself is Brahman (though unaware of its true nature). In fact, this is the really non-duality position - because nothing other than Brahman exists at all.

The dvaita (dualist) position is that the Atman and Vishnu (their equivalent for Brahman) are separate.

The Buddhist position is that there exists no Brahman/Paramatman (only the soul exists). Some Buddhists deny even the existence of a soul.

 

[aneeshm]

Would you agree with this statement :

India is still a 3rd world country (in most places) today?

Define "third world" and then I'll be able to answer you.

 

[silver 2039]

Does the food in India taste like the food in Indian Resturants in other countries?

Its more bland compared to Indian food in India.

 

[Perfection]

What does India smell like?

 

[punkbass2000]

That's not really correct.

And Brahman is very different from the Christian god, because he is impersonal and attributeless.

Which is why I qualified it as such. You can't expect people to just adapt and read a ton immediately; you have to make approximate connections. Throwing around weighty terms like "non-dualist" and "Paramatman" isn't very useful for someone who knows little of Hinduism and Buddhism/

The advaitic (non-dualist) position (the most popular one):

Brahman is not personal, and does not possess any attributes. Also, nothing other than Brahman exists. The Atman is also Brahman. Yes, that's right, your consciousness itself is Brahman (though unaware of its true nature). In fact, this is the really non-duality position - because nothing other than Brahman exists at all.

The dvaita (dualist) position is that the Atman and Vishnu (their equivalent for Brahman) are separate.

Throw in the fact that Hinduism isn't really a singular philosophy and you really have to simplify.

The Buddhist position is that there exists no Brahman/Paramatman (only the soul exists). Some Buddhists deny even the existence of a soul.

True. Personally, I tend to think Zen Buddhism best expresses the Buddha's original realization and meaning. Indian Buddhist sects are far too abstract and, well, Indian.

 

[Rossiya]

Aneeshm, do you want Pakistan and Bangladesh to be joined to India?

Why/why not?

 

[aneeshm]

Aneeshm, do you want Pakistan and Bangladesh to be joined to India?

Why/why not?

Too late for that.

I don't want all those Muslims changing the demographic balance. I'd rather have an "exchange program", which should have been done at the time of partition itself, where Muslims in India are given incentives to migrate to Pakistan and Bangladesh, and Hindus in those countries are given incentives to migrate to India. Then we slowly, through a series of conventional wars in which we hide behind a nuclear shield, bring the territory back into our control, reduce the Muslims to a minority everywhere, and through a process of cultural attrition, re-convert India peacefully back into an Indic land.


Of course, if there were a way in which I could arrange for

a) Bangladesh to obtain nuclear weapons,
b) India to obtain a proper missile shield,
c) Pakistan and Bangladesh to jointly declare war on India,
d) India whup their arse in a conventional war,
e) Both try to use their nukes on India,
f) Both attempts fail because of our shield, and then we nuke them into oblivion, then reclaim the empty land




then I wouldn't really arrange it , but it does form part of my "revenge" fantasies sometimes.





The trauma of partition, and the hatred of Pakistan (and now, to a small extent, even Bangladesh) goes very, very deep into the Indian psyche.



What pisses me off is when our own Muslims turn traitor and support the enemy. That is, in fact, one of the reasons I believe in putting huge amounts of non-statal, non-coercive pressure on them to de-convert.

I remember an instance when we were assigned some Muslim school as a centre for one competitive examination I was taking. I went there. I found that on my desk, somebody had written the word "Pakistan", accompanied by an Islamic crescent (it's a symbol on their flag). Given the nature of our relations (Pakistan is STILL our enemy no. 1), I consider that equivalent to a declaration of treason. I was damn annoyed.

 

[Rossiya]

How did Muslims end up in Bangladesh, very far away from Pakistan?

 

[aneeshm]

How did Muslims end up in Bangladesh, very far away from Pakistan?

During the partition of the country, the people who decided the borders saw which areas were Muslim-majority, and the largest contiguous such areas were turned into one country, Pakistan. The problem was, they were two lands, geographically and culturally separate, turned into one country. Islam, it turned out, wasn't enough of a binding factor to hold them together. So when the predominantly Punjabi army started committing atrocities in Bangladesh, they flipped.

India, at that time being under the control of Indira Gandhi, decided to act in favour of Bangladesh. So we first of all trained the rebels in camps just adjacent to the border, on our side. Then we sent in our own army, captured Dhaka, forced the largest mass-surrender in human history (90,000 Pakistani cowards, who should have been ashamed to call themselves soldiers, surrendered to the Indian army that day ). And thus Bangladesh was born. I've seen video clips of Bangladeshi people cheering the Indian army when it marched in triumphant.

Ideally, we should have used those surrendered soldiers as a bargaining chip for Kashmir - we could have threatened to not release the men if that part of Kashmir which is occupied by Pakistani forces was not returned to us immediately. If they still didn't listen, we could have threatened to kill one random man every eight hours - starting, of course, with the men at the top. May have lost us a great amount of international respect, but at least it would have got us back Kashmir.

 

[A Revolutionary]

How do Hindus address the concept of the theory of evolution?
What about Buddhists?

What are their views on gay/lesbian relationships?

 

[silver 2039]

Heh Bangladesh and Pakistan. Why would India want to conquer 2 poverty strickent, militant filled, hellholes which would do nothing except raise our population to 1.8 billion or so which need to be fed, sheltered, and supported?

I think India should conquor Sri Lanka, and Maldives the will at least be useful.

 

[Rossiya]

During the partition of the country, the people who decided the borders saw which areas were Muslim-majority, and the largest contiguous such areas were turned into one country, Pakistan. The problem was, they were two lands, geographically and culturally separate, turned into one country. Islam, it turned out, wasn't enough of a binding factor to hold them together. So when the predominantly Punjabi army started committing atrocities in Bangladesh, they flipped.

India, at that time being under the control of Indira Gandhi, decided to act in favour of Bangladesh. So we first of all trained the rebels in camps just adjacent to the border, on our side. Then we sent in our own army, captured Dhaka, forced the largest mass-surrender in human history (90,000 Pakistani cowards, who should have been ashamed to call themselves soldiers, surrendered to the Indian army that day ). And thus Bangladesh was born. I've seen video clips of Bangladeshi people cheering the Indian army when it marched in triumphant.

Ideally, we should have used those surrendered soldiers as a bargaining chip for Kashmir - we could have threatened to not release the men if that part of Kashmir which is occupied by Pakistani forces was not returned to us immediately. If they still didn't listen, we could have threatened to kill one random man every eight hours - starting, of course, with the men at the top. May have lost us a great amount of international respect, but at least it would have got us back Kashmir.

No, I think you misunderstood my question.

How did Muslims end up in Bangladesh over the years, so far away from Pakistan or the nearest Muslim country?

 

[punkbass2000]

Missionary religions are like that.

 

[HannibalBarka]

During the partition of the country, the people who decided the borders saw which areas were Muslim-majority, and the largest contiguous such areas were turned into one country, Pakistan. The problem was, they were two lands, geographically and culturally separate, turned into one country. Islam, it turned out, wasn't enough of a binding factor to hold them together. So when the predominantly Punjabi army started committing atrocities in Bangladesh, they flipped.

India, at that time being under the control of Indira Gandhi, decided to act in favour of Bangladesh. So we first of all trained the rebels in camps just adjacent to the border, on our side. Then we sent in our own army, captured Dhaka, forced the largest mass-surrender in human history (90,000 Pakistani cowards, who should have been ashamed to call themselves soldiers, surrendered to the Indian army that day ). And thus Bangladesh was born. I've seen video clips of Bangladeshi people cheering the Indian army when it marched in triumphant.

Ideally, we should have used those surrendered soldiers as a bargaining chip for Kashmir - we could have threatened to not release the men if that part of Kashmir which is occupied by Pakistani forces was not returned to us immediately. If they still didn't listen, we could have threatened to kill one random man every eight hours - starting, of course, with the men at the top. May have lost us a great amount of international respect, but at least it would have got us back Kashmir.

Is this kind of nationalistic and nazi like ideology very common in India? Is calling the surrendering soldiers "cowards" used for Pakistani only or for Indians also?

 

[aneeshm]

Is this kind of nationalistic and nazi like ideology very common in India? Is calling the surrendering soldiers "cowards" used for Pakistani only or for Indians also?

Welcome back, logic-impaired guy! I've missed having you around. It'd tough to find somebody so easy to play with.

Nationalism - very common. We believe in inclusive nationalism - we have fellow-feeling for everyone who is a citizen, and define the nation to mean anyone who is a citizen and who is proud of the country. Which is a whopping 97% of all Indians.

Nazi - only (comparatively stupid) people who can't debate properly and just want to smear their opponent use terms like that to describe the opponent's position.

And if Indian soldiers surrendered, they'd be called a disgrace to the nation.

Are you of Pakistani origin? Because then I can understand why you get upset when your country's soldiers are called out on their cowardice. So I'll just add - Cowards!.