Hindus STILL dumping on human rights - literally

[Rambuchan]

The converts are treated the same way as they were before.

A delicate choice of words there.

And their "conversion" is a total sham, anyway. Ambedkar made up his own list of rules for a "convert", which has zilch to do with Buddhism as it was practised up till then (and even now), is actually contradictory to the tenets of the Buddha's code, and is also more of a rejection of Hinduism than an acceptance of Buddhism.

At least you put your finger on the point of it with your last line.

Plus, of course, the anti-Brahmin "commandments" that he included are nothing more than suppressed expressions of hate.

Hate. Hmm... If so, justified? Unjustified? And was it a step in the right direction for reforming Hinduism?

 

[aneeshm]

A delicate choice of words there.

Given the fact that the Muslims destroyed Buddhism in India (this is Ambedkar's opinion, by the way, as well as being mine) because it had institutions which could be targeted and not a diffuse "priestly caste" which was an integral and indispensable (and therefore ineradicable) part of society, and that, by Ambedkar's time, there were no Buddhists in India, the conversions mean nothing, because it's simply a change of name.

At least you put your finger on the point of it with your last line.

So you accept that the "conversions" are a sham?

Buddhism was not a "rejection" of anything, it was a positive intellectual movement and philosophy in its own right.

Hate. Hmm... If so, justified? Unjustified? And was it a step in the right direction for reforming Hinduism?

Hatred against a non-homogeneous group is never the right way to achieve anything.

Even hating an idea is not the right way. You can criticise it and say that the idea must go, but you cannot "hate" it, because hatred clouds your judgement.

How would you react if someone said, "We blacks have a duty and a commitment to destroy whitism" instead of racism? This is what they are essentially doing.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

This entire thread is a specific parody of another; I doubt Erik Mesoy really hates Hindus at all, but it is . . . reassuring to see how any ideology can have such a thread made about it.

Eran is right on the money, but the parody whizzed over most people's heads. Let me highlight it:

So all the declarations, all the apologia, all the cries of "Don't blame the Christianity of today! We've reformed!" comes to naught. The minute this meme-complex finds victims dumb enough to be receptive to its more pernicious effects, those effects are resurrected as if they had never gone.

So all the declarations, all the apologia, all the cries of "Don't blame the Hinduism of today! We've reformed! We even passed laws about it!" are null and void. They were never true for a minute. This meme-complex finds victims dumb enough to be receptive to the old and pernicious idea of standing by accident of birth, and those people are oppressing as though the Enlightenment had been and gone.

Verbose also got the point, it seems:

Since everyone should at this point be aware of the initial conditions for the OP, one should also be aware that the comeback to any point raised in defence of Hunduism, is that this dangerous "memetovirus" has obviously been rendered inoccuous in some people.
Still, those concerned about its ravages know this to be irrelevant exceptions, and in no way is any of it related to REAL Hinduism, which is really incompatible with modernisation. QED...

Also, I don't support "SEND IN THE MISSIONARIES" or a number of other things that I speckled through the thread. I was hoping that in the course of five years and 8000 posts, people would have gotten a slightly better impression of me.
FWIW, I'm particularly proud of co-opting Gandhi into an attack on Hinduism.

You may now stop taking this thread seriously.

 

[obliterate]

I don't know why your blaming Hinduism for these atricities. You should be looking at the Indian culture not the religion. Religion does influence many socieites but it does not by any means define it.

 

[Rambuchan]

A delicate choice of words there.

Given the fact that the Muslims destroyed Buddhism in India (this is Ambedkar's opinion, by the way, as well as being mine) because it had institutions which could be targeted and not a diffuse "priestly caste" which was an integral and indispensable (and therefore ineradicable) part of society, and that, by Ambedkar's time, there were no Buddhists in India, the conversions mean nothing, because it's simply a change of name.

What the hell? How did you manage to manoeuvre it to this line of discussion from what you quoted from me?

All I said was it was a delicate choice of words. I reckon if I posted something like "the weather is getting warmer here in the UK" you'd manage to reply with "Yes, of course. The Muslims totally destroyed anything India ever built."

So, please, stick to the point instead of dropping into rant gear. How were they, the dalits, being treated before they converted?

So you accept that the "conversions" are a sham?

About as much of a sham as Protestantism was. Less so even.

Buddhism was not a "rejection" of anything,

Other than the material world of course.

it was a positive intellectual movement and philosophy in its own right.

I see you've been going to Captain Obvious' classes this semester.

Hatred against a non-homogeneous group is never the right way to achieve anything.

Even hating an idea is not the right way. You can criticise it and say that the idea must go, but you cannot "hate" it, because hatred clouds your judgement.

Read these words over again and remember that you said them.

Wouldn't you say the same applies for homogeneous groups too?

How would you react if someone said, "We blacks have a duty and a commitment to destroy whitism" instead of racism? This is what they are essentially doing.

I think you've gone a bit too far here mate. Ambedkar didn't advocate destroying anything and he had the problem quite well in focus if you ask me, as evidenced by his clauses in the constitution.

Nice attempt at mudslinging, distraction and totally irrelevant rants though. You must've had an extra portion of dhal today dude. Way more hot air than usual

 

[aneeshm]

Eran is right on the money, but the parody whizzed over most people's heads. Let me highlight it:

Verbose also got the point, it seems:

I know. I recognised my own handiwork.

The difference is that you had to go and try to actively search for some negative. Islamic and Christian stuff, OTOH, hits you in the face. Specially the flying fuel-loaded planes into big buildings part.

 

[Verbose]

I don't know why your blaming Hinduism for these atricities. You should be looking at the Indian culture not the religion. Religion does influence many socieites but it does not by any means define it.

"Nothing kills as surely as ridicule" — Voltaire.

The trick here is working out precisely what's being ridiculed.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

The difference is that you had to go and try to actively search for some negative. Islamic and Christian stuff, OTOH, hits you in the face. Specially the flying fuel-loaded planes into big buildings part.

How much press did the thing about Nigeria (remember? your ostensible OP?) get, or did you have to put any effort into finding it?

 

[Fifty]

The difference is that you had to go and try to actively search for some negative. Islamic and Christian stuff, OTOH, hits you in the face. Specially the flying fuel-loaded planes into big buildings part.

Ahh, another great example of Hindu relativism used to ignore atrocities... "if we keep it quiet, its no big deal".

 

[Verbose]

I know. I recognised my own handiwork.

The difference is that you had to go and try to actively search for some negative. Islamic and Christian stuff, OTOH, hits you in the face. Specially the flying fuel-loaded planes into big buildings part.

So you're not yet aware that all this isn't about Hinduism at all?

 

[aneeshm]

What the hell? How did you manage to manoeuvre it to this line of discussion from what you quoted from me?

All I said was it was a delicate choice of words. I reckon if I posted something like "the weather is getting warmer here in the UK" you'd manage to reply with "Yes, of course. The Muslims totally destroyed anything India ever built."

So, please, stick to the point instead of dropping into rant gear. How were they, the dalits, being treated before they converted?

The same way as they are being now.

Buddhism has been dead in India since the Muslims killed it.

So more than 99.99% of Buddhists in India are Harijan converts. So what Ambedkar did was to basically change the name of the group, he did not address the key issue - the attitudes of the people.

About as much of a sham as Protestantism was. Less so even.

There is a huge, huge difference.

ML was inspired by the ideals of Christianity, and was pained by what he saw as their degradation. That is why he sought to reform it from within. One of his doctrines, for instance, was The priesthood of all believers.

Ambedkar, OTOH, was someone who went outside the system, and sought to either change it, or influence it by legal edict, from without. Had Ambedkar tried to reform the system from within, a similar idea would have been The Dwijta of all Indians, or something like that.

And the conversions are a sham not because they do not change the convert - by do, by making him more venomous against quite a few groups in his own society - but because it isn't Buddhism!

Other than the material world of course.

It's still empirically real.

Read these words over again and remember that you said them.

Wouldn't you say the same applies for homogeneous groups too?

Depends on the nature of their homogenity. If, for instance, they're all paedophile, child-rapist, child-killing, serial-killing, mass murderers, then I think that though hatred would be completely justified, it would still be better to simply put them down than waste your time hating them. The Buddha has said (I'm paraphrasing here, don't remember the exact quote), "The angry man is like one who picks up a hot coal to throw at someone else."

I think you've gone a bit too far here mate. Ambedkar didn't advocate destroying anything. You must've had an extra portion of dhal today dude. Way more hot air than usual

You don't know what goes on at the Ambedkarite meetings, what they say in their magazines, and what they say and do on the internet, do you?

 

[aneeshm]

How much press did the thing about Nigeria (remember? your ostensible OP?) get, or did you have to put any effort into finding it?

No effort at all. I was browsing a social networking site, and person posted this link in the forum there.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

I know. I recognised my own handiwork.

The difference is that you had to go and try to actively search for some negative. Islamic and Christian stuff, OTOH, hits you in the face. Specially the flying fuel-loaded planes into big buildings part.

Objections: Nobody reading this thread needed to actively search for Hindu stuff.
Islamic and Christian stuff does not hit me in the face.
The journalists behind all the articles posted by either of us had to actively search to such a degree that however much effort you or I expended in copying articles to Civfanatics is irrelevant.

 

[aneeshm]

So you're not yet aware that all this isn't about Hinduism at all?

I am. But I'm trying to say that Erik made a mistake by picking Hinduism, because it doesn't fit into the framework of the thread.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

It fits just fine - or are you going to say that the people described in the OP "aren't real Hindus" now?

 

[Verbose]

I am. But I'm trying to say that Erik made a mistake by picking Hinduism, because it doesn't fit into the framework of the thread.

Well, what I take from this thread is how you would defend Islam — were you a Muslim.

 

[downtown]

Vaccine = LDS Missionaries.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Vaccine = LDS Missionaries.

That brought a tear to my eye . . .

 

[Fifty]

downtown and Eran shall save the noble poopscoopers!

 

[aneeshm]

It fits just fine - or are you going to say that the people described in the OP "aren't real Hindus" now?

No. I will just say that I do not agree with them. There does not exist such a thing as a "real Hindu", by our own definition. Meaning that if you ask a Hindu (any one) to define it, you'll always be able to find a person who doesn't fit his definition , but who he will still grudgingly accept is a "Hindu".

OTOH, if you ask a Muslim what constitutes a "real Muslim", there are the Five Pillars of Islam that every single one they will agree on. If you disagree with one, you can't be a Muslim, by definition. You may disagree about specifics, but this list is non-negotiable. But no such commonality exists for the group arbitrarily called "Hindus".

The mistake you're making is the common one of thinking, "All things we have labelled as religions are essentially the same, and they are all structured like the way we structure ours."

Do you want a brief explanation of the structure of Indic thought and the Indic intellectual traditions (because this is what you'll need to sensibly continue this discussion further)?