=>
People like you are the guarantee. The very nature of “Hinduism” where diversity and questioning is the norm is the guarantee.
=>

I’m sorry to be the one to inform you that every violent extremist must certainly be put in one slot.
=>
Not necessarily. An action and a reaction are both actions, but there’s clearly a cause and an effect relationship between the two actions. Without that understanding, it’s stupid to equate the action and reaction as the same.
=>

The ends do not justify the means, and certainly not in this instance. Also, when Hindu extremist are going around using “force, manipulation, and violence” on other Hindus because they don’t follow their arbitrary rules of conduct and behaviour which are definitely not part of my religion, what do you call that?
=>
Yes, that is a problem. And that problem will keep on happening as long as media is controlled by the pseudo-secularists, though blogs where people can express their views freely is a welcome addition.
=>

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure Hindu girls visiting a bar are not trying to convert people away from Hindusm, nor are young couples kissing at a beach trying to destroy the Hindu religion.
=>
Are you referring to what happened in Mangalore? Just curious, what exactly are the facts of that incident?
Re: kissing, you may be confusing a social issue with a religious one.
=>

But, I do have to ask, are you seriously suggesting that “our extremists are better than their’s”?

You say “no Hindu extremist will ever go and change people’s religion by force, manipulation and violence.” Says who? What guarantee is there of that? Also, does that mean using force, manipulation, and violence for anything other than religious conversion is acceptable? I hope not.

I’m sorry to be the one to inform you that every violent extremist must certainly be put in one slot. The ends do not justify the means, and certainly not in this instance. Also, when Hindu extremist are going around using “force, manipulation, and violence” on other Hindus because they don’t follow their arbitrary rules of conduct and behaviour which are definitely not part of my religion, what do you call that?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure Hindu girls visiting a bar are not trying to convert people away from Hindusm, nor are young couples kissing at a beach trying to destroy the Hindu religion.

If you condone one form of extremism, you might as well condone them all. One soon turns into the other because people kept quiet and let it happen.

The lack of the missionary imperrative in most of Hinduism is certainly admirable, and yes I was also talking about Hindus that only believe in rituals. But, these cannot be used as a shield for extremism of other kinds.

When it comes to extremism, you give them an inch and they take a mile, history has shown it. So, it’s best not to give any ground, or very soon you will not be able to tell any difference between the mythical “us” and “them” that defensive Hindu’s so often like to weakly argue about. I see no difference already.

Samir

Thanks for your feedback. Glad you liked the site.

I didn’t say Indians did not understand the concept of religion, but rather that our dharma was not merely religion, and so the limited concept of religion as practiced in the rest of the world did not quite gel with our way of thinking.

Yes Indians travelled, yes Indians were knowledgeable, but we are talking about the small section of thinkers and explorers. I was talking about the reaction of the masses to concepts that might have been a bit foriegn to them.

I’m not arguing about whether one is better than the other, because the core Hindu philosophy is that there are infinite paths to enligtenment, so “better” has no meaning. Your point of view starts with the premise that Sanatana Dharma means ‘Universal Religion’. I disagree that that is the original meaning, because I don’t think dharma means religion. Yes, in today’s Hindi, dharm means religion but that was certainly not the original spirit of the word. For example, in the Mahabharata, Yudhisthira is called Dharmaraja. Does that make any sense if it means “King of Religion”? No, because dharma means so much more.

We are, I suspect, both talking about the same things, and we both agree on the ideas, it is only our words which are different.

Thanks once again for contributing to the discussion.

Samir

Probably you are talking about hardcore Hindus that only believe in rituals, then my message irrelavant but the point I made is relevant in general.

Nice blog. One feedback – the constantly moving image on the right as I scroll down is *very* distracting when reading a post. Please consider a different format which doesn’t include such distractions.

Please just remember that India was a flourishing country, and there was lot of interaction with people of other countries, far and wide. So, Indians were definitely aware of their religion and that of the others, and the differences therein. They were not only visited upon, Indians too traveled to the far off countries.

Remember – ‘yada yada hi dharmasya glanirbhavati’, etc. from Geeta.

Yes, ‘Sanatan Dharma’ was never a fanatic religion, so you can say that that the conception of this religion was different from that of the Abrahamic religions.

Sanatana Dharma means the ‘Universal Religion’, the religion that seeks to gain the knowledge of the entire creation which is this universe, from its conception to its end, and everything contained in this universe.

So, scope– if I may use this word– of Sanatana Dharma is much vaster than, say, the Abrahamic Religions. It is the ‘Universal Religion’ – it covers everything, anybody can follow it. There is the entire cosmology, which explains the vast Universe and the Time which has dimensions beyond our understanding.

Mostly, these days, we try to view the Sanatana Dharma from the view point of the ‘other’ religions. If you take the position from ‘this’ side, than those religions are more ‘creeds’ than religions, as being ‘followers’ of their originators is more important than anything else.

Hindu religion, or Sanatan Dharma, has evolved over time, and is doing so even now.

But overall, I appreciate the spirit of your article. Philosophy is inseparable from religion here.

Congratulations.

Magali