Hinduism in China

[jbond197]

According to jbond197 (baba jee), you can be atheist and Hindu at the same time. Confusing as sheet.

Does it happen? Sure. Is it allowed in Hindu villages? Nope.

Baba jee, Jis cheez ki samajh na ho uskay baaray mein mooh nahi kholna chahiye (One should not talk about things he is not even aware of).

There is no force inHinduism and Buddhism and that's why there are so many atheists there..

Btw, if you are interested, google Nastik/Astik in Hinduism.. I will help a bit though since you called me Baba jee..

Āstika and nāstika - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

if I have to make a choice of religion. I will chose Jesus in the last minute of my life.
because only Jesus can forgive all my sins.

Lol, you wicked Chinese..

 

[LimPeh]

I have a question for some posters here though. I'm not sure if this has been discussed before on this thread or forum as I haven't been able to look at both in their entirety. I have read from some sources and also heard from people that Taoism (Daoism to many) and Hinduism are closely related and share a common ancestry. Any inputs on this one? Is this just hearsay or is there some truth to this?

 

[jbond197]

^^
Heard it for the first time.. May be our Chinese friends can shed some light on it..

CD, come with your book marks man but the positive ones for a change..

 

[Nan Yang]

Hinduism may not have spread to china, but its influences definitely have . The word China comes from Sanskrit Cina

Chinas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is a myth.
In modern times China is called "Middle Kingdom" pronounced "Zhong Guo".
In ancient times China is call "All under heaven" pronounced "Tian Xia"

Arguing about religion is silly.
Religions there are thousands and thousands...but there is only one heaven.

 

[LimPeh]

That is a myth.
In modern times China is called "Middle Kingdom" pronounced "Zhong Guo".
In ancient times China is call "All under heaven" pronounced "Tian Xia"

Arguing about religion is silly.
Religions there are thousands and thousands...but there is only one heaven.

I believe the poster over there made a mistake. The Sanskirt word Cina itself is derived from the name of the first dynasty that unified China called the Qin dynasty. The Emperor was known as Qin Shih Huang Ti and the foundations of the concept of a unified China were laid down by him more than 2000 years ago. The Qin comes from there, not Sanskrit. I believe Cina is a localised, Sanskritized version of Qin which was used by the people of the subcontinent to refer to the Chinese.

 

[Rusty]

Hinduism and Buddhism has more or less same concepts so considered by many as branch of Hinduism.. Also many consider Buddha as dasham avatar of Vishnu.. But that being said, no body is asking Buddhist to convert..

Hinduism in South East Asia and other places spread due to trade and people travelling to various places and settling down there.. Just how it reached American shores and Europen shores.. No forced conversions which is the core strength of other newly formed religions..

Okay so here is the problem. Most Hindus are really proud of that fact that they don't convert, but here we see Buddhism spreading through conversions. As said previously, Buddhism spread through monks and the Buddha himself. That means people converted. When monks settled in china, they taught Buddhism to the locals which means they converted them.
And forced conversions is a non issue since Islam, the world's largest religion was not spread by forced conversions but by the same way Buddhism was spread. By sufis (monks) settling in the area and teaching the locals.

The point I am trying to make is that Hindus are really bitter and upset at Muslims for spreading their religion but seem to have no problem when their religion is spread the same way.

 

[Fanling Monk]

Hindus in India do not wear religion in their sleeves as well.. Most of the youngsters visit temples once in a while only the aged people are regular visitors to temples and take part in some Satsangs (preaching sessions)..

But most of us respect Hinduism and that's about it.. Also, being Hindus we are partly Buddhist as well because I still have to figure out a way to dissect Buddhas teachings from the Hinduism being followed in India or around the world..

A other point - Hinduism is not a strict religion.. You can be an atheist and still a Hindu..

It sounds like that's how the Chines practice their Buddhism.

Most Chinese, aside from the practicing monks, that are considered to be followers of Buddhism by the West are actually not die hard believers of the religion. Very few actually read Buddhist scripts like others that read the Bible or Koran. They do observe Buddhist holidays but more in the forms of social gatherings. They go to temples from time to time to pray and tithe to the Buddha for blessings. Surprisingly many of these same disciples also observe other indigenous Chinese religions likes Taoism and folkisms, to the point where many can't or won't even try to distinguish their differences. Rather than call these Buddhists one should interpret them as religionists and Buddhism happen to be one of their believes.

There is another small group, again besides the practicing monks, that are more serious practitioners. They read the scripts, they meditate, chant and pray on a daily basis and they are vegetarians. This group only adhere to Buddha and no others.

If let's say the practicing monks are a third group. Now can you please enlighten me which group most Hindu(s) belong to as to their religion or do they practice the religion differently.

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

The good thing about posts like these we can determine members mentality here who range from absolute Hindu-phobic perverts to very gullible simpleton who"ll believe anything

Not just China. Buddhism has been far more successful everywhere: it's prevalent in all of East and South East Asia,

One for the reasons for this is , Buddhism was prevalent for a fairly long time for it to become part of the culture of those who practice their own hybrid variations of it. Only later did the contact with other faiths come by.

whereas Hinduism is restricted to the sub-continent and some Indonesian islands. That's because Hinduism is a proto-fascist ideology (Hinduvta is an extreme manifestation) that was only invented to legitimize the supremacy and rule of the Aryan invaders to the sub-continent.

This the more hilarious verbal diarrhea that i come across regularly here.

First the origins of Hinduism are unknown to this day, considering its one of the oldest faiths where the founder cannot be traced back.

Second the so called Aryan Invasion happened 40,000 years ago based on genetic research

Aryan-Dravidian divide a myth: Study

``The initial settlement took place 65,000 years ago in the Andamans and in ancient south India around the same time, which led to population growth in this part,'' said Thangarajan. He added, ``At a later stage, 40,000 years ago, the ancient north Indians emerged which in turn led to rise in numbers here. But at some point of time, the ancient north and the ancient south mixed, giving birth to a different set of population. And that is the population which exists now and there is a genetic relationship between the population within India.''

Unless people wish to say and prove that Hinduism was brought about 40,000 ears ago to the subcontinent , this theory or Aryan invasion and imposing their culture is a figment of Hinduphobe's perverted imagination.

The study even goes further to claim:

The study analysed 500,000 genetic markers across the genomes of 132 individuals from 25 diverse groups from 13 states. All the individuals were from six-language families and traditionally ``upper'' and ``lower'' castes and tribal groups. ``The genetics proves that castes grew directly out of tribe-like organizations during the formation of the Indian society,'' the study said. Thangarajan noted that it was impossible to distinguish between castes and tribes since their genetics proved they were not systematically different.

Elsewhere, who wanted to be told that they were supposed to be eternal slaves to a Brahmin caste?

This Brahmin Phobia here is again getting redundant, showing which verse in any of the Vedas, which makes even a remote mention of the above.

Anyone fairly aware of Indian history will know the real power in society was held by Kings who were usually Kshatriya.

There were atrocities by Brahmins over the lowest perceived people of the society. But then which society did not have these problems in the medieval era? take medieval Britain for example the the society hierarchy was the Kings>Royal blood> Monk> Peasants , often the Christian Monks would target the peasant with weird claims of blasphemy, and consider them servant of God, and monks themselves as the messengers.

Hinduism was a significant influence on Nazism for precisely this sort of master-slave ideology,

The reason for this goes back the euro-centrism era Indology studies, where some branded Indian religious text as savage and some found them to appealing to their own theories and agenda of distancing from Semitic religious thought, not surprising some went as far as claiming misinterpretations of Indian culture as offset of Pre-chistian European culture, merely based on lingual commonality.

One common point is which teaching of Hinduism even remotely supported or justified Antisemitism?

and the swastika is probably the most visible connection to it.

You do realize the Swastika is valued even in among Buddhists too

 

[jha]

Okay so here is the problem. Most Hindus are really proud of that fact that they don't convert, but here we see Buddhism spreading through conversions. As said previously, Buddhism spread through monks and the Buddha himself. That means people converted. When monks settled in china, they taught Buddhism to the locals which means they converted them.
And forced conversions is a non issue since Islam, the world's largest religion was not spread by forced conversions but by the same way Buddhism was spread. By sufis (monks) settling in the area and teaching the locals.

The point I am trying to make is that Hindus are really bitter and upset at Muslims for spreading their religion but seem to have no problem when their religion is spread the same way.

Could have said these directly..No need to take a longer route ...

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

I have a question for some posters here though. I'm not sure if this has been discussed before on this thread or forum as I haven't been able to look at both in their entirety. I have read from some sources and also heard from people that Taoism (Daoism to many) and Hinduism are closely related and share a common ancestry. Any inputs on this one? Is this just hearsay or is there some truth to this?

Never heard of this.

 

[KS]

And forced conversions is a non issue since Islam, the world's largest religion

Wrong.

was not spread by forced conversions but by the same way Buddhism was spread. By sufis (monks) settling in the area and teaching the locals.

Wrong.

The point I am trying to make is that Hindus are really bitter and upset at Muslims for spreading their religion but seem to have no problem when their religion is spread the same way.

Wrong.

 

[LimPeh]

Okay so here is the problem. Most Hindus are really proud of that fact that they don't convert, but here we see Buddhism spreading through conversions. As said previously, Buddhism spread through monks and the Buddha himself. That means people converted. When monks settled in china, they taught Buddhism to the locals which means they converted them.
And forced conversions is a non issue since Islam, the world's largest religion was not spread by forced conversions but by the same way Buddhism was spread. By sufis (monks) settling in the area and teaching the locals.

The point I am trying to make is that Hindus are really bitter and upset at Muslims for spreading their religion but seem to have no problem when their religion is spread the same way.

Not at all mate, I think that phenomenon and the Hindu-Muslim divide is only limited to South Asia. And I think alot of that is due to politics. Ok, I don't know how it is in the West but in this part of the world, it isn't one bit true.

In Malaysia there is some antipathy between Indians and Malays but that's a racial as compared to religious scenario. Noone is upset with Islam over there. In Singapore, Hindus and Muslims are usually the closest to each other due to a sense of cooperation and support fostered by the fact that we are both minorities. In Indonesia u have the island of Bali which is purely Hindu in an otherwise Islamic nation. So not at all mate, we, as a whole, are not bitter at Muslims. India doesn't represent the attitude of Hindus or our lifestyles and beliefs worldwide. Unlike Islam, there is no central tenet. In each place we adapted to different politics and situations. And we are really diverse mate. In fact the traditions and culture of the Romani in places like Bulgaria etc are offshoots of the Hindu traditions and culture, the Romani having evolved from Rajastan I believe.

Also unlike Christianity or Islam, we don't have a leader in Hinduism. India is certainly not a 'leader' for Hindus worldwide. Like I said, there is no central authority that sets the rules.

 

[neutral_person]

Okay so here is the problem. Most Hindus are really proud of that fact that they don't convert, but here we see Buddhism spreading through conversions. As said previously, Buddhism spread through monks and the Buddha himself. That means people converted. When monks settled in china, they taught Buddhism to the locals which means they converted them.
And forced conversions is a non issue since Islam, the world's largest religion was not spread by forced conversions but by the same way Buddhism was spread. By sufis (monks) settling in the area and teaching the locals.

The point I am trying to make is that Hindus are really bitter and upset at Muslims for spreading their religion but seem to have no problem when their religion is spread the same way.

Think about it yourself for a second, if Islam was spread peacefully like Buddhism, we would not have an issue with Islam. Its the very violent nature of the way it was spread that some people have an issue with it. Sikhism/Jainsim are also religions that was peacefully spread in India and most Hindus ideologically have no issues with it.

While Sufi preachers had a role in converting subcontinent people to Islam, there was a fair share of violence from foreign Muslim invaders who forcefully converted people as well.

 

[jha]

Not at all mate, I think that phenomenon and the Hindu-Muslim divide is only limited to South Asia. And I think alot of that is due to politics. Ok, I don't know how it is in the West but in this part of the world, it isn't one bit true.

In Malaysia there is some antipathy between Indians and Malays but that's a racial as compared to religious scenario. Noone is upset with Islam over there. In Singapore, Hindus and Muslims are usually the closest to each other due to a sense of cooperation and support fostered by the fact that we are both minorities. In Indonesia u have the island of Bali which is purely Hindu in an otherwise Islamic nation. So not at all mate, we, as a whole, are not bitter at Muslims. India doesn't represent the attitude of Hindus or our lifestyles and beliefs worldwide. Unlike Islam, there is no central tenet. In each place we adapted to different politics and situations. And we are really diverse mate. In fact the traditions and culture of the Romani in places like Bulgaria etc are offshoots of the Hindu traditions and culture, the Romani having evolved from Rajastan I believe.

Also unlike Christianity or Islam, we don't have a leader in Hinduism. India is certainly not a 'leader' for Hindus worldwide. Like I said, there is no central authority that sets the rules.

Very Intelligent answer Sir.. Congratulations...

 

[tvsram1992]

Not just China. Buddhism has been far more successful everywhere: it's prevalent in all of East and South East Asia, whereas Hinduism is restricted to the sub-continent and some Indonesian islands. That's because Hinduism is a proto-fascist ideology (Hinduvta is an extreme manifestation) that was only invented to legitimize the supremacy and rule of the Aryan invaders to the sub-continent. Elsewhere, who wanted to be told that they were supposed to be eternal slaves to a Brahmin caste? Hinduism was a significant influence on Nazism for precisely this sort of master-slave ideology, and the swastika is probably the most visible connection to it.

Dont be an idiot . Its communism that is pro facist and pro nazi Hindus doesnt only consist of Brahmins . There vaishyas,kshatriyas and sudras are also Hindus . Please dont show your ignorance here .