Parsis and Hindutva's Ethnic Nationalism in India

[Peregrine]

Fundamental problem with Islam and Christiniaity is that both seek to convert others. This creates a major political bone of contention with other religions.

Are you implying hinduism and judaism is ethnocentric, and may i say racist religions?

If thats true, how did India became hindu dominant? It wasnt always hinduistic. As far i know it was a budhist country in the past.

Bengal area forexample was buddhist majority for almost 1500 years before it became hindu majority around year 1000 AD. How did that happen?

 

[Joe Shearer]

Are you implying hinduism and judaism is ethnocentric, and may i say racist religions?

If thats true, how did India became hindu dominant? It wasnt always hinduistic. As far i know it was a budhist country in the past.

Bengal area forexample was buddhist majority for almost 1500 years before it became hindu majority around year 1000 AD. How did that happen?

So Bengal converted wholly to Buddhism in a century and stayed Buddhist?
Just curiosity. Which history text gave you that metric?
As for the rest of the country, there is no evidence that Hinduism in its Puranik form
Was ever completely extinguished. Instead apparently Jainism and Buddhism
won over much of the population - Hinduism remained as a minority, although we have no clear cut information whatever about respective ratios.

 

[Peregrine]

So Bengal converted wholly TN Buddhism in a century and stayed Buddhist?
Just curiosity. Which history text gave you that metric?
As for the rest of the country, there is no evidence that Hinduism in its Puranik form was totally extinguished. Instead, Buddhism and Jainism won over much of the population - Hinduism remained as a minority, although we have no clear cut information whatever about respective ratios.

Bengal, more correctly ancient Bengal, became buddhist gradually after Buddhism originated around the area between modern Bengal, Bihar and eastern Nepal.

Bengal was buddhist majority, including the Pala Dynasty which was a historic high point in Bengal, which were patrons of budhism.

The Decline of Pala was followed by the Hindu Sena Dynasty which largely supressed buddhism, leading to its gradual decline, way before muslims arrived in Bengal.

Its a historical fact that may not suit present political climate in India, but thats another story.

As in my earlier post: if hindusim isnt proselytizing then how did a largely Buddhist region became overwhelmingly hindu? Islamic kings ruled large sections of India for almost a 1000 year, and yet there was less than 10% muslims in the subcontinent when the British East India company first arrived.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Are you implying hinduism and judaism is ethnocentric, and may i say racist religions?

About Hinduism being ethnocentric, you might like to consult the annals of a number of South East Asian kingdoms around the 10th century. I will list those kingdoms and dynasties separately if you don't feel like grubbing around.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Bengal, more correctly ancient bengal, became buddhist gradually after Buddhism originated around the area between modern Bengal, Bihar and eastern Nepal.

Begal was buddhist majority, including the Pala Dynasty which was a historic high point in Bengal, which were patrons of budhism.

The Decline of Pala was followed by the Hindu Sena Dynasty which largely supressed buddhism, leading to its gradual decline, way before muslims arrived in Bengal.

Its a historical fact that may not suit present political climate in India, but thats another story.

As in my earlier post: if hindusim isnt proselytizing then how did a largely Buddhist region became overwhelmingly hindu? Islamic kings ruled large sections of India for almot a 1000 year, and still there was less than 10% muslims in the subcontinent when the British East India company first arrived.

Not at all. That is perfectly accurate, particularly the references to the Papa and Sena kingdoms. It however skirts the facts that, again around the 10th century AD , the dominant king in the region was a man rather strongly steeped in Hinduism. So it was not a uniform and bland situation by any means.

 

[vsdoc]

About Hinduism being ethnocentric, you might like to consult the annals of a number of South East Asian kingdoms around the 10th century. I will list those kingdoms and dynasties separately if you don't feel like grubbing around.

Joe, same with Zoroastrianism.

I know you detest this word of mine from earlier days, but I must reiterate ancient Avestan and Vedic concepts of blood purity here.

There is organic growth of the ancestral bloodlines - Iranic and Kurd (Median) for us. This us spiritual and divinely ordained. The concept of a people, when ready, receiving God's message, from one among their own.

And then there is inorganic cultural political spread via conquest. Patronage of rule. Official religion. As in Rome. Arabia. Northern Africa. And most of Central Asia up to parts of modern China.

These are not the core seed of

Blood

Faith

Soil

Cheers, Doc

 

[Joe Shearer]

Its a historical fact that may not suit present political climate in India, but thats another story.

It would be more convincing if your analysis avoided insulting allusions to the prevailing intellectual currents in India. It is not always the case that an historical situation is assumed to be guided by political expediency.

 

[Peregrine]

About Hinduism being ethnocentric, you might like to consult the annals of a number of South East Asian kingdoms around the 10th century. I will list those kingdoms and dynasties separately if you don't feel like grubbing around.

By ethnocentrism i mean non-interest in proselytizing as i couldnt find a better word. It was postulated that hindus dont want converts, which means there is disinterst in adding more people to the «tribe», tribe of common belief in this sense.

This discussion and its content is confined to the topic and postulates presented by members in this thread.

Speaking about South East Asia, how did Hinduism spread to South East Asia, if it wasnt proselytizing.

It was postulated that judaism isnt proselytizing, which is true today to large degree. Yet the Khazar kingdom converted en masse to Judaism and their ancestors today are Ashkenazi or white european jews.

 

[Peregrine]

It would be more convincing if your analysis avoided insulting allusions to the prevailing intellectual currents in India. It is not always the case that an historical situation is assumed to be guided by political expediency.

It wasnt meant as insult. Why would it be so?

Presenting historical and current facts isnt meant as insults from my part.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Joe, same with Zoroastrianism.

I know you detest this word of mine from earlier days, but I must reiterate ancient Avestan and Vedic concepts of blood purity here.

There us organic growth of the ancestral bloodlines - Iranic and Kurd (Median) for us. This us spiritual and divinely ordained. The concept of a people, when ready, receiving God's message, from one among their own.

And then there is inorganic cultural political spread via conquest. Patronage of rule. Official religion. As in Rome. Arabia. Northern Africa. And most of Central Asia up to parts of modern China.

These are not the core seed of

Blood

Faith

Soil

Cheers, Doc

I do understand that Zoroastrian belief was tightly bound to the Median/Persian tribes and the outset, but the religion of the emperors clearly spread beyond its ethnic origins over the centuries. I am unable to comment on the validity of the rest of your post, as you know the facts of the matter far better than I.

 

[Joe Shearer]

It wasnt meant as insult. Why would it be so?

Presenting historical and current facts isnt meant as insults from my part.

The allusion to current perversions was slighting. Not all of us have Pawned ourselves intellectually to the mountebanks who govern our nation.

 

[Peregrine]

Joe, same with Zoroastrianism.

I know you detest this word of mine from earlier days, but I must reiterate ancient Avestan and Vedic concepts of blood purity here.

There is organic growth of the ancestral bloodlines - Iranic and Kurd (Median) for us. This us spiritual and divinely ordained. The concept of a people, when ready, receiving God's message, from one among their own.

And then there is inorganic cultural political spread via conquest. Patronage of rule. Official religion. As in Rome. Arabia. Northern Africa. And most of Central Asia up to parts of modern China.

These are not the core seed of

Blood

Faith

Soil

Cheers, Doc

Persian Empire was oficially zoroastrianic. I mean isnt that the reason why zoroastrians still lament loss of their Empire?

Zoroastrianism recieved official patronage in dominant fashion by the Persian Kings and elite.

 

[vsdoc]

Persian Empire was oficially zoroastrianic. I mean isnt that the reason why zoroastrians still lament loss of their Empire?

Zoroastrianism recieved official patronsge is dominant fashion by the Persian Kings and elite.

That is the distinction I was making.

Between blood and rule.

The Vendidad is very clear about who is a Mazdayasni.

Cheers, Doc

 

[Joe Shearer]

That is the distinction I was making.

Between blood and rule.

Cheers, Doc

Fair enough.
It is doubtful that anybody reasonable would contest that assertion.

 

[vsdoc]

Fair enough.
It is doubtful that anybody reasonable would contest that assertion.

The 3 great empires, there was never any theological or religious strife.

The transition was seamless.

Just different clans. From different geographies. In the ascendancy.

Nothing changed at the level of the people. Till the Arabs.

Cheers, Doc