What has gone wrong with Hinduism?

confuzzled dude wrote:

truthbetold wrote:Cd
You need more time to answer? No problem.

Gandhi was a heterodox Hindu, who was detested by the priestly orthodoxy; so much so that the Sankaracharyas once even organised a signature campaign that asked the British to declare Gandhi a non-Hindu. Nehru was a lapsed Hindu, who never entered a temple in adult life. He too was intensely disliked by the sants and shakha heads who arrogate to themselves the right to speak for Hindus. Ambedkar was a renegade Hindu, who was born into the faith yet decided in the end to leave it, through a dramatic conversion ceremony weeks before his death.

For all their lapses and departures from orthodoxy — or perhaps because of them — Gandhi, Ambedkar, and Nehru were the three 20th century figures who did most to rid Hinduism of its ills and excesses, who worked most heroically to nurture the spirit of equal citizenship that the Laws of Manu so explicitly deny. The work that they, and the equally remarkable reformers who preceded them, did, are what Hindus should be most proud of.

confuzzled dude wrote:

truthbetold wrote:Cd
You need more time to answer? No problem.

To answer what? It is well known that Hinduism has become a tool for the rich & selfish to show-off. Revenues of religious institutions like TTD, Shirdi and Shabarimalai have only been going up. The fault lies in the religious philosophy itself which is build on bribes and threats.

Arguably, the most important crucible of Indian nationalism was the ashram run by Mahatma Gandhi in Ahmedabad from 1915 to 1930. It was here that the programmes for the major satyagrahas were designed, and the activists and social workers who led those satyagrahas trained. Gandhian ideas of non-violence, the upliftment of women, Hindu-Muslim harmony and the abolition of untouchability, were all perfected in this ashram.

Had it not been for a munificent philanthropist, however, the ashram may never have survived. Not long after it started, Gandhi admitted an untouchable family, whereupon his patrons withdrew support. The shortfall was made up by a man identified in Gandhi's autobiography only as 'the Sheth' (but whom we know to have been Ambalal Sarabhai). The Rs 13,000 offered by the Sheth (a considerable sum in 1915) sustained the ashram for more than a year, by which time it was well established, and able to call on support from, as Gandhi wrote, other "good Hindus (who) do not scruple to help an Ashram where we go the length of dining with the untouchables".

Philanthropy for social good must be differentiated from communal charity, where, for example, poor Brahmins or sick Jains are given a leg up by the more fortunate members of their community. The first real philanthropists in India were the Parsis of Bombay, who, in the 19th century, built roads, hospitals, parks, schools and colleges for their fellow citizens (themselves mostly Hindus and Muslims). Names such as Jamshedji Jeejeebhoy, Cowasji Jehangir and Jamsetji Tata are justly renowned but, as that knowledgeable Mumbaikar Naresh Fernandes reminds me, history must also remember the contributions of Jewish benefactors (the Sassoons) and Hindu Sheths (as in Jagannath Shankar of that ilk). These traditions have been continued by later Parsis, among them the Bhabhas, the Godrejs and the Tatas, who have supported major scientific and cultural institutions.

First, although Hindus are in an overwhelming majority in India, Hindu businessmen in general, and bania businessmen in particular, have been less willing to contribute to society. I have already mentioned the staggering contributions in this respect of the Parsis, and of the Jews. Azim Premji is, of course, a Muslim.

confuzzled dude wrote:

truthbetold wrote:Cd
You need more time to answer? No problem.

To answer what? It is well known that Hinduism has become a tool for the rich & selfish to show-off. Revenues of religious institutions like TTD, Shirdi and Shabarimalai have only been going up. The fault lies in the religious philosophy itself which is build on bribes and threats.

truthbetold wrote:Bw
+1.
Cd 

Now that your islamic jihad has fallen to levels that even you cannot carry the burden, have you started to change your strategy to directly abuse Hinduism?

You need to read some basic books on anthropology before copy pasting third rate opinions.

Bw's post pretty much answers all your post at intellectual level.

Let me add one small note to help you along on your required anthropology basics study. An economically advancing poor nation always tries to bring back its culture. A significant aspect of many nations culture is intertwined with religion. it is not surprising for Indians to express their cultural intentions after 1000s years of invasions and foreign rule.

Industrial societies tend to move away from religion as scientific thinking becomes more prevalent. India has few decades to get there.

truthbetold wrote:
Cd
Now you are into your ritual of twisting of facts.
The statement I made is not just an Indian story. Time and time again invaders plundered occupying lands, enslaved occupied people , and created untold misery on local populations. In the Industrial Age, the growth of democratic thought and national movements around the world helped people fight the invaders and colonists. This was a story that played nearly hundred times in 19th and 20th century.

truthbetold wrote:
You are probably too busy to notice as you are preoccupied with defending islamic jihad.

truthbetold wrote:
You do need lot of reading before making bombastic statements. You can have  an opinion but you cannot wish away history.

Hellsangel wrote:Comrade really seems to have a chip on his shoulder and seems to be your typical reverse-racist living in his Middle-eastern/ Pakistani ghetto, looking  at his Whiteman comment.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:Comrade really seems to have a chip on his shoulder and seems to be your typical reverse-racist living in his Middle-eastern/ Pakistani ghetto, looking  at his Whiteman comment.

Hahaha! Look at the irony; It is OKAY for you guys to call me a jihadist 100 times a day but once I suggest that your ilk is a stooge of white man, the world comes to a halt and this becomes a race issue.

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:Comrade really seems to have a chip on his shoulder and seems to be your typical reverse-racist living in his Middle-eastern/ Pakistani ghetto, looking  at his Whiteman comment.

Hahaha! Look at the irony; It is OKAY for you guys to call me a jihadist 100 times a day but once I suggest that your ilk is a stooge of white man, the world comes to a halt and this becomes a race issue.

The world hasn't come to a halt, Comrade. In fact you being a Jihadist and a reverse-racist don't have to be mutually exclusive. In fact they are both probably true which explains your daily rants here.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:Comrade really seems to have a chip on his shoulder and seems to be your typical reverse-racist living in his Middle-eastern/ Pakistani ghetto, looking  at his Whiteman comment.

Hahaha! Look at the irony; It is OKAY for you guys to call me a jihadist 100 times a day but once I suggest that your ilk is a stooge of white man, the world comes to a halt and this becomes a race issue.

The world hasn't come to a halt, Comrade. In fact you being a Jihadist and a reverse-racist don't have to be mutually exclusive. In fact they are both probably true which explains your daily rants here.

but racist, right-wingnut and islamophobe all are inclusive, and that explains all the nonsense spouted by you on a daily basis here.

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:Comrade really seems to have a chip on his shoulder and seems to be your typical reverse-racist living in his Middle-eastern/ Pakistani ghetto, looking  at his Whiteman comment.

Hahaha! Look at the irony; It is OKAY for you guys to call me a jihadist 100 times a day but once I suggest that your ilk is a stooge of white man, the world comes to a halt and this becomes a race issue.

The world hasn't come to a halt, Comrade. In fact you being a Jihadist and a reverse-racist don't have to be mutually exclusive. In fact they are both probably true which explains your daily rants here.

but racist, right-wingnut and islamophobe all are inclusive, and that explains all the nonsense spouted by you on a daily basis here.

Comrade, to a fanatical Jihadist like you, everything else will sound like nonsense or as  some sort of racist vendetta against you.  You're beyond help in that regard.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:
Hahaha! Look at the irony; It is OKAY for you guys to call me a jihadist 100 times a day but once I suggest that your ilk is a stooge of white man, the world comes to a halt and this becomes a race issue.

The world hasn't come to a halt, Comrade. In fact you being a Jihadist and a reverse-racist don't have to be mutually exclusive. In fact they are both probably true which explains your daily rants here.

but racist, right-wingnut and islamophobe all are inclusive, and that explains all the nonsense spouted by you on a daily basis here.

Comrade, to a fanatical Jihadist like you, everything else will sound like nonsense or as  some sort of racist vendetta against you.  You're beyond help in that regard.

The above statement pretty much sums up wingnut agenda.

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

The world hasn't come to a halt, Comrade. In fact you being a Jihadist and a reverse-racist don't have to be mutually exclusive. In fact they are both probably true which explains your daily rants here.

but racist, right-wingnut and islamophobe all are inclusive, and that explains all the nonsense spouted by you on a daily basis here.

Comrade, to a fanatical Jihadist like you, everything else will sound like nonsense or as  some sort of racist vendetta against you.  You're beyond help in that regard.

The above statement pretty much sums up wingnut agenda.

You don't seem to get it yet, do you Comrade? Pretty much, the right, the right of center, the left and the left of center leaning folks here all agree that you are a Jihadi sympathizer. So now go ahead and wage war against the world.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:
but racist, right-wingnut and islamophobe all are inclusive, and that explains all the nonsense spouted by you on a daily basis here.

Comrade, to a fanatical Jihadist like you, everything else will sound like nonsense or as  some sort of racist vendetta against you.  You're beyond help in that regard.

The above statement pretty much sums up wingnut agenda.

You don't seem to get it yet, do you Comrade? Pretty much, the right, the right of center, the left and the left of center leaning folks here all agree that you are a Jihadi sympathizer. So now go ahead and wage war against the world.

That is the routine of faux news, for them err your ilk, even President Obama is Jihadi Sympathizer.. the whole world knows that, isn't it?

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

Comrade, to a fanatical Jihadist like you, everything else will sound like nonsense or as  some sort of racist vendetta against you.  You're beyond help in that regard.

The above statement pretty much sums up wingnut agenda.

You don't seem to get it yet, do you Comrade? Pretty much, the right, the right of center, the left and the left of center leaning folks here all agree that you are a Jihadi sympathizer. So now go ahead and wage war against the world.

That is the routine of faux news, for them err your ilk, even President Obama is Jihadi Sympathizer.. the whole world knows that, isn't it?

Oh my! Now you're comparing yourself to Obama and playing the martyr? Cute, Comrade!