Amartya Sen: "Akbar was the Father of Indian secularism"

Seva Lamberdar wrote:Nothing new and original in religious tolerance and magnanimity on the part of Akbar. Even before Akbar, there are instances in history about kings (including Hindu kings) in India who were very tolerant and magnanimous to people of other faiths and let them practice their religions freely and without hindrance. A Hindu king in Kangra before the time of Akbar had a wife who practiced her Jain faith even after marrying the Hindu king. She had the idol of Jain Tirathankar (AdiNath) in Kangra Fort for worship, and her husband (a Hindu) let her live and worship according to her pre-marital religion. Btw that particular idol of AdiNath is still there in Kangra Fort. It's clear that Akbar very likely learnt about the religious tolerance by Hindu kings in India before him and followed their example. 

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:Nothing new and original in religious tolerance and magnanimity on the part of Akbar. Even before Akbar, there are instances in history about kings (including Hindu kings) in India who were very tolerant and magnanimous to people of other faiths and let them practice their religions freely and without hindrance. A Hindu king in Kangra before the time of Akbar had a wife who practiced her Jain faith even after marrying the Hindu king. She had the idol of Jain Tirathankar (AdiNath) in Kangra Fort for worship, and her husband (a Hindu) let her live and worship according to her pre-marital religion. Btw that particular idol of AdiNath is still there in Kangra Fort. It's clear that Akbar very likely learnt about the religious tolerance by Hindu kings in India before him and followed their example. 

this is true for many hindu kings from Asoka to Raja Raja Chola. many of them exhibited religious tolerance towards others. But Akbar was confronted with a peculiarly contemporary problem. Asoka and Raja Raja did not have  to worry about hindus and muslims being in conflict with each other. So what Akbar did to diffuse religious tensions amongst his hindu and muslim subjects has contemporary applications. another complication for Akbar was that while the majority of the people in his kingdom followed hinduism, he was not a hindu (at least not formally).

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:Nothing new and original in religious tolerance and magnanimity on the part of Akbar. Even before Akbar, there are instances in history about kings (including Hindu kings) in India who were very tolerant and magnanimous to people of other faiths and let them practice their religions freely and without hindrance. A Hindu king in Kangra before the time of Akbar had a wife who practiced her Jain faith even after marrying the Hindu king. She had the idol of Jain Tirathankar (AdiNath) in Kangra Fort for worship, and her husband (a Hindu) let her live and worship according to her pre-marital religion. Btw that particular idol of AdiNath is still there in Kangra Fort. It's clear that Akbar very likely learnt about the religious tolerance by Hindu kings in India before him and followed their example. 

this is true for many hindu kings from Asoka to Raja Raja Chola. many of them exhibited religious tolerance towards others. But Akbar was confronted with a peculiarly contemporary problem. Asoka and Raja Raja did not have  to worry about hindus and muslims being in conflict with each other. So what Akbar did to diffuse religious tensions amongst his hindu and muslim subjects has contemporary applications. another complication for Akbar was that while the majority of the people in his kingdom followed hinduism, he was not a hindu (at least not formally).

Akbar did nothing special or new. He simply followed the religious example of  some of the kings before him showing tolerance and magnanimity towards people of other faiths.

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:Nothing new and original in religious tolerance and magnanimity on the part of Akbar. Even before Akbar, there are instances in history about kings (including Hindu kings) in India who were very tolerant and magnanimous to people of other faiths and let them practice their religions freely and without hindrance. A Hindu king in Kangra before the time of Akbar had a wife who practiced her Jain faith even after marrying the Hindu king. She had the idol of Jain Tirathankar (AdiNath) in Kangra Fort for worship, and her husband (a Hindu) let her live and worship according to her pre-marital religion. Btw that particular idol of AdiNath is still there in Kangra Fort. It's clear that Akbar very likely learnt about the religious tolerance by Hindu kings in India before him and followed their example. 

this is true for many hindu kings from Asoka to Raja Raja Chola. many of them exhibited religious tolerance towards others. But Akbar was confronted with a peculiarly contemporary problem. Asoka and Raja Raja did not have  to worry about hindus and muslims being in conflict with each other. So what Akbar did to diffuse religious tensions amongst his hindu and muslim subjects has contemporary applications. another complication for Akbar was that while the majority of the people in his kingdom followed hinduism, he was not a hindu (at least not formally).

Akbar did nothing special or new. He simply followed the religious example of  some of the kings before him showing tolerance and magnanimity towards people of other faiths.

there is no record of any other Indian king inviting representatives of different religions and faiths to have religious debates in his presence.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:Nothing new and original in religious tolerance and magnanimity on the part of Akbar. Even before Akbar, there are instances in history about kings (including Hindu kings) in India who were very tolerant and magnanimous to people of other faiths and let them practice their religions freely and without hindrance. A Hindu king in Kangra before the time of Akbar had a wife who practiced her Jain faith even after marrying the Hindu king. She had the idol of Jain Tirathankar (AdiNath) in Kangra Fort for worship, and her husband (a Hindu) let her live and worship according to her pre-marital religion. Btw that particular idol of AdiNath is still there in Kangra Fort. It's clear that Akbar very likely learnt about the religious tolerance by Hindu kings in India before him and followed their example. 

this is true for many hindu kings from Asoka to Raja Raja Chola. many of them exhibited religious tolerance towards others. But Akbar was confronted with a peculiarly contemporary problem. Asoka and Raja Raja did not have  to worry about hindus and muslims being in conflict with each other. So what Akbar did to diffuse religious tensions amongst his hindu and muslim subjects has contemporary applications. another complication for Akbar was that while the majority of the people in his kingdom followed hinduism, he was not a hindu (at least not formally).

Akbar did nothing special or new. He simply followed the religious example of  some of the kings before him showing tolerance and magnanimity towards people of other faiths.

there is no record of any other Indian king inviting representatives of different religions and faiths to have religious debates in his presence.

What about the philosophical debates mentioned in ancient Hindu texts (including Upanisads), usually organized by the kings, to which everyone learned was invited? Akbar, an uneducated fellow, wasn't the first one to start them and he didn't come up with the idea about them on his own.

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

this is true for many hindu kings from Asoka to Raja Raja Chola. many of them exhibited religious tolerance towards others. But Akbar was confronted with a peculiarly contemporary problem. Asoka and Raja Raja did not have  to worry about hindus and muslims being in conflict with each other. So what Akbar did to diffuse religious tensions amongst his hindu and muslim subjects has contemporary applications. another complication for Akbar was that while the majority of the people in his kingdom followed hinduism, he was not a hindu (at least not formally).

Akbar did nothing special or new. He simply followed the religious example of  some of the kings before him showing tolerance and magnanimity towards people of other faiths.

there is no record of any other Indian king inviting representatives of different religions and faiths to have religious debates in his presence.

What about the philosophical debates mentioned in ancient Hindu texts (including Upanisads), usually organized by the kings, to which everyone learned was invited? Akbar, an uneducated fellow, wasn't the first one to start them and he didn't come up with the idea about them on his own.

those debates typically involved only hindus (representing different schools of hindu philosophy). Inter-religious debates, where representatives of every major religion were invited for debates and discussions, were not patronized by any Indian king before Akbar.

Akbar has been described as an 'illiterate scholar'; he would have philosophy and religion books read out to him. The Jesuit missionaries at Akbar's court have written that Akbar could hold his own in any religious or philosophical debate and that he had diligently studied the field of comparative religion.

But thanks for reminding me about the Upanisadic kings participating in philosophical debates. Akbar was like those Upanisadic kings with the exception that Akbar was dealing with a broader canvas of philosophical thoughts since the objective was not the study of hindu philosophy but of numerous philosophies associated with various religions.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Akbar did nothing special or new. He simply followed the religious example of  some of the kings before him showing tolerance and magnanimity towards people of other faiths.

there is no record of any other Indian king inviting representatives of different religions and faiths to have religious debates in his presence.

What about the philosophical debates mentioned in ancient Hindu texts (including Upanisads), usually organized by the kings, to which everyone learned was invited? Akbar, an uneducated fellow, wasn't the first one to start them and he didn't come up with the idea about them on his own.

those debates typically involved only hindus (representing different schools of hindu philosophy). Inter-religious debates, where representatives of every major religion were invited for debates and discussions, were not patronized by any Indian king before Akbar.

Akbar has been described as an 'illiterate scholar'; he would have philosophy and religion books read out to him. The Jesuit missionaries at Akbar's court have written that Akbar could hold his own in any religious or philosophical debate and that he had diligently studied the field of comparative religion.

But thanks for reminding me about the Upanisadic kings participating in philosophical debates. Akbar was like those Upanisadic kings with the exception that Akbar was dealing with a broader canvas of philosophical thoughts since the objective was not the study of hindu philosophy but of numerous philosophies associated with various religions.

Wrong. Everyone learned used to get invited to take part in these debates. Moreover, the Hindu philosophies are so broad that they encompass or touch many other religious thoughts, some of which even have roots in Hinduism. Thus there was no need for Hindu kings to exclude anyone.

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

there is no record of any other Indian king inviting representatives of different religions and faiths to have religious debates in his presence.

What about the philosophical debates mentioned in ancient Hindu texts (including Upanisads), usually organized by the kings, to which everyone learned was invited? Akbar, an uneducated fellow, wasn't the first one to start them and he didn't come up with the idea about them on his own.

those debates typically involved only hindus (representing different schools of hindu philosophy). Inter-religious debates, where representatives of every major religion were invited for debates and discussions, were not patronized by any Indian king before Akbar.

Akbar has been described as an 'illiterate scholar'; he would have philosophy and religion books read out to him. The Jesuit missionaries at Akbar's court have written that Akbar could hold his own in any religious or philosophical debate and that he had diligently studied the field of comparative religion.

But thanks for reminding me about the Upanisadic kings participating in philosophical debates. Akbar was like those Upanisadic kings with the exception that Akbar was dealing with a broader canvas of philosophical thoughts since the objective was not the study of hindu philosophy but of numerous philosophies associated with various religions.

Wrong. Everyone learned used to get invited to take part in these debates. Moreover, the Hindu philosophies are so broad that they encompass or touch many other religious thoughts, some of which even have roots in Hinduism. Thus there was no need for Hindu kings to exclude anyone.

representatives of the following religions/faiths used to take part in the philosophical debates at Akbar's Ibadat-Khana: Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism (Parsis). i'll have to check about Sikhism (Akbar had definitely eaten in a sikh gurudwara for langar and was on good terms with the sikhs). Abul Fazal mentions Charvaka philosophy in his survey of Indian philosophy; whether any Charvakas participated in the philosophical debates at Akbar's court is also something worth enquiring into.
>>

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:
What about the philosophical debates mentioned in ancient Hindu texts (including Upanisads), usually organized by the kings, to which everyone learned was invited? Akbar, an uneducated fellow, wasn't the first one to start them and he didn't come up with the idea about them on his own.

those debates typically involved only hindus (representing different schools of hindu philosophy). Inter-religious debates, where representatives of every major religion were invited for debates and discussions, were not patronized by any Indian king before Akbar.

Akbar has been described as an 'illiterate scholar'; he would have philosophy and religion books read out to him. The Jesuit missionaries at Akbar's court have written that Akbar could hold his own in any religious or philosophical debate and that he had diligently studied the field of comparative religion.

But thanks for reminding me about the Upanisadic kings participating in philosophical debates. Akbar was like those Upanisadic kings with the exception that Akbar was dealing with a broader canvas of philosophical thoughts since the objective was not the study of hindu philosophy but of numerous philosophies associated with various religions.

Wrong. Everyone learned used to get invited to take part in these debates. Moreover, the Hindu philosophies are so broad that they encompass or touch many other religious thoughts, some of which even have roots in Hinduism. Thus there was no need for Hindu kings to exclude anyone.

representatives of the following religions/faiths used to take part in the philosophical debates at Akbar's Ibadat-Khana: Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism (Parsis). i'll have to check about Sikhism (Akbar had definitely eaten in a sikh gurudwara for langar and was on good terms with the sikhs). Abul Fazal mentions Charvaka philosophy in his survey of Indian philosophy; whether any Charvakas participated in the philosophical debates at Akbar's court is also something worth enquiring into.
>>

The basic fact that Hinduism gave rise to so many independent philosophies long ago is a clear indication that there was freedom to all (no matter whatever they believed in terms of philosophical thought) to pursue and take part, and such a thing would not be possible without the active participation and permission by Hindu rulers / kings.