On 3/1/08, ss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At some time in history Hindu India had reached a stage when it was open and > receptive to non violent ideologies. There were, in these periods at least > two non violent offshoots of Hinduism - both considered as "dharmas" - and > these were Buddhism and Jainism. > > Some Hindus reacted violently to all this at some stage and there was a > concerted effort to reduce the runaway success of Buddhism and reclaim the > place of Hindu belief. Ultimately Buddhist thought was incorporated as part > of Hindu thought, possibly making Hinduism more easily acceptable.
At the risk of weaving yet another silken thread...... Reading the Gaudapada Mandukya Karika while evaluating the concept of shunyata (nothingness) in Buddhism is worthwhile since both run parallel in thought and yet weave similar points to echo the same beliefs. > probably explains why Buddhism retained a greater following outside India. Buddhism (who was born as a Hindu king) flourished under Hindu kings with many converting and or being huge benefactors and supporters of the religion. Not sure but I read that it changed under the Mughal and British rule. Also most of the FarEast did not have as many invasions as we did partly due to geography (easy land access), trade (spices) and maybe other factors. > The BJPs contention is not against ..........[snip] I for one dislike any political party speaking on behalf of my religious beliefs.... mainly because as a religion Hinduism is not organised, has no strict rules and our life karma rests entirely on an individual (creature?). Losing that freedom is a shame. -- || vid ||
