1. Bhudhism and jainism were flourishing along with Hinduism in 1st top 5th Century parallelly. There was no attack on them inspite of both majority public and the Kings were Hindus. Silappadigaram itself gives ample proofs.
2. Hinduism never attacked other religions.
3. jainism towards the end of 5th century converted both the big kings of Tamilnadu - Mhendra varaman and Nedumaran. They ensured both kings give many troubles to Hinduism. Temples were closed. Even converted to Samanar palli.
4. Then Hinduism had these 2 great saints coming up to end the "Arrogant Jainism" for the revival of Hinduism.
5. I am very clear. We respect the other religions. But When they come and attack mine, i have the guts to stand up. Not talking without understanding what we /others say.
6. I am celebrating the end of attack on Hinduism. Please understand whether it is jainism, Budhism, Churchianity or Islam, given a samll chance or get a king ( or CM/Party President ) of theirs, will give as much harm as possible toHindusim. I am standing up against that on not onother religions per se.
7. Your Tolerance is weakness. You dont understand anything about tolerance. Tolerance is the virtue of pwerful and not weak. ( sellidattu kappan sinam kappan - kural. One is called tolerant only when his anger is feared and Hindus have amply proved that.)
8.Hinduism is the only religion that undertsands that all ways lead to one end. That is why the tolerance ( though weakness in your case) is still in your blood. You cant even think anything else because of your Hindu lineage. Secularism is not killing this religion to promote the other religions which say " their's is the only way and all others end up in hell".
9. There is no difference between the words secularism and Hinduism. Both mean the same.
Hello Shankar,There is no such thing as a perfect religion including hinduism. We have had our share of bigotry and oppression and still do, we have more divisiveness under the guise of caste and more oppression of women othan many others. Other religions seem more magnified since in many cases there are more followers of the same. Knowingi and respecting our faith does not mean being blind to our faults. Sanatana dharma is not self appointed heroes engaging in debates to save it, basic dharma can take care of itself and always has.
Also please this is not a forum for religious debate. There are forms like Beleifnet where there is active discussion on the subject.
Please refrain from advising others when you do not know anything about them other than one or two emails here and there.
If you wish to terminate this debate due it being inappropriate for this forum, of all the material that you provided, only the second paragraph is needed.
By providing additional material, some of it bordering on being condescending, I am afraid you have just contributed to prolonging the debate.
The same email cannot both provide replies to earlier emails and claim that this topic is outside the scope of this forum, effectively having the last word.
Hello sir, you are more than welcome to have the 'last word' if you want to take permission from the moderators and continue the conversation/debate.
I am not a moderator, i have merely found from experience that they dont' prefer debates and it comes to light only after extended conversation, more often than not the person who disagrees shoulders the blame for having started it and i do not wish to be part of that anymore.
You are right when you say the first para could have been avoided. Yes, i can't stand opinions backed by personal sentiments particularly religious and sometimes tend to say more in that regard than i need to. If it sounds 'condesending' or any ohter fashion that is ok for me, 100 percent. Again you are welcome to the 'last word', let me know if it comes with a cup and a cash prize and i will work harder to get it next time!!
> I am not a moderator, i have merely found from experience that they dont' prefer debates and it comes to light only after extended conversation, more often than not the person who disagrees shoulders the blame for having started it and i do not wish to be part of that anymore.
Hi all
in this group we are 'history lovers'.
be it st. thomas, or robert clive, be it aurangazeb or bahadur shah zafar we try to eucate each other with facts. dont mistake us... its not a YES SIR YES SIR group
we have had very heated debates before as can be seen in our extensive archives. our group is a reference vat for several distinguished people. in fact so many google searches on historical details land up in our group. somehow we have felt that religious debates heat up with acrimony and end with a distaste. we do welcome historical debates however heated they get but then lets keep religion to a limit in this group
1. i merely stated that with this padigam, the hold of jainism ended in tamilnadu. That was a fact and not my feeling.
2. When questioned about Hinduism ending another religion, i stated the hindu religion do not attack others but when opressed did stand up and asserted. I made strong point. what is wrong in that? It looks people get offended are paid with the same "tamil coin". No more Malaysian father visiting police station stories.
Argue with facts. ( I eneded since i seriously felt that the point was understood)