|
|
|
|
|
by naruvimama
1832 days ago
|
|
For me Hinduism is an ecosystem as is for millions of Hindus. A Hindu will feel very comfortable in a Buddhist temple and practice and vice versa. Hindus themselves have extremely diverse traditions. I see where we have diverging views. My Swedish landlords who happens to be a Christian once asked we where is your holy book. In her mind not having a one-one equivalent with Christianity delegitimises the religion. In trying to intellectualise the debate, you have taken the limited view of a Christian. The vast majority of the Hindus are open to the ideas of Buddhism as well as 1000s of tribal/rural/regional gods and rituals. Not only is there no conflict, there is perhaps no clear boundaries. This is completely alien to xtianity/Islam. |
|
In another comment you said that casteism was brought by the West to India. (I do not agree with this but lets go with for now). So it clearly follows that Hindus (Hinduism) adopted casteism from somewhere externally. This is not for debate because we have seen and continue to see Hindus practicing casteism for whatever reason.
Hinduism can be simultaneously extolled for adopting "good" ideas from Buddhism but is also beyond criticism for adopting casteism from the west?
You arbitrarily laid the boundary for Hinduism at "caste" arguing that it was brought externally and hence not an inherent Hindu feature, yet somehow you take pride in Hinduism being a religion that does adopt external ideas. Which one is it?