[yumraj]

> I have always felt that Parasi and Hindu communities are exceptional example of how religious groups with opposite viewpoints can live next to each other and peacefully.

I think the primary reason for this is that neither religion has a concept of converting someone to their religion. Same is true for Judaism, and probably for most ancient religions. As no one was actively trying to convert the other person, wars were fought over territory and resources, and not over who had better gods. It is only when proselytizing became a requirement did we start seeing religious wars.

[kleton]

The Zoroastrians who became Gujarati Parsis made an agreement with a Hindu ruler to be allowed in as refugees, as long as they do not proselytize or allow conversions to Zoroastrianism. Previously, it was not a strict ethno-religion.

[peanutz454]

You are right, but there is also the net positive Hindus feel about Zoroastrians. The (probably made up) story that I heard was that when the Zoroastrians (Parsi as they are called in India) came to Indian land escaping persecution from Islam, an emissary was sent by the Indian king of the state of modern day Gujarat with a bowl filled to the brim with milk - to indicate that the kingdom was already filled and there was no space for new people. The Parsi leader added a pinch of sugar to the milk to indicate - there is still space for us, and we can sweeten the milk too. This story sums up how as a minority Parsi's have come to occupy an important space in Hindu dominated India. They were provided a safe space, and in return for it they made a net positive contribution to India.

[KorematsuFred]

Yes. I think not having a 'homeland' that pumps in money to spread the God's word like Joshua Project also helps a great deal. Many years ago I attended "Meeting of Elders" an amazing conference between Hindu monks and Native American Shamans. It was pretty cool to see who quickly they were comfortable with each other's traditions.

[yumraj]

> It was pretty cool to see who quickly they were comfortable with each other's traditions.

Thank you for sharing that. That was exactly my point, when neither group is interested in converting the other and are comfortable in their own traditions, the interaction is very civil and beneficial to all parties.

Hinduism had a rich tradition of Shastrartha (Sanskrit शास्त्रार्थ) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shastrartha where scholars debated the meaning and their interpretation of scriptures. Which meant that the religious books were always open to interpretation and never taken literally, which is unlike what we see in several modern religions where the text is applied literally and interpretations are considered sacrilegious.