u people have to understand one thing first there is no religion called HINDU,what led to this type of things in INDIA,better u people go 4000-5000 yrs back to know what india was,what hinduism was
RE:Hinduism
by rangaswamy soundararajan on Apr 30, 2007 04:47 PM Permalink
I believe that there was no such relegion as Hindu relegion in our country. What we are calling as Hindu relegion, was being practiced as Vedic relegion or Sanathana Dharma. In fact, there was no worship of any particular God like Shiva, Vishnu etc. It was all worship of nature.
RE:Hinduism
by Natures on Apr 30, 2007 12:05 PM Permalink
Are the one Converted to Christinity just for job, money and set of bibles.
Stop creating nonsense here. Hinduism is religion of nature.There is no such thing as Single god in Hinduism, but everthing is admirable and worshipable.
You people are perverted, always want to inpose your faith to Hindus by swaying job and money.
Thats how converted million throuh out the world, and same is the reason for global conflict.
Who knows tomorrow you are son of somebody, simply because someone preaeched you. Have reasons.
RE:Hinduism
by rationalbeing being on Apr 30, 2007 12:14 PM Permalink
what periyar did not mention that the chaturvarna was first adopted according to the division of work,not on the basis of caste.in history,we would find several intercaste,even inter religious marriage including friendship between different communities-rajput king married a bhil girl,sri krishna was a yadav who married several khsatriya girls,akbar and jehangir married rajput hindus,sri ram had a friend like guhak who was a chandal,laxman got knowledge from ravana when he was in death bed.so ancient india was not full of casteism.jabal stayakam was welcomed by maharishi goutam who termed satyakam as brahmin(satyakam had no registered father),chandragupta maurya got the title from her mother who was a dasi and chandragupta maurya and samrat ashoka were not the representative of upper castes.sufi movement,bhakti movement was against casteism and religious narrowness.sri ramakrishna and swami vivekananda faught against casteism not balming the hinduism alone.so i think periyar missed and crossed the line.he could have mentioned the tolerism of hindus who gave place to other religious groups.there is not a single evidence in the ancient,medieval even in some parts of modern world in the field of religious tolerance in christian and islam country.also hinduism accomodated several different thoughts within a religion-here we have idol worship,nirakar god,even we get atheist philosophy,every person can woeship god in any foem in this religion.hinduism is the only religion which never involved in forceful religious conversion.but pity is that periyar did not mention these positive sides.but sme extent he spreaded a sense of hatred in the name of abolishing casteism.i donot know why.yes upper castes are very much responsible in many cases.but almost all of the great persons are from upper castes who made indians proud by their tallent,dedication not by their caste identity,what periyar also did not mention that many people from upper castes did several social reforms-RAJA RAMMOHAN ROY,ISWAR CHANDRA VIDYASAGAR were brahmin but did sinficant social reform,sri ramakrishna vivekananda also did their best,upper caste personalities were greatly involved in the country's freedom struggle(subhas bose,tilak,nehru ,gandhi ,gokhale,bagha jatin,jatin das,lala ljpat and many names)where the leadership was maintained by them.even the great achiever of tamilnadu-srinivas ramanujam,cv raman was from upper castes.i donot know why he ignored all this.ok,but still he has a place in my mind for his movement for social justice which some extent changed as a movement of hatred at latter stage.
RE:Hinduism
by on Apr 30, 2007 12:59 PM Permalink
after 1804 only the name HINDU was born , it is not religion. We tamilans are not belongs to Hindusim we all are proud to be dravidians , not a slave to brahmins
RE:Hinduism
by srinivas on Apr 30, 2007 12:13 PM Permalink
I agree with Vijay............... Most scholars feel that the name %u201CHindu%u201D was developed by outsiders, invaders who could not pronounce the name of the Sindhu River properly. Some sources report that it was Alexander the Great who first renamed the River Sindhu as the Indu, dropping the beginning %u201CS%u201D, thus making it easier for the Greeks to pronounce. This became known as the Indus. This was when Alexander invaded India around 325 B.C. His Macedonian forces thereafter called the land east of the Indus as India, a name used especially during the British regime.
Later, when the Muslim invaders arrived from such places as Afghanistan and Persia, they called the Sindhu River the Hindu River. Thereafter, the name %u201CHindu%u201D was used to describe the inhabitants from that tract of land in the northwestern provinces of India where the Sindhu River is located, and the region itself was called %u201CHindustan.%u201D
