On Tuesday 25 Nov 2008 9:10:07 am Charles Haynes wrote: > > The difference between Brahminism and Buddhism (AFAICT) is the focus on > > ritual in Brahminism, and the relegation of renouncement to a later stage > > in life because duty demands certain obligations in earlier phases of > > life. > > How do you feel about the conversion of untouchables to Buddhism then? > Shouldn't that serve to help India preserve a sense of duty, integrity > and immunity to temptation of material recompense?
True - but let me make some un PC statements here. A whole lot of religions existed in the world before Christianity and Islam. But both Christianity and Islam are expansionist religions that have wiped out most other religions - some without trace. Buddhism has suffered exactly that fate in the face of Islam over vast areas in which it was followed Hinduism survived because it is not as pacifist as Buddism. Caste ridden Hinduism has no problem with fighting and killing if that is considered necessary - a characteristic it shares with Loving Christianity and Peaceful Islam. From a Hindu viewpoint, conversion to Buddhism is safe because Buddhism does not seek to tell its followers that other resligions are wrong and other Gods are false. The real problem with conversion comes from Christianity and Islam which both dicate that other religions are false, and both religions have track record of wiping out religions that predated them. I have a blog entry that records my views on this http://cybersurg.livejournal.com/2008/03/27/ shiv
