Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And if you consider how much different nations were affected by each other, before there was much written history, Asian countries have probably had a lot more influence on each other that we could know by written history. That's fascinating to me--how we have more in common than we could know about, and how that happened.
Yes, in the same way Christianity is a product of Middle Eastern culture, Buddhism is of Indian dharmic religions. Like Christianity was absorbed into and modified by European culture, so was Buddhism. The Hinduism in Bali is very different to that practised in India.
I agree but I want point out. Hinduism in India itself is very different from region to region. Hinduism in North India is different from the South. In the North its quite diluted and changed from its original ways due to the Islamic hordes invading and forcing their ideas and beliefs and the local populace. In the South, Hindusim is quite conservative due to the ability of that region to keep foreigners in check for a long time.
I agree but I want point out. Hinduism in India itself is very different from region to region. Hinduism in North India is different from the South. In the North its quite diluted and changed from its original ways due to the Islamic hordes invading and forcing their ideas and beliefs and the local populace. In the South, Hindusim is quite conservative due to the ability of that region to keep foreigners in check for a long time.
Well I know the temples.etc look different, but how do beliefs vary between north and south?
South is more conservative and represents Hinduism in its truest forms ( at least somewhat). Whereas Hinduism in North India is heavily diluted
Explain. I'd like specifics about what elements of Islam crept its way into Hinduism in northern India and diluted it. Islam made an impact on Indian culture, especially architecture; but there isn't much impact on Hindu beliefs outside of perhaps creating to conditions which led to the advent of Sikhism.
Explain. I'd like specifics about what elements of Islam crept its way into Hinduism in northern India and diluted it. Islam made an impact on Indian culture, especially architecture; but there isn't much impact on Hindu beliefs outside of perhaps creating to conditions which led to the advent of Sikhism.
I didn't say Islam crept into Hinduism in North India. The impact on Hinduism was the Muslim invasions in North India. So you think hinduism was the reason why Sikhism?
Skanda(Kartikeya) purana is the longest of the 18 major puranas. Most of this is set near Kashi and Orissa and not Tamil Nadu. Also Skanda was worshipped even in the extreme north, during and after the age of the Kushans(1st century AD). Kalidasa has a whole epic poem 'Kumarasambhavam' in Sanskrit on Kartik.
So the worship of Kartik and his legends were prevalent even in the north in the past. Most of the Hindu worship in the north is centered around Ram,Krishna and Shiva. In the south Vishnu and Shiva are the prime Gods with other Gods being patron deities for particular regions. Also the south seems to have many more temples, especially very large old temples, dedicated to many Gods with the main God being Vishnu or Shiva.
These differences exist today primarily because the influence of Islam was more widespread in the North. Most major temples in the north were destroyed and looted over the centuries. The south too suffered similar raids and destruction, but not on the same scale. Temples in the south had an important role in preserving the complex philosophies, mythologies as well as traditional history of Indians as told by Indians. With the destruction of temples, a lot of these traditions died in the north.
I want to clarify that I am not trying to create a north vs south debate here. Often these differences are attributed to some imaginary Aryan-Dravidian rivalry. But I am showing that the north too had the same traditions as the south and that the differences began to emerge only because of the Muslim invasions.
Last edited by Mistertee; 05-03-2014 at 04:39 PM..
You've given a supposed causation for "dilution," but haven't given any specific examples to help support your assertion. Temples didn't and don't play as important a role in Hinduism as Buddhism did in India, and their destruction caused more political and social grievance rather than religious disruption or "dilution." You're also ignoring the fact that most of southern India was at one point or another ruled by Muslim rulers and has substantial Muslim minorities in certain areas as well.
Hinduism is fairly organic and has gone through changes throughout history and has always had a history of regionally based and even individually based variation. Saying one form is more "pure" or less diluted is like saying Eastern Orthodoxy is a more "pure" form of Christianity than Protestantism because it it hasn't gone through many changes in about 1,500 some odd years. It works fine as a personal opinion, but it isn't exactly an academic conclusion.
Genetically, I think the chinese have intermixed with the native population more than ethnic groups from the subcontinent. That is just what I think, I could be wrong.
You've given a supposed causation for "dilution," but haven't given any specific examples to help support your assertion. Temples didn't and don't play as important a role in Hinduism as Buddhism did in India, and their destruction caused more political and social grievance rather than religious disruption or "dilution." You're also ignoring the fact that most of southern India was at one point or another ruled by Muslim rulers and has substantial Muslim minorities in certain areas as well.
Hinduism is fairly organic and has gone through changes throughout history and has always had a history of regionally based and even individually based variation. Saying one form is more "pure" or less diluted is like saying Eastern Orthodoxy is a more "pure" form of Christianity than Protestantism because it it hasn't gone through many changes in about 1,500 some odd years. It works fine as a personal opinion, but it isn't exactly an academic conclusion.
Temples did and do play a major role. However, in the North many temple were destroyed. Southern India was not entirely under Muslim Rule. The muslim rulers that were able to rule large tracts were overthrown quite quickly in the South, whereas in the North, their power was consolidated longer. Islamic atrocities committed in North India cannot be found on such scale in South India.
The differences are regarding practice or lack of due to the destruction and devastation North India endured.
WHat kind of specific examples would you like. The destruction of universities, religious centers, temples and its remnants are what we have to go by. We have records of entire cities being slaughtered and leveled. Christianity? Do you know the Portuguese with Vatican approval went about destroying the practice of native Christians in India who lived there for almost 2000yrs by force!
Hinduism had to change to remain relevant at times. Buddhism was the greatest threat to Hinduism.
In modern India, everyone downplays the differences to unite all Hindus. The differences are not major though. It comes down to practice and Gods.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
