01-28-2007, 08:39 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Bharatvarsh+Jan 28 2007, 01:22 AM-->QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Jan 28 2007, 01:22 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Arankanwal (Aranya means waste in Sanskrit, Kamal is Lotus),<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Digvijay, Aranya means forest, that is why Rama's time in the forest is called Aranya Khanda, it may have 2 diff meanings but as far I know it only means forest, any Sanskrit experts here who can answer this?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bharat,
Aranya also means wasteland/wilderness and people living in the desert (Marwar is Marusthali i.e a land where survival is very tough because of desert and extreme temperatures) thought there's was the wasteland. And of course lotus is even more rare and hence the name "lotus of the (wilderness=desert)", Arankanwal.
<!--QuoteBegin-Bharatvarsh+Jan 28 2007, 01:22 AM-->QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Jan 28 2007, 01:22 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In India, Hindu religion has no concept of conversion. One has to be a born Hindu. (Though of late as a reaction to conversion of tribals by missionaries some Hindu groups have concocted a recipe to make a person Hindu!)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not true, conversion has a long history, Shivaji reconverted Netaji Palkar and Balaji Nimbalkar, Swami Vidyaranya reconverted both Harihar and Bukka who founded the Vijayanagara kingdom, the Devala Smriti has precise instructions on reconverting those who want to come back, the Ahom's arrived late into Asom but were slowly Hinduised under the influence of preachers like Sankara Deva, so conversion has a long history but was not widely used until the 19th century.
[right][snapback]63643[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes conversions did happen but the recipes were localised and were not universal. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu also effected many conversions but it did not sustain. Even today the rajputs who converted to Islam have approached the Hindu Rajput Mahasabha that they would like to return to Hinduism but the sticking point is turning out to be whether Hindu rajputs would intermarry with them. Answer so far is no. Similar feeling ran through in olden times and Hindu did not effect large scale reconversions even when they could.
On the other hand Sikhs had no such qualms. After winning a battle Sikhs would give two choices to the muslims: sword or Sikhism. Muslims left there religion in droves. That is why sikh history is replete with names like: Ali Singh etc.
-Digvijay
Digvijay, Aranya means forest, that is why Rama's time in the forest is called Aranya Khanda, it may have 2 diff meanings but as far I know it only means forest, any Sanskrit experts here who can answer this?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bharat,
Aranya also means wasteland/wilderness and people living in the desert (Marwar is Marusthali i.e a land where survival is very tough because of desert and extreme temperatures) thought there's was the wasteland. And of course lotus is even more rare and hence the name "lotus of the (wilderness=desert)", Arankanwal.
<!--QuoteBegin-Bharatvarsh+Jan 28 2007, 01:22 AM-->QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Jan 28 2007, 01:22 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In India, Hindu religion has no concept of conversion. One has to be a born Hindu. (Though of late as a reaction to conversion of tribals by missionaries some Hindu groups have concocted a recipe to make a person Hindu!)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not true, conversion has a long history, Shivaji reconverted Netaji Palkar and Balaji Nimbalkar, Swami Vidyaranya reconverted both Harihar and Bukka who founded the Vijayanagara kingdom, the Devala Smriti has precise instructions on reconverting those who want to come back, the Ahom's arrived late into Asom but were slowly Hinduised under the influence of preachers like Sankara Deva, so conversion has a long history but was not widely used until the 19th century.
[right][snapback]63643[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes conversions did happen but the recipes were localised and were not universal. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu also effected many conversions but it did not sustain. Even today the rajputs who converted to Islam have approached the Hindu Rajput Mahasabha that they would like to return to Hinduism but the sticking point is turning out to be whether Hindu rajputs would intermarry with them. Answer so far is no. Similar feeling ran through in olden times and Hindu did not effect large scale reconversions even when they could.
On the other hand Sikhs had no such qualms. After winning a battle Sikhs would give two choices to the muslims: sword or Sikhism. Muslims left there religion in droves. That is why sikh history is replete with names like: Ali Singh etc.
-Digvijay