What is Existence (Satyam)?

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 India License.

What is "Sat"?

Origin of Atheism in India

नासदासीन नो सदासीत तदानीं नासीद रजो नो वयोमापरो यत | 

किमावरीवः कुह कस्य शर्मन्नम्भः किमासीद गहनं गभीरम ||  - Rigveda 10:129:1

THEN was not non-existent (Asatyam) nor existent (Satyam): there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it. What covered in, and where? and what gave shelter? Was water there, unfathomed depth of water?

The primary and most fundamental attribute of "Sat" which is acceptable by all philosophies in India (including Naastika ones like Buddhism and Jainism) is the one that "Exists" in all spaces and times. The Chidaananda attribute is strictly Vedantic interpretation of reality. In a way, the very term "Brahman" is one-sided description of reality. How? Nasadiya answers in following manner.

कामस्तदग्रे समवर्तताधि मनसो रेतः परथमं यदासीत | 

सतो बन्धुमसति निरविन्दन हर्दि परतीष्याकवयो मनीषा | - Rigveda 10:129:4

Thereafter rose Desire in the beginning, Desire, the primal seed and germ of Spirit. Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent.

Satya and Asatya are siblings - both came into existence together. The very "Idea" of "existence" comes with a corollary of "Non-Existence". Similarly vice-versa. Both these terms cannot exist without each other. In a way, this is also the origin of our "Saamkhya" philosophy. The sages here are describing a point when there was "Absolute Nothing".  This state of Absolute Nothingness (or what Buddha calls to as Shunyataa) is what is intriguing. 

तिरश्चीनो विततो रश्मिरेषामधः सविदासीत रेतोधाासन 

महिमान आसन सवधा अवस्तात परयतिः परस्तात - 10:129-5

Transversely was their severing line extended: what was above it then, and what below it? There were begetters, there were mighty forces, free action here and energy up yonder.

The term Brahman comes from the word-root "BRhat बृह" which means "expansion". One which "expands" is Brahma. One which expands extremely is "Para-Brahma" (usually they are used as synonyms.

This state of "absolute Nothingness" is what yogis, Saamkhyins, Buddhists, contemplate on. But hold on... Was there something even then? Can there be anything else which is more "fundamental" than "Existence"? Furthermore, if Brahman is "Satyam" (as proclaimed by Sri Adi Shankara) then what is "Asatyam"? And both "Satyam (Brahman) and "Asatyam" came into existence simultaneously (this is the "Ved-Vaakyam"). If we assume that time was there then (which isn't the case because the very concept of time requires a 3-D space which wasn't there. 

But for the ease of imagination (since our brains aren't evolved to run the simulations of such complexity to create images in mind) we assume that there is some axis relative to which all this is happening. So at point "X" satyam-Asatyam siblings are born. That means they weren't there "before that point". Thus the very term of "Satyam" is shown as "limited". And since Brahman == Satyam, this applies to Brahman as well. 

In this scenario, the factually correct statement would be "After that point X, Satyam (Brahman) refers to absolute and complete existence. As alluded in previous paragraph, Space-time came into existence after "Sat" came into existence. Thus Sat still holds true when it comes to its definition as "an entity which is changeless and existent in all spaces in all times". But what beyond/before that? Naasadiya leaves the question unanswered - 

को अद्धा वेद क इह पर वोचत कुत आजाता कुत इयंविस्र्ष्टिः | 

अर्वाग देवा अस्य विसर्जनेनाथा को वेद यताबभूव || RV 10:129:6

इयं विस्र्ष्टिर्यत आबभूव यदि वा दधे यदि वा न | 

यो अस्याध्यक्षः परमे वयोमन सो अङग वेद यदि वा नवेद ||RV 10:129:7

Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?

The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?

He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it,

Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, [b]he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not

All the Moksha-Maargas of India (aastika and naastika who delve this far) are in fact various approaches taken by different people in the quest to answer this riddle which the sages have put. Every body makes their bunch of assumptions and hypothesis and puts forth a theory. But there is always something which remains. Just as it is described in Purusha-sukta. Hence multiple approach is recommended in Upanishads. 

As far as Advaita is concerned, this is where the anomaly unfolds as both beginning and end. The necessity of the assumption of "Maya" is required here, and with that, we require a concept of "Maayaadhipati Ishwara". This is a very useful assumption (the assumption that Ishwara exists). I guess to be able to imagine this state of "nothingness", our brain needs to be secreting some weird and special neurotransmitters and chemicals in some special part. All the training by Yogis, the meditative practices, the mind-influencing drugs, is perhaps to induce this state in one's brain. It is one of the life-altering experiences (as described by sages). Yogis call it Kaivalya (Only-ness/Singularity), others call is Advaita, Shunyata (zero-ness), Moksha, nirvana, fanaa (by sufis). 

As many saints have said, Bhakti is the simplest way to induce this. You love something which is very grand so intensely that the state is induced and you experienced that which sages state in last two verses of Nasadiya Sukta but couldn't elaborate or explain. But corollary to this is that it would be difficult to be a Bhakta (lover in essence) after knowing that Ishwara (the beloved) is probably just an assumption. But Adi shankara, Santa Gnaaneshwara, Swami Vivekananda and many others have shown that it is possible.


In any case, the spirit of inquiry and scepticism shown in final two verses of Naasadiya Sukta is least common denominator and perhaps the "originator" for all the Indian religions and Indian way of life.

The song of the soul - Nirvana Shatkam

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 India License.

Nirvana Shatkam

मनो बुद्धि अहंकार चित्तानी नाहं

नच श्रोत्र जिव्हे नच घ्राण नेत्रे

नच व्योम भूमि न तेजो न वायु

चिदानंद रूपः शिवोहम शिवोहम ||1||

I am not mind, Intellect, Ego, and Seat of consciousness. Neither I am ear and tongue nor I am nose and eyes. Neither I am sky or earth nor I am power or wind. I am the eternal bliss, I am Shiva, the Auspicious.||1||

नच प्राण संज्ञो न वै पञ्चवायुः

न वा सप्तधातु: नवा पञ्चकोशः

न वाक्पाणिपादौ न च उपस्थ पायुः

चिदानंदरूप: शिवोहम शिवोहम ||2||

I am not the state of being alive or the five type of Vayu. Neither I am the seven elements constituting the body (Dhatu) nor I am the five sheaths which invest the soul. Neither I am voice, hand, or leg nor I am Genitals. I am the eternal bliss, I am Shiva, the Auspicious.||2||

नमे द्वेषरागौ नमे लोभ मोहौ

मदों नैव मे नैव मात्सर्यभावः

न धर्मो नचार्थो न कामो न मोक्षः

चिदानंदरूप: शिवोहम शिवोहम ||3||

I have not envy and passion nor greed and attachment. Neither I am intoxication nor I am jealous. And I am neither Dharma (righteousness,Duty), nor Artha (Material Wealth), Nor Kama (Desire), nor Moksha (Liberation). I am the eternal bliss, I am Shiv,the Auspicious.||3||

न पुण्यं न पापं न सौख्यं न दु:खं

न मंत्रो न तीर्थं न वेदों न यज्ञः

अहम् भोजनं नैव भोज्यम न भोक्ता

चिदानंद रूप: शिवोहम शिवोहम ||4||

There is nothing Punya (Virtuous deed), Paap (Vicious Deed), Saukhya (Wellbeing/Happiness), or Dukha (Grief) for me. Neither I am Hymns nor any Holy Place nor I am the Veda nor the oblation. I am not the Experience, nor the Experiencer nor the Experienced. I am eternal bliss, I am Shiv,the Auspicious.||4||

नमे मृत्युशंका नमे जातिभेद:

पिता नैव मे नैव माता न जन्म

न बंधू: न मित्रं गुरु: नैव शिष्यं

चिदानंद रूप: शिवोहम शिवोहम ||5||

Neither I have the fear of death nor I have the difference between Races/Castes. Neither I have [any relation like] father, mother, nor I am born. I am not a relative, nor a friend, a teacher (Guru), or a student (Shisya) of anyone. I am the eternal bliss, I am Shiv,the Auspicious.||5||

अहम् निर्विकल्पो निराकार रूपो

विभुर्व्याप्य सर्वत्र सर्वेन्द्रियाणाम

सदा मे समत्वं न मुक्ति: न बंध:

चिदानंद रूप: शिवोहम शिवोहम ||6||

I am eternal and changeless, and lack all the qualities and form. I envelope all forms from all sides and am beyond the cognition of sense-organs. I am always in the state of equality — there is no liberation (Mukti) nor Bondage (Bandha). I am the eternal bliss state, I am Shiv, the Auspicious.||6||

- Adi Shankaracharya (8th century CE)

The depth of each word used in this masterpiece unravels as we go on learning the meanings of the verses. First 5 stanzas, Shankara describes all the attributes of physical and spritual world and says that the "I" of every person is beyond material and spiritual world. In last line of every stanza, poet says, "I" actually is - "चिदानंद रूप: शिवोहम शिवोहम" - "I am the eternal bliss state, I am Shiv, the Auspicious" .

If we look at the meaning of this recurring phrase closely, we face a deluge of information and we grasp the flight of the creativity of this man.

नन्द - Nanda - propitious

आ - Aa - Towards, from all sides

Hence,

आनंद - Aananda - Propitiousness from all sides...

चित्त - Chitta - Derived from word root - चित् - Chit - to percieve.

Same word root forms the word - चेतना - Chetana which is power of perception.

चित्त - Chitta becomes faculty/tool of perception. Energy which makes perception possible is Chitta. It should be noted that there are two conditions for this. Perception is only possible in presence of

a) Subject (one who is percieving - self or "I")

b) Object (one which is being percieved - universe)

An energy which makes perception possible is the one which is responsible for existence of both a and b.

Is Chitta (चित्त) same as Maanas(मानस) or mind?

No... it is something which transcends mind... Perception is linked with ego ("I") OR ahamkar(अहंकार) OR aatman(आत्मा)... Without sense of 'I', there can be no perception... So, looking closely, chitta(चित्त) is that feature which enables perception, that is 'I' or the Aatman(आत्मा)... Chetana(चेतना) is power of perception which comes from 'Chitta'(चित्त) and enables us to 'Chit'(चित्) or to percieve.

रूप - Roop - Image

Shiva - शिव - Auspicious.

Thus, चिदानंद रूप: शिवोहम शिवोहम actually translates as "I am that auspicious form of Chitta (Energy) which is surrounded by propitiousness from all sides". In other words, state of complete and perfect equianimity where all duality vanishes and complete Advaita (Non-duality) is established with Kaivalya (Singularity).

One of the greatest philosophical gems ever produced in India and one of the masterpiece of Adi Shankaracharya....

When NATO leaves Afghanistan after 15-20 years...

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 India License.

What will happen when this ongoing war on terror ends? When will it end? Will it end with division and disintegration of Pakistan and subsequent removal of NATO forces from the region? Will it really end so easily? These are difficult question which have evolved from complex interrelations amongst history, philosophy, religion and sociology over at least a thousand years. Hence, to ponder upon the possible solution to this problem from Indian point of view, one needs to understand the influence of sociology and religion on history of India in past 1400 years.

The Dharmic religions have been the peculiarity of Indian sociology. Irrespective of their faith in Vedas, all of them emphasize on attainment of Dharma (Righteousness/Duty/Basic nature), Artha, Kaama and Moksha/nirvana as the key to a successful life. The rewards associated with this life or the next one, are based upon the the theory of Karma, which again is common in all of the Indian paths.

It is interesting to note the trends in Indian history with respect to Islam -its arrival and its demise from the place of socio-political supremacy in India. Before arrival of Islam, it is worth noting that Indian philosophical scenario was in particular dominated by agnostic and atheistic philosophies. Of course, theism was also prominently found as Bhakti movement traces its origin in 500 AD in Tamil Nadu's Alvar saints. However, agnostic and atheist philosophies were also very much popular amongst Indian intellectuals. For example, Saamkhya, Yoga, Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Mimamsa, Buddhism, Jain and others were the major atheist/agnostic philosophies in pre-Islamic India. Vaishnava and Shaiva and Shakta were major theist philosophies dominant in India. So was Tantra, which is difficult to categorize as it has the elements of both.

From 640 AD, Arabs started invading India and were defeated continuously for about 70 years until the successful incursion of Mohd bin Qasim. Even after Arab occupation of Sindh in 711, Islam was defeated continuously for about 300 years by the chain of Rajput Kings of western India. This was achieved not only by the means of victories on battle fields, but also on sociological arena by facilitating the conversion of neo-converts of Islam back to Indian religions, by rulers such as Bappa Rawal and scholars such as Deval Rishi and Bhashyakaar Medhatithi. Thus, it was an all round retaliation which successfully defeated Arabs. It must be noted that it was at the Zenith of Arab conquests when Indians defeated them. 

Meanwhile, an extremely interesting sociological shift is seen in Indian society with rise of Adi Shankaracharya. This man single handedly defeated all the atheistic and agnostic philosophies, both Astika (believers in Vedas - Samkhya, Nyaya, Mimamsa, Vaisheshika) and Nastika (non-believers in Vedas - Buddhism, Jain). There is seen a significant shift in psyche of Indian intellectuals and subsequently Indian population towards theism from 800 AD. As a part of weird co-incidence, this shift actually helped in clubbing different Indian religions and philosophies together and unknowingly facilitating in equipment of Indian society to Islamic onslaught which began in 1100's with Ghurid incursions. It is to be noted that although Mehmud of Ghazni invaded India, he did not cause much damage since his son was conclusively defeated by Rajputs in battle of Bahraich in 1033 AD. The converts were again taken back to Indian religions which had become more God-Centred by then, thanks to efforts of Adi Shankara. Muslims could not invade India for about 160 years after their defeat at Bahraich and subsequent reconversion of most of the converts back to Indian faiths.

Thus we see a pattern here. Just before Indian mainland was hit by Islam, Adi Shankara revolutionized Indian sociology and increased the importance of the concepts like God, Faith, and overall theist belief in India, giving a back seat to Free-Rationalism seen in India. Which is corroborated by the fact that when Islamic supremacy was removed in India, the reformist movements sprung up which worked in order to shift the Hindu people away from extreme faith and encouraged free-rationalism. I consider this as fortunate coincidence which helped immensely in saving the identity of India. In medieval times, theism helped a lot in rallying Hindus in the name of god against Islamic invaders. Those people who remained atheists like Buddhists from NWFP and eastern bengal, were converted en masse to Islam, thus changing the demographics of the region permanently. The effect of which was seen in 1947 as partition of India.

The problem of Islam has to be dealt with in similar fashion, but with new modifications in Indian religions. The shift away from faith and towards free rationalism is essential as it will keep the Indian society free and progressive. At the same time, sharp display of allegiance towards Indian religions by Hindus should be shown in order to encourage the assimilation of Muslims in Indian system of religions. The assimilation of Indian muslims in mainstream Hindu society should be encouraged as, philosophically, there is no problem for a Islamic core philosophy to be practised in India AS LONG AS IT IS KEPT STRICTLY PERSONAL. Indian religions by default at secular. 

For good or for evil, the moment when NATO decides to leave Afghanistan, the situation would be extremely serious in India. Given the current political and cultural instability of GOI and Hinduism respectively, the primary response of India towards the problem of Pakistan will be that of profound confusion as it is today. I guess, since India and Hindus do not have answer towards solving the problem of Pakistan and Islam respectively in subcontinent, their current reaction is instinctively based upon buying as much time as they can and wishing maximum possible infliction of damage on Pakistan by NATO. I guess, if NATO stays in Pak-Afghan region for 12-15 years more (which most probably they will), they will end up exhausting and squandering most of their wealth and lots of their men in the region. 

The direct beneficiaries of this scenario will be China and Islamic world and in weird way, India. I consider this situation similar to one in deccan in late 1600's when 27 year long Deccan conquest of Aurangjeb ended up weakening Mughal empire and strengthening Marathas. Now, who will play the role similar to the one which Marathas played in 1700's is matter of great interest. 

One thing for sure, if NATO forces are unsuccessful in defeating taliban in Pakistan-Afghanistan region (which most probably they will, since they are yet to clearly identify their enemy), even if they succeed in fracturing and dividing Pakistan, the devastation caused by them will be a catalyst for the formation of new Islamic state which will be modelled upon the Caliphate. Taliban is a movement, an ideology which cannot be defeated by weapons alone. It has to be tackled by ideas, a crucial point which is missing in the apparent War On Terror by the West. Without participation of India, West cannot win in south Asia. And India cannot win unless Hinduism finds a way of successfully assimilating the Muslims in the subcontinent. This process will take at least 60-80 years, perhaps more but definitely not less.

India and Islamic federation backed up by China, both might have a fair chance to rise over the ruins of defeated West, just like Marathas rose on the ruins of Mughals. The odds will be in favour of Caliphate, given the laziness of Indians. However, if by then Indian religions find a satisfactory answer for assimilation of muslims in mainstream Indian society ending their alienation, India will rise for sure.

The direct consequence of battle of Rajasthan (Rajputs Vs Arabs) and simultaneous rise of Adi Shankara on India was 400 years of complete stability, prosperity and independence to India. India's only hope is to deliver a similar performance again.

Brahma Satyam Jagat Mithya

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 India License.

Brahma satyam, jagat mithya is one of the hallmarks of Adi shankara's philosophy. The usage of jagat being Mithya is later, an addition by Adi Shankara. There is reference of the world being referred to as a MithyA entity by any of his predecessors.

The meaning of this popular phrase is beautifully enfolded when we look at the acutual meanings of the term involved. The terms involved in the phrase are-

Brahman - ब्रह्मन - literally, it means one which expands.

Brahman is the most fundamental physical entity which makes up universe.Using modern physical terms as an analogy, it can be said that quantum fields which is hypothesized to make up everything in universe is Brahman. Now quantum fields may or may not be brahman.If it is proven that quatum fields do make up everything in this world including space-time and dimensions then it will be proven that quantum field is Brahman.If not, then perhaps there something even more fundamental in this universe than quantum fields.

It was just that they expected, just like modern physicists, universe is madeup of some fundamental entity. Indian philosophers did not inquire into the physical nature of that fundamental entity. Practically, it was impossible as they were bronze age people with bronze age technology. Hence they simply named this expected fundamental physical entity as Brahman, without inquiring much about its nature.

Satyam - one which is eternal, changeless and existent

Jagat (Universe/World)- This is an interesting term to think upon.

Jagat - Ja + Ga

Ja - jaayate (to arise, originate, born)

ga - gamana: - ga - (one which goes/moves or changes)

It means, one which is born (janana) out of gati (speed/change) is Jagata: That is Universe is said to have come into existent due out of constant change.

Mithya - has word root as 'Mith'. This is the most interesting and illuding term on this phrase.

As given by Apte Sanskrit Online dictionary, Mith - to associate with; to unite; to hurt; to understand; to wrangle; to grasp

Thus, when we apply these meanings to the phrase Brahma Satyam Jagat Mithya, following meanings are deduced.

1) Brahman is existent, jagat is associated (with Brahman)

2) Brahman is Existent, jagat is united (with Brahman)

3) Brahman is existent, jagat is hurt (does not make sense)

4) Brahman is existent, jagat is understood by (brahman)

5) Brahman is existent, jagat is wrangled/tended/herded (by brahman) (wrangle = to herd, to tend)

6) Brahman is existent, jagat is grasped by brahman

The popular translation of Brahman is truth and world is false is in fact a disbelief.I guess the word root Mith which makes up the word MithyA, is also the word root for Mithuna and Maithuna (sexual intercourse), which again is related to union or being associated with.

When translated all the words, the phrase becomes-

"That one which originates/exists due to constant change (jagat) is associated with/United with/being tended by (mithyA) Brahman which is changeless existence (satya) - Brahma Satyam, jagat MithyA..."

There is one more meaning of word MithyA - to be made up/ to fall in place. 

Perhaps the word Mith is originated from same Proto-Indo-European ancestor which also makes up the greek word (mythos). Mythos also means to be made up. From Mythos comes Mythology. 

When applied this meaning, the phrase translates as

"That which arises out of change (jagat) is a phenomenon of things falling in place/made up, where as Brahman is changeless existence."

There is a catch though. This meaning is not corroborated from any online sanskrit dictionary, but I distinctly remember reading it in some authentic source. 

Furthermore, the interpretation of word Mithya determines whether a person is advaitin OR dvaitin OR vishishtadvaitin.

If Mithya is taken as United, then a person is advaitin (brahman and jagat are united and satya).  This is in sync with Sarvam Khalu Idam Brahma (everything that exists is Brahman)

If mithya is takes as association, then the person is vishishtadvaitin. (brahman is satya and jagat is associated with satya, but not completely satya). 

If mithya is taken as wrangled (to tend), then, he becomes a dvaitin (brahman is satya, jagat is being wrangled/tended/herded (by brahman)). Here, World is being herded by the separate herder that is God.

Thus we can see, differential interpretation of this phrase by Shankara eventually ends up in conjuring vastly different world views towards life and universe. I pay my homage to great genious, Adi Shankaracharya...

Survival of Hinduism in Islamic India...

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 India License।

Prolonged Abrahmic onslaught is one of the definitive feature of Indian History. Ever since conquest of Sindh by Mohd bin Qasin in 711 AD, although partially, India has been subjected to Islamic brutality. Arabs could not conquer India from 700's to 1000's. This was the time when they reached their Zenith with Caliphate stretching from Indus in east to Spain in west. Almost all land in between these two points was completely converted to Islam in these years. Their past whitewashed and identity lost. The only identity that these regions showed thereafter was that it was an Islamic Land. Dar ul Islam.

Although Arabs could not conquer India, the neo-converts from central Asia like Pathans, Mughals, Turks, invaded India and established their dominion. Although most of India was eventually brought under Islamic rule, somehow, Islam could not repeat the results of Persia, Egypt, North Africa in India. The complete Islamization of India failed.

This was due to certain inherent characters of Hindu religions. One very basic tenet of Vedic philosophy which makes up the backbone of Hinduism is, Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma. - Everything is brahman.. And second is, Eko Sat vipra bahudha vadanti - Truth is one, different people refer to it by different names.

It is very much logical to compare Zoroastrianism with religions belonging to Hindu conglomerate. As both of them had to face the sword of Islam, the results in these two lands were completely different.

Zoroastrianism is a monotheistic religion with a strong center based upon the ultimate reverence of Ahura Mazda as one true god and ultimate reverence to the words of Zaratushtra as a final word.

Hinduism is not such centralized religion. It is amorphous religion. A hindu can easily say that allah is god. what he will think is, we call it vishnu, they call it allah.

Arabs attacked on this center of Zoroastrianism. Hence it fell. There is no such central authoritative underbelly in Hinduism. Hence, it survived. Arabs could never conquer India. They just conquered Part of Sindh for few centuries and were replaced by Sumer Rajputs.

This is the fact for all Monotheistic religions, especially, Islam and Christianity and early Zoroastrianism. Disprove prophet and Koran, and entire Islam falls into shackles. Disprove the divinity of Christ, and entire set up of Christianity falls down to nothing. Hinduism and to some extent Judaism have shown the resilience and lack of such soft underbelly under the hard shell. This is what I mean when I say that Hinduism is amorphous religion which changes with time.

Unfortunately for Zoroastrians, the Arab juggernaut fell on the soft underbelly. The tough shellof military might was weakened due to wars with Romans. So, Iran had to face a tough time.

There were many changes that were introduced in Hindu society as response to Islamic onslaught. The morality in warfare hit Indians very badly too. Perhaps, that was a concept which was outdated when Islam fell upon the world. Hinduism moved ahead, and became experts in the so called immoral warfare too. Shivaji is brilliant example. So are Kings of Vijaynagar.

The changes, good or bad, that got introduced in Hindu society were as follows.

Development of Caste System.

You may be surprised when I say that caste system strengthened as response to Islamic invasion. There is subtle different between Varna System that is mentioned in Vedic literature and present caste system.

Varna of a person is not based upon his birth, but upon his basic nature and more importantly, the profession he takes up. So Shudra's being considered as dirt of feet is all crap. Nothing of that sort is mentioned in Shrutis.

Caste, as we know today, is a closely knit community which interbreed and gives a legitimacy to a person. The punishment of being Outcast was more painful than death penalty. Because, the very identity of person finishes off, when he is excommunicated.

Let me give u one example. The Catholic Christians of Goa proselytized more atrociously than Muslims. A priest used to come in village, and put pieces of bread and wine in the wells of people. Mostly, in the wells of the people from lower castes. After the people of that community had drunk the water from that particular well, it was declared that the community has been converted to Christianity and have been saved from Eternal Damnation. Of course, other forceful measures were always at disposal.

This resulted in people of different castes uniting and securing their own water sources. The converted people became a new caste in themselves and had to interbreed as no other person will indulge with them in food sharing OR marital alliances. So, today, we find castes in converted Muslims and Christians too who have similar thoughts of social heirarchy as their Hindu Counterparts have. I have a Friend who is Roman Catholic from goa and is a Kayastha Prabhu. She said, she will marry only to a person who is Prabhu-catholic. This is how, it limits the overall spread alien religion to other communities in such tightly knit medieval society.

Hence, although an evil practice in Hindu society, Caste helped a lot indirectly in preventing the mass conversions to Abrahmic faiths. This system was not always so evil. It grew evil. But, given the features of Hindu society, if it can be incorporated when it was required, it can also be thrown out when it is no longer required. The works of great people like Savarkar, Ambedkar, Phule and many others initiated this process. As a result, the influence of caste system is greatly reduced as compared to 1800's. In urban India, caste is not at all cared about, except during arranged marriages. In love marriages, who cares about the caste.

Second most important reason of survival of Hinduism ability of Hinduism to produce time and again the radical reformers who shape up the society.

There were people like Bappa Rawal in Rajputana, who organised reconversion of Muslims to Hindus. Many Muslims were reconverted to Hinduism by many reformers time and again. Shivaji and other Marathas sponsored such ceremonies from state's fund.

The founders of Vijaynagar empire, Harihar rai and Bukka Rai were forcibly converted to Islam. Vidyaranya Swami, the Shankaracharya, converted them back to Hinduism, and they founded one of the greatest Hindu Empires in medieval India.

Then there was Khushro Khan of Khilji dynasty, who proclaimed to be a Hindu Emperor of India after a coup and usurping the power from son of Allauddin Khilji.

There are many such examples.

Thirdly, the disparity between Hindus and Buddhists was very important reason. It is well documented fact by many people including Al beruni, that Buddhists offered very little resistance to marauding Islamic hordes. The places where they were in majority, like Afghanistan and Bengal, quickly got converted to Islam.

Sufism was very important factor as well. Hinduism developed Bhakti Movement as a response to Sufism. So, it did not have as much effect on Hindus, as it had on Buddhists.

Hinduism changes demographically as well as with time. The Hindus of Ajmer had no issues in visiting Dargah of Moinuddin Chisti. It is against the principle of Islam to worship a man. But, Hindus were OK with it.

The inherent social mobility of Hindu society is also responsible. When Elite Kshtriya people of India died out with Guptas fighting Huns, rajputs were elevated to the status of Kshtriyas.

Similarly with Marathas. Shivaji had no relation whatsoever with rajputs. If you have read my article on Shivaji, his grandfather was ordinary bargir who did not even own a horse. But, Shivaji was coronated as Kshtriya King and thus heralded the new era of Hindu revival.

Many castes which can be apparently called as Shudras were elevated to Kshatriya hood. Many Brahmin people denounced their Brahminism and became Kshtriya. Most famously, the Peshwas and their Brahmin sardars.

Other castes like that of Shephards (Holkars), farmers (Scindhias), and others became to be known as Kshtriyas after they proved their mettle.

Thus we see that, there was always some one who took the place of the line that fell in previous onslaught. This inherent mobility of Hindu society and ability to change with time was the main reason of Hindu survival in India, Islamic OR christian.

This does not demean the attrocities committed upon hindus by Muslims and Christians. But, Hindus outlasted all of them. Today, average Muslim society is far lagging behind the average Hindu society in terms of education and openness of mind.

It is seen from the trend all over the world in all times that if left alone, Hindus tend to prosper along with others peacefully. Followers of Christianity and Islam usually can't..

According to V S Naipaul, Islam is a Arabic Nationalist Movement. Somehow, every muslim is forced to revere the Arabic lands, even if he is not even remotely associated with Arabia.  Although the invading Arabs were marauders, they were more concerned with having a cultural impact of Islam on the cultures they conquered. Look at Iran, Egypt and entire North Africa, and medieval Spain. All these cultures lost their very identity due to Arabic Invasion. All of them were molded in Arabic Culture. So such an extent that Egyptians consider themselves as Arabs and forget their own glorious heritage. So is the case with Iran, except for Shia-Sunni Problem.

So was the case with Arabs who conquered Samarkand and central Asia. But, most of the central asians were tribals. So, the Central Asian Muslims right from Sabaktijin to Ahmadshah Abdali, were relatively less cultured than Arabs, and definitely less cultured than Hindus. So, although, they tried to follow the tenets of Islam as they understood it, by destroying the temples, killing people, forcible conversions by sword OR blackmail, imposition of Jaziya. They were more in Awe with India. Be it Mughals Or their predecessors.

But, they could not destroy the culture. And irony of Muslims in India is, they could not Destroy Hindu Culture in thousand year stay. Nor they have assimilated in Hindu Culture like Huns, Kushans, Scythians, greeks and others. That is why they are suffering from such huge identity crisis.

Jainism remained a faith of Classes.. It was not a religion of masses like Hinduism (in all its forms) and Buddhism (Once upon a time for short period). Secondly, it blended into Hinduism beautifully and did not pose itself as an idealogical threat to Hinduism.

Thirdly, there are few instances wherein Buddhists helped invaders due to religious allegiance. Most famous example is Menander OR Milinda, a bactrian greek invader who conquered region all the way up to Ayodhya and Buddhist emperor of Magadh, Brihadratha Maurya, did nothing. Pushyamitra Sunga had to carry out a coup to replace this dysfunctional monarch and defeat Menander.

Hence, Buddhism was virtually non existent in Mainland India from 1300's to 1956. Ambedkar converted to Buddhism and resurrected it in India. Most of Buddhists were converted to Islam in Bengal and Northwest Frontier as they offered very little resistance to Invading Muslims. This Buddhist complacency is seen time and again in Ancient phase of Indian History and India has paid heavy price for this.

Jainism simply did not grow that big and huge as Buddhism. So its fall was not very complete and it survived in form of few communities in Western India. I wonder, many jains today are gujaratis. However, many holy Jain places are in Karnataka like Shravan Belagola.

Lastly, Hinduism (in all its forms) does not proselytize as much as Abrahmic faiths. The conflict was mainly ideological, and these two religions were vanquished by means of soft power, instead of hard power.. They were assimilated in mainstream and were allowed to maintain their distinct identity as well.. Buddha became 9th incarnation of Vishnu. Krishna became a Teerthankara of Jain as well. Krishna's second Guru, Ghor Angirasa, was a Jain teerthankar himself.

All these characteristics present in Dharmic tradtions of Hindu-Conglomerate, enabled the survival of Hinduism in one of the worst phases of Indian history.