How can we encourage our kids to go to temple more?

[Yamaka]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

A relevent incidence which I cosider to be posted here.

I had a chance to converse with a well known psychologist who is a strong non believer of GOD.
He told me that most of the patient with depression has no friends to share his problems,or either
not having a responsible and well wishing companion to share his burden either wife or parents.
But a person who has unquestionabe faith(he emphasized the word Unquestionable)in GOD mostly
avoid coming to me.The reason he weeps before the statue which he believes is hearing him.
His repeated repent before the statue make his
heart light and he feels so.That is why I find that class is less in number coming to me.Eventhough
I am a non believer I have portrait of all Gods in my room it is a kind of therapy to cure

Dear wrongan:

If your conclusion is that the NEED for GOD and Religion is purely psychological, I agree with you.

There are billions of people in the world who NEED psychological help.

My only other view is, even with this God and Religion, STILL people are psychologically disturbed!

Nice to know that you are one of the Non-Believers (about 2.5 billions) in the world today.

Cheers.

 

[Yamaka]

Dear Sri Yamaka,

I have as well as Srimathi Renuka Ji already explained my analogy. I don't understand why you still question my motive? . I have nothing against homosexuality and honor it as a part of nature.

By the way, I was talking about the population of 'atheists'. And your number is not correct on that basis.

Most studies have shown that 'atheism' population is about 2 to 11% of the world population, depending on the definition of atheism. So my analogy to depict it as a minority human condition is very apt.

By the way, I think that as a Forum etiquette, it would be nice if you direct your discussions towards myself, if you are addressing the points I have raised, instead of addressing them to a third party. . That way, I can directly address your concerns.

Regards,
KRS

Dear KRS:

Yes, I read the reply you wrote to dear Guru on this matter.

As I indicated in my post, I am still a very puzzled person on that issue, hence I wrote it to him, because I thought he also felt something unusual from you! He is a part of this discussion.

Let's leave that issue aside,

My numbers are ALL the Atheists, Agnostics and other non-Believers and non-worshipers in the world. You may not believe that, that's fine with me....

By the way, of the Believers,

1. What % of them is thinking of the "Big Bang Theory" or "the sub-atomic particles" as manifestation of God?

2. As another astute scholar in this Forum observed, "Many Believers have their own definition of God, Religion and how God-worship works".

If you can measure the relative proportion of them, it would be very tiny comparing to the numbers I cite.

Anyway, I like your fully compromised view on God and SET... two entirely opposite CONCEPTS working in unison!


More later...

Regards

 

[Yamaka]

Shri Y,
May be homos are due to wrath of god! But then god becomes fallible, doesn't he? He created those children thinking they would be very pious and normal humans but he did not succeed. Only two explanations can I imagine for this:

• God is creating humans as factory products and there are off-spec items coming out and god's quality control dept., is lousy!
• There is some power above god and it controls the results of even god's actions; god proposes but that power disposes, so to say!

Either way god is in a very unenviable situation

Dear Sangom:

I enjoy reading your posts... you have a way of making things lucid and simple!

Keep writing...

Regards

Y

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri Yamaka,

You said: Anyway, I like your fully compromised view on God and SET... two entirely opposite CONCEPTS working in unison!

This is actually funny! . There is no compromise involved at all. By the way, do you know that in Hinduism we have a fully developed concepts developed based on logic and reasoning to examine nature? I am sure other religions have developed them as well.

There are two other items I want to clarify:
1. Atheists can not claim Agnostics, people who do not worship in the way traditional religions prescribe etc. as their own. They are rooted in the belief that God either exists or they do not know and do not care, unlike atheism, which flatly states that God force/entity does not exist. Big difference! On your counting, you would include Buddhism and Jainism in your count! So, if you count the atheists again, charitably, it is about 11% of the population.

2. Viewing faith in God as a psychological defect is not correct. Of course faith sustains majority of people in whatever form suitable to their bent of mind, but spirituality is part and parcel of the make up of a human being.

Regards,
KRS

 

[Yamaka]

Dear Sri Yamaka,

You said: Anyway, I like your fully compromised view on God and SET... two entirely opposite CONCEPTS working in unison!

This is actually funny! . There is no compromise involved at all. By the way, do you know that in Hinduism we have a fully developed concepts developed based on logic and reasoning to examine nature? I am sure other religions have developed them as well.

There are two other items I want to clarify:
1. Atheists can not claim Agnostics, people who do not worship in the way traditional religions prescribe etc. as their own. They are rooted in the belief that God either exists or they do not know and do not care, unlike atheism, which flatly states that God force/entity does not exist. Big difference! On your counting, you would include Buddhism and Jainism in your count! So, if you count the atheists again, charitably, it is about 11% of the population.

2. Viewing faith in God as a psychological defect is not correct. Of course faith sustains majority of people in whatever form suitable to their bent of mind, but spirituality is part and parcel of the make up of a human being.

Regards,
KRS

Dear KRS:

1. As my previous post said, there are many different shades and forms of Believers: I believe that those sub-fraction of people who think God is the "Creator of Big Bang" or "Creator of sub-atomic particles" or "Religiosity = Sprituality = Science" is extremely small (about a million out seven billion people in the world.)

2. In my estimate,

All forms and shades (AFS) of Hinduism = About 1 billion people
AFS of Islam = About 1.5 billion people
AFS of Christianity = About 2.0 billion people
AFS of Non-Believers = About 2.5 billion people in the world. I have ignored the Jews, Buddists and Jains as very small fraction.

In my view, you just can't group all the Believers into one Mega Group because, their Theology is quite contradictory to one another and thus they are ENEMIES rather than FRIENDS who can live under the same roof!

You can give your estimate.. and we will have the pleasure of comparing our notes! Lol.

3. My understanding of Hinduism is from reading and observing Hindus around me in my village, then in Madura College (a Brahmin College) and talking exhaustively to my Agno-Theistic wife (a TB from Trichy). Thus I learnt the following as the core essence of Hinduism:

1. Pan-Theistic Ishwara (as opposed the polytheistic Puranic Gods of Hinduism) is ALL Knowing, ALL Powerful - Without God's Will nothing moves in this Universe. Thus, All activities are pre-ordained.

No Free Will. FATALISM is the norm of the day.

2. Janma Poorva Karma is the operational theology which elaborates the need for Rebirth and Reincarnation of Soul.

3. Prayers, Poojas and Bhajans are the ways to reach this Almighty for solace, hope and comfort.

My wife believes that anyone who does not accept these THREE can't be considered as serious Hindu.

Yes, as a child I was indoctrinated into Islam, which I disowned at the age of 20-21, as an independent Adult thinker! LOL.

More later....

Regards.

Y

 

[nannilam_balasubramanian]

Elders should start telling stories of importance of Temples to children and teens viz. kings
name, palace and its history, in which century it was built, an ancient temple, awesome
lotus flowers tank on the side of the temple, wooden temple cars built with so many crafts,
skills, etc. festivals conducted in the temple, some temples have bird sanctuary around,
Tall temple towers structural beauty, the pictures drawn on the ceiling of the temples,
sculptures on the pillars, some have good play ground, wide streets around the temple
where procession takes place, general discussion about the temple's activities, temple
visit fulfills our spiritual needs, temple is a holy place, etc. Besides, we should tell the
children, if one has a good habit, culture and manners, others will like it and appreciate
them, etc. Competitions like kolam, quiz programs, chanting of Bhagvad Geetha, Thirukural
and prominent Tamil poems, Sanskrit Slokas, etc can be organized to motivate the children
and create interest in them and give them attractive prizes. Above all, we can teach them
to keep sacred things in their hearts and the object behind that, etc.

Balasubramanian
Ambattur

 

[tks]

Dear KRS:

1. As my previous post said, there are many different shades and forms of Believers: I believe that those sub-fraction of people who think God is the "Creator of Big Bang" or "Creator of sub-atomic particles" or "Religiosity = Sprituality = Science" is extremely small (about a million out seven billion people in the world.)

2. In my estimate,

All forms and shades (AFS) of Hinduism = About 1 billion people
AFS of Islam = About 1.5 billion people
AFS of Christianity = About 2.0 billion people
AFS of Non-Believers = About 2.5 billion people in the world. I have ignored the Jews, Buddists and Jains as very small fraction.

In my view, you just can't group all the Believers into one Mega Group because, their Theology is quite contradictory to one another and thus they are ENEMIES rather than FRIENDS who can live under the same roof!

You can give your estimate.. and we will have the pleasure of comparing our notes! Lol.

3. My understanding of Hinduism is from reading and observing Hindus around me in my village, then in Madura College (a Brahmin College) and talking exhaustively to my Agno-Theistic wife (a TB from Trichy). Thus I learnt the following as the core essence of Hinduism:

1. Pan-Theistic Ishwara (as opposed the polytheistic Puranic Gods of Hinduism) is ALL Knowing, ALL Powerful - Without God's Will nothing moves in this Universe. Thus, All activities are pre-ordained.

No Free Will. FATALISM is the norm of the day.

2. Janma Poorva Karma is the operational theology which elaborates the need for Rebirth and Reincarnation of Soul.

3. Prayers, Poojas and Bhajans are the ways to reach this Almighty for solace, hope and comfort.

My wife believes that anyone who does not accept these THREE can't be considered as serious Hindu.

Yes, as a child I was indoctrinated into Islam, which I disowned at the age of 20-21, as an independent Adult thinker! LOL.

More later....

Regards.

Y

Dr Y -

I happen to come to this forum more than a few times this week and in scanning I was intrigued to learn that you were indoctrinated into Islam - what aspects of Islam made you disown it. I am curious about your views of Sharia laws since Sharia compliance of a country's laws is so important for many in the world.

While I dont want to intrude and let Dr KRS reply to you I thought I will say a few things.

- Atheism is not in the realm of logic & reasoning, and hence is a form of belief system

-Truth cannot be democratically determined by counting how many people subscribe to what kind of belief system. No belief system can point to truth since belief imply suspension of faculty of understanding. It is possible to logically understand that - "certain things can never be understood logically and perception"

- Hinduism may said to be based on Vedas - but you will not find any Hindu family having a book of Vedas like Koran you had when you were growing up. Not only they do not have any such thing, at best some may know how to recite a few verses in a recitation sense here and there.

- Since there are many ideas about who we are, what this world around us mean, and there are apparently contradictory ideas called Karma, Dharma, Moksha etc which do not have English words, most 'educated' people cannot make sense out of all this. This is not a case against them and they do not have time to learn. Even many new age 'teachers' have not done their due diligence to think through. Therefore the Hindu person make things up to fill the gaps in things that do not make sense. Even in our forum there are extreme views on both Theism and Anti Theism one can see people making things up. Your wife is no different.

- Tradition of Hindusim include everything under the unbrella - Temples for Sai Baba (a living person who was raised as a Muslim), Krishna, Rama etc. Ihave heard there is a temple of rats as well as temples for train robbers who have their own ethics . Even in this forum you have people talking about Hinduism and making things up on 'both sides of the aisle'

- Theism concept, in the Vedic view, has nothing to do with 'belief' in a personal God!

- Upanishads (Veda/Vedanta) which has to be taught and not preached accommodates the role of prayer - it may seem contradictory how notion of a personal God can even play a role in a subject that is all about understanding.

- Theism and Atheism do not have a Vedic basis - without proper infrastructure it is not possible to understand any of these statements.

- There is no place for Fatalism in Vedic view. It is all about free will without which concept of Dharma/Karma will not make sense. Most Hindus use the term 'Vidhi' incorrectly. While I have no proof, my conjecture is that it is a concept that has pervaded the world view in India due to 1000 years of Islamic rule. Vidhi is like Kismat that you may have been taught in Islam. However the way most people either practice or get manipulated by feudal logic of vidhi of poor by powerful ("you suffer because of your Karma of past lives and there is nothing you can do") is not based on Vedic teaching.

- There is no soul (as in Biblical sense)! There is only sole!

- Like Sri Vivekananda explains people go from one level of truth to another. Prayer, Bhajan, Mediation can be a starting point to condition one's mind. Concept of Moksha cannot be understood without infrastructure and it has nothing to do with reaching any Almighty or going to heaven or hell

- If there is no soul what happens at death in this Vedic view .. (Thodarum)

In short like millions of other Hindus the views of your wife as explained by you is incorrect.

Regards

 

[ozone]

I am sorry if I sound blunt here, but I want to express myself.

If we want to encourage people to continue being Hindus and have a sense of pride in being one, knowledge-able people should take the extra effort to help others understand their ignorance and give the chance to know what the correct interpretation is.
It is easy to say - your thinking is wrong, or your explanation isnt correct, but without helping them know what is wrong, why it is wrong and what would be correct, the statement leaves them no where. If what they are holding is flawed and they do not know what is correct or atleast know how to hold it correctly, they have no option but to throw it away - and they will do it with a bang and spite the rest for creating a fool in them. We owe it to them and to ourselves that we just not shoot them down, but instead provide them the information to make them feel comfortable. I say this because some of the statements made here do not apply to just one individual to whom it is made, but to a larger section who may have a similar thinking but with a genuine feeling, such statements do not leave a good feeling.
Many are misinformed perhaps, not completely wrong though. More importantly they are more willing to know what the correct non personal view is.

 

[renuka]

Dear Yams,

You wrote :

Only he knows WHY he did it! I just can't accept that's because of the majority/minority point! And, curiously, Renuka came to his rescue (perhaps, she also smelled the rotten rat), which gave comfort to KRS Sir! Lol

I did not come to rescue anyone here.You see I know the mental make up of most people..they dont like the gay lesbian stuff and take it as an insult cos they hold some prejudice againts gays and lesbians.

I was thinking that a comparison with homosexuals was not harsh in the context Shri KRS Ji wrote and thought I will just give my opinion..thats all..

In the religion I profess there is no God's wrath either for lesbians and gays.
All functions of sex whether straight,gay or illicit come under the same banner and that's Kama.

My olfactory cells didnt register the presence of any unpleasent rodent..I am no Pied Piper of Hamelin.

regards

 

[zebra16]

By the way, I think that as a Forum etiquette, it would be nice if you direct your discussions towards myself, if you are addressing the points I have raised, instead of addressing them to a third party. . That way, I can directly address your concerns.

Regards,
KRS

I am not sure if it is a Forum etiquette, and if it is an etiquette prescribed in this forum, it needs to change, for the following reasons:

a) The very purpose of discussing the matters in the forum is to expect multiple responses, so expecting response from a particular participant or a particular group of participants is against the principles of group discussions.

b) Once a message is posted in the board, it is open for anyone to read and open for any member to respond, if he/she feels so.

c) The insistence of naming a recipient of the message has led some members to assume that they are the intended recipients and the posters of messages which is not addressed to anyone in particular have been accused of firing innuendos.

d) While reading the archives, I came across situations where the administrators have given contradictory rulings - in one instance the "proof" was demanded by a member, it was ruled that "proof" is not needed as the original poster had given his opinion; and in another case the postings of another member were with-held till he responded "with proofs" for his writings in another thread.

 

[kunjuppu]

The insistence of naming a recipient of the message has led some members to assume that they are the intended recipients and the posters of messages which is not addressed to anyone in particular have been accused of firing innuendos.

.

I think it is a good etiquette to name the recipient, for the reasons explained above. I feel most inneundos are directed at me, as people are shy to tell me to ‘shut up’

 

[Yamaka]

I am not sure if it is a Forum etiquette, and if it is an etiquette prescribed in this forum, it needs to change, for the following reasons:

a) The very purpose of discussing the matters in the forum is to expect multiple responses, so expecting response from a particular participant or a particular group of participants is against the principles of group discussions.

b) Once a message is posted in the board, it is open for anyone to read and open for any member to respond, if he/she feels so.

c) The insistence of naming a recipient of the message has led some members to assume that they are the intended recipients and the posters of messages which is not addressed to anyone in particular have been accused of firing innuendos.

d) While reading the archives, I came across situations where the administrators have given contradictory rulings - in one instance the "proof" was demanded by a member, it was ruled that "proof" is not needed as the original poster had given his opinion; and in another case the postings of another member were with-held till he responded "with proofs" for his writings in another thread.

Dear Z:

My view is anything written in the Open Forum can be addressed by ANYBODY reading it.

In this present case, dear Guru found some "harshness" in dear KRS's post meant for me; he questioned it, and I responded to him in the OPEN FORUM which would be read by EVERYONE including dear KRS.

Nothing was said behind anyone's back!

Hence I believe there is no violation of etiquette established in this Forum, IMO.

Let's move on.

Regards

Y

 

[Yamaka]

Dear Dr.tks:

Please refer your post 507 below, and my response in bold letters where ever possible.

Regards.

"Dr Y -

I happen to come to this forum more than a few times this week and in scanning I was intrigued to learn that you were indoctrinated into Islam - what aspects of Islam made you disown it. I am curious about your views of Sharia laws since Sharia compliance of a country's laws is so important for many in the world.

As I indicated in my other post, two of the three tenets are followed by Abrahamic religions (except the Janma Poorva Karma, which I believe is very unique to Hinduism, as I understand it).

I disown everything about Islam, including the Sharia law, and the treatment of women, and its resistance to Modernity.

While I dont want to intrude and let Dr KRS reply to you I thought I will say a few things.

- Atheism is not in the realm of logic & reasoning, and hence is a form of belief system.

I totally disagree. Atheism simply does not agree with Theism.

-Truth cannot be democratically determined by counting how many people subscribe to what kind of belief system. No belief system can point to truth since belief imply[FONT=inherit !important][FONT=inherit !important]suspension[/FONT][/FONT] of faculty of understanding. It is possible to logically understand that - "certain things can never be understood logically and perception"

- Hinduism may said to be based on Vedas - but you will not find any Hindu family having a book of Vedas like Koran you had when you were growing up. Not only they do not have any such thing, at best some may know how to recite a few verses in a recitation sense here and there.

Not maybe. Hinduism IS based on Vedas & Puranas, which rule the minds and imaginations of most Hindus . Many people are indoctrinated in the Essence of Hinduism, as they understand it. Granted, it is the oldest of all religions.

- Since there are many ideas about who we are, what this world around us mean, and there are apparently contradictory ideas called Karma, Dharma, Moksha etc which do not have English words, most 'educated' people cannot make sense out of all this. This is not a case against them and they do not have time to learn. Even many new age 'teachers' have not done their due diligence to think through. Therefore the Hindu person make things up to fill the gaps in things that do not make sense. Even in our forum there are extreme views on both Theism and Anti Theism one can see people making things up. Your wife is no different.

- Tradition of Hindusim include everything under the unbrella - Temples for Sai Baba (a living person who was raised as a Muslim), Krishna, Rama etc. Ihave heard there is a temple of rats as well as temples for train robbers who have their own ethics . Even in this forum you have people talking about Hinduism and making things up on 'both sides of the aisle'

- Theism concept, in the Vedic view, has nothing to do with 'belief' in a personal God!

- Upanishads (Veda/Vedanta) which has to be taught and not preached accommodates the role of prayer - it may seem contradictory how notion of a personal God can even play a role in a subject that is all about understanding.

- Theism and Atheism do not have a Vedic basis - without proper infrastructure it is not possible to understand any of these statements.

- There is no place for Fatalism in Vedic view. It is all about free will without which concept of Dharma/Karma will not make sense. Most Hindus use the term 'Vidhi' incorrectly. While I have no proof, my conjecture is that it is a concept that has pervaded the world view in India due to 1000 years of Islamic rule. Vidhi is like Kismat that you may have been taught in Islam. However the way most people either practice or get manipulated by feudal logic of vidhi of poor by powerful ("you suffer because of your Karma of past lives and there is nothing you can do") is not based on Vedic teaching.

- There is no soul (as in Biblical sense)! There is only sole!

- Like Sri Vivekananda explains people go from one level of truth to another. Prayer, Bhajan, Mediation can be a starting point to condition one's mind. Concept of Moksha cannot be understood without infrastructure and it has nothing to do with reaching any Almighty or going to heaven or hell

- If there is no soul what happens at death in this Vedic view .. (Thodarum)

In short like millions of other Hindus the views of your wife as explained by you is incorrect.

Doc, what you have said above shows "your take on the Hinduism", which some of the people will agree and others (like my wife) will not.

As you yourself said elsewhere, "Hindus make up their own version of God & Religion; and they pray God as a way of "bribing HIM""

Regards

 

[Yamaka]

Dear Dr.tks:

Please refer your post 507 below, and my response in bold letters where ever possible.

Regards.

"Dr Y -

I happen to come to this forum more than a few times this week and in scanning I was intrigued to learn that you were indoctrinated into Islam - what aspects of Islam made you disown it. I am curious about your views of Sharia laws since Sharia compliance of a country's laws is so important for many in the world.

As I indicated in my other post, two of the three tenets are followed by Abrahamic religions (except the Janma Poorva Karma, which I believe is very unique to Hinduism, as I understand it).

I disown everything about Islam, including the Sharia law, and the treatment of women, and its resistance to Modernity.

While I dont want to intrude and let Dr KRS reply to you I thought I will say a few things.

- Atheism is not in the realm of logic & reasoning, and hence is a form of belief system.

I totally disagree. Atheism simply does not agree with Theism.

-Truth cannot be democratically determined by counting how many people subscribe to what kind of belief system. No belief system can point to truth since belief imply[FONT=inherit !important][FONT=inherit !important]suspension[/FONT][/FONT] of faculty of understanding. It is possible to logically understand that - "certain things can never be understood logically and perception"

- Hinduism may said to be based on Vedas - but you will not find any Hindu family having a book of Vedas like Koran you had when you were growing up. Not only they do not have any such thing, at best some may know how to recite a few verses in a recitation sense here and there.

Not maybe. Hinduism IS based on Vedas & Puranas, which rule the minds and imaginations of most Hindus . Many people are indoctrinated in the Essence of Hinduism, as they understand it. Granted, it is the oldest of all religions.

- Since there are many ideas about who we are, what this world around us mean, and there are apparently contradictory ideas called Karma, Dharma, Moksha etc which do not have English words, most 'educated' people cannot make sense out of all this. This is not a case against them and they do not have time to learn. Even many new age 'teachers' have not done their due diligence to think through. Therefore the Hindu person make things up to fill the gaps in things that do not make sense. Even in our forum there are extreme views on both Theism and Anti Theism one can see people making things up. Your wife is no different.

- Tradition of Hindusim include everything under the unbrella - Temples for Sai Baba (a living person who was raised as a Muslim), Krishna, Rama etc. Ihave heard there is a temple of rats as well as temples for train robbers who have their own ethics . Even in this forum you have people talking about Hinduism and making things up on 'both sides of the aisle'

- Theism concept, in the Vedic view, has nothing to do with 'belief' in a personal God!

- Upanishads (Veda/Vedanta) which has to be taught and not preached accommodates the role of prayer - it may seem contradictory how notion of a personal God can even play a role in a subject that is all about understanding.

- Theism and Atheism do not have a Vedic basis - without proper infrastructure it is not possible to understand any of these statements.

- There is no place for Fatalism in Vedic view. It is all about free will without which concept of Dharma/Karma will not make sense. Most Hindus use the term 'Vidhi' incorrectly. While I have no proof, my conjecture is that it is a concept that has pervaded the world view in India due to 1000 years of Islamic rule. Vidhi is like Kismat that you may have been taught in Islam. However the way most people either practice or get manipulated by feudal logic of vidhi of poor by powerful ("you suffer because of your Karma of past lives and there is nothing you can do") is not based on Vedic teaching.

- There is no soul (as in Biblical sense)! There is only sole!

- Like Sri Vivekananda explains people go from one level of truth to another. Prayer, Bhajan, Mediation can be a starting point to condition one's mind. Concept of Moksha cannot be understood without infrastructure and it has nothing to do with reaching any Almighty or going to heaven or hell

- If there is no soul what happens at death in this Vedic view .. (Thodarum)

In short like millions of other Hindus the views of your wife as explained by you is incorrect.

Doc, what you have said above shows "your take on the Hinduism", which some of the people will agree and others (like my wife) will not.

As you yourself said elsewhere, "Hindus make up their own version of God & Religion; and they pray God as a way of "bribing HIM""

Regards"

 

[Yamaka]

Sorry folks:

My post 514 is a duplicate of 513, I could not delete it for some reason.

Please ignore it.

Thanks

Y

 

[Yamaka]

deleted.

 

[tks]

Dear Dr.tks:


- Atheism is not in the realm of logic & reasoning, and hence is a form of belief system.

I totally disagree. Atheism simply does not agree with Theism.

.
.
.

- Hinduism may said to be based on Vedas - but you will not find any Hindu family having a book of Vedas like Koran you had when you were growing up. Not only they do not have any such thing, at best some may know how to recite a few verses in a recitation sense here and there.

Not maybe. Hinduism IS based on Vedas & Puranas, which rule the minds and imaginations of most Hindus . Many people are indoctrinated in the Essence of Hinduism, as they understand it. Granted, it is the oldest of all religions.

.
.

In short like millions of other Hindus the views of your wife as explained by you is incorrect.

Doc, what you have said above shows "your take on the Hinduism", which some of the people will agree and others (like my wife) will not.

As you yourself said elsewhere, "Hindus make up their own version of God & Religion; and they pray God as a way of "bribing HIM""

Regards"

Unfortunately I sense only repeated assertions without reasons and are similar to what I would get from someone subscribing to a belief system.

As a matter of principle I never argue with anyone speaking from a belief system. I tried that once in my school days with a group of born again Christians. Also I respect your right to your belief system.

Hinduism is an umbrella name coined by outsiders and some traditions& superstitions that people like your wife believe do not have basis in Vedic teaching. That is not my take, it is a matter available for logical reasoning.

But then Hinduism is not an organized religion and there is no one to stop anyone from claiming whatever they want. Only good thing that links all Hindus is that the concept of conversion - which is an extreme form of violence against a person - is unknown. In that sense like Judaism, it is a gentle religion.

Let us agree to disagree.

 

[Yamaka]

Unfortunately I sense only repeated assertions without reasons and are similar to what I would get from someone subscribing to a belief system.

As a matter of principle I never argue with anyone speaking from a belief system. I tried that once in my school days with a group of born again Christians. Also I respect your right to your belief system.

Hinduism is an umbrella name coined by outsiders and some traditions& superstitions that people like your wife believe do not have basis in Vedic teaching. That is not my take, it is a matter available for logical reasoning.

But then Hinduism is not an organized religion and there is no one to stop anyone from claiming whatever they want. Only good thing that links all Hindus is that the concept of conversion - which is an extreme form of violence against a person - is unknown. In that sense like Judaism, it is a gentle religion.

Let us agree to disagree.

Dear Dr. tks:

Yes, let's agree to disagree.

On the Concept of Conversion -

My view is if the Conversion occurs w/o coercion of any kind that should be fine.

It's like IRM and ICM. People (as adults) have their Right to marry whoever they want w/o any coercion.

Coercion is against the law of the land, as I understand it.

Regards.

Y

 

[guruvayurappan]

dear y !
you said "My view is if the Conversion occurs w/o coercion of any kind that should be fine."
but it is very few conversion like that .many conversion take place for the sake of education ,appointment,for marrying other religion boy/girl and mostly to get rid of their original ID in their religion.
i view is that when a person is getting converted he is not true to his present religion as well as to the religion to which he is converted.
cheers,
guruvayurappan

 

[Nara]

....My view is if the Conversion occurs w/o coercion of any kind that should be fine.

Y, conversion is part of every religion. Some take it seriously, others not so. Some sects of Christians and Muslims seem to be the most serious about this, but I think this is understandable, and if you buy into their ideology, it is downright cruel not to attempt to convert.

Christians believe salvation is only through Jesus and if you don't take him to be your savior, then you are doomed to eternal hell. If I believe in this doctrine, then I have to be heartless SOB to not even attempt to try to convert others around me and save them from eternal hell. The same is the case with Muslims.

Here we must note the religions that come under the umbrella of Hindusim is not free of the zeal to convert. If we go back in history we see wholesale conversions taking place from one religion to another when a ruler is converted. One could say Sri Vaishnavam is a religion founded on converting people. People of far away Bali are Hindu not because Hinduism just dawned on them one fine morning, but they were converted by invading Hindu army/navy. Huge Hindu temples in East Asia are a result of conversion.

However, once Brahminism took center stage and clamped down birth-based Varna/Jati system as an intrinsic part of religious practice, conversion became difficult. A new convert to Hinduism would have to come in a panchama, quite a repelling prospect. This is one of the reasons for conversion fading away from Hinduism.

In the present day, those Hindu sects that downplay Varna/Jati, or allow anyone to embrace any Varna by their conduct, are back in the business of conversion, ISKCON being a prominent example, as fervent about conversion as any evangelical Christian.

Cheers!

 

[tks]

Dear Dr. tks:

Yes, let's agree to disagree.

On the Concept of Conversion -

My view is if the Conversion occurs w/o coercion of any kind that should be fine.

It's like IRM and ICM. People (as adults) have their Right to marry whoever they want w/o any coercion.

Coercion is against the law of the land, as I understand it.

Regards.

Y

I agree that if someone wants to choose a religious tradition that is their business.
However if theology demands conversion that is violence.

Here is a blog which has the text of a speech as to why theologies that require conversion commits highest violence imaginable against a person.

The Advaith: Swami Dayananda: Conversion is Violence

 

[KRS]

Dear Professor Ji,

You have said "Y, conversion is part of every religion."

What does this mean? Do you mean that every religion has instances of conversion as opposed to a more general import that every religion promotes conversion? These are entirely two different concepts.

You seem to equate the theological concepts behind some sects of Christianity's attitude towards conversion as well as the theological/political attitudes of Islam with the political aspect of Hinduism, which by the way is a misnomer. Hinduism, in a theological sense does not advocate conversions, as you perfectly know. Sri Vaishnavism was not about 'conversion' but rather about breaking caste divisions.

I am also very surprised to learn that Indonesia was 'converted' forcibly by Hinduism. Can you provide citations, please.

Regards,
KRS

 

[anushagn]

Hi Anu:

Nice reply.

I have a broader philosophical question to you and Soumya - both I believe are Engineering Majors or Professionals:

1. You both are going to be Professionals of Science, Engineering and Technology - a discipline that REQUIRES logical, rational thinking to understand and apply the concepts.

You will be spending a good part of your daily life in your engineering profession thinking logically (at least about 12 h a day)

2. But you agree to readily accept a Belief or a Faith (which I say is a non-logical or non-rational thinking) which would
dictate your behavior long term.

Therefore, I hypothesize that your psyche is internally drawn into conflicts, and may affect your productivity.

Is this possible? Why not?

You may ignore to answer this saying whatever reasons you deem appropriate!

Take care.

Sorry 4 a long delay..

Since i can and iam able to differentiate faith,belief, bakthi,GOD and SCIENCE, iam sure that my psyche is not drawn to any internal conflicts and i knew that i can make my presence in this world a usefull and more meaningful in the way i wish to..

thank u.

 

[Nara]

Dear Professor Ji,

You have said "Y, conversion is part of every religion."

What does this mean? Do you mean that every religion has instances of conversion as opposed to a more general import that every religion promotes conversion?

Dear Shri KRS, I would like you to read the full paragraph and the answer is there.

"Y, conversion is part of every religion. Some take it seriously, others not so. Some sects of Christians and Muslims seem to be the most serious about this, but I think this is understandable, and if you buy into their ideology, it is downright cruel not to attempt to convert."

​

It is often claimed that there is no conversion in "Hinduism". I am trying to refute that. If you say it is different from why and how Christians and Muslims do it, then, that is a different question, one that I may or may not want to engage.

Sri Vaishnavism was not about 'conversion' but rather about breaking caste divisions.

About SV, I do know a thing or two. I can tell you with a very high level of confidence it is not about conversion neither is it about breaking caste divisions. However, both concepts, conversion and breaking caste divisions, both were essential parts of SV. The very reason it grew by leaps and bounds during Bhagavad Ramanuja's time is conversion.

I am also very surprised to learn that Indonesia was 'converted' forcibly by Hinduism. Can you provide citations, please.

I am sure you know very well Bali is only a small part of Indonesia.

Here is what I said:

"People of far away Bali are Hindu not because Hinduism just dawned on them one fine morning, but they were converted by invading Hindu army/navy."

​

I did not say anything about converting Indonesia.

Cheers!

 

[sarang]

You have a weird concept of conversion; shifting withing the sanatana fold is not conversion. Hundreds of sects are present within christianity and islam; becoming a protestant or a sunni is not conversion.

Today, somebody becoming a follower of sai baba or sri sri is not getting converted.

The very reason it grew by leaps and bounds during Bhagavad Ramanuja's time is conversion.