Entering the Hindu fold
The office of the Arya Samaj in Kerala are buzzing with activity in the hot Indian summer. From the time of their foundation almost 120 years ago to the modern day they have been at the forefront of the ‘shuddi’ or conversion to Hinduism efforts. The local offices in one of India’s smaller states report at least 15-20 ‘new’ Hindus each month in a simple ceremony lasting about one hour conducted amidst the ancient Vedic hymns and in the presence of the sacred fire.
No doubt, Samuel Huntingdon, the much celebrated political analyst would see the above as part of his tapestry of the ‘clash of civilisations’ provided by the movement of people from one civilisational block to the other.
May 31st, 2007 at 6:43 am
Welcome to Hinduism my new brothers and sisters may you all be enlighted…
May 31st, 2007 at 8:26 am
A few points..
1. The Sangh Parivaar continues a highly successful ‘ghar waapasi’ programme throughout India, in which numerous Muslims, Christians and others who wish to return to the Hindu fold are welcomed back.
2. The attitude of certain elements within the Sangh Parivaar fold to inter alia the Rehan/Rohan and Umar/Umesh sagas is unfortunate and disappointing. Not only does it demonstrate a lack of understanding on the part of those responsible, but it also highlights a lack of focus, cohesion, direction and discipline in an organisation which claims these attributes as its core strengths. Sangh Parivaar have never been particularly good at PR and they have clearly missed a trick here and pretty effectively shot themselves in the foot. Clearly, what is required is for the senior karyakartas of the Sangh Parivaar to take the situation in hand and bring the lunatic fringe back on message (cf point 1).
3. It is highly interesting to note the reaction of one prominent Muslim leader, who was quoted by The Telegraph as saying “Any conversion that is driven by a motive other than love for God is improper.” Well, I couldn’t agree more - now try explaining that to your fellow Muslims.
May 31st, 2007 at 9:00 am
yes welcome … although don’t take the piss!!!! its easy to be hindu ..its inside your heart..
we hindus are too easily pleased….to become Muslim you take oath , read all Koran , get circumstised attend Jumma prayers and keep ramzaam ….nothing like that for hindu converts!!!!
ok it maybe a phase but a true hindu can be white black or asain …..
welcome brothers sisters…..
June 1st, 2007 at 1:46 am
every planned and tactful attemt shall has to be made by every hindu to regain all the hindu population and areas where hinduism once existed around the world , it is surely not one day’s job , but let us start right now with full deltermination . jai hinduism , jai bharat mata , jai gayatri mata
June 1st, 2007 at 7:10 pm
I wouldn’t call this conversion, this is simply re-conversion.
these people who are being welcomed back to our fold are descendants of those who were robbed of their right to pray to our gods and were forcefully converted to islam and christianity. i hope arya samaj meets with more success, they are doing the right thing.
June 2nd, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Agree with Ravi Sharma. Unlike Islam and Christianity, Sanathan Dharma is more that a collection of static beliefs bordering on a political ideology; it’s a way of life. Just like getting an Aum tattoo doesn’t make one a good Hindu, neither does the shuddhi ceremony. How one lives their life is far more important.
June 3rd, 2007 at 3:47 pm
In many cases that i have heard about Hindus that convert to xtianity are still treated so bad or even worse that when they were Hindus they soon realise that there change of heart was a rash decision and soon come back to the eternal faith thats is Sanatan Dharma.
June 3rd, 2007 at 9:24 pm
I say welcome to these brothers( why no muslim female converts to Hinduism?) who have chosen to convert to Hinduism and other Hindus who come in contact with them should treat them with respect and help them to assimilate into the wider Hindu community.Let us not forget that those who convert are really brave people because they are often vilified and ostricised by their families and friends ,not to mention by their former (muslim ) community.
Converts need our love,support and encouragemet.
June 4th, 2007 at 9:02 am
Times are changing. When people share the same space and rub shoulders together on a daily basis, they are bound to be affected by one another in various ways. In these times, if Hindus are free can adopt other faiths, why can’t the reverse also be true? Think about it. Then wake up to the present reality!
June 4th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
I was happy to read this. Hindus should welcome any non-hindu whether he/she is an indian or not. Hindu dharma is universal. Bagwan Sri Krishna says in Bhagwat Gita all living creatures are created by him. There is a massive undertaking by xians and muslims to lure hindus into their fold. Hindus should take this fight into their territory.
June 8th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
One good way to protect the Sanatana Dharma is to accept more good people-regardless of color or country of origin-into the fold. More good Hindus means a stronger India which means a better world. There is a reason why yoga and ayurveda are gaining in popularity. The Dharma is the natural way to live. Why discourage people who only want to improve themselves?
June 11th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
You’ll need to remember how we feel about people converted out of hinduism.
Is this simply us against them?
I think not.
hariaum
June 12th, 2007 at 10:52 pm
It is always worth remembering that when a Hindu converts to Christianity (or Islam, or whatever), it is not just one less Hindu, it is also one more Christian (Muslim, etc.); the reverse is also true. This may be an unfortunately polarised way of viewing society, but more often than one would like, it is highly appropriate.
June 13th, 2007 at 8:11 am
It would be good for some of the typical everyday Hindus to shed the notion that one must be born into the Hindu fold to be a Hindu. The populations of Bali, Indonesia, Thailand, Burma, etc are testemant to the fact that Hindu’s had propogate their culture to different nations that were well received by the indigenous populations.
-Muski
June 13th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Not so. If I feel that a person seeking truth is not a part of my religion than why am I a part of my religion - for my own ego satisfaction. Hinduism, as a metareligion, says you can worship god/Brahman in any form or name. But that the core must be the personal relationship with Brahman. In Vasista Yoga, Kaka Bushundi refers to many eternities when Shiva was Brahma, or some other role in the creation, etc. You can find the truth everywhere, not just through adopting a name.
So, I must accept any person’s honest search for the personal relationship with the truth as a person of “my” religion because that is what I seek. Perhaps some seek that other “join my book club” version of a religion. I don’t believe that is what Hinduism teaches (as opposed to the christo-islamic- and buddhist perspectives).
Thus it is the nature of hinduism that we are truly all hindus but some are stuck in concrete simplistic forms of religiousness (as devi-ites, shaivites, vaishnavites, buddhists, christians, muslims, jews, …) while others are actively on the path to realization of reality beyond polarized categories.
This is not to abnegate the importance of traditions and culture which allow us to advance faster than if we had to invent it all along the way. Thus to join one tradition or another (the concrete reality) is a form of conversion that must be polarized (and this is largely why I call myself a Hindu - to join that tradition - though others tell me that I’m not really). But hinduism tells you to be in the material/concrete and the abstract and transcendental reality. Here there is no conversion but removal of dvaita; that is a true concern of hinduism - stay concrete if you want but please don’t stop there.
(I tend to believe that a honest historical / secular view of hinduism would see it as a convergent evolution of relgious tendency innate to man and man’s relationship to reality. As such the true secularist would conclude that there is no conversion to hinduism but simply an adoption by the historical entity called hinduism of the truth discovered by all of humanity - an adsorption of all other “religions.” - but then honest secularists can only conclude what the biblical based scholars tell them, so so much for that.)
hariaum
June 13th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Sorry, one more point, to join a tradition that says you only get to the supreme if you’re a member of my book club is an insult to your own spirit and the spirit of hinduism of the personal relationship to Brahman/God for this adopts a need for an intermediary that become greater than God as Truth (Truth is justified by a book or group identity rather than reality). Thus a conversion out of hinduism is an affront to the reality of atman/brahman identity.hariaum
June 14th, 2007 at 12:01 am
Navin, I agree - it is not *simply* ‘us against them’, and indeed ideally it would not be *at all* ‘us against them’. However, the heartwrenchingly unfortunate fact is that regardless of how we may wish things to be, there is and remains a considerable element of group rivalry, to which even we Hindus have sadly not been proven immune.
But why even look as far as inter-religious dispute? Even within Hinduism itself, when I look around at Hindu society today, I see an increasingly polarised community trying desperately to tear itself apart. The great strength of Hinduism has always been its unshaking adherence to the ideal of “anektaa me ektaa”; I see so much diversity, but where is the unity?
My own view, for what it’s worth, is that whilst I love the freedoms that Hinduism affords us, they can be sustained only as long as respect is maintained. I am free within Hinduism to disagree with any part of the “organised religion” that has been discussed elsewhere; however, at the same time, I should still remain faithful to the truth behind the notion of “aa no bhadrah krtavo yantu vishvatah” - I recognise that noble thoughts may indeed come from *all* sides, and therefore respect all for the potential guidance they may give me; after all, Lord Rama may well have slaughtered his enemy Ravana, but that did not stop him from seeking teaching from him as he lay on his deathbed.
This comes back to another question elsewhere about how one can claim us all to be equal when the well known prayer mentions the greatness of the Guru - surely anyone who teaches us is a Guru, and clearly teaching can come from any source, as implied by the above verse. This is the kind of respect I mean; I agree that we should respect swamis and religious leaders and all those conventionally defined ‘Gurus’, but my personal view is that such ‘respect’ rings hollow unless one affords equal respect to the street sweeper, the toilet cleaner, the beggar, each of whom may well have valuable lessons to teach us.. It is poignant to recall the words of Swami Vivekananda, “Each soul is potentially Divine”.
Apologies for the tangential nature of this post, but for me personally, I feel it is worthwhile to consider the aspiration that would in fact render the actual topic at hand (i.e. conversion and group rivalry) itself irrelevant.
June 15th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
The article mentions that “tens of millions” partake in the Hindu practices of Yoga and Ayurveda. The unfortunate fact is that the vast majority do not partake but take or steal. Most interested (and even “teaching”) so-called “yoga” (”Hatha Yoga” is proper) flat out deny that they are studying or “teaching” Hinduism.
Here at the Classical Yoga Hindu Academy, we regularly get calls from those interested (many are even so-called “certified yoga teachers”) in “yoga.” When they are informed that Hatha Yoga and all forms of Yoga are the religious/spiritual teachings and practices of Hinduism, they say, “No! They are not! Imagine that.
As Hindus, we should, of course, welcome all those truly interested in studying and converting or adopting to the Hindu religion. This process must also be a very serious study and commitment.
Hindus, too, need to deepen their study and experience. For example, the post by “Shiva” (imagine that) that stated: “… Krishna says … all living creatures are created by him.”, is a example of a fundamentalist/universalist mindset. It is this mindset that many Christians, interested in the grandeur of Hinduism, are trying to leave. Such comments only confuse those seeking a greater Hindu wisdom. Hindu Dharma is not Monotheistic; nor do Hindus believe in “God.”
June 21st, 2007 at 9:05 pm
I still see it differently. I am not interested in the title a person puts on his/her religion but the sincerity of the search for satcitananda. Thus anyone trying to find that ananda in the cit of sat is a hindu to me and an adoption of the name “hindu” is a latter issue to identify with a certain karmic history -tradition of thought and action. Thus a person doing yoga to free his/her mind is a hindu. A budhist trying to find nirvana is hindu, a christian trying to identify with truth is hindu, a muslim calling to god is hindu…. But these persons may identify with a tradition of thought that is very opposed to hinduness. They may identify with a simplistic view of Tat Sat as a historical figure (Jesus, Buddha, Krishna…) or a book (Koran, Vedas, Torah…) or an idea (science, truth, love, secularism…). But these are the elementary bases on which one builds to a deeper Tat Sat without categories, one a heroic person can attempt as it requires self/ego sacrifice.
A simple way to put it: one who seeks the truth is in the same religion that I belong to. Everyone else is in that religion but not aware of it yet.
hariaum
June 27th, 2007 at 7:19 am
Without interrupting the interesting dialogue, we’d just make a small intrusion to satisfy our own sense of enquiry on a couple of points that have arisen during the course of it.
SATYAJI: How can the word ‘kratavo’ in ‘aa no bhadrahaha kratavao’ mean thoughts? ‘Kratu’ from which the word ‘kratavo’ is derived means ‘yagna’; not thoughts. Your meaning also does not fit in with the complete Mantra, and the context. That rendering has not been done by ANY ancient commentator, or modern – including the Westerners and Swami Dayanandji.
Another point: wouldn’t ‘from all sides’ mean ‘from the side of the Naastikas also’?
Bhagwan Rama’s ‘seeking teaching from him (Ravana) as he lay on his death-bed’, has not come our way in any of the Ramayanas: Valmiki, Tulsidas, Ananda, Adhyatma or Adhbhut. Where could we find it?
NAVINJI: ‘One who seeks the truth is in the same religion’, you say, (irrespective of whether he is Hindu, Christian, Muslim, and Buddhist). As far as our knowledge goes, no one else besides the Vedics has talked of the Supreme as Satcitananda. So, how can they too be the seekers of the same truth, the same Satcitananda? Furthermore, besides the Vedics, none else is ever heard of trying to seek, enquire, realise or unite with Him?
June 27th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
I have to say that this is a very interesting article and comments. I myself am English by heritage (going back to the Romans), but have a deepening interest in Hinduism. I find it fantastic to see so many posts of people who are welcoming to people who are in genuine search of self-realisation, something that i feel has nothing to do with race or nationality.
I have to say though that i would only consider converting (although i have nothing to convert from, adopt be a more appropriate term for me) if it was due to a genuine commitment to Sanathan Dharma, rather than due to social pressures (as may be the case where marriage is concerned). All religions should welcome seekers of the truth, as that can only strengthen and add to the overall faith and commitment of the community.
Thats my 2 pence anyway…!
I look forward to reading more posts on this site.
June 27th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
Does one have to say I seek the truth to be seeking it? Does someone have to use a word to name a god and then I decide he belongs to the same faith I do. Perhaps traditional hindus think they do - that we all have to agree that god can only have one name. But in fact most hindus talk about god having 101 names or 1001 or infinite.
If the intent of a person is to seek the truth I’m with them. If the intent of a person is to seek self glorification (ahamkara or heaven), that seems opposed to the way of truth. But even their quest is a search for truth but their ignorance makes them want to play with objects and names rather than truths.
So I do not mind if persons don’t know satcitananda. but I do car if they are seeking sat, cit, and ananda.
hariaum
June 28th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
As I have stated before, I am not entirely convinced that this is the ideal forum for in-depth textual analysis. I therefore do not propose or intend to get into any protracted discussion of such matters here; however, very briefly, in response to Dr Singh.
1. On the specific technicality highlighted, it takes very little reading around to realise that the word ‘kratu’ is used in quite different senses in different contexts, so to frame the objection in terms as you have done here is simply invalid. Further, whilst ‘yagna’ is certainly one possible translation of the word, not only is this not its primary definition, but it is rarely (if ever - depending on which commentator one reads) used in this sense in the context of Rig Veda, where the verse at hand appears.
2. Addressing the full translation given of this verse, I am surprised at your implied ignorance of this particular translation, given that it is the generally accepted translation by the likes of Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, The Gita Society, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, etc. This being the case, to assert that this rendering has been given by no commentators, either ancient or modern, is rather a strong claim and I would suggest a quite evidently false one. Whether or not this translation is accepted as correct, what certainly is true is that this is a widely known and accepted translation of the verse and to paint the situation otherwise frankly smacks of intellectual dishonesty. My copy of Dayananda’s (arguably somewhat contraversial) version of the Vedas is at home but as you mention it specifically, I will check it next time I am in town.
3. Given this translation of the verse, I wholeheartedly endorse the viewpoint that the clear implication is that ‘all sides’ (alternatively translated as ‘everywhere’, ‘the entire Universe’, ‘all directions’, and other such similar notions) must per force include those of essentially evil or base nature. The whole point of this verse, in this particular rendering, is that it is more important to consider what is being said, rather than judging its merits or otherwise simply on the basis of its source. Personally, I find this an inspiring and hugely valuable life principle.
4. I agree that the mainstream versions of the Ramayana, Valmiki, Tulsidas, et al, depict Ravana’s death as instantaneous. However, I am aware that some narrations of the Ramayana exist where this is not the case - for example, Krittibas’ version (a Bengali narration of the Ramayana story) tells of a long, almost Vali-esque, discussion between Rama and Ravana as Ravana lay dying, in which Ravana is depicted as a devotee of Rama (this may well tie in with the story of Jaya and Vijaya, the guards of the gates of Vaikuntha, but that’s another story!) The story I hinted at (I believe the story actually described Rama as encouraging Lakshmana to seek teaching from Ravana, which he dutifully did, rather than Rama seeking it himself) is one I first heard as a child, and it has certainly been repeated by many noted saints over the years in their writings and discourses (Shirdi Sai Baba, Shri Hans Ji Maharaj, Swami Chidanand Saraswati, and many others); however, I have to confess ignorance as to the actual origins of this story - I would be most interested in finding out, if anyone else is aware.
As I have said, I do not intend to launch into further discussion here on linguistic technicalities or textual analysis; whilst this is all interesting, if only from an academic perspective, this I feel is not the appropriate forum for such discussion. However, I would, time-allowing, be happy to continue this discussion elsewhere with Dr Singh or any others who may be interested.
June 28th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Jaime,
I appreciate your thoughts. I often wondered why someone choses to not join a group. People join groups due to social pressures, birth, etc. But people chose not to join a group for some interesting reasons that bring to light issues that should be addressed. Ignorance of a group implies that group is not doing enough marketing. knowledgeable rejection though points to an inner problem with the group and it is by consideration of this perspective that a group grows better, if nothing else knows itself better.
Although hinduism is not a proselytizing religion, what are the bases of rejecting it? For example, you say a “commitment to Sanatana Dharma”, but if one views the words as eternal religion or religion of eternal truths, perhaps you would not reject it. If one views it as something other than words/concepts - a title for a specific set of beliefs - one may well reject it. This has kind of been circling around the feelings on this site. Perhaps you have some insight to share.
thanks, nkv
June 29th, 2007 at 8:50 am
NAVINJI: Knowledge about a thing is the first essential. It is only afterwards that one can set upon the search for it. This is the basic law of ‘Nyaya-Darshan’. ‘Gyan, Ichha and then Prayatna’; this is the order.
Some pre-knowledge is a pre-requisite. Unless one has heard about Satcitanad, how would one make an attempt to realise it? My point was, since only Vedic Shastras have talked of the Supreme as Satcitanand, how could others also find and reach the same? But you reject the Shastras, and then also mention the term which is found in them only!
“If the intent of a person is to seek the truth”, for that too, one should have heard something about it. Then and only then one would be able to make an attempt to find out whether or not it was so. The path also has to be taken under the guidance of a reliable Guru. But all these three (Name, Scriptures and Guru), you do not accept and make use of an epithet like ‘traditional Hindus’ in a derisive manner for those who do. Brother, after all, what are we to be if not traditional when our Dharma is a traditional one having come down to us in an unbroken tradition beginning with Brahmaji?
Please, do tell us how one could know about Satcitanand and realise Him also without resorting to Hindu Shastras.
In your post to Jaime, you have talked of Sanatan Dharma, Eternal Religion and Eternal Truths. When it is ‘Sanatan’ and also ‘Dharma’, what would it be save what the meanings or the descriptions of the two are in Sanskrit language and Vedaadi Dharma Shastras? For a thing that is Sanatan, any attempt to give a new description or a new definition would be deemed preposterous.
June 29th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Dr. Singh,
Thanks. Namaste. I salute That Being in you. The atman is Brahman. We are not separated from truth. Satcitananda is within us, each of us. You and I are subject to the laws of physics; there is only a mystical question as this fact.
Once you learn geomentry, you can learn algebra, then physics, then chemistry, then… Once you know physical chemistry you can manipulate an atom, electron, etc to your purpose. You become free of Newtonian physics, and control it - a siddhi.
Likewise, satcitananda is everywhere in everytime. You can experience it when it choses to express itself in you (shruti) or you can learn about it and learn to be an active part of it. The rules haven’t changed. You have. Thus Memory (I think it is referred to as Smrti) is very helpful and the efforts of our ancestors should not be at all disregarded. Indeed it is a poor bridge builder that fails to grasp the benefits of triangular supports but through trial and error s/he may reinvent it.
The imporance of our shastras is that they guide us in our current lives. Without them our journey to Satcitananda has a great many pitfalls (say the self glorification of heaven seeking, jihad, crusades, Maoism, Ashoka prior to his conversion to buddhism…). The Guru is given to us by Brahman to help in this journey and every now and then Brahman come to give us pre-eminent examples (Krishna, Rama..).
In any case, I am ignorant. And in relation to Brahman I am infinitely ignorant. As such, any person who is ignorant and on his/her path to Satcitananda, regardless of their level of ignorance or poor luck of being born in a dharma that promotes ignorance, is my sibling on this path.
hariaum
June 29th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
SATYAJI: ‘Krtu’ is a Sanskrit word derived from dhatu ‘Kru’. Each ‘dhatu’ has a definite meaning. Words coined from them, therefore, cannot have dhatu-unrelated, varied and such divergent meanings.
RSS may be propagating that meaning; but how does that make it authentic and legitimate? One should not forget that they do not accept the authority of the Vedas – and even that of Ramayana and Mahabharatta. You shall also have noted that they quote only the first six ‘padas’ of the Mantra, and not the whole; probably because, that would reveal the un-soundness of the translation. This word is also found in Gita 9:16. What meaning would one assign to it there, if not ‘Yagna’?
The Mantra is not only from Rigveda but from Shukla Yajurveda (25:14), as well. The context there is clearly Agnishtoma Yagna. If one disagreed, how would one account for such words as ‘Adabdhasah’, ‘Apareetasah’, ‘Udbhidah’ and ‘Apraayuvah’? In Rig also, the very next Mantra to it (Mantra 2) has ‘Devaanam’ in it as its very opening word. What have all these to do with ‘thoughts’?
Meanings of the Vedic words are decided on the basis of Vyakarana, Nirukt, Shikhsha, Chhand, Rishi and Devata; and not independently. Their meanings too have to be proved on their basis.
What was written by us was not in a casual manner, but after consulting authoritative dictionaries like Vachaspatyam, Shabdarthkaustubhah, Amarkosha, and Shabdstomamahanidhih in Sanskrit , Monier Williams, Macdonell, VS Apte and The Vedic Etymology in English, and Padmachandrakosha in Hindi. Ancient Veda Bhashyas consulted were that of Sayanacharya, Vyankat Madhava, Udgitha, Mrdgala, and Rigarthdeepika; and from among the moderns of Max Muller, Griffith, Dayanandji, Vedarth Parijatah of Swami Karpatriji, Rigveda Bhashya of Madras University, and that of Pt. Ramgovind Trivedi. The use of such harsh word as ‘intellectual dishonesty’ was, therefore, quite hurting and painful.
July 7th, 2007 at 7:10 am
SATYAJI:
If you don’t want to further the discussion on this site, could we carry it out through the Editor, Hindu Voice, or our own email addresses to reach the truth?
July 10th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
We may add: The dhatu is pronounced ‘kru’ in Gujarat, but ‘kri’ in other states.
April 24th, 2008 at 4:26 am
Aum Gam Ganapataye namah
I am Shankara Natarajan Arya who embraced Hinduism in Amritsar. Thank you very much for your supportive messages dear hindu brothers.
I am not living in Turkey anymore. I immigrated to South America because of life threats to my family from the muslims. I still help new turkish hindus who embraced Hinduism after me but I can’t enter to Turkey anymore.
My english is not enough to carry a long conversation about conversion. However some brothers wrote those universalist thoughts like “every religion is truth, conversion is not necessary,etc.” Now I should ask “have you ever read the Koran?” “Do you know that Allah orders muslims to kill non-muslims?” Now how can you say that Allah and Lord Shiva is the same “God” or the same divine entity? How can you say that Vedas and Koran are parts of the same truth? Allah prohibits worshipping the Goddess and orders his believers to kill Goddess-worshipping idolaters. Founder of Islam destructed Goddess temples and killed her worshippers. Knowing this how can you feel comfortable in front of a Devi-Ma murti saying “muslims can reach salvation too, so why is conversion?”
If all deities of all religions are the same then who are the asuras? Who is Ravana then, who is Mahishasura? Are all chapters of Chandi Path are mere folk tales then? How can Devi Gita and Koran be from the same spiritual entity that the first teaches Goddess worship and the latter prohibits it? The true religion is Sanatana Dharma which is the Vedik Dharma. And this Vedik Dharma gave birth to other religions such as ancient Egyptian, Keltic, Anatolian, Babilonian,etc religions so all ancient religions have parts of the Vedik truth as Sanatana Dharma is their mother all. But Judaism, Christianity (not Gnostics) and Islam are non-vedic religions who oppose Vedic religion totally. They are a-brahmic abrahamic religions.
And to the thought “to be a hindu you should be born hindu”. How can anyone prohibit a person to pray to his mother who is the Goddess and his father who is Lord Shiva? Who has the right to deny a person whom Lord Ganesha called to enter His Religion and worship Him? Who has the right to judge gods’ mercy? If a hindu does not accept me who am now an exile from my country because of becoming a hindu then my advocate is the Goddess Herself , let him face my Goddess, not me. And I will call him an incarnation of Mohammad instead of a hindu as he tries to turn the children of Parvati from worshipping Her.
Ultimately as my english is not enough I could not inform the journalists in Amritsar and they wrote that I embraced Hinduism in Amritsar. But thats not true. I was already a believer and worshipper of Lord Shiva and His divine family when I went to India for the ceremony. I was a vegetarian who was performing puja and japa. I went to India for shuddhi ceremony but I was a hindu by heart long before.
With all respect and thanks. Please forgive my english faults.
Shankara
April 26th, 2008 at 2:37 am
Shankar-
Your English faults are all forgiven.
No one has the right to prohibit anyone from practicing the faith of their choice, as you pointed out.
To say that one personality of God is similar to another is logically false and we recognize that, but Dharmic faiths have usually been pluralistic and peaceful towards people who are different than them and worship different Gods.
Tolerance and acceptance is important, but that doesn’t mean we should change ourselves or be forced to change ourselves to accomodate others if everything is fine to begin with.
Welcome home, Arya
Keshav
April 29th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Wow - Shankara Natarajan Arya - its an honour to have you posting here on the same forum as me. I’ve read about you in the past. Here is a link to the article, the story is towards the bottom of the page:
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2003/20030709/punjab1.htm
So how’s life in South America? Are there other Hindus there?
April 30th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Truth is universal. Men see it differently. One can recognize a truthful religion by the adoption that truth transcends religion. One can recognize a false religion by the adoption that religion transcends truth.
thanks for your insight (and courage) Arya.
hariaum
May 1st, 2008 at 2:03 pm
How can “Truth be universal” and there also be “false religion?” How can “Truth be universal” and “men see it differently?” How could anyone know anything that is “universa?” What is “Truth?” How can “religion transcend truth?”
As to people converting into Hinduism. Yes indeed! And, all those like Swami’s Chidananda and Dayananda and numerous other closet Hindus should take note. Before you alllow anyone (not already a Hindu, of course) to teach (what should be called “Hatha”) Yoga, you must convert (or adopt) them to Hinduism!
May 2nd, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Good questions swami ji.
Metaphors:
The sun moves around the earth.
The soldier protects the country.
A blind man sees.
I feel the pain of my fellow humans.
A pill is treatment but also poison.
This spanking hurts me more than you.
All of these are true, yet all are false.
Krishna is Narayana but Arjuna sees him as Krishna.
We do not practice sophistry. We look deeper.
Truth is Satva. It is our task, our prakriti to seek it. But in that prakriti we have ego created maya. Yet the ego must exist to create maya. And thus ego (more properly understood as purusha in this setting) exists - satya.
Religion ligates - ties = yokes - yukta atman-paratman. A religion that breaks the tie, leads us away from paratman, then ties us to asatya. It is a religion that worship untruth, it is false.
Delusion can be chemical. In this setting medications and compassion are needed. But delusion can be to believe in things that are false even though we are given the opportunity to see the truth. Religions that delude people into akarmic belief that their actions are without consequence (guaranteed salvation), that truth is bound in a physical or ideological construct (idolatry, book worship), that there is only one true way to truth (messiah worship), and that truth is not omnipresent (dvaita), are false religions.
but then I could be wrong. False religion could simply be “not my religion” you heathen, infidel, pagan you
hariaum
May 4th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Navin’s comments are a beautiful example of sophistry. Life is truly an amazing game/dance.
May 7th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
I was raised as a christian. im white-british and i know very little of Hinduism, and yet that litttle bit i do know i feel truth there. i desire to learn more about hindu thourght and and of God . but sometimes i feel gulty for my white skin and christian bakground. i hope that the divine mother will revel the path to me.
May 7th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Vicky!
Entering the Hindu fold is not uniform across the board. A ceremony is not necessary, just that feeling in your heart - the feeling you have now.
There is no guilt in Hindu thinking. Do not feel guilty about trivial things such as skin color or the past when you have a future there for you. The fact that we have a future is itself a blessing many people cannot share.
If you feel you are Hindu and someone tells you otherwise, its best to understand why they said, and if you realize that it was a dumb comment, better to ignore it.
Enjoy the site and learn a little!
May 7th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
I can understand one’s hesitancy or guilt in embracing or experimenting with a system of thought, practice or belief very different to what you were brought up in - however just remember - ultimately every single religion is the heritage of ALL OF HUMANITY. Which means a person should follow what they believe inside regardless of what we were brought up doing.
May 7th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
It is too simple to chose to follow a tradition. It is far greater to follow truth. Even when you “join” a religion, do not join it but rather the truth that flows in it. (watch out for crazy gurus, priests, imams. watch out for false ideologies. watch out for ego-satisfying answers) But good luck in what you seek.
hariaum
June 9th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Vicky,
Many non-Hindus wish to study the Hindu/Yogic religion. (Yes, the various [Real] Yogas constitute the Hindu religion.) Feel confident in approaching any Hindu or Hindu group. If “they” make you feel uncomfortable, be bold and ask them, Why?
Of course no one should feel compelled to join anything right away. If after serious study and reflection, you find that the Hindu/Yogic religion is for you, then you could formally become a Hindu (there are important ceremonines). It should never be simply a casual affair to become part of any religion.
Interestingly, if more people adhered to the above, we would a lot of qualified Hindu teachers teachings the various aspects of Yoga–instead of the spurious so-called “yoga” of today.