15 Questions for all

[selwyn]

There is no general conversion in Hinduism, because every man is a Sanatana Dharmi by definition. Each person chooses or is born in an environment that is in accordance with his karma and spiritual status.

There are hundreds of sects within Hinduism. And it is common for people to move between these sects. Most of Ramanuja's conversions were inter-Hindu conversions to the religion founded by him.


And conversion within Hinduism is not the door-door conversion strategies of Christians missionaries. Typically, conversions are accomplished as follows:

Take Sri Ramanuja:

He wrote commentaries for the brahma sutra , the Bhagavad Gita and a number of upanishads in a work called the vedartasangraha. And based on his new radical interpretations, he engaged the scholars of other schools and defeated every one of them - Advaita, Buddhism, Jainism, Charvaka etc.(total of 15 schools)

What is the outcome of such a victory in debate? The looser of the debate sometimes might adopt Ramanuja as his guru that automatically converts all his disciplines to the fold of Sri Ramanuja. Even otherwise, debates were the defacto standard in prolystyesing within Hinduism.

If you are capable of defeating a rival school, a few or many followers of the school will adopt the religion of the victor. This is the process by which Sri Ramanuja moved many people into his fold. This is an accepted practice in Hinduism. People are free to choose their religion, no compulsion at all. Do you have to convert if you loose the debate - NO! But once you loose a debate, your followers will desert you automatically! An illiterate or a person performing miracles cannot start a new sect in olden days of Hinduism. You have to justify your skill by writing commenatraies for the scripture and defeating your rivals in accepted forms of debate.

Can a Christian become a disciple of Ramanuja school. Impossible, he will be rejected outright. Only a Hindu by birth can become a disciple of Sri Ramanuja and can become a follower of his school by undergoing a specific ritual.

Please dont compare the door-door campaigning methods of christian missionaries with the highly dignified way of logical victories as means of proslysteising of Sri Ramanuja. We Vaishnavites never preach to people who dont want to hear the philosophy. No one will chase you down ever for "saving" you from hell.

Please dont compare Sri Ramanuja with the ISKCON ites or Arya Samaj.

Regards,
Ram

If you were just referring to this so called new term that you have introduced here "inter-conversion among hindus" when you were interpreting gita in that post, I wonder why you were saying that in this process or attempts by the so called hindus, gita implies to see to that they do not loose their own faith. And what is even the need for even the reference of the atheist in all this.

I see some really interesting twists here to the original interpretation. If I remember correctly the context of this original discussion, satay was telling some hindus there to stop preaching to to so called non-believers und referring some verse from the gita with his own interpretation in that post and you came in with your own interpretation saying that there is nothing wrong in doing this. And with that context only, I remember you talking about Ramanuja, the opposition that he faced and the conversions which involved even jains and buddhists and who else and what not (Hope you won't bring in new stories here).

It will be appreciated if people are honest in their discussions here rather than trying to misinterpret and reinterpret their own posts to cover one mistake after another of their own posts. Is this the same kind of the so called "logical debates" that your so called great hindu reformers time and again used to bring down their opponents finally effecting "inter-conversions". Although now the picture seems to be getting more clear where your attitudes towards your so called "logical debates" are springing up from. It seems that it is coming out from a kind of so called "logical debating" ratrace in which one sect tries to bring down some other sect among themselves somehow, no matter what kind of twists or misinterpretations or reinterpretations or even possibly lies they can apply to win the debate. Sorry. I am highly disappointed with this kind of response here from your side.

 

[e=mv^2]

Flip flop?

 

[Latreia]

I'm not so sure about that. Hindus generally wish to convert Christians to their own belief system, without actually changing the label of "Christian." But ultimately, the Hindu proselytizer creates a Christian who sacrifices to Vishnu, engages in other idolatrous Hindu rituals, and believes that "all religions are a subset of Hinduism." The result is to completely destroy the meaning of being a Christian. So I do not believe you've adequately defended Hindus against the proselytizing charge.

My own lesson, unfortunately. I was in a state of Agape and was impressed by the Bhagavad Gita many years ago. I enjoy wisdom from any source. I honestly believed the hindu overtures of religious tolerance offered to me. And I felt glad to reciprocate. What I began to question in myself was loyalty to a Christian faith that was being reputed to be the most intolerant and corrupt. I questioned my own sincere motives for being baptised and a member of the United Methodist Church. I only wished to be honest. And not profess publicly to anything of slightest doubt.

Never in eternity would I have become a Christian "who sacrifices to Vishnu, engages in other idolatrous Hindu rituals, and believes that "all religions are a subset of Hinduism." My most ingrained spiritual and religious beliefs can never become embodied in the material sense, as in worshipping idols. I have a deep, extensive appreciation of art, including art of all religions. Music and architecture, yes.

When I finally discovered the true agendas of many agents of proselytizing on CF and their identities, it did not put me in a very nice mood.

Here is my reply to them:

Every liar says the opposite of what he thinks in his heart, with purpose to deceive. It is evident that speech was given to man, not that men might deceive on another, but that one man might make known his thoughts to another. Therefore, to use speech, then, for the purpose of deception, and not for its appointed end, is a sin. ~ St. Augustine

Latreia

 

[Arnold_Philips]

1- What happens to you after you die?

Not sure. It's not as important as what you're doing while you're living.

2- Why is there poverty and suffering in the world?

We treat each other awfully, and we shouldn't do that.

3- Describe God.

Indescribable.

4- How does one obtain true peace?

Listen to God's call.

5- When is war justifiable?

Very rarely.

6- Describe Heaven; and how do you get there.

Heaven is probably nice. You get there by heeding God's call.

7- What is the greatest quality humans possess?

Ability to work in groups.

8- Why are so many people depressed?

Chemicals in their brains.

9- What is the meaning of life?

I don't know.

10- How would God want us to respond to aggression and terrorism?

Dig up the root. Remove the occasion of all inward and outward wars.

11- What are we all so afraid of?

Our lives not meaning anything. Not being worth anything to anyone.

12- What is your one wish for the world?

That we all treat one another a little less awfully.

13- What is our greatest distraction?

Ourselves.

14- "We are all one." What are your thoughts on this?

I guess I agree.

15- "One way mentality of some religions". Don't you think it is Illogical w.r.t to God ? If God is infinite, do you think one book with some verses can disclose his divine plan ?

I don't think one book has all of God in it.

 

[arunma]

My own lesson, unfortunately. I was in a state of Agape and was impressed by the Bhagavad Gita many years ago. I enjoy wisdom from any source. I honestly believed the hindu overtures of religious tolerance offered to me. And I felt glad to reciprocate. What I began to question in myself was loyalty to a Christian faith that was being reputed to be the most intolerant and corrupt. I questioned my own sincere motives for being baptised and a member of the United Methodist Church. I only wished to be honest. And not profess publicly to anything of slightest doubt.

From your last post, I take it that you no longer believe Hinduism is a tolerant religion. Indeed, neither do I believe that Hinduism is tolerant. But if you don't mind my asking, has your opinion on Christianity changed?

 

[sanaa]

Ram is talking about when Ramanuja's rival schools of thought used to engage him in debate , lose and then convert to his school of thought . that is different from evangelising , get it . and if your not aware there are hindu school of thoughts which are atheist . i believe the member "proud hindu" is atheist . there were many conversions by hindus to buddhism and vice versa in those olden times . ur ability to see contradictions where there are none is um still strong

 

[sanaa]

Latreia , the truth remains u were not encouraged to convert by hindus here when u showed a strong interest in converting . if i recall correctly u were a little disappointed when u read one post where it was said that people of non hindu origins are not welcome by mainstream hindus into hinduism . there are very few exceptions to this , when the faith and devotion showed by a "westerner" was so strong that there was no choice . if we had any "hidden motives" as u say , we would have been happy to encourage you . if some christians read about hinduism and adopt some of its practises or accept its validity as a religion , please dont blame us .

 

[selwyn]

Ram is talking about when Ramanuja's rival schools of thought used to engage him in debate , lose and then convert to his school of thought . that is different from evangelising , get it . and if your not aware there are hindu school of thoughts which are atheist . i believe the member "proud hindu" is atheist . there were many conversions by hindus to buddhism and vice versa in those olden times . ur ability to see contradictions where there are none is um still strong

Would you please go over and read what was said there? Each one of you over here are giving your own interpretations and change your own interpretations according your convenience whenever a serious point is raised. Even in my last discussion with you, you changed over your entire point in what you considered as risk initially and later minimized it to a minor risk just for the sake of argument over the course of the discussion. Please try to maintain consistency in discussions here. We can differ and wrestle with the difference of opinions with each other in a discussion. But it is very difficult to wrestle with oneself when you present an opinion outside and keep a different opinion within yourself. And please don't underestimate or try to minimize people's intelligence here to come up with your so called "wise interpretations" according to your convenience just because you think that someone here may not know much about eastern religions.

 

[arunma]

Latreia , the truth remains u were not encouraged to convert by hindus here when u showed a strong interest in converting . if i recall correctly u were a little disappointed when u read one post where it was said that people of non hindu origins are not welcome by mainstream hindus into hinduism . there are very few exceptions to this , when the faith and devotion showed by a "westerner" was so strong that there was no choice . if we had any "hidden motives" as u say , we would have been happy to encourage you . if some christians read about hinduism and adopt some of its practises or accept its validity as a religion , please dont blame us .

I'm sorry I didn't respond to your last post, in which you said that my beliefs about Hindu proselytizing are unsupported opinions. But if I may use the above post as a place from which to counter that: I acknowledge that Hindus do not try to "convert" anyone in the classical sense of the word. Rather, I would argue that Hindus use the subversive tactic of sowing seeds of doubt in other religions, and attempting to also introduce Hindu beliefs into those religions. As you've noticed, certain Hindus often make posts claiming that Christian beliefs on the afterlife are fallacious, and that reincarnation is more logical. Others make arguments that Jesus is Krishna, that Jesus learned his teachings from Krishna, or that Jesus visited India as a child.

Again I must say: Hindus would have us believe that Jesus is the son of Krishna, that he taught reincarnation, and that he was a Hindu yogi. Rather than changing our label to that of Hindu, you seek to destroy Christianity by assimilating it into Hinduism.

Do I oppose this? No. Any religion that can't retain its followers doesn't deserve to exist. My only objection is to the Hindu claim that you're able to tolerate the beliefs of other religions. Hindus do not tolerate other beliefs, because you seek to make us conform to your religious beliefs.

 

[Latreia]

Latreia , the truth remains u were not encouraged to convert by hindus here when u showed a strong interest in converting . if i recall correctly u were a little disappointed when u read one post where it was said that people of non hindu origins are not welcome by mainstream hindus into hinduism . there are very few exceptions to this , when the faith and devotion showed by a "westerner" was so strong that there was no choice . if we had any "hidden motives" as u say , we would have been happy to encourage you . if some christians read about hinduism and adopt some of its practises or accept its validity as a religion , please dont blame us .

"if i recall correctly u were a little disappointed when u read one post where it was said that people of non hindu origins are not welcome by mainstream hindus into hinduism ."

Sanaa, you are wondrously wise for your age. You have a diplomatic way with words, and you are one who contributes more to CF than your fellow hindus. You are possesed with intelligence, but still need further maturity that only comes with the addition of 30 or 40 more years. And for an 18 year old girl to interpret the reactions of a 61 year old woman is not feasible. You have not the most tiniest inkling of what being disappointed is, compared with the ten different kinds of hell my life has been, and for nearly all of it, at that.


I resent the things you arrogantly imply about me and my life. You seem to be trying to bring me down now that I cannot be displayed as a trophy of a "Hindu Christian" You must have thought you were dealing with some kind of old foolish idiot, who would never catch on to the political agenda of today's young hindus. Perhaps you never heard of the saying:

"Old age and experience will overcome youth and talent."

 

[Arnold_Philips]

Different question: What if the person with the gun asked if you were a Christian, but was going to kill your little sister or mother if you said yes? How would it complicate matters if they (your family member) were or weren't Christian?

 

[Latreia]

From your last post, I take it that you no longer believe Hinduism is a tolerant religion. Indeed, neither do I believe that Hinduism is tolerant. But if you don't mind my asking, has your opinion on Christianity changed?

For years on different forums, I have stood up to atheists and enemies of American's true values, based on Christianity, my loyalty has always been strong. Hinduism, in it's pure spiritual form, cannot be represented anywhere by anyone's political agendas. Buddhism, Zen, are practiced in quiet meditation, not by attracting admirers with money or strapping on bombs.

Spiritual faith cannot be a worldly duality.

My opinion on Christianity has only changed by the knowledge that it is my duty, both spiritually and socially, to defend my fellow Christians and protect the innocent and repressed of this world. Not with arrogant, in your face, you are wrong and I am right deceptions, but with my honest heart, being and soul.

Thanks so much for asking.

 

[sanaa]

Would you please go over and read what was said there? Each one of you over here are giving your own interpretations and change your own interpretations according your convenience whenever a serious point is raised. Even in my last discussion with you, you changed over your entire point in what you considered as risk initially and later minimized it to a minor risk just for the sake of argument over the course of the discussion. Please try to maintain consistency in discussions here. We can differ and wrestle with the difference of opinions with each other in a discussion. But it is very difficult to wrestle with oneself when you present an opinion outside and keep a different opinion within yourself. And please don't underestimate or try to minimize people's intelligence here to come up with your so called "wise interpretations" according to your convenience just because you think that someone here may not know much about eastern religions.

i have read what was said . what u fail to understand is that hinduism is NOT a homogenuos set of beliefs where everyone has the same opinion or the same interpretation . nor is it like mainstream christianity where the world is viewed in black and white . no, many areas are grey amd require to be investigated for their finer nuances and meanings . we do not change our "interpretation" , we explain it in more detail . maybe it was ur first impression that was mistaken . now u accuse me of changing positions , but again i disagree . yes i said there was a risk , is a minor risk not a risk? obviously i felt that my feelings are but understood . i mean if i thought there was some big dangerous risk why would i take it ? obviously i feel that the risk is minor and can be ignored . a minor risk is a risk . the fault lies in ur understanding , no offense .

and you may know a little about eastern religions but u lack deeper knowledge which u urself admitted in one of ur earlier posts . did you know that there atheistic schools of thoughts like charvaka in hinduism ?
do you see the difference between a paradox and contradiction ?
do u know the 1001 names of Vishnu have exact opposites next to each other like zero , infinity etc. ? now ull call that a contradiction too ?

and lets not bring up our earlier discussion where you used to stretch things and imply that something said to me about one incident applies to everything i say .

 

[sanaa]

I'm sorry I didn't respond to your last post, in which you said that my beliefs about Hindu proselytizing are unsupported opinions. But if I may use the above post as a place from which to counter that: I acknowledge that Hindus do not try to "convert" anyone in the classical sense of the word.

thank you

Rather, I would argue that Hindus use the subversive tactic of sowing seeds of doubt in other religions, and attempting to also introduce Hindu beliefs into those religions.

arunma , my dear this is a discussion and debate board and hindus are debating here and presenting their beliefs and viewpoints . everything is open and there is nothing subversive about it . we reject ur opinion that our religion is false and we debate on certain teachings of ur religion

As you've noticed, certain Hindus often make posts claiming that Christian beliefs on the afterlife are fallacious, and that reincarnation is more logical. Others make arguments that Jesus is Krishna, that Jesus learned his teachings from Krishna, or that Jesus visited India as a child.

these are all theories and deserve to be discussed . as i said you can refute them and debate back

Again I must say: Hindus would have us believe that Jesus is the son of Krishna, that he taught reincarnation, and that he was a Hindu yogi. Rather than changing our label to that of Hindu, you seek to destroy Christianity by assimilating it into Hinduism.

if a christian believed all that he would no longer be christian would he ? and i thought we established that "westerners" are rarely welcome by mainstream hinduism . this is a debate board and there is no need to take it so personally or act like we are trying to eliminate christainity .

Do I oppose this? No. Any religion that can't retain its followers doesn't deserve to exist. My only objection is to the Hindu claim that you're able to tolerate the beliefs of other religions. Hindus do not tolerate other beliefs, because you seek to make us conform to your religious beliefs.

we accept and tolerate atheists , muslims , pagans , bahais etc. as they are . i would say the same for christianity but then i dont think many people would believe me . what hindus object to is our religion being called false and the active recruitment of hindus into christianity . i hope u dont object to our objections

 

[Latreia]

i have read what was said . what u fail to understand is that hinduism is NOT a homogenuos set of beliefs where everyone has the same opinion or the same interpretation . nor is it like mainstream christianity where the world is viewed in black and white . no, many areas are grey amd require to be investigated for their finer nuances and meanings . we do not change our "interpretation" , we explain it in more detail . maybe it was ur first impression that was mistaken . now u accuse me of changing positions , but again i disagree . yes i said there was a risk , is a minor risk not a risk? obviously i felt that my feelings are but understood . i mean if i thought there was some big dangerous risk why would i take it ? obviously i feel that the risk is minor and can be ignored . a minor risk is a risk . the fault lies in ur understanding , no offense .

and you may know a little about eastern religions but u lack deeper knowledge which u urself admitted in one of ur earlier posts . did you know that there atheistic schools of thoughts like charvaka in hinduism ?
do you see the difference between a paradox and contradiction ?
do u know the 1001 names of Vishnu have exact opposites next to each other like zero , infinity etc. ? now ull call that a contradiction too ?

and lets not bring up our earlier discussion where you used to stretch things and imply that something said to me about one incident applies to everything i say .

Since my praise means nothing to you, I retract it.

Who do you think you are to state exactly what I do or do not know?

Impudence is not a substitue for knowledge and experience.

What a waste of your youth.

Since my age and experience are beyond your comprehension, or any slight attempt on your part to show compassion, you may be excused from further bother with posting to me with your insults and rudeness.

The above words need to shrivel up in shame...they were not based on truth. Sanaa's quote above was not directed at me at all. In my own impatience and anger, I missed that fact. My sincere and saddest apologies to Sanaa for my false impression and mean words.

 

[sanaa]

Sanaa, you are wondrously wise for your age. You have a diplomatic way with words, and you are one who contributes more to CF than your fellow hindus. You are possesed with intelligence, but still need further maturity that only comes with the addition of 30 or 40 more years. And for an 18 year old girl to interpret the reactions of a 61 year old woman is not feasible. You have not the most tiniest inkling of what being disappointed is, compared with the ten different kinds of hell my life has been, and for nearly all of it, at that.

thank you for the compliment latreia . but am not interpreting your reaction . u clearly said in 1 of ur posts that u were disappointed on reading that people of non hindu origins are not welcome to be converted into mainstream hinduism . do you not remember writing this ?

I resent the things you arrogantly imply about me and my life.

i have not implied anything about your life . i just recalled what u wrote .

You seem to be trying to bring me down now that I cannot be displayed as a trophy of a "Hindu Christian" You must have thought you were dealing with some kind of old foolish idiot, who would never catch on to the political agenda of today's young hindus. Perhaps you never heard of the saying:

"Old age and experience will overcome youth and talent."

i am not trying to bring you down . i have the same respect and love for you as before . it does not matter which religion you believe in . please dont take this debate in the wrong way . i was defending my religion is all

 

[sanaa]

Since my praise means nothing to you, I retract it.

Who do you think you are to state exactly what I do or do not know?

Impudence is not a substitue for knowledge and experience.

What a waste of your youth.

Since my age and experience are beyond your comprehension, or any slight attempt on your part to show compassion, you may be excused from further bother with posting to me with your insults and rudeness.

oh my God latreia , that post was directed towards selwyn and not you

 

[Ram]

First I would advise you to get familoar with Hinduism and its history before venturing out to talk about it.

If you were just referring to this so called new term that you have introduced here "inter-conversion among hindus" when you were interpreting gita in that post, I wonder why you were saying that in this process or attempts by the so called hindus, gita implies to see to that they do not loose their own faith. And what is even the need for even the reference of the atheist in all this.

What you dont really understand is Hinduism can be defined as

1. All possible religions and denominations in the world.
2. Only the religions that accept the authority of the vedas and defend their faiths on its authority.

Different Hindus will give you different opinions on this. For eg, liberalists like sana might tell you it is the former. Many Hindus will subscribe only to the second.

In classical and traditional Hinduism , the correct definition would be the second. In modern times, Hinduism has been projected as the former by many reformers. I cannot honestly judge if this is correct, but my personal definition would always go by the second.

For eg, I dont consider Christians or muslims to be Hindus, but I have no objections if a Christian has Hindu inclinations or calls himself to a Hindu wihout sacrificing his Christian root.

As long as you accept principal tenets of vedas, you are a Hindu, and will remain so even if you actually practice the doctrines in bible. But if you dont accept vedic authority, then I dont accept you as a Hindu.

I see some really interesting twists here to the original interpretation. If I remember correctly the context of this original discussion, satay was telling some hindus there to stop preaching to to so called non-believers und referring some verse from the gita with his own interpretation in that post and you came in with your own interpretation saying that there is nothing wrong in doing this. And with that context only, I remember you talking about Ramanuja, the opposition that he faced and the conversions which involved even jains and buddhists and who else and what not (Hope you won't bring in new stories here).

Hinduism has many sects in it, founded by many spiritually inclined people. The major difference is ancient Hinduism is that you cannot simply claim youself to be God or a son of God and introduce a new religion. Such an approach will need you to establish your school on logical grounds. This was mainly to prevent the practice of fake Godmen.

Buddhists, Jains etc did not accept the vedic authority but yet accepted the traditional forms of debate prevalent then. Anybody who claimed himself to be a scholar would be challenged to debates, and refusing to accept it was considered as defeat.

Christianity and Islam are not even recognised as unorthodox vedic schools and would not even be given the privilege of debate. Have you wondered if the first christians came to India more than 1500 years ago, and yet even after British rule it is only 2%? Islam would have also been only that much had it been for the forced conversions and their high birth rates.

Nobody can beat about the bush in India and establish a religion prior to the 18th century. You have to defeat many scholars in logic and establish your religion. This is why Christianity and Islam have never made any impression here.

It will be appreciated if people are honest in their discussions here rather than trying to misinterpret and reinterpret their own posts to cover one mistake after another of their own posts. Is this the same kind of the so called "logical debates" that your so called great hindu reformers time and again used to bring down their opponents finally effecting "inter-conversions". Although now the picture seems to be getting more clear where your attitudes towards your so called "logical debates" are springing up from. It seems that it is coming out from a kind of so called "logical debating" ratrace in which one sect tries to bring down some other sect among themselves somehow, no matter what kind of twists or misinterpretations or reinterpretations or even possibly lies they can apply to win the debate. Sorry. I am highly disappointed with this kind of response here from your side.

The different HIndu schools debated for the cause of truth and not to bring down other sects. And you cannot simply lie or misinterpret openly to do that - remember your views would be scruitinized by all your rival schools. You cannot simply say whatever you want. Oh, you pretend to be disappointed? We are all disappointed with the one way mentality of Semetic religions trying to put down all other religions in the world.

 

[Latreia]

Since my praise means nothing to you, I retract it.

Who do you think you are to state exactly what I do or do not know?

Impudence is not a substitue for knowledge and experience.

What a waste of your youth.

Since my age and experience are beyond your comprehension, or any slight attempt on your part to show compassion, you may be excused from further bother with posting to me with your insults and rudeness.

The above words need to shrivel up in shame...they were not based on truth. Sanaa's quote above was not directed at me at all. In my own impatience and anger, I missed that fact. My sincere and saddest apologies to Sanaa for my false impression and mean words.

Reposting my shame and apology to sanaa. She was kind enough to PM me so that I may know my mistake. Luckily, I learned a new phrase today but little did I know that I would have to make use of it in the same day.

Sanaa,
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

literal translation: mea culpa = my fault, mea culpa = my fault, mea maxima culpa = my great fault (most grievous, intense, sorrowful)

 

[sanaa]

latreia , please dont embarrass me with an apology . i can understand the source of your anger . i hope you will try to understand the source of anger of some hindus here too