irreligious youngsters

[vasumathi]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

of late mossundararajan.t of the young people are not religious. No religious observances by them. It is something serious.
sundararajan.

 

[renuka]

of late mossundararajan.t of the young people are not religious. No religious observances by them. It is something serious.
sundararajan.

I wouldnt want to blame the youngsters alone cos there is lack of emphasis on Human Values instilled by elders these days.
In fact its the elders of the house these day who need some reprogramming of their mind set.

Some as they age become frustrated with life and have even Eureka moments and realize there is no God or feel God never answered their prayers etc and start giving sermons of the weird kind to who ever they come in contact with and this vicious cycle goes on and on.

Firstly what is defined as religious?If its just praying for self benefit then the whole world is religious cos everyone is just trying to out do the other at any cost for self gain.
Some pray to God for self gain..some feed their Ego for self gain..so the net product is not much different...that is total lack of human values!!!

First we can start off being better humans by having education in human values.
Problems are never solved just by going to temple,praying etc if we fail to imbibe the essence of religion.
Anyone can be a parrot and act religious today and become serpentile and hiss a different tune at a much later time.

In fact those who have been very religious before and suddenly turn againts it are the most dangerous ones.

Someone who had knowledge how to use a weapon is more dangerous than a person who dreams of using it.


May be we can first start off by examining ourselves if we are actually even fit enough to guide the current youngsters.
I remember reading of Ramakrishna Paramahansa where a boy who was excessively fond of eating sweets was brought to see Him and Paramahansa told the lady to bring back the boy after several weeks.
Only then He advised the boy how to give up sweets and when the mother question Paramahansa why He couldnt advise the kid right away..He replied that He had to give up His craving for sweets first before he could advise another.

So I guess most of us are still very far way from being a perfect example for youngsters.

Disclaimer: This post of mine is purely based on my thoughts and bears no resemblance to anyone Living or Departed.
Any resemblance is purely coincidental.

 

[kaartikn]

beautiful thoughts and true also. hats off to you. i really enjoyed.

 

[sangom]

Of the many etymologies of the word religion, one is according to Cicero, derived from relegare "go through again, read again," from re- "again" + legere "read".May be youngsters today are not interested in some aspects of the popular notions about religion. I would say that it is because we (and more particularly tabras here) want youngsters to imitate all that the oldies consider as the "lakshanas" of one's being religious. If, by chance any youngster crosses this limit and tries to be "more pious than god" again the oldies are not amused.

I know a case of a young boy who took all the advice and instructions of his widowed grandmother and has left his studies (in the middle of M.A.) and is now spending most of his waking hours in ensuring that he is "maDi" and doing the brahminical routine. His parents as also the grandmother who caused this tragedy all died possibly broken-hearted.

It should therefore be understood that what oldies or not-so-oldies (middle-aged parents) want is that the youngsters should be religious as I want, no more, no less;reminds me of Humpty Dumpty —'When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean -neither more nor less.'

In the present stage of societies driven by Science, Engineering and Technology, and in which even those claiming themselves to be religious, have to eke out a living through SET only. So, it is natural that the younger generations venerate SET as more important than being religious.

 

[renuka]

Dear Sangom,

You wrote :

In the present stage of societies driven by Science, Engineering and Technology, and in which even those claiming themselves to be religious, have to eke out a living through SET only. So, it is natural that the younger generations venerate SET as more important than being religious.​

Being religious doesnt mean not studying SET.After all SET is nothing new to the Vedantin.
The whole Hindu concept of life and existence itself is very scientific.
Ok I will give you an example about how Human Values help in the field of SET.

Ok take 2 doctors..One with Human Values and another without Human Values.
Both are brilliant.

The one with Human Values practises medicine with ethics and righteously.
The one without Human Values resorts to even illegal organ harvesting.

SET is dangerous in the hands of one without Human Values.

 

[C RAVI]

Shri Sundararajan,

Off course, your thread is relevant to the present scenario and the issue you are highlighting is indeed serious.


Dear Renuka,

I fully agree with your post #2 and #5.


Children from the stage of infancy are more close and attached to their mother. It is all what mother believes, does and impart all to her children. It is not that father has no influence on the children. But the point is that, mother's influence over the children is on higher degree, comparatively.

A mother who don't believe in GOD/Religion, a mother who don't practice spirituality to some reasonable and possible extent, a mother who don't involve her children with some of her spiritual practices and enable them enjoy the charm of spirituality in some way etc, than the children can not be expected to follow their father who is religious/spiritual in some way, in most of the cases.

If husband and wife are in two opposite sides on GOD/Spirituality, it is very very rare to find the children following their religous father. If both the parents are religious/spiritual than the children can be well expected to be the same, at least to some extent.

If children are irreligious inspite of religious parents, it would simply reveal as to what extent the social environment of the children is over ruling the home environment. And to what extent parents are capable to help their children retaining religious values, while being pragmatic and utilizing the products of SET. The more constructively the growing children are religious and spiritual the more is the constructive usage of and contributions towards SET, both in their personal and social life.

So far what I have observed in India is- the westernized social environment, fun & only fun attitude, the curiosity and the urge to enjoy & experience everything right from the teenage, a over smart rational brain enhancement etc.etc has spoiled lots and lots of young boys and girls who all had a wrong idea that they are highly social, rational, open minded and are in par with others and heading towards fulfillment, as smart "humans".

There are many real life cases, that clearly shows as how today's boys and girls are spoiling/troubling themselves and others. AFA I am concerned, I would say that these are the results of how they been brought up, how capable the parents were to instill and retaining values in their children, how capable the parents were in monitoring their children and how the parents could ensure the right personality of their children. Religious/Spiritual inclinating helps children to be a better person for their own betterment and that of the society.

A sense of fear and reghteousness to refrain from indulging in bad activities comes from the acquired and retained religious/spiritual values. Otherwise of which children would grow along with enhancing their rational brain towards all sort of crooked, wicked and stealth qalities/tendencies/attitudes in order to achieve, enjoy and experience all that they could mange without being caught. The personality would than turn out to be the most dangerous for others and for themselves at a certian point of time.

 

[prasad1]

How children turn out to be is mostly their own Karma. The parents and the environment may contribute 10-20%. I do agree the parents responsibility is to provide the best environment and support the kids and hope for the best.
I fully endorse Ravi's words:
' Children from the stage of infancy are more close and attached to their mother. It is all what mother believes, does and impart all to her children. It is not that father has no influence on the children. But the point is that, mother's influence over the children is on higher degree.'
Unfortunately in some cases the mother is limited and can not influence, and father has some bad habits and gives the child inappropriate values.

 

[Nara]

Very often we are told only religion can instil good wholesome moral values, but the fact is very murky. It is appalling to read this news, the bhaktas were no different from the ones who line up to see a movie or politician.

The Hindu : States / Other States : 16 killed in stampede in Haridwar

"Eyewitnesses said the stampede in this town occured at around 10.30 a.m when a few people tripped while those behind continued to push forward after tens of thousands devotees had gathered to proceed to the fireplace at the ashram to make offerings. [....]

​

The situation soon went out of control and people ran helter—skelter with several women and children falling on the ground"

​

If anything, the religious education to youngsters is like pouring concrete over their feet so they cannot venture out to see what else may be out there.

 

[happyhindu]

Before i begin, please let me add this disclaimer --

Renu, i have nothing against you. I wish to question statements which many youngsters would like to believe as the truth.

There are decent youngsters from well educated families who strangely end up deluding themselves with some glorious past where vedantins knew everything about everything. This is because they come across people making many claims on vedas and vedanta, on the net.

Unlike other religions like christianity and buddhism where youngsters can understand atleast literally conveyed stuff themselves, sanskrit is hardly known, much less interpretations of stuff in sanskrit. And so these youngsters end up beleiving propaganda. They get brainwashed to the extent of wanting to wipe out anything they perceive as non-vedic from india...

IMO, those who make mere claims, should please take some responsibility for their comments. My wish is let everyone know all versions. Instead of flying in the air, possibly knowing the other side may help them stay grounded and sensible...

Being religious doesnt mean not studying SET.After all SET is nothing new to the Vedantin.

Renu, Please could you tell me which parts of vedanta is nothing new to those studying SET?? Please explain where does SET figure in vedanta.

The whole Hindu concept of life and existence itself is very scientific.

Please explain how.

Ok I will give you an example about how Human Values help in the field of SET.

Ok take 2 doctors..One with Human Values and another without Human Values.
Both are brilliant.

The one with Human Values practises medicine with ethics and righteously.
The one without Human Values resorts to even illegal organ harvesting.

SET is dangerous in the hands of one without Human Values.

I do not understand what is the connection between this example and hindu concept of life (if any was intended). I know of very religious surgeons involved in corrupt practices (some of whom are brahmins). To me, there is no guarantee that religious people practice medicine with ethics or anything righteous.

Regards.

 

[C RAVI]

Very often we are told only religion can instil good wholesome moral values, but the fact is very murky. It is appalling to read this news, the bhaktas were no different from the ones who line up to see a movie or politician.

The Hindu : States / Other States : 16 killed in stampede in Haridwar

"Eyewitnesses said the stampede in this town occured at around 10.30 a.m when a few people tripped while those behind continued to push forward after tens of thousands devotees had gathered to proceed to the fireplace at the ashram to make offerings. [....]

​

The situation soon went out of control and people ran helter—skelter with several women and children falling on the ground"

​

If anything, the religious education to youngsters is like pouring concrete over their feet so they cannot venture out to see what else may be out there.

Shri Nara,

There are many sort of Bhakthas...

1) Selfish Bhakthas
2) Crazy Bhakthas
3) Confused Bhakthas
4) Misusing Bhakthas
5) Cheating Bhakthas.... and so on and on...

If a group of over reacted bhakthas go out of control, end up causing stampede and even lead to casualities/death etc. can not be considered to conclude that instilling religion and spirituality would lead the children to havoc.

It all depends what children been tought about religion and spiritualily. As well it is a matter of descipline, responsibility, safety and well being of all, that all been educated.

 

[sangom]

Dear Sangom,

You wrote :

Being religious doesnt mean not studying SET.After all SET is nothing new to the Vedantin.
The whole Hindu concept of life and existence itself is very scientific.
Ok I will give you an example about how Human Values help in the field of SET.

Ok take 2 doctors..One with Human Values and another without Human Values.
Both are brilliant.

The one with Human Values practises medicine with ethics and righteously.
The one without Human Values resorts to even illegal organ harvesting.

SET is dangerous in the hands of one without Human Values.

Smt. Renuka,

Your approach seems to be a clever effort at confusing the issue; for you (and your 'likes' partners possibly) being religious = possesses human values, and, being non-religious = being without "Human values", whatever you may be intending by that. But after reading this post I am sure you will use the escape route which you have adroitly reserved and say, "I did not say that being religious means possessing human values and vice versa."

But even in the hindu scriptures, we have examples of renowned bhaktas of some deity or the other (and so imho, they must be considered to have been 'religious') like ravana -a great Sivabhakta who pleased Brahma with his 'tapas' and obtained the boon that none other than a human would be able to kill him: Hiranyakasipu who also pleased Brahma with his 'tapas' and got boons:tārakākṣa, vidyunmāli and kamalākṣa (incidentally the very name of Vishnu) also did please Lord Brahma and got the boon of Tripura (the triple fortress) which could be destroyed only by a 'single arrow', which was possible for Lord Siva only, and since they were great Sivabhaktas they thought no one would ever defeat them.

Thus, according to the scriptures themselves, being religious does not mean possessing human values. In today's society also, if one looks around without any religiously coloured glasses, I am sure one will find enough samples of very religious persons who are up to very undesirable activities. And, can you honestly guarantee that all organ-harvesting doctors will definitely be irreligious?

In short 'being religious' and 'having human values' are not at all related traits.

 

[Nara]

1) Selfish Bhakthas
2) Crazy Bhakthas
3) Confused Bhakthas
4) Misusing Bhakthas
5) Cheating Bhakthas.... and so on and on...

Yes of course, this is what I am trying to say as well. Tell this to those who claim religion instills moral values. Morality is innate in all human beings, religion has nothing to do with it.

 

[prasad1]

Morality is a a set of values evolved over a period of time for a set of people in a set place and time. There is nothing innate about it. If it was innate then it should be same all over. Majority of values have been codified in religions, and now those values are the basis of our constitution. If left to themselves with no values the whole human society will fall apart.

 

[prasad1]

Who is religious person?
Born of right parents, living in a social setting with values, going to church, does that make someone religious? If that was true then the Mafia clan would be religious. That is all pseudo religious. Dhikhava Mukh me ram-ram bagal me churi.

A religious person will have human values and more, he does not have to show off his religiousness.
A religious person may have his flaws, because he is human.

 

[itsmesiva]

On SET and religion - I recently read about how the theory of vidhi (things can happen either one way or the other) is a translation in the larger scale universe of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle at the subatomic level. Kandippa kattradhu kai mann alavu dhan !!

 

[Nara]

Morality is a a set of values evolved over a period of time for a set of people in a set place and time.

To say moral values are something developed by a set of people is to admit god has nothing to do with it, in other words, god and religion are just human constructs. This is just dandy for us atheists.

There is nothing innate about it. If it was innate then it should be same all over.

All peoples from every corner of this globe do share some common core principles out of which comes morality. Love, compassion, justice, fairness etc., are seen as moral by all peoples, irrespective of where they are from, or what belief they are reared in, or what their present convictions are. There is a biological explanation for this common human trait. There is lot of literature out there if one is interested.

One might be temped to argue why then there are people doing bad things. That is a different question and the answer to it will not alter the validity of the above. Aggression is just as natural as love and compassion. What is valued as moral is naturally selected by what enhances the survival and reproduction. In the aggregate, love, compassion, cooperation are more conducive to human survival and reproduction than aggressiveness. This is why the former is seen as "moral" and the later not.

Majority of values have been codified in religions, and now those values are the basis of our constitution.

This only goes to show religion is a human invention to make people behave in a way the establishment wants. I agree. Religion is simply a tool in the hands of the establishment to enforce the kind of order that is most beneficial to them, and one of the ways they accomplish this is to cloak religion with moral sensibilities that will be attractive to the masses because of their innate moral sense. This is the reason majority of these values got codified in religions. It is pertinent to note that these values cloak the sinister aspects of religion, and to hoodwink the masses into willingly adopt religion as a whole, sinister aspects included.

The U.S. constitution is a document that is very specific about keeping religion out of government. The U.S. constitution serves as a wall of separation between religion and government.

If left to themselves with no values the whole human society will fall apart.

The opening assertion of the argument was that morality is a set of values evolved over time. This assertion presumes a slow process of building rules that finally enabled larger and stable human societies to form. This is a very reasonable argument, but needs a little deeper examination. What criteria were used to select some rules as part of the moral code and not others? Why would these rules help in the formation of larger and stable human societies?

I submit that for a rule to be accepted as moral it must be seen as fair and beneficial by the members of the society. This means the people must have an a priori notion of what is fair and just. Then, a rule may be accepted as moral in so far as it is in alignment with those notions. In other words, human beings were already equipped with a notion of what is moral, therefore morality is innate to human beings. In summary, to be a moral person is natural for human beings.

Another way of looking at this is to see it as a case of the anthropic principle in action. We see somethings as moral and others not because of our innate moral nature that makes us see them as moral. The reason love, compassion, etc., are considered moral is because those qualities matched our innate sense of what is good and moral, not because of some external immutable and inerrant entity said so. It is for the same reason greed, anger, etc., are not considered morally good qualities. So, by way of the anthropic principle we can say that what is considered moral is based on our innate sense of morality resulting from millions of years of biological evolution.

Cheers!

 

[prasad1]

You never let a wolf guard a hen house. If you want a save the hens you have to keep the wolf at bay.
The original thread was a complain about irreligious children, and people are trying to give suggestion to solve Mr. Sundararajan problem. Unfortunately irreligious people want to sabotage the process.

It is like writing laws to prevent the lobbyist from unduly influencing the congress, but the same lobbyist are writing that law.

 

[கால பைரவன்]

Morality is innate in all human beings, religion has nothing to do with it.

If religion has nothing to do with morality, then one may not claim that "religion makes an otherwise good person to act immorally".

Statement: Religion has nothing to do with morality.

Corollary: Religion does not make a person immoral!

 

[renuka]

Dear Sangom,

You wrote :

Smt. Renuka,

Your approach seems to be a clever effort at confusing the issue; for you (and your 'likes' partners possibly) being religious = possesses human values, and, being non-religious = being without "Human values", whatever you may be intending by that. But after reading this post I am sure you will use the escape route which you have adroitly reserved and say, "I did not say that being religious means possessing human values and vice versa."

When I said Human Values I kept options open that anyone can have Human Values be it Theist or Atheist...but I guess your squad chooses to see it in a different way.
No amount of convincing will change your view as you have already used the word "escape route" on me.

Anyway you are entitled to your opinion but technically you cant hold me ransom on any grounds cos I didnt write Human Values=Being Religious.
Have fun darling..you might have noticed I am not answering any Q from your squad.
You, I still answer and respond cos I find you Cute!!!

 

[ganapathineyveli]

Rightly said.

 

[renuka]

You never let a wolf guard a hen house. If you want a save the hens you have to keep the wolf at bay.
The original thread was a complain about irreligious children, and people are trying to give suggestion to solve Mr. Sundararajan problem. Unfortunately irreligious people want to sabotage the process.

It is like writing laws to prevent the lobbyist from unduly influencing the congress, but the same lobbyist are writing that law.

Hope is still there..we can employ Angry Birds to guard the farm!!
We ain't no chicken!!

 

[C RAVI]

Yes of course, this is what I am trying to say as well. Tell this to those who claim religion instills moral values. Morality is innate in all human beings, religion has nothing to do with it.

Professor Nara,

In my previous post, listing different bakthas, I was only highlighting the fact that, in the name of Bakthi people tend to do many things wrong. Either out of their ignorance (as innocent) or as Theists in guise.

 

[nannilam_balasubramanian]

The state of picture explained above is more or less genuine.

Further as regards, irreligious activities, it all depends as to how the
children are nurtured by the parents at the infant level and also at
the boy/girl hood level. Since these days, parents both go to work,
some times they are left at the creches or with someday caretakers.
It is that situation generally get moulded in the minds of children.

It is my personal submission.

Balasubramanian
Ambattur

 

[Nara]

Statement: Religion has nothing to do with morality.

Corollary: Religion does not make a person immoral!

I do agree with this corollary of sorts, even though from logic POV the corollary does not follow from the statement.

The statement is about being moral, but the corollary is about being immoral -- while these are related, being not one does not necessarily make the other true or false. In other words, being not moral does not necessarily imply immoral. Religion having nothing to do with making a person moral, which was my point, does not follow that religion must then not make a person immoral as well.

But, as I said, I do agree with the corollary, religion can't make a person immoral. However, it can surely force, and does force, a moral person act in immoral ways just to follow the prescribed religious rules. This is why religion must be rejected.

If the criticism was only that religion does not make a person moral, then that is not a sufficient reason to reject religion. But, the criticism is that religion makes a moral person act in immoral ways and this is surely sufficient reason to reject religion.

I welcome any rational rebuttal of what I have stated and would love the opportunity to have a civil and meaningful debate on the issues.

Cheers!

 

[sangom]

I welcome any rational rebuttal of what I have stated and would love the opportunity to have a civil and meaningful debate on the issues.
Cheers!

Dear Nara,

The other side believes that 'religion' is as necessary as the skin for the human being, a covering which has to be there if the person has to be alive. In such a mindset, it is difficult to envisage any human being living without religion; such persons will naturally look to them as abnormal and hence undesirable.

To have a good depiction of the effects of religion in humans, it is worth watching the Malayalam movie "guru" *ing Mohanlal. (Of course the religionists can claim that the movie depicts the atheists' blindness.) But I personally feel that religion even at its best, is a mild form of cultism.