New threats to Hinduism.

[appaiah]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear Sri KRS

Thanks a lot for the links, more particularly an introduction to the manner in which some people from christianity view Hinduism positively. Yes, he seems to be genuinely a worshipper of Sri Krishna. His interview on 'You Tube' is convincing as to how he became a Hindu. He says that he has had upanayanam and he wears the sacred thread and declares he is a brahmana. He also says he follows Sri Ramanujacharya, that means that he is an Iyengar. Why I say this is that answers your question in another thread that he is an iyengar after conversion! Interesting, indeed.

The article written by him in the other link is very relevant to our discussions in this forum in various other threads. He classifies and points out issues one after the other. Most of the thoughts expressed by him go with what our friends here have expressed. May be the forumites could carry on a discussion on that article as a basis paper even.

The second article gives insight into the minds of converts into Hinduism. He claims that there are 1.5 million converts to Hinduism in US itself. That is a good number and this opens a question as to whether hinduism allows conversions into it? But such conversions could be a fitting reply to the conversions out of Hinduism to christianity induced in India by the Churches. A good strategy in a game of chess is "offence is the best form of defence" It seems to apply here. If this is done on a large scale in America and Europe, the Pope will not give the clarion call for 'harvesting souls in Asia' - for he will start looking at his home rather than poke his nose in our homes. I mean no offence to chirstians though, I feel strongly against the methods adopted by them and the manner in which they treat the souls as though crops.

Regards

 

[appaiah]

I am not in favour of filling up the pages of this forum by cut, copy and paste of articles in other sites. But the link provided by Sri KRS was to the following article. This contains issues raised by various members in this forum in this and other theads. Therefore I thought it fit to cut copy and paste the article. I would like to be a 'poster' and not a 'paster', though! (And of course never a 'pastor' or an 'imposter')

Please dont feel offended on the title he has given. I donot accept some of the views expressed by him either.

<H1>The Death of Traditional Hinduism

From Dr. Frank Morales
A tragic occurrence in the very long history of Hinduism was witnessed throughout the 19th century, the destructive magnitude of which Hindu leaders and scholars today are only beginning to adequately assess and address. This development both altered and weakened Hinduism to such a tremendous degree that Hinduism has not yet even begun to recover.
British Attack on Hinduism
The classical, traditional Hinduism that had been responsible for the continuous development of thousands of years of sophisticated culture, architecture, music, philosophy, ritual and theology came under devastating assault during the 19th century British colonial rule like at no other time in India's history.
Innovative Cultural Genocide
What the Hindu community experienced under British Christian domination, however, was an ominously innovative form of cultural genocide. What they experienced was not an attempt at the physical annihilation of their culture, but a deceivingly more subtle program of intellectual and spiritual annihilation. It is easy for a people to understand the urgent threat posed by an enemy that seeks to literary kill them. It is much harder, though, to understand the threat of an enemy who, while remaining just as deadly, claims to seek only to serve a subjugated people's best interests.
Anglicized Hindu Intellectuals
During this short span of time in the 19th century, the ancient grandeur and beauty of a classical Hinduism that had stood the test of thousands of years, came under direct ideological attack. What makes this period in Hindu history most especially tragic is that the main apparatus that the British used in their attempts to destroy traditional Hinduism were the British educated, spiritually co-opted sons and daughters of Hinduism itself. Seeing traditional Hinduism through the eyes of their British masters, a pandemic wave of 19th century Anglicized Hindu intellectuals saw it as their solemn duty to "Westernize" and "modernize" traditional Hinduism to make it more palatable to their new European overlords. One of the phenomena that occurred during this historic period was the fabrication of a new movement known as "neo-Hinduism".
What is Neo-Hinduism?
Neo-Hinduism was an artificial religious construct used as a paradigmatic juxtaposition to the legitimate traditional Hinduism that had been the religion and culture of the people for thousands of years. Neo-Hinduism was used as an effective weapon to replace authentic Hinduism with a British invented version designed to make a subjugated people easier to manage and control.
The Christian and British inspired neo-Hinduism movement attempted to execute several overlapping goals, and did so with great success:
a) The subtle Christianization of Hindu theology, which included concerted attacks on iconic imagery (archana, or murti), panentheism, and continued belief in the beloved gods and goddesses of traditional Hinduism.
b) The imposition of the Western scientific method, rationalism and skepticism on the study of Hinduism in order to show Hinduism's supposedly inferior grasp of reality.
c) Ongoing attacks against the ancient Hindu science of ritual in the name of simplification and democratization of worship.
d) The importation of Radical Universalism from liberal, Unitarian / Universalist Christianity as a device designed to severely water down traditional Hindu philosophy.
The Death of Traditional Hinduism
The dignity, strength and beauty of traditional Hinduism was recognized as the foremost threat to Christian European rule in India. The invention of neo-Hinduism was the response. Had this colonialist program been carried out with a British face, it would not have met with as much success as it did. Therefore, an Indian face was used to impose neo-Hinduism upon the Hindu people. The resultant effects of the activities of Indian neo-Hindus were ruinous for traditional Hinduism.
The Dilemma
The primary dilemma with Hinduism as we find it today, in a nutshell, is precisely this problem of…
1) Not recognizing that there are really two distinct and conflicting Hinduisms today, Neo-Hindu and Traditionalist Hindu; and
2) With Traditionalists being the guardians of authentic Dharma philosophically and attitudinally, but not yet coming to full grips with the modern world, i.e., not yet having found a way of negotiating authentic Hindu Dharma with an ability to interface with modernity and communicate this unadulterated Hindu Dharma in a way that the modern mind can most appreciate it. A Confused Existence
Hinduism will continue to be a religion mired in confusion about its own true meaning and value until traditionalist Hindus can assertively, professionally and intelligently communicate the reality of genuine Hinduism to the world.

</H1>

 

[Guldon]

Dear Mr. KRS,

I am quoting you:

You might have seen the recent articles about the reconcersions back to our religion. And a lot of us are happy. But to tell you the truth, I am not.

Because, the majority who convert in the first place do so for money and/or social pressure brought on by block thinking. Religion does not seem to play any role. Just the fact that they do not see any religion as a serious factor in their lives makes me wonder whether they would benefit from any religion (after all that is the function of any religion).

I think I understand you. You are saying that people who convert to other religion for money or social pressure should not be coming back to Hiduism because you think that they are reconverting to Hinduism for money or social pressure.

I know that Sri Kanchi Sankaracharya went to Cheris and reconverted those dalits who were converted to Islam by the power of money from Saudi Arabia. Do you consider that the Acharya was indulging in social pressure on the dalits?

We should not forget the fact that the illiterates are targetted for conversion. Should Hindus watch them go?

Should we become victims of our learning to divorce ourselves from our fellow Hindus who have not either capable of learning or not had chance and means to learn? As a learned Hindu would you educate a dalit about the greatness of Hinduism? Or would you say I am learned and I like Hinduism but it is not my business to educate my fellow being about Hinduism so that he will not convert to another religion or if he was already converted asking him to come back?

It is true that many Hindus have not heard of 'varna' or 'ashrama' or 'dharma'. Don't you think that this 'secular' set up has played havoc upon Hindus whereby Hindus are restricted (setting Hindus against Hindus by reservations etc., looting Hindu temples by Govt. take over, setting up subservient Acharyas to deceive the common people etc. etc.) while other religions are encouraged especially by the play of vote bank politics? Do you think that this intrusion has much to do with Hindus not knowing their own religion to the advantage of other religions in poaching our people?

And finally you keep repeating that Varnasrama Dharma is not followed but you did not answer my question asking you if it is dead. Would you be willing to give all the readers a straight answer?

Also do you personally like the varnasrama dharma to be strengthened if it is not dead? If so what caused its death? Did the British cause the damage as many believe?

If you feel it is dead then would you like it being revived?

What do you think are the advantage and disadvantage of this system?

I am asking all these questions becuase you have been the one most to talk about Varnasrama Dharma in this blog and I did not get any clear understanding of your position.

Sincerely,

 

[appaiah]

Dear Sri Guldon

Pl bear with me as I interfere in your discussion with Sri KRS. I have already expressed my unwillingness to get into discussions as to the desirability or otherwise of the Varna system as I am sure that leads to acrimony rather than solution.

You have stated in your first post:

I was a bit perplexed with your statement:
Quote:
All Hindus are not believing in the Varna concept any more. The social aspect of our religion is so out of balance that we have even created a fifth varna! Unless ALL Hindus accept the original varna division of labour, this will be the reality.
So are you saying that Hinduism as a religion is dead? When did it die?

You had stated in your second post:

And finally you keep repeating that Varnasrama Dharma is not followed but you did not answer my question asking you if it is dead.

Reading your first post itself, one understands that you perceive Varnashrama is hinduism and hinduism is Varnashrama. Your second post insisting on the same thing again confirms this understanding.

Please note that Hinduism is not Varnashrama and Varnashrama is not Hinduism. None including the great avatars like Sri Adi Shankara, Sri Madhwacharya and Sri Ramanuja have ever given this kind of meaning to Hinduism. Assigning such meanings to Hinduism is fraught with grave dangers. In view of the gravity of such danger, I chose to bring to your attention that these Hinduism and Varnashrama are not the same. Varnashrama in fact is just one part of the various aspects. All these Avatara Purushas had always assinged greater importance to realisation of the Brahman and reaching His Lotus feet as the goal. While being so, the death or otherwise or revival or otherwise of Varnashrama will never ever be in the goals shown by these Avatara Purushas. One should always go after the lofty goals set by these Avatara Purushas than the rest.

 

[KRS]

Dear Guldon Ji,

My comments are in 'blue' below:

Dear Mr. KRS,

I am quoting you:

I think I understand you. You are saying that people who convert to other religion for money or social pressure should not be coming back to Hiduism because you think that they are reconverting to Hinduism for money or social pressure.

Not exactly. I did not say they should not be coming back to Hinduism. What I have said is that Iam not happy about the situation. Because it seems that religion is playing a very secondary role in these people's lives.

I know that Sri Kanchi Sankaracharya went to Cheris and reconverted those dalits who were converted to Islam by the power of money from Saudi Arabia. Do you consider that the Acharya was indulging in social pressure on the dalits?

You see how one goes off on the wrong assumption - where did I say that our Acharya was 'indulging in social pressure on the dalits?'. I was not commenting on the reconversion rather the religious roots of those who are ready to be converted on the basis of money or social pressure in the first place.

We should not forget the fact that the illiterates are targetted for conversion. Should Hindus watch them go?

In Hinduism, we do not have this religious differences of status based on one's literacy or even intelligence. The more intelligent and/or literate you are, it places more personal responsibility on you to overcome your mind to attain salvation. So being either or both is no panecia. Those 'illiterates' were brought up with the Hindu way of life also, like you and me. Granted, they may not know about the existence of Vedas or Upanishads, but I am sure they were brought up in a Hindu way of life that was suitable according to their Jathi. What do you mean by 'Should we watch them go?'. Go where? Yes, they are targeted for conversion with the lure of money, social pressures and/or other inducements. If Hinduism is the center of their lives, why will they convert? Hinduism is a way of life for ALL Hindus, even the so called 'Dalits'. So to assume that they are converting because they do not know much about their own religion is not a correct argument to make.

Should we become victims of our learning to divorce ourselves from our fellow Hindus who have not either capable of learning or not had chance and means to learn? As a learned Hindu would you educate a dalit about the greatness of Hinduism? Or would you say I am learned and I like Hinduism but it is not my business to educate my fellow being about Hinduism so that he will not convert to another religion or if he was already converted asking him to come back?

Here again you are assuming that one needs to 'learn' about our religion to stay within it. For thousands of years, even the sub classes we have created are following our religion despite various odorous social customs we have adopted. Even today, only a fraction of those poor souls are converting. Even today, we as Hindus are creating seperate temples and customs for those unfortunate, whose only crime is that for the reasons of Karma they are born in to unfortunate circumstances.

We should always be embracing for them to come back. But I suspect that they will come back readily if only we as Hindus give them their dignity as human beings.

It is true that many Hindus have not heard of 'varna' or 'ashrama' or 'dharma'. Don't you think that this 'secular' set up has played havoc upon Hindus whereby Hindus are restricted (setting Hindus against Hindus by reservations etc., looting Hindu temples by Govt. take over, setting up subservient Acharyas to deceive the common people etc. etc.) while other religions are encouraged especially by the play of vote bank politics? Do you think that this intrusion has much to do with Hindus not knowing their own religion to the advantage of other religions in poaching our people?

Dear friend, please understand why and how the Varna Dharma fell apart. I know you have read Maha Periaval's words on who is responsible. Please also go back in history and understand who could not unite and asked the British to take over the administration of our temples. Who is not electing the governments in India who can even rewrite the constitution and make India a purely Hindu Raj. Who is the 85% majority of the people in India?

Yes, I am against vote bank politics. But then if you analyze the situation, a lot of Hindus do not care about bringing in a government that speaks for only one community. Is this not the basic reason, why what you say above are happening?

And finally you keep repeating that Varnasrama Dharma is not followed but you did not answer my question asking you if it is dead. Would you be willing to give all the readers a straight answer?

You must not have read what I said before. I have always given a straight answer. Folks here long know what I have said.

In my opinion, yes, Varna Dharma as originally conceived is quite dead. This does not mean, as Sri Appiah Ji has aptly put that Hinduism is dead. Far from it. In fact today's Hinduism is thriving.

Let alone the pure Brahmins - where are the Kshatriyas of today? There are Jathis, but no Varnas anymore.

Also do you personally like the varnasrama dharma to be strengthened if it is not dead? If so what caused its death? Did the British cause the damage as many believe?

Yes, in an ideal world, we all would like to go back in time. How does one strengthen Varna Dharma? This is why, I said that the few Brahmin families who follow the Brahminical Dharma even today must be supported, because they do not have any patrons today.

But as for as the Brahmins like me who are earning a living in our secular jobs, wanting our offsprings to do well financially, we just can not do this job, becoming the Vaidhika Brahmins ourselves. If we think so, then we are fooling ourselves. Because to restore the original Varna Dharma in it's glory, it need several things to occur.

It needs a class of Brahmins whose only job is to learn Vedas, and do all the Purva Mimmasa edicted rituals during the day, in addition to learning all the arts and sciences of livelihood to teach other Varnas, while not practicing them for any financial gain.

It needs a class of warriors who would protect this way of life, while not aspiring to wealth, but to follow a dharma to safeguard the citizens, but at the same time sponsoring the Brahminship.

It needs a class of merchants, who would make money but then will support the administration with taxes, supporting the Brahminical way of life while making sure that all Shudras are employed and taken care of.

It needs a class of Shudras who would look up to the other three classes and be content to be just workers.

And all this must occur, mind you through birth classes.

What are the chances for this to happen in today's world? Please tell me.

I blame the British rule as a reason that our Varna system completely collapsed, but it has been degenerating for a while. If it was intact, I do not think that any foreigner would have been able to invade us, nor would it have been possible for completely new religions such as Buddhism or Jainism to have been born. After all the aim of the Varna Dharma concept is for the society to be united in all of it's functions: Culture, Spirituality, Security, Commerce (wealth creation) and most importantly to make sure to take care of the well being of the less fortunate in our midst.

Who has created the 'fifth' Varna? Who has created the hierarchical systems in our society? Not the British. They did divide and rule. But who agreed to be divided?

If you feel it is dead then would you like it being revived?

As I said, I do not see how it (Varna Dharma) can be revived. I am a realist. Please tell me how you see that it can be revived? Do you in your mind have a clear path towards reviving it?

What do you think are the advantage and disadvantage of this system?

What system?

I am asking all these questions becuase you have been the one most to talk about Varnasrama Dharma in this blog and I did not get any clear understanding of your position.

I am not the ONLY person. There are umpteen number of postings (more than mine) that talk about the existence of Varna Dharma today. You may add your name to that list. There are a very few others who have expressed ideas similar to mine.

Sincerely,

Pranams,
KRS

 

[Guldon]

Dear Mr.KRS,

You see how one goes off on the wrong assumption - where did I say that our Acharya was 'indulging in social pressure on the dalits?'. I was not commenting on the reconversion rather the religious roots of those who are ready to be converted on the basis of money or social pressure in the first place.

Sir, If you would please read my post again, you would know that mine was a question to you. I put it this way: "I know that Sri Kanchi Sankaracharya went to Cheris and reconverted those dalits who were converted to Islam by the power of money from Saudi Arabia. Do you consider that the Acharya was indulging in social pressure on the dalits?" To this your reply is that you were "not commenting on the reconversion". The fact is you indeed commented on the reconversion in post #46 dated 04-05-2008, 12:46 PM wherein you have said "You might have seen the recent articles about the reconcersions back to our religion. And a lot of us are happy. But to tell you the truth, I am not." So I asked you "Why not?", to which you answered "Just the fact that they do not see any religion as a serious factor in their lives makes me wonder whether they would benefit from any religion". Your position seems to be that they are rather irrelegious people and religion would not benefit them. To be fair to you we were not discussing on reconversion by Sankaracharya. That is why I specifically asked you if you would support Sankaracharya.

Sir, I am seriously trying to understand you. It took me two posting to elicit from you that you are unhappy about the convertees coming back to Hinduism 'Because it seems that religion is playing a very secondary role in these people's lives.' This still begs my question to you if you would 'consider that the Acharya was indulging in social pressure on the dalits?' I declare that I am not assuming anything of what you have in mind until you tell us.

In Hinduism, we do not have this religious differences of status based on one's literacy or even intelligence. The more intelligent and/or literate you are, it places more personal responsibility on you to overcome your mind to attain salvation. So being either or both is no panecia.

Honestly, I am not sure I understand what you are saying at all. Seriously, my understanding of Hinduism is that no matter what caste or status or intelligence or whatever one belongs to he/she can attain salvation by any one of Karma Yoga, Bhakthi Yoga or Gnana Yoga. In other words you can be a Sudhra and by sincerely doing your job you can attain salvation. Please correct me if I am wrong. Also in my humble opinion only a miniscule number of people talk about salvation when it comes to the religion. To the vast majority of Hindus religion is anything but salvation. Such religions as Buddhism and Jainism that brought the salvation to the fore couldn't stand up to the psyche of the Hindus. I refrain from commenting what salvation means for other religions.

Those 'illiterates' were brought up with the Hindu way of life also, like you and me. Granted, they may not know about the existence of Vedas or Upanishads, but I am sure they were brought up in a Hindu way of life that was suitable according to their Jathi. What do you mean by 'Should we watch them go?'. Go where? Yes, they are targeted for conversion with the lure of money, social pressures and/or other inducements. If Hinduism is the center of their lives, why will they convert? Hinduism is a way of life for ALL Hindus, even the so called 'Dalits'. So to assume that they are converting because they do not know much about their own religion is not a correct argument to make.

Sir, you know I was asking you if we should watch them convert without stopping them. You are giving me a lecture that they know much about their religion and that knowing as they do they convert.

So are you saying that we let them go (to other religions)?

Here I am trying to understand you. Your points are:

a) The illiterates "are ready to be converted on the basis of money or social pressure in the first place.";

b) "Yes, they are targeted for conversion with the lure of money, social pressures and/or other inducements."

c) "The illiterates were brought up with the Hindu way of life";

d) "So to assume that they are converting because they do not know much about their own religion is not a correct argument to make."

(all these are your words)

One would be tempted to read from the above that:

(i) the illiterates do know about their religion and yet are converting to other religions on the basis of money and social pressure;

(ii) given the fact that the Sankaracharya or anyone else brought back those converted to other religions on the basis of lure of money etc., you would find yourselves unhappy that they are brought back to Hinduism.

(iii) You did make a statement that "Even today, only a fraction of those poor souls are converting." It may be true on the average but in very many pockets and states the Hindus are being reduced into a minority (Nagaland, Kerala, Kashmir, Assam, West Bengal etc. parts of Karnataka, Andhra and Tamilnadu)and they are posing very serious social problems.

(iv) I did read your concession "We should always be embracing for them to come back. But I suspect that they will come back readily if only we as Hindus give them their dignity as human beings." Thank you!

Compared to all other religions Hindus have the greatest dignity to human beings. This is very true.

In my mind the root cause of our problem is glossed over. And this will keep erupting the problem over and over unless we have the courage to go back and investigate. Instead we would be blaming the consequece instead of the cause. Brahmins in Tamilnadu are particular victims of that blame game. The root cause is not within the Hindu but outside that is posed as a solution to humanity. The secularist solution is a patch work but not a lasting solution even in the Christian world of its origin. It never happened anywhere and sadly many are fooling themselves that it is the right way. My dear friend, secularism is not the kingdom come. I guess I asked in vain the question whether socio-political set up of varnasrama dharma has had advantages and what caused its downfall. Appaiahji even considers that it has nothing to do with Hinduism. I guess neither varnasrama dharma or secularism may be important for a small fourm like ours.

Sincerely,

 

[KRS]

Dear Guldon Ji,

Your language and style reminds me a great deal about some other poster I know here. Anyways, please see my response below in 'blue'.

Dear Mr.KRS,

Sir, If you would please read my post again, you would know that mine was a question to you. I put it this way: "I know that Sri Kanchi Sankaracharya went to Cheris and reconverted those dalits who were converted to Islam by the power of money from Saudi Arabia. Do you consider that the Acharya was indulging in social pressure on the dalits?" To this your reply is that you were "not commenting on the reconversion". The fact is you indeed commented on the reconversion in post #46 dated 04-05-2008, 12:46 PM wherein you have said "You might have seen the recent articles about the reconcersions back to our religion. And a lot of us are happy. But to tell you the truth, I am not." So I asked you "Why not?", to which you answered "Just the fact that they do not see any religion as a serious factor in their lives makes me wonder whether they would benefit from any religion". Your position seems to be that they are rather irrelegious people and religion would not benefit them. To be fair to you we were not discussing on reconversion by Sankaracharya. That is why I specifically asked you if you would support Sankaracharya.
Dear Guldon Ji, I have already answered this question. By saying that my unhappiness centers on the way these folks converted in the first place, because of money and social pressure. I did not say that HH Shankaracharyal applied such inducements to return. I applaud His efforts in initiating to come back, because they wanted to come back. You did not 'specifically ask if I would support Sankaracharya'. What you asked was this:

Do you consider that the Acharya was indulging in social pressure on the dalits?

which, I answered. Please go back and check.

Sir, I am seriously trying to understand you. It took me two posting to elicit from you that you are unhappy about the convertees coming back to Hinduism 'Because it seems that religion is playing a very secondary role in these people's lives.' This still begs my question to you if you would 'consider that the Acharya was indulging in social pressure on the dalits?' I declare that I am not assuming anything of what you have in mind until you tell us.
I have already answered this. On top of this, I do not think that our religion allows for any conversion/reconversion based on any inducements as some other religions do. So, why would I even think that HH Sankaracharya would indulge in any inducement?

Honestly, I am not sure I understand what you are saying at all. Seriously, my understanding of Hinduism is that no matter what caste or status or intelligence or whatever one belongs to he/she can attain salvation by any one of Karma Yoga, Bhakthi Yoga or Gnana Yoga. In other words you can be a Sudhra and by sincerely doing your job you can attain salvation. Please correct me if I am wrong. Also in my humble opinion only a miniscule number of people talk about salvation when it comes to the religion. To the vast majority of Hindus religion is anything but salvation. Such religions as Buddhism and Jainism that brought the salvation to the fore couldn't stand up to the psyche of the Hindus. I refrain from commenting what salvation means for other religions.
My comment on this came about because you implied that the 'illiterates' do not know about Hinduism and it is up to those of us ('literates') to teach them Hinduism. The implication on my part is that there are ample stories in our scriptures to show that a lot of times, the 'illiterates' taught the 'literates' a few things about our religion.

Sir, you know I was asking you if we should watch them convert without stopping them. You are giving me a lecture that they know much about their religion and that knowing as they do they convert.
What do you mean by 'stopping them'? Is there a 'no conversion police' in Hinduism? Again my comment came about because you implied that they convert because they are 'illiterates'. My contention is that they convert because of other reasons/inducements and most importatntly, religion has stopped playing a central role in their lives. Now I am talking about the very few who convert.

There is a Federal law in the books in India that allows for prosecution of those who would try to convert with inducements.

So are you saying that we let them go (to other religions)?
Again, who is there to not 'let them go'? How can one control someone from leaving a religion? Idea to not to convert should come from the inside of a person. Because as Maha Periaval clearly said, religion is based on the culture one grows up with. I firmly believe that any religion is intertwined with one's formative years and upbringing.

Here I am trying to understand you. Your points are:

a) The illiterates "are ready to be converted on the basis of money or social pressure in the first place.";

b) "Yes, they are targeted for conversion with the lure of money, social pressures and/or other inducements."

c) "The illiterates were brought up with the Hindu way of life";

d) "So to assume that they are converting because they do not know much about their own religion is not a correct argument to make."

(all these are your words)

One would be tempted to read from the above that:

(i) the illiterates do know about their religion and yet are converting to other religions on the basis of money and social pressure;
Again the 'illiterates' is your word from the begining. I also said that the people who convert on inducements/social pressure do so obviously because their religion has stopped being of any value to them.

(ii) given the fact that the Sankaracharya or anyone else brought back those converted to other religions on the basis of lure of money etc., you would find yourselves unhappy that they are brought back to Hinduism.
Not what I said. Again, you seem to have a thesis to start with. Please read my response about HH Sankaracharyal above.

(iii) You did make a statement that "Even today, only a fraction of those poor souls are converting." It may be true on the average but in very many pockets and states the Hindus are being reduced into a minority (Nagaland, Kerala, Kashmir, Assam, West Bengal etc. parts of Karnataka, Andhra and Tamilnadu)and they are posing very serious social problems.
Please can you give me proper statistics to prove your claim that 'Hindus are being reduced to a minority' BECAUSE OF CONVERSIONS? There are various different forces that are at work, in my opinion.

(iv) I did read your concession "We should always be embracing for them to come back. But I suspect that they will come back readily if only we as Hindus give them their dignity as human beings." Thank you!

Compared to all other religions Hindus have the greatest dignity to human beings. This is very true.
I do not care about other religions and what they say. We are discussing about our religion.

In my mind the root cause of our problem is glossed over. And this will keep erupting the problem over and over unless we have the courage to go back and investigate. Instead we would be blaming the consequece instead of the cause. Brahmins in Tamilnadu are particular victims of that blame game. The root cause is not within the Hindu but outside that is posed as a solution to humanity. The secularist solution is a patch work but not a lasting solution even in the Christian world of its origin. It never happened anywhere and sadly many are fooling themselves that it is the right way. My dear friend, secularism is not the kingdom come. I guess I asked in vain the question whether socio-political set up of varnasrama dharma has had advantages and what caused its downfall. Appaiahji even considers that it has nothing to do with Hinduism. I guess neither varnasrama dharma or secularism may be important for a small fourm like ours.

Sir, the answer, I suspect from your part to resolve this issue would be to go back to the Varna Dharma. I pointedly asked you how can one get back to this and to give me your blue print on doing so. You have not answered. I told you who is to be blamed for our present day condition (I did not say the brahmins were the sole cause of it). You have blamed the outsiders solely for our ills. Please, enlighten me with your solution as to how to go back, sir.

What has Secularism got to do with what we are discussing? As I said before, secularism is the only modern tool we have to properly administer a democracy with various different religions/cultures living side by side. Again, if you think that this is not the right system, please pray tell us how does one get back to a Hinduism where Varna Dharma would be practiced?

Sir, Sri Appiah did not say/imply:

Appaiahji even considers that it has nothing to do with Hinduism.

He said that Varna Dharma is not all Hinduism.

Sincerely,

Pranams,
KRS

 

[Guldon]

Mr. KRS,

Your language and style reminds me a great deal about some other poster I know here.

I guess you and I have argued enough to reveal our ideas not only for each other but for all readers.

English language and style of writing are nobody's private property. One can make comparison to divert the attention. Your implication is tasteless and beyond the point.

I have been completely polite and to the point in my posting. I do not participate in personal insinuations.

Sincerely,

 

[Guldon]

Dear Administrator,

Please remove me from the membership.

Thanks.
Guldon

 

[Guldon]

Dear Administrator,

Please remove me from the membership.

Thanks.
Guldon

 

[KRS]

Dear Guldon Ji,

What's the matter? I mentioned in passing the way you argue reminded me of someone else in the Forum! If I had thought that you were doing something wrong, I would not have patiently had the discussions with you.

I did not intend any malice, nor my intention was to upset you. Please continue our discussions, and reconsider your decision.

Pranams,
KRS