-
This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
-
Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
RSS Chief questions Mother Theresa's intention
- Thread starter vgane
- Start date
- Status
'her care of the sick was 'dubious' and handling of cash 'suspicious'
We know indian media is partisan and anti hindu. An article in daily mail, UK too questions her credentials. She kept the poor in poorest conditions though she had the resources to provide better facilities and make their condition a little more comfortable. They are sinners if nor christians.
***
Researchers are calling into question the saintly image of Mother Teresa after carrying out research into her life.
After studying nearly 300 documents on her life, they concluded that a number of issues surrounded the nun were not taken into account by the Vatican.
These included 'her rather dubious way of caring for the sick, her questionable political contacts, her suspicious management of the enormous sums of money she received, and her overly dogmatic views regarding, in particular, abortion, contraception, and divorce.'
But these missions have been described as 'homes for the dying' by doctors visiting several of these establishments in Calcutta.
Doctors observed a significant lack of hygiene, even unfit conditions, as well as a shortage of actual care, inadequate food, and no painkillers.
But the authors say the problem is not a lack of money, as the foundation created by Mother Teresa has raised hundred of millions of pounds.
They also say that following numerous natural disasters in India she offered prayers and medallions of the Virgin Mary but no direct or monetary aid.
But she accepted the Legion of Honour and a grant from the Duvalier dictatorship in Haiti, said prof Larivee, and although millions of dollars were transferred to the various bank accounts, most of the accounts were kept secret.
Dr Larivie says: 'Given the parsimonious management of Mother Teresa's works, one may ask where the millions of dollars for the poorest of the poor have gone?'
'Nevertheless, the media coverage of Mother Teresa could have been a little more rigorous.'
http://linkis.com/www.dailymail.co.uk/3aUES
We know indian media is partisan and anti hindu. An article in daily mail, UK too questions her credentials. She kept the poor in poorest conditions though she had the resources to provide better facilities and make their condition a little more comfortable. They are sinners if nor christians.
***
Researchers are calling into question the saintly image of Mother Teresa after carrying out research into her life.
After studying nearly 300 documents on her life, they concluded that a number of issues surrounded the nun were not taken into account by the Vatican.
These included 'her rather dubious way of caring for the sick, her questionable political contacts, her suspicious management of the enormous sums of money she received, and her overly dogmatic views regarding, in particular, abortion, contraception, and divorce.'
But these missions have been described as 'homes for the dying' by doctors visiting several of these establishments in Calcutta.
Doctors observed a significant lack of hygiene, even unfit conditions, as well as a shortage of actual care, inadequate food, and no painkillers.
But the authors say the problem is not a lack of money, as the foundation created by Mother Teresa has raised hundred of millions of pounds.
They also say that following numerous natural disasters in India she offered prayers and medallions of the Virgin Mary but no direct or monetary aid.
But she accepted the Legion of Honour and a grant from the Duvalier dictatorship in Haiti, said prof Larivee, and although millions of dollars were transferred to the various bank accounts, most of the accounts were kept secret.
Dr Larivie says: 'Given the parsimonious management of Mother Teresa's works, one may ask where the millions of dollars for the poorest of the poor have gone?'
'Nevertheless, the media coverage of Mother Teresa could have been a little more rigorous.'
http://linkis.com/www.dailymail.co.uk/3aUES
B
BRAHMACHARI
Guest
can't agree more sir!
Surprisingly no one, no one is asking why calcutta was such a hell hole, why the people oriented communist governmnet did nothing in 50 years to uplift the destitutes of calcutta. All were reveling in the object poverty of its inhabitants and welcomed world leaders, media both east and west, to showcase the plight of non-christians; the org in the meantime collected lot of money, supported despots, demanded forgiveness for criminal donors.
Bhagavatji talks about the nature of seva without expecting anything in return, and what he said about mother theresa. From his so called controversial speech.
हमारे यहां सेवा ऐसे की जाती है, कुछ नहीं चाहिये. जो दुखी है, उसका दुख दूर करना. मदर टैरेसा की जैसी सेवा यहां होती होगी. सेवा बहुत अच्छी होती होगी, लेकिन उसके पीछे एक उद्देश्य रहता था, जिसकी सेवा होती है, वह कृतज्ञता से इसाई बन जाए, कोई किसी को ईसाई बनाना चाहे या न बनाना चाहे इसका प्रश्न है. परंतु, सेवा की आड़ में वो किया जाता है तो उस सेवा का अवमूल्यन हो जाता है. हमारे यहां तो ऐसा कुछ नहीं है, कुछ भी नहीं चाहिये. हमारे देश में सेवा ऐसे की जाती है, निरापेक्ष, पूर्ण निरपेक्ष. और उसमें भावना यह कि जिनकी सेवा की जाती है वह मानते होंगे कि सेवा करने वाले के रूप में भगवान मिला. लेकिन सेवा करने वाला कहता है कि सेवा का अवसर देकर मेरे जीवन को स्वच्छ करने वाला भगवान मेरे सामने है. अहंकार भी नहीं है, मैं इनका उद्धार नहीं कर रहा हूं, पर ये मुझे सेवा का अवसर देकर मेरे जीवन का उद्धार करने के लिये एक सुविधा दे रहे हैं. एक साधन दे रहे हैं. समाज में ऐसी संवेदना जब हम एक दूसरे के प्रति रखते हैं. तो फिर उस समाज को कोई तोड़ नहीं सकता, उस समाज को कोई गुलाम नहीं कर सकता, उस समाज का सर्वथा दुनिया में भला ही होता है. अगर अपने देश के लोगों के बारे में कुछ षड्यंत्र चल रहे हैं, और हम अपने देश के होने के बावजूद कोई संवेदना नहीं, वहां जाएंगे नहीं तो फिर जो होना है, वो होता है. हां, जाने में कभी ताकत रहती है, कभी नहीं रहती है, कई बार जाने की परिस्थिति रहती है, नहीं रहती है, लेकिन क्या कारण रहा कि आप गये नहीं, परिस्थिति नहीं थी, लेकिन परिणाम तो वही आता है. आप समय पर पहुंचे तो अनर्थ टल गया, नहीं पहुंचे तो अनहोनी हो गयी.
हमारे यहां सेवा ऐसे की जाती है, कुछ नहीं चाहिये. जो दुखी है, उसका दुख दूर करना. मदर टैरेसा की जैसी सेवा यहां होती होगी. सेवा बहुत अच्छी होती होगी, लेकिन उसके पीछे एक उद्देश्य रहता था, जिसकी सेवा होती है, वह कृतज्ञता से इसाई बन जाए, कोई किसी को ईसाई बनाना चाहे या न बनाना चाहे इसका प्रश्न है. परंतु, सेवा की आड़ में वो किया जाता है तो उस सेवा का अवमूल्यन हो जाता है. हमारे यहां तो ऐसा कुछ नहीं है, कुछ भी नहीं चाहिये. हमारे देश में सेवा ऐसे की जाती है, निरापेक्ष, पूर्ण निरपेक्ष. और उसमें भावना यह कि जिनकी सेवा की जाती है वह मानते होंगे कि सेवा करने वाले के रूप में भगवान मिला. लेकिन सेवा करने वाला कहता है कि सेवा का अवसर देकर मेरे जीवन को स्वच्छ करने वाला भगवान मेरे सामने है. अहंकार भी नहीं है, मैं इनका उद्धार नहीं कर रहा हूं, पर ये मुझे सेवा का अवसर देकर मेरे जीवन का उद्धार करने के लिये एक सुविधा दे रहे हैं. एक साधन दे रहे हैं. समाज में ऐसी संवेदना जब हम एक दूसरे के प्रति रखते हैं. तो फिर उस समाज को कोई तोड़ नहीं सकता, उस समाज को कोई गुलाम नहीं कर सकता, उस समाज का सर्वथा दुनिया में भला ही होता है. अगर अपने देश के लोगों के बारे में कुछ षड्यंत्र चल रहे हैं, और हम अपने देश के होने के बावजूद कोई संवेदना नहीं, वहां जाएंगे नहीं तो फिर जो होना है, वो होता है. हां, जाने में कभी ताकत रहती है, कभी नहीं रहती है, कई बार जाने की परिस्थिति रहती है, नहीं रहती है, लेकिन क्या कारण रहा कि आप गये नहीं, परिस्थिति नहीं थी, लेकिन परिणाम तो वही आता है. आप समय पर पहुंचे तो अनर्थ टल गया, नहीं पहुंचे तो अनहोनी हो गयी.
Naina_Marbus
Active member
http://phys.org/news/2013-03-dispell-myth-altruism-generosity-mother.html
The sick must suffer like Christ on the cross
At the time of her death, Mother Teresa had opened 517 missions in more than 100 countries. The missions have been described as "homes for the dying" by doctors visiting several of these establishments in Calcutta. Two-thirds of the people coming to these missions hoped to a find a doctor to treat them, while the other third lay dying without receiving appropriate care. The doctors observed a significant lack of hygiene, even unfit conditions, as well as a shortage of actual care, inadequate food, and no painkillers. The problem is not a lack of money—the Foundation created by Mother Teresa has raised hundreds of millions of dollars—but rather a particular conception of suffering and death: "There is something beautiful in seeing the poor accept their lot, to suffer it like Christ's Passion. The world gains much from their suffering," was her reply to criticism, cites the journalist Christopher Hitchens. Nevertheless, when Mother Teresa required palliative care, she received it in a modern American hospital (in California).
Last edited:
renuka
Well-known member
It seems rather sadistic to enjoy suffering of others.
What the hell does the world gain by suffering of others.
Some love the poor to remain poor so that they can get so called punyam of serving them!
From Washington Post, Feb 2015, by Adam Taylor; excerpts with link below.
***
"In 1994, Hitchens, along with British Pakistani journalist Tariq Ali, wrote an extremely critical British documentary on Mother Teresa, titled "Hell's Angel."
The documentary also argued that Teresa was an "ally of the status quo," pointing to her relationships with dubious figures all around the world, most notably Haitian dictator Jean-Claude Duvalier and scandal-hit American financier Charles Keating. "She may or may not comfort the afflicted, but she has never been known to afflict the comfortable," Hitchens explains.
"Hitchens concluded that Mother Teresa was "less interested in helping the poor than in using them as an indefatigable source of wretchedness on which to fuel the expansion of her fundamentalist Roman Catholic beliefs."
"British medical journal the Lancet published a critical account of the care in Mother Teresa's facilities in 1994 and an academic Canadian study from a couple of years ago found fault with "her rather dubious way of caring for the sick, her questionable political contacts, her suspicious management of the enormous sums of money she received, and her overly dogmatic views regarding, in particular, abortion, contraception, and divorce."
"In fact, when compared to the criticism that already exists about Mother Teresa and the Missionaries of Charity, Bhagwat's words look relatively meek: Multiple accounts say that Mother Teresa's nuns would baptize the dying and she had a reputation for proselytizing.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/02/25/why-to-many-critics-mother-teresa-is-still-no-saint/
***
"In 1994, Hitchens, along with British Pakistani journalist Tariq Ali, wrote an extremely critical British documentary on Mother Teresa, titled "Hell's Angel."
The documentary also argued that Teresa was an "ally of the status quo," pointing to her relationships with dubious figures all around the world, most notably Haitian dictator Jean-Claude Duvalier and scandal-hit American financier Charles Keating. "She may or may not comfort the afflicted, but she has never been known to afflict the comfortable," Hitchens explains.
"Hitchens concluded that Mother Teresa was "less interested in helping the poor than in using them as an indefatigable source of wretchedness on which to fuel the expansion of her fundamentalist Roman Catholic beliefs."
"British medical journal the Lancet published a critical account of the care in Mother Teresa's facilities in 1994 and an academic Canadian study from a couple of years ago found fault with "her rather dubious way of caring for the sick, her questionable political contacts, her suspicious management of the enormous sums of money she received, and her overly dogmatic views regarding, in particular, abortion, contraception, and divorce."
"In fact, when compared to the criticism that already exists about Mother Teresa and the Missionaries of Charity, Bhagwat's words look relatively meek: Multiple accounts say that Mother Teresa's nuns would baptize the dying and she had a reputation for proselytizing.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/02/25/why-to-many-critics-mother-teresa-is-still-no-saint/
renuka
Well-known member
The point to be understood here is:
1)from the Christian point of view...converting and proselytizing is considered to be part and parcel of their religion just like how some Hindus view keeping away some caste from the temples as part and parcel of Hinduism.
QED: What Bhagawat said is 100% correct. What he said about his organization - we do seva without expectation is also correct. The media and the seculars all over the world are making it an issue to bad mouth the organization and hindus, and deservedly, the issue has fallen flat.
Denying temple entry is an internal issue to be resolved by the two dissenting groups. Comparing the two is ludicrous.
Denying temple entry is an internal issue to be resolved by the two dissenting groups. Comparing the two is ludicrous.
renuka
Well-known member
It is not ludicrous.
The fact remains that we Hindus hardly respect the poor and down trodden from certain castes.
I am not going to mince my words..the fact remains even religious text of the Smirti kind totally disrespect some humans.
Being born in certain caste is openly written as due to past birth sins.
So what more do we need to say?
There is no use finding fault with Mother Theresa when we fail to address our own flaws.
I do agree that Mother Thresa had a motive to convert like any other Christian..but are Hindus willing to alter their religious texts as to not disrespect certain castes? I can safely bet no one has the b**ls to do so.
Last edited:
I want to point out another line of reasoning. Can this be also understood to mean that
1) from the Christian point of view...any help or love or charity or kindness is not for the unbaptised lot, i.e., those who have not accepted Christ as their saviour. They do not care for the "human" since it is allocated only to the "Christian".
Would you agree with this?
Janaki Jambunathan
Active member
This is Bhagwat's Gita and not Bagavatgita about which RSS should ponder!! - Derik TMC M.P.
Vaagmi
0
There is no equivalency in the argument. Casteism is an aberration while conversion by inducement is deliberate trashing.
conversion of people by offering food when hungry, treatment when in need etc., are like offering money to a chaste but hungry woman badly in need of food/money in return for "services" rendered.
It is demeaning and a horrible kind of exploitation.
At another level, religious conversion is a political tool to control population invented by imperialists.
Last edited:
prasad1
Active member
To accept that Mother Teresa was a great social worker and at the same time an ardent Christian is not at odds, but at a certain level complement each other. Some of the greatest social work has come from people of faith and organisations that have a religious leaning. The Aga Khan Development Network (AKDN), for example. The AKDN is well-known for its work in various sectors like health, rural development, education, etc in Asia and Africa. While it does not 'restrict its work to a particular community, country or region', the AKDN is 'underpinned by the ethical principles of Islam'. The Ramakrishna Mission is a spiritual movement that has a worldwide presence, and its philanthropic and educational endeavours have brought succour to many people.
Being affiliated to a particular religious thought need not undermine the social work done by the individual or organisation. It becomes a problem when religion supersedes the social work done. Mother Teresa cannot be accused of this and her organisation and supporters should not be apologetic about her faith.
Bhagwat's statement has a greater political motive to it. On the face of it he has not made a new revelation — allegations against the work done by Mother Teresa and the Missionaries of Charity is not new. However, Bhagwat's statement is important for its timing and the message to Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
It comes roughly a week after Modi assured minorities that India was and will be a secular nation. Interestingly, Modi gave this assurance at a function held in New Delhi to celebrate the canonisation of Saints Mother Euphrasia and Kuriakose Elias Chavara — both helped spread Christianity (and thereby helped in religious conversions).
The Sangh parivar is underlining its message that India is a Hindu rashtra and Hindutva is the agenda that will be pursued. Love jihad, ghar wapsi and other statements by the likes of Sadhvi Niranjan Jyoti and Sakshi Maharaj are not random utterances or fringe voices — they are sneak peeks into a grand vision the Sangh has for India.
This is no 'good cop bad cop' game as the opposition would want us to believe. Bhagwat is sending out an unambiguous message to Modi: 'You might be the PM, but remember, it’s us who got you there'.
Being affiliated to a particular religious thought need not undermine the social work done by the individual or organisation. It becomes a problem when religion supersedes the social work done. Mother Teresa cannot be accused of this and her organisation and supporters should not be apologetic about her faith.
Bhagwat's statement has a greater political motive to it. On the face of it he has not made a new revelation — allegations against the work done by Mother Teresa and the Missionaries of Charity is not new. However, Bhagwat's statement is important for its timing and the message to Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
It comes roughly a week after Modi assured minorities that India was and will be a secular nation. Interestingly, Modi gave this assurance at a function held in New Delhi to celebrate the canonisation of Saints Mother Euphrasia and Kuriakose Elias Chavara — both helped spread Christianity (and thereby helped in religious conversions).
The Sangh parivar is underlining its message that India is a Hindu rashtra and Hindutva is the agenda that will be pursued. Love jihad, ghar wapsi and other statements by the likes of Sadhvi Niranjan Jyoti and Sakshi Maharaj are not random utterances or fringe voices — they are sneak peeks into a grand vision the Sangh has for India.
This is no 'good cop bad cop' game as the opposition would want us to believe. Bhagwat is sending out an unambiguous message to Modi: 'You might be the PM, but remember, it’s us who got you there'.
Last edited:
JR
Hare Krishna
I agree with Prasadji very much on his views on Mother Teresa's humanitarian services. So what if one proselytized? It is indeed wrong. But to serve people -- the downtrodden without any inhibitions and to make one's life all about dealing with poverty, sickness, the downtrodden and the destitute, instead of living away in her birth place as a 'Nun sister' in some famous and beautiful church, by itself speaks of her greatness and great attitude. Not many are ready to serve (their own) god under given circumstances.
renuka
Well-known member
A hungry man does not see religion..he only sees food and survival.
He falls easily for the one who shows him some respect and gives him money.
I think many people converted becos they needed money..food and some dignity.
Its easy to talk cos we are not in their situation.
May be we should all just look at Mother Theresa as a social worker and not a saint.Then everything falls in place.
I still feed some Hindu religious text need to be edited to prove that we are a cultured society that does not treat some as subhumans.
There is no use praying to God if we can't treat a fellow human with love.
The Varna system is NOT an excuse to ill treat some humans.
Varna system in the real sense has no room for ill treatment.
I guess no one is willing to make changes.
Last edited:
Vaagmi
0
I agree. And that is why I call it demeaning to convert him. He is asking for bread and you are offering him bread on condition that he takes the religion loaded with it. That is demeaning. Let us not sell religion to the man who is not in need of it. Give bread to who needs it and give medicines to whoever need it. Don't thrust religion down his throat.
Money and food only. They never knew what dignity was. Fighting for dignity is at a different level.
For empathy understanding is enough. You do not have to be the object of empathy. It is presumed that we are intelligent human beings. Mother Teresa did a marvelous work among the destitute by rehabilitating them with funds brought from her supporters. But she could have remained just that -a social worker. She gave the destitute a religion which they could do without.
This is a vast subject and we have written a lot about this. Europeans who got christianity from the Arabs found it to contain a lot of tales and stories out of tune with time. They went for a Nicean creed and dumped them all and came out with a Testament which we call The Bible today. So I believe any religious text only reflects the society of the time. As the civilization progresses it dumps many practices and marches forward. While varnas, as many would agree, came to serve a noble purpose, got converted into a tool for enslaving people. and that is the metamorphosis that happens in any ancient civilization-and Hinduism is one. There is no need to feel guilty about it or carry for ever a victimhood mentality and feeling. We can show case the religious texts you have in mind as this is what we have been through a millennium and after another thousand years claim this is what we have become. No need to follow the christians by deleting them. What are we ashamed of?
1.Amen.
2.Agreed. It is misusing the varna system.
3.Excellent. I agree fully with that.
4.Changes when made by an evolving society stay. Changes when made by individuals becomes just another religion. LOL.
mkrishna100
Active member
The following article by Swami Dayananda along with his letter to Pope gives a proper explanation regarding Conversions . This has got nothing specific against Mother Therasa but deals with the subject of conversions itself . I have opened a separate thread on this topic and those interested can comment on this under that thread ,
Conversion is Violence - A Useful Reading for Practitioners of Yoga Meditation
to destroy ancient faiths and cultures[/h]Religious conversion is a widely discussed topic in the Indian media these days. I think this issue needs to be thoroughly understood by all the people that count in every religion.
The world's religions can be categorically said to be either aggressive or nonaggressive. Each religion has a certain promise in the form of an ultimate goal. Their faithful people try to live the prescribed life and reach the promised goal. Neither they nor their clergy are out to bring the people of other religions to their flock. Zorastrians follow their religious tradition without attempting to convert anybody to their religion. This is true with the followers of the Jewish tradition, Vedic religion (now known as Hinduism), Shintoism, Taoism and the many other religions of various tribes in the world. I call these religious traditions nonaggressive because they do not believe in aggressive conversion.
Then there are religions like Christianity, whose theologies, containing a number of basic nonverifiable beliefs, advocate conversion. Evangelism and proselytization are sacred commitments of the entire cadre of the highly organized clergy. The clergy-inspired laity are not any less committed to conversion. They are zealous in their mission of preaching and conversion. In their zeal, the end more often than not justifies the means. From the days of the Inquisition, every attempt recorded in history to stop their program of conversion only stoked their flame of zeal.
As a result, many religions with their unique cultures have disappeared, leaving behind only mammoth relics, like the ones in Greece and Mexico. The loss of such great living cultures of the world is the mark of success for the zealous of the aggressive religions. The truth is that where there should be a sense of guilt and remorse, there is a sense of achievement and pride. Many leaders of nonaggressive traditions think that the charity of the missionaries is designed to neutralize any protest from the native religious community. One cannot totally dismiss their thinking.
Religious conversion by missionary activity remains an act of violence. It is an act of violence because it hurts deeply, not only the other members of the family of the converted, but the entire community that comes to know of it. One is connected to various persons in one's world. The religious person in every individual is the innermost, inasmuch as he or she is connected to a force beyond the empirical. The religious person is connected only to the force beyond he has now accepted. That is the reason why the hurt caused by religion can turn into violence. That is why a religious belief can motivate a missionary to be a martyr. When the hurt of the religious becomes acute, it explodes into violence. Conversion is violence. It generates violence.
Aggressive religions and nonaggressive religions are not on the same plank. Conversion is, therefore, a rank, one-sided aggression. The genius of the nonaggressive traditions cannot change, and therefore, they cannot be asked to do the same thing as the aggressive religions do.
Humanity cannot afford to lose any more of its existing living religious traditions and cultures. We want to enjoy the religious cultures of both Christianity and Islam as we also want to enjoy the cultures of Jews, Parsis, Taoists, Shintoists, Hindus and others. Humanity will not let a pyramid be razed to the ground by the Egyptian government to create a housing complex. Even though they are in Egypt, the pyramids are too ancient to be the property of that country. They are standing monuments of human genius--they belong to the whole of humanity. So, too, are all the monuments of the past lying all over the world.
Religion and culture are not often separable. This is especially true with the Hindu religious tradition. The greeting word, namaste, is an expression of culture as well as religion. Even though a religious mark on the forehead is purely religious, it is looked upon as a part of Hindu culture. Rangoli [patterns drawn on the ground with rice flour] at the entrance of a Hindu house is not just cultural; it is also religious. Indian music and dance cannot separate themselves from the Hindu religious tradition. There is no classical dance, bharata natyam, without Siva Nataraja being there. The classical, lyrical compositions of Meera, Tyagaraja, Purandara, Dikshitar and many others are intimately connected to the Hindu religious traditions. Therefore, conversion implies destruction of this entire culture. A committed Christian will not wear a tilakam, much less have rangoli in front of the house. If there is no rangoli at the entrance to a Tamil Nadu house, we immediately know that it doesn't belong to a Hindu. A converted Christian woman ceases to wear Indian traditional clothes, like saris, etc. No Christian woman will wear a nose ring. It is amazing how easily cultures disappear by the program of conversion through various means, leaving only dead monuments to be preserved for posterity. The living religious traditions, intimately woven into the fabric of their respective cultures, have to be allowed to live and thrive. Religious conversion should stop--the aggressive religions should realize that they are perpetrating violence when they convert. We want them to live and let others live.
On behalf of many Hindus whom I know personally, I welcome your visit to Bharat. This is a country with an ancient civilisation and unique religious culture which accommodates many religious traditions that have come to this country throughout the centuries.
Being the head of the Vatican State and also the Catholic Church with a great following all over the world, you enjoy a highly venerable position and can play a significant role in defusing religious conflicts and preserving the world's rich cultures. You have in your Apostolic Letter tertio millennio adveniente, 38 (November 10, 1994) voiced your intention to convoke a Special Assembly of the Synod of Bishops for Asia. After seeing the report of the Pre-Council of the General Secretariat of the Synod of Bishops Special Assembly for Asia appointed by you, I want to bring to your kind notice the concerns of many Hindus in this country about religious conversion. In the Second Vatican Council, the status accorded to the world religions was that of a means of preparing them for Christ. We all understand that the Catholic religion does not accommodate other religions, except in this context. But I am appealing to you here to accept that every person has the freedom to pursue his or her own religion.
In the recent past, you mentioned that reason should be respected. On the basis of reason, no non-verifiable belief is going to fare any better than any other non-verifiable belief. Therefore, according to reason, there is no basis for conversion in matters of faith.
Apart from reason, there is another important issue which I request you to consider. Among the world's religious traditions, there are those that convert and those that do not. The non-converting religious traditions, like the Hindu, Jewish and Zoroastrian, give others the freedom to practise their religion whether they agree with the others' tenets or not. They do not wish to convert. I would characterise them as non-aggressive. Religions that are committed by their theologies to convert, on the other hand, are necessarily aggressive, since conversion implies a conscious intrusion into the religious life of a person, in fact, into the religious person.
This is a very deep intrusion, as the religious person is the deepest, the most basic in any individual. When that person is disturbed, a hurt is sustained which is very deep. The religious person is violated. The depth of this hurt is attested by the fact that when a religious sentiment is violated, it can produce a martyr. People connected to a converted person are deeply hurt. Even the converted person will suffer some hurt underneath.
He must necessarily wonder if he has done the right thing and, further, he has to face an inner alienation from his community, a community to which he has belonged for generations, and thus an alienation from his ancestors. I don't think that can ever be fully healed. Religious conversion destroys centuries-old communities and incites communal violence. It is violence and it breeds violence. Thus, for any humane person, every religious sentiment has to be respected, whether it is a Muslim sentiment or a Christian sentiment or a Hindu sentiment.
Further, in many religious traditions, including the Hindu tradition, religion is woven into the fabric of culture. So, destruction of a religion amounts to the destruction of a religious culture. Today, for instance, there is no living Greek culture; there are only empty monuments. The Mayan, Roman and many other rich cultures are all lost forever and humanity is impoverished for it. Let us at least allow humanity to enjoy the riches of its remaining mosaic of cultures. Each one has some beauty, something to contribute to the enrichment of humanity.
In any tradition, it is wrong to strike someone who is unarmed. In the Hindu tradition, this is considered a heinous act, for which the punishment is severe. A Buddhist, a Hindu, a Jew, are all unarmed, in that they do not convert. You cannot ask them to change the genius of their traditions and begin to convert in order to combat conversion. Because it is the tradition of these religions and cultures not to convert, attempts to convert them is one-sided aggression. It is striking the unarmed. I respect the freedom of a Christian or a Muslim to practise his or her faith. I do not accept many of their beliefs, but I want them to have the freedom to follow their religion.
You cannot ask me to respond to conversion by converting others to my religion because it is not part of my tradition. We don't believe in conversion, even though certain Hindu organisations have taken back some converted people. Thus, conversion is not merely violence against people; it is violence against people who are committed to non-violence.
I am hurt by religious conversion and many others like me are hurt. Millions are hurt. There are many issues to be discussed regarding conversion, but I want to draw your attention to only the central issue here which is this one-sided violence. Religious conversion is violence and it breeds violence. In converting, you are also converting the non-violent to violence.
Any protest against religious conversion is always branded as persecution, because it is maintained that people are not allowed to practise their religion, that their religious freedom is curbed. The truth is entirely different. The other person also has the freedom to practise his or her religion without interference. That is his/her birthright. Religious freedom does not extend to having a planned programme of conversion. Such a programme is to be construed as aggression against the religious freedom of others.
During the years of your papal office, you have brought about certain changes in the attitude and outlook of the church. On behalf of the non-aggressive religions of the world, the Hindu, the Parsi, the Jewish and other native religions in different countries, I request you to put a freeze on conversion and create a condition in which all religious cultures can live and let live.
Conversion is Violence - A Useful Reading for Practitioners of Yoga Meditation
Conversion is an Act of Violence
by Swami Dayananda Saraswati
by Swami Dayananda Saraswati
[h=2]Aggressive religions have no God-given rightto destroy ancient faiths and cultures[/h]Religious conversion is a widely discussed topic in the Indian media these days. I think this issue needs to be thoroughly understood by all the people that count in every religion.
The world's religions can be categorically said to be either aggressive or nonaggressive. Each religion has a certain promise in the form of an ultimate goal. Their faithful people try to live the prescribed life and reach the promised goal. Neither they nor their clergy are out to bring the people of other religions to their flock. Zorastrians follow their religious tradition without attempting to convert anybody to their religion. This is true with the followers of the Jewish tradition, Vedic religion (now known as Hinduism), Shintoism, Taoism and the many other religions of various tribes in the world. I call these religious traditions nonaggressive because they do not believe in aggressive conversion.
Then there are religions like Christianity, whose theologies, containing a number of basic nonverifiable beliefs, advocate conversion. Evangelism and proselytization are sacred commitments of the entire cadre of the highly organized clergy. The clergy-inspired laity are not any less committed to conversion. They are zealous in their mission of preaching and conversion. In their zeal, the end more often than not justifies the means. From the days of the Inquisition, every attempt recorded in history to stop their program of conversion only stoked their flame of zeal.
As a result, many religions with their unique cultures have disappeared, leaving behind only mammoth relics, like the ones in Greece and Mexico. The loss of such great living cultures of the world is the mark of success for the zealous of the aggressive religions. The truth is that where there should be a sense of guilt and remorse, there is a sense of achievement and pride. Many leaders of nonaggressive traditions think that the charity of the missionaries is designed to neutralize any protest from the native religious community. One cannot totally dismiss their thinking.
Religious conversion by missionary activity remains an act of violence. |
Aggressive religions and nonaggressive religions are not on the same plank. Conversion is, therefore, a rank, one-sided aggression. The genius of the nonaggressive traditions cannot change, and therefore, they cannot be asked to do the same thing as the aggressive religions do.
Humanity cannot afford to lose any more of its existing living religious traditions and cultures. We want to enjoy the religious cultures of both Christianity and Islam as we also want to enjoy the cultures of Jews, Parsis, Taoists, Shintoists, Hindus and others. Humanity will not let a pyramid be razed to the ground by the Egyptian government to create a housing complex. Even though they are in Egypt, the pyramids are too ancient to be the property of that country. They are standing monuments of human genius--they belong to the whole of humanity. So, too, are all the monuments of the past lying all over the world.
Religion and culture are not often separable. This is especially true with the Hindu religious tradition. The greeting word, namaste, is an expression of culture as well as religion. Even though a religious mark on the forehead is purely religious, it is looked upon as a part of Hindu culture. Rangoli [patterns drawn on the ground with rice flour] at the entrance of a Hindu house is not just cultural; it is also religious. Indian music and dance cannot separate themselves from the Hindu religious tradition. There is no classical dance, bharata natyam, without Siva Nataraja being there. The classical, lyrical compositions of Meera, Tyagaraja, Purandara, Dikshitar and many others are intimately connected to the Hindu religious traditions. Therefore, conversion implies destruction of this entire culture. A committed Christian will not wear a tilakam, much less have rangoli in front of the house. If there is no rangoli at the entrance to a Tamil Nadu house, we immediately know that it doesn't belong to a Hindu. A converted Christian woman ceases to wear Indian traditional clothes, like saris, etc. No Christian woman will wear a nose ring. It is amazing how easily cultures disappear by the program of conversion through various means, leaving only dead monuments to be preserved for posterity. The living religious traditions, intimately woven into the fabric of their respective cultures, have to be allowed to live and thrive. Religious conversion should stop--the aggressive religions should realize that they are perpetrating violence when they convert. We want them to live and let others live.
-------
An Open Letter to Pope John Paul II
from Swami Dayananda Saraswati
October 29, 1999
from Swami Dayananda Saraswati
October 29, 1999
Your Holiness,On behalf of many Hindus whom I know personally, I welcome your visit to Bharat. This is a country with an ancient civilisation and unique religious culture which accommodates many religious traditions that have come to this country throughout the centuries.
Being the head of the Vatican State and also the Catholic Church with a great following all over the world, you enjoy a highly venerable position and can play a significant role in defusing religious conflicts and preserving the world's rich cultures. You have in your Apostolic Letter tertio millennio adveniente, 38 (November 10, 1994) voiced your intention to convoke a Special Assembly of the Synod of Bishops for Asia. After seeing the report of the Pre-Council of the General Secretariat of the Synod of Bishops Special Assembly for Asia appointed by you, I want to bring to your kind notice the concerns of many Hindus in this country about religious conversion. In the Second Vatican Council, the status accorded to the world religions was that of a means of preparing them for Christ. We all understand that the Catholic religion does not accommodate other religions, except in this context. But I am appealing to you here to accept that every person has the freedom to pursue his or her own religion.
In the recent past, you mentioned that reason should be respected. On the basis of reason, no non-verifiable belief is going to fare any better than any other non-verifiable belief. Therefore, according to reason, there is no basis for conversion in matters of faith.
Apart from reason, there is another important issue which I request you to consider. Among the world's religious traditions, there are those that convert and those that do not. The non-converting religious traditions, like the Hindu, Jewish and Zoroastrian, give others the freedom to practise their religion whether they agree with the others' tenets or not. They do not wish to convert. I would characterise them as non-aggressive. Religions that are committed by their theologies to convert, on the other hand, are necessarily aggressive, since conversion implies a conscious intrusion into the religious life of a person, in fact, into the religious person.
This is a very deep intrusion, as the religious person is the deepest, the most basic in any individual. When that person is disturbed, a hurt is sustained which is very deep. The religious person is violated. The depth of this hurt is attested by the fact that when a religious sentiment is violated, it can produce a martyr. People connected to a converted person are deeply hurt. Even the converted person will suffer some hurt underneath.
He must necessarily wonder if he has done the right thing and, further, he has to face an inner alienation from his community, a community to which he has belonged for generations, and thus an alienation from his ancestors. I don't think that can ever be fully healed. Religious conversion destroys centuries-old communities and incites communal violence. It is violence and it breeds violence. Thus, for any humane person, every religious sentiment has to be respected, whether it is a Muslim sentiment or a Christian sentiment or a Hindu sentiment.
Further, in many religious traditions, including the Hindu tradition, religion is woven into the fabric of culture. So, destruction of a religion amounts to the destruction of a religious culture. Today, for instance, there is no living Greek culture; there are only empty monuments. The Mayan, Roman and many other rich cultures are all lost forever and humanity is impoverished for it. Let us at least allow humanity to enjoy the riches of its remaining mosaic of cultures. Each one has some beauty, something to contribute to the enrichment of humanity.
It is wrong to strike someone who is unarmed.... Conversion is not merely violence against people; it is violence against people who are committed to non-violence. |
You cannot ask me to respond to conversion by converting others to my religion because it is not part of my tradition. We don't believe in conversion, even though certain Hindu organisations have taken back some converted people. Thus, conversion is not merely violence against people; it is violence against people who are committed to non-violence.
I am hurt by religious conversion and many others like me are hurt. Millions are hurt. There are many issues to be discussed regarding conversion, but I want to draw your attention to only the central issue here which is this one-sided violence. Religious conversion is violence and it breeds violence. In converting, you are also converting the non-violent to violence.
Any protest against religious conversion is always branded as persecution, because it is maintained that people are not allowed to practise their religion, that their religious freedom is curbed. The truth is entirely different. The other person also has the freedom to practise his or her religion without interference. That is his/her birthright. Religious freedom does not extend to having a planned programme of conversion. Such a programme is to be construed as aggression against the religious freedom of others.
During the years of your papal office, you have brought about certain changes in the attitude and outlook of the church. On behalf of the non-aggressive religions of the world, the Hindu, the Parsi, the Jewish and other native religions in different countries, I request you to put a freeze on conversion and create a condition in which all religious cultures can live and let live.
------
Swami Dayananda is a sannyasi of the Adi Shankara and Veda Vyasa tradition, founder of Arsha Vidya Centers in India and the US. He has taught throughout the world for several decades. (Arshavidya.org)
prasad1
Active member
To the RSS, Islam represents an apocalyptic threat. Muslims ruled India, oppressed Hindus and present an existential danger to the Hindu way of life. Fortunately, most of them went to Pakistan and those that remain must live here on Hindu society’s terms.
The Sangh’s attitude to Christians, however, is significantly different. While the Christian British did rule India, they did not do so in the name of Christ or levy taxes on Hindus. So, unlike Muslims, they are not the ultimate enemy.
The objection to Christianity is that it represents an alternative worldview, wrapped up with Western notions of science and logic. In the Hindu fundamentalist world, India was always far ahead of the West. We had aeroplanes, atom bombs, plastic surgery, and God alone knows what else, even before Christ was born. Our ancient system of medicine was a miracle cure that has been unjustly sidelined in favour of Western science. And so on.
So, Christianity must be attacked not because it poses any apocalyptic threat to Hindus but because it is the dogma of the scientific West and its anti-Hindu-culture view of the world. It is significant that when Hindu fundamentalists attack Islam, Indian Muslims are the target. But the attacks on Christianity are framed in terms that are entirely xenophobic. It is always foreign missionaries who are targeted and accused of bringing hundreds of crores to convert Hindus. The objection is rarely to Indian Christians — except for a few priests who are seen as Vatican lackeys. It is to missionaries from abroad.
As the most famous missionary India has ever known, Mother Teresa symbolises all that the Sangh hates about Christianity and its alternative worldview. That’s why, so many years after her death, the RSS still feels the need to attack her.
The irony is that if Bhagwat and his friends sat down and took stock of Mother Teresa’s reactionary social conservatism, they may find that the two sides have more in common than the RSS recognises.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/analy...ates-about-christianity/article1-1321399.aspx
The Sangh’s attitude to Christians, however, is significantly different. While the Christian British did rule India, they did not do so in the name of Christ or levy taxes on Hindus. So, unlike Muslims, they are not the ultimate enemy.
The objection to Christianity is that it represents an alternative worldview, wrapped up with Western notions of science and logic. In the Hindu fundamentalist world, India was always far ahead of the West. We had aeroplanes, atom bombs, plastic surgery, and God alone knows what else, even before Christ was born. Our ancient system of medicine was a miracle cure that has been unjustly sidelined in favour of Western science. And so on.
So, Christianity must be attacked not because it poses any apocalyptic threat to Hindus but because it is the dogma of the scientific West and its anti-Hindu-culture view of the world. It is significant that when Hindu fundamentalists attack Islam, Indian Muslims are the target. But the attacks on Christianity are framed in terms that are entirely xenophobic. It is always foreign missionaries who are targeted and accused of bringing hundreds of crores to convert Hindus. The objection is rarely to Indian Christians — except for a few priests who are seen as Vatican lackeys. It is to missionaries from abroad.
As the most famous missionary India has ever known, Mother Teresa symbolises all that the Sangh hates about Christianity and its alternative worldview. That’s why, so many years after her death, the RSS still feels the need to attack her.
The irony is that if Bhagwat and his friends sat down and took stock of Mother Teresa’s reactionary social conservatism, they may find that the two sides have more in common than the RSS recognises.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/analy...ates-about-christianity/article1-1321399.aspx
Last edited:
B
BRAHMACHARI
Guest
by what authority does mohan question the intention of Mother Teresa?
Now that she is no longer alive, would the saffron outfits continue her work? would they accept this challenge and prove that they can do greater works than her, instead of complaining, murmuring, grumbling and crying over spilt milk?
i bet they would not accept this challenge.
we have more than enough wealth in our country to eradicate poverty, to ensure every man gets his roti, kapda and a small roof at least if not a makaan. do we have the heart to share our excesses? while we are a great land with varied heritage, we wax eloquent about our native religion, culture, etc it is shameful and disgraceful that we were mute spectators to the hardships and sufferings of our fellow-country-men while some foreigner forsook her comfort to serve our poor. worse still we cry foul and waste time, energy debating on their intentions, exposing our mean and feeble mind.
POT CALLING STAINLESS STEEL BLACK.
if only every 'have' in our country help the 'have-nots' neighbour, we would be the most prosperous nation. after all, prosperity is not in how much money we have nor how many weapons we have. if every one in this country is happy, has more than the minimum need for life, enjoys good health, sound mind etc, that is prosperity.
let the saffron outfits quit criticizing but continue the good work of the nun. they will see proselytes returning without any 'ghar vaapsi'.
Now that she is no longer alive, would the saffron outfits continue her work? would they accept this challenge and prove that they can do greater works than her, instead of complaining, murmuring, grumbling and crying over spilt milk?
i bet they would not accept this challenge.
we have more than enough wealth in our country to eradicate poverty, to ensure every man gets his roti, kapda and a small roof at least if not a makaan. do we have the heart to share our excesses? while we are a great land with varied heritage, we wax eloquent about our native religion, culture, etc it is shameful and disgraceful that we were mute spectators to the hardships and sufferings of our fellow-country-men while some foreigner forsook her comfort to serve our poor. worse still we cry foul and waste time, energy debating on their intentions, exposing our mean and feeble mind.
POT CALLING STAINLESS STEEL BLACK.
if only every 'have' in our country help the 'have-nots' neighbour, we would be the most prosperous nation. after all, prosperity is not in how much money we have nor how many weapons we have. if every one in this country is happy, has more than the minimum need for life, enjoys good health, sound mind etc, that is prosperity.
let the saffron outfits quit criticizing but continue the good work of the nun. they will see proselytes returning without any 'ghar vaapsi'.
Last edited:
B
BRAHMACHARI
Guest
Needs no explanation.
excellent sir! sadly we still have a long long way to go sir!
- Status
Share this page
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
