Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22

Thread: Respect for all religions is not truthful.

  1. #11
    Join Date
    August 2011
    Location
    Arizona, USA
    Posts
    183
    Rep Power
    232

    Re: Respect for all religions is not truthful.

    Namaste Devotee

    A search will reveal that I have not posted in some time so I don't think that I have spent too much "energy in finding faults with other Dharmas/religions." It is easy to find faults; but it is challenging (at least for me) to communicate effectively. I tried to elucidate my position better in my response to C. Smith. However I would like to ask you about your mention of 'Satan'. Is there a basis in Hindu shastra for this belief or does it originate outside of India?

    Hari AUM


    Quote Originally Posted by devotee View Post
    Namaste Gitananda, ...
    Let's not waste our energy in finding faults with other Dharmas/religions. It is a long way / a very long SAdhnA to reach the Ultimate. The life-time is too short for that. Let us focus on our own path. Such thoughts lead us to wrong directions. It won't be wrong to say that such thoughts are thoughts of Satan.

    OM
    With our ears may we hear what is good.
    With our eyes may we behold thy righteousness.
    Tranquil in body, may we who worship thee find rest.

    AUM Peace Peace Peace

  2. #12
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Age
    51
    Posts
    750
    Rep Power
    1520

    Re: Respect for all religions is not truthful.

    Hari Om!

    I truly appreciate this thread and especially value R Gitananda for its creation. Very valuable.

    Please excuse any misgivings in my post as this small mind does have many of the same sentiments and on my end, lack of answers/understanding. I do agree that at this point in my development I do not feel comfortable with some other religions which have been named in other posts. Will leave it at that for now if I may.

    I would like to make one personal mention only from my point of view, certainly with no hatred or malice. I do not feel that a "Chosen People" (most know to whom this refers though it may apply to many) is acceptable as is stated by a religion mentioned in previous posts here. Acceptance is often no more than a veil and although I feel that trust is paramount, please know that there ARE those out there who are trying as they might to destroy us and our faith. One may only have a look at India today as an example and I have been witness to this already here in my days visiting the cities of Surat and Delhi. First I am told that I cannot possibly be a Hindu, then am told that I am going to hell and in the same breath will be saved by the grace of their God. Yes, I have a huge problem with this.

    Apologies for having possibly gotten off point, but today has been brutal and has cemented (hopefully only in a temporary manner) some strong feelings which I don't care to host. This after days of peace in Guruji's ashram. Where does it call come from? Again, apologies.

    Om

  3. #13

    Re: Respect for all religions is not truthful.

    Namaste,

    Very interesting OP.
    Last edited by Sudas Paijavana; 27 April 2014 at 06:36 PM.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    December 2007
    Age
    60
    Posts
    3,218
    Rep Power
    4723

    Re: Respect for all religions is not truthful.

    Namaste Alter,

    There is no record that Sufi saints have ever practised violence. Your own given link records this :

    Hadhrat Khwajah Qutbud Deen narrates:
    “I lived in Hadhrat’s service for 20 years. Hadhrat never refused anyone. Whenever someone came to ask anything, Hadhrat would put his hand under his musalla and hand to the person whatever had been decreed for him.
    In 20 years I never saw Hadhrat becoming angry.”
    Hadhrat Muinud Deen said:
    ** The sign of Allah’s ma’rifat is to flee from people.
    ** The ibaadat of the Ahl-e-Ma’rifat is Paas Anfaas (Thikr by a breathing exercise) and the sign of an unfortunate man is that inspite of involvement in disobedience, he believes himself to be maqbool (an accepted friend of Allah Ta’ala).
    *For twenty years while in the service of Hadhrat Shaikh (Khwajah Harْni) I never allowed my nafs any respite. I did not distinguish between night and day. When Hadhrat Shaikh paid attention to my service, he conferred limitless favours on me. I am unable to explain the abundance of favours.
    * Whatever is acquired is by way of khidmat (service to the Shaikh).
    * When someone asked:
    “When does the mureed become steadfast?”, Hadhrat Muinud Deen responded:
    “When the Angel has not recorded any sin of the mureed for twenty years.”
    Who are "he" and "we" herein below ? Is he the Ghori or Moinuddin Chisti ? Who is the "we" in text below ? Moreover, how do you know that these texts are authentic ? This is not clear. Can you give the link from where this text has been quoted from ?

    "In Ajmer he destroyed the pillars and foundations of the idol temples and built in their stead mosques and colleges, and the precepts of Isl�m, and the customs of the law were divulged and established"-(Muhammad sadruddin Hasan Niz�m� page 215)

    "we have seized prithviraj and handed him over to the army of islam"--chisti(Nizami page 232)
    OM
    "Om Namo Bhagvate Vaasudevaye"

  5. #15
    Join Date
    February 2012
    Posts
    1,522
    Rep Power
    2729

    Re: Respect for all religions is not truthful.

    Namaste RG

    In my life I have had several awkward encounters with people whose religious beliefs and practices I found objectionable.
    I never let awkward encounters bother me. In fact, it is probably because I don't care about awkward encounters that the source of the "awkwardness" actually comes from me, for example there is some business sponsored lunch in honor of someone doing a good job or so many years of service for something, and vegetarian food is included. So let us say, the Mexican boy who is the server of the plates gives me the vegetarian plate and I look down and there is pinto beans fry as a side dish with Dal and salad. So right there, at the table with everyone sitting including the "boss" and the person being honored I say to the Mexican boy, "Do these pinto beans have lard or were fried in lard? Do you have black beans instead that are boiled and not fried?" (if the cook was also Mexican, they sometimes will fry pinto beans using lard grease, but they do not do this with black beans, nor do I want that on my plate which is now contaminated even if I do not eat the beans and only the salad and lentils, I would refuse the entire plate). So I don't care HOW awkward that may seem to some of the others sitting at the table. I am causing the so-called "awkwardness" (or perhaps shyness) but who cares? Firstly the boy will not know, he will go back and ask the chief. Then he comes back, pretend he says "yes lard was used, but we can give you boiled black beans it is not a problem", then I say that I made it clear before the meal and so the entire plate will have to be taken back for a new one and with black beans.

    You would be surprised, in all such cases (using this example, but others can be used), the so-called awkwardness is quickly dismissed, no one really cares but moves on to nice conversation and in fact some others also refuse the pinto beans for health reasons and are shocked that lard was in it.

    Also, think about the **** they put in food including vegie food. Such as particular colorings which my wife was teaching me are legal in the US but illegal in Canada and UK which are pure poison. Think about so-called "vegetarian" canned food by Kraft in the US that uses a dangerous yellow dye. I will speak up, I don't care what is awkward. And actually feeling "awkward" is no big deal, concern is overblown. There are awkward things in life everyday, including regarding religion, but most people just move on and it is nothing to worry or fret or get emotional about. Especially in the US, frankly no one gets excited, dismiss these things fast with a "yawn". It certainly isn't some big "social crisis".

    For instance there are Swamis who will speak of Abrahamic theistic religions with a tear of love in their eye
    Ok, I am not saying you didn't see this, but personally I have never seen a Swami talk about, oh say Christain or Islam religion, with a tear in the eye. Never, ever saw that, and I don't want to sound like a blowheart but I have know about oh say more than a half dozen Gurus personally, have also met face to face many more "Swamis" and Gurus et all, never have I seen this in the US, England or India. I am not saying this has not happened, perhaps it did, maybe some very odd or obscure group such as New Age and not Hindu.

    ...if people have beliefs or engage in practices that are diametrically opposed to the teachings ... then it may be my duty to not associate with them
    Sounds about right. There are going to be lots of folks in life you run into that you might not want to associate with, and not just on religious grounds. I avoid associating with alcoholic bums because they may cough TB spital on me. Also sometimes it is impossible to avoid certain associations, so there are diplomatic ways to protect your family. But such is the adventure of life, but I never let it "get to me".

    However if I was administrating a 'Hindu' community then where would I draw the line?
    Putting up a sign such as "No photos of Altar or Gods allowed", "No leather clothing items or leather accessories, Turn off cell phones" such signs at a temple are legal in the US and not a problem. You can draw all kinds of "lines" in a private community temple. You can have your pujaris as only Brahmins if that is what you want, whatever. Or you can have only Tamil priests but not Gujaratis. All that you can do. You can only allow Krishna on your altar but not Lingam. You can do anything you want almost.

    But what you cannot do is put up a sign "No Black Africans Allowed" for example. You could say "Hindus Only", but then there might be questions by the government what is meant by "Hindu". If it translates into race or birth you are going to be in trouble. Actually, you can say "Women to the right side, men to the left" or "Inappropriate Dress not Allowed", that is ok. But you cannot say "Whites to the front of the shrine room, Blacks to the rear of the shrine room". You cannot do that in a temple in the USA without getting in trouble or starting a serious riot and for sure the temple will be burned to the ground and someone will be killed and it might be a nice temple.

    Specifically I cannot harmonize ... the teachings of ... Bikaner Karni Mata temple and Aghori Sadhus
    What about Kali Temples? They are now very popular where I live, "Kalifornia".

    I love the Karni Ji temple, wish there was one here. You don't have to go to those temples. Make your temple the big, full of beauty, temple, I will guarantee everyone will come. Have the most wonderful murti(s), lots of feasts and prashad. Lots and lots will come, no problem. Don't fret about the Christian or Islam temple, just enjoy your uwn harmony. Don't worry, if the US government gets even a hint that some mosque is engaged in recruiting terrorists, the entire temple will be "bugged" and all the priests will be monitored 24x7 including secret "devotees" attending and recording every word they say, and "freedom of speech" be damned. Don't worry, no problem.

    From what I have read Sri Shankara had no problem calling something out if he didn't agree with it but haven't the mores of India changed since then?
    From my experience in Indian. and among some relatives, there is no hesitating in India calling out anything, especially in election time. But this includes good pan, bad pan, price of this or that including okra, all sorts of things. Sometimes you cannot even think with the calling out. But yes, all over the world Hollywood and Bollywood and Bangalorewood and such are turning things sort of into a putrid pool of bad morals and behavior. I would agree with that.

    Here is my overall opinion on respect for all religions. And that is "it all depends". Folks can respect or not respect, that is their choice.

    But where I draw the line, is not regarding someone openingly practicing their religion including attempts to convert, rather where I draw the line is when some worm tries to tell me I am not allowed to practice mine.

    Om Namah Sivaya

  6. #16
    Join Date
    September 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Age
    68
    Posts
    7,191
    Rep Power
    5033

    Re: Respect for all religions is not truthful.

    Vannakkam:

    Thought provoking thread..

    I have been taught to respect all non-violent and respecting faiths. I am wary of the aggressive proseltysing ones that will cause pain to a community all in the cause of conversion. Although I understand why they do that, I just can't respect it. They are the enemy not just of Hinduism, but of all loving branches of mankind.

    Still, I think it wise separate the person from the faith, and try not to over-generalise.

    Aum Namasivaya

  7. #17
    Join Date
    November 2009
    Age
    37
    Posts
    839
    Rep Power
    1024

    Re: Respect for all religions is not truthful.

    Quote Originally Posted by R Gitananda View Post
    Sanjaya, my intent was not to disparage their faith. I posted a link to a chapter of their own scripture and I do not think that they will find their own scripture offensive - only worthy of an explanation perhaps. However as a devotee of the Gita I cannot 'respect' what does not appear to be sattvic according to the Gita. I can respect the person depending on how they live their lives - but not necessarily their beliefs.

    hari aum
    Ah, I had neglected to read the link. Yes, that is a particularly troublesome passage of Jewish scripture. Keep in mind that even the most orthodox of Jews don't subscribe to what a westerner would call a "literal" interpretation of their text. I've spent enough time around Jews to know that they have very clever means of interpreting these sorts of passages in a way that they sound far less offensive than how we'd take them at face value. In fact they'd go so far as to say that the written Torah is incomplete without an oral Torah, which is contained in such Jewish writings as the Talmud. From this, Jews derive quite a few interesting beliefs that differ substantially from those of other Western religions. I'm told that many orthodox Jews even subscribe to belief in reincarnation.

    Are these clever interpretations intellectually honest? Maybe not. But at some level, I'm willing to accept a bit of religious lawyering if it means that another religious person isn't out to convert me (even if I approached a Jewish rabbi asking to convert, the rabbi is required by his own beliefs to turn me away at least three times). I also understand that we often do the same thing. One could equally accuse Hindus of being "clever" in our elimination of the varna system from our religion. In the end, as long as a religious community's behavior is generally amenable, I'm willing to judge their religion by the same standards by which I'd like Hinduism to be viewed.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    69
    Posts
    7,705
    Rep Power
    218

    Re: Respect for all religions is not truthful.

    hari o
    ~~~~~~
    namasté

    This notion of respect for other religions...

    Let's say you do not respect religion X . That should not infer that you dis-respect it. What then do you do ? Pay it no mind. Give it no attention what so ever. Why do this ? Because the world is as you are. Who gains the grief or the angst of that religion that you dis-respect? You do. The negativity is within you and what good comes from this?

    And when we talk of the religion of another, are we not really taking how that individual (or group) implements or exercises that religion ? It is the person's ability ( or inability) to interpret the words of his/her religion into action. We look at it and see how it is put to action and then decide if the religion is worthy of merit based upon the actions done. Yet if the words of the religion fall on meager ears, on dull minds, on the ignorant, the actions we see will most likely look parochial¹ at best. Who then should we measure ? The religion or the paśu¹ ?




    iti śiva
    • parochial - having a limited or narrow outlook or scope
    • paśu or paśúnā - any tethered animal singly or collectively.A herd ; 5 kinds are enumerated , men , kine , horses , goats and sheep
      • paśavya - belonging to a herd; a herd or drove of cattle
    यतस्त्वं शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṁ śivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

  9. #19
    Join Date
    February 2014
    Location
    New Delhi
    Age
    79
    Posts
    49
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Respect for all religions is not truthful.

    Yes, I have differences with Abrahamic religions and certain sects of Hinduism itself. In case of Abrahamic religions, I object to their exclusivity. In case of some Hindu sects, the reason is disrespect of the tradition. No need to give names. I am an orthodox advaitist Hindu, however, an atheist.
    "Paropakaram punyaya, papaya parapeedanam."
    (Helping others is merit, causing pain is sin)

  10. #20
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    69
    Posts
    7,705
    Rep Power
    218

    Re: Respect for all religions is not truthful.

    hariḥ oṁ
    ~~~~~~

    namasté

    Dear new members,

    Quote Originally Posted by aupmanyav View Post
    Yes, I have differences with Abrahamic religions and certain sects of Hinduism itself. In case of Abrahamic religions, I object to their exclusivity. In case of some Hindu sects, the reason is disrespect of the tradition. No need to give names. I am an orthodox advaitist Hindu, however, an atheist.
    We are considered a sadācārin¹ when a post begins with a welcome, a hello, some preamble to his/her post that is well received
    by our HDF members. Please consider starting off your post with a hello, or a namasté , or some salutation.

    It is our custom here to do this...we ask you to join in on this custom.



    iti śivaṁ

    words
    sadācāra - virtuous conduct , good manners , well conducted, well mannered
    यतस्त्वं शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṁ śivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Christianity, politics of conversion in eyes of Mahatma Gandhi
    By Parikh1019 in forum Abrahamic Religions (Closed For Posting)
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01 December 2011, 10:06 AM
  2. All Religions are equal?
    By Tyrannos in forum Hot Topics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08 December 2008, 10:33 PM
  3. Why the Abrahamic Religions are So Violent
    By Yajnavalkya dasa in forum Christianity
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02 October 2007, 11:47 PM
  4. Vishnu Sahasranamam
    By Sudarshan in forum Vaishnava
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 30 March 2006, 02:19 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •