Answering Those Hindus Who Rejecting the Idea of Conversion is Sin
<script async src="https://pagead2.
googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.
js"></script>
<script> (adsbygoogle = window.
adsbygoogle || []).push({
google_ad_client: "ca-pub-
2960278825814307",
enable_page_level_ads: true});
Answers for Those Hindus Rejecting the idea of 'Conversion is sin '
When I forwarded the view ‘Conversion is sin ‘ in public, I received negative comments or rejection from Hindus and non-Hindus as well. Among Hindus, one group supports and others against it. The group which is against it, I salute them in a way for their stand. They are more into spiritualism. Their reasons,
1. If we agree conversion is sin, then we are putting down other religions outside Shanmatham, and it will against the princep of sanathan dharma.
2. Telling conversion is sin, is a negative approach that we don't apply in sanathan dharma.
3. They claim there is no Hindu scriptures/shastra mentioned that conversion is sin /wrong.
4. No credible (apta) gurus have mentioned conversion is wrong.
5. Adi Shankara himself had converted Buddhists back into Hinduism after they lost in the debate with him.
6. Siva Purana have mentioned Narada had 'converted'.....in tripurasura episode
So that conversion is not sinned,according to them.
1. If we agree conversion is sin, then we are putting down other religions outside Shanmatham, and it will against the princep of sanathan dharma.
2. Telling conversion is sin, is a negative approach that we don't apply in sanathan dharma.
3. They claim there is no Hindu scriptures/shastra mentioned that conversion is sin /wrong.
4. No credible (apta) gurus have mentioned conversion is wrong.
5. Adi Shankara himself had converted Buddhists back into Hinduism after they lost in the debate with him.
6. Siva Purana have mentioned Narada had 'converted'.....in tripurasura episode
So that conversion is not sinned,according to them.
Hindus don't agree, let's see the reason 1,
'If we agree conversion is sin, then we are putting down other religions outside Shanmatham, and it against the principle of sanathan dharma. '
I don't see how other religions outside Shanmatham were put down. In fact, if we study the main Abrahamic religions, they are strongly advocating that conversion is sin, of course in their own belief system. They believe Whoever go against God is a sinner. Whoever converts out from their religion is considered apostasy, is sin. If so, if we in Hinduism emulate the same view as they were, this emulation is supporting their dogmatic beliefs. We come together into a common term with them. Besides, Hinduism advocates all the religions are from the only God.
'If we agree conversion is sin, then we are putting down other religions outside Shanmatham, and it against the principle of sanathan dharma. '
I don't see how other religions outside Shanmatham were put down. In fact, if we study the main Abrahamic religions, they are strongly advocating that conversion is sin, of course in their own belief system. They believe Whoever go against God is a sinner. Whoever converts out from their religion is considered apostasy, is sin. If so, if we in Hinduism emulate the same view as they were, this emulation is supporting their dogmatic beliefs. We come together into a common term with them. Besides, Hinduism advocates all the religions are from the only God.
Hindus don't agree, let's see the reason 2,
‘ It is a negative approach which we don't apply in sanatan dharm.'
Is it really a negative approach? If telling conversion is a sin to our vulnerable youngsters is a definite negative approach, then the religion outside of Shanmatham falls into negativity itself because they strongly advocate that. By thinking this approach is negative than we really put them in the negativity. Isn't it?
Just forget about that, even in our scripture Ramayana have indicated that some times a 'negative' approach is needed /used in order to eliminate the 'negativity', it will be in the dharmic fold. (mule mulalethan edeke mudiyum)
‘ It is a negative approach which we don't apply in sanatan dharm.'
Is it really a negative approach? If telling conversion is a sin to our vulnerable youngsters is a definite negative approach, then the religion outside of Shanmatham falls into negativity itself because they strongly advocate that. By thinking this approach is negative than we really put them in the negativity. Isn't it?
Just forget about that, even in our scripture Ramayana have indicated that some times a 'negative' approach is needed /used in order to eliminate the 'negativity', it will be in the dharmic fold. (mule mulalethan edeke mudiyum)
Hindus don't agree, let's see the reason 3,
‘There is no Hindu scriptures (shastra) mentioned that conversion is sin /wrong’.
There were about 12400 different types of writing once available and whatever scriptures available as at today, there is nowhere have mentioned that conversion is sin. As far as my knowledge. And at the same time, there is nowhere had written that conversion does not sin. Even in such a huge volume of scriptures (ocean/university), Hinduism never has a single book to be accepted as the authority of reference as in Abrahamic religion(Bible). We believe Vedas are divine revelations(sruthi) yet Vedas is just as a guide to refer if one never read Vedas, will not be considered a sin as in other religions outside Shanmatham claims. Hinduism doesn't rely on any scriptures because there is no single book was dropped from heaven or God's pocket. Swami Vivekananda has mentioned it as dry bones of religion, do not obsessed with the scriptures /books. The truth is in you. The truth can be grasped/tap from the divine source in the form of sruthi (divine revelation).Even today. So in my opinion, why not we reconsider conversion is sin in order to protect our youngsters /Hindus in general form to be converted.
‘There is no Hindu scriptures (shastra) mentioned that conversion is sin /wrong’.
There were about 12400 different types of writing once available and whatever scriptures available as at today, there is nowhere have mentioned that conversion is sin. As far as my knowledge. And at the same time, there is nowhere had written that conversion does not sin. Even in such a huge volume of scriptures (ocean/university), Hinduism never has a single book to be accepted as the authority of reference as in Abrahamic religion(Bible). We believe Vedas are divine revelations(sruthi) yet Vedas is just as a guide to refer if one never read Vedas, will not be considered a sin as in other religions outside Shanmatham claims. Hinduism doesn't rely on any scriptures because there is no single book was dropped from heaven or God's pocket. Swami Vivekananda has mentioned it as dry bones of religion, do not obsessed with the scriptures /books. The truth is in you. The truth can be grasped/tap from the divine source in the form of sruthi (divine revelation).Even today. So in my opinion, why not we reconsider conversion is sin in order to protect our youngsters /Hindus in general form to be converted.
Hindus don't agree, let's see the reason 4,
‘No credible /apta gurus have mentioned it as wrong’.
Apta gurus refer to those who learned Vedas,.gurus, sages .. Acarya sampradaya, who are considered important references on religion matter. But there is no single acarya sampradaya, Sabha or etc. was given the authorization to represent all. So how to rely on those available. We don't have Adi Shankara, Madvaacarya, Swami Vivekananda, etc. to defend Hinduism right now.
For those really not happy with this opinion, I suggest you people go around to the many ashram around you and ask yourself to the gurus available. Most of them not happy with the current situation on conversion and says it is sin. But they don't speak in public because one needs to explain the reason for the advocacy.
One example of Guru fought the conversion issue is Adi Shankara himself. If he accepts conversion, then why he needs to debate and 'convert' the Buddhist back?
‘No credible /apta gurus have mentioned it as wrong’.
Apta gurus refer to those who learned Vedas,.gurus, sages .. Acarya sampradaya, who are considered important references on religion matter. But there is no single acarya sampradaya, Sabha or etc. was given the authorization to represent all. So how to rely on those available. We don't have Adi Shankara, Madvaacarya, Swami Vivekananda, etc. to defend Hinduism right now.
For those really not happy with this opinion, I suggest you people go around to the many ashram around you and ask yourself to the gurus available. Most of them not happy with the current situation on conversion and says it is sin. But they don't speak in public because one needs to explain the reason for the advocacy.
One example of Guru fought the conversion issue is Adi Shankara himself. If he accepts conversion, then why he needs to debate and 'convert' the Buddhist back?
Hindus don't agree, let's see reason 5,
'Adi Shankara himself had converted Buddhists back to Hinduism after they lost in the debate with him. '
Adi Shankara is one of the important enlightened soul saved Hinduism from Buddhism, many of Hindus were converted during the time. In order to save Hinduism, he debated with them, the loser had to follow the winner's teaching orders. I don't see this as conversion, it is a move to revert back to Hinduism. If it was a conversion, then it must be some kind of forced conversion. The question of why Adi Shankara went into such an approach, The reason is to save Hinduism from extinction. I am sure, Enlighten souls such as Adi Shankara realized that divine love is beyond religion but he stands up to revert back them. In the current situation, are we going to let go of the conversion without any interference? Did we realize, if we never take firm action, it will lead to our Hindu religion into extinction? Wake up.
'Adi Shankara himself had converted Buddhists back to Hinduism after they lost in the debate with him. '
Adi Shankara is one of the important enlightened soul saved Hinduism from Buddhism, many of Hindus were converted during the time. In order to save Hinduism, he debated with them, the loser had to follow the winner's teaching orders. I don't see this as conversion, it is a move to revert back to Hinduism. If it was a conversion, then it must be some kind of forced conversion. The question of why Adi Shankara went into such an approach, The reason is to save Hinduism from extinction. I am sure, Enlighten souls such as Adi Shankara realized that divine love is beyond religion but he stands up to revert back them. In the current situation, are we going to let go of the conversion without any interference? Did we realize, if we never take firm action, it will lead to our Hindu religion into extinction? Wake up.
Reason 6,
‘Siva Purana have mentioned Narada had 'converted'.....in tripurasura episode ‘
As we knew Narada always singing the glory of Narayanan ( Maha Vishnu).
Tripurasuras need to be deceived in order to eliminate them. It is the plan of Vishnu . Lord Shiva only will eliminate asuras if they go into adharmic . So the ‘conversion ‘ is planned (Lila) in the process of elimination of adharma. It won't be able to be counted as a conversion.
Om Namasivaya.
Sivasiddhi.
Sivasiddhi Spiritual Foundation
1 June 2017
- Get link
- Other Apps
- Get link
- Other Apps
Comments
Post a Comment