Guest guest Posted October 27, 2002 Report Share Posted October 27, 2002 When Plato first wrote, `The Statesman', he did not stress the need for laws. He probably ignored it, though some commentators, notably Ernest Barker, felt that Plato condemned laws; they must have read special meaning into Plato's words, when he subsequently wrote `The Laws', where he said:" Although we may condemn laws because they are copies, we may use them when we know what they copy, for laws are copies of customs." Of the several laws, the Constitution is not only the broad law of a country, but is also the source of many laws, both civil and criminal. In India, secularism is enshrined in the Constitution. So nothing prevents the Centre or the States from enacting legislation to uphold secularism. There is no need to define secularism at this point of time. The spirit and substance of secularism may be summed up in one sentence: No-one is to condemn another's religion, while being free to practise his or her own religion. This simplistic definition gives freedom to practise one's faith and does not give freedom to do anything injurious to others' religions. All religions may be practised in our country. The question is: are there articles of faith in any particular religion, which impose an obligation on the part of practitioners of that religion to go out and preach their religion and ostensibly convert people of other religions to come and embrace their religions? If there are, they may be construed as being repugnant to secularism. If there are already laws in the country to check against conversion, they have evidently failed if one were to consider the number of new converts to the minority religions. It is an undisputed fact that over the years, the minority religions have merrily gone on converting the poorer sections of the Hindu community by offering incentives of education, employment and cash. Besides, a Hindu marrying a non-Hindu has always been compelled to embrace the religion of his or her partner. On the contrary, there have been no such attempts on the part of Hindus to convert non-Hindus. Hinduism has been hailed as a way of life and not a religion. The transcendentalism and the immanence of the Universal Spirit as noticed in Upanishadic writings are now tacitly appreciated and accepted universally. Yoga has been personalised by every institution in the world. All this has happened without the noise that is characteristic of fanatical proselytisation. What has happened and is happening is a mental change everywhere, which is ready to accept merit wherever found. All this neo-classic religious re-orientation has come about in people wanting order out of chaos, despite critics barking at the so- called `multiplicity' of Hindu gods and goddesses and `seeds of communalism' researched by `objective scholars' and based on uneducated interpretations of Manu's prescriptions of a structured society reading from occupations of people living in his time. It is easy for people to speak against social evil and it is also correct. It should not become an argument to get out of one's religion, based purely on expectation of a temporary, personal and material gain from the new religion embraced. All may want to have the freedom of a Raja Ram Mohan Roy, but how many can rise to his stature? Physical conversion may not always bring mental peace that is so earnestly sought by the individual. Spiritual quest is inherent in man, for everyone is basically idiosyncratic, meaning that one tends to depart from social norms once in a while and to think for himself or herself. If both the converter and the converted realize the sheer futility and ultimate failure of all forced conversions, then probably we need no special laws to combat conversion. Another question inevitably crops up in this context. If the Indian Constitution is secular, should only Hindus practise secularism? In some sense, they are already secular, for Rig Veda sends an open invitation thus: "Aa no bhadraah kratavo yantu na pashwatah." "Let noble thoughts come to us from all sides." Vinobaji publishing `Gems of Kuran' and Dag Hammerskjoeld constantly keeping a copy of Bhagavad Gita are not isolated instances. If we have a window open, we can let in fresh air all the time. sarvam brahma mayam brahmadevan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2002 Report Share Posted October 27, 2002 I wholeheartedly agree with what is written. And I would like to add a few lines. You see there are already similar laws in other states in India and they were challenged in the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court said that there cannot be any “Right” to convert. So the law is strictly legal. All that it bans is “forcible” and “fraudulent” conversions. If these elements are absent in the conversion “industry”, then why bother at all. Instead some communities went on to threaten closure of educational and health institutions run by them (probably with money collected on the plank of conversion.). So these institutions were not started with the intention of serving the people but to advance their religious agenda. If these tools cannot help “fraudulent” and “forced” conversions, they are not interested!! Are you aware that a Christian was writing that the “Prajapathi Yaga” described in Rig Veda refers to Christ. That is Vedas wrote something about an event to take place thousands of years later. Then why go to that subsequent religion? Why not remain in the older (and accurate) religion? The Christians are adopting Hindu practices in Kerala to make it more “acceptable” to Keralaites. Why!! Then it ceases to be Christianity!! So why convert to a religion that is being slowly absorbed into Hinduism and it will sooner or later become a sub-sect of Hinduism in Kerala. Kerala also needs such a law. There is a story that a great Indian politician from Kerala converted to Christianity but kept his Hindu name and never went to church or temple to prevent the knowledge from public while his Christian wife regularly attended a church. It seems the CHURCH asked him to hide the identity so that they will have a fifth columnist among Hindus and he tried to promote Christian interests in the name of “Secularism”. I dunno how far it is true. May be time will reveal the truth. It should and it SHALL. brahmadevan <brahmadevan wrote: When Plato first wrote, `The Statesman', he did not stress the need for laws. He probably ignored it, though some commentators, notably Ernest Barker, felt that Plato condemned laws; they must have read special meaning into Plato's words, when he subsequently wrote `The Laws', where he said:" Although we may condemn laws because they are copies, we may use them when we know what they copy, for laws are copies of customs." Of the several laws, the Constitution is not only the broad law of a country, but is also the source of many laws, both civil and criminal. In India, secularism is enshrined in the Constitution. So nothing prevents the Centre or the States from enacting legislation to uphold secularism. There is no need to define secularism at this point of time. The spirit and substance of secularism may be summed up in one sentence: No-one is to condemn another's religion, while being free to practise his or her own religion. This simplistic definition gives freedom to practise one's faith and does not give freedom to do anything injurious to others' religions. All religions may be practised in our country. The question is: are there articles of faith in any particular religion, which impose an obligation on the part of practitioners of that religion to go out and preach their religion and ostensibly convert people of other religions to come and embrace their religions? If there are, they may be construed as being repugnant to secularism. If there are already laws in the country to check against conversion, they have evidently failed if one were to consider the number of new converts to the minority religions. It is an undisputed fact that over the years, the minority religions have merrily gone on converting the poorer sections of the Hindu community by offering incentives of education, employment and cash. Besides, a Hindu marrying a non-Hindu has always been compelled to embrace the religion of his or her partner. On the contrary, there have been no such attempts on the part of Hindus to convert non-Hindus. Hinduism has been hailed as a way of life and not a religion. The transcendentalism and the immanence of the Universal Spirit as noticed in Upanishadic writings are now tacitly appreciated and accepted universally. Yoga has been personalised by every institution in the world. All this has happened without the noise that is characteristic of fanatical proselytisation. What has happened and is happening is a mental change everywhere, which is ready to accept merit wherever found. All this neo-classic religious re-orientation has come about in people wanting order out of chaos, despite critics barking at the so- called `multiplicity' of Hindu gods and goddesses and `seeds of communalism' researched by `objective scholars' and based on uneducated interpretations of Manu's prescriptions of a structured society reading from occupations of people living in his time. It is easy for people to speak against social evil and it is also correct. It should not become an argument to get out of one's religion, based purely on expectation of a temporary, personal and material gain from the new religion embraced. All may want to have the freedom of a Raja Ram Mohan Roy, but how many can rise to his stature? Physical conversion may not always bring mental peace that is so earnestly sought by the individual. Spiritual quest is inherent in man, for everyone is basically idiosyncratic, meaning that one tends to depart from social norms once in a while and to think for himself or herself. If both the converter and the converted realize the sheer futility and ultimate failure of all forced conversions, then probably we need no special laws to combat conversion. Another question inevitably crops up in this context. If the Indian Constitution is secular, should only Hindus practise secularism? In some sense, they are already secular, for Rig Veda sends an open invitation thus: "Aa no bhadraah kratavo yantu na pashwatah." "Let noble thoughts come to us from all sides." Vinobaji publishing `Gems of Kuran' and Dag Hammerskjoeld constantly keeping a copy of Bhagavad Gita are not isolated instances. If we have a window open, we can let in fresh air all the time. sarvam brahma mayam brahmadevan Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2002 Report Share Posted October 27, 2002 Namaste Shri Shri BRAHMADEVA! When I say " NAMASTE" - i really mean it - the light within me bows to the light within you.... Yes, it is not just an empty (or a routine) greeting... Jesus said " "He who has eyes, let him see. He who has ears, let him hear." , so, brahmadevaji, you are indeed making some very valuable observations... the one that caught my eye was this concluding sentence in your post... " If we have a window open, we can let in fresh air all the time." How true! how very true! yes ! we are all prisoners in a cave as our Beloved Plato says..." we are all prisoners a cave watching a shadow procession on the walls. " How to get out of this cave and actually see the 'radiance of the sun' ? for the sun shines brightly in the pure waters of mother ganga as well as in the dirty waters of a muddy pond... LOrd krishna says in the srimad bhagwat gita .... ""This is my highest word and my most secret. (guhayana) I love you well." that is the secret - the secret PARAMA RAHASYA.... true love is without judgement. But when we become fundamentalists, or fanatics or extremists , we think that only our philosophy, our ideas, our belief systems, our cuture, our sacred book are valid and we start degrading the belief systems and sacred books of other religions... my gita versus your koran; my jesus versus your krishna etc etc... My favorite poet-philosopher KAHLIL GIBRAN SAYS " Say not, 'I have found the truth,' but rather, 'I have found a truth.' this is the premise of shri ramakrishna and other great saints... for 'truth' is a personal experience or 'realization' that is why 'brahman' cannot be described - I also very much liked this sentence in your post... " Physical conversion may not always bring mental peace that is so earnestly sought by the individual." exactly! when you convert, if there is a real transformation of the heart, then such a conversion is worthwhile... but if you just change your name, your external attire, and method of worship but the 'heart is vile and corrupt' what is the use? only from a unholy muslim you become an unholy hindu! Thank you shri brahmadeva! i really enjoy reading your posts ! they are very heart -warming! raja rm mohan roy, swami dayananda saraswati etc worked hard in erdicating many of the social evils that existed in hindu society.... and i am glad you mentioned the name of shri raja ram mohan roy who abolished the age old custom of 'sati' or widow burning... love recognizing love Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.