responses to the conversion question

[Guest guest]

Dear bhaktas:

I sincerely thank those who took the time to respond to the various

quesions that I had about proselytization and certain religious

practices. Although I haven't perused the archives for

previously occurring discussions about caste etc., Mani is correct

in stating that debates of this nature are mostly futile. As a matter

of fact I apologize if my statements appeared to be indicative of that

kind of discussion; certainly not my intent. Well what WAS my intent in

inquiring about conversion, brAhmaNism, etc?... simply to try and

understand better, "the nature of our faith". Dear fellow

Srivaishnavas, I take a lot of pride in belonging to this sampradAyam

and perhaps I acted like one often does with one's own parents, i.e.

critcize them in the hope that they will measure up to our regard and

esteem. I am quite a believer in the paradigm of "purity by fire", that

the true test of an entity's qualities is how it responds to extreme

situations. Here, the entity was Srivaishnavism, and the questions that

I was raising about it were rather extreme, as some of you will attest

to.

The ensuing responses have enlightened me a lot. I was seeking

really, a concrete definition of sorts, with regard to our faith. There

are reasons for this, and please feel free to comment/criticize about

them. In this day and age, the survival of any community/faith requires

that it gain recognition in the larger sphere of human society. Today's

world of several nations, peoples and faiths will never pay attention to

social constructs that aren't well defined. Why do I seek such a

definition? Because I want for Srivaishnavism to

survive and flourish as long as possible. Why do I "root" for it so

much? Because it is mine, and my ancestors', and all the way back to

our patron saints and beyond. Besides, it is an integral part of my

personality and value system [and of all of us, I'm sure]. And what is

this "definition" about? Well right now in my mind, it is about

recognition by peoples and governments world wide, much like other

religions and communities have gained during this century. I'm not sure

if Srivaishnavism has been given this consideration even in its home

country, let alone elsewhere. I feel that a sound definition of what

comprises our faith and its institutions is the first step toward

ensuring its survival. For instance, the mundane questions of who's

part of it and who's not, and then again, who can join, and how... and

if so, then what about the roles of the different adherents, etc. If we

shy away from even descriptions of these things, how can we expect the

fundamental constructs of our faith to stand the test of time?

I feel it is time for "glasnost" or openness. There is no reason

why we cannot candidly state that thondarkulam is open to one and all,

but certain duties and responsibilites within its spectrum are based on

ancestry and lineage, as prescribed by orthodox texts. The best

scenario of course, is to completely do away with the hierarchy and

adopt a reformist, unorthodox approach. I am not the community's

visionary leader, saint, AchAryan or jeer to propose any such

restructuring. But if it facilitates "definition" of who we are and

what we believe in, then it must be done by the powers that be. Mani

had mentioned in an earlier posting, that proper explanation of

Srivaishnava rites and rituals is imperative to ensuring their

appreciation by the younger generation that has been raised in North

America. As someone raised in India until age 18, I wish to say also,

that I have strongly felt the "void" caused by lack of definition of my

faith, in the increasingly political/communal society that surrounded

me. But it does not surprise me. I consider the Hindu religion itself,

to be not well defined in terms of institutionalism, sacred texts, and

and organized priesthood. Therefore to some extent, our specific "lack

of definition" is inherited from the religion which it is part of.

Enough said, I suppose... and no doubt I will have left behind a trail

of confusing statements but again I'm sure they are well within the

premises of our discussion group. If not, do forgive me fellow members,

and please respond at your convenience.

 

adiyEn

-SrInAtH

 

 

____

Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

Srinath Chakravarty wrote:

> ...........Mani

> had mentioned in an earlier posting, that proper explanation of

> Srivaishnava rites and rituals is imperative to ensuring their

> appreciation by the younger generation that has been raised in North

> America. As someone raised in India until age 18, I wish to say also,

> that I have strongly felt the "void" caused by lack of definition of my

> faith, in the increasingly political/communal society that surrounded

> me. But it does not surprise me. I consider the Hindu religion itself,

> to be not well defined in terms of institutionalism, sacred texts, and

> and organized priesthood. Therefore to some extent, our specific "lack

> of definition" is inherited from the religion which it is part of.

>

>

 

I apologize in advance for my strong views on this topic.

 

As one who has also been US raised, I can certainly relate to the void

caused by what can be aptly called "lack of definition" in our religion.

But, I do not think that this is a fault of SriVaishnavam or Hinduism but

rather the fault of the general sense of apathy towards religion that has

become prevalent among most Indians, irrespective of whether they were

raised in India or the West.

 

Our achAryans teach that many, if not all, of the answers to life's most

puzzling questions can be found in vEda. But, how many "Hindus" of the

world are even attempting to learn what vEda has to say (let us set aside

the issue of who qualifies for this, for now)? Every person in India who is

not a Muslim, Christian or Buddhist somehow looks upon him/herself as Hindu,

whether or not he/she has even read one sloka of Srimad Bhagavad Geetha or

Srimad Ramayana. In what I see as a false spirit of secularism, and in an

ever constant hunger for western ideology, the people of India, many

"Iyengars" included, have put aside all of the ideals of the faiths that

constitute Hinduism in favor of a casual and eclectic form of religion that

seems to provide no sense of solace or strength, let alone

cultural/spiritual identity.

 

While I would agree that there are some elements of our religion - as with

every religion - that may need to be corrected or adjusted, I think that we

should be very careful before blaming religious ideals for what are

undoubtedly the fallacies of our human weakness.

 

adiyEn,

 

Mohan