Skip to content

Are converts accepted in Hinduism?

January 17, 2008

While I was growing up I heard from various sources that one couldn’t really convert to Hinduism. As someone who was not religious and also someone not interested in religious matters, I never delved deeply into this subject. If I had to think about it I would say that Hindus generally believe that a person could convert and become a Hindu, and converts would be surely be accepted as Hinduism is a tolerant religion…but some Hindus would have doubts as to whether a convert is a ‘true’ Hindu, as ‘true’ as someone who is born a Hindu.

These thoughts came to me as I read a news report which talked about converted Hindus who were being denied their right to enter the Sri Jagannath Temple. The converted Hindus in this instance were the ISKON monks. Priests of Sri Jagannath Temple demanded that they be banned from entering the temple.

In a memorandum to Sri Jagannath Temple Administration (SJTA), Sri Jagannath Sevayat Sammilanee (SJSS) said only ‘Hindus by birth’ should be allowed into the temple, one of the four important ‘dhams’ for Hindus in the country…citing two recent incidents in which the priests drove out nine Indonesian nationals from the temple, Mahasuar said they were Hindus on paper. But they were converts…

There have been other incidents in the past as well. An American woman who had converted to Hinduism and was married to an Indian was refused entry into the 11th century Lingaraj Temple some years ago. There was quite a scene because her husband insisted that she be let in. There was a board outside the temple which said no entry for non-Hindus but he insisted that his wife was a Hindu but the priests would have none of it.

I personally do not think anything is wrong even if a non-Hindu enters a temple, even if it is an “important” temple, but ofcourse my opinion doesn’t count. Each temple is managed by a group of people and they make the rules. I guess they are free to make the rules, but the problem is that these kind of rules harm the image of Hinduism. While not trying to convert people is fine, refusing to accept those who have willingly embraced our religion doesn’t seem right to me.

But is there any logic and/or truth behind this? Does Hinduism disallow converts? Does the reason why Hindus do not try to convert non-Hindus explain why converts are not accepted? (at least by some priests) It says on karma2grace.org:

The understanding for the reason why Hindus don’t try to convert is contained in the three major teachings of Hinduism: casteism, reincarnation, and karma. Each of these reinforce each other in the belief that all men are on a path—at varying distances from attaining release from samsara into moksha. So in a sense, Hinduism believes there is no need or fruitfulness to trying to convert someone.

In other words, those who are not born Hindus would (by being re-born) eventually become Hindus (provided they live right.) A cool idea for any religion, as it presumes that a Hindu (caste also comes into this as being just a Hindu isn’t enough) is at the top of re-incarnation heap. If one went by this, everyone is already on their way to become a Hindu, even those from outside the belief system…they just haven’t got there yet. And those who haven’t got there yet aren’t Hindus…they aren’t ready to be Hindus.

To die outside the belief system of Hinduism is not a threat or concern to Hindus, because they believe that these people will be born into this universe in another life in another form. Eventually, if a person lives right, they will ascend through the different forms of life to humanity and then to a high caste and then eventually reach moksha.

Karma is supposed to sort it all out.

But according to this site, converts are well accepted in Hinduism and this stuff is all nonsense (that converts are not true Hindus).

Swami Vivekananda said that conversion into Hinduism from other religions is normal, that it has and should take place time and time again…You’ve often heard that Hinduism is not a proselytizing religion, that Hinduism never convert others, that you have to be born a Hindu to be a Hindu, or be born a Hindu in India to be a Hindu. How ridiculous these notions are. We did a lot of research to find out who originated this kind of thinking. We made a note of every comment of this nature from many, many books and found that it was totally Christian propaganda…Whereas, all the authors of statements that Hindus do bring others into their faith were eminent Hindus.

This couldn’t be true because there are specific instances of Hindu priests not accepting converts. If converts are accepted, then why do some temple priests stop Hindu converts from entering certain temples?

Apparently, Swami Dayananda and Swami Shraddhananda were also for conversions. But despite messages from these eminent swamis, some temple priests continue to refuse to accept converts. Almost a hundred priests of the Sri Jagannath Temple went on a dharna last month demanding a ban on the entry of converted Hindus into the 12th century shrine. Yes, I do know about the different streams of thought in Hinduism, but where conversion is concerned I wish there was some sort of common ground. Conversion cannot be taken lightly, it’s everything to do with the survival of Hinduism.

If one has to answer the question, does Hinduism accept converts, I have to admit that I am still quite unclear. Not having read any scholarly work on the same I cannot answer the question with any certainty. But being a Hindu myself I instinctively know that Hinduism is far too generous a religion not to allow it.

(Photograph is by me and copyrighted)

Related Reading: Even India’s urban elite don’t want to go in for an inter-religious marriage.
Why people are religious
Destruction of Ram Setu will hurt religious sentiments
Are burqas catching on in India?
True faith in God can be confused with rituals
Is a dress code required in a temple or a church or any other place of worship?
Book countering the Hinduphobia of the west
What role do “Gurus” play in our life?

110 Comments leave one →
  1. Vivek Khadpekar permalink
    January 17, 2008 8:41 am

    Nita,

    Your question and the topic of this blog does not interest me in the least, but for a well-researched, objective, authoritative and modern opinion, I think the best source to refer to would be Pandurang Vaman Kane. “History of Dharmasastra: Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India.” I don’t have the publication details, but the Asiatic Society in Mumbai should be a good place to find this, as well as his other works.

    BTW Kane was awarded the Bharat Ratna in 1963, at a time when the award was not politicised like it is today.

  2. January 17, 2008 10:12 am

    http://enagar.com/2007/03/03/puri-temple-in-cleansing-act/
    whats worse is that they call the Puri temple “jaganath”
    lord of the world.. and then they deny entrance for the citizens.

    and while the whole is country is starving… they dump away food worth 3 lakhs of rupees

  3. Raj permalink
    January 17, 2008 12:19 pm

    Nita,

    Thanks for this article.I think in almost the same way as you do on this issue.Though I too,am a “Hindu” by birth, (I have used quotations because I am not sure whether “Hinduism” is like other “religions”-seen in an Abrahamic sense,”Hinduism” may be more paganistic in character) I am pained that this “religion” is being hijacked by certain people.So I am becoming more and more Buddhist by belief, as I feel that a certain Buddhist school of thought may represent the “Hindu” philosophy more than “Hinduism” itself.

  4. January 17, 2008 12:41 pm

    Few priest who consider themselves self-important are botching up the perception of Hindu religion and God.

    Jagannath temple had also refused entry to Indira Gandhi because she had married a Parsi. They did not let a Hindu0converted Thailand princess into temple. They behave abominably when foreigners enter. They waste tonnes of food in a country where millions go hungry. Who gave them these rights? We!

    How can anyone deny entry to other individual who has willingly knocked on God’s door?

  5. January 17, 2008 12:52 pm

    You might want to read the story of a Muslim man who agreed to convert to Hinduism, but was killed:

    http://www.hindujagruti.org/news/3094.html

  6. January 17, 2008 1:53 pm

    I never expect rationality from any organised religion, so this does not surprise me in any way.

  7. January 17, 2008 2:28 pm

    Ankur, yes I have heard of the goings on at the temple and frankly I think these people are least bothered about poverty and people’s suffering.
    Raj, I have been pondering on buddhism for some time now myself. in fact i think i am already a buddhist, by sheer thinking. but i am a non vegetarian so I guess I cannot really be a buddhist!
    Poonam, thanks. you are right, these priests have been given importance by the people themselves. the problme is that they start to think they are beyond God.
    Ruhi, that link about Rizwanur Rehman has deeper implications. he was killed because he dared to elope with the daughter of a rich industrialist, but ofcourse his religion also was a big part of it. I don’t think that religious hindus will ever accept those who have converted from islam.
    but if you think of it, i have heard that this is true to some extent about all religions. for example Indian Muslims are considered less important that the middle east muslims, at least that is what I hear. i think christianity tends to accept converts the best and perhaps that is why that religion will survive a long time. About Hinduism I have my doubts. I have heard that priests try to stop conversions of even those who want to convert back to hinduism from other religions.
    rdoc, the organisers (of religion) should be banished and each one of us should be allowed to have his/her own direct communication with God. I think it was those pujaris which put me off Hinduism. As a teenager my image of pujaris is that of fat, paunchy and lecherous men! It sealed the fate of hinduism in my teenage mind.

  8. Raj permalink
    January 17, 2008 2:45 pm

    Nita,

    Please do continue to think about Buddhism! I’m NOT a Buddhist monk (I may not even be a Buddhist in a strict sense) and I’m NOT interested in converting anyone (not even myself) to Buddhism.But I do believe that if there is any religion that does not contradict science or rationalism,it has got to be Buddhism (my personal opinion ofcourse!).And there are Buddhist monks in East and South-East Asia who are meat eaters! So you can still be a Buddhist without giving up meat! Buddhism may become the only “religion” in the future as science grows stronger and stronger by the day and begins to disprove one religion after another.

    P.S.: All these views are my personal opinion and I have absolutely NO intention whatsoever to hurt anyone or their religious sentiments!

  9. January 17, 2008 2:48 pm

    you were talking about born hindus….
    Well born Hindus from Thailand are not allowed inside.

    //, yes I have heard of the goings on at the temple and frankly I think these people are least bothered about poverty and people’s suffering.//
    i totally agree… while I was in Kharagpur, I have heart of so many atrocities committed by the Pundits inside the Puri Premises. that the only way to cleanse that place is by demolishing the entire premises.

  10. January 17, 2008 2:52 pm

    Nita: if you ever consider that seriously – the Buddhism thing – let me know. I shall be happy to mail you a list of all the treatises I have read on the philosophy. I have friends who converted from Judaism to Buddhism and from Hinduism to Buddhism so I have also some stories I am happy to share. I had much dialogue with Tenzin Thurman about the concept of sin in several religions for my PhD research but this bit was not included in the thesis in the end..

  11. January 17, 2008 2:57 pm

    Raj, it’s good to hear that buddhists can be meat eaters! I didn’t know that buddhist monks were meat eaters! I guess I know little about Buddhism. I am going to read up on it definitely. As for Hinduism, I have seen too much in my childhood and teenage years. the priests basically had no character. and even later I have seen what a commerical hungama a place like tirupati has become.

    Ankur, I know what you mean! I think priests should be evaluated by the same standards as that of any profession! they are after all just professionals, and are not God’s close aides as they seem to think. I think consumer courts should do the job. :)

    Vivek,
    thanks for the info.

  12. January 17, 2008 3:01 pm

    Shefaly, yes I am certainly interested in buddhism, particularly as it is the only religion that comes near to atheism. Please do send me that. it is for knowledge basically because I doubt that I will officially convert for the simple reason as any sort of ritual is what I abhor. I am very interested in spirituality and prefer to find my own path. Exploring buddhism will give me a greater understanding.

  13. R.S permalink
    January 17, 2008 3:06 pm

    What do you mean by “accepted”?
    1. Acceptance into temples? or
    2. Following Hindu rituals?

    As for as entry into temples is concerned it varies from place to place. I have myself seen a “White” or “Foreign” woman inside the, Sri Ranganathar temple in Sri Rangam, Tamil Nadu (one of Vaishnavism’s holiest places in India). She was wearing a Sari, flowers in her head, bindi etc. etc. As for other temples, it is there wish. Why should atheists/agnostics have any say in the matter?

    Who can stop people from following Hindu rituals? As it is many Christian and Muslim rituals in India are Hinduised or Indianised to some extent.

  14. krenim permalink
    January 17, 2008 3:32 pm

    umm basically hinduism being the oldest never really had to seek out and convert others in the sense christianity and islam did i.e they were effectively the first attempt for man to create a concept of a supreme being(s) its contemporaries i.e religions of helenistic greece as well as zoroastrianism never went /go about converting others.so…

  15. January 17, 2008 4:43 pm

    Interesting post… In kerala there are organizations (can’t recall names nw) which teach one all the hindu scriptures, including vedas.. all that a Brahmin needs to know.. and once a person has mastered all scriptures he is declared hindu and is given certificate (certified by govt of course) declaring him a hindu.. this certificate is enough to let anyone enter any temple in Kerala…

    Now tat is a good system!
    and a person who coverts to hinduism is looked upon here at least in areas where I used to stay… heard of sabarimala? People of all religion are allowed entry there! Isn’t Ayyappa also a hindu god? If he can bless and hear prayers of non hindus why not gods in other temples.. or should I say why not authorities in other temples?

    I don’t understand what the big fuss is anyway abt hindu convert being allowed to enter temples.. Hinduism according t me is a way of life.. a culture.. a culture even non-hindus follow!

  16. January 17, 2008 4:57 pm

    I hope article on my blog answers few questions.

    http://tnsatish.blogspot.com/2008/01/hinduism.html

  17. Jackie permalink
    January 17, 2008 5:46 pm

    Gosh, how uncharitable is that, to exclude a ‘convert’ into the faith. But groups can do what they want. Here, I am getting pretty good at dodging the evangelical Christians who seem to think me or my soul needs a saviour. Great post!
    Shefaly, please do share your add’l info on Buddhism, either via email or as a blog entry ;-) . I’m not prone to deep pondering of spirituality, but find Buddhism, and what little I have read about it and observed with momma’s side of the family, seems a natural fit.

  18. January 17, 2008 7:43 pm

    Nita,what about the ‘Hare Rama Hare Krishna’ people? They are quite a few converts in them. What category do they fall in?

  19. January 17, 2008 7:58 pm

    Iam not religious. but I feel, one of thing good(/great) about Hinduism is that “its not clear” and open for debut / interpretation. not having rules/law book and having 1000s of god with different ideas, playing different roles, lived across different life form, cross different stages in life,.. as they its religion of gods.

    Hinduism(like india) is unorganized. that i feel is the very reason which had kept this religion from vanish over millions of years(unlike roman, Greek, Egyptian mythologies over took by either Christianity or Islam).

    each temple body makes their own decision for their own temple and we are happy to follow them(different rules for different temple). and for our life/society- we form our own rules depending upon our understanding, lifestyle, community,.. without too many(/with too little)acquisitions.

    given this to be my understanding, the correct answer to you question would be: in principle(majority)- it is accepted. but practice is very subjective… depends on various factors.

    hope i make sense.

  20. January 17, 2008 8:13 pm

    Nita and others … Frankly if you need to gon path of spirtuality no need to convert. In Sanatna Dharam (which is what we call Hindusim is) their are enough way to follow the path.
    Question is
    1. can u follow it when u are surrounded ny material influence. For spirituality u need to follow the process just like understanding maths of class 12 u need to learn numbers, addition subtraction, alzebra, calculus over the years to make sense of it when u come in class 12. Need to understand it and follow it its not a quict dirty solution.
    2. You ned to find a good guru with good creedentials – no ponga or dhongi pundit types.
    My experinces tell me people from other conutries following so called Hinduism are better in teaching us and showing the path.
    3. Lot of courses related to Vedas (sceitifically by Ittians) are run in Pune and Bombay. May be u need to do bit of googleing.
    4. Bhuddisim is just another fragmented branch of Sanatan Dharam (So called Hindusim).

    Nita to go on path of spirituality we will have to first come to terms with Material world and try to reduce its influence. This age is kali yuga which makes it harder , best is Bhkati Yoga as described in Bhgavdam.

  21. January 17, 2008 8:23 pm

    @ Prerna: They ARE the same as ISKCON folks.

  22. wishtobeanon permalink
    January 17, 2008 8:36 pm

    Just wondering if there is a hint of racism in these incidents. If it was a person with typical Indian looks, how would the priests be able to identify if he/she is a Hindu?
    Many temples in Kerala have this board outside that says non-Hindus are not permitted entry – in this day and age (whatever explanations the religious fanatics may give), it is not a good thing to have. It only shows intolerance and segregation.
    Some religions, especially those in the sub-continent seem to be taking a turn for the worse.

  23. January 17, 2008 9:20 pm

    Nita, would you know what’s the policy in India in places of worship of other religions, vis-a-vis allowing entry to people not of their religion, and whether it is universal or not?
    I know for a fact that certain mosques in Morocco do not allow any foreigners or non-Muslims.

    AFAIK, according to some accounts, Gautam Buddha’s cousin agitated to declare vegetarianism as a rule for the sangha, but he refused. One doesn’t have to be a vegetarian to practice it.

    I also find it interesting to read of your account of how you were turned off. I’ve heard similar stories from others, and while I didn’t really have a single turning-off experience like yours, loud loudspeakers during exam times when I was a kid were enough to lose any interest I did have. :)
    Which actually tells us that how easy it is for us to form an opinion about something based on one (negative) experience which may or may not be representative or true reflection of the philosophy/thinking of Hinduism.

  24. January 17, 2008 9:51 pm

    R.S, ofcourse you are right. no one has a say in the matter except for the temple priests. If this gives a bad name to Hinduism, they couldn’t care less. The temple belongs to them usually or at least the management does, and so what if the Hindu faith doesn’t belong to them? After all, religions are always distorted and used by priests and the priests are living up their name.

    Krenim, I hadn’t quite thought of it like that. I guess, that is a point mulling over.

    Prerna, I think Shefaly has explained your point. Thanks.

    Yuva, thanks. Your answer certainly makes sense. You are saying theory and practice differs and you see it as a postive thing. And pratice will differ from temple to temple as people are different. What you are saying is that this lack of coherence and lack of rigidity is what made Hinduism survive to this day. Perhaps that is why I myself don’t think of converting. I am accepted the way I am, in Hinduism. But at the same time, I think that accepting converts is a critical factor in long term survival of a religion and I think where conversion is concerned the priests should not be petty.

    Vishal, Thanks. Actually though I am interested in spirituality, I am not willing to give up materialism So I am at a very initial stage, so to say, a stage of gathering information. Maybe it’s for my intellectual satisfaction, that’s all.

    wishtobeanon, i agree that it is a regression of sorts! and sends the wrong message to foreigners about Hinduism. I think it is a kind of racism. As Ankur mentioned, even thai hindus who are born hindus are not allowed. this is surely racism!

    Amit, I do know that we can enter churches and gurdwaras but I do not know about mosques.
    and that experience about loudspeakers, well, I have had negative experiences there too. That is what put me off the ganesh festival. I detest the ganesh festival today because I suffered terribly during my 10th grade exams. I had to put my alarm at around 3 a.m., so i could study and it was torture, my exams I mean. I was at the age where I was ambivalent about Hinduism, was attracted to the God Ganesh, attracted to what He represented (if I had to worship any God, it would be Ganesh) but that experience of loudspeakers put me off. Also there 1-2 other experiences I have had through the years about Ganesh mandals which I don’t want to talk about here. but suffice to say that the mandals often have goondas and goons as a part of them. they are needed as today the thing is to go around intimidating people to collect donation for the ganesh mandals which is blown up in cheap filmi music, loudspeakers and alcohol and drugs, by these louts. they stay awake almost the whole night, gyrating drunkenly to cheap numbers. this is the ganesh festival today. ofcourse not all mandals are like this, but frankly even if one in 5 is like this, it can be off-putting.

  25. January 17, 2008 9:52 pm

    Amit:

    In Tibetan Buddhism, the Mahayana sect generally proscribes eating of meat. However later the practice was questioned by Bhavaviveka, and it was clarified that if one has knowledge or suspicion that the animal was killed for the express purpose of your eating, then one must not eat it.

    Note that the insertion or removal of emphasis on _your_ could make many interpretations possible. So I imagine that ordering a particular lobster to be killed is not ok but to eat a lobster ravioli is! Then again I imagine at the time of being written, the Mahayana texts could not envisage battery chickens and mass-farming of animals for the express purpose of supplying cheap meat to supermarkets :-)

    (Technically the Mahayana precedes Ashoka etc. so I would think that is a more authentic reference)

    Some of the Buddhists I know do eat meat; one convert I know does while one does not. I think there is no hard and fast rule about it and the religion does not generally promote the idea of sin making it easier for followers to make corrections and changes in their lives without a system of either penalties or rewards. The best kind of system in my view.. :-)

    PS: I have avoided commenting here all day but you had a specific point so I spoke.

  26. Vivek Khadpekar permalink
    January 17, 2008 11:09 pm

    Shefaly,

    //(Technically the Mahayana precedes Ashoka etc. so I would think that is a more authentic reference)//

    I haven’t delved into this subject, but as far as my superficial understanding goes, the Mahayana emerged in the 1st or 2nd century CE, i.e. approximately four centuries AFTER Ashoka. It was they who coined the disparaging term “Hinayana” for the more conservative older sects. Of these older sects, the one that predominently survives into modern times is the Theravadins.

    Regarding eating meat, one of the stories I vaguely remember hearing but haven’t checked out from reliable sources is that Buddha’s death was due to eating bad meat. I wonder if anyone here can either confirm or refute this.

  27. January 17, 2008 11:30 pm

    Vivek, based on my limited knowledge (and I’m not a Buddhist scholar), the sutras do mention sukaramaddava as his last meal, and the meat being buried. Whether that meat was directly responsible for Gautam’s death, or aggravated an existing illness, or not, is a matter of much debate/speculation. We’ll probably never know for sure, and as far as I’m concerned, it’s of little/no relevance, IMHO, when deciding what to eat. :)

    Shefaly, I’m not familiar with Mahayana writings, so thanks for sharing that.

  28. January 17, 2008 11:32 pm

    ….*left-over* meat being buried… in the previous comment.

  29. January 17, 2008 11:39 pm

    4. Bhuddisim is just another fragmented branch of Sanatan Dharam (So called Hindusim).

    Vishal, that is indeed a popular opinion in India, but there is also debate over it, and it is far from a settled fact or an unequivocal statement. Yes, there is probably much overlap between the two, but what matters is people’s actions – such debates are also sanatan. :)

  30. January 17, 2008 11:54 pm

    i have heard a lot about this word “Sanatan Dharam”….
    what exactly is it?

  31. January 18, 2008 12:27 am

    @R.S.:
    Quote:
    “As for other temples, it is there wish. Why should atheists/agnostics have any say in the matter?”
    End Quote

    Firstly, I wonder where this atheist reference came up from? We must be the most feared (after “god”) to be singled out by every theist. That somehow, makes me feel warm inside, like power of that nature would.

    Getting to the point, I don’t quite care about this whole business of religion, but my question is solely concerned with this view that atheists cannot appreciate “religion”. While atheists deny the existence of god, and hence the relevance of it in today’s times, that does not stop us from visiting temples and soaking in the architecture, the cultures of years gone by. It is like a muslim enjoying the Gita (though his faith is different) or a Hindu the Quran/Bible.

    And all the religious folk claim god is all accepting. There in lies the contradiction of all contradictions.

    @rambodoc: That, simply put, is the best rationalisation of this matter.

    @Nita: I am sorry if I am diverting this from its intended purpose, but sentiments such as those of R.S. always baffle me. People’s views of atheism are often so simplistic…

  32. January 18, 2008 6:14 am

    first is hinduism a religion ???
    isnt it a social system or order?or a way of life
    it is a phrase coined by the british for the people that lived around the sindhu river .

    plus its really sanatan dharma ()

    the best part i like about it is it is far to broad and vast and scientific for any single leader to call the shots (fatwas)
    u study it all ur life and that lifetime will be far to short

    if u join its fold noone can definitively object or stop u from doing so —if u quit no one will kill u …
    if u get bored or irritated or bored with a god there are always the 33 whatever crore gods left to choose from ,,,.
    it attempts to pick up and incorporate the good things others have to offer

    and lastly if the high chinned money loving priests of puri wont let u in there are several others that do ..
    ps There is another school of thought that says Feroze was born with last name “Khan”. Feroze Khan’s father, Nawab Khan, was a Muslim, and mother was a Persian Muslim. Feroze wanted to marry Indira Nehru, but her father Jawaharlal Nehru did not approve of the inter-caste marriage for political reasons

    on entry restrictions i think the temple mgmt should have rights– with valid reasons backed by the faithful

    the hindus should have right on the funds collected by devotees not the state govts which rule with their might
    and use such funds to sometimes subsidise madrases
    and by the way buddhists jains etc come under hindu law nyways … if im not mistaken

    shefaly u pointed an interesting fact
    in the cold arid deserts of ladakh and tibet wat else could they eat – circumstances also play a vital part

    there is one more interesting tale of the saraswat priests who ate fish sans head and tail and had the power to bring the fish back to life through mantras using the head and tail

  33. Rajesh permalink
    January 18, 2008 7:29 am

    Nita

    //”
    and converts would be surely be accepted as Hinduism is a tolerant religion…but some Hindus would have doubts as to whether a convert is a ‘true’ Hindu, as ‘true’ as someone who is born a Hindu. //”

    As you said Hinduism is a tolerant religion ,
    I think converts are accepted as Hindus where the priests and trust members of the temples are broad minded or tolerant or practical.

    The same converts are discriminated by the temple priests and management where the priests doesnt want to give up their conservatism or their so called beliefs and faith.

    There was an incident which took place in Guruvayur temple.Union Minister from kerala Vyalar Ravi’s son Ravi krishna had gone to the temple.The temple authorities had objected to Krishna’s visit because his mother is from other relegion. They claimed that his visit had defiled the temple, which is the abode of the Lord .

    “Priests and religious heads had met in Thrissur on Thursday to discuss who can be allowed inside the temple after the recent controversy around the purification ceremony conducted in the Guruvayur Temple following the visit of Union Minister Vayalar Ravi’s son Ravi Krishna.”

    source for the above news :http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/news/06-07/news1264.htm

    How heartening it would have been for Mr.Krishna when he heard , the temple is being is purified just because he visited the temple eventhough his father is a born hindu.

    For a true hindu(either original or converted) I dont think he needs to earn PUNYA by going to temples where discrimination is there.

    I think a normal hindu in this country accepts the converts as he believes his religion.But when any hindu groups run by the converts, try to pull people in the name of hindu religion and enforce people with their ideologies, then these converted hindu groups must be kept aside.

    Yes I think Hinduism in principle accepts converts but few GODMEN,priests and temple management who are doing the damage to Hinduism must be shown their way out.

    Thanks Rajesh.

  34. January 18, 2008 8:48 am

    All your comments have made this post very fascinating in a way that no scholarly book could! Thanks

    Balu, I agree that too much fuss is being made about entry into temples but the point is that we are just ordinary people, not priests and therefore do not have a say!

    Amit, Shefaly and Vivek, thanks for your comments on non-vegetaranism of buddhists. Very informative!

    DD, even though i am an agnostic, not only do I appreciate the architecture and history of temples, i enjoy the ambiance of a temple. If one goes to a deserted temple, I get a fantastic sense of peace and a strange feeling that I cannot express here. It is oneness with God or a greater power. I don’t know why religious people try to understand religion only in the context of an indentifiable being..

    Prax thanks. I have heard people say that Hinduism is a way of life, but I think it a religion as well. It’s both I think.

    Rajesh, I agree that there are some Hindu converts who try to convert people, which goes against the grain of Hinduism. The idea of anyone trying to convert another is repugnant to me, maybe because I am a Hindu.

  35. January 18, 2008 9:54 am

    Nita, somehow I don’t believe in converting, no I am not saying one should not follow a religion.. but then the word “Converting” does not sound right to me. I guess anybody has right to follow any religion, and adopt any philosphy they want to.
    As far as not allowing into the temple, I guess its mainly because of some people who really don’t want to risk, Hinduism for long has been a little conservative and more of in the shell approach.

    Me too am unclear about why the seers did not allow people, I would suggest some books from Swami Harshananda, who talks about Hindusim for modern society and hindusim for youth, There is also a book called hinduism in question and answers, which I found really useful.

  36. January 18, 2008 11:48 am

    @ Vivek: You are right. Thanks for the correction.

  37. Vivek Khadpekar permalink
    January 18, 2008 12:13 pm

    Nita,

    //I think consumer courts should do the job.//

    Even if I were a cannibal — which I assure you I am not — I would not consume a priest (especially one of ours). The very idea makes me want to throw up.

  38. January 18, 2008 2:24 pm

    @Nita: I guess the way you define religion and the way you interpret Hinduism, go far in determining whether you treat it as a religion or a way of life. Modern practices by so called “religious men/women” would force you to term it as a religion, since the principles are handed down dogmatically.

    However, having said that, the true extent of hinduism is hardly tested by the dogmatic and inflexible.

    A few definitions of a religion:
    “the service and worship of God or the supernatural” – Websters

    “A religion is a set of common beliefs and practices generally held by a group of people, often codified as prayer, ritual, and religious law.” – Wikipedia

    By these hard and fast rules, Hinduism can’t quite be a religion, since there are contradictory principles, and the concepts of “Religion” and “God” are absolute. Or perhaps that is my limited view of them.

    @Everyone: I have a question, which might seem to contradict Prax’s statement about Jainism. Is jainism a religion? I highly doubt they believe in a god, and none of their tirthankaras claimed to be gods. So by the strictest definition of the word, I can’t see them being a religion.

    http://contradictionreflected.blogspot.com/2007/04/creator-failure-conquering-easter.html

    If you read the quote (which I assume is a translation), then aren’t Jains a form of atheists/non-believers? My question stems from my lack of understanding of Jainism and its practices.

    @Vivek: On a slightly humorous note, let me quote one of my favorite bands, Iron Maiden

    “Holy Smoke Holy Smoke, plenty bad preachers for
    The Devil to stoke
    Feed’em in feet first this is no joke
    This is thirsty work making Holy Smoke”

  39. Vivek Khadpekar permalink
    January 18, 2008 3:19 pm

    Depressed Doormat:

    Regarding Jains as “atheists”:

    We Indians tend to simplistically translate the word “nAstika” as “atheist”.

    In reality, “nAstika” means one who does not believe in the authority of the Vedas (not one who does not believe in god or similar other supreme power). By this criterion the Jains, the Buddhists, the LokAyatikas, all count as nAstikas.

    Buddhism and Jainism survived, because of royal patronage in different eras in different parts of the country; and Jainism flourished because it received not only royal but also mercantile patronage. Buddhism in India started declining roughly around the 12th c., and its old schools are virtually non-existent in modern India. An overwhelming majority of present-day Buddhists are the Dalits who converted along with Dr. Ambedkar in 1956. Some intellectuals from among them style this group as “NavayAna”.

    LokAyata, being more intellectually challenging, could not find such patronage and was wiped out. Indeed even its texts were destroyed. What little is known about it is through Vedic commentators’ qotations from those texts in order to refute them. The best known aphorism from the LokAyata is

    yAvajjIvet sukham jIvet, rNam krtvA ghrtam pibet,
    bhasmibhUtasya dehasya punarAgamanam kutah.

    Roughly it means –

    While you live, live happily; (if necessary) take credit to buy ghee; (for) once your body is turned into ashes, there is no return.

  40. January 18, 2008 3:26 pm

    @ Depressed doormat:

    Depressingly enough, the song that _I_ accidentally came upon yesterday while listening to my iPod randomly was Crosby, Stills and Nash’s “Cathedral”.

  41. January 18, 2008 10:01 pm

    Vivek, are LokAyatas the same as Carvakas?

  42. Vivek Khadpekar permalink
    January 19, 2008 4:05 am

    Amit:

    Yes, the same; though I prefer to use LokAyata for the philosophy and LokAyatika for its adherents.

    There is some confusion regarding whether CArvAk (spelt without the terminal “a”; the “k” is *halanta*) refers to a particular individual, a series of individuals authoring a compendium of teachings, or a whole group of followers subscibing to a particular faith. When used in the last sense, the terms is interchangeable with LokAyatika, or the adherents of the LokAyata.

    I mentioned the “intellectual” basis of the LokAyatikas, but that has to be seen in conjunction with their audacious advocacy of materialism (as illustrated by the shloka cited) and the insistence of (intellecual as well as material) evidence as the basis of belief.

    This combination flew in the face of all the established doctrines of faith of that period, whether nAstika or Astika, and could not be tolerated by them. In fact it is possible that the Lokayata was not “wiped out” but merely driven underground, and still exists, along with Tantrism and similar other arcane cults, in the remote nooks and crannies of the Narmada Valley, rural Bengal, or the Himalayas (the last less likely!).

  43. Vivek Khadpekar permalink
    January 19, 2008 4:08 am

    Postscript:

    I think India since the beginning of the consumer revolution signifies a major revival of LokAyata, minus the philosophical and intellectual moorings :-) !

  44. January 19, 2008 10:06 am

    Vivek, or maybe Carvak was reborn as Ayn Rand. ;) :D

  45. Vivek Khadpekar permalink
    January 19, 2008 10:41 am

    Amit,

    The only work of Ayn Rand I have read is “The Fountainhead”, and that too at an age (late ‘teens)when, as a student of architecture, I was oriented only to its allegorical reference to Frank Lloyd Wright. So, I am afraid, I am unable to connect with your comment.

  46. guqin permalink
    January 19, 2008 11:53 am

    How is Buddhism estimated in India? Outside India it is considered one of the few mafor religions of the world, and the best by many many. Yet I was constantly suprised how from time to time Indian that I met showed such indifference and disrespect for it. Or is it that Inida has so much spiritual concerntration so that even something as mighty as Buddhism is still considered un-important? Or is it just another version of “winner writes history” in the spiritual domain??

    I am limited in experience (partly due to my age, partly due to my late start) and though not a Buddhist myself, yet so far, Buddhism seems to be the most challenging at least intellectually. My college training is in physics and mathematics, I think Buddhist philosophy transcends them in comprehension and even in technicality for as complex as they are, their reasoning is still linear and lacks the Buddhist “three-dimensional” kind of reasoning and the the ultimate detachment from that reasoning system when the conclusion is reached (particularly expressed in Zen Buddhism) … China’s I-Ching and Daoist traditions are comparable in all-round comprehension to Buddhism but not in the water-tight technicality. West’s mordern physics and mathematics are comparable in techicality but not in comprehension…

    So why is the status of Buddhism so low in its homeland? Are there really more “advanced” thought systems in India’s traditions?? (If so, I am wordless.)

    Any comments or reflections are extremely appreciated!

    Your humble student.

  47. January 19, 2008 1:02 pm

    @Vivek: My comment was not based on their choosing to deny the supremacy of the vedas. I was hardly talking about the vedas, and my comment was based on the quote in that post.

    If you haven’t read it (though I am sure anyone who has bothered to analyse the god hypothesis, has come across this), then the jist is that the mahayana denies the existence of a complex being as creator, the kind described in the Judeo-Christian and Islamic religions, and probably the polytheistic religions as well, though I am not quite clear of their view of the creation of the world. My query was limited to that quote.

    I wish to add a second query, that about the vedas. The vedas literally translated mean knowledge. However it has been interpreted (wiki says it is tradition) as “god’s word”. My question is, from an academic point of view, do the vedas, in text, claim to be the word of god? I know not to take the word of religious men in this matter (i.e. godmen), and would appreciate an unbiased and academic answer.

  48. Raj permalink
    January 19, 2008 1:04 pm

    Guqin,

    I am neither a Buddhist scholar nor a historian.From what little I know,Buddhism once flourished in almost all parts of what is modern day India.In my opinion,it has been one of the,if not THE greatest contribution of the South Asian sub-continent (not just modern day India) to humankind and the world in general,and to Asia in particular.But religion (among other things) in the sub-continent was always linked to patronage from the monarchs.There were several monarchs who played a part in the development of Buddhism,even if they were not Buddhists themselves.But later,Buddhism was “absorbed” into “Hinduism” by some people(who claimed it was a branch of Hinduism),even if Buddhism strongly opposes some practices of “Hinduism”.It has never quite managed to regain its lost status,but you would find that many people in India revere Buddha and Buddhist philosophy(as they believe that Buddha was a great saint of Hinduism).

    I am one such person(who reveres Buddhist philosophy and Buddha for showing the way) but not for the reasons that most others do.As I have mentioned earlier,I think that some Buddhist schools of thought do not contradict science and reason.I think that they only encourage scientific and rational thought.

  49. January 19, 2008 1:17 pm

    @guqin: I am hardly an expert on religion but if I recall my histroy, Buddhism flourished at a time when Hinduism was probably at its worst.

    I am not sure if this will be absolute, but this should help.

    http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/BUDDHISM/DECLINE.HTM

    I think the reason buddhism is “famous” in the west, is because of the lack of any “gods” apart from buddha, and most of its teachings being philosophical/ethical/spiritual rather than religious. That meant that its tenets could be imbibed by the open-minded religious and the undecided of the west. Hinduism however, comes with a lot more baggage, and is far more complex and contradictory in nature, which makes it not as pleasing to learn about, apart from academic reasons.

  50. Raj permalink
    January 19, 2008 1:27 pm

    Depressed Doormat,

    Thanks for posting those links!

  51. guqin permalink
    January 19, 2008 1:43 pm

    Dear Raj,

    Yes! Buddhism is the greatest religion (perhaps by far). Though I disagree with much of it ( I am closer to Daoist thoughts), but its intellectual power and heart ( I prefer this simple word ) are amazing. And yes, it doesn’t “contradict” sciense, it is in agreement with modern fundamental physics (most noticably quantum mechanics) and beyond.

    I always have the vision that Buddhism will return to its motherland in a massive scale. Democracy is secular if not vulgar, “human rights” is insincere and bitter, freedom is delusional. The history and practice of the west now and then have shown that crystal clear. The failure of democracy in India (even lower quality democracy, forgive me for my frankness) tells the superficiality of it too. But Buddhism is different, within its framework, all those western values are automatic, only with solid spiritual grounds provided (and of course, with theoretical/intellectual grounds automatically). I firmly believe that what will truly make a difference with the Caste system is Buddhism (equality, harmony) not western values. And Buddhism is originally India’s, thus it is in nature Indian, therefore it could integrate into India’s society without the oddities of inplanting and imposing western values and systems.

    Doormat, Thanks for the information.

    Dear Vivek, would you like to share your view?

  52. Vivek Khadpekar permalink
    January 19, 2008 8:01 pm

    The Depressed Doormat,

    My response was only to your query regarding Jains being ahteists/non-believers. Then, because I also mentioned the Buddhists and the LokAyatikas in continuation, I elaborated a bit about the latter.

  53. January 19, 2008 10:33 pm

    Very interesting discussion!
    DD, to my knowledge, I don’t think any books in in Hinduism profess to be the word of God.
    Also somewhere ealier you had mentioned a dictionary meaning of religion and felt that Hinduism is not a religion. But I think religion is seen in broader terms.
    gugin, I think raj has given you a far more comprehensive answer than I could have! And well, buddhism I think has become a ‘fad’ in the west and I wonder if the west really understands it. I think at the root of buddhism lies a very eastern way of thinking….anyway! I am certainly not an expert.
    and today Hinduism is the dominant religion in India. And it’s a religion where people are religious and people believe. In one of the surveys I had found that about 90 percent of Indians are religious while in the christian countries it is far less. in fact in some christian countries you have a fair number of atheists and agnostics. so these people are more open to try new religious and spiritual beliefs. In India if you are believer in Hinduism or Islam or Christianity it is likely that you are deeply religious and therefore unlikely to try other religions.

  54. January 19, 2008 11:33 pm

    Vivek, one doesn’t necessarily have to read all of Rand to get a general idea of her “objectivist” and materialist philosophy, when there are many folks promoting her thinking. I believe many of the (our) discussions with rambodoc stem from it. :D

  55. Vivek Khadpekar permalink
    January 20, 2008 6:36 am

    Amit,

    I’ll take your word for it. I’ve been largely off reading fiction in recent years. To say this is not to suggest that there is anything fictional about materialism and the way it affects our lives. :-)

  56. January 20, 2008 8:29 am

    Nita, you have really gotten the world talking with this post!

    Here’s a link to a Hindu community I visited in Texas, USA.

    http://www.barsanadham.org/

    It’s a temple and an ashram where the devotees practice bahkti yoga. Most are from the US, but on the weekends immigrants from India come for the day, for a temple service and meals, walks among the mandalas, statuary, and peacocks. It’s a beautiful place. Both the Indian visitors and the American devotees seem to get along wonderfully. I wonder if this question of converting has ever been an issue they discuss?

  57. guqin permalink
    January 20, 2008 12:24 pm

    I looked into her aesthetics. Very artificial. If I recall well, she put architecture on top of the hierarchy of the arts, which was just too much intended to be different. I didn’t read the novel. Is her hero architect in the novel similar to Romaine Rolland’s Jean-Christopher? I was offended by Rolland’s hero (just another highbrow Greek superman) though I liked his writing style.

  58. Bala permalink
    January 23, 2008 4:46 pm

    Hindus have to yet understand the concept of acceptance of converts as proselytization is still an alien concept to them.Conversion to Hinduism either through preaching,or by force even in the past was rare.
    The funny thing is any one can practice Hinduism and there is no bar like you have to be a Hindu or accept a particular book or prophet.
    Temple entry is only a facet which is not a must as Hinduism contain ideas of God as Nirakara or having no form.
    Conditioning of mind is a great obstacle to spritual progress,unfortunately all religion practice this to protect their hordes.Semitic religions are more aggressively conditined

  59. March 20, 2008 10:47 pm

    Since Hinduism is a CULTURE and NOT an organized religion like Islam or Christianity, the very question of conversion never ever came up in the Hindu vocabulary for thousands years.

    “A Hindu is born, never converted” for a very long time.

    But today, many sincerely want to become Hindus.

    Arya Samaj and people associated with Hinduism Today Magazine have taken up the Herculean task of converting many to Hinduism.

    May God bless them in their efforts.

  60. Ravi permalink
    March 21, 2008 1:24 am

    Ed Viswanathan

    Could you stop using that crap called “arya samaj”. Are you a foreigner I mean one of those who invaded india like the mughals and the Britishers? If somebody believes to be aryan then they are foreigners and secondary citizens.

  61. Ravi permalink
    March 21, 2008 1:27 am

    Could anyone define a “true” hindu?

  62. April 10, 2008 3:23 am

    Interesting thoughts. While I personally don’t believe it’s possible to “convert” to Hinduism because it’s a Sanatana Dharma and not a religion devoted to a “God” necessarily, I think what you experienced here was not a rejection of conversion but something that many of us Hindus don’t care to admit to – racism.

    While I respect a temple or church’s right to restrict entry, I do expect their actions to be congruent with their stated requirements.

    In my experience, the “doormen” at temples restricted to “Hindus only” are generally poorly paid and uneducated and are not given any formal training or education on how to differentiate between Hindus and non-Hindus (difficult for just about anyone!). Many default to the most obvious (and many times incorrect designation) of skin color.

    I recall entering a temple with a Caucasian Hindu friend and attempting to discuss with the doorman why I was allowed in but my friend was not allowed in. We were provided with a moving target of standards:

    Doorman: “Does he speak Hindi?”
    Me: “No, but neither do I.”
    D: “Well where is his mala (rosary)?”
    Me: “He doesn’t wear one, but then again, neither do I and neither do you.”
    D: “Well he is not dressed like a Hindu.” (He is wearing pants and a button down shirt, like myself and the doorman.)
    Me: “If by that you mean dhoti or kurta, then none of us are Hindu.”
    D: “Well I don’t think he is Hindu and that is my final judgment.”

    And with that, the arbiter of Hinduism became the underpaid, undereducated doorman of a small Hindu temple in Kanchipuram.

    Even I hate to admit that it’s racism, but it is. Hindu temples can make giant strides in dealing with this issue by educating their door guards. I believe many non-Indian Hindus will understand the need to be “quizzed,” but I believe strongly that the better solution is not to have these restrictions in the first place.

    • giripriya permalink
      April 10, 2010 4:31 am

      @arpit LOL well if those were the criteria to enter the Pashupatinath temple in Kathmandu then I should have been very welcome – however I, a gori American, have never been allowed entry there despite being married to a Nepali ‘born Hindu’, wear salwar kameez daily along with bindi, choori etc., speak some Nepali, am pure veg, always carry my japa mala in my bag… The temples in Nepal are even more widespread in their prejudiced views than those in India I believe and seem to define ‘Hindu’ in a purely racial/nationalistic terms – i.e. Buddhist Sherpas are allowed entrance since they are Nepali, though anyone who has ever attended the HH Dalai Lama birthday picnic in Central Park NYC will see more cow eaten by the Sherpas than at a Texas BBQ!!! Most Tibetan Buddhists are NOT vegetarian – it is hard to find veg momos in many Tibetan areas in Nepal or even in NYC. There are some sects like the Drikung Kagyu which encourage vegetarianism and most devotees of the Devi Tara are vegetarian. Also I believe a desi Muslim wearing no outward signs of Islam would have no problem, despite two people explaining to me ‘well, you have eaten cow before in your life, so that’s why you cannot enter’. I like how in Nepal though Buddhism and Hinduism are often intertwined and given mutual respect – there are Buddhists who worship Ganesh and there is a famous shrine in Pharping where images of Devi Tara and Lord Ganesh have formed naturally in the rock.

  63. dhruva023 permalink
    April 10, 2008 9:17 am

    just because some temple don’t allow doesnt mean you can not be hindu. !!!
    please give apropreat title.

  64. Armoredfish permalink
    May 27, 2008 11:16 pm

    Yes. They are.

    Are you one? – Nita

  65. Dr Mohan Singh permalink
    June 11, 2008 7:08 pm

    The most acceptable thing here is that every person in this world is Hindu by birth it is the man who converts him either to muslim, Christian ect. by following the various processes you all well know. After the death the person again get converted to Hindu defying all other man made religions as Islam, Christianity.

  66. Dr Nishith N Dhruv permalink
    June 21, 2008 4:36 pm

    I have struck upon this debate quite late. I would only like to tell Nita and Raj that Lord Buddha has been accepted as an Incarnation of the God in Hindu scriptures and every person is permitted to worship God in any image that suits him or her – even worship of the formless is allowed. So there is no need to formally convert to Buddhism – just worship him and follow his teachings and you will be Hindu Buddhists! (:! I agree fully with Nita that while refusing permission to the entry of Non-Hindus is left to the management of these temples, the broad-mindedness & all-inclusiveness of Hindu thought and way of life is hardly consistent with this. While ahimsa is one of the tenets of Buddhism, Lord Buddha used to eat whatever was offered to him by way of bhikSA.

  67. Vivek Khadpekar permalink
    June 21, 2008 7:40 pm

    Dr. Nishith Dhruv,

    I entirely and wholeheartedly agree with you. Buddha is the 9th avataara of Vishnu. This beautiful stanza from the dashAvatAra ashtapadi in Jayadeva’s Gitagovindam is one of the better known instances of this fact being recorded:

    “nindasi yajnavidhe-rahaha srutijAtam
    sadaya-hrdaya darsitapasughAtam
    kesava dhrita buddha sarira
    jaya jagadisa hare.”

    [O Lord, in the body of Buddha, the enlightened!
    Out of Compassion of your heart you have condemned
    The yajnas of the Vedas ordaining the killing of animals.
    Hail! Hari, Lord of the world, Victory to Thee!]

    And even if Buddha had not been so accepted, the Bagwadgita assures us,
    “ye yadA mAm prapadyante tanstathaiva bhajAmyaham”.
    Your advice to Nita is totally in keeping with this spirit.

    About eating anything that is available, too, the situation is, I think, covered by the Hindu concept of Apaddharma.

  68. Vivek Khadpekar permalink
    June 22, 2008 7:01 am

    @Dr. Dhruv:

    My apologies for the mess-up between ‘s’ and ‘sh’ in the Gitagovindam stanza cited above. I had keyed in ‘s’ with a diacritical mark to represent ‘sh’ (tAlavya), but the mark got lost in transit from the input box to the response column. Except in “nindasi” and “sadaya” please read all other occurrences of ‘s’ as ‘sh’ (tAlavya).

  69. June 22, 2008 9:33 am

    Dr. Dhruv and विवेक (વિવેકભાઈ),

    I am neither a Hindu nor a Buddhist in a strict sense. So it does not matter to me whether Buddha is an incarnation of Vishnu or not. I don’t worship Buddha because I regard him as a saint and not God, though many Buddhists and Hindus worship him. Though I visit places of worship belonging to different religions, I don’t worship any God. I worship the Truth. I am attracted to Buddhist philosophy because it asks me not to have blind faith in the teachings of Buddha but to seek and experience the Truth myself. That is exactly what I look for in philosophy. Though Buddhist philosophy and Hindu philosophy have many things in common, there are a few crucial differences as well.

    About eating meat, I was a vegetarian till my mid-teens. I did eat all kinds of meat for a few years after that. I gave up meat after I discovered Buddhist philosophy, but I would still eat meat if I feel very hungry and nothing else is available. Also, I would take care not to eat meat dishes with relish, even if they are delicious. I relish eating delicious vegetarian dishes, though.

  70. June 22, 2008 9:21 pm

    There’s also a (plausible, IMO) theory that Hinduism appropriated Buddhism (and brought it under its big umbrella) by claiming Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu, in a manner similar to Christianity appropriating pagan holidays. Gautam’s downplaying of rites and rituals probably did hit Hindu priests and their livelihood during those days, so it’s quite possible that there was a successful attempt to bring Buddhism under Hinduism, as a way to win back the clients.

    From what little I know, there are some crucial differences between the two, while at the same time, there’s also much in common and there was probably some back-and-forth influence between the two. As far as I’m concerned, whether Gautam was an avatar of Vishnu or not is irrelevant – what matters most is understanding and trying to put in practice the theory and teachings.

    Re: vegetarianism, there are accounts of Gautam’s cousin trying to create a schism by wanting Gautam to declare “eating only vegetarian food” as a tenet to be followed by monks and nuns, but he refused. As monks/nuns, they ate whatever was given to them (as Nishith and Vivek point out) – the only point being that no animal be specifically killed and its meat prepared for them.

    This is, of course, from a Theravada perspective, and there may be different perspectives on this issue depending on other branches (Mahayana, Vajrayana).

  71. Dr Nishith N Dhruv permalink
    July 17, 2008 7:39 pm

    Dear Vivek,
    There is a small error in your quotataion of the Geeta shloka : it is ‘ye yathaa’ & not ‘ye yadaa’. Do u have the whole dhashavatar aarati in original samskrit? we used to sing it when I was a schoolboy but I doubt if I had the pure version with me. If u have the original version, I would be obliged if u could send it – preferrably using the Unicode DV.

  72. Dr Nishith N Dhruv permalink
    July 18, 2008 1:15 pm

    Amit,
    The Indian Tradition always permitted simultanaeous existence of various forms of thought in all spheres of life. What Gautam did – his coming face to face with realities of life, his renunciation, his search for a guru, his penance, his enlightenment, his preachings – was part of this tradition. It cannot be viewed as something specific to a different religion. The eight-fold path shown by Buddha is hardly different from the preachings we already had. Ahimsa, Satya, Asteya etc are all very much there in the old Indian scriptures. Every great personality – be he called incarnation or saint or whatever – lays stress on those preachings which are relevant to his times. The process is called dharma-saMsthaapana by Krishna in Gita, and dharma-cakra-paraavartana by Buddha. Initial concepts about Buddhism as a separate religion are already subject of a rethinking. In his dialogues with one of his disciples, Malunkya, who insisted on knowing from the Buddha if he believed there was a brahaman, the Buddha has answered that since there is an escape from the birth and death, there must be an unborn and deathless entity. Since there was a lot of contardictory opinions about the nature of this entity in his time and since that debate had generated much acrimony, the Buddha rightly strove to steer clear past such debate and instead emphasised a life lived by ethical means. Suffice it to say that as more & more hidden texts from Buddhism are found, read and interpreted, our understanding of Buddhism will no doubt expand. I would say the Buddha has been accepted as an incarnation in the light of our tradition. I would not look upon it as a ploy to win back the clients. But yes, I agree with u that whether we look upon him as an incarnation or otherwise, it is his teachings which we would do better to understand and imbibe.

  73. Vivek Khadpekar permalink
    July 18, 2008 2:20 pm

    Nishithbhai,

    Thanks for the correction. While inputting that shloka my mind wandered to another — “Yadayadahi dharmasya…”, hence the error.

    Regarding the DashAvatAra ashtapadi of Jayadeva,(which in fact should be called an ekAdashapadi, given that it has eleven stanzas), I have lost my copy of the beautiful Lalit Kala Akademi portfolio (with paintings) which had the complete Gitagovindam, but found this on the net:

    http://www.carnatica.net/special/8padi_sansk.pdf

    Its typography is more elegant than that of the Lalit Kala Akademi edition, and this more than compensates for the absence of the paintings — and, more importantly, for my ignorance of Unicode DV protocols :-) .

  74. Vivek Khadpekar permalink
    July 18, 2008 3:20 pm

    Nishithbhai,

    A correction: The portfolio that I lost was published by the National Museum (1963), not by Lalit Kala Akademi. Edited by M S Randhwa, its main purpose was to showcase Kangra Paintings based on the Gitagovindam. The text was incidental, and as far as I can recall, contained mainly the ashtapadis relevant to the paintings, not the entire work.

    I don’t even recall if the DashavatAra ashtapadi was included. I remember its words because it was one of the two ashtapadis I learnt as part of my childhood music lessons (not at school). The other, also by Jayadeva, was “LalitalavangalatAparisheelana…”

    Incidentally, I understand that the Randhawa portfolio was republished in 1982. If you are interested, you could try Taraporevala’s in Mumbai, or the shop at the Jehangir Art Gallery.

  75. Dr Nishith N Dhruv permalink
    July 19, 2008 5:10 pm

    Dear Vivek,
    Thanks for all the useful information. I’ll try out the link first.

  76. Dr Nishith N Dhruv permalink
    July 20, 2008 5:11 pm

    Dear Vivek,
    Thanks for the link. I have downloaded the whole गीतगोविन्दम्. I wish all our immortal literature becomes digitalised thus.

  77. Vivek Khadpekar permalink
    July 20, 2008 6:44 pm

    Dear Nishithbhai,

    My pleasure! Quite a bit has been digitised, though the quality of editing and proofreading is extremely variable. As a matter of fact I am pleasantly surprised at the quality of this particular one, considering it was uploaded by a music rather than Skt. Lit. entity.

    On a different track, I attended a lecture this morning by Lord Bhikhu Parekh, discussing “identity” in a setting of cultural plurality. Remembered you and one or two other contributors to this blog.

  78. Dr Nishith N Dhruv permalink
    July 20, 2008 11:24 pm

    Dear Vivek,
    I agree with you. There are many well-meaning people who publish works in saMskRt, but more often than not there are serious errors of spellings. Even the saMskRt text-books are no exceptions. In particular, there are always errors in applying anuswAras where the nasal stops should be written. We unconsciously apply the convention we follow in writing our regional languages. I hope you remembered me for having made some sensible comments! By the way, may I know where are you put up and what do you do? It would be my pleasure to host you at my place here in Roha. Roha is a beautiful place – lush-geen throughout the year and just 120 kms from Mumbai. We keep routine OPDs closed on all Sundays (except for the emmergency, of course). This is stated so that you could choose your time accordingly if at all you plan to drop in.

  79. Vivek Khadpekar permalink
    July 21, 2008 5:58 am

    Nishithbhai,

    I live in Ahmedabad, and would be delighted to take you up on you invitation at some opportune time (with no bearing on your professional practice!).

    The nearest I have been to Roha (20 years apart) is Pen and Rasayani. I have of course, passed through Roha railway station, but that was in the dark of night. I am broadly familiar with the topography of the area and (through views from flights approaching Mumbai from SSW) how it has changed since the mid-1970s.

    I think we could continue this dialogue by e-mail. IDs can be exchanged through Nita’s good offices.

  80. Vivek Khadpekar permalink
    July 21, 2008 6:02 am

    Nita,

    A correction to the above, please: SSE, not SSW.

  81. Dr Nishith N Dhruv permalink
    July 23, 2008 11:55 pm

    Dear Vivek,
    In that case I lost an opportunity to meet you in A’vad. I had been to A’vd on 12Th this month, though i was there only for 1 day. Anyways, I would certainly request Nita to give u my ID.

  82. February 6, 2009 6:36 pm

    Nita, Thanks for refreshing memory about this post.
    I as an American married to an Indian and following Hinduism much before marriage, this topic is close to my heart, though I admit I am not as passionate about my standpoint, and it has changed over the years.
    Regarding some governing bodies in India offering a certificate to claim Hindu belief or conversion (I do not like to use that word), I am against. I don’t think this is necessary for many reasons, one being that I doubt all temples that reject non-Hindus would actually recognize or accept this, anyhow. It may be a way for someone somewhere to make money. I as an American married to an Indian was refused entry into the Padmanabha swamy temple in Trivandrum several years ago. This infuriated my father in law, who tried arguing with the guard to let me in- after all I was adhering to the strict dress regulations (which is no problem for me), etc. The only thing was my skin color. If I was brown, I am sure to have been let in…unless I was of course wearing symbols of another religion. My f-i-l also showed my thali to the guard who again would hear nothing of it. He said I needed ‘a certificate from the king to come in’. What blasphemy! This is not the work of god, but man’s ego. God doesn’t care what caste, religion or color you are- only that you believe. Anyhow the good thing about Hinduism is you don’t need to go temple to prove anything. So we of course, left. None of us went inside. It in some ways is as refreshing as it is infuriating to hear Thai born Hindus are also not allowed- this goes to prove my theory it’s all about the skin color and race, etc. It is not even about being a foreigner- as Sri Lankans come over, and Indians born in other countries who are Hindus come inside temples, no one asks them for their passport? It’s racism, if you ask me.
    About the symbols, my husband has told me stories that when he used to visit Kerala as a kid (he grew up in Delhi), he was open to many faiths and used to wear Muslim threads and have a ‘Christian sounding’ nickname. His mom strictly enforced that he remove those threads (in most Kerala temples men must remove their shirts), and also that family call him by his given name and not his nickname, else they’d be kicked out, which had happened before.
    I say forget all this- there is no point. Doing all this actually perpetuates the people who enforce these rules to be more segregated and discriminatory- not god.
    But I can give one reason why I think it is like this and for that I can appreciated. When Muslims invaded India, they destroyed many temples. I am familiar with some stories of Kanchipuram. In the Sri Varadharaja Swamy Temple much below the surface of the temple tank sits a murthi that was buried by the Hindus so that the Muslims would not destroy it as they had many other relics and temples in the holy city. Someone found it much later and it is removed every so many years for a showing. I am thinking before Muslims invaded anyone could go into Hindu temples… but to preserve the culture and assure the historical relics and holy artifacts and sanctity of the temples is not destroy rules about who can and can not enter in some temples took effect. Maybe these rules need to be reviewed as when they were formed they made sense, but today they may not have the same relevance. And, who’s to say a born Hindu may not ‘go crazy’ and destroy a temple? No one can really know, though maybe history doesn’t have documented cases of that!
    For me, though I follow Hinduism and I can consider myself a Hindu (I have also spiritually but not legally taken a Hindu first name.), I do not say I convert. The word convert holds too much negative connotation for me- as it means giving up all that came before – and following only what comes after, let alone disbanding from those who don’t want to convert from the previous lifestyle. All this I disagree with- all the learnings in my life before following Hinduism make me who I am today, so I will not divorce myself from me just to convert. That would be true even if I wanted to be a Muslim, Catholic, or any other religion like that….

    • giripriya permalink
      April 10, 2010 4:41 am

      Namaste Jennifer,

      Your experience in India is very similar to mine in Nepal – my FIL is even a member of the Pashupatinath temple council(Lord of All Creatures – except bideshis apparently) – I am still not allowed to enter. I was told if I become a Nepali citizen I would be allowed(which I will do if I am allowed to keep my American citizenship).

  83. February 6, 2009 6:41 pm

    Sorry about my spelling mistakes and wrong verb tenses above!! Passion about the subject outweighed my attention to detail!!

  84. vasudev permalink
    February 8, 2009 11:53 pm

    hinduism does not, as of now, accept converts but we can change all that, can’t we?

    any organised crime needs members galore and so when christianity and islam are going about recruiting them en-masse why should our hinduism deny itself some extra beef?

    therefore, i think the brilliant hindus would see the point i am making and not only allow-in old converts (despite color/creed/caste etc) but also go ahead, firing on all cyclinders, to get a share of the larger market as well.

  85. venky permalink
    February 10, 2009 9:56 pm

    I have wondered often what is a mixed person born of hindu and another religion, but not “converted” to that religion? should still be hindu ?

  86. vasudev permalink
    February 15, 2009 11:03 pm

    venky…if solemnised through the registrar of marriages in india i think the child would bear the father’s name and religion. but getting accepted into temples in kerala (especially if the child looks like a foriegner) might become a problem. hinduism does not accept conversions as per the original rule (sans arya samaj)

  87. jk47 permalink
    February 17, 2009 4:52 am

    As a Sikh, I disagree with the banning of non-Hindu’s from these places. I mean Michael Palin comes along and those Hindu’s bend over backwards for him (post British hangover), yet low caste Hindu’s are not even allowed in these temples!

    Hinduism is the oldest religion in the world, it has no start date. I would go as far as to say everyone was Hindu at some point, old Bharat covered what is now Indonesia and what was once Persia, and all that land China now has up towards Korea. It wasn’t just a country, it was a continent.

    It is only though these kinds of attitudes of excluding people that other religions formed and broke away from Hinduism, when you treat people like shit just because of the colour of their skin, that is what happens. The twisted creature that is Islam is the creation of Hindu’s, who treated those Shiva worshippers in a despicable manner. Ever wondered why Abraham’s wife was called Sara? Brahma and Sarasvati!

    Hindu’s never learn, you are still obsessed with money and power, I know no other religion that has a deity of money and wealth (Laskmi). All that spirituality and history thrown away for cheap Western materialism! While it is the West that is now trying to embrace spirituality!

    Any person of any colour or faith can break the death/rebirth cycle, you just have to listen to your conscience. If anything, Hindu’s are now further away from this than ever before. The Kali yuga really does throw up some surprises.

  88. vasudev permalink
    February 17, 2009 8:49 pm

    as far as i know only some temples in kerala deny entry to non-hindus. the lower caste stuff was long broken by evr periyar and there is no problem there. it is a shame that someone who can qualify to be the best and the noblest hindu ever (k.j.yesudas) has been repeatedly denied entry into the guruvayur krishna temple even though he has sung 100s of devotional songs in respect of the diety there. it is a cruel thing. but kerala temples do not differntiate between positions when it comes to dress code. ex-president zail singh & nepal king were denied entry due to sartorial reasons. shirts and trousers are not permited in kerala temples. i do not know about any michael palin but i am sure he has not entered any kerala temple.

    [i]The twisted creature that is Islam is the creation of Hindu’s, who treated those Shiva worshippers in a despicable manner. Ever wondered why Abraham’s wife was called Sara? Brahma and Sarasvati![/i]

    could you please expand on this with references? interesting point and news to me. would like to know more. only thing i know is that prophet mohammed destroyed some 300 & odd idols inside the ex-temple at mecca but he could not/did not destroy one idol which hindus claim is a shiva-linga but muslims deny vehemently. dunno what is the truth.

    a sikh is also a hindu. therefore it is not ‘you’ but ‘we’. lakshmy is there and so are a few crore hindu gods. their numbers keep on expanding as new ones are manufactured every day to confuse the dwindling hindu generations a few centuries hence. i think at the end hinduism might become like a psu…to many bosses, too few workers!

  89. jk47 permalink
    February 18, 2009 3:38 am

    It is a bigger shame that someone like Dr B. R. Ambedkar, a real Indian hero, was so disgusted with how he was treated, that he converted to Buddhism. Now here is the man who wrote the Indian constitution, a Dalit of the lowest Caste, an inspiration .

    Evidence is difficult to find, after 800 years of Islamic occupation, there isn’t really going to be anything left that contradicts the Islamic version of events. I base this assumption (for that is all it can be without hard evidence) on the following:

    786 (verses in the Koran) is OM backwards

    Why do they go around the Mecca’s Kaaba seven times? Hindu’s go around a fire seven times at weddings, coincidence?

    The Prophets last name is Begium (sorry I don’t have a link to this, I found out through a knowledgeable friend), there is a reason why that has been hidden.

    Even the word “Allah” is Sanskrit for the Almighty, it pre-dates Islam, and where does Sanskrit come from? (not the Aryans!)

    Bharat at its peak covered this area. The Mahabharat speaks of a great battle that left a large area as a desert, could be Arabia (though I’ve thought it could be the Gobi as well).

    Names like A-braham, and Mohan in the Old Testament, very Indian.

    The black stone is indeed the Shiva linga, call the ‘Shivling’. It is comparable to the Ben Ben stone of Egyptian mythology.

    And this obsession with Shiva temples:

    If you have ever visited the Taj Mahal then your guide probably told you that it was designed by Ustad Isa of Iran, and built by the Moghul Emperor, Shah Jahan, in memory of his wife Mumtaz Mahal. Indian children are taught that it was built in 22 years (1631 to 1653) by 20,000 artisans brought to India from all over the world.

    This story has been challenged by Professor P.N. Oak, author of Taj Mahal: The True Story, who believes that the whole world has been duped. He claims that the Taj Mahal is not Queen Mumtaz Mahal’s tomb, but an ancient Hindu temple palace of Lord Shiva (then known as Tejo Mahalaya), worshipped by the Rajputs of Agra city.

    In the course of his research, Oak discovered that the Shiva temple palace had been usurped by Shah Jahan from then Maharaja of Jaipur, Jai Singh. Shah Jahan then remodelled the palace into his wife’s memorial. In his own court chronicle, Badshahnama, Shah Jahan admits that an exceptionally beautiful grand mansion in Agra was taken from Jai Singh for Mumtaz’s burial. The ex-Maharaja of Jaipur is said to retain in his secret collection two orders from Shah Jahan for the surrender of the Taj building.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A5220

    With so much of “our” history destroyed, we only really have breadcrumbs to go on. But being one of the most intelligent and ancient peoples in the world, breadcrumbs are all we need to find the truth. The one peace of evidence that cannot be hidden or re-written is people themselves, we carry our history in our DNA.

    I’d argue Sikhs are more closely related to the Persians, based on appearance, food, dress and language (though most languages were “borrowed” from Hindi, also notice the very Sikh khanda symbol in the middle of the Iran flag). The gist of my post was to create a reaction, rather than try and identify myself as being better or superior in anyway, which I don’t. I follow the Sikh teachings of believing that everything is one, and that the search for the truth is all that matters.

    I know that the Hindu belief is that God is in everything, therefore Gods are created as metaphors to represent those things, and as a means to pray to them for specific help, such as asking Ganesh to take obstacles out of your way. This is often misinterpreted as idol worship by those unintelligent Westerners and their Babylonian religions.

    There is always one God, he simply takes different forms and manifests himself around you. As for too many bosses, that is what happens in a capitalist system, everyone wants to work in management, no one wants to do the hard work!

    Namaste

  90. February 18, 2009 4:44 pm

    As per my knowledge ,converstion to Hinduism was very rear and unlikely.However,of late this subject has gained some importance because it seems Hindus,in certain states,have been converted to another religion.To get political milage,certain party has been reconverting them to Hinduism.Hindus and Hinduism have a great history to learn from.
    Yes,Hindu converts should be acceptable.

  91. vasudev permalink
    February 18, 2009 11:13 pm

    @jk47…

    please correct my misconception about sikhism:

    you said sikhs were closer to persians but all the while my understanding about sikhism was that they were basically hindu punjabis, who, to counter the islamic invasive threats to hindus, consecrated the eldest son of every family to the war against islam. and only the eldest son, till date, has to wear a turban and follow the path of sikhism?

  92. jk47 permalink
    February 19, 2009 3:02 am

    Well from what my Mother tells me, we began as the Hindu’s and Muslim’s who were turned away from each respective temples of those faiths.

    So I guess you can say we are a mix of everything, remember that the Northern part of India saw many invasions, from Persians, Greeks, Turks, Moghals, it bore the brunt of it but that was where they were all stopped. It was the Punjabi’s who stopped Alexander, as they went on to stop the Moghals from Islamafying India. Have you heard of the Pathan caste? Sikh’s are quite closely related to them, a fighting warrior caste.

    India is a continent, not a country, containing many different people who at one time lived under the same banner. The Persians are converts from Hinduism, so by saying that the Sikhs are more closely related to them, I am not distancing their strong relationship with Hindu’s.

    What you say about the eldest son of Hindu families being conscripted to fight is true, but this only occurred when the Sikhs took up arms to fight, under our sixth Guru, Hargorbind.

    The holy Sikh book, the Guru Granth Sahib, contains passages from both Muslims and Hindu’s, the idea of God is that there is only one God, and he is without form, something quite close to the Islamic Allah. However, Guru Nanak’s full name is Guru Nanak Dev Ji, a Hindu name, so he would have been Hindu before he founded the religion.

    I’m not really that bothered, I am proud of being a Sikh and what that means. I’ve had Hindu’s call Guru Nanak a low caste Hindu, I’ve heard Sikh converts to Islam telling me how being a Sikh is ‘dirty’, but none of that bothers me in the slightest, my faith is strong and it cannot be moved by mere insults.

  93. February 19, 2009 10:59 am

    jK47
    I appreciate your feelings .Though ,I am not a sikh, I have a lot of faith in Sikhism .Don’t worry as to what they say of Guru Nanak .

  94. Ravi permalink
    February 20, 2009 12:15 am

    It depresses me to know that I m a hindu :( I see all those videos on youtube on hinduism teaching that hindus are vegetarians.. WTF??? American Indians are on a drive to make the world believe that Hindus are vegetarians. Wish I wasnt a hindu because hinduism is not a religion like all these dumb asses think. I’ve been trying for quite some time that I quit being hindu but I couldn’t. It is a set of believe though I dont pray to god each and every day deep inside I know that I follow certain rules by which i was raised.

    Some ass**** pops up and says these are the rules and all hindus must abide by them. Why it doesnt happen in any other religion and we need to listen to ppl that fit for nothing? The easiest thing to do on this planet is to become a guru/saint and talk shit, surprisingly most of the hindus listen and follow him like a heard of sheep.

  95. Ravi permalink
    February 20, 2009 12:16 am

    PS: there are spelling mistakes in my last post.. I was really sleepy .. *apologize*

  96. vasudev permalink
    February 20, 2009 4:52 pm

    ravi…hindus feel like that only because we never had compulsory friday or sunday sermons (no mullahs or padris reminding us we are a flock of sheep)! we never had a bible or a quran. we never read our bhagwat geeta. we were a free society, so free that we are now fed-up of being free. we want to be shackled. we are intolerant towards anyone who tells us what our religion is all about. all these would happen. one day we shall have a different opinion.

    • Ravi permalink
      February 21, 2009 11:01 pm

      I hope so vasudev.. thanks

  97. Madhu permalink
    February 22, 2009 10:09 am

    Photo is copyrighted? where?

    • February 22, 2009 11:26 am

      I do not know what you mean Madhu because copywrited means copywrited. The photo is taken me and is copywrited to me. In case you need to use it (though I have no idea why you should want to use such an ordinary picture) you need to take my permission. Thanks.

    • Vinod permalink
      June 17, 2009 8:52 am

      Copyright does not require registration. It comes into subsistence the moment the work has been recorded. The publication on the blog site is sufficient for the copyright to subsist. Anybody who infringes on the right of the copyright owner (Nita) can be sued by Nita. Hope that clarifies the legal position.

  98. Panagiota Vasiliadis permalink
    April 3, 2009 10:49 am

    This is really funny because the idea never occured to me that people would convert to Hinduism, as ignorant as that may sound. I actually googled converts to Hinduism because I was in the library the other day and saw a magazine titled Hinduism with some white faces on the cover. I picked it up and flipped through it only to find that there are many people in the West converting to Hinduism and not because of marriage but because of genuine faith. It was amazing to see white faces taking part in one of the worlds oldest religions which seemed to be very homogenious. Amazing topic.

  99. June 17, 2009 8:07 am

    Nita,
    This is a good article.I am sure some old temples will amend rules as time goes for the converts to give a entry into old temples.

  100. Shaan permalink
    September 30, 2009 10:07 pm

    A good discussion. In Tamil nadu in almost all temples non-Hindus are allowed up to a certain point. For example you can see in the famous Madurai Meenakshi Amman temple foreigners taking photos of sculptures, temple tank etc. But they are not allowed into the place near the sanctum sanctorum where people worship, unless they give in writing that they believe in Hinduism and Hindu Gods. It is quite logical because Hindu temples have been time and again desecrated and destroyed in this country.

    At the same time in temples like Puri and other places where you can find the priests being very influential, you can see that they do all sort of illogical things. Hinduism does not expressly prevent any non-Hindu from entering the temples because there was no religion other than Hinduism in this country when the Hindu shastras were written (Buddhism, jainism are not counted as separate religions by Hindu texts). But it does prescribe acts of cleansing if the temple is desecrated. Desecration includes death, birth and other things that are considered to be resulting in uncleanliness but does not include the entry of non-Hindus. Orthodox priests may have done it because they may have interpreted the entry of non-Hindus as the entry of something unclean.

    Many liberal Hindus may want to allow non-Hindus inside Hindu temples, but the main question is why we should allow a person who does not believe in a particular religion inside the religion’s shrine?
    When the purpose of visiting a temple is to pray, why should a person who is not going to pray be allowed inside? Moreover they don’t understand the other implications. Hindu temples have so much riches in the form of gold, diamond, statues, etc. Allowing anybody who is not a devotee is only going to increase the risk of acts of theft, robbery and deliberate desecration.

    At the same time I believe that if a person does say that he believes in Hindu Gods, he should be allowed inside. We hear several arguments against the traditions of some temples like Sabarimala Ayyappa temple where women of a certain age group are not allowed. Some argue that it is against equality. But they don’t understand that this tradition of the temple had been in place ever since the temple’s inception and there are even temples in India where men are not allowed on certain days. For example in a small cave temple in my town, men are not allowed on any day.

    Hinduism is a religion that is flexible and does not has set structure like Christianity and Islam. So it is difficult to defend many of Hinduism’s traditions even if they are good. Most of the superstition that was being propagated in the name of tradition has already been removed by law. If we deny good traditions in the name of being liberal we may be easily swamped by other religions. See this Hindu temple battling against the imposition of a Christian type congregation structure in the US – http://www.becketfund.org/index.php/case/87.html?PHPSESSID=773c338cf10b4201fbbac70a018fc368

  101. a.g. permalink
    May 4, 2010 5:37 am

    I am an extremely spiritual person taking philosophies from various religion. However cannot see myself following any organized religion. I find beauty in many religions including hinduism. I even read books on hinduism. My bf who grew up as a Hindu does not take hinduism seriously and only acts interested when his parents are around.

  102. August 10, 2010 3:59 pm

    There was 18 major attacks on the Jagannath Temple, mainly by the muslim rulers of Bengal and 20 times the deity was taken out of the temple. Twice the brahma was taken out of the deity. The deity was burnt once by Kala Pahada. It was the British government which prohibited non-hindus from entering the temple. Neither the concept of conversion nor re-conversion exist in Hinduism.

  103. bindu permalink
    December 6, 2011 3:37 am

    Dear Readers: First of all there is no word Hindu or hinduism. The word is Sanatan Dharma. The word Dharma itself does not mean religion. Dharma has many meanings one is Constitutional Nature. Water’s dharma is fludity etc. So so the constitutional nature of a living entity is to love and By connecting and loving The supreme lord One can love all. Since we are talking about atma Dharma and Atma does not have any cast creed color gender this Dharma is for all. What to speek of humans it is for every living entity plants includede. ther is no other Tattva other than the Lord himself in that sense who are we trying to convert a perishable evr changing body. Atma remians unchanged. So in conclusion any one can practice sanatan Dharma.

  104. kritika permalink
    March 21, 2012 6:45 pm

    I want to say something IMPORTANT about this topic. I hope you read this.

    A LOT OF PRESENT HINDUS ARE ACTUALLY PEOPLE WHO CONVERTED FROM BUDDHISM by the guy who established the maths (I can’t remember the name right now=- Shankaracharya ji?)

    So conversions ARE possible. The only problem is caste. But caste was NEVER meant to genetic- it was decided by your profession in the present life. So, accordingly, people will be given their castes. There shouldn’t be any problem.

    The main reason we do not have many converts is because the gurus who are awesome do not encourage it. They teach practicing of the religion and being a good hindu, rather than being a hindu in name. But I have known 3 people who converted to the sanatana dharma. :)

    Of course other people have probably already mentioned this fact.
    Great blog!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 275 other followers