Reformation - the Hindu way

I find the following words of Swami Vivekananda on the subject of reforms and reformers very pertinent today.

This is selections from a lecture given in Madras more than 100 years ago.

---------8<--------

Now I come to the reform societies… To the reformers I will point out that I am a greater reformer than any one of them. They want to reform only little bits. I want root-and-branch reform. Where we differ is in the method. Theirs is the method of destruction, mine is that of construction. I do not believe in reform; I believe in growth.

I do not dare to put myself in the position of God and dictate to our society, "This way thou shouldst move and not that." … the only thing we can do is to understand that all this work against evil is more subjective than objective.

The work against evil is more educational than actual, however big we may talk. This, first of all, is the idea of work against evil; and it ought to make us calmer, it ought to take fanaticism out of our blood. The history of the world teaches us that wherever there have been fanatical reforms, the only result has been that they have defeated their own ends.

… Such is the testimony of history against every fanatical movement, even for doing good. I have seen that. My own experience has taught me that. Therefore I cannot join any one of these condemning societies. Why condemn? There are evils in every society; everybody knows it. Every child of today knows it; he can stand upon a platform and give us a harangue on the awful evils in Hindu Society. Every uneducated foreigner who comes here globe-trotting takes a vanishing railway view of India and lectures most learnedly on the awful evils in India. We admit that there are evils. Everybody can show what evil is, but he is the friend of mankind who finds a way out of the difficulty. Like the drowning boy and the philosopher — when the philosopher was lecturing him, the boy cried, "Take me out of the water first" — so our people cry: "We have had lectures enough, societies enough, papers enough; where is the man who will lend us a hand to drag us out? Where is the man who really loves us? Where is the man who has sympathy for us?" Ay, that man is wanted. That is where I differ entirely from these reform movements. For a hundred years they have been here. What good has been done except the creation of a most vituperative, a most condemnatory literature? Would to God it was not here! They have criticised, condemned, abused the orthodox, until the orthodox have caught their tone and paid them back in their own coin; and the result is the creation of a literature in every vernacular which is the shame of the race, the shame of the country. Is this reform? Is this leading the nation to glory? Whose fault is this?

... You must go down to the basis of the thing, to the very root of the matter. That is what I call radical reform. Put the fire there and let it burn upwards and make an Indian nation. And the solution of the problem is not so easy, as it is a big and a vast one. Be not in a hurry, this problem has been known several hundred years.

... How difficult it is to look through each other's eyes, and that is the bane of humanity. That is the basis of hatred and jealousy, of quarrel and of fight. Boys, moustached babies, who never went out of Madras, standing up and wanting to dictate laws to three hundred millions of people with thousands of traditions at their back! Are you not ashamed? Stand back from such blasphemy and learn first your lessons! Irreverent boys, simply because you can scrawl a few lines upon paper and get some fool to publish them for you, you think you are the educators of the world, you think you are the public opinion of India! Is it so? This I have to tell to the social reformers of Madras that I have the greatest respect and love for them. I love them for their great hearts and their love for their country, for the poor, for the oppressed. But what I would tell them with a brother's love is that their method is not right; It has been tried a hundred years and failed. Let us try some new method.

Did India ever stand in want of reformers? Do you read the history of India? Who was Ramanuja? Who was Shankara? Who was Nânak? Who was Chaitanya? Who was Kabir? Who was Dâdu? Who were all these great preachers, one following the other, a galaxy of stars of the first magnitude? Did not Ramanuja feel for the lower classes? Did he not try all his life to admit even the Pariah to his community? Did he not try to admit even Mohammedans to his own fold? Did not Nanak confer with Hindus and Mohammedans, and try to bring about a new state of things? They all tried, and their work is still going on.

The difference is this. They had not the fanfaronade of the reformers of today; they had no curses on their lips as modern reformers have; their lips pronounced only blessings. They never condemned. They said to the people that the race must always grow. They looked back and they said, "O Hindus, what you have done is good, but, my brothers, let us do better." They did not say, "You have been wicked, now let us be good." They said, "You have been good, but let us now be better." That makes a whole world of difference. We must grow according to our nature. Vain is it to attempt the lines of action that foreign societies have engrafted upon us; it is impossible. Glory unto God, that it is impossible, that we cannot be twisted and tortured into the shape oil other nations.

I do not condemn the institutions of other races; they are good for them, but not for us. What is meat for them may be poison for us. This is the first lesson to learn. With other sciences, other institutions, and other traditions behind them, they have got their present system. We, with our traditions, with thousands of years of Karma behind us, naturally can only follow our own bent, run in our own grooves; and that we shall have to do.

--------->8-------

Seeing now a day how the modern day reformers behave, I feel how true his words are. Actually most of the today’s commies just enjoy ridiculing and feel proud to fashion themselves as "reformers"

Vedantic Tales

Found the online version of the book "Vedantic Tales" by Sister Gargi.

This book is one of my favouriates and was delighted to find an online version of it.

This story ("I Carry") in particular is a must read.

Does God exist

Question: hey.. is god really thr.. any proof of its existence ......... I started beliving.. only fate is thr.. and everythng is predefined fr us.. is tht true... do tell me

My Reply:
Tricky question and there can be no single word answer.

Most ppl in world, barring Atheists have some or other concept of supernatural. If we really think this is the also the most natural thing. Humans always tried to break the limitations which nature internal and external forces it on them, but have never able to score a complete victory. Every time the humans are reminded of their limitations. It is thus the first reaction of the human mind to accept that there is a greater power than he has.

But this may take different forms. Some may try to personify the forces and give them forms; like the fire god, the tree god etc. Some others may not be satisfied by this and thus try to look for a greater bigger all powerful god, who controls and dictates all the things.

Some other may just try to view god as a impersonal, ie., not as conscious person making some decisions, but things just happening as it is their essential nature.

In personal concept, we look at God as a being taking conscious decisions eg: a snake biting. It is consciously doing it. On the other hand, impersonal concept, things just happen, coz it is their essential nature. eg: fire burning something. Unlike a snake, fire does not think whether to burn or not, it simply does.

In these two also there are lot many variations of thoughts possible. Each person held a particular concept of this divinity and thus essentially everyone believes in (his concept of) God. Only atheists do not satisfy this criteria coz they do not have even a concept of god; they borrow a concept of god of someone else and reject it.

So the question one should ask is not whether God is there or not, but whether *his* concept of God is complete or not.

Speaking from this angle, God always exists for that individual, coz he has visualizing a certain concepts as God. The real question is “is that concept of god complete or incomplete”

Lets take one example. Suppose a thief is thief in a room. If a child is there, he does not feel that there is a thief trying to steal something. On the other hand if a grown up man is there, he may feel that there is some thief trying to seal something. If there is a Saint in that room, the saint having no concept of ownership may not even feel that someone is stealing his things.

In all the three cases, a person coming a taking something is real, equally real is another person seeing this. But their attitude is completely different and all of these concepts are true for them. What child thinks is true for the case of child; what saint thinks is true for the case of saint. (as long as one does not interchange one’s ideas on others) all of them are essentially true.

In the same manner, for everyone who has a concept of God, god exists for them. God does not exist only for ppl who do not even have a concept of God.

If we think from this perspective, no longer do we think in terms of binary true or false. We realize that all of them are true. Only some are complete, some are incomplete. So we realize that a person does not go from falsehood to truth, but from lower truth to higher truth.

======

In his early days, Narendranath (later Swami Vivekananda) a doubt whether there is God and can he be seen used to haunt him. He has met many ppl, but none was able to give him satisfactory answer. Finally, one day he goes to Sri Ramakrishna and asks the same question: “have you seen God?”. Without a moment's hesitation the reply was given: “Yes, I have seen God. I see Him as I see you here, only more clearly.” He later explains that it is not just him, but anyone who sincerely seeks God can see him.

Narendra was astounded. For the first time, he was face to face with a man who asserted that he had seen God. For the first time, in fact, he was hearing that God could be seen. He could feel that Ramakrishna's words were uttered from the depths of an inner experience.

======

Arthi has raised an interesting point [in my scrap]. When I say “concept of God”, do I mean to say that God is merely a concept and not an entity?

Before I go into that, we should realize how limited out everyday experiences and senses are and that reality may be much much more than what just appears to our eyes.

With the present eyes we have, we see things only in the visible range. Now suppose instead of these eyes, we are fitted with eyes which see in X-ray range, then I will not see a “person” but will see a skeleton. If I replace them with eyes which can see in infrared range, I will probably see a colorful balloon. Now which of these is true, which is not?

How can you be sure that you are in waking state instead of sleep in which all of this what you see is just a dream. Just think, when we sleep, we may have some dream, and the dream may appear so much real for us. As long as you are sleeping, is there any way we can tell that we are dreaming? No. Only when we are awake, do we realize that we were dreaming. In the same manner, is it not possible that we are actually dreaming now that we are awake? I know it sounds very weird.. but try to disprove that possibility, you cannot!

Anyone remembers the Schrödinger’s cat in the box example? In that, by opening the box, we are not just observing, but in a way determining the state of cat.


We can go on seeing similar examples. These example are not directly related to our topic, but essential in un-conditioning the way we are conditioned to think. What we can understand from all these is that reality is far more than what our limited senses can perceive and that the mind actually plays a LOT more crucial role in making our surroundings than we think it does.

Status of chamatkaari babaas

Question: I’ve heard a lot abt these chamatakaari babas in India.....they do tricks like ...producing an egg from throat, getting things in their hands out of nowhere n other things....they also have a huge following. what’s there status n role in Hinduism......do they enjoy a strong religious position?

My Reply:
Yes its true that India has always been famous for such miracle men. One cannot find them so easily, but they do exist.

Its also true that there are some ppl who can really of such things, although many are just fakes, who cheat by different techniques.

But even if one can really do so, his status is not high in Hinduism.

Miracles and Mystery mongering are the symptoms of a weak mind, not a strong one. While one is on the path for Mokhsa, one naturally gets these powers. But if the person is weak, he becomes a slave to these powers, and forgets the higher goal, which is Moksha. But a real aspirant will be vigilant, and will not care for such powers.

So in Hinduism such type of miracle mongers do not have a very high status.

On one occasion Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa proposed to transfer to Narendranath (later Swami Vivekananda) many of the spiritual powers that he had acquired as a result of his ascetic disciplines and visions of God. Naren had no doubt concerning the Master's possessing such powers. He asked if they would help him to realize God. Sri Ramakrishna replied in the negative but added that they might assist him in his future work as a spiritual teacher. 'Let me realize God first,' said Naren, 'and then I shall perhaps know whether or not I want supernatural powers. If I accept them now, I may forget God, make selfish use of them, and thus come to grief.' Sri Ramakrishna was highly pleased to see his chief disciple's single-minded devotion.

So you can see that the so-called miracles are quite possible but there is nothing great in them. Greatness lies in not-using them. How can a person who displays such acts in exchange for some 10/- be great?

For more explanation on how such things are possible, you can read this lecture.

<<There's nothing wrong with Tantrik powers.>>

I did not say any such thing against tantrik powers.

I said using them is bad.

If the powers come, it is a symbol that that sadhaka is improving in his spiritual path. But it is wrong if the sadhaka starts using them, and gets lost of the real goal.

<<do u really believe in tantric powers n supernatural powers?>>

yes, such things seems perfectly possible in my view.

Agreed that there are lot of fakes, who do some simple tricks. But that does not undermine the tantrik powers.

There are some things like creating something out of nowhere, reading the mind, being at two places simultaneously, floating in air, living only on air etc etc.

Such things ARE possible. Don’t ask to rationally explain how they work. I don’t know, but they simply work.

Anyhow, I repeat, such things can never be the goal of spiritual sadhana.

Read the Autobiography of a Yogi book. Its really a great one, you will love it. Its also available online. What makes it great is that I can only quote or tell others experiences, but in this book, the author is a realized yogi, and writes his own experiences.

<<Surya, I am not sure about ethical correctness of using Tantrik powers.

For instance, using them to climb a rope suspended in thin air or to walk on water or to blow fire out of your mouth clearly does not serve any purpose; but what about using them to cure cancer or to find a medicine for AIDS?

On the face of it, such an effort seems laudable, but then it is interfering with natural course of events, and shouldn't be encouraged. But again, the whole of modern civilization interferes with natural course of events including modern medicine and building dams; so clearly there is a grey area here.

I am confused. >>

good point! I never thought about this. I have my own doubts in this matter, but will try to share what I feel.

Helping or not is something which depends on what is the goal of human life. If it helps someone in that process, it is help; if it does not, it is not help.

If the difficulty of one is in the material place, then help also should be in material place. If the difficulty is in spiritual, the help also spiritual. But one cannot interfere with the ones' physical plane with something from spiritual plane. The basic idea is that everyone has to workout their respective Karma. There is no escape from this.

Hence the help which is offered is mostly spiritual in nature. It is better to teach the man to fish, rather than give him fish. That’s what they try to do.

In my above posts, I was straightly talking about people who have not realized. They are not eligible for help as they themselves need help, and also they do not know the nature of the workings of the infinite. Not everyone can be a doctor. We have to study the human anatomy first.

So such help by such ones' is ruled out, but as such help itself is not ruled out. Otherwise the concept of an avatara coming from time to time, coming and helping the humanity doesn’t make sense.

I think it is more about ones' ability to know how a person can be really helped. Giving him the medicines etc are not real helps, the real help is to show one's own treasures, the point out his real nature, which gita describes as "fire cannot burn, water cannot wet....."

Lets define Hinduism

I see a lot of confusion even among Hindus about what is meant by the word Hindu and what is Hinduism.

People may ask what is the need to define things in the first place. It may be true that defining something restricts it. But we cannot deny that every religion should have a central focal point which keeps its followers together. We cannot be too vague in understanding ourselves. The idea of not confining ourselves is good, but cannot be taken to its extremity at the cost of losing our individuality and distinctiveness.

Some common origins of the word are that it was originally meant to refer to ppl who live on this side of Sindhu, or in other words whose motherland is India are Hindus.

But then this is a ooooold definition of the word. With time, lot of changes have taken place and there the very religions who invented this word Hindu to differentiate us from them have converts here. Also there are many Hindus who have migrated to other places. Then there are gora Hindus who converted to Hinduism. Also there are many ppl in places like Indonesia whose motherland is Indonesia but follow Hinduism.

The other suggestion is that those who follow Vedas be called Hindus. But then is it really fair when actually more than 90% of the Hindus probably do not know even a single verse from the Vedas?

The other definition of those who follow Santana Dharma is too generic to qualify as a definition.

Then it can said that those who follow the Hindu way of life are Hindus. But this too is a circular definition. We then are left with the task of defining the “Hindu way of life”

I suggest that we can define Hindus as “People who follow native Indic traditions”.

Thus this way all the Vedantins, Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, Atheists, Animists, Tribals etc come under this. He may thus be anywhere in the world, but if he follows these which are native Indic, he is a Hindu.


Comments welcome!

The Four Ashramas in life according to Hinduism

There are four ashramas or stages of life according to Hinduism:

1. Balya, childhood
2. Brahmacharya, the life as a student
3. Grihasta, householder
4. Sanyasa, renunciating everything

Hinduism also indentifies four valid goals of life: Artha, kama, Dharma, Moksha

Of these Moksha, freedom from all the attachments is given the higest importance. Then comes Dharma or righteousness. This again has two aspects:

1. Internal
2. Social

Internal Dharma, which means defining something as good/bad based on the attitude of the person. If something is done with an unselfish attitude, it is higher than that which is done with a selfish attitude.

Then comes social dharma, which is more like social convenctions. Not all have a well reasoned logic, but they are necessary for the smooth functioning of the society. For example, why do we dress in certain manner, or dress at all. It is for the society's conventions. There is not pure logic in these, but are still followed.

Then Artha is given importance, then comes Kama.

You can see that all these are ordered in accordance to the amount to unslefishness.

First is Moksha coz it is the aim for total non-attachment.

Then comes Dharma, coz you are fulfilling your duties at your own cost towards a society, country, thus even though a limited amount of unselfishness, still high in nature.

Then comes Artha. Here you are working with a view of your own benifit, but in doing you are also indirectly producing sulprous which is necessary for the functioning of the society.

Then comes Kama, as here only your own pleasure is the issue. There is no big unselfishness involved. So this is inferior to others in the preferance, but this in itself is not totally wrong. Only point is if there is a conflict, this should be the first to give way.

In the four stages, the first is simple chilhood.

Then comes the student age. This is the age where the student is supposed to concentrate on acquiring knowledge.

Then is the Grihasta where with the knowledge acquired, the person goes into the society to live the life according to the Dharma. He marries and also fulfills his duties towards his family, society, nation etc.

The last is Sanyasa where he leaves everything and tries to be free from all attachments and attain Moksha.

One can make this trasition in a way, time he wants(assuming he is mature enough to handle the new responsibilities). But is also imporant to show some respect to societies conventions. Sometimes its not just that you understand what you mean, it is also important that other understand what you mean.

For example, if I want to express my love to a small kid, the usual way is we kiss him. In some other places, they turn thier hands in peculiar way, in some other place, they hold his cheek with their hand. Mind you none of these is any actual expression of love. But the society understands such acts and through it also the motive. Now if suppose I argue, why should I only express my love in those forms. I can as well beat the child to express the love. But the problem is other will not be able to understand it.

Questioning the myth of Missionary charity

"Even if Missionaries are converting people by wrong means, how does it matter. Will a hungry person care for food or religion? Why do Hindus cry foul at Missionaries when they are helping the people. So what if they ask the ppl to convert to Christianity in return?"

This is the most common argument you hear in any discussion about the activities of Christian Missionaries. I have already discussed the national and moral implication of conversions earlier. In this topic I will try to focus on myth of Missionary Charity.

As they say, one fact talks louder than thousand opinions. So I will try to give more of facts, figures and media references. Let the facts speak for themselves.

The problem in dealing this question is that the bias against Hindu society is soo institutionalized in this regard that hardly anyone even realizes it. So our original question can be divided into three parts:

1. State control of Hindu money
2. Direct/Indirect state support to Missionaries
3. Media bias towards Christian missionaries and against Hindu charities.


1. I don’t know about the law in all of the states, but I can talk about Andhra, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. Here the state govt controls all the temples in that state and all the money is directly handled by the respective state govts. In states like AP there is also a separate ministry called endowments ministry for the same.

And the revenue from these temples is not a small amount by any means. Tirupathi temples gets an annual revenue of 20 crores by just selling the hair offered by devotees. (yea it is the same temple which Amitabh Bacchan visited recently and gave 8 crores ). The total annual income just from the tirupathi temple itself runs into hundreds of crores. If this does not awe you, here are some more statistics:

"annual revenue from offerings alone, as TTD chairman T Subbirami Reddy says, is expected to cross Rs 800 crore this year... On an average, the temple gets 10 kg of gold (almost all in the form of ornaments) in its hundials. At the current market price of Rs 578 per gram for 22 carat gold , it amounts to Rs 57.8 lakhs per day. And it has another eight tonnes of gold ornaments studded with stones, lying in bank lockers, the value of which has not really been estimated." (link)

The state govt diverts most of the money to other governmental activities. Just to give an idea of how HUGE is the money involved is in these things, let me produce the rough translation of a recent news article in a telugu newspaper:

The Govt of Andhra Pradesh has decided to sell 7000 acres of land belonging to various temples in AP. The govt expects an income of 20 thousand crores <:o> by selling these lands. The govt has also not ruled out that the money generated from this may be in future diverted to other projects. (news link for those who can read telugu)

If you are thinking this is too much... wait. This is just the first stage. The total property is much large.

Now I really don’t have much problem with state controlling these properties. After all, it’s the same for me whether Hindu money is used for some god or for the needy in my country.

But lets not forget one things… it is HINDU MONEY. Atleast give the due credit to the hindus. Forget about other temples, if we just use the money from tirupathi temple and give money for buying souls, we can easily have double the numbers what Missionaries are having now.

Which makes me feel that Hindus are just being penalized for being good and not using their money for doing soul business but rather allowing the use of its money for developmental activities. And this is soo institutionalized that the nehruvian socialists come to Hindus and give them lectures about Missionaries giving the needy some money, even if it is a business.


2. The state in the name of minority institutions directly/indirectly helps the Missionaries.

India’s constitution has certain provisions whereby minorities are exempt from certain requirements in running their own institutions. (ref this article). Thus if a minority guy wants to set up a minority institution, say a school, the rules are much relaxed for him. While a Hindu school does not have any freedom in the subjects and constitution of the school, a Minority institution has the freedom to include some religious subjects. They also in many cases get funding from Minority commission of India. As the following analysis on the state of Educational institutions in Kerala reveals:

The education scenario is one of the major sectors where the organised strength of the minorities in Kerala (where Christians and Muslims constitute around 19% and 25% respectively) is used in a covert manner. In this sector the majority (Hindu) community as well as the government altogether controls only 11.11 per cent, on the other hand the church controls 55.55 per cent and Muslim religious organisations 33.33 percent of the total institutions. At present the professional education sector of Kerala is somewhat under the full control of the minorities. About 12,000 engineering seats and 300 medicine seats are in the minority institutions and they are fully controlling the admissions. At present 60 per cent of the seats of the paramedical courses are controlled by the organised minority religious leadership. (link)

The same trend is seen in other sectors as well. Sometimes govt does not directly spend some money on a developmental activity, but instead does so through some NGOs. Last year AP govt under the able leadership of CM, YSR Reddy (who BTW is a Christian convert) decided to use some of the money from tirupathi for providing medical services. And he selects Madras Medical Mission for doing that!!! .... the money belongs to Hindus, the state gives it to Missionaries to use it for conversions!!!

There are lot of such instances. See for example the following pioneer article:

It has, for instance, been claimed that, in 1997, the Karnataka Government received a revenue of Rs 52.35 crore from 2,64,000 temples. Of this, Rs 17.33 crore was returned to the temples for maintenance; Rs 9.25 crore allocated for madarsa development and Rs 3 crore for church development. The balance Rs 22.77 crore was diverted towards Government programmes. The situation was much the same in 1998.

However, in 1999, it is alleged, the State collected Rs 65.35 crore in revenue; gave Rs 15 crore for temple maintenance; and diverted Rs 27 crore to madarsa development and Haj subsidy and Rs 8 crore for church development. No details were available about the use of the balance Rs 17.35 crore.

In 2000, the temples generated a revenue of Rs 69.96 crore, but received only Rs 13.75 crore for maintenance. The madarsa-Haj subsidy rose to Rs 35 crore. In 2001, temple revenue further rose to Rs 71.60 crore, while maintenance grants shrank to Rs 11.50 crore, and madarsa development funds rose to Rs 45 crore. Church development received Rs 10 crore. In 2002, the State received Rs 72 crore as revenue, returned Rs 10 crore for temple maintenance, and granted Rs 50 crore for madarsas and Rs 10 crore for churches. (link)

Money belongs to Hindus and the credit goes to Missionaries for their noble act of soul business!!!


3. Why is that the moment one talks about charity, only some Christian nun helping some poor guy come into the ppls mind? There are LOT many Hindus who dedicated their whole life to serving others. But how many even know their names… what makes their service inferior to that done by Mother Theresa? They too dedicated their complete lives for serving others.

There are many Hindu organizations like Sri Ramakrishna Math, Art of living, Seva Bharati, Aurobindo Ashram, RSS, Swadhyay Parivar, Sarada Math, Shri Swaminarayan Sanstha, Mata Amritanandamayi Math, Vanavasi Kalyan Ashram, Ramachandra Mission, Gayatri Parivar, Chinmaya Mission, Divine Life Society……..involved in various kinds of service activities. Anyhow they just limit themselves to service, and not to soul-Business.

But again, their positive aspects of condition-less service and silent work without any we-did-this propaganda are made their weakness and commies tell Hindus how the Missionaries are better coz they are doing business in the name of religion!!!



I can only conclude that this whole crap of Missionaries at least helping a poor guy, and Hindus doing nothing, but only crying foul about Missionaries is baseless. Thanks to the "Nehruvian Socialism" and Missionaries, the whole thing is so institutionalized that most Hindus themselves don’t realize it and remain silent when such crap arguments of "people convert out of hunger" are offered. Its true that people convert due to hunger, but Missionaries are not doing any act of charity. They are just taking the Hindu money, and giving it to ppl fashioning it to be their own... ie., Hindus are converted by Missionaries by using the Hindu money.

Caste problem and the communist approach

Question: What can we do to end the caste discrimination

My Reply:
Caste problem is gets greater attention than it actually does. The reslut is continous reminder of the lower castes that they have been supressed, for hundreds of years by the upper castes. The result again is the lower castes want their revenge; then again the upper castes will. We will be where we started with only the roles changing from time to time.

1. Dont be reactionary. The reactionary type of methods have always done more bad than good. If you can construct, do so, or else stand aside and watch, but do not destroy.

All types of rallies, dharnas etc are made against Brahmins. There is no place where they are not critised, abused, so much so that they in turn have become the victims sometimes of the caste. This only generates hatred, and moves them farther.

2. The effort should be made to mix the hearts of the ppl.

Take two cases for example: Kerala and Bihar. Hundred years back, there was strong caste problem in both places. But both reacted differently to this problem.

In Kerala, with the influence of Narayana guru, the caste problem was addressed with love and spirituality as the basis, and the discrimination there is not there now, as it used to be.

But in Bihar. There it was a fight & hatred, not of love and consideration, and what do we have now- only oncreased problem.

3. Teach everyman his and others divinity. When he understands that it is the same Atman which is the real nature of every being, no higher or lower ideas remain.

4. Let economics take lead over such considerations. Such economic interdependence forces interaction and mutual help.

5. Dont bringdown the ideal of a religious person. We see that many ppl opposed to caste, start doing things like abusing the rituals, Vedas etc. They try to bring down the ideal of Vedika, and create equality- by making everyone a brute.

But this is not the way. Vedic knowledge is the ideal of humanity in India.Brahimin exclusiveness is bad, not brahiminhood.

If the knowledge of Vedas is what makes a Brahimin great, then teach them to everyone. Teach the knowledge of Upanishads to everyone. But do not stop one from learing Vedas.

========================

The following is a post I wrote as a reply to a quetion about caste problem and the discussion included many the communist approach to this problem. The original question got deleted, so I cannot put that. Anyhow, the reply is complete in itself... hope the reader will not be having any problem following.


Dude, did oppression in the name of caste happen in the past? Yes. But why are we still bothered about it. Most ppl are educated Hindus, and nobody cares jack about one being superior/inferior based in birth. Yes, suppression does still happen in some parts of India. I don’t deny that. But what the point in blaming all the Hindus for that. Most urban Hindus, who form most part of even web forums, do not care about any supremacy theories and are doing their best to eradicate the evils of caste system.

But the problem is ppl like you, who do not either have patience, but think the only aim of life can be to keep complaining. What is the need to blame all Brahmins here for being casteist etc, just coz you don’t like them. I have not seen any post by a person in this forum who supports suppression of ppl in the name of caste.

The world is not black OR white. If some Muslims tells you that the true meaning of Jihad in Islam is twisted, some hypocrites are very ready to accept. Even if they have not read any thing, they will tell, “I don’t know, but I am sure they don’t mean it”. But the same guys accuses Ramayana of being a book which advocates caste suppression. If you tell that caste in this regard is not meant as a higher/lower but, just a symbol of the ones’ qualities, you will be named a fundamentalist.

I am not interested into going whether the above cases are true or false. I just wanted to illustrate the hypocrisy of the ppl, yes commies. Why is one who says ‘Jihad does not mean anything bad, but it used in a bad way some ppl’, clarifying about Islam, and why does a person who says Ramayana does not mean to tell kill Shudras, becomes a fundamentalist Brahmin Bastard. If this is not hypocrisy, what is it then?

<<The problem with Brambhins is that, they never tried to feel the feelings of other caste. The Hinduism you people talk about, always will create a hierarchy, where Brambhins will always be in top, by default.>>

Tell me seriously how many ppl have you seen on orkut, who want to maintain their ‘hierarchy’. Seriously man, I am very interested in knowing how you form this opinion. If you can plz post the links of the threads, where ppl said a Shudra is a low-being.

If not, then plz refrain your potings. And looks at the words you have written- Brahmins. Are you not also guilty of generalization? It is ppl like you who make sweeping generalizations and spread hatred. Can you deny that in the whole post you are guilty of generalizations, and accusing all of Brahmins?

<<We, have denied them from education from generation to generation. Our, Hindu religion have thrown them out from the society, before British came…… I really don’t think, u people want to bother about this things >>

come out of the past. It is true that dalits had very bad conditions in the past. But why still bother about. More importantly, when the ppl are trying to end all this suppressions, and evolve collectively as a developed country. They are making efforts, they are trying to change the situation. And if you look at the past and the present, a LOT of change has taken place. It will take time for the whole of society to change, and we need patience, and continue the work calmly. There is no point in keeping on complaining, when ppl themselves are working to change the situation. You may think it is some great think to do. you are free to think as you like, but just coz ppl don’t share your conspiracy theories you cannot name them fundamentalists.

There are two kinds of criticism. One in which the person who criticizes feels sad that he has to criticize, but still does so to point out the mistake for the collective improvement. This type of criticism is positive and helpful for the society. But the other kind of criticism is there where ppl criticize just for the sake of criticism. They have no interest in the matter; they just derive joy in doing so and in calling names. The Muslims trolls and ppl like crabby may be put into this section. This comes of the superiority complex, that islam IS great, that what my commie book says IS correct, and that I alone am a intelligent being here, all others being fools. This type of criticism is just a mental exercise on the part of that person just to show his (or his ideology’s) superiority, and has no positive contributions to the society.

<< Yes, my identity is fake. Because I feel unsafe, talking anything against Hinduism. I felt something is wrong here>>

Internet hatemongering is no new phenomenon. There are Muslim trolls, Hindu trolls. We have to live with that. Why do you think we have the thinking faculties- to decide for ourselves what is true and what is false.

<<How to get rid of the curses we already have in Hindu-religion. How to define God. We are really confused about that. You people never cared>>

Lack of definition of God a curse? We not just don’t, but cannot define god, coz a God defined by something is to make him limited- to put limits on him. If you want you may start a different thread about it, or you may see this old thread.

As per any other curse, two things are very important in my view: Enthusiasm and patience. Its not enough if you have enthusiasm. You will try a day or two, and soon that dies down. You must have patience too to work things out. This patience is very essential to keep the enthusiasm alive. Without patience, enthusiasm will not sustain itself. If you think that changes can be made to the world in one day, then you are surely mistaken.

Every fool can show the defects in the society, but he is a friend of humanity who show the way out. If you can, we will be happy to learn. But don’t blame others that they have not been able to find a complete solution. That is a blame which you too have a share. and ppl should get out the syndrome of perfect solution or no solution. The world is not like you will get 100 or 0. Even if not fully viable, its enough if it helps in a small manner. And stop brooding over weakness. "The remedy for weakness is not brooding over weakness, but thinking of strength".

Celibacy and Brahmacharya

Copy-pasting Omkar's post on this topic:

Celibacy is considered by many to be important in Hinduism, and not having sex is considered to be something that adds to the spirituality of the person.

This could not be farther from the truth.

I am starting a new thread for this topic because the Vegetarianism thread was being hijacked by this topic, and I felt that this issue merits a separate discussion.

So, this couldn't be farther from the truth, I said. There are others that sit on the the other extreme, quoting khajuraho as an example. They should understand that khajuraho is an aberration, and that it's a tourist spot, and not a place for pilgrimage. Khajuraho is simply a temple built by a king who had a fondness for erotica and it shows that sex is not taboo in Hinduism. But please do not harbour the misconception that Hinduism encourages promiscuity.

Celibacy is used as a translation for Brahmacharya fast and loose. This is also incorrect. Why? The word Brahmacharya speaks for itself. It means, action with consciousness of Brahman.

BG 4:24 couldn't make it any clearer. Please refer.

Therefore, while eating, riding a car, having sex, and so also in all actions, when one is conscious that it is the Brahman that is doing these things, that is Brahmacharya. The fundamental concept of Brahmacharya is to get rid of the idea of oneself as the creator and realise that it is Brahman that is the subject, object and result of all actions.

Having this thought process constantly is Brahmacharya. If celibacy was so essential for enlightenment in Hinduism, why would most of the sages that composed the Vedas and Upanishads married men? This is my fundamental argument against the necessity of celibacy.

But then, one cannot say, I will quench the sexual urge and think of the Brahman. This is incorrect. This is what Japanese Buddhists call False Satori, the realisation that one is enlightened.

Just as a crazy person does not know he is crazy, an enlightened person does not know he is enlightened.

This does not mean enlightened people are crazy It is just to say that the experience of enlightenment is not experienced at all(!) and any such experience that one may have (such as the christian rapture) are momentary and will pass. Such highs can be achieved using drugs also.

So what is moksha? Moksha is the realisation that all that is happening around us is just a dream and we are the dreamer. But we can never have this realisation, because otherwise the dream will be broken. This is the philosophical construct that Siddhartha Gautama grappled with before declaring everything to be void. Of course, that is just escapism. Further inquiry is asked for.

So is Celibacy important or not? Yes and no. It is important because initially, suppressing all desires allows one to train the mind to focus. When one is studying for an exam, one suppresses the desire to watch a cricket match on TV, or to go out and play cricket oneself. This suppression helps, provided it is seen through. One trains the mind not to think of cricket. Of course, the desire is strong and the mind keeps wavering off, thinking of what the score may be. But one trains it nevertheless. After a while, this becomes a habit, and one doesn't think of the score at all. One trains the mind to be content to just read the headlines the next days paper to see what the result of the match was.

Once the mind has been trained thus, there is nothing wrong in watching a game of cricket on the television when the circumstances allow for it, and one enjoys watching the game. But the mind is trained to shut the desire to watch the game should something more imperative come up.

The same goes for sex. The urge for sex is such that no matter how much one quenches it, it will still exist. Maybe not for sex with the same person, maybe some other person, but it will exist. So going about quenching this thirst is a bad option. Why? Simply because it is a waste of time, just because it is extremely enjoyable to sit in a bath tub, drinking wine and reading an interesting book, does not mean that it's a good idea to do it all the time.

That is the idea of Brahmacharya. Once one is a Brahmin, there is nothing left to achieve at all, since all actions have oneself as the subject, object and the result. Therefore, the act of sex and the act of watching football on tv become one and the same, an enjoyable act to pass the time that the physical body has on earth.

However, the physical body does have responsibilities, referred to as dharma in the BG, which need to be fulfilled. Therefore, getting food, providing for dependents and ensuring the general well being of itself and those dependent on it have to be performed nevertheless.

The very act of eating food is a punya karma because it fulfills our dharma towards the physical body. The act of sex becomes a punya karma because it fulfills our dharma towards our partner. But it is dharma only when it is seen as such, not when it becomes a pretext for promiscuity. The feeling of performing dharma should be what engages the sex drive, and not the other way around, where dharma is used as an excuse by one's libido to satisfy itself.

I hope I have clarified the position of Hinduism, at least my understanding of it, towards sex and celibacy.

Question on this topic in a related thread:
Suryaa, your and my name have the same meaning...now that we know each other for long you are still a muystery for me...One of the most important thing mentioned in the link is about brahmacharya...Even asaram bapu says in his almost every satsanga that to channel youth power Brahmacharya is of utmost importance. ofcourse no one is opposing marriage but most hindu youth does not understand what is brahmacharya....do u wana start a new thread....


My Reply:
Doesn’t matter, understanding Hinduism is important, not me

Jokes apart, I never give too much importance to things like non-vegetarian food or celibacy coz I believe in parallel working and not in 1,2,3 kind of working.

As Krishna says in the Gita "Even a little of this Yoga will bring great good"

So I don’t prefer to tell this is imp or that is imp. Let the individual take up what is easy for him to start with. We can only work in the line of least resistance. So making a beginning somewhere in some aspect *he* likes is more important than starting where *I* think is imp.

In spiritual life all the things are interconnected and hence working in one area will have its effect on other aspects also. For example, if there is a person who is like a typical western youth having all sorts of habits, but is sincere at heart. Now I think it is better that one tries to direct this as sincerity in say service activities. Let him have all his habits, but let him start somewhere. And other things follow naturally.

That is the best thing I like about Hindu Saints. They never try to impose things or talk from their level. They get down to the level of the seeker and try to raise him from there. Take for example the Relationship of Ramakrishna Paramahamsa and Girish Chandra Ghosh. Girish had all types of bad habits one can imagine when he came into contact with Sri Ramakrishna. But did Sri Ramakrishna ever condemn or ask Girish to leave his habits? He only used to suggest to come to Dakshineswar once in a while or to do this or that form of worship 10-15 mins a day. And Girish changed naturally as a result out of it. Possible if Sri Ramakrishna scared Girish with a big list of do’s and don’t, Girish would have never come again there.

Each grows according to his own Karma, so no point in being too much bothered about whether one is convinced about non-Vegetarian food or about brahmacharya ashrama. Take up a aspect one likes and start from there.

Non-Vegetarian food

I have different views on non-vegetarian food and many orthodox Hindus may frown upon them.

In my view, there is nothing bad in eating non-veg food per se.

The idea of non-violence is more in the mind than physical. If mere physical action is the parameter then plants too have life, we kill millions of microbes with every breathe we take. All these are happening continuously.

Non-violence is the state of mind in which you do not even think of injuring any other being.

Physical non-violence in the form of Vegetarian food is advised my many Hindu saints coz it helps in building that state of mind as animals are the higher and perceivable manifestations of life. For example, as I a veggie from my childhood, I cannot stand even the idea of eating non-veg.

I don’t deny the benefits of non-veg food spiritually. But more imp in present days is that Hindus uncondition themselves of the bias against non-veg and beef.

Be whatever you want to. If one thinks eating non-veg makes him strong, then eat it. If one does not like this idea, then be a veggie. But we should not even for a moment think that being a veggie makes us great or think that a non-veggie is a inferior/cruel guy. A stage will come where you cant kill animals not just you wont.

Buddha was once offered non-veg food by a devotee with love. As it was offered with love, Buddha could not refuse it and ate it.

The Future of Hinduism

Question: Hinduism can be said to be a religion that has been changing cont. for the good. The best example of the change is the acceptance of the constitution ( unlike the muslims who have different laws ). So we must realize that whatever we do or say or think may contribute towards the future change of HINDUISM. So ... post your views on what you think might be the changes in HINDUISM in the future .

My Reply:
Hinduism will/is undergoing a change in her body, but will retain its characteristic spirit.

So what we are seeing is just a change in the external form, the outer body of Hinduism. Old institutions are being replaced by new ones. Old forms are being replaced by new forms. Whether one likes it or not, this is sure to happen.

In the place of old maths, new age gurus are teaching things; in place of old talapatra grandhas, printed books and internet is the new means to spread the scriptures. In place of old rituals to please gods, serving others will become the new form of worship.

But the spirit will always be the same, and it is spirituality. As Sri Aurobindo says “Spirituality is indeed the master-key of the Indian mind; the sense of the infinite is native to it”. This is never going to change.

Some points by Ratan:
There are many new positive trends in Hinduism -

a) A delinking from India. There are now lakhs of non-Indian Hindus. Many are at the forefront of global Hindu society. They are bringing in new perspectives and new energy.

b) A global integration of Hindus. For once, a worldwide (Fiji, Mauritius, UK, South Africa, Trinidad, Guyana, US, India, Bali) sense has emerged of a single Hindu family. Hindus in India are bugged about the California textbook issue. American Hindus are bugged about the temple bombings in Bali.

c) Withering of the caste system. At differing rates, but consistently throughout the world, the caste system is dying. There is broad consensus that it should. I think it will be gone within the next 1-2 generations. Refer to VHP demand from last week.

d) Openness to proselytize. Non-Hindus becoming Hindus is now commonly accepted. Things like Ghar Wapasi and Shuddhi hold total currency in most of Hindu society. The old rubbish about "only born Hindus can be Hindus" is in an advanced stage of dying. You only hear it from pretend-Hindus anymore.

e) Consumerization of components of Hinduism. Yoga, ayurved and meditation are now mainstream in Western society. In a way, this acts as a validation of Hinduism.

f) Weakening of the Socialist Theocracy in India. Indira Gandhi had made Socialism a state religion in India. In that capacity, Hinduism and other faiths in India were discriminated against. With the demise of the USSR and the opening of China, the theocracy in India has weakened too. There is a new era of religious freedom there. Sikhism and Indian Islam are benefitting from it as well.

g) The new Akshardham temple in Delhi is a new development :-). It's awesome.

There are some negatives too - growing extremism being one.

==================

As an aside, I have subscribed to Hinduism Today, and it is an *amazing* magazine to keep in touch with the global Hindu family - http://www.hinduismtoday.com/

Question: @surya, Yes agree with your points...but I don't think that goodness survives on its own. If you do not protect the good then the bad will win.
No one is there to protect or preach Hinduism today in as mass a scale as other religions. Such a proactive approach is not even respected or appreciated.
I guess the independant thinkers will cling to Hinduism but not the masses.

My Reply:
Do you believe in Truth

do you believe that only Truth is eternal (why?... coz it IS truth)

do you believe that Hinduism is Truth

do you believe in the Vedas which declare that Sanatana Dharma is eternal

do you believe in the powers of goodness

do you believe in Sri Krishna's word when he says "when ever the adharma is on raise and whenever Dharma subsides, I will take birth to restore Dharma


If the answer to above is Yes, then you can be 200% that Hinduism is never going to be extent.

I think my above statements are too cryptic. let me elaborate them a little.

I don’t meant to say that Hindus can just sit quite and all things will be taken care of by themselves. We need to work, but the attitude of the Hindus should change.

Hindus should get rid of silly anxieties like whether Hinduism is going to survive or not etc. That which is truth is self-sustainable and does not need any external help. If Hinduism is true, it will surely do.

Hindus should stop thinking of themselves as weak beings whose survival is doubtful and at the mercy of fate. Only weak people believe in fate. Strong ppl believe in their own strength.

As Sri Krishna says in Gita, whenever Adharma prevails and Dharma is on decline, the divinity will manifest itself to restore the Dharma. That’s it…no ifs and buts.

If Rama wanted, he could have gone and conquered the lanka all alone. But it was the good fortune of the Vanaras that they had an opportunity to help. In the same manner, if God wants, things can be as likes in a moment. But it is our fortune that we got an opportunity to serve. Hinduism does not need us; we need Hinduism.

This mere change in attitude can work wonders. Just imagine yourself being in a army of 10000 against 100 and being in an army of 100 against 10000. In which case will one be filled with confidence and enthusiasm?

It is this kind of attitudinal change I am referring to. Not as doubtful candidate, uncertain about the result, but as a lion, full of confidence and with the attitude that “the result is already decided, only the details of how and when are to be worked out by me.”


“Instead of passivity, activity; for the standard of weakness, the standard of strength; in place of a steadily-yielding defense, the ringing cheer of a invading host. Merely to change the attitude of the mind, in this way, is already to accomplish a revolution.” ~ Sister Nivedita

Can one convert to Hinduism

"Can one convert to Hinduism?" or "How does one become a Hindu" is a very common question many foriegners ask.

In previous times the idea of conversion to Hinduism was absent in religion because the idea of a restricted group of Hindus itself was not there.

There were only ideological conversions which used to happen on the basis of a debate, the loser converts to the winning side, like those between Advaitins, Buddhists, Vaishnavites etc. Anyhow neither was there any formal idea of a restricted group present, nor was there a defined idea of conversion. It was just like you read relativity and nolonger subscribing to classical mechanics as true.... you can call that a conversion if you want.

But in due time, things reached ridiculous levels and ppl started to deny right to conversion to Hinduism. Ever though why the Hindus who were forced to convert never tried to reconvert? Just think an invader comes and forcibly converted some hindus into some other religion. Now the Hindus at that time knew that they were converted forcibly, so what stopped them from coming back the moment the invader is gone? It was this mental block against reconversion. For example, during the Goa inquisition, Portuguese used to throw beef into village wells. If some Hindu drinks that water, the rest of the Hindu society used to throw him out. He was left with no other option but to convert.

But in later times many Hindu thinkers felt the need to introduce the idea of conversion. This is the best part of Hinduism.. its dynamic nature. It never shies away from recognizing its mistakes and correcting them. To my knowledge in the modern times Swami Dayananda was the first to introduce it. Swami Shraddhananda actively converted many Muslims to Hinduism in 1920's.

Anyhow he did not call it conversion, but called it re-conversion or ghar vaapsi of converted Hindus back to Hinduism. And he was right to an extent, coz there are only two types of religious groups in India - Hindus and ex-Hindus. He thus named it Shuddhi

It has to be kept in mind that principles are more important that the name tag of religion one carries. So if one is really interested in Hindu way of life and calls himself a Hindu, he readily becomes a Hindu. For example, our Kalam is a better Hindu than many Hindus in my view.

There are no formal need of any ritual or declaration. Anyhow these “suddhi” type of things were designed keeping the masses in view. If you tell a normal villager, “instead of identifying yourself with a different religion from today, call yourself a Hindu, you will become a hindu” he will not be satisfied and he wants to see something concrete to do. So instead frame a simple puja, make him perform it and then tell him he is a Hindu now coz he has performed this puja; he will be satisfied.

In the present days too conversion to Hinduism is an accepted idea and there are many Hindu organizations which do that. Anyhow unlike Missionaries, the change of “name tag of religion” is not their aim. Instead they try to spread the ideas of Hindu ethos, without bothering abt what religion he formally belongs to. The greatest example of this phenomenon can be observed in US. There are LOTs of Yoga seekers in US. But anyhow the Hindus restrict to teaching the principles of the Yoga/Meditation instead of telling them “you have to become a Hindu, only then holy lord will save you.”

In conclusion I will quote another member on Orkut who has put it wonderfully:

how do i become a singer? - sing songs
how do i become a cricketer? - play cricket
how do i become a hindu? - practice hinduism......

Tantra vis-a-vis Vedanta

Many Hindus have a very few understanding of Tantra... worse still they have lot of misunderstandings. This post of mine are my views about the Tantra.

To start with there are, the Hindu thought can be divided into two main approaches:
1. The Vedantic view
2. The Tantric view

The present day Hinduism is based more on Vedantic view, but there are also some elements of Tantra in it. Before we look at where these approaches differ, I request ppl to first uncondition themselves that Tantra is all about sex(I will come back to this point later)

Some of the main difference in approaches are:

1. The Vedantic view of the reality is that it is a single aspect (whether having attributes or not). Energy may have many aspects to it, but it essentially exists alone and not in a pair. The Tantric view is that everything in nature occurs in pairs – symbolically represented as the purusha and prakriti.

2. The Vedantic approach at reality is based in the principle of neti, neti “not this, not this”. ie. we try to discriminate we the real from the unreal and real and go on negating each thing as “this is not the complete reality; this is not the complete reality”

The tantra on the other hand is based on the idea of iti, iti “also this; also this”. You go on adding each thing as “this is also part of reality; this is also part of reality”

3. Theoretically there are two ways to get rid of attachment. If I am too much attached to laddus, one method is to abstain myself from eating laddus; the other method is to too much laddus that I get fed up of them.

Vedanta does not agree to this possibility (as explained in the story of yeyati). But I don’t think I can totally deny the process. In some cases it may do work. For example, in the book “An Autobiography of a Yogi”, Paramahsa Yogananda narrates how he once had a small desire to live in a big palace and how his guru before giving him diksha had created an illusory palace, only to show him by experience that it is nothing.

4. One characteristic of Hinduism is that it usually does not denounce anything, but rather tries to give it a higher direction. If Bhakti can be termed as the method in which the human emotions are given a divine direction, Tantra in my view is a method in which human passions are given divine direction.


One may agree or disagree with the truth in the above thoughts, but one thing to note is that tantra is not just a do-anything-you-want, but has a deeper thought in it.

It is true that tantra has been greatly distorted by many people, but we cannot negate the whole of tantra just by seeing only at the distortions. To scorn at tantra for its ‘prominence’ some tantra ‘scriptures’ gives to sex, meat etc is just similar to scorn at Hinduism seeing some ‘scriptures’ talk about caste discrimination (ie., its unfounded)

@Origins of Tantra
If the concept of purusha and prakriti are referred by Tantra, then the reference of the same are found in the early Vedic age itself.

But the present form of Tantra is more a development in the later stages of Buddhism. Even the degeneration is mainly in that period and is also one of the reason for the fall of Buddhism (free intermingling of Buddhist monks and nuns)

Also Tantra can be hardly said to be a ‘rebel’ child of Buddhism. Actually Vajrayana Buddhism, which is sect of Buddhism common in Tibet is also called “Tantric Buddhism”. Similarly the Shiava and Viashnava tantra are popular in Bengal, Assam and the other eastern areas.


How valid is Tantra path
Many Saints in Hinduism, have discouraged people from following tantra. Ramakrishna Paramahamsa who also practiced all the sects of Hinduism and realized that all of them will essentially lead to the same goal did also practice Tantra (the fact that he was a complete celibate both physically and mentally throughout his life also disproves the idea that sex is central to tantra). Though he practiced Tantra he always used to emphasize the fact that following it is dangerous in the present age and that Bhakti yoga is best for kali yuga. (I am not quoting anything, just writing down what I understood)


Why then bother about tantra
One may wonder if I agree to the point that tantra is not an advisable path to follow in the present age, why then am I am trying to explain it.

This is coz I disagree with the reason for rejection. Tantra is not advisable not coz it is wrong in itself, but coz it is not suitable from the present day circumstances. There is a saying in telugu that in a village where all ppl roam nude, the person who wears clothes is a seen as mad. There is nothing holy-than-thou in just the way we dress, but the present social circumstances make it right/wrong. In the same way there is nothing inherently evil in tantra but the present social circumstances makes it unwise to follow.

We have to remember that we should not judge other by our standards, we should always judge others by their own standards.

PS: If one wants to know more about Tantra, I suggest reading the books of Sir John Woodroffe. I have not read this book, but many have suggested this to me as one of the most respected books about tantra.