Answers for Those Hindus Rejecting the idea of 'Conversion is sin '

Answers for Those Hindus Rejecting the idea of 'Conversion is sin '
When I forwarded the view ‘Conversion is sin ‘ in public, I received negative comments  or rejection from Hindus and non Hindus as well. I just ignore non Hindu views because they propagate the same. If Hindus start to propagate the same, they can't convert anymore.

Among Hindus we  are divided in three groups. Spiritualist ( anmigavathy), religious ( mathavathy) and small cultus like ritualist  ( sirupanmai valipaduvar).Most religious groups supports and so called spiritualist against it without look into current situations. We can forgo the cultus. The group which are against it, I salute them in a way for their stand . They are more into spiritualism as God is beyond religion.

Some of reasons or questions identified;

1.  If we agree conversion is sin,  then we are putting down other religions outside Shanmatham,  and it will against the princeps of sanatan dharma.
2. Telling  conversion is sin, is  a negative approach which we don't apply in sanatan dharma.
3. They claim there is no Hindu scriptures/shastra mentioned that conversion is sin /wrong.
4. No credible (apta) gurus have mentioned conversion is wrong.
5. Adi Shankara himself had converted Buddhist back in to Hinduism after they lost in debate with him.
6. Siva Purana have mentioned Narada had 'converted'.....in tripurasura episode
So that  conversion is not sin,according to them.

7.  If Conversion is sin, how about those whom are from other religion at birth now following Hinduism?


Hindus don't agree, let's see the reason 1,
'If we agree conversion is sin,  then we are putting down other religions outside Shanmatham,  and it against the princep of sanatan dharma. '

I don't see how other religions outside Shanmatham were put down.  In fact if we study the main abrahamic religions,they are strongly advocates that conversion is sin, of course in their own belief system. They believe, Who ever go against  God is a sinner. Whoever converts out from their religion is considered apostasy ,is sin. If so, if we in Hinduism emulate the same view as they were, this emulation is supporting their dogmatic believe. We come together into a common term with them. Besides, Hinduism advocates all the religions are from the only God.

Hindus don't agree, let's see the reason 2,
‘ It is  a negative approach  which we don't apply in sanatan dharm.'

Is it really a negative approach?  If telling conversion is sin to our vulnerable youngsters is a definite negative approach,  than the religion outside of Shanmatham falls into negativity itself, because they strongly advocates that. By thinking this approach is negative than we really put them in the negativity. Isn't it?
Just forget about that,  even in our scripture Ramayana have indicated that sometimes a 'negative' approach is needed /used in order to eliminate the 'negativity',  it will be in dharmic fold. (mule mulalethan edeke mudiyum). For example, in case of Rama killing Vali. Bali had to be killed without face him directly. Who ever face direct against Vali,will lost their strength ( boon to Vali). So, Rama had to attack hidden.

Hindus don't agree, let's see the reason 3,
‘There is no Hindu scriptures (shastra) mentioned that conversion is sin /wrong’.

There was   about 12400 different types of writing once available and what ever scriptures available as at today, there is no where have mentioned  that conversion is sin. As far as my knowledge.And at the same time there is nowhere had written that conversion is not sin. Even in such a huge volume of scriptures  (ocean / university), Hinduism never have a single book to be accepted as the authority of reference as in abrahamic religion(Bible). We believe Vedas are divine revelations(sruthi) yet Vedas is just as guide to refer, if one never read vedas ,will not be considered  sin as in other religions outside Shanmatham claims. Hinduism doesn't rely on any scriptures because there is no single book was dropped from heaven or God's pocket. Swami Vivekananda have mentioned it as dry bones of religion, do not obsessed to the scriptures /books. The truth is in you. The truth can be grasped/tap from the divine source in the form of sruthi (divine revelation).

There were mentioned in Shastras.Hindu Shastras have mentioned  conversions is sin.
a) Vyasa says in Mahabharata Santi Parva,
'..The rejection of one's own creed, the practice of other people's creed, .....is wrong .’
b) Bhagavad gita there is a verse, which conveys that Devotee should attain salvation in  a path which he is born ( as taught by parents) and not change paths. Those who change path will neither be happy nor get salvation.  ( Not applicable to your children)
c) Vedas ,it has been told to teach everyone in Arya Dharma/Sanatan Dharma/dharmic law. It is a way of life. Distracting from the way of life will be disobeying .
d) Garuda Purana mentioned it is sin if not followed the religion. It is mentioned in chapter 4.9,if one despise places of pilgrimage, good men, good actions, teachers, shining ones is sin. If we disparages the Puranas,Vedas,Mimamsa,Nyaya,Vedanta also sin. In chapter 4.11,  not listen to words of Shastra in sin. In chapter 4.36, if one engages in self indulgence, do not worship Shiva Hari,Surya Ganesh is sin. In chapter 5.7, if we despises Vedas, Shastras can becomes jaundiced in next birth. By converting, one will disobey all of this.

Even today. So in my opinion, why not we  reconsider conversion is sin in order to protect our youngsters /Hindus in general from to be converted.

Hindus don't agree, let's see the reason 4,
‘No credible /apta gurus have mentioned it as wrong’.

Apta gurus refer to those who learned Vedas,.gurus, sages .. Acarya sampradaya, whom are considered important references on religion matter. But there is no single acarya sampradaya,Sabha or etc.  was given the authorization to represent all. So how to rely on those available. We don't have Adi Shankara, Madhvacharya, Swami Vivekananda etc. to defend Hinduism right now.
For those really not happy with this opinion, I suggest you people go around to the many ashram around you and ask yourself to the gurus available. Most of them not happy with current situation on conversion and says it is sin.  But they don't speak in public because one need to explain the reason for the advocacy.
One example of Guru fought the conversion issue is Adi Shankara himself.  If he accepts conversion, than why he need to debate and 'convert' the Buddhist back?
Do  we realized ,if we never take a firm action, it will lead to our Hindu religion into extinction ? Even Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabu,Tirumular and many other sages have against conversion out.

Hindus don't agree, let's see reason 5,
'Adi Shankara himself had converted Buddhist back to Hinduism after they lost in debate with him. '

Adi Shankara,  is one of the important enlightened soul saved Hinduism  from Buddhism ,many of Hindus were converted during the time. In order to save Hinduism , he debated with them, the loser had to follow the winner's teaching orders.  I don't see this as conversion , it is a move to revert back to Hinduism. If it was a conversion, then it must be some kind of forced conversion. The question of why Adi Shankara went in to such an approach,  The reason is to save Hinduism from extinction. I am sure, Enlighten soul such as Adi Shankara realized that divine love is beyond religion but he stand up to revert back them. At current situation, are we going to  let go the conversion without any interference?, Did we realized ,if we never take a firm action, it will lead to our Hindu religion into extinction ? Wake up.

Hindus don't agree, let's see
Reason 6,
‘Siva Purana have mentioned Narada had 'converted'.....in tripurasura episode ‘

As we knew Narada always singing the glory of Narayanan ( Maha Vishnu).
Tripurasuras need to be deceived in order to eliminate them.  It is the plan of Vishnu . Lord Shiva only will eliminate asuras if they go into adharmic . So the ‘conversion ‘ is planned (Lila) in the process of elimination of adharma. It won't be able to be counted as conversion.

Hindus don't agree, let's see the reason 7,

If Conversion is sin, how about those whom are from other religion at birth now following Hinduism such in  Hare Hare Krishna, Sai Baba,etc., many Europeans, Christians, Chinese etc.? Are they are sinners too?

This is the question, most challenging to answer. Most of our Hindu brothers doubts the notion.But it can be justify.

We must see two things here.The meaning and purpose of conversion and sadhana.Practicing (sadhana) a religion and converting into a religion are two different things.  

Hinduism believes all the religions are from the only Brahman.  Any of the path is leads to Him alone. So it is not wrong to practice or pray in any marga. Everyone is correct at their atmic level, because atman is Brahman. Every religions are belongs to the only God.

SADHANA is  spiritual rituals or practices one applying. Any one from  other religions practice Hinduism or any path they like WITHOUT REJECTING other path of reaching God. By not rejecting other path of Brahman,  they won't fall in the category of sin.

But CONVERTING, changing from the birth religion into a new religion because of certain benefits and DENYING the earlier religion is wrong.  By denying the other path of brahman, you are denying the teaching of sanathana dharma.So that conversion is sin.

Om  Namasivaya.

Sri Sivasiddhi
Sivasiddhi Spiritual Foundation
Malaysia

Kafirism, Infidels and Anarya

Kafirism, Infidels, and Anarya

Labeling people based on their own religious beliefs should be avoided. But some so-called religion labeled people rampantly. Blind bigotry egoistic and ignorant's belief.

Among Abrahamic.
The conception of non Abrahamic by the Abrahamic followers as nonbelievers based on their scriptures and understanding is the most inappropriate thing. Anyway, it is their perceptions.

Kafir (Arabic term) means a person who is denying the existence of God. As in Hinduism, they were called nastika, in Christianity, they were called atheist, and so on. All the religion's fundamental core belief is based on God. Since there is only ONE GOD, non-Muslims are not kafir.  Some fanatic bigots mistranslated their scripture to manipulate their political status-quo by claiming that only if called the God in certain particular name and prayer method is the true God.

Any Muslims can verify from your scripture about the term. It is its own interpretation based to own scripture. It is ok if kept the term within, not say it out. If one labels another based own beliefs, then the others will do the same.
If you address me a kafir, then I will address you as Anarya / Mlecha as mentioned in my scriptures. It is not good for a multiracial society.

God-Centered Belief
All the religions' core belief is God. There is no one prays in the name of Satan.

Hindus say there is God, that is Brahman...
Christians say there is God, that is God...
Muslims say the is NO God, but Allah.
An Atheist says there is NO God...
SO WHO  ARE THE REAL BELIEVER? All are believing something.

Some information about kafir.... extract from Mujahidin Zulkifli
In a typical Islamic country under Islamic administration, the non-Muslims are divided into a few categories:

1) Kafir harbi fi'lan: These are non-Muslims that are physically hostile (waging war) against Islamic countries.

It's a requirement for Muslims to kill them (as announced by Pahang Mufti recently). Killing kafir harbi fi'lan will not result in any punishment for the Muslim killer.

2) Kafir harbi hukman: These are non-Muslims that do not have any privilege of protection in an Islamic country and they are not waging war against an Islamic country.

Killing kafir harbi hukman doesn't bring death punishment to a Muslim but only half of a diyya (compensation to the family). This was backed by a Hadith, where Abu Juhaifa reported: "The Prophet, peace, and blessings be upon him, judged that a believer should not be killed for killing a disbeliever." Sahih Bukhari 6517 in the context of kafir harbi hukman.

3) Kafir muahid and dzimmi: They are non-Muslims who have a protection agreement with an Islamic administration. Muahids are not citizens of the Islamic country but have peace agreements. Dzimmis are citizens and pay jizyahs (a form of tax or protection money).

It is haram to kill these types of non-Muslims. Many Hadiths protecting them. Also backed by Quran 9:29 "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

Among Hindus
The word anarya or mleccha is equivalent to kafir or infidel. We Hindus don't label anyone base on our own beliefs. While parya is a fall out from arya/Hindu

The Real Meaning of Parya * (Modern era)
1. A person who eats beef knowingly,  because eating beef is prohibited and is against the

Hindu tenets.
2. A Hindu converted out from Hinduism because of rejection on Hinduism ( not believing Brahman / God, Hindu scriptures, Rituals, etc.)
3. A person born Hindu but never practiced Hinduism because never believe the Supreme Brahman.
4. Those of descendants of a converted out from Hinduism

Anyone can fall into the category of parya if violated any of the above conditions.

If you are a Hindu, then you cannot be a pariah.  If you're a pariah then you cannot be a Hindu.
The word pariah derived from parya. The word parya is partly synonym to anarya. Anarya means non-Hindu. Arya means Hindu. It doesn't referring the 'parai' drum player community in Tamil Nadu, India. They were Hindus but doing the work of funeral/ cremation

As per Siva Purana, the cow is a divine animal.  Sivaperuman's favorite animal.  His favorite pasu/cow named Susila kept Brindavanam under the care of Govardhan. Thus, eating beef will bring wrath. Fall into category of parya.
Hindus as spiritualists (anmigavathy) no one will accept the term to differentiate the human race. (Vasudewa kurumbakam)
But as a religion perceptor (mathavathy),  this term has its meaning and it will ride away from the other religion's atrocity on Hindus.

We were labeled by non-Hindus as such kaffirs or infidels without understanding the consequences on us.  It is time to teach back.
My thousand apologies if it hurts someone.
If others label us as kafirs or infidels then I feel the term parya will put everyone into a common term. Now, it is time to throwing back the misconception where it belongs. Hindus don't judge people as everyone are the children of Brahman. But, we were forced to come into the common terms of Kafir by Islam and Infidel by Christianity.

Om Namasivaya.

Sivasiddhi
Sivasiddhi Spiritual Foundation  Malaysia

Updated 4 March 2019

Reference
1.https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2019/03/01/nu-calls-for-end-to-word-infidels-to-describe-non-muslims.html

2.https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/bahasa/2019/03/06/mufti-perak-pahang-anggap-tak-salah-rujuk-bukan-islam-sebagai-kafir/

Zakir and Terrorism

Zakir and Terrorism

Zakir admits he said 'every muslims should be terrorise the evil doers/anti socials. 

Zakir,
" Every Muslim should become terrorist....  I am for Osama if he terrorizing America the bigger terrorist... "
Some blacksheep of Islam will follow Zakir's word without understand his actual intention. So still Zakir hold the resposibility for his words.
 This is the concrete proof of Zakir as promoter.Why not he say every human should ....? Whom he referring to as evil doers/anti socials? Did Zakir really understand the meaning 'terror'.? Is a policeman is a terrorist ?Terrorism means creating fear by brutality of killing,raping,torturing etc.Cowardly act suicide bomber kills innocents.
What the Isis is doing ?The brutality on non muslims,yazidis etc. Are these people killed by Isis because they are evil doers/anti socials? Worship God in a form of Idol is evil doing/anti social? If so ,Zakir targeting whom to be killed.?
A terrorist last time not a terrorist now,similarly muslim are terrorising now, later will be heroes?
Terrorising the bigger terrorizer?Osama terrorising America.
Many terrorist of non muslims never yell God's name. But these present terrorist YELLING the name of Allah. Why? If the God of these terrorists are praying," ASK THEM TO KILL OTHER HUMAN FOR NOT BELIEVING HIM" If so ,it cannot be God. Only SATAN  will be happy to see human killing each other as in quran (Q.15.39) ,satan had challenged God that he will misled human!.So are the blacksheeps of Islam.
If Zakir realise there is blacksheeps in Islam, than what action did he have taken to eliminate that islamic black sheep as a so called true muslim? Or he is one? 
I personally believe every Muslims hold responsibility on the misconceptions on Quran by the blacksheeps of Islam/terrorist  to take actions on them so they dont further tarnish the image of Islam.The so called true Muslims,what is your action to prevent them/terrorist?

Om Namasivaya. 
Sri  Sivasiddhi


Sivasiddhi Spiritual Foundation  Malaysia

Lies of Zakir on Hinduism.

 Lies of Zakir on Hinduism.

     If I describe  Zakir. He is a liar,slanderer and blasphemer against Hinduism.
I have been follow up him since 2012 and checked his videos and speeches. In the beginning, I was very impressed and admire his ability, but after some cross checking of his quotes I was shock to found out that its were lies and slanders. Most of the his quotes of scriptures are not true. He is using his 'own correct' translations,interpretation,manipulations and imaginations of scriptures to fullfil his propaganda to convert people.
For example. He claims that Vedas prohibited idol (murthy) worships. So the Hindus are wrong. He quotes from Yajur Veda. He quotes only the part which is compromised to his religion. He  never quotes full sentences. This make people confuse. I cross checked most of his quotes.All his claims against Hinduism is false (half baked).Dear Hindus, believe me, there no  truth in his quotes.
His title  "Similarity between Hinduism and ..." .All the similar things were from Hinduism either taken or borrowed by them.In reality Hinduism is Mother of all the religion on earth.

     If one read Bhavisya Purana. Will under stand the nature of  adharmic religions during the kali age and what is the role of Kalki Avatar.
     
      Hindus are following the Vedas,no doubts about that. That word juggler is trying to confuse people.Let me give an example of that Zakir mislead people. He claimed Veda prohibits  idol worships. He quotes Yajur Veda." Those who worship God in the form of image are in  darkness" based on this, he claims it is sin to worship God in the form of idol/image. BUT the mantra is taken out of context. His famous quotes from Yajur Veda 32 and  40. Based on these 2 mantras , he claims God got no image (formless) so no image, no picture, no family and etc.
But in reality the 2 mantras has more .He only takes the words/verses which are suites his propaganda to confuse and convert.
Mantra Yajur Veda 40.The actual mantras mentioned that:
1. God has no image( formless/arupam) and has image (form/rupam).
2. Those who is believe God in ONLY no image form ( formless form) is in the darkness ,those who       believes ONLY in image form is in the further darkness.
3. ONLY those believes both form and formless form of God is the real bhakta,will reach His abode.
 Based on the 2 mantras. Hindus believe God has no image (formless) but can take any image at will at any place. The taken form can have  image ,picture ,family and etc.God is omnipresent,omnipotent and omniscient. Since God can take any form , why not the God take the form of the idol we worship in temple? So any form a bhakta wishes will do. 
In their believe God has no image, if the so called God cannot take any form, than what is the point to pray it as God?
There is no single verse prohibits idol worships in any of 4 Vedas.

      Another blatant lie of Zakir. He claims that their prophet's name appeared in many of  Hindu scriptures.Dear Hindus, believe me. There is no one single word/verse mentioned the name. The only nearest sound like name is Mahamada (demoniac ghost) in Bhavisya Purana. According the purana , kali purusha (satan) get a boon from Vishnu to increase its (satan's) descendant to fullfill the kali yugas ending. Mahamada ,the demoniac ghost which were supposed to teach the adharmic religion (pisachas dharma) where people will divert their belief of God,reject dharma.etc If this Mahamada is the prophet as claimed by the juggler than one must reconsider on 'what is the fundamental teaching of the religion is '.
 He claims the name of the prophet appeared in vedas and other scriptures. What he did ? He did his own interpretations and imaginations of certain word/s from Hindu scriptures and than he  related it to his prophet. Example, the word 'narashangsa'  meaning is the praise worthy, he claim his prophet's another name is praise worthy,so where ever the narashangsa word appears in the Hindu scriptures,he claim it is the prophets name.
There are many examples of lies,slanders and blasphemy of Zakir ,on Vedas and other scriptures.I can list all his misleading quotes and correct that based on Hindu scriptures.

Om Namasivaya. 
Sri  Sivasiddhi

Sivasiddhi Spiritual Foundation  Malaysia

Why Hindus cannot convert into other religion?

According Hinduism, Conversion is SIN.

Reason : Why Hindus cannot convert into other religion?

1.     We (Everybody) are the chosen one. Children of God.

It is God's choice and plan. Every single second is determined by the Almighty God. God made the choice when we were born. God chose us to be born in a particular family to the particular parents of the particular faith.  Since God made the choice, we have no rights to change it because it is God’s WILL. Whoever goes against God’s will is a sinner. That is the reason why there is no Hindu scriptures ever mentioned about conversion. Further, it mentioned we are the children of God.

2.      Hinduism believes in rebirth and karma.

Among 84000 lives, 7 lives are believed to be present as human beings. During the different birth, one can be born in to any religion as the God’s choice. God chose us to be born into a particular faith to fulfil the supposed duty given in that birth. If one changes religion, this means he/she is running away from the given obligations. Need to be reborn again to settle that duty.

3.       Reading Bhavisya Purana will clarify that, Kali purusha (satan), after long penance had received a boon from Lord Vishnu to increase its followers.  Vishnu created Adama and Havyavati to fulfill the boon. Though Vishnu had warned them about Kali purusha’s intention. But Kali purusha (God of Mlecha) deceived them. Since then the children of Adama and Havyawati increased. This was continued up to the demonic ghost Mahamada destinated to appear in the desert. Mahamada (Dharmadusikha/polluter/mlecha) will bring the adharmic religion (pissacha dharma) to fulfil the ending of Kaliyuga. Conversion is allowed in to the adharmic religion in order to help the kali purusha to increase its followers fast and to control kali yuga. But Vishnu had His own plans to precede the Kali purusha to an end later by the Kalki Avatar.

4.  Hindu Shastras have mentioned  conversions is sin.

a) Vyasa says in Mahabharata Santi Parva,
'..The rejection of one's own creed, the practice of other people's creed, .....is wrong .’

b) Bhagavad gita there is a verse, which conveys that Devotee should attain salvation in  a path which he is born ( as taught by parents) and not change paths. Those who change path will neither be happy nor get salvation.  ( Not applicable to tender young children)

c) Vedas ,it has been told to teach everyone in Arya Dharma/Sanatan Dharma/dharmic law. It is a way of life. Distracting from the way of life will be disobeying Vedas.

5. Our sages had opposed conversions.

Adi Shankara had fought against conversion.  He debated with Buddhist monks to revert them back to Hinduism. Adi Shankara,  is one of the important enlightened soul saved Hinduism  from  Buddhism ,many of Hindus were converted during the time. In order to save Hinduism , he debated with them, the loser had to follow the winner's teaching orders.  I don't see this as conversion , it is a move to revert back to Hinduism.   If it was a conversion, then it must be some kind of forced conversion. The question of why Adi Shankara went in to such an approach,  The reason is to save Hinduism from extinction. I am sure, Enlighten soul such as Adi Shankara  realized that divine love is beyond religion but he stand up to revert back them.  At current situation, are we going to  let go the conversion without any  interference?,  Did we realized ,if we never take a firm action, it will lead to our Hindu religion into extinction ? Even Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabu,Tirumular and many other sages have against conversion out. 




   Converts must answer God these questions during judgement day. God will ask.

a) Can you change your parents which 'I' CHOSE for you? It is my WILL.
b) Why you changed the PATH  I chose for? Don't you realize that every second is determined by ME.   Every religion/faith is from Me alone as I am the great planner.
c) Don't you realize, You had violated My PLAN?

For your information, judgement day according Hinduism will take place during death. When the soul leaves body, the soul will undergo trial immediately. Not as in other religion.

Many people had converted. Reasons for conversions were basically not of the realisation on the religion. It is because either lust ( fall in love, get caught wet…),desire ( post, title, power..),anger ( angry on some body ..),ignorance ( no knowledge about birth  religion),survival  (hunger, poverty, sickness..) and by forced ( war, to be killed..) etc. 

If you are a convert, please revert back to your religion of birth! 

Om Namasivaya.

Sri  Sivasiddhi
Sivasiddhi Spiritual Foundation  Malaysia
9 January 2016

Conversion is Sin

In Hinduism, conversion does not exist because every child is belongs to the Almighty God. Everyone is in His list.  According Sanathana Dharma,  conversion is SIN.

 If a person converts into other religion, it is a sin. No matter what other religious scriptures from different faith have described, this one single truth must be looked into consideration by every human on this planet. This fits every religion on earth.

 Why? All the scriptures claim that, there is only one God; the God is the Almighty, the great, the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresence … etc. The supreme God supposedly created the earth, human, religions, you, me and etc. Every religion claims nothing will move without the God’s consent, every single thing is bounded by His will. I believe that all the faiths on earth accept this truth.

 If you belief God, there is no choice, you have to admit this truth. Thus, you have to read further. For example if you are a Christian, for you, everything had happened, was happening and will happen by the God’s will. Who created the world? Who created you? Who has   given Christianity to the world? Definitely your answer is the Almighty God. That is a perfect answer, as a Christian you suppose to bear it by heart and soul. The same goes for other religious order members, when I talk to them they admits this truth. They said everything is by the God.

 I am a Hindu. As a Hindu, I should say the same truth. As a Hindu I would like to ask the other faith followers. Who had created me? Who had created my parents? It is suppose the same God as your faith claims. Correct me if I am wrong!

 We must think further, who created Hinduism? Who created other faiths?  I guess the answer is the same God, if the same God responsible for everything, the Hinduism (Sanathana Dharma) must be created by the same God.

  

When we think deep, more related question need to be raised. Most important question is who choose our parents when we born into this world? It is supposed to be the God’s will alone to make such choice that a person has to be born into a particular faith. I realized that, I did n’t choose to be born as a Hindu. I was chosen to be born as Hindu by the God Himself. I only knew that I am a Hindu through my parents. I think all of you knew your faith from your parents too. I believe every one, every soul born on earth by His will. I am the chosen one. If this offence you, please forgive me, but the truth is all of us are chosen one. We are the same human race. Now, as human, ask yourself the above questions but I believe all of us are the chosen one. The God chooses us to be born in a particular faith which suits us. We are the God’s child, don’t doubt on this.

 Further question is, if everything is by His will alone, who am I to change His will? If I listen to somebody from different faith and convert to their religion, this means I am going against His will. As we know who ever goes against Him is a sinner. Then I have to go to hell! Ask yourself these questions, is it sin if convert into different faith?  Converting others into your faith is also a sin? Judge yourself.

Hinduism does not accept conversion.

 Why there is no conversion in Hinduism? The Hindus believe that God is one. All the human race came or is coming from the same God. Every single thing happens because of the God. It is His will.  Human beings cannot change His will. Whoever goes against His will, is a sinner. By changing ones faith is contradicting His will. Human beings are given full freedom to decide in believing Him, but within a number of re-birth we must reach the finishing line, which is reaching God (moksha). Hindus were unobtrusive on conversion; it does not mean that we accept conversion. Conversion is sin according many religions including Hinduism. Those converts need to answer God these questions during his/her day appears! First question is 'Why you deviated from My ORIGINAL PLAN?,Don't you realise that I am the greatest planner'. Second question is ' Why you changed the faith I chose for you in your birth? Don't you realised that I did the choice of your parents and faith during your birth according the past account of yours. It is My WILL'.Third question is ' Can you CHANGE your parents?'
   Hindus were never against conversion because we believe we can pray the Almighty God in any name and any method as we like as long as in the faith of God. There are thousands of former Hindus (converted ) around globe.

 Conversion is not the real issue for Hindus as a whole. It is a pure personal right of the person.  The person who converts into different faith is solely responsible for his act. By converting into different religion, he is actually running away from his duty (karma) chosen by God Himself. The person has to pay for that. I believe that he has to be born again to full fill his duty. Anyway, the deal is between God and the person himself.  We, the Hindus got no objection on conversion, because during ‘judgement’ the person has to answer not us. My advice is to remain as who you are (your birth faith), listen to your heart, pray the God chosen for you and follow what God says. Remember God is one. 

Om Namasivaya. 
Sri  Sivasiddhi


Sivasiddhi Spiritual Foundation  Malaysia
14 August 2014