# Why Are Religionists So Insecure? Any Criticism Of Their Faith



## Neutral Singh (Jun 19, 2004)

Someone asked...



> Why are religionists so insecure? Any criticism of their faith and they immideatly label the person who critisized as full of hate without even studying what that person said. If possible these same religionist who preach tolerance will go the extra mile by trying to silence those who critisize their faith. Why is that can you tell?


----------



## Neutral Singh (Jun 19, 2004)

My reply was...



> No body is insecure... If you are talking about myself then I must admit that my knowledge is not even a drop in the ocean of knowledge around us. So, I humbly admit my shortcomings... but I am not insecure... I realise that I can gain so much from the experiences of others as well as my own... As they say : We receive back what we give... If we give Love to others and we will receive Love... and vice versa.
> 
> It may be those Sikhs' love for their Teacher that makes them feel offended by your blunt comments and we should realise that these so called religionist who are defending teachings of their masters with ego, are not the perfect ones... they are only on their way... In case of Sikhism atleast there is not much that I could find to be termed as blind faith as is fact the case with some other philosophies...
> 
> ...


----------



## Amarpal (Jun 21, 2004)

Khalsa Jee,

Truly religious individuals never feel insecure, they are in the care of ‘Almighty’; how can they feel insecure. Truly pious people never criticise any religion. They do have views and express them in a way to enlighten others. They present their views to supplement the knowledge base of the person with whom they are talking. They never compare one religion with the other; they are not in competition with any other religion. When they express, they help the listener to understand his/her own chosen path to divinity (religion) in more fineness and with greater clarity. This they do as a service to humanity without expecting any thing in return. This is a simple outcome of their realisation that each one of the religions is only a path to divinity and not an end in itself. God can be realised following any path in its true spirit. They respect all religions.

The feeling of hurt comes not from the criticism but from the intent behind it.
For example: When some one breaks a coconut in a temple, he/she normally thinks that he/she is offering coconut to God.  Now let us study the entire process. The coconut as it grew on the tree was an act of God and so belonged to God. The money with which the individual had purchased the coconut also came to him/ her only because God wished that way, so any item purchased with this money too belonged to God. When the individual breaks the nut in a temple, he/she says that it belongs to God now. In fact the coconut belonged to God all the time during this complete process God alone was the real owner - what the individual can offered to God who does not need any thing. There has to be some more fundamental meaning behind the symbolic action of breaking coconut in the temple. Coconut resembles in some way our skull. It is round and very hard outside. Coconut is difficult to break, it require considerable force. Within the coconut there is a kernel, very close to gray colour of our brain. The brain is the seat of our ‘Ahamkara’, which is very difficult to get rid off (break). When the individual breaks coconut in temple, it really should reflect the inner resolve of the devotee to break his ‘Ahamkara’ – the real offering to the God. God does not need coconut, but ego less devotees are what God recognises and loves. So breaking coconut is an external expression of inner resolve to give up his/her ‘Ahamkara’. This is the explanation for the specific act. This, in a way, is criticism of the practice of breaking of coconut, which is done in a mechanical ritualistic manner by some of the devotees, but no body feels offended as the listener becomes deeper in his own religious practices. The intent of this explanation is not to denigrate the practice but to give philosophical depth to the devotee – he/she come out as a gainer. Here no one has tried to wriggle out an explanation using his/her own religious base. The explanation is base on secular rational i.e. pure logic fitting well with the religion of the devotee. There is no attempt to suggest that any one religion is better that another. No one gets ever offended by such criticism. The divinities work to tell people significance of the path (religion) in the sociological and intellectual settings of the devotees. 

There are organisations deliberately designed to propagate some specific religion, which on occasions use falsehood and use slanders to denigrate other religions. The falsehood, which they propagate, is offensive and not based on truth of the targeted religion: this hurts the followers. I am of the opinion that such acts should not be replied in kind, but should be countered by well-designed scientific methods.

I agree with Khalsa Jee, that in Sikhism there is not much that can be called blind faith. I also agree with him that ego plays a great role shaping individual’s response: the reaction of the people stems from feeling of hurt, created by unjust criticism: no one can dub this feeling as insecurity. Our religion is based on truth and you know truth never feels insecure.

With love and respect for all.

Amarpal


----------



## Neutral Singh (Jun 21, 2004)

Fateh Amarpal Ji,

Your answering the question the way you did shows indepth study and a great understanding of Sikh Philosophy. There is nothing more to add to your analysis.

Sir, you should participte even more as there are many questions being put be non-sikhs daily as posted in that forum...

Answers to these questions is a must for a Sikh to know... Please share your expertise of sikhphilosphy with everyone...

Chardi Kalaa


----------



## Amarpal (Jun 22, 2004)

Dear Khalsa Jee,

Sure, I will continue to share what I know with you all.

With Love and Respect for all

Amarpal


----------



## Pawan1979 (Jul 22, 2004)

Sangat ji,

A friend sent me this quote and i think it is very appropriate to religious life (and to this discussion):

_"Some people live closely guarded lives, fearful of encountering someone or something that might shatter their insecure spiritual foundation.  This attitude, however, is not the fault of religion but of their own limited understanding.  True Dharma leads exactly the opposite direction.  It enables one to integrate all the many diverse experiences of life into a meaningful and coherent whole, thereby banishing fear and insecurity completely_."
- Lama Thubten Yeshe, "Wisdom Energy"


----------



## Neutral Singh (Jul 22, 2004)

Welcome Pawan Ji

Thanks for sharing your thoughts... they helped...


----------



## S|kH (Aug 2, 2004)

I'd  beg to differ.

I find it that ones who do not belong to any religion, or so-call themsevles "atheists" are the ones that give the most lip-service to others. 

Because they do not believe, and you believe, they feel they have a superiority level and will attempt to give mass lectures and lip-service. 

Atheists are by far, the sect of people that seek mass conversion. 

Religionists become insecure with their faith is threatened, just as Atheists downplay the arguments of God's existence and the calmity that faith causes upon a person. 

Both are different levels of insecurity. 

An interesting side-note :
I was talking to a professor about the Sikh Identity, and he was telling me how it must be hard and so forth. And he said how I must be victim to much lip-service, as Sikhs do not conceal their belief. A Devil-worshipper may be hidden, and still the public may never know his true beliefs, because he looks like everyone else. Whereas a Sikh, it is shown what he believes, and this causes him to be victim to much scrutiny. It was an interesting conversation, one I should share with people who believe "Sikhi is only inside my heart".


----------



## desperadovj (Aug 22, 2004)

Dear members,
INTERESTING !!  is what i say here . the person who has asked this question has failed to understand one simple thing about human nature.no offences but my friend,it is very human to criticise and to be criticised.someone here has even called people like me "athiests" as lip-movers.
for this i would like to explain a few things about psychology.Accusations come from a person who is still finding answers himself... they arent actualy criticism or accusations .. in fact they are questions... and the people who do get offended and get angry.. in reality get scared... as we all know fear is the root of anger.they get insecured or scared coz someone is raising questions about something they believe in so strongly and have put a lifes work in it.
the best thing here to do is... ask questions rather than making accusations or criticising... and the best manner to respond will be to give a logical answer if u have one.. or go and ask someone else who does and then answer it.
always remember...
                                     FOOLS ARGUE... THE INTELLIGANT DEBATES.


----------



## Neutral Singh (Aug 22, 2004)

Nice inputs from all around...



> It was an interesting conversation, one I should share with people who believe "Sikhi is only inside my heart".



Dear S|ik ji, I think you were about to share something with us... 

Please share that conversation.

Best Regards


----------



## S|kH (Aug 23, 2004)

lol, I meant I should share what the Professor and me talked about. He said how it must be hard about keeping the Sikh identity.

And I said, I should share that conversation when I hear people take refuge in "Sikhi is only in my heart" arguments and claim it doesnt need an identity or physical attribute. 

"An interesting side-note :
I was talking to a professor about the Sikh Identity, and he was telling me how it must be hard and so forth. And he said how I must be victim to much lip-service, as Sikhs do not conceal their belief. A Devil-worshipper may be hidden, and still the public may never know his true beliefs, because he looks like everyone else. Whereas a Sikh, it is shown what he believes, and this causes him to be victim to much scrutiny."

The "devil-worshipper" is only in heart...Sikhi is meant to be everywhere, and also seen


----------

