Mourning rituals or customs in your religion

[RJM]

Suppose, I believe in the existence of hell and hence, I do not commit sins. Even if, after my death, I find out that there is no hell, there is no loss for me. While I am still alive, I have already enjoyed the benefit of living a tension-free life and not having to bother about the police and courts, since I have not committed any sins. On the other hand, if you commit sins believing that hell does not exist and after your death, if you find out that unfortunately, hell does exist, you are totally lost!

Therefore it is only because I fear being caught and punished that I don't hurt other people? Not because I care about them? Don't our ordinary laws and police and courts take care of that? *

* I know this is not your meaning, therefore it is not a very good argument, imo

 

[Aupmanyav]

“This space is infinite and neither you nor I can find its boundary. I cannot show you the existence of hell, heaven or God in this infinite space. But you too cannot show me their absence in this infinite space by taking me up to the boundary of space. Hence, hell may exist or it may not exist.

On the other hand, if you commit sins believing that hell does not exist and after your death, if you find out that unfortunately, hell does exist, you are totally lost!
Whom should the blind man choose to follow?

".. believe in the existence of the unimaginable God, heaven and hell. Worship God with devotion .."
Apart from this benefit in this world, there is also the possibility of you getting a huge benefit in the upper worlds after your death, which is very clearly stated by several Godmen and divine scriptures.”

If the atheist leads a worldly life following justice and avoids sins (pravṛtti), it is more than sufficient. Devotional life (nivṛtti) is not mandatory for him. But accepting at least the existence of the unimaginable God is essential for everybody because it controls sins by instilling the fear of punishment from God. God and His ways of punishment being unimaginable, ..
The atheist should also have open mind to observe the genuine miracles in this world.

Why have you put some paragraphs within quotes. Has that been said or written by any person? In that case it would have been better if you would have given us the link.

Science does not say whether space is finite or infinite. It could be any depending upon the shape of the universe. "..experimental data from various independent sources (WMAP, BOOMERanG, and Planck for example) confirm that the universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe

Whether there is hell or not, why should I do things which are considered sin? Why should not I act humanely? That is what I have been taught by my family (Samskaras). I am a normal law-abiding person, I do not have to fear anything. The blind person should go by his own experience. He has lost sight, but he has not lost other faculties.

Does that mean that I should believe in whatever falsehood you spew out even if it has no evidence?
Again showing me dangling carrots, but unfortunately, I am not a dunce and have a brain. Why should I believe in Godmen and scriptures without evidence. Many of them are charlatans and fakes.

If that is sufficient, then let that be for me. 'Nivritti' (deliverance) automatically happens at death. One does not have to work for it. I can avoid inhumane acts even without having a belief in any God, belief in God is not essential for me. If God's punishment is unimaginable then what are you trying to frighten me with?

What miracles? Could you give any example of them with the proof thereof? All this blah blah is without any evidence. Go preach this to some uneducated villager.

 

[Thomas]

Ours is vaguely Irish / Catholic ...

So a Requiem Mass. The arrival of the coffin, the mass, the procession to the cemetery, the internment. And memorial mentions at subsequent masses.

+++

Memories:
Uncle Walter was married to Aunty Kath, but he was agnostic. He always accompanied her to Mass, and sat at the back. When he died, Kath asked the parish priest if he would officiate the funeral, he said of course, gave a wonderful eulogy, luckily he knew them both. He insisted Walter had every right, which in my book is as it should be.

Wake:
We do't do that so much now. A gathering after, tea and sandwiches, a few drinks ... my dad told me some riotous tales of 'auld Eire', with open coffin parties.

Dad used to play the fiddle in an Irish folk group. One pub was well attended by seminary priests at Allen Hall in Chelsea. Word came via friends that they wanted to attend the funeral, mum said OK. The church was packed out with priests!

When mum died, we (four siblings & partners) were all round her bed in the hospital room. I read the Office of the Dead.

Went to a funeral of a family friend, a nun. Whole (small) community there, of course. And a burial in an unmarked grave 'with her sisters' in the convent grounds.

When Auntie Kath died, she wanted an Irish flag on her grave. I'd forgotten, and didn't remember she said it until the last minute. So we stopped at every Irish pub on the way to the funeral, knocking on the door. 'Have you got an Irish flag?" "D'you know what time it is?" "It's for me aunt, from Tipperary, she's being buried today." "Hang on, I'll have a look."
Or, more Irish still: "have you an Irish flag?" "Come back when we're open" (explain circumstance) "Where in Tipp?" "Thurles." "What's her family name?" "Ryan-Sayers" "Ah, Jasus, but didn't we used to have a Clonmel man ..." "I gotta go, I've got a funeral to attend!" (Found a flag in a fancy dress shop!)

+++

Family friend John & wife (he played banjo, mandolin, tin-whistle in the band) visit their family at home every year, bring back a bottle of moonshine, and call round to share a dram. What follows is a long detailing of who's died, who's ill, who's in trouble ... the Irish have a great sense of humour, but sheesh, can they do morbid!

I might well end up with a bagpiper playing 'The Flowers of the Forest" at my grave. Opting for a naturist funeral ... ideally in a forest somewhere ... Take me up and dump me in some remote Scottish highland ...

In fact, in honour of my IO pal Wil, Take me up to the far Highlands, build a tall structure, hoist me atop it, and burn the thing down at dusk on a dark and dour winter's afternoon of banked-up cloud, with a piper playing the lament from a nearby hilltop ... now, that's class

(If someone could arrange an eagle, wheeling overhead, that would be grand)

+++

 

[dattaswami2]

I am a DIY person and do not believe in Gurus. That is why my label, 'Be your own guru'. A needy person is a needy person whether one is a devotee or not. There should be no discrimination.
Which SADHGURU are you promoting here? Please note that this forum is not an advertising channel. Thanks for being kind to atheists, but why would one need to convert them to theism? Why interfere in their personal views?
Giving away everything will be foolish in the current material times. This is stuff of the stories and not practical. One needs to take care of the family. 'Yathashakti' is OK.

We shall not donate to any receiver unless we study the receiver for quite a long time in this aspect and the reason is that we are not omniscient like God. But there is one exception for this concept, which is that we should give some food for eating to a hungry beggar immediately without any delay.

This one exception is called emergent donation. Even God Krishna studied Sudama before donating immense wealth even though God Krishna is omniscient. The reason for His study is to preach the humanity while doing donation. Generally, people donate in haste depending on the place and time. People say that this place is Kashi and today is Shiva Ratri festival for doing urgent charity without studying the deservingness of the receiver.

Even while doing donation the donated item must be also decided after studying the nature of the receiver. If the receiver is an ignorant person and if you donate money to him, he will spend it in vices, and you will get the sin. For such a beggar you must donate the material only like food, cloths, and medicine so that he will use it. Today the receiver has become so clever that he is selling even the food! And hence, you shall insist him to eat the food before your eyes.

If you donate money, it has a very good merit, which is that the receiver can purchase any item that is needed urgently for him. If you donate material, the receiver may have enough of that material and hence, he has to sell your donated material for half rate and purchase his needed material for full rate. In this type of donation, the fruit of your donation is reduced to half only. If the receiver has very good knowledge, you must offer money only as Guru Dakshina and not any material.

In the subject of donation, place and time are not important at all. The only important factor is to study the deservingness of the receiver before doing donation. The reason is that if the receiver is undeserving you will get sin instead of merit. If the receiver is deserving and even though time and place are not followed the donation to receiver is the merit to give you divine fruit. Krishna tested Sudama by not giving anything when Sudama is leaving Him and travelling to home.

When Krishna decided that the receiver Sudama is totally deserving, Krishna gave him immense wealth by converting his hut into a palace suddenly. That day on which Sudama got immense wealth is not Maha Shivaratri festival and also that place was not Kashi city. Hence, deservingness of the receiver is the only single factor in donation or charity.

 

[Aupmanyav]

But there is one exception for this concept, which is that we should give some food for eating to a hungry beggar immediately without any delay.
People say that this place is Kashi and today is Shiva Ratri festival for doing urgent charity without studying the deservingness of the receiver.

Agree. Yeah, help should be given to 'supatra', one who deserves it.
Now kindly do not go into a hyperbole. Wise people think about it while giving, foolish may give it to charlatans masquerading as Godmen. That is why one sees 'swamis' traveling in Rolls Royce cars.

 

[dattaswami2]

Agree. Yeah, help should be given to 'supatra', one who deserves it.
Now kindly do not go into a hyperbole. Wise people think about it while giving, foolish may give it to charlatans masquerading as Godmen. That is why one sees 'swamis' traveling in Rolls Royce cars.

Unless you evaluate the deservingness of the receiver, there is always a risk in doing the charity because, if the receiver is undeserving, you will get the punishment of the sin, instead of getting a positive fruit. Doing charity is very tricky, like a double-edged sword. The entire concentration must be in deciding the deservingness of the receiver. Certainly, it is not easy. Hence, I advise you to not be in any haste and donate under the illusion of a holy place and holy time. If the receiver is holy, every place is holy and any time is holy.

Regarding the serving of free food to all temple visitors, irrespective of their deservingness and need, I have already given a message. I have suggested that Tirumala Tirupati Devasthānam (TTD) should open beggar homes providing residence, food, clothing and medicine to beggars, instead of giving food to everybody. The majority is capable of purchasing their own food and so, you can charge them as outside restaurants charge people and use that money for running those beggar homes. Many are capable of spending for their food and you are forcing them to take free food in the name of prasāda (sacred remains) of God. This is not a wise and correct process. As āpaddharma, which is charity done in an emergency without looking into the deservingness of the receiver, beggars and extremely poor people must be helped. They should be provided not only with food, but also residence, clothing and medicines. If the above-said policy of charging financially-capable people is followed, the basic needs of these beggars and extremely poor people can be provided.

Regarding the taking money from one pocket and putting it in the other pocket, the Veda says that charity (other than āpaddharma) should be done to a receiver, who is deserving. The Veda describes the deserving receiver as the one who is thorough with the true spiritual knowledge of the Veda and who is involved in preaching it, so that every human being comes to the true spiritual path (Śrotriyasya…). It is further said that the person should not aspire for any fruit from anybody for the divine service he is doing (Akāmahatasya…). I do not find any deserving receiver, as per the Veda. The rest of it is just a joke. Some devotees told Me that even in the joke of God Datta, real spiritual knowledge exists. I replied to them as follows:

“This statement applies to God Datta, who is in Me and who said these words. God Datta says that He alone is the knower of the real spiritual knowledge of the Veda and that He has come down to propagate it. Datta does not have any aspiration for anything since He is the creator, maintainer and destroyer of everything in this world. In this way, both the qualifications prescribed by the Veda are fulfilled only in Him. You can take this statement in this way also. Since God Datta is the author of the Veda, He prescribed these two qualifications of the person to whom He likes to donate”.

Regarding the preaching of spiritual knowledge in a step by step manner, it is God Datta, who is doing this preaching. Hence, not only is the subject perfect, but the presentation of the subject is also perfect.

 

[dattaswami2]

Therefore it is only because I fear being caught and punished that I don't hurt other people? Not because I care about them? Don't our ordinary laws and police and courts take care of that? *

* I know this is not your meaning, therefore it is not a very good argument, imo

Social justice cannot be maintained if the existence of God is not accepted. If God does not exist, what is the use of reducing the over attachment to this world? If you say that the over attachment to worldly bonds leads to sin and injustice, which in turn disturb the balance of society, nobody understands the overall effect of it. In such case, everybody wants that all other human beings should follow Justice to maintain the balance of the society and individually commits sins. This becomes the famous story that everybody should pour a cup of milk in the empty tank kept by the king so that everybody can pour a cup of water, which cannot be detected.


Everybody wants the social justice and balance of society, but at the same time wants his or her over attachment result in the sin, to proceed in undetectable way. You cannot control every human being through the law of court and the police department. The reason is that every individual working in any department is with the same psychology. Today, you are hearing the news that an honorable judge of the honorable court has taken huge bribe to protect the injustice! Every employee in every department is influenced by the corruption. The employee may belong to government or administration or parliament or assembly or even judiciary system. Very few only exist, who follow justice due to fear of God.


It is very difficult if you say that an atheist can also remain pure. The reason is that one day or other, the atheist will think about the ultimate in following justice. In his mind, certainly, the coming question will be “what is the ultimate benefit for me if i follow the justice and what is the ultimate loss to me if i do injustice in an undetectable way?” He will think that since God is absent, there is none to reward him for following the justice and there is none to punish him for doing the injustice in hidden way. If the injustice is not done in the hidden way, there may be punishment in this world by the court of law. If you can escape the punishment here by doing the injustice in talented hidden way, there is materialistic benefit that promotes your enjoyment in this world.


The final conclusion will be to do sin in undetectable way so that you can escape the ultimate punishment here and at the same time enjoy the materialistic benefit of the sin in this world. You can propagate the justice through your speech everywhere so that the social balance is maintained. If the social balance is not maintained, your enjoyment here also gets disturbed. Therefore, maintain the social balance to have your personnel enjoyment without any disturbance. Hence, go on influencing everybody through speech to follow justice. Thus, everybody wants to maintain the social balance with selfish motive only and not for the sake of God since God does not exist. Hence, atheism will lead to social chaos one day or other.


In the case of theism, there is God to reward you for following the justice. Even if you do the sin in hidden way, the omniscient God will detect and punish you here or the upper world. The religion may be defective due to certain blind and foolish customs and traditions. But, the religion is far better than the atheism because the religion provides the golden theism to control the sin and maintain the social balance.

 

[dattaswami2]

Why have you put some paragraphs within quotes. Has that been said or written by any person? In that case it would have been better if you would have given us the link.

Science does n.............

What miracles? Could you give any example of them with the proof thereof? All this blah blah is without any evidence. Go preach this to some uneducated villager.

Atheists say that social justice is sufficient and that there is no need of God. This is the greatest hypocrisy in the entire creation. In absence of God, hell is absent. Now there is no fear of violating justice secretly by misleading courts here. The omniscient God catching the secret injustice to punish in the hell is done away since He is absent! The superficial slogan of justice will be useful to mask the eyes of public from doubting the secret injustice done! If all become atheists, the creation is totally blasted!

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. you will get the punishment of the sin, ..

And who is going to punish an atheist who does not believe in existence of any God including the one that you are promoting?
Did I ask for all these details? I know what I do.

 

[dattaswami2]

And who is going to punish an atheist who does not believe in existence of any God including the one that you are promoting?
Did I ask for all these details? I know what I do.

For every action there is a reward. For good deeds happiness for bad deeds misery. Misery is for the reformation of the soul so that it do not repeat the sins and disturb the peace of the society. If one realize, repent and do not repeat any sins from today onwards all their past sins will be forgiven by God. This is the promise of God to us.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Social justice cannot be maintained if the existence of God is not accepted. If God does not exist, what is the use of reducing the over attachment to this world?

It is very difficult if you say that an atheist can also remain pure.

In the case of theism, there is God to reward you for following the justice.

I am related to the world to the extent of my 'dharma'. There is law for social justice, and that exists irrespective of whether God exists or not.
Action in 'Dharma' is done for its sake, not for any personal benefit. We have many examples of theists also going astray. Many such Godmen are rotting in Indian jails.
OK, go for your carrots, I have no desire for it.

 

[dattaswami2]

I am related to the world to the extent of my 'dharma'. There is law for social justice, and that exists irrespective of whether God exists or not.
Action in 'Dharma' is done for its sake, not for any personal benefit. We have many examples of theists also going astray. Many such Godmen are rotting in Indian jails.
OK, go for your carrots, I have no desire for it.

See an atheist also will be blessed by God if he follows justice and resist injustice. A theist who do injustice will be punished also for reformation.

 

[RJM]

Social justice cannot be maintained if the existence of God is not accepted.

But it can.

Laws against murder and theft, and marriage customs and usery and so on are purely tribal. They ensure the health and prosperity of the tribe. They are not moral, they are practical. Different tribes have different gods. To murder or steal from my own tribe is wrong — and so it becomes a divine command?

That doesn't stop my tribe from killing and stealing from the enemy tribe, however ...

 

[Aupmanyav]

See an atheist also will be blessed by God if he follows justice and resist injustice. A theist who do injustice will be punished also for reformation.

God is irrelevant for me. I will follow justice because that has been inculcated in my 'samskaras', that has been my training. I thank my family an elders for it.