Miscellaneous Topics discussion - 2

[Guest]

Well folks,

First of all, I am a Sikh. I am having a little trouble with another site sikhnet.com. They wouldn't allow my post because in it I said that the founder of Hinduism or the first person in Hinduism to introduce the concept of God must have realized God. Well this is a simple logic that the first one who introduced concept of God must have realized God and since Hinduism is the oldest religion, whoever introduced concept of God in the beginning of Hinduism must have realized God before anybody else. Since someone in Hinduism had realized God, it does make sense to say that following that person (accepting him as a guru), God could be achieved just like following Sikh gurus "properly", God can be achieved. Therefore, it can't be said that Hinduism was imperfect religion and Sikhism is a reform of Hinduism.

So I would like to know who introduced God to Hinduism.

The reason why I am posting it here is that because I know something is wrong with saying Sikhism is a reform of Hinduism and that's what being said out there and hopefully we can find out the truth.

Thank you

[Guest]

This is a very complicated question.

The actual import of this question is who is God?
Does he/she/it actually exist?
Where is God?
How come I can't see God?


This is the most important question every man should be asking himself and trying to find an answer.

The atheist answer to this question is that the ancient cave men must have been afraid of the forces of nature and must have come up with the notion of higher more powerful beings called "Gods" who controlled the destiny of man.

This must have eventually evolved into all the modern religions.

You statement, "whoever introduced concept of God in the beginning of Hinduism must have realized God before anybody else.", actually stems from the atheist viewpoint, because this assumes there existed a time when man did not know about God.

In other words men were living like an animals before a more advanced thinker introduced the concept of God to the rest of the population after he had some "super-natural" experiences, unexplained by logic.


The traditional view of Hinduism says that originally there was no such thing as "my religion" or "your religion". There was no name for "religion". There was only one religion followed by all and that religion had no name.
This view is supported by all traditional Swamis like the Shankaracharyas.

There are 3 immortal entities - Ishvara(God), jivas (individual souls) and Samsara (the Universe).

According to Avaita all 3 are simply 3 names for one supreme entity called Brahman and appear as 3 because of the inherent power in Brahman called Maya.

According to Dvaita all 3 are no doubt one with Brahman, but there is still some differentiation. Only Ishvara has the power to create, preserve and destroy the universe.

The Jiva even after achieving salvation gets all the powers to do anything except the above 3. So the Jiva remains one step lower than Ishvara always.

Advaita says the Jiva merges completely into Brahman after salvation so the very question of powers etc... does not arise.

Both Advaita and Dvaita agree that the Jiva has been existing for all time.
We cannot say that some advanced soul "discovered" God.

We are talking about entities that are beyond time and space.

Both time and space are expressions of Maya the inherent power of God.

So religion has always existed. There was never a time when it did not.
The original religion is not the personal property of the Hindus.
It is simply a fact of nature that applies to all living entities.

The term Hinduism is a more recent one coined to distinguish the original religion of man from the new cults that arose later.

[Guest]

Nice post...

I agree that God and his religion (law of nature) have always existed. It's like what Newton described always existed but Newton was the first one to introduce the concept in form of Newton's law. So my assumption is that there must have been someone who introduced religion unless it's true that originally (in satyug for example) everybody was aware of God and religion but then with time, we started to lose this awareness as our minds got corrupted and we ended up in kalyug.

[Guest]

Hinduism does not have an original, <b>single individual</b> who has seen God.
Why? The answer is simple: The day-to-day practices of Hinduism show that many people down the ages have seen God or felt an immediate experience of God, <b>right down from the ancient pre-RigVedic <i>rishis</i> to Ramakrishna Paramahamsa</b>.

In fact, that is also the reason Hinduism is polytheistic in popular practice. The seers and the great devotees have seen an expression or manifestation of God in multiple forms - each of them has seen God in the form that most touched his/her heart.

So, unlike Islam (where God has been seen only by the Prophet Mohammed, and will never be seen again) or Christianity (where God will never be seen again after Jesus - "no one comes to my Father except through Me"), the great Hindu devotees see God Himself, in multiple forms, helping them in their crises, consoling them in their griefs and chastising them when they are flush with success.

[Bharatvarsh]

Good post mitradena.

Now coming to the question, as someone said before we have no way of deciding who realised God (for lack of a better English word) first because God is not the exclusive property of someone, there have been many saints who have realised God and there may be many people in the future who will attain the same state, something similar is said in the SGGS when it says:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->‘Truth before time began,
Truth when time began,
Is truth now, and,
Oh Nanak, will be the truth in the future.’
(‘Adi Guru Durbar’, Japji, Pa.1)

http://www.sarbloh.com/<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think the 10 Gurus also agreed that they were not the only ones who have realised God when the SGGS included compositions of some Hindu saints and Muslim sufis, although I think there were points where the Gurus disagreed with the bhakti saints. So there is no clear way of picking an individual name as the first person who realized God.

As for Sikhism being a reformist movement of Hinduism, well that is upto Sikhs to decide, as a Hindu I have no say in the matter but I do know that until the British took over the divisions between Hindus and Sikhs were not as clear as they are today, even until the late 80's Hindus (mainly Khatris) brought up their first son as a Sikh because they did not see becoming a Sikh as conversion to a different religion, in contrast no Hindu worth his salt would have ever agreed to bring up their eldest son as a Muslim or a Christian.

As for sikhnet, I am not surprised at their behaviour, I have seen them promoting beef eating with great enthusiasm in their efforts to prove that Sikhs are separate, Sikh separate identity is upto Sikhs but sikhnet goes to ridiculous lengths to promote their rubbish, even today 99% of the Sikhs in India won't eat beef, under Maharaja Ranjit Singh cow killing was punishable with death, later on under the British cow killing lead to riots between Namdhari Sikhs and Muslim butchers, and sikhnet cooks up ridiculous excuses to push aside all this history (for example, they claim that Maharaja Ranjit Singh often pursued policies purely for politics and that the ban on cow killing was one of them). Here is an example of the lies they spew around:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->http://www.sikhnet.com/Sikhnet/discussion.nsf/78f5a2ff8906d1788725657c00732d6c/a884d87a8f60ca8487256fdc002bded0!OpenDocument<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
While Bhai Gurdas himself says the following about cow slaughter in his Vaar on the traits of slanderers and apostates:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Vaar 17 Pauri 21 Counting the slanderers and apostates

Millions are slanderers, millions are apostates and millions of wicked persons are untrue to their salt.

Unfaithful, ungrateful, thieves, vagabonds and millions of other infamous persons are there.

Thousands are there who are slayers of Brahmin, cow, and their own family.

http://www.searchgurbani.com/main.php?book...aar=17&pauri=21<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And Guru Amardas says:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->If a Brahmin kills a cow or a female infant, and accepts the offerings of an evil person, he is cursed with the leprosy of curses and criticism; he is forever and ever filled with egotistical pride.

http://www.searchgurbani.com/main.php?book...ypage&page=1413<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I guess now they will label Bhai Gurdas and Guru Amardas as RSS agents out to destroy Sikhi, that is their standard technique to silence anyone disagreeing with them. If beef eating was no problem then where was the need for Ahmad Shah Abdali to specifically slaughter cows in Har Mandir, couldn't he have slaughtered camels, horses or other animals?, and according to Khushwant Singh even today majority of the Sikhs don't eat beef.

According to K.Singh:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->NO one can deny that killing cows to eat rouses very strong passions among Hindus and Sikhs.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2003/2003030.../above.htm<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Hindus and Sikhs say don’t eat beef; Jews and Muslims say don’t eat pork; some even forbid eating crustaceans like oysters, prawns and lobsters.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2003/2003030.../above.htm<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In territories ruled over by Hindus and Sikh rulers, cow-slaughter was banned. In Maharaja Ranjit Singh’s Punjab, it was punishable with death as it was in Kashmir, which was under the Dogras. Even after the annexation of the Punjab, Hindus and Sikhs strongly resented slaughter of cows. The Namdhari movement got a fillip when some of its members murdered Muslim butchers and were blown up by canons. Their guru Ram Singh was exiled to Burma.
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2003/2003030.../above.htm<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
One of the first things Hari Singh Nalwa did upon taking charge of Kashmir was a strict cow slaughter ban, I suppose they will now label him as an RSS agent as well.

[Guest]

Actually all of these posts are pretty good...

As far as Sikhnet goes, it's way over-moderated. You can't post anything unless it's exactly what the moderators want to hear even if what you are trying to post is absolute truth. Last time, I tried posting something from Guru Granth Sahib what it said about bible and christians and not only they didn't allow me to post it, they closed the topic all together.

Anyways, I am impressed how much of Gurbani you have searched.

I do agree that there is only one religion (absolute truth about God) and it isn't in form of an organized religion. It just exist as it is and there are very few people who actually realized this truth and of course Sikh gurus and saints whose bani is in Guru Granth Sahib apparently weren't the first ones to realize this truth. Otherwise we wouldn't know anything about God at all before these saints.

So those people who realized the absolute truth about God could not be different from each other and they are unlikely to classify them as Sikhs or Hindus.

As far as Hindus/Sikhs cultural differences and similarities go, there are so many similarities as well as differences between Hindus and Sikhs, it's so difficult to say anything for sure whether or not they are completely separate. Most of the Sikhs were originally Hindus and we still share some of the festivals like raakhi, even diwali although Sikhs celebrate diwali for a different reason. But then again marriage ceremonies are performed differently.

[Bharatvarsh]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Some ppl say Jesus and Mohd are predicted in Bhavishya Puran. Is this true?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bhavishya Purana is a heavily interpolated text, it also has references to Queen Victoria if i remember correctly.

Another such text is Allopanishad written during Akbars reign:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allopanishad

Frauds like Zakir Naik make use of the latter dubious text for their propaganda to convert Hindus.

[Shambhu]

That is what I had thought too. Since the guy I spoke to said J and M were mentioned as "divine personalities", I think BP was written later on and under the pressure of the murderer-rapists.

This is a point that has to be strongly driven home by somebody who knows about history, because ISKCON uses BP to misguide its followers. There has to be a strong rebuttal.

[Bharatvarsh]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->This is a point that has to be strongly driven home by somebody who knows about history, because ISKON used BP to misguide its followers. There has to be a strong rebuttal. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't know what BP ISKCON is using but the original BP although interpolated criticises madmo:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Text from parts of this section, which appear to have been written in the 19th century, more than a millennium after Muhammad's lifespan, mention him as "Mahāmada", in III.3.3.5-27. The passage is aware of Muhammad's Arabian origin, and portrays him as a dharmadūṣaka ("polluter of righteousness"), a preceptor of paiśācadharma ("ghoulish religion"), and a reincarnation of Tripurāsura, a demon whom Lord Shiva will destroy again.[23]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhavishya_purana<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So i don't know how they are using this to portray him as great.

Maybe it also has some sections praising him, interpolated by some Hindu sycophant during Muslim rule.

I am pretty sure ISKCON is aware of this but deliberately continues with the mischief thinking it will fool the Muslims into converting when infact it does the opposite, anyone with basic Sanskrit knowledge or google skills will find out its interpolated, you can't change the wilfully blind (in this case IKSCON).

[Shambhu]

Ah, thanks! I will tell that to the ISKCONites when they try all this BS next time..."divine personality" indeed!!

[acharya]

http://indianmuslims.in/who-were-the-indian-prophets/

Who were the Indian Prophets?
Written by Mirza Faisal · December 24, 2007 · 2,723 views
UselessDon\'t Agree MuchAgreeExcellentEnlightening (2 votes, average: 5 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...

Sri KrishnaCould it be that Sri Ram, Sri Krishna, Gautama Buddha, Zoroaster and Confucius were Prophets of God? This is not a new question and has been asked many times before. As I argue further that while we cannot proclaim strictly based on the Quran and Hadees (as they have not been mentioned by name) yet based on these very sources we tend to move towards possibly accepting them as such.

[Bharatvarsh]

Found some pics of traditional village house architecture in South:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/krsaurabh/350...57594467146991/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/krsaurabh/350...57594467146991/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/krsaurabh/350...57594467146991/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/krsaurabh/350...57594467146991/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/krsaurabh/350...57594467146991/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/krsaurabh/350...57594467146991/

You can find the rest here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/krsaurabh/set...57594467146991/

Unfortunately these are being replaced in villages nowadays with ugly concrete abominations with no greenery.

Indian cities are even worse, they are real concrete jungles and each house has 4 walls on 4 sides (as if the neighbor is a zombie out to get u), in Toronto many houses have a green frontyard, often a shared driveway, and a green backyard with only a small wooden wall between houses (sometimes even that is not there). You never have a front wall and gate (waste of space and concrete) like Indian houses and the roofs are tiled (so no terrace).

Also these traditional houses, many of them used to have a big gap in the middle where there was no tiled roof and rainwater fell, you can see an example of it in Thevar Magan:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=05FmZgnEQyI

These sort of houses are my favorite, my grandparents old house was like this.

Are these sort of houses present in rural areas of North India, I haven't noticed any, so was wondering if they are there.

Also I noticed that houses in Bali are similar:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/91393867@N00/2180531280/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tadzima/221140398/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/monkeybubs/145362584/

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Are these sort of houses present in rural areas of North India, I haven't noticed any, so was wondering if they are there.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thanks, Bharatvarsh, good pictures, next visit i will bring pictures of my grandfather house.
No, North India history is full of destruction.
My maternal grandfather house is part of old Palace. There front gate is huge and thick, with lot of good carving and whole gate is crisscrossed by nails (2inch diameter). According to him, even if you burn this gate, still no one can enter. From front there is huge courtyard as in your youtube movie. Next to gate they have hand pump. Whoever enters clean foot, hand and face. Three side of uncovered courtyard are with covered passage and rooms around them. All walls are made of mud and saw. Roofs are made of thick wooden logs. All rooms are with high ceiling and fireplace. Door lock system is very old type, interlinked chain. When I was kid they used have silver color splash paint on walls, olden days they say actual silver was used. House still has multicolor stain glass windows. I believe it was constructed in early 18th century. So architecture is influenced by Islamic era and touch of British. Because firplace designs are what we see in western countries. Even they have couple of fake fireplace.

My other grandfather's house was destroyed in Indo-Pak war 71. Never seen it. Only seen pictures, all windows were colored stain glass.

[Bharatvarsh]

Here is an example of a proper courtyard:

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The central open courtyard of a typicall Chettinad house. This house is an exhibit at this place called Dakshin Chitra- a place where typicall south indian houses have been recreated in the original ambience et al.
Houses from all four south indian states are here.
Amazing place- you'd need at least half a day to completely go through each house there. Its on the way to Pondicherry on the ECR road.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/waterlemon/284849047/<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
http://travel.webshots.com/photo/1117196...9117RyQVtt

[Guest]

Pondicherry houses, use of colors are similar to houses in Malacca, Malaysia. So much similarity.

[acharya]

University of Southern California Appoints Hindu Dean of Religious Life

Varun Soni, scholar and the first Hindu spiritual leader on a U.S. campus, has been named dean of religious life at University of Southern California, marking the first appointment of a member of the Hindu faith as primary spiritual leader of an American university.

University of Southern California (USC) news reports

Soni, whose appointment is effective July 1, is a lawyer and religious scholar. He previously taught in the Law and Society Program at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

Soni, a member of the Hindu faith, spent part of his academic career in India, his native country.

Soni holds a bachelor’s degree in religion from Tufts University, a master’s degree in theological studies from Harvard University, a master’s degree in comparative religion from UC Santa Barbara and a juris doctor degree from UCLA. He is currently completing a Ph.D. degree in religious studies from the University of Cape Town and is a member of the State Bar of California.

“I feel deeply honored and humbled to be the next dean of religious life at USC. The Office of Religious Life at USC has the extraordinary opportunity to facilitate interfaith dialogue and sponsor events that support religious and spiritual life on campus while also utilizing the many resources in Los Angeles, the world’s most religiously diverse city,” Soni said.

Soni’s interest in world religions is long-standing: As an undergraduate, he spent a semester living as a Buddhist monk in a Burmese monastery in Bodh Gaya, India, through the Buddhist Studies Program at Antioch University. As a graduate student, he spent months doing field research in South Asia through UC Santa Barbara’s Center for Sikh and Punjab Studies. A native of India, he was raised in Southern California.

USC enrolls the largest community of international students at an American university, with more than 7,000 scholars from more than 100 nations studying at the undergraduate, graduate and doctoral levels.

[acharya]

Page: 16/35

Home > 2008 Issues > May 25, 2008

Think it over

Changing image of India
By M.S.N. Menon

There was a time, when India was a land of the unbelievable—of golden palaces, of wise Brahmins (Appolonius of Tyna), of happy people, holding truth and virtue in high esteem (Megasthenes) of high-minded, upright and honourable people (Hieun Tsang) and of religious tolerance (al-Biruni). It was a country that A.L. Basham called “the wonder that was India.”

India inspired the Utopia of Sir Thomas More and its language, Sanskrit, was “more perfect than Greek and more copius then Latin”(Sir William Jones.) And of Mohenjodaro, Sir John Marshall, its excavator, says that its “well-built baths and commodious houses” and no parallel in the world.

What happened then? How did Hindus come to live in “darkness”? How did they fall in the eyes of the world? The answer can be given in two words: “Foreign rule”. The foreign rulers of India, both Muslims and the British painted India in the worst possible image, for obvious reasons. But the missionaries continue to say that Hindus live in “darkness”, that they need the “light” of Christianity and Islam.

Of the British rule itself, this is what Malcolm Muggeridge, a distinguished British journalist, for long a resident in India, had to say: “An alien culture (British)”, he observes, “itself exhausted, trivial and shallow, was imposed on them (Indians). When we (British) went, we left behind a spiritual wasteland.”

Dear Reader, turning our country into a “spiritual wasteland”, both in body and mind, was the work largely of the missionaries.

Today the abuse of Hinduism has shifted to America. It is inspired by Katherine Mayo (of “Mother India” fame). She saw nothing in India but “loathsome eroticism”. But her contemporaries, the makers of the American renaissance—Emerson, Thoreau, Mark Twain and whitman—found in Indian thought what they had missed in Greek philosophy and Christianity.

The Southern Baptists of America propose to bring “light” to India. Not to light our path, but to start fires, as Tagore says.

They believe that the Bible is the word of God. That the sun moved around the earth? Did Christ say, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” What are the facts?

In 1922, a Commission of the Bishops of York and Canterbury was appointed to go into the truth of Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection. In its report, published in 1938, they said that the Bible story was not correct. Recently, a book called The Myth of God Incarnate, written by seven of Britain’s most eminent theologians, challenged the claim of Christ’s divinity.

Prof. Whitehead, the philosopher, says: “The trouble with the Bible has been its interpreters… and the first interpreter of the New Testament was the worst—St. Paul.” He made Christ in his own image. And made him divine too.

Religions have borrowed from each other. But they seldom admit it. Herbert J.Mueller gives a few instances. He says that the idea of God as a maker of heaven and earth came from Babylon, the story of God and Satan came from Persia, of the Last Judgement from Egypt, the resurrection drama from Syria, communion from Mithraism, non-violence and parables came from Buddhism. There is very little that is original in Christianity.

Much is made of the credo that salvation in not possible except through Jesus Christ. He was made divine at the Council of Nicaea for this.

On this momentous episode, Gibbon, the great historian, had this to say: “The faith of the Catholics trembled on the edge of the precipice, when it was impossible to recede, dangerous to stand, dreadful to fall…” Was there anything more poignantly said of the predicament of the Church!

But in the Gita, more ancient than Christianity, the Lord promises to incarnate himself again and again to redeem the world from evil. Why should the Hindus seek salvation through Jesus? India needs no light, certainly not from the Christian quarters.

India will not be judged by “drainage” inspectors (Gandhiji’s reference to Katherine Mayo) or Southern Baptists. It will be judged by impartial scholars. Such a scholar was Max Mueller. This is what he has written about India.

“If I were asked under what sky the human mind has most fully developed…I should point to India,” he says. Exaggeration? No. He says: “As we measure the Himalayas by the height of Mount Everest, we must take the true measure of India from the poets of the Vedas, the sages of the Upanishads, he founders of Vedanta and Sankhya philosophies and the authors of the oldest law book.”

This new image of India has taken time to emerge. But it has finally emerged.

[Guest]

<b>Buddhism fastest-growing religion in Singapore</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Singapore, May 19 : Buddhism is the fastest-growing religion in Singapore, particularly among the young and educated, a census conducted by The Straits Times showed Monday.

<b>The number of people aged 15 and over who are Buddhists jumped from 31 percent of the population in 1990 to 43 percent, or 1.1 million people, 10 years later, making it the largest religion in the city-state.</b>

The census figures published in the newspaper showed a fourfold jump in Buddhists who were graduates between 1990 and 2000. Membership numbers of Buddhist youth groups have soared.

Converts told the newspaper that the religion offered comfort in the face of uncertainties and disasters. Moreover it is a constant reminder to look beyond materialism to attain calmness and happiness through meditation and reflection, they said.

"Through Buddhism, I can be a better daughter, a better sister, a better friend and a better colleague," Hindu-born Tara Melwani, the 43-year-old director of a retailing group, was quoted as saying.

Actress Nadya Hutagalung, 34, born into a Christian family, said she was attracted by the philosophy of Buddhism, the newspaper said.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is very much true. In early 90s when I used to live in Singapore, trend was Christianity. People were switching Chinese names to Christian name. During those days conversion rate was very high. Around bus stand, railway stations it was very common to see young Singaporean standing in circle praying together "Lord". Even my friend accepted Christianity, reason was, it is trendy and people treat you well. Recently, she returned back to Buddhism, claiming Christianity is just a hollow faith. I don't fit in. She felt she was losing her identity and connection to her Chinese culture. Her family never converted. I remember, my friend mother told me, she will comeback, during young age people are rebellious, it is one of those thing, but our ancient religion will be with us till the end. After short affair with Christianity they are reverting back.

I tried to convert her to Hindusim, took her to temples couple of time, well she liked prayers(Aarti) and food(Parasd) but Gods were dark color in Singapore, that was a problem. I told her in North India they are white color. <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->

[shamu]

<!--QuoteBegin-Mudy+May 19 2008, 11:03 PM-->QUOTE(Mudy @ May 19 2008, 11:03 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->I tried to convert her to Hindusim, took her to temples couple of time, well she liked prayers(Aarti) and food(Parasd) but Gods were dark color in Singapore, that was a problem. I told her in North India they are white color. <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think you made a mistake by taking her to just temples. Rather she must be taken to Hindu philosophy, options it provides and explain that Buddhism is only a branch of Hinduism. Whatever Buddha did was what Hindu Rishis before him did.

[Guest]

I was very young at that time, without or low level knowledge of philosophy. Infact, I became strong and firm Hindu during that stay, and realized why it is important to retain own culture and everyday that gave me strength to overcome first time away from home and in a foreign country all alone.
I was paying guest and no cooking access at all. I started visiting temple because they used to serve very good food every Saturday and Sunday, and they will also pack food for 2-3 days. To look nice,it was better idea to sit during puja and lecture. Gita temple was my favorite. Talk on Gita was very fulfilling. Festival days were better. <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--> Slowly, I started getting lot of invitation from local Hindu family for lunch and diner.