Is it difficult to keep religion out of your day today life and activities?

Not difficult.  I begin my day with body cleaning and breakfast, reading newspaper and then go to office. At end of day, I return home, watch TV and sleep. There is no religion in all these activities.. I don't worship or wear any religious symbols. This is so simple.   

Gulshan Kumar Ajmani wrote:

Not difficult.  I begin my day with body cleaning and breakfast, reading newspaper and then go to office. At end of day, I return home, watch TV and sleep. There is no religion in all these activities.. I don't worship or wear any religious symbols. This is so simple.   

It is more or less the same with me , except when there is a festival coming on . I go to temple because I like the peaceful atmosphere there and I go to a church too with a friend for the same reason. 

Unless it is profitable or to score a psychological victory no one bothers about religion in daily lives.

Our society and system unfortunately makes sure that religion and caste factor remain in the forefront at all governmental level transactions. Every form you fill needs confirmation of your religion and caste. The caste reservation has made sure that people have been permanently divided ..

As a daily ritual I pray to God when I wake up and before going to sleep at night. This was taught in my school and it has become my regular practice. Other than this I definitely go to temples during festivals or any other special purpose but not at all a binding. You see, whenever we come across a temple, mosque or church we silently pay a respect and it seems that is all what people generally do as a regular practice.

For most of us our identity is defined on the day we are born , be it family, caste or religion. Later it depends on the environment in which you are brought up . Being religious or not should be a personal choice because glorification and belittling of other religious faith can lead to dangerous situations in the society 

We perform many religious practices as routine of life.  I am not so religious.  I may simply participate in some social functions which have also touch of religion. Everyone has free to act as he likes. But religion must not enter all matters. Most social and political matters are common to all citizens and religion should not be invoked unnecessarily. 

Following any religion is a personal choice. How and when to worship is again the devotee's discretion and it should not be taught or monitored by anyone. If life is always intervened through religion then it's for sure, life will be completely messed up.   

Shampa Sadhya wrote:

Following any religion is a personal choice. How and when to worship is again the devotee's discretion and it should not be taught or monitored by anyone. If life is always intervened through religion then it's for sure, life will be completely messed up.   

I agree , religion is and should be a personal choice . Imposing one's beliefs on others is undemocratic and should be severely dealt with. The problem with our society is the selective monitoring of certain religion and conveniently overlooking others  which cause religious and communal problems. 

Everyone agrees that religion should be kept personal but in reality most do the opposite. 

The vast majority of the people keep religion personal , it is only a few fanatics who let it pervade into their public life.. 

Some fanatics are very influential and can away public a lot.

usha manohar wrote:

The vast majority of the people keep religion personal , it is only a few fanatics who let it pervade into their public life.. 

Have you read any of S.L. Bhyrappa's works? I have just started reading 'Aavaran' and it is my first book of this great author! It is literally an eye opener!

Kalyani Nandurkar wrote:

usha manohar wrote:

The vast majority of the people keep religion personal , it is only a few fanatics who let it pervade into their public life.. 

Have you read any of S.L. Bhyrappa's works? I have just started reading 'Aavaran' and it is my first book of this great author! It is literally an eye opener!

I have read many of his books , including Aavarana ..It is a very controversial subject no doubt but he has been able to deal with the subject of conversion in the manner it has to be dealt with, frank and to the fact ! 

Kalyani, sometime back i attended a seminar organised by the Bangalore University , on some of Kannadas leading authors. Two of Byrappa's works Vamsha Vriksha ( which in my opinion is his best work)  and Nayi Neralu were discussed and debated and he too was present. There were many criticisms by the younger crowd , the Kannada Post graduate students mainly, who kept  hammering him with questions after questions.  But he very confidently handled all the criticisms. Many feel that he is not progressive , tends to be conservative and traditional and it shows in his writings  . I feel that everyone need not be progressive and so called rational and be blind to realities past and present.

usha manohar wrote:

Kalyani Nandurkar wrote:

usha manohar wrote:

The vast majority of the people keep religion personal , it is only a few fanatics who let it pervade into their public life.. 

Have you read any of S.L. Bhyrappa's works? I have just started reading 'Aavaran' and it is my first book of this great author! It is literally an eye opener!

I have read many of his books , including Aavarana ..It is a very controversial subject no doubt but he has been able to deal with the subject of conversion in the manner it has to be dealt with, frank and to the fact ! 

Kalyani, sometime back i attended a seminar organised by the Bangalore University , on some of Kannadas leading authors. Two of Byrappa's works Vamsha Vriksha ( which in my opinion is his best work)  and Nayi Neralu were discussed and debated and he too was present. There were many criticisms by the younger crowd , the Kannada Post graduate students mainly, who kept  hammering him with questions after questions.  But he very confidently handled all the criticisms. Many feel that he is not progressive , tends to be conservative and traditional and it shows in his writings  . I feel that everyone need not be progressive and so called rational and be blind to realities past and present.

As this is the first book of his I am reading (sorry finished it last night itself) I cannot comment confidently on whether he is not progressive or outdated in thinking, but this is very much clear and evident is that., he believes in truth and honesty and demands an accurate, uncovered facts of history be told to people. Isn't this a rational demand? Why can't we look at history plainly just like the protagonist in this book does? For that at least, I would think Bhyrappa himself is very much rational and also progressive as he does not allow any biases in presenting true facts without provoking or instigating any one.

Kalyani Nandurkar wrote:

usha manohar wrote:

Kalyani Nandurkar wrote:

usha manohar wrote:

The vast majority of the people keep religion personal , it is only a few fanatics who let it pervade into their public life.. 

Have you read any of S.L. Bhyrappa's works? I have just started reading 'Aavaran' and it is my first book of this great author! It is literally an eye opener!

I have read many of his books , including Aavarana ..It is a very controversial subject no doubt but he has been able to deal with the subject of conversion in the manner it has to be dealt with, frank and to the fact ! 

Kalyani, sometime back i attended a seminar organised by the Bangalore University , on some of Kannadas leading authors. Two of Byrappa's works Vamsha Vriksha ( which in my opinion is his best work)  and Nayi Neralu were discussed and debated and he too was present. There were many criticisms by the younger crowd , the Kannada Post graduate students mainly, who kept  hammering him with questions after questions.  But he very confidently handled all the criticisms. Many feel that he is not progressive , tends to be conservative and traditional and it shows in his writings  . I feel that everyone need not be progressive and so called rational and be blind to realities past and present.

As this is the first book of his I am reading (sorry finished it last night itself) I cannot comment confidently on whether he is not progressive or outdated in thinking, but this is very much clear and evident is that., he believes in truth and honesty and demands an accurate, uncovered facts of history be told to people. Isn't this a rational demand? Why can't we look at history plainly just like the protagonist in this book does? For that at least, I would think Bhyrappa himself is very much rational and also progressive as he does not allow any biases in presenting true facts without provoking or instigating any one.

Exactly my point ! I have seen the totally biased attitude of the rationalist writers who are selective in choosing people or groups . Byrappa has always been different in many ways, He has led a a very adventurous life , lost his family members ,having experienced many ups and downs and worked in different capacities, even under a saint at one stage of his life . So, his knowledge of the world and people is vast as compared to the limited book knowledge that many writers possess.He is a great speaker, especially on his pet subject Philosophy and I have heard him speak and his views are very balanced and down to earth which goes against the majority of the rational writers who feel the need to oppose, confront and vent out their hatred on someone or something ..

Religion when in your heart and mind makes it happen in the outside world too. However, when there is no religion in your heart, then, only purity of God remains. Otherwise also, religion comes from bondage of the evil doers. Those who listen to the evil spirits and not to the God who created the heaven and the earth are the ones who created these meaningless religions.

Nishidha Patil wrote:

Religion when in your heart and mind makes it happen in the outside world too. However, when there is no religion in your heart, then, only purity of God remains. Otherwise also, religion comes from bondage of the evil doers. Those who listen to the evil spirits and not to the God who created the heaven and the earth are the ones who created these meaningless religions.

It would be even more straight forward to credit creation to nature,rather than GOD because then the question arises , which God ?

True, for me the answer eouwo be same too . I have my trust in Mother Nature before anyone else.

God is every where and in each things. Nature is also God.