Proselytization

[RamaRaksha]

Should hindus proselytize? I would like to solicit some opinions. Let's discuss the present environment, issues and opinions. For the record, I think we should.

1. Some people say that proselytizing is wrong and hinduism is not a proselytizing faith and one should not do it. As to the last part they are incorrect, it is because of Sankaracharya that we are a hindu country.

2. We are not in a fair fight, while we hindus sit around on our mighty hill of non-proselytization, other faiths, mainly christianity has been spending millions running around our country converting the poor. While a minority they speak softly, but once they become the majority, the harassment and abuse of other faiths is blatant. The rule should apply equally to everyone. We either do what the muslim nations like pakistan or Iraq have done, where proselytization is utterly prohibited or go on the offensive.

3. As a 3rd world country I think banning mass conversion should be banned, something about mass conversion does not sit right, that's like a whole village voting for the same candidate, you know something has been rigged. As a poor nation we are at a disadvantage from proselytizing nations which are at present rich. The proselytizing people run ads here in the US showing poor starving children of our country and ask for help, they don't mention anything about spending the money on proselytization. Some of you may not know this but the US gives away billions of dollars to churches in aid so that they may help the poor, these funds are being diverted to proselytization in countries like ours. And what do we do? We hand over our country to non-hindus who turn a blind eye to abuse of hindus. Efforts are being made and have been to take over temple lands and funds while not even touching muslim or church funds. This will further weaken hindu organizations to fight or proselytize in response.

4. Here in the US, proselytizing really doesn't effect minority faiths because people are less swayed by money power. The only thing that a majority faith like christianity can use is to promote its faith by handing out leaflets and such but that can only go so far. As hindus we do not have to take a back seat to anyone when it comes to values, in fact, hindu values are higher and better.

5. Even though poor we are not entirely at a disadvantage. The internet has opened a new door to all of us. Use the power of the internet to write to newspapers and other boards to promote hinduism.

[devisarada]

should we proselytize?

No.

Should we do more to aid our fellow hindus and our fellow human beings in need?

yes.

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~

Should hindus proselytize? I would like to solicit some opinions.

Namaste Ramaraksha (et al.)

If I may, I would like to perhaps extend the conversation just a bit...
Let see where this takes us.

This notion of proselytization has a negative connotation, that of selling. Also, that of being given words ( at times) that is not requested and brings a level of annoyance.

proselytize

To induce someone to convert to one's own religious faith.
To induce someone to join one's own political party or to espouse one's doctrineYet let me offer something that is tangent to this notion, that of the adivadin. Lets take a look as some of the components so I can offer a POV:

ati अति
- passing , going , beyond (I use transcending); yet this is also considered
- excessively , or exceedingly.
vad वद् = to speak , say , utter , tell , report , speak to , talk with , address

vAdin वादिन्
- a speaker , asserter; saying , discoursing , speaking , talking , speaking or talking about;
- a disputant or a plaintiff , accuser , prosecutor



So this adivadin can come in two flavors:
1. the adivadin - that transcends speech, goes beyond. That is, the individual who speaks out the unspeakable; talks from a personal level, about Reality, an atmavit.
2. the adivadin - who talks excessively from the level of dispute, plaintiff, or accuser i.e. the one that is over-argumentative.

So with the adivadin, there is the potential for 'two flavors'. One ( IMHO) we gravitate to , the truth speaker, the other we shy away from.

When one speaks the Truth of Reality, we are naturally pulled to these sweet words, as our SELF somehow recognizes that an atmavit is talking about us, ourSELVEs, our core.

Yet when there is the adivadin bent on argumentative debate with no sense of outcome, the banter of words for winning. the Nyaya School calls this jalpa. That is, polemics for the sake of victory, with little concern for vada ( discussion) to bring Reality nor is this Reality established in this persons consciousness

When the Truth is spoken and resonates in ones consciousness, proselytizing does not come to ones mind; If its persuasion and argumentative debate for the sake of victory, then the notion of proselytizing is front-and-center and we tend to avoid this condition.

Now lets return to one of the definitions offered above, that is:
To induce someone to convert to one's own religious faith

I would choose the adivadin and bathe in his/her worlds on arsa¹ jnana; No sense of selling arises, and one only advances with the words of wisdom offered. How do I become that? is entertained in ones mind.


pranams

1. arsa or ArSa आर्ष - sacred descent; relating or belonging to or derived from the rsi's of the Veda

[RamaRaksha]

sarada: Please do not dismiss in one word my ideas, would you say that Sankaracharya was wrong? You would not be a hindu if he did not, wouldn't you agree?

The fact is that being a hindu to me is about values. It's not just about temples and our holy books, neither of which by the way may be around if the chrisitan proselytizers have their way.

I don't know if you know this but in the middle ages, a few hindu kings moved to what is now central asia and settled there. Things went along fine until christianity invaded the sorrounding area. Once their numbers grew in strength, the christians formed an army and attacked the hindu kingdoms. Anyone who stil wanted to remain a hindu was tortured and killed. All the holy books were consigned to fire. Today if you say hinduism in these parts you would get strange looks, please don't be blind to what is happening.

I talked about values. Hinduism is a tolerant, inclusive, liberal and democratic faith. Abrahamic faiths are the total opposite. The main reason that India is a shining democracy while pakistan lurches from one despot to another is because of the values that hinduism teaches. To me spreading hinduism is like spreading democracy. There is nothing wrong with spreading democractic values, when you spread hinduism you are spreading democractic values. Values like tolerance, respect for other faiths etc. Which other faith has a female form of God? None!

It frustrates me that a lot of hindus are blind to the values that hinduism teaches. Reading the ramayana without learning the values of telling the truth, standing on one's word, committment to one woman, is pointless. Would you have a problem with spreading the above values? Is it wrong to teach people that one should always strive to tell the truth? That one should stand on one's word? Instead of doing so what if you told the story of Rama? You call it spreading the faith, I call it spreading the values.

[devisarada]

Namaste Ramaraksha,

I aplogize for my earlier terse reply. I will expand on my views in another post, but for now I will just say that proselytization, imho, goes against Hindu values. Spiritual hubris, the attitude that I Know The Truth and I Will Reveal It To You is not an attitude that is consistent with Hindusim as I know it, and for that matter, is you described it above.

Proselytization as practised by many Christians and Muslims involves badgering, coersion, and sometimes violence.

If we wish to make our Hindu values known in the rest of the world, then we must practice them to the utmost. We should identify ourselves as Hindus by wearing the clothes of a Hindu, saree, kurta, etc. when we go to mandir, and even when shopping; planting our prayer flags in the Front of the house instead of in distant corner in the backyard; doing more seva to our fellow human beings -- these are the things that will advance Hinduism. Not verbal harassment, not bullying, not ostracism, not coercion.

I met a Muslim in a Muslim store last year, where I wanted to purchase a gift for my son-in-law, who is Muslim. He told me about his religion, I said I was happy to be a Hindu, but I respected his beliefs. He gave me a copy of the Q'uran, and said the rest was up to me.

There is nothing wrong with explaining our dharma when asked, and even giving a copy of the Bhagavad Gita if the person seems genuinely interested in learning more. But that is not proselytizing, that is sharing our dharma. Do not many of our scriptures end with an injunction not to reveal them to those who are ignorant? There is good reason for that.

I don't have more time at the moment. I will come back to this subject in another post.

[ScottMalaysia]

The main reason that Christians and Muslims proselytize is that according to their holy books, anyone who is not a follower of their religion is going to burn forever in hell. Because no Christian or Muslim would want that to happen to anyone, they try to convert others out of love for them. They would compare it to a road that suddenly, without warning, leads off the edge of a cliff. If you saw someone driving along this road, and you knew that 10 miles down the road, they would drive off the edge of cliff and plunge to their death, then you would be honour-bound to warn them, wouldn't you? In the same way, Christians and Muslims try to convert others to their religion so they won't burn in hell forever.

While such a teaching is absent in Hinduism, which accepts all paths, I myself believe that Hindus should at least have some material explaining Hindu beliefs to people, not because everone must be Hindu to be saved, but because many people in the West are dissatisfied with the Christian concept of God and are perhaps seeking something else. Many New Age religions incorporate Hindu teachings such as karma and reincarnation. Some people may wish to follow the Hindu path, and some may realise that their beliefs are very similar to Hindu beliefs. So, I believe that Hindus should at least let people know about Hinduism, because the Hindu path should be presented as an option for people to accept, just like Christianity or any other religion.

[devisarada]

Namaskar Scott,

I agree that information should be available. Here in Toronto, Canada, where I live, there is much info available for those who choose to look. We have to faith based TV channels which offer Hindu programming weekly. There is, of course, the internet. Hindu festivals such as Diwali are highlighted in all the local media.

[Sagefrakrobatik]

What about ISCOn arent they a missonary bunch?

[RamaRaksha]

Devisarada: What you said about badgering is absolutly correct. But there is a right way and wrong way to do things, just because one does something wrong, should that something be blamed? For example not all democracies are equal and just, there are bad democracies but does that mean we should abondon democracy?

I agree that we should not badger anyone. Here in the US, I live in an Indian area, and from time to time we get christian proselytizers. Some stand by the side of the road passing pamphelts, while others sometimes set up a band and blast christian songs at us. I have no problem with the former but totally disagree with the latter. That abuse, pushing their religion down our throats. And this is happening in a first-world country! Imagine what they are doing in our tribal areas and villages where there is little law and order! Guess where the christian proselytizers are most active in India!

A hindu world would be a better world. Pakistan would be a democracy if it were hindu. Or take the fact that India is a polyglot of faiths, whereas the christian and muslim lands have only one faith. In the middle ages, those who disagreed with the church were tortured and put to death! If the Buddha were to be born in europe, he would have been put to death, his teaching consigned to the fire and lost for ever! And that is what is happening in Africa, a lof of the minority faiths are being lost with the advance of christianity.

We should proselytize but we should do it according to our rules and values. We should not proselytize to those who do not, so we should not try to convert Jews, Jains, Sikhs and the like. We should convert with love
and respect, not badger people or offer monetary incentives.

The face of hinduism is overwhelmingly south Asian, we need to change that. Islam has done the best job of spreading their faith, a muslim can be found all over the globe, he comes in all races. There are muslim chainese, europeans, africans, asians etc. We should strive to be the same way, then maybe the stories of throwing out european hindus form temples will fade away. The newer hindus are not bound by caste, hopefully they will introduce caste-less ideas to old beaten ideas of caste.

[RamaRaksha]

scottmalaysia: yes I have heard of that argument. It is a circular argument, this way one can never be wrong. It's like the old joke: Rule 1 - The boss is always right. Rule 2 - When the boss is wrong, see rule 1.

This kind of thinking can have horrible consequences for those who disagree. The mexicans who disagreed paid a terrible price, some were tortured and killed. It is a sad thing to think of when you realize that the early christians were themselves victims of this same kind of twisted logic, and then they turn around and do it to others. I am afraid what some of these people are doing to uneducated tribals and villagers. If I have a license to do whatever I please in the name of doing this for their own good, then God knows what I am prepared to do? Conversion by any means? I have heard of christian proselytizers standing on pictures of hindu Gods to show that their God is "superior" or using modern technology to show the "superiority" of the christian god. I wouldn't have much of a problem in a first-world country, these kind of tactics don't work very well, but I am afraid for a third-world country.

I agree with you that hindus should do more to educate others about their faith. I urge fellow hindus to talk more about hindu values, what is hinduism teaching us. Don't just read the ramayana to your kids, but talk about Rama's actions. What does his life, his actions teach us?

[Khadgar]

We shouldn't. This is not the way Eastern traditions work. We: Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Taoists, Confucians, etc. seek to unravel the nature of reality. That is our goal. Where as Abrahamic faiths like Christianity, Islam and Judaism seek to subvert the world through proselytization and submission to an unreasonable "father figure". We are nothing like them.

Instead, as mentioned earlier, we should reach out to our disenfranchized community. We can start by reaching out to our Dalit brethren and give them the support they need. We can start by educating the world that the caste system has NOTHING to do with Sanatani. And show people Varna is an interchangable network of division of labour--not through birth, but through work--and that each division is not only equal, but in fact One. Furthermore, we should teach people that anyone who is "once born" is just as equal to anyone who is "twice born"; that there is no difference between the spiritual reality and the illusory reality except in Enlightenment.

[Harjas Kaur]

deleted

[devisarada]

I agree with both of you. Well said!

[devotee]

Namaste,

I agree. Let's first know the Truth ourselves.

OM

[Sagefrakrobatik]

Remember though Judaism is the complete opposite. It strongly discourages people from converting.

[Sudarshan]

WHich form of Hinduism you want to proselytize? Hindus even lacks the basic unity and are bickering amongst themselves calling even other Hindu sects as tAmasic, heretic etc. With this state of affairs, I dont think Hinduism can really proselytize. Even if they do, different Hindus would finally start to fight amongst themselves. How will it work?

We need to get fully respectful and tolerant of all Hindu beliefs before we champion the cause of our religion. Any attempt before this is achieved will be just futile.

However, I think we need not take matters in our hands. Those who think that they can 'change' the world do not really trust in God. The one who created this world can take care of it much better than what you think you can accomplish. Whatever religion God has in mind will flourish at various times and places.

There are some people to whom God has inspired them to teach others and such people were born as AchAryas - they were born with a divine mission. This does not mean everyone is licensed to do it. Know the truth yourself first - then you can teach others if you still feel the need. Know yourself first, everything else is just dry talk...

[sm78]

However, I think we need not take matters in our hands. Those who think that they can 'change' the world do not really trust in God. The one who created this world can take care of it much better than what you think you can accomplish. Whatever religion God has in mind will flourish at various times and places.

To believe that we can change the world by our effort is generally the result of idealism, egoism and irrationalism - one or all of them together.

While conceding to this point, I believe the message of your post essentially turns the notion of duty on its head, again.

Let me pose you a question. You work for a living, don't you? Suppose some misfortune falls on yourself or your dear-one, you will work your a** out to save yourself and your loved ones-won't you? That fact that you believe in God and believe everything is his will not really stop you from visiting a doctor for your ill sister, or look for better job to pay the debt of your brother, would it? You do so, because you feel for them and feel that it is your duty to help. Belief in God, doesn't really kill your ovious love and humanitarian instincts towards your family, does it?

What's make you think feeling and doing the same for the dharma and the society at large is any different? For someone who believes in his vedic heritage, vedic society and enjoys its fruits, what can be the reason of putting the ovious labour of saving it on God?

That your labor will bear fruit is an independent question. Indeed, it might not - and that is for God to decide, not you or me. But to do something is our decision.

As the Lord says, its in the karma that we have right to, not the results. He didn't really imply, that this means stop doing the karma, when it seems a bit too hard or not much of personal benefit, and start philosophizing!!!

[sm78]

I want to confess that giving gyans to other on duty and such things on internet forums is not really a lofty example of duty itself. But then, it might not be too much of a vikarma as well(ref: karma, akarma and vikarma in Gita).

[Indra]

Hindus shouldnt Proselytize but they should forbid Proselytism of Hindus by Christians and Muslims.

[Sudarshan]

To believe that we can change the world by our effort is generally the result of idealism, egoism and irrationalism - one or all of them together.

While conceding to this point, I believe the message of your post essentially turns the notion of duty on its head, again.

Let me pose you a question. You work for a living, don't you? Suppose some misfortune falls on yourself or your dear-one, you will work your a** out to save yourself and your loved ones-won't you? That fact that you believe in God and believe everything is his will not really stop you from visiting a doctor for your ill sister, or look for better job to pay the debt of your brother, would it? You do so, because you feel for them and feel that it is your duty to help. Belief in God, doesn't really kill your ovious love and humanitarian instincts towards your family, does it?


There are really two ways of looking at this depending on your inclinations.

One way, the ideal way is to see God is everything so there is really nothing wrong anywhere and assuming otherwise is like thinking that God did something wrong somewhere.

Idealism is not for eveyone and sometimes impracticable in daily life. But this is a forum on religion where a certain degree of religeous idealism can be expected of serious sAdhakas. If it were a forum on socio-politics I will definitely answer differently.

If you have the REAL faith there is no need to visit doctors or bother for other reasons. God assumes as much power as you give him. If you think God cant save you from danger then dont expect any help. If your will is strong, miracles do happen. They have certainly happened. The question is do you have the REAL faith? Do you really believe that everything happens by Ishvara nischaya or through human agencies? How much do you believe in this?



What's make you think feeling and doing the same for the dharma and the society at large is any different? For someone who believes in his vedic heritage, vedic society and enjoys its fruits, what can be the reason of putting the ovious labour of saving it on God?


Because it is God who does everything behind the scenes whether you admit it or not. If you feel the call of duty then do it because this very inspiration is coming from God only. Every one is an instument in his hands and he uses us to serve his own purposes, sometimes directly and sometimes through inspiration.

In his drama of life, without two opposite forces the drama would come to a stand still. So there will always be good and evil in the world and without that the world would have ceased to exist long ago. Kaushitaki upanishad says that it is HE alone who inspires people to do good and evil, so what more can be more funny?




That your labor will bear fruit is an independent question. Indeed, it might not - and that is for God to decide, not you or me. But to do something is our decision.

As the Lord says, its in the karma that we have right to, not the results. He didn't really imply, that this means stop doing the karma, when it seems a bit too hard or not much of personal benefit, and start philosophizing!!!

Lord asks you to do your duty and not expect the fruits. But this does not really mean what he says. He says that whoever has done karma, his fruit is assured if he deserves it ( if not now then later) so dont worry about it. If no fruits are to be expected then there is no motivation to act which would go against the very teaching. However you can do the karma and not expect the results in which case you openly declare that you have done this karma for no reason. But there is a hidden motive here - the motive is self purification. By learning to do your duty without expecting its fruits you are cutting the tree of karma at its base, because you will not longer get the fruits of any karma and if the process is consistant the tree of karma will die. Many devotees of God sometimes have miserable lives because they have no good karma to help them because all the fruits have been sacrificed. But this is precisely what will quickly liberate them as well. The atheists ask the theists - why is it that god believers usually suffer much more than the atheists. The true karma yogi has sacrificed all the fruits of karma that he has nothing to protect himself with - except the saving grace that does not operate all the time. The atheist who usually does everything with a motive has a store house of puNya karma that makes his life happy. God will not usually interfere with these laws...

If you do a certain karma which yields certain fruits, they are guaranteed to you. Sometimes the current time may not be suitable for the fruits to start operating. So you will get it at a later time, sometimes in another birth. In astrological remedies, there is no such thing as cancelling karma. You can do a good karma to run along a bad karma and this will reduce the effects of the bad karma. To cancel Karmas the only way is to get into samAdhi where you have access to the seeds of karma in the form of subtle and causal thought patterns which can be weakened and destroyed with jnAna.

[TatTvamAsi]

The main reason that Christians and Muslims proselytize is that according to their holy books, anyone who is not a follower of their religion is going to burn forever in hell. Because no Christian or Muslim would want that to happen to anyone, they try to convert others out of love for them. They would compare it to a road that suddenly, without warning, leads off the edge of a cliff. If you saw someone driving along this road, and you knew that 10 miles down the road, they would drive off the edge of cliff and plunge to their death, then you would be honour-bound to warn them, wouldn't you? In the same way, Christians and Muslims try to convert others to their religion so they won't burn in hell forever.

Ah, I get it! So it is out of love for others that Christians & Muslims convert others through subterfuge, coercion, and blatant violence!? And, the fact that "God", according to them, is incapable of changing people's minds himself? So either God is a lazy bum who wants his minions to do the dirty work for him, or his minions have taken the audacious initiative on their own to bribe, browbeat, and coerce others into their fold. What absolute garbage!

The simple fact is that cults like christianity & islam are like shepherds trying to gather as many sheep as possible. It is a gang-related mentality that quantity equals quality and that is why they prey on the weak, poor, and gullible around the world. They are both, christianity & islam that is, virulent viruses that should be eradicated from the face of the earth!

As for Hinduism, nobody can "convert" to become a Hindu. It comes through lifetimes of penance & experience that they earn their position in Hinduism. A Hindu sUdra is infinitely higher than even the most aristocratic christian and/or muslim. That is fact!

[TatTvamAsi]

Hindus shouldnt Proselytize but they should forbid Proselytism of Hindus by Christians and Muslims.

Bravo! Give this man a beer, I mean some pAyasA! :D

[dhruva023]

you got that one right!!