The conversion issue

[Robert Zydenbos]

At 12:18 18.01.99 +0100, Artur Karp wrote:

>"Conversion" it seems may mean different things in different contexts.

Indeed. E.g., the Roman Catholic view is that conversion is "man's free turning to God" and "has always to be seen as a response, made possible by God's grace, to a call from God." (K. Rahner, "Conversion", in _Sacramentum mundi_ vol. 2). It is a matter between God and the individual, a fundamental decision for which the individual bears responsibility (in the same article, Rahner accepts the possibility of conversion to non-Christian religions on the same principle). But much of the Indian press turns it into a plot to destroy Indian culture, or something weird like that.

>In the case of Buddhism - to what extent was it necessary for the people
>who wished to embrace Buddhism as lay followers (upasakas/upasikas) to
>leave their Hinduism?
>
>In the case of Islam/Christianity - were the conversions of Indian tribals
>and untouchables conversions from Hinduism?

This is an important point. The repeated accusations of conversions being 'false' and 'forced' and 'fraudulent' which keep appearing in the Indian press have something utterly false and hypocritical about them, because in India conversion to Hinduism has been taking place throughout history.

At 12:14 16.01.99 +0100, Anand Nayak wrote:

>conversions from one religion to the other. Why does Hinduism does not seek to >preach its dharma to the others? It is an evidence that the Hindus - except for >the Hare-Krishnas- are all only from the Indian races;

Are you convinced of this? Should we not consider, e.g., the Hindus on Bali in Indonesia, who are physically practically indistinguishable from other Indonesians?

>the Buddhists on the other hand have gone out of India and  inculturateded >many races and cultures of the world. Apparently there is no élan missionnaire >in Hinduism.

But there is! Vaishnava missionary activity in NE India is a clear example of this: e.g., the Ahoms were converted to Hinduism. There is at least one folk drama from Manipur depicting how Vaishnava missionaries in that region set out to destroy local traditions and beliefs (a filmed version by Kanhaiya Lal was shown at the Central Institute of Indian Languages here in Mysore, early in 1985). The absorbtion of migrants from central Asia into Hinduism in Rajasthan is another such case. The Virasaivas are active proselytisers.

>And on what doctrinal grounds can a Hindu oppose to conversions to >Christianity?

In view of Hindu practice (see above) I am inclined to believe that there are none. But 'Hinduism' being a very varied collection of beliefs and practices, there may be some doctrinal argument somewhere, which evidently does not hold good for the whole of 'Hinduism'.

Partha Banerjee wrote:
>Upon this background, question is, if people decide to convert to other
>religions, what moral ground does anyone have to re-convert them?

Is the issue of 're-conversion' not bogus? Since a, for instance, Muslim or Christian or tribal (who has never been a follower of any of the 'great traditions') individual has no memory of ever having been a Hindu, there cannot be any question of 're-conversion'. The insistence on 're-conversion' is also an expression of strong intolerance towards individual freedom. If any non-Hindu individual whose ancestors at some time were (or were not) some sort of Hindus wishes to join a Hindu religious community, then that decision should be left to that individual. But for any group to insist upon 're-conversion' of others seems to fly in the face of basic human rights.

The entire anti-conversion issue looks like something anti-individual, anti-democratic, anti-human, generated by political interests and not justified by any binding doctrine or any generally established practice. I believe that hardly anybody in the predominantly Christian West has raised a hue and cry about thousands and millions of people becoming Buddhists, Baha'is, Hindus, etc. etc. -- and this is how it should be.

Another interesting sociological issue would be the attitude of non-proselytising vis-à-vis proselytising Hindu communities (Virasaivas, Arya Samaj, Ramakrishna Mission, ISKCON). Since these latter groups accept individual converts from virtually anywhere, also from ethnic groups with no history of 'Hinduism' in them, there cannot be any question of 're-conversion' there either.

Dr. Robert J. Zydenbos
Mysore (India)
e-mail zydenbos at bigfoot.com