The conversion issue

[Sumedh Mungee]

Very well put. Not only do I agree 100%, but I admire and envy the
degree of maturity that Mr. Misra has exhibited in his post.

The anti-Indians (and there are some Indians amongst them) on this
list are puzzling to me. I fail to understand why they would devote so
much of their (and other peoples) time discussing, sermonizing and
handing out harangues on a system and a culture that they obviously
have such little respect for. 

You won't find me discussing/dissing American marriages, for
instance. :-)


~sumedh

On Tue, 19 Jan 1999, Bijoy Misra wrote:

> I do observe RZ's various postings to have anti-Indian
> stance.  I do not wish to protect India or Indian,
> but to call anyone hypocrite is neither scholarly
> or truthful.  Indian press reports what it
> perceives as journalism.  They don't have to conform
> to a different standard imposed on them.
> 
> The reason I write this note is to remind us that
> it's not our goal (I think) to impose our views on people.
> That's is the job of the people's leaders and they
> know what to do.  People in a democracy carry a
> voice and power.
> 
> Scholars study history, culture, rituals, politics,
> but they aren't politicians.  Dogmas are left for
> the preachers, evangelists, orators, who have taken
> upon themselves the act of preaching.
> 
> To impose one's belief on another is called conversion.
> All adult human beings have some belief of their
> mortality, sins, goodness and character.  Religious
> preachers try to change it.  Sometimes it's changed
> by political machine.  
> 
> There is no known Hindu preacher across the borders of India
> until Swami Vivekananda started his ministry in NY in 1893.
> Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada followed with a different tradition
> in 1969.  
> 
> While various discourses and rituals are arranged in India, 
> there is no hindu initiation ceremony.  The ceremony of
> upanayana is a ritualistic discipline to prepare for
> youthhood and community than to make a hindu.  There
> may be new rituals where people are "reconverted" to
> visit temples etc.  I am not familiar with those.
> I was never initiated to be a hindu, but claim
> to be one and none has disputed yet.
> 
> Bijoy Misra
> 
> 
> On Tue, 19 Jan 1999, Robert Zydenbos wrote:
> 
> > 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 matt


er 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 turn


s 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 �lan 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 ar


e 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 whol


e 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 communi


ty, 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-�-vis proselytising Hindu communities (Virasaivas, Arya Samaj, Ramakrishna Mission, ISKCON). Since these latter groups accept individual converts from virtually anyw


here, 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
> > 
>