03-17-2005, 06:03 AM
This is an interesting change. I suppose if hindus cannot get everybody to stop proselytising they might as well accept the battle and defeat the enemy once and for all. The line should still be -> stop proselytising or face some hindu response.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Proselytising Hinduism?
Priyadarsi Dutta
A debate on whether Hinduism is (or was) a proselytising religion or not, is currently being pursued in these columns. Common knowledge is that it is not. To die a Hindu, one will have to be born so, but being born as Hindu is no guarantee that one will also die so. Babasaheb Ambedkar provides an interesting insight: "It is not that the Hindu religion was never a missionary religion, indeed could not but have been a missionary religion.
On the contrary, it was once a missionary religion, otherwise it would have been difficult to explain how it spread over an area so vast as the Indian subcontinent. But once a missionary religion, Hinduism perforce ceased to be a missionary religion after the time the Hindu society developed its system of castes. For caste is incompatible with conversion... According to the Hindus, for a person to belong to a caste, he must be born in it... So long as the Hindu society is fragmented in autonomous and autogenic castes, Hindu religion cannot be a missionary religion" (Ambedkar Writing and Speeches, Vol 8, p 30-31).
Caste can be an obstacle when Hindus are proselytising. But they are not. Hindus, unlike Christians or Muslims, have no scriptural obligation and hence no motivation to try converting others to Sanatan Dharma. Hindus believe that salvation is dependent on the individual's Karma and not his religion.
Yet we speak about conversion only after perceiving a demographic threat. Actually, the remarks of Ambedkar quoted above were in response to such a concern. The great revolutionary Lala Hardayal had once suggested that Afghanistan, which was once Hindu and then Buddhist, should be reconverted to Hinduism, failing which there would be no security for Hindus in India. It was not a spiritual or moral mission to redeem Muslims from Islam, but essentially to ensure security for Hindus. Therefore, it was not a reactive but proactive step.
Besides, is there no truth in the notion that much of Southeast Asia had become a home away from home for Hindus and Buddhists? It was a proactive rather than a reactive policy between the fourth and 10th century AD-Krimbantu Vishwa Aryam (we shall indoctrinate the world into Aryan faith). Similarly proactive was Emperor Asoka's Buddhist mission to different countries, he sent his son Mahendra and daughter Sanghamitra to Ceylon to spread Buddhism. Buddhism found converts in Central Asia, China, South Asia and Southeast Asia.
In modern times, missions such as ISKCON have been successful in attracting converts to Hinduism. Here I must acknowledge the power of unitary divinity over a polytheistic pantheon in attracting converts. Buddha or Krishna could attract more people than ten Hindu gods put together.
Therefore, the question that should be asked is whether caste poses certain practical problems? We approve of an Indian girl marrying a European or vice-versa because, inherently, we consider Europeans as a superior race. So if we have no problem when a French or German is Christian and out of the caste system, then why should it be a problem when he is? A European could be put at par or even above a Brahmin. Again, whether we admit it or not, we are indifferent towards Negroes. The only thing we can do about them is to pray that they accept Christianity.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Proselytising Hinduism?
Priyadarsi Dutta
A debate on whether Hinduism is (or was) a proselytising religion or not, is currently being pursued in these columns. Common knowledge is that it is not. To die a Hindu, one will have to be born so, but being born as Hindu is no guarantee that one will also die so. Babasaheb Ambedkar provides an interesting insight: "It is not that the Hindu religion was never a missionary religion, indeed could not but have been a missionary religion.
On the contrary, it was once a missionary religion, otherwise it would have been difficult to explain how it spread over an area so vast as the Indian subcontinent. But once a missionary religion, Hinduism perforce ceased to be a missionary religion after the time the Hindu society developed its system of castes. For caste is incompatible with conversion... According to the Hindus, for a person to belong to a caste, he must be born in it... So long as the Hindu society is fragmented in autonomous and autogenic castes, Hindu religion cannot be a missionary religion" (Ambedkar Writing and Speeches, Vol 8, p 30-31).
Caste can be an obstacle when Hindus are proselytising. But they are not. Hindus, unlike Christians or Muslims, have no scriptural obligation and hence no motivation to try converting others to Sanatan Dharma. Hindus believe that salvation is dependent on the individual's Karma and not his religion.
Yet we speak about conversion only after perceiving a demographic threat. Actually, the remarks of Ambedkar quoted above were in response to such a concern. The great revolutionary Lala Hardayal had once suggested that Afghanistan, which was once Hindu and then Buddhist, should be reconverted to Hinduism, failing which there would be no security for Hindus in India. It was not a spiritual or moral mission to redeem Muslims from Islam, but essentially to ensure security for Hindus. Therefore, it was not a reactive but proactive step.
Besides, is there no truth in the notion that much of Southeast Asia had become a home away from home for Hindus and Buddhists? It was a proactive rather than a reactive policy between the fourth and 10th century AD-Krimbantu Vishwa Aryam (we shall indoctrinate the world into Aryan faith). Similarly proactive was Emperor Asoka's Buddhist mission to different countries, he sent his son Mahendra and daughter Sanghamitra to Ceylon to spread Buddhism. Buddhism found converts in Central Asia, China, South Asia and Southeast Asia.
In modern times, missions such as ISKCON have been successful in attracting converts to Hinduism. Here I must acknowledge the power of unitary divinity over a polytheistic pantheon in attracting converts. Buddha or Krishna could attract more people than ten Hindu gods put together.
Therefore, the question that should be asked is whether caste poses certain practical problems? We approve of an Indian girl marrying a European or vice-versa because, inherently, we consider Europeans as a superior race. So if we have no problem when a French or German is Christian and out of the caste system, then why should it be a problem when he is? A European could be put at par or even above a Brahmin. Again, whether we admit it or not, we are indifferent towards Negroes. The only thing we can do about them is to pray that they accept Christianity.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->