Conversion
It took me several years to understand what Vivekananda implied when he said that a Hindu coverting to another religion becomes an enemy of Hinduism. The sage was clearly against conversion.
But, why not? Why shouldn't we have the freedom to embrace any religion?
This is not a matter of freedom, but that of psychological burden. When someone leaves his/her religion and embraces another, he/she feels compelled (subconsciously) to defend his/her decision. This is why, the new born Christians, or Hindus, or Muslims, or Confucian - whatever - become more fanatic, radical and extreme in their views than those born in the same religion.
In countries like Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, and Indonesia (as pointed out by VS Naipaul, though India was not on his list), we suffer from cultural shock and inner conflict. The imported religions in all these countries tend to force the imported culture as well, which in many cases is totally different from the local culture and indigenous wisdom.
Solution? In my opinion, there is only one - stop conversion. Stop all efforts of conversion. Drop the missionary zeal to save others' souls. Let go of the notion that my religion is the best, even if such words are not uttered and remain on our minds only.
Love n blessings
But, why not? Why shouldn't we have the freedom to embrace any religion?
This is not a matter of freedom, but that of psychological burden. When someone leaves his/her religion and embraces another, he/she feels compelled (subconsciously) to defend his/her decision. This is why, the new born Christians, or Hindus, or Muslims, or Confucian - whatever - become more fanatic, radical and extreme in their views than those born in the same religion.
In countries like Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, and Indonesia (as pointed out by VS Naipaul, though India was not on his list), we suffer from cultural shock and inner conflict. The imported religions in all these countries tend to force the imported culture as well, which in many cases is totally different from the local culture and indigenous wisdom.
Solution? In my opinion, there is only one - stop conversion. Stop all efforts of conversion. Drop the missionary zeal to save others' souls. Let go of the notion that my religion is the best, even if such words are not uttered and remain on our minds only.
Love n blessings
Tags: Afghanistan, Anand Krishna, Bangladesh, Christianity, Confucian., Conversion, Cultural Shock, Hinduism, India, Indonesia, More…
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Brigid Walsh on -
I can see and understand your point of view. But not all new converts are fanatical and there are many fanatics to be found among birthright holders of faith and indigenous people in indigenous religions. Australian Christians remember the murder of an Australian man and his sons in quite violent and horrible circumstances by people who - correct me if I am wrong - are held to be Hindu fanatics in their own country of India. This man - yes a missionary - and his wife and family had lived and worked humbly among Indian people to assist them. So while I think your point is well made and needs to be listened to by the missionary minded of all religions, I also think it has to be held in balance. My own view - as a Christian - is the injunction of Jesus to love one another as you would be loved. This should, in my view mean, that we stop seeing people as possible converts or religious scalps to our belts. We should see people as themselves in their own right, in their own circumstances. If such an attitude of love is such that people wish to join with others in this way of life, I don't think conversions should be banned. Such a way causes as much heartache as the other. A middle way of forbearance, respect and love on the part of all individuals surely is better than regulation and a string of "thou shalt nots".
Blessings and bliss
Brigid
-
Permalink Reply by Anand Krishna on -
Thanks Brigid, for your comments. Yes, i agree with you, not all converts, and not all birthright holders are the same....
"The injunction of Jesus to love one another as you would be loved" - this, indeed, is the essence of all religions. We find this line repeated over and again in the scriptures of all religions. If only we remember this, and live this - we have no problem.
Nice knowing you Brigid, if ever passing by Bali or Jakarta, do please visit us and be our guest. Love n blessings
Brigid Walsh said:I can see and understand your point of view. But not all new converts are fanatical and there are many fanatics to be found among birthright holders of faith and indigenous people in indigenous religions. Australian Christians remember the murder of an Australian man and his sons in quite violent and horrible circumstances by people who - correct me if I am wrong - are held to be Hindu fanatics in their own country of India. This man - yes a missionary - and his wife and family had lived and worked humbly among Indian people to assist them. So while I think your point is well made and needs to be listened to by the missionary minded of all religions, I also think it has to be held in balance. My own view - as a Christian - is the injunction of Jesus to love one another as you would be loved. This should, in my view mean, that we stop seeing people as possible converts or religious scalps to our belts. We should see people as themselves in their own right, in their own circumstances. If such an attitude of love is such that people wish to join with others in this way of life, I don't think conversions should be banned. Such a way causes as much heartache as the other. A middle way of forbearance, respect and love on the part of all individuals surely is better than regulation and a string of "thou shalt nots".
Blessings and bliss
Brigid
-
Permalink Reply by Rev.Kastrata Almohnd Maeve on
-
I agree with both of you, for the idea that conversion does cause so much problem across the world. When you send missionaries to anothers home to say hey join us because we think you religion is wrong. Then that simply yells out problems, or sending them to a place because you think they need religion. How ever the ability to set up a place to say "hey here we are, come give us a sample and tell us what you think." now that is a better idea. People don't need conversion shoved down their throats, because they can make up their own minds for themselves.
Conversion is bad no matter how you build it, and not because it creates fanatics, fanatics will always be there no matter what you do. But because it creates an altered view of something that is already there. How ever conversion on your accord is ok because it creates a willingness rather then a forcefullness under which you have changed.
"a closed fist holds tight to very little, but an open hand holds more with loyalty, and devotion."
-
Permalink Reply by Anand Krishna on
-
Tks Rev., I think so too the very idea of sending out/funding missionaries wt the purpose to convert sounds ugly. I hv nt yet met a person truly knwldgble of his own religion n practising it sncrely n wholeheartedly feel the need to cnvrt to anthr religion. Those who cnvrt hv vry lttle or sprflous knwlge of their own rlgion. Hvg said this, I mst repeat that this is my prsnl exprience. Lv n blsgs
-
Permalink Reply by Brigid Walsh on
-
How often we see this. I have seen people taking up Indian and Tibetan religions predominantly to learn meditation it seems. Yet the Christian tradition has a long history of this which is, more often than, unknown to those who take this path. I feel that their own tradition has been unexplored in depth. If this occurred and then people made a clear decision to take another path, I would feel more supportive of the decision to change/convert. The other thing I believe that is insufficiently discussed is the close conjunction of culture and religion. In my view, one informs the other.
I know Christianity and Christian practice and people have often been found wanting, but the history of Christianity - for good or ill - is the history of the western hemisphere. They are intrinsically entwined just as Hinduism and Buddhism are intrinsically part of the culture of India. To understand one fully, one needs to a have a broad understanding of the other. Culture and religion go together like a horse and carriage!
Living as I do in a secular society with an Aboriginal and Christian history and culture which has brought us to our present place, I am disappointed when I have to face the reality of so many people understanding neither. How different might be our lives, our workplaces and our environment if we understood these things well enough to support sound practice.
Anand Krishna said:Tks Rev., I think so too the very idea of sending out/funding missionaries wt the purpose to convert sounds ugly. I hv nt yet met a person truly knwldgble of his own religion n practising it sncrely n wholeheartedly feel the need to cnvrt to anthr religion. Those who cnvrt hv vry lttle or sprflous knwlge of their own rlgion. Hvg said this, I mst repeat that this is my prsnl exprience. Lv n blsgs
-
Permalink Reply by Anand Krishna on
-
My dear Brigid, I can clearly see now where lies the problem:
1. As u rightly put it Christianity hs bcme identified wt western culture, so much indeed that the situation is like that of the horse n the carriage
2. Nw when this form of Cristianity is introduced in the east, conflict btwn cultures is unavoidable
3. West sffrs frm no such cnflict snc St Paul founded the church upon Roman n Greek Cltrl grounds, the embryo of modern western culture
4. I do not see the point of westerners adopting hinduism or buddhism to learn meditation. This in my opinion is equally wrong, they can learn meditation yoga whtevr w/o leaving their religion and culture.
Please bear wt me. I am tryng to find solutions. Indonesia, where I live hs at least 5000 years of history n cultural heritage, both in conflict wt the imported cultures coming together with religions. My point is can we practce Christianity w/o adopting western culture, Islam w/o Arabian Culture, Hinduism w/o Indian culture, Buddhism w/o Chinese/Tibetan Cultures? mported cultrues coming together with religion.
-
Permalink Reply by Randall Apps on -
I like the idea of conversion.
Not from establish religious traditions, but the conversion of those who have lost the basic moral values taught by those of faith.
Most faith groups started with a period of going out and teaching others at the time of their founder.
After a period of time, those same religions were trying to stop families growing up in their faith from changing to other teachings. The emphasis was maintaining the faith rather than expanding it.
I see value in both those who are enthusiastic about their new found faith and those who have faith traditions dating back milleniums. I am reminded of a story ...
A man felt hungry, so went into a bakery. He bought a sandwich.
He ate it and felt still a little hungry, so went back and bought a donut.
Still not satisfied, he went back and bought a buscuit, small enough to fit inside his hand.
After eat that he was suprised.
"I am full! What a fool I was buying the sandwich and the donut. I could have gone straight to the buscuit and saved myself all that trouble"
The value of the new found faith comes on the foundation of others. But by trying to halt conversions, we may find we are guilty of the religious persicution our own faith suffered at it's outset, and still experiences today in other lands where our faith is a minority.
God is bigger than we expect.
Personally, I prefer to inspire Baptists to be better Baptists, Baha'is to be better Baha'is and Buddhists to be better Buddhists - for then society wins out overall.
-
Permalink Reply by Anand Krishna on
-
Randal, I love your analogy. You have also redefined the word conversion as it was perhaps meant in the Greek Bible (Metanoia). Return to oneself, or the Arabic "Taubah". If we all agree on this definition, then, indeed conversion bcms desirable. Kudos, my salutations to you.
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Ghouse on -
Anand,
Thanks for writing this note.
The institutions set up for conversions sound like business ventures, earning bonus points with God. In such operations usually religion fades and politics takes over and devalues other religions.
I am a strong supporter of freedom of choice. Every one should have a right to eat what he or she wants, drink what s/he wants and believe what s/he wants and there should be no restrictions on that. It is against human will. If I am to say one of the strongest beliefs of Islam is freedom of faith, it says no compulsion in the matters of faith.
Swami Vivekanand’s stance surprises me, it sounds similar to the Muslim clerics and Christian fundamentalist who believed in Apostasy and instituted punishment for it. Whereas, there is no punishment in Quraan or Islam, it is a political tool of all people in power to oppress dissent.
I tend to take different view on newly converted people in any faith, they are passionate about their new faith, but the percent of fanatics is about the same in all groups and all faiths.
Let freedom prevail, freedom triumphs at the end. A few us can start the movement of humility and start sharing the value that My faith is dear to me as yours is to you, but I will not claim my faith is superior to yours, the moment I do that, it is not religion any more – as the most important value in religion is humility. Education will bring about a sustaining change; regulations will make people dig in their heels.
-
Permalink Reply by Anand Krishna on
-
Tks fr your comments, Brother Mike. Basically we share the same views. Hwevr, inspite of our very pstve outlook, negativities remain, n like it or nt v hve to face them.
Vivekananda srprises me as much as some verses in the Holy Quran n Torah n Manu Dharma Shastra n svral othr scriptures.
Can v redefine those verses? Cn v drop them altgther snce they were clearly cntxtual n addressg sme burning issues of the time? For, these r also the verses often used by the converts to justify just abt anythng.
Let me cm bck to the stuation here in indonesia.
Fr the frst time in our modern hstory v hv mnsters n political parties spprtng the radicals openly. V hv a couple of mnstrs n political parties wrkng zealously on cnvrsion. No force, just that if u belong to a wrong religion u do not gt promoted.
The number of radicals r estmated at ard 17 pct. But an ovrwhelmg 60 pct wud nt like to hv aneighbor blonging to dffrnt rligion.
I am all fr freedom. Our marriage act doesnot. Two people frm dffrnt faiths cannot gt married unless one of them converts.
In the name of freedom n democracy (majority over minority), v justify atrocities.
The problem here, as indicated by Naipaul, is nt islam versus hindus or christians n buddhists and vice versa. It is religion n foreign clture versus local indgnous wisdom n traditions/cltrl hrtge. The more converts, the more harm done to this national hrtage.
Allah Haafiz...
-
Permalink Reply by kathryn julyan on -
I really appreciate your suggestion that "It is religion n foreign clture versus local indgnous wisdom n traditions/cltrl hrtge". I agree with this whole heartedly. I feel that to undermine or dismantle an indigenous religion (including traditions of Christianity and Islam in some countries in Africa) is to undermine or dismantle the culture. I really appreciate all the posts by everyone. This is such an important topic!
Anand Krishna said:Tks fr your comments, Brother Mike. Basically we share the same views. Hwevr, inspite of our very pstve outlook, negativities remain, n like it or nt v hve to face them.
Vivekananda srprises me as much as some verses in the Holy Quran n Torah n Manu Dharma Shastra n svral othr scriptures.
Can v redefine those verses? Cn v drop them altgther snce they were clearly cntxtual n addressg sme burning issues of the time? For, these r also the verses often used by the converts to justify just abt anythng.
Let me cm bck to the stuation here in indonesia.
Fr the frst time in our modern hstory v hv mnsters n political parties spprtng the radicals openly. V hv a couple of mnstrs n political parties wrkng zealously on cnvrsion. No force, just that if u belong to a wrong religion u do not gt promoted.
The number of radicals r estmated at ard 17 pct. But an ovrwhelmg 60 pct wud nt like to hv aneighbor blonging to dffrnt rligion.
I am all fr freedom. Our marriage act doesnot. Two people frm dffrnt faiths cannot gt married unless one of them converts.
In the name of freedom n democracy (majority over minority), v justify atrocities.
The problem here, as indicated by Naipaul, is nt islam versus hindus or christians n buddhists and vice versa. It is religion n foreign clture versus local indgnous wisdom n traditions/cltrl hrtge. The more converts, the more harm done to this national hrtage.
Allah Haafiz...
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Ghouse on
-
Anand,
As societies, we have to grow up, bring equal rights and opportunities to every human. I am glad you are in the forefront and doing the work. I salute you.
I am appalled at the number of radicals at 17%, and 60% wouldn't want to live with neighbor of different faith? No society should has such a lopsided composition of exclusivist, it defies the norms of the society. Has there been an independent research done on these numbers? This is alarming, let's find the truth about these numbers and figure out a plan.
Iam surprised at the marriage act as well. What happens if a Hindu boy falls in love with a Muslim or a Christian girl? Have there been several cases of extremities?
Thank you.
Mike Ghouse
Anand Krishna said:Tks fr your comments, Brother Mike. Basically we share the same views. Hwevr, inspite of our very pstve outlook, negativities remain, n like it or nt v hve to face them.
Vivekananda srprises me as much as some verses in the Holy Quran n Torah n Manu Dharma Shastra n svral othr scriptures.
Can v redefine those verses? Cn v drop them altgther snce they were clearly cntxtual n addressg sme burning issues of the time? For, these r also the verses often used by the converts to justify just abt anythng.
Let me cm bck to the stuation here in indonesia.
Fr the frst time in our modern hstory v hv mnsters n political parties spprtng the radicals openly. V hv a couple of mnstrs n political parties wrkng zealously on cnvrsion. No force, just that if u belong to a wrong religion u do not gt promoted.
The number of radicals r estmated at ard 17 pct. But an ovrwhelmg 60 pct wud nt like to hv aneighbor blonging to dffrnt rligion.
I am all fr freedom. Our marriage act doesnot. Two people frm dffrnt faiths cannot gt married unless one of them converts.
In the name of freedom n democracy (majority over minority), v justify atrocities.
The problem here, as indicated by Naipaul, is nt islam versus hindus or christians n buddhists and vice versa. It is religion n foreign clture versus local indgnous wisdom n traditions/cltrl hrtge. The more converts, the more harm done to this national hrtage.
Allah Haafiz...
© 2013 Created by The Parliament of Religions.
