![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
Is the custom of a Death anniversary observed in Hinduism, as it is in East Asia and in Vietnam? Badagnani ( talk) 06:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I would like to add an external link to Project Gutenberg's Hinduism Bookshelf. http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Hinduism_%28Bookshelf%29
Thanks, -- Sankarrukku 14:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Greetings, friends. I have come to Wikipedia after a long time. I see a much improved article on Hinduism and it pleases me to no ends. I congratulate the people who have brought it to this stage.
The above line, however, disturbs me. Hinduism is a mix of Aryan thought and the beliefs of other peoples of India. Today we are worshiping Shiva, Rama, Krishna, Durga, Ganesha, Murugan. These are not Aryan Gods. More people are into Bhakti than in Yajnas.
That is why we should not under-rate the contribution of Indian people other than Aryans to hinduism. I would, therefore, like the above sentence to be corrected. Hinduism is not solely out of Vedas. Aupmanyav 18:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Aupamanyav. Hinduism as we know it today has hardly any links to the Vedic religion. Hinduism is mostly comprised of non-vedic (Puranic) Gods such as Krishna, Rama, Shiva, Ganapathi, Durga, etc. And non-vedic practices such as idol worship, temples, bhajans, etc. Where did these other Gods and practises come from? They originated in India too and for all we know are just as old or older than Aryan beliefs. The Indus valley civilization had seals of Gods very similar ot Shiva and a form of mother Goddess. Given that, IV seals predate the Vedas and only a few remnants of the Vedic religion have made their way into Hinduism "Grew out of" may well be incorrect. Consider rephrasing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.116.83.251 ( talk) 17:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Why is everyone mistating the Veda and Upanishad by calling Brahman, God? The name is Brahman, not God. Calling him God speaks of some ulterior motive, perhaps seeking acceptance from the West?MPA 20:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
How come there isn't any information on the beatles and hinduism on this page? I am disappointed, because I know the beatles went to india and did something with hunduism. I know george harrison used a scimitar which is an Indian insturment, also there are several Magi on sergant peppers... does anyone have any more info on this?? Commodorepat ( talk) 07:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The text "Another theory, is that Hindus believe that god comes in different forms." was added by User:Shaanm, with the comment
I personally don't see that this adds anything that has not already been said. However, this guy's earnestness makes me think that for him it either:
I have looked and the only thing that I can think of is that this article does not explicitly state that in Advaita Vedanta God may appear in many forms. I have therefore added the sentence "Brahman may appear to people in various different forms or Ishvara, for example Vishnu, Krishna or Shiva". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Q Chris ( talk • contribs) 06:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Most Indian traditions worship God [spirit] in God's different aspects of divinity ['devataa'] as variously seen in God's creation around us. Different concepts of divinity are visualised in male and female human and nonhuman forms and worshipped as deities ['deva' or 'devi']. One God is worshipped in many ways. Thanks. Kanchanamala 09:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Q Chris, hinduism has many theories. One is that Brahman is everywhere and all things are only its forms, there is no need or existence of God. Even I am Brahman and so a grain of sand also is. No special appearance of Brahman is necessary. I am sure that you have looked into it, but I am not sure if you have understood it. Aupmanyav 18:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
The theory that you mention (Brahaman is everywhere all things are only its forms) is more popularly understood as (God is everywhere and all things are its form. Even you are God and so is a grain of sand). Any particular reason why you think the term 'Brahman' is more accurate than 'God' here. Desione ( talk) 07:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
God is an English word, Allah Arabic, and Khuda Farsi. Why should the use of the word God bother if it is used in an article on Hinduism when that article is written in English? The writer can always include the Indian word which the word God is intended to mean. Would we hesitate to use the words Allah or Khuda if the article on Hinduism were to be written in Arabic or Farsi? In my Rampur edition of the Qur'an in Hindi, Hindu words are freely used while referring to Allah. When it comes to a language as a means of communication, let us avoid bigotry. Thanks. Kanchanamala ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
"A link for any single term is excessively repeated in the same article, as in the example of overlinking that follows: "Excessive" is more than once for the same term, in a line or a paragraph, because in this case one or more duplicate links will almost certainly appear needlessly on the viewer's screen."
Thus i removed repeat links. Somebody added them again. Also links should be added at first occurence, not at second as was done for Mahavira and Buddha.-- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 12:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
The words Dharma, Moksha and Samsara are linked in every para in the beginning of the article.-- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 12:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I edited the Conversion section because it appeared to be too biased in favor of conversions being accepted within Hinduism. Any mainstream Hindu will tell you that this is hardly the case even though we do recognize and make space for the genuine desires of people who may wish to convert to Hinduism.
I have tried to give this section a more accurate description without putting in my own biases (and hope that other people won't put in their own biases) and if allowed, I plan to further refine the section to include authoritative references, make it more accurate with respect to historical, philosophical, and current practices, and clean out any biases (either mine or others). Hopefully the section will give an accurate picture of conversions within Hinduism.
Thank you.
Desione ( talk) 07:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I think Mahatma Gandhi's views would be considered authoritative on subject of religions conversions (at least in the Hindu perspective). Here is a useful link: http://www.stephen-knapp.com/mahatma_gandhi_on_conversion.htm
Reference on Anti-conversion laws: http://www.zeenews.com/znnew/articles.asp?aid=355765&sid=REG
Christians & Muslims in india opposing anti-conversion laws: http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/oct/19tn.htm
Shankaracharya of Dwarka strongly denounces conversion http://www.christianaggression.org/item_display.php?type=ARTICLES&id=1136344828
Desione ( talk) 08:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Though i have restored the referenced version, this topic should be discussed. Historically, when Shivaji converted muslims back to hindus, the brahmins criticized him. There was news a few months ago when a European who converted to Hinduism was not allowed in the Jagannath temple, Puri. So "Hindus accept conversion to Hinduism" can be a biased idea.-- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 17:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
All links that Desione provides speaks of conversion of Hindus to other religions, isn't the article discussing the other way round? -- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 17:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Proselyting is not a feature of Hinduism. However, if a Hindu converted to another religion chooses to return to Hinduism, that person should be warmly welcomed back. Thanks.
Kanchanamala (
talk)
09:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
In response to Kanchanamala's comment: The reason 'reconversion ceremonies' are acceptable is because conversion out of Hinduism is not recognized in the first place (I hope you see my point). Desione ( talk) 12:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Critique of current section on Conversion
Although I am a little disappointed that my edits were reverted, I guess its OK since people are willing to discuss the issue. My reasons for rewriting the section on conversion are given below. Please note that I am only commenting on what was included originally in the section on Conversion and not yet commenting on things that were NOT included in the section on conversion.
Since the Hindu scriptures are essentially silent on the issue of religious conversion, the question of whether Hindus should evangelize is open to interpretation.[103]
Logically, the reasoning given here is flawed. Just because scriptures are silent on the issue of religious conversion it does not mean that Hindu "evangelization" is open to interpretation. Also this text is referenced to a publication by 'Himalyan Academy'. I have read some of the nice books that come out of Himalayan Academy, but since when did 'Himalyan Academy' start getting recognized as gate keepers of Hindu thought (Historically that job as been given to Shankracharyas if not anyone else). 99.99999% of Hindus have absolutely no idea what 'Himalyan Academy' is. Did a Shankracharya say that 'evangelization' in Hinduism is open to interpretation? What are the views of 'Shankracharays' and other mainstream Hindu thinkers (Mahatma Gandhi, etc)?
It is an EXTREMELY well know fact that Hindu's DO NOT evangelize and NEVER have. The viewpoint stated above is clearly a HIGHLY BIASED viewpoint.
Those who see Hinduism mainly as a philosophy or a way of life generally believe that one can convert to Hinduism by incorporating Hindu beliefs into one's life and considering oneself a Hindu.[103]
Ok, quite reasonable. However this is not the only view among those who see Hinduism mainly as a philosophy or a way of life.
Others view Hinduism as an ethnicity more than as a religion and believe one can only become a Hindu by being born into a Hindu family.
I am not very clear on this 'ethnicity' reasoning, so will reserve my comments for now.
Such people tend to assume that only people with Indian ancestry can be Hindus.[104]
First of all the reference is not credible (in fact it is ridiculous). This conclusion is based on the writings of an almost unknown columnist (who clearly has a liberal viewpoint and that too a "fringe" liberal viewpoint) in response to political events. Reference 104 is confusing and writing is complicated to be clearly understood.
The Supreme Court of India has taken the former view, holding that the question of whether a person is a Hindu should be determined by the person's belief system, not by their ethnic or racial heritage.[105]
Ok, quite reasonable. However, keep in mind that this is an *oversimplified* *legal definition* of Hinduism. Given that Supreme Court of India is a Judicial organization within a Secular country, it has no jurisdiction over religious matters. Does Hinduism or any other religion have jurisdiction over Supreme Court?
There is no formal process for converting to Hinduism, although in many traditions a ritual called dīkshā ("initiation") marks the beginning of spiritual life.
Hinduism has a formal process for almost EVERYTHING, so isn't it surprising why there is no formal process for converting to Hinduism?
Most Hindu sects do not actively recruit converts
Hindus DO NOT seek (either actively or passively) converts from other religions. Again, this is an extremely well known FACT.
Nevertheless, Hindu "missionary" groups operate in various countries to provide spiritual guidance to persons of any religion. Examples include the Vedanta Society, Parisada Hindu Dharma, International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Arya Samaj and the Self-Realization Fellowship.
Are these societies part of Hindu mainstream? If not please specify which of these societies are 'reformist' and which of these societies are 'fringe groups'. Keep in mind that ISKON status as a Hindu group has not been clearly recognized. What ISKON is trying to do has often been understood as an attempt to start a new religion based on Hindu philosophy and rituals. The only recognition they have got so far is that 'ISKON does adhere to certain Hindu practices'. I don't mean to offend anyone here nor am I stating a biased viewpoint. What I am stating is something that any mainstream Hindu thinker will say. Any specific reasons why the views of mainstream Hindu thinkers should be superseded by those of thinkers from fringe groups?
Desione ( talk) 12:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Quote from book "The complete idiot's guide to Hinduism by Linda Johnsen, Page 6
[3]
"Generally speaking, Hindus are born, not made. For the most part Hindus are not interested in converting anyone else to their religion. "If all roads lead to Rome," one of my Hindu teachers told me, "all religions lead to God. Why, should I insult your beliefs by saying God can't use your religion to call you to Him." Not everyone is lucky enough to be born a Hindu. God will still find a way to illuminate your life."
Basically, a Hindu is any person born into a Hindu family who accepts the Veda(the Hindu Bible) as a source of their tradition and who participates in the Hindu sacraments which I will describe later (See Chapter 18, "Sacraments and Holy Days").
In the last half of the twentieth century, as Western fascination with India increased, some outsiders have asked to be initiated into the Hindu faith. Several of my friends, born Christians or Jews, have formally entered the fold of Hinduism. This ancient religion is gradually expanding its self-definition to accommodate foreigners. Today, Hinduism includes some well known Swamis and Gurus, such as Krishna Prem and Sivaya Subramuniyaswami, who were not born Hindu.
Desione (
talk)
21:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Answer by Pandit Gerhard Wohlberg in response to a question whether conversion to Hinduism are accepted [4]. Desione ( talk) 21:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Quote from book "Inspiring Anecdotes by J.M. Mehta"
[5]
The Gita And The Bible An Englishman came to Gandhiji and said: ‘I have read the Bhagavad Gita and like it.’ Gandhiji responded by saying: ‘I like it too.’ The man added that he liked the Gita better than the Bible. Gandhiji said: ‘I read the Bible and like it too.’ The Englishman then said: ‘Since I find the Gita better than the Bible, I would like to convert to Hinduism.’ Gandhiji thought a while and said: ‘I think you have not understood the Bible well. Since you are not a good Christian, how can you be a good Hindu? It is therefore better that you first become a good Christian. If you succeed in doing this, you will become a good human being. And if you do so, then you will not only be a good Christian, but a good Hindu, a good Muslim and a good Jew as well. The walls of narrow, separate religions within your heart will then break away.’ This shows Gandhiji’s understanding of true religion, unity of all religions and his broad-mindedness. Desione ( talk) 21:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Prof. Arvind Sharma
Baka wrote earlier in the discussion: "
Professor of Hinduism Arvind Sharma notes that Hindus have historically proselytized"
Spread of Hinduism in Bali
See Athropology Paper: Balinese Y-Chromosome Perspective on the Peopling of Indonesia: Genetic Contributions from Pre-Neolithic Hunter-Gatherers, Austronesian Farmers, and Indian Traders
[10]
If you read the abstract of this paper (specially the last couple of lines of the abstract), you will see that University of Arizona Prof. Steven Lansing and 9 other Anthropologists conclude the following on the basis of "DNA evidence": These results indicate that the Austronesian expansion had a profound effect on the composition of the Balinese paternal gene pool and that cultural transmission from India to Bali was accompanied by substantial levels of gene flow.
Desione ( talk) 05:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
History of Conversion Section
Desione (
talk)
21:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Just for information, here is how the section on conversion developed over time. Please observe how "evangelization" got into the text and how sentences either got added or removed. Thank you. In either case, the section never gave an accurate picture.
Mar 23rd, 2006:
Since the Hindu scriptures are essentially silent on the issue of religious conversion, the issue is open to interpretations. [4] That is to say, it rather depends upon the Hindu society whether they consider a non-Hindu, who has got a dik?ha into a Hindu sect, as a Hindu or not.
May 15th, 2006:
Since the Hindu scriptures are essentially silent on the issue of religious conversion, the issue is open to interpretations. [5]
July 12, 2006
Since the Hindu scriptures are essentially silent on the issue of religious conversion, the issue of whether Hindus evangelize is open to interpretations. [8] In practice, though, almost universally, Hindus do not evangelize. (See Conversion to Hinduism)
Sept 19, 2006
Since the Hindu scriptures are essentially silent on the issue of religious conversion, the issue of whether Hindus evangelize is open to interpretations. [12] For the most part, though, Hindus do not evangelize. (See Conversion to Hinduism). Regarding conversion, those who view Hinduism as being an ethnicity more than a religion (as some secular Jews view Judaism) tend not to believe that one can convert to Hinduism. However, those who see Hinduism primarily as a philosophy, a set of beliefs, or a way of life generally believe that one can convert to Hinduism by incorporating Hindu beliefs into one's life and by considering oneself a Hindu. Hindus who emphasize the philosophical side of the religion (as opposed to the ethnic side) sometimes refer to their religion as Vedanta and to themselves as Vedantists or Vedantins.[13] There is no formal conversion process, although in many denominations the ritual called "dikshaa" or "initiation" is seen as being the beginning of spiritual life, much like baptism in many Christian denominations. In any case, most Hindu denominations do not actively seek to recruit converts because they believe that the goals of spiritual life can be attained through any religion, so long as the religion is practiced sincerely.[14] There are a number of Hindu "missionary" groups, however, that operate missions in non-Hindu countries for purposes of providing guidance to the public that can be applied to spiritual life within any religion, whether or not one converts to Hinduism. Examples are the Vedanta Society (also known as the Ramakrishna Mission) and the Self-Realization Fellowship.
Nov 11, 2006
Since the Hindu scriptures are essentially silent on the issue of religious conversion, the issue of whether Hindus evangelize is open to interpretations.[70] Those who view Hinduism as an ethnicity more than as a religion tend to believe that to be a Hindu, one must be born a Hindu. However, those who see Hinduism primarily as a philosophy, a set of beliefs, or a way of life generally believe that one can convert to Hinduism by incorporating Hindu beliefs into one's life and by considering oneself a Hindu.[70] The Supreme Court of India has taken the latter view, holding that the question of whether a person is a Hindu should be determined by the person's belief system, not by their ethnic or racial heritage.[71]
There is no formal conversion process, although in many denominations the ritual called diksha or "initiation" is seen as being the beginning of spiritual life, much like baptism in Christianity. In any case, most Hindu denominations do not actively seek to recruit converts because they believe that the goals of spiritual life can be attained through any religion, so long as the religion is practiced sincerely.[72] There are a number of Hindu "missionary" groups that operate missions in non-Hindu countries for purposes of providing guidance to the public that can be applied to spiritual life within any religion, whether or not one converts to Hinduism. Examples are the Vedanta Society (also known as the Ramakrishna Mission) and the Self-Realization Fellowship.
Current
Since the Hindu scriptures are essentially silent on the issue of religious conversion, the question of whether Hindus should evangelize is open to interpretation.[103] Those who see Hinduism mainly as a philosophy or a way of life generally believe that one can convert to Hinduism by incorporating Hindu beliefs into one's life and considering oneself a Hindu.[103] Others view Hinduism as an ethnicity more than as a religion and believe one can only become a Hindu by being born into a Hindu family. Such people tend to assume that only people with Indian ancestry can be Hindus.[104] The Supreme Court of India has taken the former view, holding that the question of whether a person is a Hindu should be determined by the person's belief system, not by their ethnic or racial heritage.[105]
There is no formal process for converting to Hinduism, although in many traditions a ritual called diksha ("initiation") marks the beginning of spiritual life. Most Hindu sects do not actively recruit converts because they believe that the goals of spiritual life can be attained through any religion, as long as it is practiced sincerely.[106] Nevertheless, Hindu "missionary" groups operate in various countries to provide spiritual guidance to persons of any religion. Examples include the Vedanta Society, Parisada Hindu Dharma, International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Arya Samaj and the Self-Realization Fellowship.
As i said before, Why have the conversion section in Hinduism article when FA Islam or fa Sikhism doesn't discuss it? The matter in the Conversion section can be shifted to Religious conversion. IMO the topic is not so significant to be discussed in main Hinduism article. Thus initiating a vote to check what others feel to form WP:CON:
Please remb to sign. The vote period is 15 days ending on 04:18, 28 December 2007. -- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 04:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
RESULT: Keep wins with majority of 6 votes against 2 votes for Remove. The Conversion section be retained.-- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 07:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Place any comments (if you feel, optional) to justify vote here:
Based on the discussion & comments in vote here is a rewrite that corrects misconceptions and removes inaccurate and logically incorrect conclusions. I tend to think that this gives the entire accurate picture and covers interests of all segments of Hindus. I have also added a note on Bali (I don't think there is any Balinese Hindus here, but there interests/misconceptions are significant too.). Please note that Western misconceptions are covered first, then misconceptions regarding Balinese Hinduism, and lastly "mainstream" interests are covered. This should be satisfactory to all. Desione ( talk) 20:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok Folks, this is pretty much the final draft from my side (maybe some minor adjustments remaining). Please weigh in with your comments otherwise it will be easy to assume that the text is acceptable by all and can go into actual article. Thank you Desione ( talk) 09:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Final version. Desione ( talk) 03:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
The self-definition of the word Hindu is gradually expanding to include people, who were not born Hindu, but now follow Hindu beliefs and practices [12] [13] [14]. Some Hindu sects and affiliates such as Vedanta Society, Arya Samaj, International Society for Krishna Consciousness, and the Self-Realization Fellowship accept non Hindus who have a desire to follow Hinduism. However, orthodox Hindus continue to believe that one must be born a Hindu to be a Hindu and that conversion either in or out of Hinduism is invalid unless it happens as a result of marriage.
Reconversion among people who were formerly Hindus or whose ancestors were formerly Hindus has picked up pace with the growth of Hindu revivalist movements [15]. National organizations such as Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (India) and Parisada Hindu Dharma (Indonesia) actively facilitate such reconversions. Reconversions, in general, are well accepted within Hindu society since conversion out of Hinduism is not considered valid in the first place.
Historically, conversions into Hinduism have been through: marriages, intermixing and assimilation of migrating cultures, and inclusion of external gods and deities into Hindu pantheon. Such conversions, as in the case of current day Chitpavan and Gujjar communities, happened through a process that lasted over several generations as opposed to instantaneous acts of individual conversions. Also, DNA analysis shows that Hinduism spread in Bali almost 1000 years ago largely driven by marriages between Balinese people and Hindu traders [16] [17].
Concepts of conversion, evangelization, and proselyzation are absent from Hindu literature and in practice these have never played more than an insignificant role in Hinduism. This can generally be attributed to the fact that Hinduism considers all sincerely followed paths to god as equal. Hindu view of religious freedom is not based on the freedom to proselytize, but the right to retain one’s religion and not be subject to proselyzation [18]. Hindu leaders are advocating for changing the existing formulation of the freedom of religion clause in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights since it favors those religions who proselytize [19].
Preaching (i.e evangelization, and proselyzation) and explaining religious truth to others is promoted within Hindu scriptures, we cannot say that it is absent. For example, from the Bhagavata-Purana:
My dear Lord Nrisimhadeva, I see that there are many saintly persons indeed, but they are interested only in their own deliverance. Not caring for the big cities and towns, they go to the Himalayas or the forest to meditate with vows of silence [mauna-vrata]. They are not interested in delivering others. As for me, however, I do not wish to be liberated alone, leaving aside all these poor fools and rascals. ... I wish to bring them back to shelter at Your lotus feet. Bhag-P 7.9.44
and from the Bhagavad-Gita:
For one who explains this supreme secret to the devotees, pure devotional service is guaranteed, and at the end he will come back to Me. There is no servant in this world more dear to Me than he, nor will there ever be one more dear. Bhagavad-Gita, Chapter 18, verses 68-69
We could go on finding quotes, but the problem I see is that the whole idea of 'conversion' is a different thing all together than simple proselyzation. It's a belief that others religious systems are inherently wrong, but that one's own is inherently right, and that through bringing people "under your banner" you are bringing them onto the right path. This is obviously way off-track with virtually all traditions of Hinduism. The current version in the article, I see as being fairly balanced, but with scope for improvement. Personally I'm not convinced that the above paragraph is an improvement on what's there at the moment? Maybe someone else can make comment? Regards, Gouranga(UK) ( talk) 14:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
By Robert Pringle, or Hinduism in Modern Indonesia: A Minority Religion Between Local, National, and Global Forces by Martin Ramstedt are a good start) and only the Brahmin (Bagus/Pedanda) class has Indian blood. Also Desione, the paper you cited does not mention the word "Hinduism" anywhere in the text. Baka man 18:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
The older version for comparison:
The bold version:
A ritual called dīkshā ("initiation") may mark the beginning of Hindu life after conversion; while as, a ritual called shuddhi("purification") may mark the reentry into Hinduism after reconversion.
Hindu literature notes that the Rishis were responsible for the spread of Hinduism in ancient times[104]. Since the Hindu scriptures are essentially silent on the issue of religious conversion, the question of whether Hindus should evangelize is open to interpretation. Those who see Hinduism mainly as a philosophy or a way of life generally believe that one can convert to Hinduism by incorporating Hindu beliefs into one's life and considering oneself a Hindu[105]. However, other Hindus are opposed to the idea of conversion, from one religion to another per se[106].The Supreme Court of India has taken the former view, holding that the question of whether a person is a Hindu should be determined by the person's belief system, not by their ethnic or racial heritage.[107] Hindu leaders are advocating for changing the existing formulation of the freedom of religion clause in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights since it favors religions which proselytize.
Reconversion among people who were formerly Hindus or whose ancestors were formerly Hindus has picked up pace with the growth of Hindu revivalist movements.[108] National organizations such as Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (India) and Parisada Hindu Dharma (Indonesia) actively facilitate such reconversions. Reconversions, in general, are well accepted within Hindu society since conversion out of Hinduism is not considered valid in the first place. Conversion through marriage is well accepted within Hinduism and often expected in order to enable the non-Hindu partner to fully participate in their spiritual, religious, and cultural roles within the larger Hindu family and society[citation needed].
Evangelization by Hindus, and large scale conversion to Hinduism has occurred throughout the ages as well. In Southeast Asia the merchant, sailor, and priestly class accounted for much of the spread of the religion[109]. Many foreign groups including Gujjars, Ahoms, and Hunas converted to Hinduism after generations of Sanskritization[110]. In the 18th century, Manipur was evanglelized by Hindu priests. In India and Indonesia today many groups still convert to Hinduism on a large basis[111]. Baka man 03:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
By definition, a Hindu is an individual who accepts as authoritative the religious guidance of the Vedic scriptures, and who strives to live in accordance with Dharma, God's divine laws as revealed in the Vedic scriptures. [28]. Please note that neither caste, race, nor country of birth are mentioned in this definition. It's one I find particularly appropriate to remember in this discussion. Regards, Gouranga(UK) ( talk) 11:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:CITE. There can well be conflicting definitions of "who is a Hindu". The important thing is to
adherence to these two points should really be enough to allow fruitful collaboration between dissenting editors. about.com may be used as a first pointer to the shape of the debate, but since "Dr. Frank Morales" doesn't deign to name his sources, it isn't useful as a reference to be used in the live article. dab (𒁳) 12:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
practices the Hindu religion and preserves various other Indian cultural," Desione ( talk) 00:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
deities, celebrating the great Hindu and Buddhist myths, and measuring social behavior against the standards of a caste system." Desione ( talk) 00:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I thought it might be useful to write down the source of the problem in reaching consensus as I see it.
Whatever text we have should in my opinion reflect the fact that most Westerners will be accepted by Hindus in the West, as it would be wrong to give a negative opinion to the majority of readers. On the other hand since Hindus in India form the vast majority of all Hindus, it needs to show that the majority opinion is against conversion. -- Q Chris ( talk) 08:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
text, which demolishes any desione myth of "Hindu migration/assimilation" in southeast asia. There is no reason to let one person's views turn this page into a soapbox for unenlightened orthodoxy. No one cares how people feel about conversion, we only serve to report if people converted or convert, and after reading the refs myself/gourangaUK provided, that is obvious. Baka man 20:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
conversion
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
Is the custom of a Death anniversary observed in Hinduism, as it is in East Asia and in Vietnam? Badagnani ( talk) 06:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I would like to add an external link to Project Gutenberg's Hinduism Bookshelf. http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Hinduism_%28Bookshelf%29
Thanks, -- Sankarrukku 14:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Greetings, friends. I have come to Wikipedia after a long time. I see a much improved article on Hinduism and it pleases me to no ends. I congratulate the people who have brought it to this stage.
The above line, however, disturbs me. Hinduism is a mix of Aryan thought and the beliefs of other peoples of India. Today we are worshiping Shiva, Rama, Krishna, Durga, Ganesha, Murugan. These are not Aryan Gods. More people are into Bhakti than in Yajnas.
That is why we should not under-rate the contribution of Indian people other than Aryans to hinduism. I would, therefore, like the above sentence to be corrected. Hinduism is not solely out of Vedas. Aupmanyav 18:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Aupamanyav. Hinduism as we know it today has hardly any links to the Vedic religion. Hinduism is mostly comprised of non-vedic (Puranic) Gods such as Krishna, Rama, Shiva, Ganapathi, Durga, etc. And non-vedic practices such as idol worship, temples, bhajans, etc. Where did these other Gods and practises come from? They originated in India too and for all we know are just as old or older than Aryan beliefs. The Indus valley civilization had seals of Gods very similar ot Shiva and a form of mother Goddess. Given that, IV seals predate the Vedas and only a few remnants of the Vedic religion have made their way into Hinduism "Grew out of" may well be incorrect. Consider rephrasing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.116.83.251 ( talk) 17:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Why is everyone mistating the Veda and Upanishad by calling Brahman, God? The name is Brahman, not God. Calling him God speaks of some ulterior motive, perhaps seeking acceptance from the West?MPA 20:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
How come there isn't any information on the beatles and hinduism on this page? I am disappointed, because I know the beatles went to india and did something with hunduism. I know george harrison used a scimitar which is an Indian insturment, also there are several Magi on sergant peppers... does anyone have any more info on this?? Commodorepat ( talk) 07:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The text "Another theory, is that Hindus believe that god comes in different forms." was added by User:Shaanm, with the comment
I personally don't see that this adds anything that has not already been said. However, this guy's earnestness makes me think that for him it either:
I have looked and the only thing that I can think of is that this article does not explicitly state that in Advaita Vedanta God may appear in many forms. I have therefore added the sentence "Brahman may appear to people in various different forms or Ishvara, for example Vishnu, Krishna or Shiva". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Q Chris ( talk • contribs) 06:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Most Indian traditions worship God [spirit] in God's different aspects of divinity ['devataa'] as variously seen in God's creation around us. Different concepts of divinity are visualised in male and female human and nonhuman forms and worshipped as deities ['deva' or 'devi']. One God is worshipped in many ways. Thanks. Kanchanamala 09:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Q Chris, hinduism has many theories. One is that Brahman is everywhere and all things are only its forms, there is no need or existence of God. Even I am Brahman and so a grain of sand also is. No special appearance of Brahman is necessary. I am sure that you have looked into it, but I am not sure if you have understood it. Aupmanyav 18:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
The theory that you mention (Brahaman is everywhere all things are only its forms) is more popularly understood as (God is everywhere and all things are its form. Even you are God and so is a grain of sand). Any particular reason why you think the term 'Brahman' is more accurate than 'God' here. Desione ( talk) 07:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
God is an English word, Allah Arabic, and Khuda Farsi. Why should the use of the word God bother if it is used in an article on Hinduism when that article is written in English? The writer can always include the Indian word which the word God is intended to mean. Would we hesitate to use the words Allah or Khuda if the article on Hinduism were to be written in Arabic or Farsi? In my Rampur edition of the Qur'an in Hindi, Hindu words are freely used while referring to Allah. When it comes to a language as a means of communication, let us avoid bigotry. Thanks. Kanchanamala ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
"A link for any single term is excessively repeated in the same article, as in the example of overlinking that follows: "Excessive" is more than once for the same term, in a line or a paragraph, because in this case one or more duplicate links will almost certainly appear needlessly on the viewer's screen."
Thus i removed repeat links. Somebody added them again. Also links should be added at first occurence, not at second as was done for Mahavira and Buddha.-- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 12:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
The words Dharma, Moksha and Samsara are linked in every para in the beginning of the article.-- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 12:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I edited the Conversion section because it appeared to be too biased in favor of conversions being accepted within Hinduism. Any mainstream Hindu will tell you that this is hardly the case even though we do recognize and make space for the genuine desires of people who may wish to convert to Hinduism.
I have tried to give this section a more accurate description without putting in my own biases (and hope that other people won't put in their own biases) and if allowed, I plan to further refine the section to include authoritative references, make it more accurate with respect to historical, philosophical, and current practices, and clean out any biases (either mine or others). Hopefully the section will give an accurate picture of conversions within Hinduism.
Thank you.
Desione ( talk) 07:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I think Mahatma Gandhi's views would be considered authoritative on subject of religions conversions (at least in the Hindu perspective). Here is a useful link: http://www.stephen-knapp.com/mahatma_gandhi_on_conversion.htm
Reference on Anti-conversion laws: http://www.zeenews.com/znnew/articles.asp?aid=355765&sid=REG
Christians & Muslims in india opposing anti-conversion laws: http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/oct/19tn.htm
Shankaracharya of Dwarka strongly denounces conversion http://www.christianaggression.org/item_display.php?type=ARTICLES&id=1136344828
Desione ( talk) 08:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Though i have restored the referenced version, this topic should be discussed. Historically, when Shivaji converted muslims back to hindus, the brahmins criticized him. There was news a few months ago when a European who converted to Hinduism was not allowed in the Jagannath temple, Puri. So "Hindus accept conversion to Hinduism" can be a biased idea.-- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 17:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
All links that Desione provides speaks of conversion of Hindus to other religions, isn't the article discussing the other way round? -- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 17:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Proselyting is not a feature of Hinduism. However, if a Hindu converted to another religion chooses to return to Hinduism, that person should be warmly welcomed back. Thanks.
Kanchanamala (
talk)
09:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
In response to Kanchanamala's comment: The reason 'reconversion ceremonies' are acceptable is because conversion out of Hinduism is not recognized in the first place (I hope you see my point). Desione ( talk) 12:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Critique of current section on Conversion
Although I am a little disappointed that my edits were reverted, I guess its OK since people are willing to discuss the issue. My reasons for rewriting the section on conversion are given below. Please note that I am only commenting on what was included originally in the section on Conversion and not yet commenting on things that were NOT included in the section on conversion.
Since the Hindu scriptures are essentially silent on the issue of religious conversion, the question of whether Hindus should evangelize is open to interpretation.[103]
Logically, the reasoning given here is flawed. Just because scriptures are silent on the issue of religious conversion it does not mean that Hindu "evangelization" is open to interpretation. Also this text is referenced to a publication by 'Himalyan Academy'. I have read some of the nice books that come out of Himalayan Academy, but since when did 'Himalyan Academy' start getting recognized as gate keepers of Hindu thought (Historically that job as been given to Shankracharyas if not anyone else). 99.99999% of Hindus have absolutely no idea what 'Himalyan Academy' is. Did a Shankracharya say that 'evangelization' in Hinduism is open to interpretation? What are the views of 'Shankracharays' and other mainstream Hindu thinkers (Mahatma Gandhi, etc)?
It is an EXTREMELY well know fact that Hindu's DO NOT evangelize and NEVER have. The viewpoint stated above is clearly a HIGHLY BIASED viewpoint.
Those who see Hinduism mainly as a philosophy or a way of life generally believe that one can convert to Hinduism by incorporating Hindu beliefs into one's life and considering oneself a Hindu.[103]
Ok, quite reasonable. However this is not the only view among those who see Hinduism mainly as a philosophy or a way of life.
Others view Hinduism as an ethnicity more than as a religion and believe one can only become a Hindu by being born into a Hindu family.
I am not very clear on this 'ethnicity' reasoning, so will reserve my comments for now.
Such people tend to assume that only people with Indian ancestry can be Hindus.[104]
First of all the reference is not credible (in fact it is ridiculous). This conclusion is based on the writings of an almost unknown columnist (who clearly has a liberal viewpoint and that too a "fringe" liberal viewpoint) in response to political events. Reference 104 is confusing and writing is complicated to be clearly understood.
The Supreme Court of India has taken the former view, holding that the question of whether a person is a Hindu should be determined by the person's belief system, not by their ethnic or racial heritage.[105]
Ok, quite reasonable. However, keep in mind that this is an *oversimplified* *legal definition* of Hinduism. Given that Supreme Court of India is a Judicial organization within a Secular country, it has no jurisdiction over religious matters. Does Hinduism or any other religion have jurisdiction over Supreme Court?
There is no formal process for converting to Hinduism, although in many traditions a ritual called dīkshā ("initiation") marks the beginning of spiritual life.
Hinduism has a formal process for almost EVERYTHING, so isn't it surprising why there is no formal process for converting to Hinduism?
Most Hindu sects do not actively recruit converts
Hindus DO NOT seek (either actively or passively) converts from other religions. Again, this is an extremely well known FACT.
Nevertheless, Hindu "missionary" groups operate in various countries to provide spiritual guidance to persons of any religion. Examples include the Vedanta Society, Parisada Hindu Dharma, International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Arya Samaj and the Self-Realization Fellowship.
Are these societies part of Hindu mainstream? If not please specify which of these societies are 'reformist' and which of these societies are 'fringe groups'. Keep in mind that ISKON status as a Hindu group has not been clearly recognized. What ISKON is trying to do has often been understood as an attempt to start a new religion based on Hindu philosophy and rituals. The only recognition they have got so far is that 'ISKON does adhere to certain Hindu practices'. I don't mean to offend anyone here nor am I stating a biased viewpoint. What I am stating is something that any mainstream Hindu thinker will say. Any specific reasons why the views of mainstream Hindu thinkers should be superseded by those of thinkers from fringe groups?
Desione ( talk) 12:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Quote from book "The complete idiot's guide to Hinduism by Linda Johnsen, Page 6
[3]
"Generally speaking, Hindus are born, not made. For the most part Hindus are not interested in converting anyone else to their religion. "If all roads lead to Rome," one of my Hindu teachers told me, "all religions lead to God. Why, should I insult your beliefs by saying God can't use your religion to call you to Him." Not everyone is lucky enough to be born a Hindu. God will still find a way to illuminate your life."
Basically, a Hindu is any person born into a Hindu family who accepts the Veda(the Hindu Bible) as a source of their tradition and who participates in the Hindu sacraments which I will describe later (See Chapter 18, "Sacraments and Holy Days").
In the last half of the twentieth century, as Western fascination with India increased, some outsiders have asked to be initiated into the Hindu faith. Several of my friends, born Christians or Jews, have formally entered the fold of Hinduism. This ancient religion is gradually expanding its self-definition to accommodate foreigners. Today, Hinduism includes some well known Swamis and Gurus, such as Krishna Prem and Sivaya Subramuniyaswami, who were not born Hindu.
Desione (
talk)
21:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Answer by Pandit Gerhard Wohlberg in response to a question whether conversion to Hinduism are accepted [4]. Desione ( talk) 21:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Quote from book "Inspiring Anecdotes by J.M. Mehta"
[5]
The Gita And The Bible An Englishman came to Gandhiji and said: ‘I have read the Bhagavad Gita and like it.’ Gandhiji responded by saying: ‘I like it too.’ The man added that he liked the Gita better than the Bible. Gandhiji said: ‘I read the Bible and like it too.’ The Englishman then said: ‘Since I find the Gita better than the Bible, I would like to convert to Hinduism.’ Gandhiji thought a while and said: ‘I think you have not understood the Bible well. Since you are not a good Christian, how can you be a good Hindu? It is therefore better that you first become a good Christian. If you succeed in doing this, you will become a good human being. And if you do so, then you will not only be a good Christian, but a good Hindu, a good Muslim and a good Jew as well. The walls of narrow, separate religions within your heart will then break away.’ This shows Gandhiji’s understanding of true religion, unity of all religions and his broad-mindedness. Desione ( talk) 21:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Prof. Arvind Sharma
Baka wrote earlier in the discussion: "
Professor of Hinduism Arvind Sharma notes that Hindus have historically proselytized"
Spread of Hinduism in Bali
See Athropology Paper: Balinese Y-Chromosome Perspective on the Peopling of Indonesia: Genetic Contributions from Pre-Neolithic Hunter-Gatherers, Austronesian Farmers, and Indian Traders
[10]
If you read the abstract of this paper (specially the last couple of lines of the abstract), you will see that University of Arizona Prof. Steven Lansing and 9 other Anthropologists conclude the following on the basis of "DNA evidence": These results indicate that the Austronesian expansion had a profound effect on the composition of the Balinese paternal gene pool and that cultural transmission from India to Bali was accompanied by substantial levels of gene flow.
Desione ( talk) 05:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
History of Conversion Section
Desione (
talk)
21:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Just for information, here is how the section on conversion developed over time. Please observe how "evangelization" got into the text and how sentences either got added or removed. Thank you. In either case, the section never gave an accurate picture.
Mar 23rd, 2006:
Since the Hindu scriptures are essentially silent on the issue of religious conversion, the issue is open to interpretations. [4] That is to say, it rather depends upon the Hindu society whether they consider a non-Hindu, who has got a dik?ha into a Hindu sect, as a Hindu or not.
May 15th, 2006:
Since the Hindu scriptures are essentially silent on the issue of religious conversion, the issue is open to interpretations. [5]
July 12, 2006
Since the Hindu scriptures are essentially silent on the issue of religious conversion, the issue of whether Hindus evangelize is open to interpretations. [8] In practice, though, almost universally, Hindus do not evangelize. (See Conversion to Hinduism)
Sept 19, 2006
Since the Hindu scriptures are essentially silent on the issue of religious conversion, the issue of whether Hindus evangelize is open to interpretations. [12] For the most part, though, Hindus do not evangelize. (See Conversion to Hinduism). Regarding conversion, those who view Hinduism as being an ethnicity more than a religion (as some secular Jews view Judaism) tend not to believe that one can convert to Hinduism. However, those who see Hinduism primarily as a philosophy, a set of beliefs, or a way of life generally believe that one can convert to Hinduism by incorporating Hindu beliefs into one's life and by considering oneself a Hindu. Hindus who emphasize the philosophical side of the religion (as opposed to the ethnic side) sometimes refer to their religion as Vedanta and to themselves as Vedantists or Vedantins.[13] There is no formal conversion process, although in many denominations the ritual called "dikshaa" or "initiation" is seen as being the beginning of spiritual life, much like baptism in many Christian denominations. In any case, most Hindu denominations do not actively seek to recruit converts because they believe that the goals of spiritual life can be attained through any religion, so long as the religion is practiced sincerely.[14] There are a number of Hindu "missionary" groups, however, that operate missions in non-Hindu countries for purposes of providing guidance to the public that can be applied to spiritual life within any religion, whether or not one converts to Hinduism. Examples are the Vedanta Society (also known as the Ramakrishna Mission) and the Self-Realization Fellowship.
Nov 11, 2006
Since the Hindu scriptures are essentially silent on the issue of religious conversion, the issue of whether Hindus evangelize is open to interpretations.[70] Those who view Hinduism as an ethnicity more than as a religion tend to believe that to be a Hindu, one must be born a Hindu. However, those who see Hinduism primarily as a philosophy, a set of beliefs, or a way of life generally believe that one can convert to Hinduism by incorporating Hindu beliefs into one's life and by considering oneself a Hindu.[70] The Supreme Court of India has taken the latter view, holding that the question of whether a person is a Hindu should be determined by the person's belief system, not by their ethnic or racial heritage.[71]
There is no formal conversion process, although in many denominations the ritual called diksha or "initiation" is seen as being the beginning of spiritual life, much like baptism in Christianity. In any case, most Hindu denominations do not actively seek to recruit converts because they believe that the goals of spiritual life can be attained through any religion, so long as the religion is practiced sincerely.[72] There are a number of Hindu "missionary" groups that operate missions in non-Hindu countries for purposes of providing guidance to the public that can be applied to spiritual life within any religion, whether or not one converts to Hinduism. Examples are the Vedanta Society (also known as the Ramakrishna Mission) and the Self-Realization Fellowship.
Current
Since the Hindu scriptures are essentially silent on the issue of religious conversion, the question of whether Hindus should evangelize is open to interpretation.[103] Those who see Hinduism mainly as a philosophy or a way of life generally believe that one can convert to Hinduism by incorporating Hindu beliefs into one's life and considering oneself a Hindu.[103] Others view Hinduism as an ethnicity more than as a religion and believe one can only become a Hindu by being born into a Hindu family. Such people tend to assume that only people with Indian ancestry can be Hindus.[104] The Supreme Court of India has taken the former view, holding that the question of whether a person is a Hindu should be determined by the person's belief system, not by their ethnic or racial heritage.[105]
There is no formal process for converting to Hinduism, although in many traditions a ritual called diksha ("initiation") marks the beginning of spiritual life. Most Hindu sects do not actively recruit converts because they believe that the goals of spiritual life can be attained through any religion, as long as it is practiced sincerely.[106] Nevertheless, Hindu "missionary" groups operate in various countries to provide spiritual guidance to persons of any religion. Examples include the Vedanta Society, Parisada Hindu Dharma, International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Arya Samaj and the Self-Realization Fellowship.
As i said before, Why have the conversion section in Hinduism article when FA Islam or fa Sikhism doesn't discuss it? The matter in the Conversion section can be shifted to Religious conversion. IMO the topic is not so significant to be discussed in main Hinduism article. Thus initiating a vote to check what others feel to form WP:CON:
Please remb to sign. The vote period is 15 days ending on 04:18, 28 December 2007. -- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 04:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
RESULT: Keep wins with majority of 6 votes against 2 votes for Remove. The Conversion section be retained.-- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 07:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Place any comments (if you feel, optional) to justify vote here:
Based on the discussion & comments in vote here is a rewrite that corrects misconceptions and removes inaccurate and logically incorrect conclusions. I tend to think that this gives the entire accurate picture and covers interests of all segments of Hindus. I have also added a note on Bali (I don't think there is any Balinese Hindus here, but there interests/misconceptions are significant too.). Please note that Western misconceptions are covered first, then misconceptions regarding Balinese Hinduism, and lastly "mainstream" interests are covered. This should be satisfactory to all. Desione ( talk) 20:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok Folks, this is pretty much the final draft from my side (maybe some minor adjustments remaining). Please weigh in with your comments otherwise it will be easy to assume that the text is acceptable by all and can go into actual article. Thank you Desione ( talk) 09:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Final version. Desione ( talk) 03:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
The self-definition of the word Hindu is gradually expanding to include people, who were not born Hindu, but now follow Hindu beliefs and practices [12] [13] [14]. Some Hindu sects and affiliates such as Vedanta Society, Arya Samaj, International Society for Krishna Consciousness, and the Self-Realization Fellowship accept non Hindus who have a desire to follow Hinduism. However, orthodox Hindus continue to believe that one must be born a Hindu to be a Hindu and that conversion either in or out of Hinduism is invalid unless it happens as a result of marriage.
Reconversion among people who were formerly Hindus or whose ancestors were formerly Hindus has picked up pace with the growth of Hindu revivalist movements [15]. National organizations such as Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (India) and Parisada Hindu Dharma (Indonesia) actively facilitate such reconversions. Reconversions, in general, are well accepted within Hindu society since conversion out of Hinduism is not considered valid in the first place.
Historically, conversions into Hinduism have been through: marriages, intermixing and assimilation of migrating cultures, and inclusion of external gods and deities into Hindu pantheon. Such conversions, as in the case of current day Chitpavan and Gujjar communities, happened through a process that lasted over several generations as opposed to instantaneous acts of individual conversions. Also, DNA analysis shows that Hinduism spread in Bali almost 1000 years ago largely driven by marriages between Balinese people and Hindu traders [16] [17].
Concepts of conversion, evangelization, and proselyzation are absent from Hindu literature and in practice these have never played more than an insignificant role in Hinduism. This can generally be attributed to the fact that Hinduism considers all sincerely followed paths to god as equal. Hindu view of religious freedom is not based on the freedom to proselytize, but the right to retain one’s religion and not be subject to proselyzation [18]. Hindu leaders are advocating for changing the existing formulation of the freedom of religion clause in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights since it favors those religions who proselytize [19].
Preaching (i.e evangelization, and proselyzation) and explaining religious truth to others is promoted within Hindu scriptures, we cannot say that it is absent. For example, from the Bhagavata-Purana:
My dear Lord Nrisimhadeva, I see that there are many saintly persons indeed, but they are interested only in their own deliverance. Not caring for the big cities and towns, they go to the Himalayas or the forest to meditate with vows of silence [mauna-vrata]. They are not interested in delivering others. As for me, however, I do not wish to be liberated alone, leaving aside all these poor fools and rascals. ... I wish to bring them back to shelter at Your lotus feet. Bhag-P 7.9.44
and from the Bhagavad-Gita:
For one who explains this supreme secret to the devotees, pure devotional service is guaranteed, and at the end he will come back to Me. There is no servant in this world more dear to Me than he, nor will there ever be one more dear. Bhagavad-Gita, Chapter 18, verses 68-69
We could go on finding quotes, but the problem I see is that the whole idea of 'conversion' is a different thing all together than simple proselyzation. It's a belief that others religious systems are inherently wrong, but that one's own is inherently right, and that through bringing people "under your banner" you are bringing them onto the right path. This is obviously way off-track with virtually all traditions of Hinduism. The current version in the article, I see as being fairly balanced, but with scope for improvement. Personally I'm not convinced that the above paragraph is an improvement on what's there at the moment? Maybe someone else can make comment? Regards, Gouranga(UK) ( talk) 14:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
By Robert Pringle, or Hinduism in Modern Indonesia: A Minority Religion Between Local, National, and Global Forces by Martin Ramstedt are a good start) and only the Brahmin (Bagus/Pedanda) class has Indian blood. Also Desione, the paper you cited does not mention the word "Hinduism" anywhere in the text. Baka man 18:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
The older version for comparison:
The bold version:
A ritual called dīkshā ("initiation") may mark the beginning of Hindu life after conversion; while as, a ritual called shuddhi("purification") may mark the reentry into Hinduism after reconversion.
Hindu literature notes that the Rishis were responsible for the spread of Hinduism in ancient times[104]. Since the Hindu scriptures are essentially silent on the issue of religious conversion, the question of whether Hindus should evangelize is open to interpretation. Those who see Hinduism mainly as a philosophy or a way of life generally believe that one can convert to Hinduism by incorporating Hindu beliefs into one's life and considering oneself a Hindu[105]. However, other Hindus are opposed to the idea of conversion, from one religion to another per se[106].The Supreme Court of India has taken the former view, holding that the question of whether a person is a Hindu should be determined by the person's belief system, not by their ethnic or racial heritage.[107] Hindu leaders are advocating for changing the existing formulation of the freedom of religion clause in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights since it favors religions which proselytize.
Reconversion among people who were formerly Hindus or whose ancestors were formerly Hindus has picked up pace with the growth of Hindu revivalist movements.[108] National organizations such as Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (India) and Parisada Hindu Dharma (Indonesia) actively facilitate such reconversions. Reconversions, in general, are well accepted within Hindu society since conversion out of Hinduism is not considered valid in the first place. Conversion through marriage is well accepted within Hinduism and often expected in order to enable the non-Hindu partner to fully participate in their spiritual, religious, and cultural roles within the larger Hindu family and society[citation needed].
Evangelization by Hindus, and large scale conversion to Hinduism has occurred throughout the ages as well. In Southeast Asia the merchant, sailor, and priestly class accounted for much of the spread of the religion[109]. Many foreign groups including Gujjars, Ahoms, and Hunas converted to Hinduism after generations of Sanskritization[110]. In the 18th century, Manipur was evanglelized by Hindu priests. In India and Indonesia today many groups still convert to Hinduism on a large basis[111]. Baka man 03:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
By definition, a Hindu is an individual who accepts as authoritative the religious guidance of the Vedic scriptures, and who strives to live in accordance with Dharma, God's divine laws as revealed in the Vedic scriptures. [28]. Please note that neither caste, race, nor country of birth are mentioned in this definition. It's one I find particularly appropriate to remember in this discussion. Regards, Gouranga(UK) ( talk) 11:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:CITE. There can well be conflicting definitions of "who is a Hindu". The important thing is to
adherence to these two points should really be enough to allow fruitful collaboration between dissenting editors. about.com may be used as a first pointer to the shape of the debate, but since "Dr. Frank Morales" doesn't deign to name his sources, it isn't useful as a reference to be used in the live article. dab (𒁳) 12:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
practices the Hindu religion and preserves various other Indian cultural," Desione ( talk) 00:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
deities, celebrating the great Hindu and Buddhist myths, and measuring social behavior against the standards of a caste system." Desione ( talk) 00:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I thought it might be useful to write down the source of the problem in reaching consensus as I see it.
Whatever text we have should in my opinion reflect the fact that most Westerners will be accepted by Hindus in the West, as it would be wrong to give a negative opinion to the majority of readers. On the other hand since Hindus in India form the vast majority of all Hindus, it needs to show that the majority opinion is against conversion. -- Q Chris ( talk) 08:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
text, which demolishes any desione myth of "Hindu migration/assimilation" in southeast asia. There is no reason to let one person's views turn this page into a soapbox for unenlightened orthodoxy. No one cares how people feel about conversion, we only serve to report if people converted or convert, and after reading the refs myself/gourangaUK provided, that is obvious. Baka man 20:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
conversion
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).