Proselytization and Hinduism - Do Hindus try to convert others?

The connection between racism, Christianity, warefare on the basis of superiority, the exstinction of others, Filmmaking (the idea of having to tell a story), preaching, and our discussions on these forums is ZEAL, pride to be the chosen one over others, an inherently Christian attitude, an inherently human attitude. God does not write books, he does not have a need to convince others. (Does he? Well the occoasional OM that expands into Gauyatri that expands into Bhagavatam aside...) God does not have a need to show off. It was Pauls idea to start to convert people, so-called heathens who had a more developed belief-system, to the Christian simplistic believes. The idea of mission, Zeal in the matters of faith; see what it creates, see what it destroys. It created a destructive civilisation.

Paul was an angry man, a man with an inferiority complex; he grew up in Turkey, had rich parents; his going to Jerusalem is comparable to a New York Jew going there today. He would want to prove himself "Holier than Thou", to show off how much he really is part of the game. Zeal was his life-force. Preachers live from zeal.

Our civilisation is built on the idea of progress, that we have something better than our predecessors had, and progress is in human, secular terms, what the aspiration of attaining perfection is in individual, religious terms. Most motivations, political ones especially, are religiously inspired. Even atheists derive the strength of their convictions from their sense of anti-divinity, off denying the numenous.

On these forums we have these ongoing confrontations with different cultural conceptions. Our wars are fought with words, often with silence, with ignoring, with mouse-clicks, with smilies... After all we are cultivated beings. We do not kill Aboriginals; we are the aboriginals in the Gaudiya world!

One of my good friends is the local leader of the Self Realization Fellowship. During his youth, he frequently visited the Detroit ISKCON temple. He is also the president of the Interfaith Dialogue Association. He has said several times that Hindus do not try to convert others. They do not have an evangelical zeal. The exception to this is ISKCON.

Is that the only exception? Perhaps a rather visible one. I believe many Gaudiya Mathas fit the definition, too. I do not know much of other Hindu movements.

Kripaluji's people. Some Babajis have preaching gusto too.....

Don't forget that Nimai from Nabadwip. You know, the one who took his rabble to the house of the magistrate and caused a riot. He even got some converted apostates who had given up Islam, some man called Haridas and his nephew chota haridas, he had some of these apostates join his cult. Someone called Roop, he was a government minister, working for the Shah, and he became a hindu too. There is a book that tells how the brother of Roop, called sanatan, he paid some bribe to a jailkeeper and said he was going to Mecca, and then he went away to some place called braj where the idolaters have their temples, and he stayed in that place of the idolaters. And this Nimai's friend, that Nitai from Ekachakra, he used to go everywhere with his gang and he disturbed some gentlemen named Jaga and Madabh. That Narottama, he also disturbed many people. He even started converting brahmins into his slaves. Mad zealots. Disgraceful.

Aha yes and then there is Radharaman Caran Das Baba and nowadays Madangopal Gosvami and his sons.

That ramanuja, he also converted some aboriginals and made them into brahmins. He gave them some strange ideas, and they put a thead across their shoulder and started to call themselves brahmins. Unauthorized. Disgraceful.

Some followers of brahminism took their religion to the Indonesian archipeligo. They converted the natives into followers of brahminism, and established a caste system. In Bali these brahminism cult types intermarried with the natives and imported all sorts of strange ideas. They imagine that Shiva is the god of the mountains in Bali, and they do strange sacrifices to their Hindu gods. They believe the soul reincarnates etc. The brahmins even built temples in Vietnam, at around the same time they came into Indonesia. But the sensible chinese didn't accept any Hindoo ideas. Too sophisticated for that sort of tomfoolery.

The claim that Hinduism did not engage in proselytisation is disingenuous at the very least. Shankara is a great hero for renewing Hinduism and chasing Buddhism out of the subcontinent.

It is in fact a propaganda exercise serving the purpose of cultural protectionism. In India, it is an exercise in monopoly preservation. Banning competition where one feels at a disadvantage due to fear of well-funded and organized Christian and Islamic missions making great inroads into the Indian religious marketplace. Historically, this protectionism has its roots in the Brahminical reaction to Islam, but the bhakti movements were an actively proselytizing reaction to Brahmin domination of the rump Hindu market.

Whenever there are competing ideas and values, there are attempts to win the hearts and minds of others. Where there are monopolies, those who have them try to keep them. Why the visceral (second time I've used that word today!) reaction to new religious movements from the dominant churches in North America in the 70's and in Russia from the Orthodox Church, what to speak of Muslim countries?

Prabhupada's market strategy in the 60's: "You don't need to convert, just add this to your current religion. It's a science of God realization." I was just listening to a lady on the radio say that she had come up with a new brand of granola, but she sold it to hotels and B&B's, but was careful not to go head-to-head with Kelloggs and General Mills. So her line was that this was an upmarket delicious alternative for the health conscious. Go for the niche market, not the mass market.

Anyway, my market is going to eat me if I don't watch out. My niche is way too small...

There is a difference in connecting people to Harinam-Sankirtan as Sri Nitai-Gaur did, and presenting shastra as the Goswamis did and is done still today, to the zealous desire of converting others. Nitai did not approach Jagai and Madhai with the desire to convert them, but just with the desire that they take the Holy Name.

Certainly, there is always also a positive outcome to be observed from conversion and the ensuing cultivation practices. Culture is a consequence of cultivation. My point is: Our culture is satiated with the impetus of conversion, the newer is always the better, with cars, washing-powders, everything. Sometimes I hear, when I tell people of the traditional lines of Sri Gauranga versus the Neo-Gaudiya ones: "Oh the new ones are more progressive, they are more up-to-date?" But when people actually see the difference for themselves, they quickly understand: it's peaceful practice versus zealous self-assertion.

Jai Nitai.

Points well made. Thank you.

Namaste,
Subal

I am not sure Nitai's desire was correctly represented here. Isn't the taking up of the Holy Name a practice that requires cultivation with all its consequences? And then when this culture insues, or as far as Gaudyia culture, to call it "peaceful practice" seems a little oxymoronic, doesn't it? Nitai was the greatest Gauranga advocate, and if anything lacked in Gauranga's life, that would be peace.

"Peaceful practice" here means "Non-agressive" in terms of distribution, more concentration on seva. If Nitai had aggressively preached and converted there should now be thousands if not tenthousands of lines of bhaktas who had become his disciples and gave the pranali down. Love was the force of attraction, not conversion through canvassing.

Even though the book The Live of Love describing Sri Radharaman das Babaji's biography may be a little idealized, it describes in essence the way a Mahapurusha approaches fallen souls. He chants and sings and by his love attracts, and a change of heart occurs. That then those who are attracted change from within, and start to practice, that is another developement. He or she is unlikely to go and impose on others.

And then again, Love moves in a crooked way. I've heard that Nitai would sometimes invade people's home in madness, bagging them to take up Gauranga's name. I know of at least a half dozen who wouldn't mind if He did that to them today, samshing furniture and all. There is, after all, an esoteric reason people are very quick in crucifying Martha Stwart, you know.

What is this peace you are talking about if what you preach is that any kind of love is worth the trouble?

Look at what people are saying:
Joan Didion:
"to give formal dinners in a rain forest would be pointless did not the candlelight flickering on the liana call forth deeper, stronger disciplines, values instilled long before."

Nitai is known as Avadhuta. Avadhuta is one who does not conform to social standards of behavior.

I was under the impression that the "zuna zuna nityAnanda" verse from Caitanya-bhagavata was a prime example of Mahaprabhu asking Nityananda and Haridas to "convert" people to the process of chanting Harinam?

Jagat's parallel of religion and commerce makes things a little clearer, IMO.

Market share = number of adherents
Monopoly in violation of antitrust laws = religious intolerance
Market sector = a particular faith
Companies within a sector = sects within a faith
Marketing strategy = preaching style

The competition is a reality. It can be of a friendly nature, or it can be rough and tumble. Some people like the game of rugby, for example. Others prefer golf.