Talk:Hinduism/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Need help at Death anniversary

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)

Well, kinda yes. See Shraadh. It is a similar practice.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Link to Project Gutenberg - Hinduism Bookshelf

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)

Did you read the comparative study link by "J. Murray Mitchell and William Muir". It is in effect a coparative study by a Christian missionary. The Christian missionaries try their best to write thousands of biased articles and discussion on hinduism and put it all over internet. They ignore 1000s of issues in Christianity that defy intellect and reason both and will discuss issues in Hinduism which are still very close to best possible reason and philosophy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.7.175.2 (talk) 23:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

'Modern Hinduism grew out of the Vedas'

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)

First of all, I dont think you should equate Vedas as Aryans. And secondly, "grew out of" in no way implies "solely." --Blacksun 13:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense. I agree with Blacksun. Thanks.Kanchanamala 04:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

If you do not mention what else hinduism grew out from (apart from Vedas), then you are not stating the full story. Any reason for hiding the facts or feeling shy of stating it? Would you associate Vedas with regions other than North-West India including perhaps Western UP? Did the beliefs of these regions not contribute to hinduism? Aupmanyav 13:47, 11 November 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)

"God" Doesn't Exist in Hinduism

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)

While I agree to what you say MPA (I follow the 'not God' theory), we cannot generalise. Brahman/Brahmanaspati/Prajapati was visualised as supreme God as well as a universal substrate, both. Aupmanyav (talk) 13:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

God is an appropriate term.Bakaman 02:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

We can get around this dilemma by saying Brahman is impersonal God. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 11:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The Beatles and Hinduism

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)

Three Wiki-policy/guideline pagelinks should answer your question. WP:SS, WP:UNDUE and WP:TRIV. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 11:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not notable enough. A scimitar is a sword. He used a sitar. See Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. Paul B 11:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Another theory, is that Hindus believe that god comes in different forms.

The text "Another theory, is that Hindus believe that god comes in different forms." was added by User:Shaanm, with the comment

dont delete this! You guys only use a European view. This is an interpreation[sic] from an Eastern view. This is not vandalism.

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:

• it has some subtle meaning that was not conveyed in the rest of the text, or
• that the rest of the text was not clear enough for him to see that what he has written has already been said.

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 and Hinduism

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)

Overlinking

"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)

Conversion

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)

Parisada Hindu Dharma is a mainstream Hindu group in Indonesia. It is the mainstream Hindu group in Indonesia. Speaking of Indonesia, Brahma didn't magically make them Hindu, they were (gasp?) converted to Hinduism in the 1st millenium CE. Also desione, none of your articles discuss "conversion to Hinduism" which is what is being written about. Anyway "mainstream" movements in India accept converts and all the big Hindu political orgs like the RSS welcome it [1]. As for what you call fringe, its is because of ISKCON and them only, that millions of people (including myself) have had the fortune of reading the Bhagavada Gita, not because of any "mainstream Hindu".Bakaman 19:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I sound frustrated, but saying Hinduism is only for Indians really goes against the spirit of Hinduism itself. It downplays the work of great souls like Dang Hyang Nirartha, Dayananda Saraswati, and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.Bakaman 19:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

A recent editorial in the Times of India certainly encapsulates this dispute[2].Bakaman 19:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

My intension is only to point out that the original section on Conversion is biased to indicate that conversions are well accepted in Hinduism and that evangelization is well accepted. This is almost never the case. In my humble opinion, one would need to step out of the mental conditioning (or mindset) of Christianity and Islam to truly understand HinduismDesione (talk)

I think its safe to say that general consensus is that Balinese Hindu's are mainstream Hindus (either in Indonesia or in India or elsewhere). If I recall correctly, the first time I read about them was in my 5th grade school book. They are also recognized as mainstream Hindus by Shankracharyas (not that views of Shankracharyas are supreme, but nevertheless they are still significant). Desione (talk)

Balinese Hindus are no different than Hindus who slowly and over generations adopted Hindu practices and beliefs. Such "conversions" are accepted in Hinduism (as I mentioned in my rewrite of the section on Conversions which was reverted). If Balinese Hindus cannot be considered Hindus then there are a lot of Hindus in India also who would also not be considered Hindus. Some (credible) references on Balinese Hinduism: 1) http://www.saag.org/papers16/paper1587.html, 2) http://shastras.org/Shastras-Balinese-02.htm. Reference 1 is an informal interview of a common Balinese women's Hindu beliefs plus information on how Hinduism spread in Bali. Reference 2 is an interview of a Balinese Hindu priest.

More than likely (I don't have a reference for this) there was no religion in Bali before Hinduism and if there was a religion in Bali before Hinduism it was most likely nature worship just like in India. Such "conversion" (if one could even call this a 'conversion' as defined by Christian and Islamic practices), as in the case of many similar "conversions" occurred over generations and at a community level. Also given that Balinese Hindus have been Hindus for many many generations and have survived the influences of other religions for a millennium , I would think that their status as Hindus is undisputed. Desione (talk) 21:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Why have this section in Hinduism article when FA Islam doesn't discuss it? The matter in the Conversion section can be shifted to Religious conversion.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree. Not sure why such an insignificant thing in Hinduism should be on the main page anyway. Some may not share this opinion, but religious conversion, as it is commonly understood today, is an Islamic/Christian concept and has no basis in Hinduism. To mention it on the main page gives it more weight than it deserves. Desione (talk) 07:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Mainstream Hinduism is a problematic term. If Religion was fruit, then Hinduism would be a bowl of many different types. It is much harder to make generalisations about any one appraoch to new members within Hinduism in comparison to Christianity or Islam. The current conversion section reads as well balanced to me (to the best of my knowledge) and does cover a number of angles. Conversion is a generic topic relevant to all religious processes and so something should be included here. I do wish however, that there was a better phrase to use in the title other than "conversion" that was just as easily understandable? Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 17:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I can tell you for sure that ISKCON is not part of mainstream Hinduism (nor do I think that they want to be). Similarly, thinkers such as Shankracharyas, Mahatma Gandhi, etc are part of the mainstream. The goal in my opinion is not to balance a significant fact (Hindus to not evangelize) with an insignificant fact (Hindus do evangelize), but to present the significant fact it in an accurate manner. Desione (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Conversion is insignificant in Hinduism. Anyone will tell you that, so I am surprised that it made it in the main article in the first place. Desione (talk) 19:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Historical Perspective: Hinduism and Buddhism both originated/sponsored in India well before Christianity and Islam came into being. Hinduism did not spread, but Buddhism did. Why? Because Hindus did not believe in evangelizing while as Buddhist did. The point being: "We do not evangelize and never have". Desione (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I never actually stated that ISKCON were mainstream Hinduism, my point was that Mainstream Hinduism is a problematic term. For example if you visited Sout-East England then you would see that ISKCON and especially Bhaktivedanta Manor is very much part of local mainstream Hinduism in that area. Just like Swami Narayan are likely to be viewed as mainstream Hinduism around Gujarat, and Sri Vaishnavism would be mainstream in parts of South India. Virtually in every area the viewpoint would be different. What you or I may feel is mainstream Hinduism is more likely to be what we personally follow. The quotation "We do not evangelize and never have" does not apply to Hinduism as a whole, it does go on and thus should be commented upon. As the current article states: the question of whether Hindus should evangelize is open to interpretation pretty much sums it up. Best wishes, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 12:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

GourangaUK, Is a discussion of how cohesive or incohesive Hinduism is really necessary in order for us to come to conclusion in our "conversion" discussion? Based on the evidence that I have presented so far, I think I am fairly certain that anyone who is willing to cast aside their biases, will conclude that concepts of "Evangelization", "Proselytization", and "Conversion" are significantly absent and significantly non applicable to Hinduism. Desione (talk) 07:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Once again you sidestep my comment and present your opinion as fact. There is no discussion going on. I was making the point in regards to mainstream Hinduism as this was the basis of your earlier argument - i.e I was attempting to discuss things logically. See what happens on the vote, I have no desire to waste time further. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 11:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

GourangaUK, I am not sure what you are looking for, but an approximate definition of mainstream Hindu would be: A person who considers himself/herself a Hindu, does not mind worshiping several gods/goddesses, considers other religions as valid paths to god, and does not evangelize and proselytize. Desione (talk) 09:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

From what I have seen, I would agree that "Evangelization" and "Proselytization" are not generally parts of Hinduism. On the other hand, certainly in the West, many groups accept "Conversion" of people who come on their own initiative -- Q Chris (talk) 08:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph doesn't say that they are - largely it actually says thet they are not, but that it does exist in some quarters. As a general topic applicable to all religions I see it as a useful set of information for this article. Best wishes, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 11:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I do understand Desione's argument to an extent in that conversion (in overall terms, particular groups may differ) is not as common or obvious as in Islam or Christianity, but I don't see how that means we should not have a section on it. It is important to realise evangelisation occurs much less in Hinduism and the current section explains that IMO. Perhaps we can shorten slightly and condense it into one paragraph. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 13:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is a useful section. Among people coming to this article for academic interest there will be those who feel that Hinduism is part of their spiritual path. Since there is a "fairly common misconception" that no Hindu groups allow people who are not Hindu, I think it is useful to have the different attitudes described. -- Q Chris (talk) 14:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Q Chris, In general I find your views quite reasonable and consensus building and thank you for turning on the light by being the first one (on this discussion) to state that "Evangelization" and "Proselytization" are not generally parts of Hinduism. Based on the recent comments, I tend to read the concensus as: "Concept and practice of conversion, evangelization, and proselytization are, for the most part, absent from Hinduism since Hindus belive that all paths to god are equally when when followed sincerely. However, there are some Hindu groups that do evangelization and/or proselytization and/or accept converts." I don't think it is a good idea to point to specific organizations that seek converts. Also, please see history of the conversion section at the end of this disucssion. Thank you. Desione (talk) 21:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

FA Islam and former FA Christianity were it is more common or obvious does not discuss it. Nor does FA Sikhism. Two FA articles and third former one, which would have been screened by many editors, do not discuss it. So why discuss it in HInduism. Is Conversion such a important topic to Hindu faith that it deserves a place in the Hinduism article? --Redtigerxyz (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - It is incorrect to state that Hinduism was not spread widely outside of India; it was. Hinduism spread far and wide through both mainland and island Southeast Asia, and its traces can still be found in Thailand, Cambodia, Bali, etc. in religious practices, terms, epics (the Ramayana), etc. Badagnani (talk) 20:13, 9 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)

Gandhi is not an expert on Hinduism. I know you are not a dummy Desione, so please dont quote "Hinduism for idiots". Professor of Hinduism Arvind Sharma notes that Hindus have historically proselytized. Also Desione, Bali was converted, and parts of Thailand are still Hindu, as with many in the Seven Sister States, including Pamheiba.Bakaman 00:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

In your opinion, Is Shankracharya of Puri an expert on Hinduism? Desione (talk) 05:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Any opinion on Pandit Gerhard Wohlberg's answer? (See [6]) Desione (talk) 05:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Gandhi's views are mainstream and significant. Let me just leave it at that, but I can bring up many references arguing that he is an incarnation of god if that helps. Desione (talk) 05:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Angkor Wat, in Cambodia, was also Hindu. Badagnani (talk) 00:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed Desione (talk) 05:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

And Champa's state religion was Hinduism. Champa was in Vietnam. If Hindus did not spread their religion far and wide at that time, how did Hindus get to Vietnam? Badagnani (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

In general I find history of Hinduism in middle east and Central Asia, where there is even less archaeological evidence, more interesting.

I may be mistaken, but it appears that your assumption is that in order for a religion to spread there must be proselytizing and evangelization going on, i.e religion can spread if and only if there is proselytizing and evangelization going on. Is this correct? And if this is your assumption, then I won't be surprised since it is normal to expect that your ideas and mindset are heavily influenced by some of the other great religions such as Christianity or Islam. Desione (talk) 05:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

However, the simple fact is that there is no indication of any such concepts (proselytizing and evangelization) in Hinduism. If this was not the case then the shape and form of Hinduism as we know it today and as we have known it in past would have been very different than what it is today (case in point Christianity and Islam). Desione (talk) 05:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

As for the spread of Hinduism into South East Asia, it spread the same way that number system (0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) in specific, and a lot of early science and mathematics in general spread: through traders. Surely ancient traders, and that too Hindu traders, didn't forget to pray or perform their rituals during their months long trips to south east Asia.

The only benefit of doubt I can give you is that casual Philosophical interchanges and even "tell me what that is" kind of sessions took place (as they must have taken during spread of number system as well), but I don't think I can go beyond that into proselytizing and evangelization. Desione (talk) 05:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I am sure you have heard of the term "Westernization" or more recently "Americanization." (which I can argue is the true religion of "America" and even the Pope might agree with me). Do American's go around proselytizing and evangelizing "Americanization." I think I am diverging now, but even in the most so-called "Anti-American" populations, one can find people listening to Rock-and-Roll or, even worse, watching Britney spears old videos doing her jiggle. And I am sure you know that Baywatch was the most watched TV series in the world. 1000 years from now, if you find Baywatch CDs and Hard-Rock Cafe Temples in far away lands, will you conclude that Americans went around proselytizing and evangelizing "Americanization." Desione (talk) 05:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

There was no such term "Hinduism" before we had the pleasure of coming in full-contact with Middle East, so I am pretty sure that these "Hindu" traders didn't go out in their ships thinking: Oh yes, lets go have fun proselytizing and evangelizing in South East Asia spreading "Hinduism." Desione (talk) 05:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

My apologies to anyone I may be offending Desione (talk) 05:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hinduism has names in Hindi/Skt Sanatana Dharma, Vedic Dharma, Satya Dharma, etc. Even your own page notes tat Bali was evangelized by Danghyang Markandeya. Hinduism did not proselytize precisely because of Islam. It was weakened into a state of submission (Islam in Arabic). We can see that after being free of Muslim yoke they began shuddhi and other things again. Even people now considered Hindus, converted at some point. Pamheiba and Charairongba led the Manipuri's to Hinduism, Atri converted South India, and Mihirakula led many Huns (ancestors of many Punjabis, Gujaratis, Rajput) to Hinduism. Hinduism is both accepting of conversion and evangelistic.Bakaman 01:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Baka, this paper does not have the world evanglization in it anywhere, so where in this paper did you see the word "evangelization" appear? Desione (talk) 04:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Baka here. The only thing one should note is that conversion is not as strongly emphasised in Hinduism as it is in Christianity and Islam. Hindus never saw converting others as a duty or requirement, unlike Chr. and Isl. missionaries of a previous time. This however, doesn't prevent people from converting to Hinduism. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 01:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

DaGizza, Just for the record, I am not contesting your right to follow any or all aspects of hinduism either in its original form or a form defined by you. What I am saying is: there is no such thing as conversion, evangelization, or Proselytizing in Hinduism. I hope you can see the difference. Thank you Desione (talk) 04:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Prof. Arvind Sharma
Baka wrote earlier in the discussion: "Professor of Hinduism Arvind Sharma notes that Hindus have historically proselytized"

In Hinduism as a Non-Proselytizing Religion: History or Nature? [7], Prof. Sharma writes: Should not the non-proselytizing nature of Hinduism be attributed to this historical circumstance that it was hardly in a position to proselytize, rather than to its nature? Desione (talk) 04:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Basically means that he is taking for granted that there is proselytization in not in nature of Hinduism. Desione (talk) 04:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

In Do Hinduism’s Non-Proselytizing and Non-Egalitarian Character Go Hand in Hand? [8], Prof. Sharma writes: "It is the purpose of this note to demonstrate that it would be misleading to regard the two features as corollaries in at least two ways. First of all, while it is possible for these two dimensions to be connected this way, it need not be necessarily so." Desione (talk) 04:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Basically means that he regards Hinduism as non-proselytizing and non-egalitarian as features of hinduism. Desione (talk) 04:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Now I am pretty sure that you would not agree with the conclusions that I draw from the articles above. So please see the article The Right to Religious Conversion: Between Apostasy and Proselytization [9]). This article puts things in a more direct perspective. Desione (talk) 04:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Direct quote #1 (pages 3 & 4): "Explicating the conflict over the right to religious conversion, the Montreal based philosopher of religion, Arvind Sharma, states that “most modern Hindus are opposed to the idea of conversion, from one religion to another per se.” He further argues that “the 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 proselytization.” A similar viewpoint is expressed by Swami Agnivesh, a renowned interreligious activist and the president of Arya Samaj, an international Hindu revivalist movement. Agnivesh confirms Sharma’s position, arguing, “It is the prevalent view of most Hindu thinkers, including Mahatma Gandhi, who was known for his religious tolerance, that a true pluralist person seeking dialogue would demand that Christianity and Islam liquidate their missionary apparatus.”" Desione (talk) 04:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Direct quote #2 (page 4):: Arvind Sharma is one of the leading advocates for changing the existing formulation of the freedom of religion clause in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for he believes that the existing formulation favors those religions who proselytize. Desione (talk) 04:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Direct quote #4 (page 5) (Fringe/Minority viewpoint): "Van der Veer’s suggestion that Indians have not been primordially Hindu, and that they converted to what came to be known as Hinduism at some point in history is a challenging proposition that needs to be further explored. Moreover, there are some Hindu strands such as the Hare Krishna who do engage in mission activities. Notwithstanding, the outreach activities of these Hindu groups, it needs to be unequivocally acknowledged however that Hindu mission’s pales into insignificance in the face of the global proselytization efforts sponsored by Christians."

Direct quote #5 (page 5) "Unlike mainstream modern Hinduism as depicted by Sharma and Swami Agnivesh, Islam also encourages its adherents to share the teachings and faith with others" Desione (talk) 04:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The rest of the article deals with Christianity and Islam. Desione (talk) 04:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

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.

In other words, Hinduism spread in Bali as a result of marriages taking place between Balinese people and Indian traders.

This is DNA evidence. I don't know what could be more stronger than this.

Desione (talk) 05:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

And what about Cambodians, Afghans, Tamils, Nepalese and many other nations converting to Hinduism? Kkrystian (talk) 11:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason why you would expect that these regions, which are more or less as close as Bali (or even closer), did not participate in either direct or indirect gene flow? Desione (talk) 08:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see: [Bharat] (India's real name), [Undivided India] (better known as 'Akhand Bharat' to Hindus) Desione (talk) 08:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hinduism is an evolved religion, so it is expected that a number of these places (as opposed to a single point of origin) played a direct role in development and evolution of Hinduism (See [Image:EpicIndia.jpg] (places mentioned in Indian Epics Mahabharat/Ramayan) ) Desione (talk) 08:29, 12 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.

Conversion vote

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:

• Write Keep if you feel the section should remain in the article
• Write Remove if you feel that the section should be removed from article.

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)

---

Votes

• Remove --Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Remove --Desione (talk) 07:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep -- Gouranga(UK) (talk) 11:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep -- Q Chris (talk) 14:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Bakaman 23:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Maybe shorten. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 04:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Section helps to clarify Hinduism for non-Hindus (except for the first sentence, which could be deleted altogether). ~ priyanath talk 02:28, 17 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)

Comments

Place any comments (if you feel, optional) to justify vote here:

• it is a useful section. Among people coming to this article for academic interest there will be those who feel that Hinduism is part of their spiritual path. Since there is a "fairly common misconception" that no Hindu groups allow people who are not Hindu, I think it is useful to have the different attitudes described. -- Q Chris (talk) 15:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• Yes, the section is interesting, is well-referenced, tell sabout differing points of views, and, the length is ok-ish (a great copyeditor might shorten it though). So I think the section is allright.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• FA Islam and former FA Christianity were it is more common or obvious does not discuss it. Nor does FA Sikhism. Two FA articles and third former one, which would have been screened by many editors, do not discuss it. So why discuss it in Hinduism. Is Conversion such a important topic to Hindu faith that it deserves a place in the Hinduism article? --Redtigerxyz (talk) 15:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Islam and Christianity articles do not have a "conversion" section. So these articles' comprehensive may be questioned, in those articles' talk pages. If comprehensiveness is seriously in doubt, then featured article review may be initiated. But that is a different task. That does not mean Hinduism cannot have a discussion on conversion (although you are probably right that conversion is not such an important topic in hinduism).--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
• Folks, please carefully note that Redtigerxyz is asking if there is a particular reason why Hinduism (in which conversions are not important) should give weight to discussing conversions in the main article when all the other religions (in which conversion is actually important) don't give weight to conversions by discussing the issue in the side article Religious conversion. Earlier he said that conversion SHOULD BE discussed, but in the side article Religious conversion. He is not saying that conversions should not be discussed, but asking if there a particular reason for giving this extra weight to conversions by discussing it in main article as opposed to other religions where conversion is important. Redtigerxyz, my apologies if I am putting undue words in your mouth. Desione (talk) 06:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
• Islam and Christianity do discuss conversion in the side article Religious conversion, but not in their main article. Why should we break that common practice to discuss conversion in main article. Is conversion more important to Hinduism than Islam and Christianity? Desione (talk) 06:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
• Thank god, somebody (Desione) understood what I am trying to say. Dear friend Desione, NO apologies needed.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with Q Chris, the misconceptions about conversion are somewhat famous, more akin to Judaism#Jewish_identity than to Islam.Bakaman 17:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
• Interesting comment from priyanth on the first line of the conversion section. Please note that first line is referenced to article Does Hinduism Accept Newcomers? [11]. Reading the article carefully, you would see that the article does not say that "evagelization is open to interpretation" what it actually says is that "The belief that Hinduism is only open to those born in India is a wrong interpretation." In fact the article does not even talk about evangelization. The only reference to evangelization in the article is used as "Pat Robertson, an influential American evangelist." Furthermore, the article actually denounces Proselyzation (see Radhakrisnan's comments in the article). Desione (talk) 06:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
• That sentence is therefore OR, coming to its own conclusion that "since x, therefore y". It doesn't need to be in there anyway, since it only muddies the waters — stating that an aspect of Hinduism is 'open to interpretation' doesn't exactly add to the discussion. The second sentence should be the lead sentence, since it directly addresses conversion — an issue that people coming from other religions will certainly be curious about. ~ priyanath talk 16:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

New Conversion Section Proposal

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

By definition the terms "Evangelization" and "Proselyzation" are understood as methods that are used to cause a "Conversion". Desione (talk) 07:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Surely the goal of a religious teacher is to enlighten others, not just to sit at home and be content with his own inner shanti. Which is the message of the verse above. As Hinduism embraces truth in other religions also, then conversion is not an issue, although in practice it may lead to what some would class as conversion. I take your point on the terms "Evangelization" and "Proselyzation" referring largely to a Christian, or at least western, notion of conversion which is not neccessarily appropriate in Hinduism. Gouranga(UK) (talk) 12:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The whole idea that one would replace their current god with a new god as a result of gaining a particular knowledge does not make sense in Hinduism as there are many gods in Hinduism and they all have a place and a purpose. This same idea of replacing gods to cause a conversion does make sense in Christianity and Islam mainly because of exclusive focus of these religions in one and only one form of god. Desione (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

As per Hindu thinking all gods whether they belong to Hindu pantheon or not are gods and ultimately forms of the "supreme", so the question of whether a person would reject their current god and adopt a new one (thereby causing a conversion as it is understood in Christian and Islamic contexts) does not really apply to Hinduism. In my opinion a good teacher of Hinduism will always explain this and then some more of the same to his/her students. Desione (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, when stated casually, the goal of a teacher (including a teacher of Hinduism) is to enlighten students at some level; however, not in a way that is commonly understood in terms of conversion, proselyzation, or evangelism. Desione (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you please give me the actual name of the Purana that you are referring to, so that I can check alternative sources of translation and context. Thank you. Desione (talk) 07:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It is the Bhagavata Purana, also known as the Srimad Bhagavatam or simply as Bhagavatam. The transliteration and original Sanskrit are given in the link above. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 12:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The phrases that you quoted are attributed to Prahlad and I understand the story of Prahlad better as it is stated in http://www.indiaparenting.com/indianculture/festivals/fest033.shtml.

Based on this context, I would find it very difficult and highly exaggerated to conclude that Hinduism in some way shape or form sanctions evangelization. Please let me know if I am missing anything here. Desione (talk) 06:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

You should have included verse 67 as well. Verse 68 [20] deals with preaching to "devotees" as opposed to preaching to "non-devotees". Verse 67 [21] which deals with preaching to "non devotees" says "This should not be spoken to the one who is not austere, who is not My devotee at any time, who does not want to serve Me, and who is envious of Me." Desione (talk) 07:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

But the point is, that if already everyone was devotee, then what is the purpose of explaining to people who already know it? If the person who explains this truth to someone is very dear to Krishna, then logically you would think it is worth taking the risk of explaining to others who do not yet understand it on the chance that they may actually become an devotee. As long as they are not envious, or unwilling, as you have quoted in verses 67 & 68 above. Gouranga(UK) (talk) 12:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

That is the whole point. To guide devotees on their path to salvation and to suppress evil whenever it arises and threatens to overshadow good. Desione (talk) 06:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think what I'm trying to say is easier explained within the article itself. I've just made some amendments regarding the above. It is not really as different as it may have come across. Best wishes, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 13:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

GourangaUK, Spreading of knowledge has absolutely nothing to do with conversion. Desione (talk) 18:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

How can you say that? The point is that teachers of Hinduism generally aim to spread knowledge, rather than convert whereas classical Evangelization aims to combine both. Why argue this point? Gouranga(UK) (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Since, as you said, teachers of Hinduism spread knowledge without any desire to convert people, spread of knowledge has nothing to do with conversion. Therefore it does not need to be mentioned in the conversion section. Otherwise it is effectively implying that evangelization in Hinduism is OK. Desione (talk) 07:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Your edits are emphasizing propogation of Hindu knowledge while deemphasizing non acceptance of evangelism within Hinduism. within the context of Conversion. Effectively, evangelism gains a back door entry into Hinduism :-) .Am I missing something? Desione (talk) 07:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that spreading of knowledge is connected with conversion, as does Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami of the Himalayan Academy. In How to become a Hinduhe says:

It is apparent from the pervasiveness of these beliefs today that a large number of non-Hindus qualify as self-declared Hindus already, for many believe in karma, dharma and reincarnation, strive to see God everywhere, have some concept of maya, recognize someone as their guru, respect temple worship and believe in the evolution of the soul. Many of these beliefs are heretical to most other religions, especially Christianity and the Jewish faith. Those who do believe in karma, reincarnation and union with the Divine have, indeed, evolved beyond the boundaries of Western religion.

And in a previous chapter:

We deplore what has resulted in the lives of many in the Western world this last century who live in a state of limbo, apostate to their former religion but not accepted into their new faith by the Indian Hindu congregation of their community. ...

So are we supposed to think that "Western converts" are in some way being victimized by the so called "Indian Hindu" community. Perhaps you are forgetting how the west got exposed to the thing that it labels as Hinduism. You see what happened was that around 400 years back "western UK" community (as opposed to "Indian Hindu" community) decided that the rest of the people in the world were somehow "genetically inferior" to the so called western european society and embarked on an almost 300 year mission to "civilize" the Indian Hindus. While the "westerners" were learning about "Hinduism" as an indirect result of their "civilizing effort", these Indian Hindus were being treated as third-class citizens in their own land, killed, tortured, and forcefully being converted by "evangelists", along with their beliefs and practices being insulted and degraded not just for a few years but for oh lets say 300 years. And that is how the west learned about Hinduism, but not because some Indian Hindus decided to go to west to evangelize Hinduism.

Event though we continue to see the effects of this "western civilizing" effort in places such as the India-Pakistan border, Kashmir, etc, do you even hear a "peep" of bitching and moaning from the so called "Indian Hindus." regarding the "civilizing efforts" of western society. No, because we accept history the way it is and move on with it. So I suggest you leave this bullshit out of this discussion. Desione (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Unlike the so called "Western Converts", we don't have the luxury to pick and choose which aspects of Hinduism we decide to follow and which we don't. Whether good or bad we are subjected to both good and bad and accept it in its entirely in our daily lives irrespective of sect that we may belong to Desione (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me know when a Hindu temple comes up in Vatican City or Mecca and when the so called "Indian Hindus" start "spreading knowledge" in Vatican City or Mecca, becuase we certainly seem to have quite a few "Mosque" and "Churches" along with Christian missionary groups in places like Varanasi. Some of these were made during the 700 year long "civilizing effort" of Islamic rules by breaking down Hindu temples. Also, let me know when these "Hindu evangelists" set up a Hindu temple at the birthplace of Jesus or Mohammad. Desione (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I certainly don't support those actions of Moslems and Christians, but that is getting away from the point, that there is a link between spreading knowledge and conversion. Also, there may not be Hindus "spreading knowledge" in the Vatican city or Mecca, but most major cities in the UK do have a branch of one of the Hindu groups that do spread knowledge. -- Q Chris (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Since conversion is insignificant in Hinduism and absent from Hindu philosophy, a link between "conversion" and "spread of knowledge" is non applicable irrespective of the unique practices of some Hindu affiliates (ISKCON) who see a connection between spread of knowledge and conversion. Furthermore ISKCON does not even consider itself as a Hindu organization. Hence, such connections that are limited to a very narrow section of entire Hindu community are best described in the articles dedicated to those community sections. Desione (talk) 00:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not a member of ISKCON, but I am very surprised that you say that ISKCON does not consider itself a Hindu organisation. Last year they came to our Mandir and hosted a festival and certainly gave the appearance of being a Hindu organisation then. Also, though worldwide they are small, they are a large group in the UK, with many Hindus attending these events. -- Q Chris (talk) 09:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, ISKCON's founder pretty much made it clear beyond any reasonable doubt that ISKCON is not Hindu [22]. However, I like to think that they have evolved beyond that, but looking at their own viewpoint as stated on their own website [23], its not really clear. Personally I tend to think if they considered themselves Hindus they would say so clearly without debating about it. Desione (talk) 10:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the following should clarify: [24] and a more confusing version from iscon's website itself [25].

Well, I am amazed! Having met members of the Krishna movement I would not have expected this. After looking at the two links I would agree that they seem to have moved on from the definitive statement that they are not Hindu. The link on ISKCON's website was rather confusing, and I could not work out whether they were saying "yes we are Hindus after all", "we are a group that has grown from Hindusim but have distinct differences", or "we are definitely not Hindus though we accept some ideas from the tradition (like Christianity->Judaism, Islam->Christianity, etc.)". I think it is a shame that they cannot be clear on this one way or another. Certainly when they hosted a festival at our Mandir they gave no indication that they were not Hindus, in fact I would say that many of the individual members certainly did identify with Hinduism. Maybe there is a split between official doctrine and what the members actually feel. -- Q Chris (talk) 11:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I am overreacting a little bit, but I find it a little irritating and strange that ISKCON has been mentioned multiple times in the main Hindu article. I mean they are definitely a controversial entity and then if they don't consider themselves Hindus then why is the main article referring to them so many times (more than any other Hindu organization). Himalayan Academy was founded around the same time and is extremely well respected in both the larger Hindu community and outside it, so why shouldn't the article be referring to Himalayan Academy instead of say ISKCON. Just something to think about. Although I know this is getting off-topic Desione (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Not that I see this as being all that relevant for the discussion at hand but having read much about ISKCON I would explain it as follows:

Remembering that Hindu is a foreign title applied by invaders coming into India and does not appear in any Vedic or Puranic texts - According to the ISKCON viewpoint, what we understand as Hinduism is more correctly called Sanatana dharma - the eternal religion, or eternal dharma. The goal of which (Love of God) is universal and not owned by any specific world religion or organisation. ISKCON (in their aims) are a 'non-sectarian movement' based on the scriptures such as Bhagavad Gita which are generally classified as Hindu texts. So philosophically ISKCON shares many similarities with traditions who would call themselves Hindu. Thus from a theological perspective it's correct to call Iskcon a sect of Hinduism, but for followers this would not be the case. To quote the movements founder:

• "Yes, you can call it Hinduism, but actually it does not belong to any "ism." It is a science of understanding God. But it appears like Hindu religion." No Culture--Just Money, May 19, 1975. The ISKCON viewpoint is explained further in the linked article, and also "Religion means bhagavata-dharma, to understand God and our relationship with God. That is religion. You may call it Hindu religion or Muslim religion or Christian religion, but real religion is that which teaches how to love God."[26]. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 13:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It is only when the individual begins to believe the swami's own philosophy and slowly relinquishes the Christian-Judaic-Islamic faith by accepting Hindu beliefs that he becomes apostate to his religion. It then becomes the swami's moral obligation to help the devotee complete the conversion into the Hindu religion.

There is no "swami" here. We are talking about real world state of Conversions in Hinduism. Desione (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It is clearly the view of Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami at least that spreading of knowledge leads to a moral obligation to accept converts who have become apostate to their own religion through this knowledge. -- Q Chris (talk) 08:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Who is "Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami"? and Who is "Himalyan Academy." 99.99999% of Hindus have absolutely no idea who "Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami" or "Himalyan Academy" is. His views don't matter. Views of Gandhi and Shankracharyas do matter. Desione (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes this is probably true, though many Hindus outside India (including those of Indian ethnicity) have heard of "Hinduism Today", their publication. That said it is a sentiment shared by many Hindus in the West. Admitidley this is a small proportion of all Hindus, but it is a relatively large number, certainly when compared to some faiths (Unitarians, Jehova's Witnesses, etc). Also it is an attitude that many Westerners will come across and recognise. I think that this means its worth mentioning. -- Q Chris (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The goal in my opinion is to present significant facts accurately instead blowing a very narrow view out or proportion. Desione (talk) 00:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

GourangUK's edits, which you seem to agree with, are emphasizing propogation of Hindu knowledge while deemphasizing non acceptance of evangelism within Hinduism. within the context of Conversion. Effectively, evangelism gains a back door entry into Hinduism. Hence, please clarify stance on evangelism with respect to "spread of knowledge." Desione (talk) 00:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Unique practices of particular Hindu groups are best described on the article pages of those group. Desione (talk) 00:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually I think that some sort of compromise is needed here. I have no doubt that to the vast majority of Hindus in India conversion is either a "non issue" or not accepted. However, I think that a significant number of Hindus is Western countries do accept the idea of conversion, and this should be expressed. -- Q Chris (talk) 08:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that some sort of compromise is needed and also don't see any problem with your edit. Is there anything else that can be modified keeping previous discussions in mind? Desione (talk) 04:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The only reason I didn't include "diksha" was becuase the section was becoming too big. If you want to include "diksha" I have no problem against it, but then one must also include "suddhi" and explain it. Desione (talk) 18:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I feel that initiation is important as for many traditions it marks the begginning of spiritual life. If you'd like to expand upon Suddhi then please go ahead. Gouranga(UK) (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

OK done. I think we are getting somewhere right?

Conversion is a sensitive issue, so I would appreciate it if your changes could be presented here before modifying the actual article. Desione (talk) 18:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion here is not really getting anywhere and no-one else is contributing so it was easier to explain directly within the article. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

If you are willing to spare some time it will go somewhere. Desione (talk) 07:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I am curious to know why you are so inclinded to think that "evangelism" is promoted in Hinduism. Please explain. Desione (talk) 18:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Where did I say this in the changes to the article? Gouranga(UK) (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

If you didn't mean that my apologies for misunderstanding you. However, for clarity, please state your opinion on the role of evangelization within Hinduism. Desione (talk) 07:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is that the paragraph as it currently stands gives an accurate description of conversion and other closely related issues within Hinduism. I don't see how writing any more here is going to describe it further than what is said in the article. As also stated above by Q Chris, the spreading of knowledge is connected with conversion and thus I believe it should be mentioned. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 12:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Its stating a biased view limited to a very narrow group of Hindu converts. And for some reason you seem to think making frequent edits will make your edits right. Desione (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Proselytization is an integral part of Hinduism. Southeast Asia has been brought up ad nauseam, and since women didnt travel, it spread by native women and native aristocracy converting to Hinduism. Also the sage Atri is credited with evangelizing South India. Conversion is quite important and any paragraph noting that conversions are accepted by many and not accepted by some would be legitimate. I do not agree with the paragraph below, because the VHP/PHDI/ISKCON (faith in Krishna) provide spiritual guidance only to Hindus, and ergo faciliate conversion.Bakaman 02:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I have rewrote the paragraph using WP:RS instead of assumption. See here.Bakaman 03:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE read the scientific paper "Balinese Y-Chromosome Perspective on the Peopling of Indonesia: Genetic Contributions from Pre-Neolithic Hunter-Gatherers, Austronesian Farmers, and Indian Traders" [27]. Desione (talk) 03:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It establishes beyond any doubt, based on DNA evidence, that cultural transmission from India to Bali was largely as a result of marriages between Indian traders (men) and Balinese women. Desione (talk) 03:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No one can refute this. Its based on DNA analysis. Desione (talk) 03:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that is an extremely fringe view. The mainstream view is that the Balinese royalty called for Indian priests to come to Bali (A Short History of Bali: Indonesia's Hindu Realm

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. Bakaman 18:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The research was funded by National Science Foundation, and involved over 10 scientists in two countries (US and Indonesia). After the research was completed the paper was "peer reviewed" for almost six months before being finally published. Please see fourth last page of the paper. Furthermore the paper cites several other papers dealing with History of Hinduism in Bali. Desione (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The mainstream historical view of spread of Hinduism is that it spread through traders along trade roots and Bali lies smack in the middle of these trade roots. Desione (talk) 00:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

After Hinduism, Islam also spread through Indonesia along trade routes Desione (talk) 00:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Desione, thank you for your critical remarks. Basically you have never liked that this conversion section existed. Firstly you voted to have it removed, then when the majority voted to keep it, you changed tactics and instead simply replaced it with your own version. Bakaman's recent bold rewrite is much better in terms of WP:RS in my opinion. Untill we can get this sorted out I would advise we go back to the older paragraph and then work from there once a concensus is reached, and would request other editors to become involved so that a real discussion can be had. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 11:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you stop seeing malice and start discussing constructively. Something that Q Chris has been doing quite well. Also, try to look look at things from the other persons perspective also, not just your own. Desione (talk) 03:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with sticking with the older version untill a concensus is reached among editors here? Is that not a fair proposal to start with? How is that not seeing from others' perspectives? Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 18:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggested the same thing earlier and you didn't agree to it. What you said was "its best explained in the article." Why change your position now? Desione (talk) 03:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The older version for comparison:

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. 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. 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.

There is no formal process for converting to Hinduism, although in many traditions a ritual called dīkshā ("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. Nevertheless, Hindu 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GourangaUK (talk • contribs) 14:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

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].Bakaman 03:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Additional

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)

Please refer to Hindu for origin and definition of word 'Hindu'. Desione (talk) 03:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

definition the word Hindu means people who live near or across the river Sindhu. Desione (talk) 03:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC) Desione (talk) 03:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

self-definition of word Hindu means a person who is born Hindu. Desione (talk) 03:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC) Desione (talk) 03:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The definition that you provide is also true however in the context of the self-definition. Desione (talk) 03:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hence the best way to say it is (as stated by Linda Johnsen) is "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." Desione (talk) 03:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Best description of "real-world" definition of Hindu in my opinion. Desione (talk)

WP:CITE. There can well be conflicting definitions of "who is a Hindu". The important thing is to

• keep clear about which definition is whose
• remember that Hinduism is a world religion and as such the object of academic study. No references except premier academic sources are acceptable for inclusion per WP:RS

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)

WP:Rs says nothing of the sort about only accepting ivory tower chitchat. Published books and expert testimony pass the WP:RS test as well. Desione has certainly not done a good job of adherence to WP:V seeing as how his text can be summed up as rash generalizations and personal testimony. Also the misrepresentation of sources, as I pointed out above, serves to undermine whatever legitimacy his section has. GourangaUK's section is ok, I admire his good faith, but his section too portrays a closed Hinduism, one that is far from a mainstream view. The only option is to document Hindu views on conversion and the milieu of the views. In Indonesia for example, the percentage of Hindus has increased by over 300% over the last 10-15 years, and there has been aggressive proselytization (see National Geographic January 2008 issue for example). Hinduism hardly fits under the myopic definitions provided by desione, scholarly study tends to confirm this.Bakaman 17:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Dismissing academic research as "ivory tower chitchat."? Is that what they teach you at ISKCON these days? Because the rest of the world seems to be spending billions and billions on so called "ivory tower" chitchat. Desione (talk) 23:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

To saner elements watching this discussion: Jan 2008 edition of National Geographic has a cover story "Indonesia's Ring of Fire: Volcano Gods." However it does not even come close to discussing proselyzation in any prespective. Desione (talk) 23:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not a member of ISKCON, I never have been, nor will I ever be. I fail to see however, why ISKCON are demons and "rabble rousers" in your view, when all they do is assert the legitimacy of the Bhagavad Gita.

Demons? When did I say that? Desione (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Even if I use colorful prose when describing University portrayals of Hinduism (which are sometimes inaccurate or politically motivated), my rewrite encapsulates the mainstream view of the situation (that the Indian priests were responsible for evangelizing the court, and that their descendants number among the Brahmin class). You still failed to show how the genetics paper was relevant considering the word "Hinduism" was never mentioned.

As for proselytization and aggressive stamping of Hinduism, the example of Satria Naradha and the temples on every volcano certainly fits the bill. This would be of course corroborated by recent articles in the Bali Post (giving a little more context about Pak Naradha's efforts).Bakaman 00:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

In abstract of that paper: "Bali is the only Indonesian island with a population that currently

practices the Hindu religion and preserves various other Indian cultural," Desione (talk) 00:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

On the second page: "Bali became as deeply ‘‘Indianized’’ as any Southeast Asian society—worshipping Hindu and Buddhist

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)

On page 18th: "We also assessed the possible influence of three more recent historical events on the composition of the Balinese gene pool: a period of Indianization characterized by the spread of the Hindu religion and culture to Bali, the expansion of Islam to Indonesia, and the persistence of the Dutch empire on Bali for almost 100 years." Desione (talk) 00:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Are these sufficient references to Hinduism for you? Desione (talk) 00:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Certainly the paper misses out on the fact Bali is not the only place that practices Hinduism in Indonesia. It wasnt even before PHDI's aggressive proselytization, groups such as the Tenggerese and quite a few crypto-Hindus in Java still practised the religion. The paper also concludes only about 12% of the Balinese men sampled had what may have an Indian haplogroup on the paternal side. The Balinese are hardly descendants of Indians (as you would have us believe). Instead people converted to Hinduism because their rulers were proselytized, evangelized by Indian priests (as noted by Ramstedt). Looking at the rest of SE Asia, the rulers of those nations (and their people by extension) also were evangelized, as were groups such as the Ahom and Meitei people during the Middle Ages.Bakaman 02:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The Freedom of Religion report [29] describes indonesian laws as follows: The revised decree requires religious groups that want to build a new house of worship to obtain the signatures of at least ninety congregation members and sixty persons of other faiths in the community that support the establishment and approval from the local religious affairs office. Surely, Indonesian laws are not "ivory tower chitchat" or "work of Deamons" so to speak :-) Desione (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The Child Protection Act of 2002 makes attempting to convert minors to a religion other than their own through “tricks” and/or “lies” a crime punishable by up to five years in prison Desione (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

National Geographic Jan 2008 Edition Just because National Geographic says that a guy is setting up temples on remote mountain tops, you can not conclude that there is proselytizing going on. There are many reason for setting up temples. You would need to show a reliable well regarded source that argues the point directly. Just because a temple is setup, one cannot conclude that proselytizing is going on. The reason to set up temples on these mountain tops (as mentioned in the national geographic article) is to appease the Volcano Gods. Also, keep in mind Indonesian laws which don't allow setting up temple unless members of other religions who live in the same community agree. Desione (talk) 03:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

"The Balinese are hardly descendants of Indians (as you would have us believe)."

I never said this. I have been interested in genetic origins of different populations for quite a while now and I know much better than that to make such claims. You might want to review National Geographic Human Gnomic Project [30] to get some perspective on the issue. It has some nice animations and should be fun browsing. Desione (talk) 03:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

In an attempt to get back to basics -

It is a fact that throughout history many people have to all intents and purposes converted to Hinduism. Does anybody disagree with this?

People didn't convert into Hinduism back in history, various cultures (as represented by communities of immigrants who migrated into area that is more or less known as South Asia today), adopted Hindu practices and beliefs over many generations of assimilation and intermixing. Desione (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

For example, due to the teachings and mission of Adi Shankara, many people in India left Buddhism, and instead moved back to Hinduism and the Vedic texts. That is an accepted historical statement is it not?

You seem to be forgetting that Buddhism started as a reform movement within Hinduism. Desione (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

When followers of Buddhism asserted themselves as a separate religion, Hindu reformist movements started to protect Hinduism from Buddhism. An example of this reform process is Adi Shankra who established various Shankracharyas. If Adi Shankra was so intent on seeking converts, do you think all the Shankracharays today would be so against letting ISKCON members enter their temples? Desione (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that Buddhism survived in India as a result of royal patronage (as opposed to Hinduism which survived in peoples heart). When the royal patronage was gone as a result of Islamic conquests, Buddhism also disappeared. Buddhists got converted to Islam (as in the case of Afghanistan) or they simply assimilated back into their original religion (Hinduism) in the Gangetic Valley as opposed to being forced or induced to convert to Islam. Keep in mind that the so called "Hindu heartland" the (Gangetic valley) has a large number of muslims as well. Desione (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Does this clarify things for you? Desione (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Then in later times, further teachers such as Ramanujacharya, Madhvacharya and Chaitanya (I'm sure there are others outside of Vaishnavism, but at least I can vouch for the history in these examples) again went on preaching tours and set-up temples which promoted Hinduism within India. In recent times number of teachers of Hinduism (i.e Swami Vivekananda, Paramahansa Yogananda and A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada) have left India and travelled around the world teaching Hinduism to people from all cultures. Is this not also an historically accepted fact?

These are Hindu reformers trying to "reform" Hinduism from within rather than trying to "spread" Hinduism outside. Their goal is to "reform" not "spread". Desione (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Swami Prabhupada (founder of ISKCON), by his own words, did not consider himself a Hindu. Desione (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

So the point I would like to make, is that regardless of if these teachers themselves were interested in any form of rubber stamp conversion, the results of their spreading the teachings of Hinduism is ultimately that a lot of people have, in fact accepted a tradition of Hinduism as their religion and follow it's practices, which in the eyes of the rest of the world would be classed as conversion.

Gouranga(UK) (talk) 21:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

When was this ever a point of contention? Did I miss something?

The point is "concepts and practices of evangelism, prozelyzation, and conversion are largely absent from Hindusm, though acceptance of willing converts is becoming more common." Desione (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The second point I would like to make is that the following sentences may be somewhat unbalanced in what is being said:

• 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.

This gives undue weight to one particular definition of Hinduism (i.e a Hindu is someone who was born to Indian parents with a Hindu background). Where is this supported within the scriptures of Hinduism, or is it just being referenced in the form of a common public belief amongst Hindus?

By conventional (Islamic/Christian thinking) reasoning a person may become Christian by following Christianity or Muslim by following teachings of Islam, but this reasoning (or its converse) is certainly not true in Hindu perspective.

Most westerners confuse the terms "Hindu" and "Hinduism". I thought you would have known better. The term "Hinduism" is an abstract and evolving concept; while as, the term "Hindu" is a concrete and (until maybe last 30 years or so) fixed thing. The term "Hinduism" labels a "religious set of beliefs and practices"; while as, the term "Hindu" labels and identifies a "person".

While the term "Hinduism" is extremely inclusive as a set of beliefs and practices, the term "Hindu" is extremely exclusive. Hence, it is easier for Hinduism to assimilate other cultures and religions rather that for an individual person to say "convert" in or out of Hinduism. This IS the Hindu perspective. If you still don't see my point, I don't know what will make you see the point. Desione (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the terms "Christianity" and "Islam" are extremely exclusive terms; while as, the terms "Christian" and "Muslim" are extremely inclusive terms. Hinduism and Hindu are reverse of that. I hope this clarifies things. Desione (talk) 03:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

So again, the best phrase is: 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. and this is very much true in real world as well as opposed to say "ivory tower (Supreme Court of India) chitchat" (I am starting to like this phrase. Thanks to Baka).

• Some Hindu sects and affiliates such as ... accept non Hindus who have a desire to follow Hinduism

This reads correctly only on the basis of the above definition (of a Hindu being born Hindu), otherwise all Hindu sects are teaching non-Hindus to begin with, regardless of where they are born.

Best Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Since we are starting to go in circles now, I expect you to start showing reliable, neutral, and well known sources of information Hinduism as someone pointed out earlier is an actively researched topic. Desione (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought it might be useful to write down the source of the problem in reaching consensus as I see it.

1. As this is the English Wikipedia most of the readers and many of the contributors will have come across Hinduism outside India, specifically in the West. This includes groups who support conversion, such as ISKCON, the Self realization Fellowship, etc. In addition to this many Hindus in the West appear to be open to the idea of accepting willing converts, though are still against actively evangelising or proselytizing .
2. By contrast most Hindus in India either see conversion to Hinduism as a non-issue or think that it cannot or should not occur. Conversion in India is normally associated with Christians and Moslems trying to convert Hindus to their religion, often by unethical means, which leads to conversion being seen in a negative light.

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)

Sensible comments. I don't think that's too far off the mark. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Chris Q, Your perspective has always been useful in this discussion. What you are describing is accurate and real-world so I have no problem with it. Although I don't know about Baka Desione (talk) 05:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Unless anybody comes with RS's suggesting that Indian Hindus do not believe in conversion, there is no reason to place that in the article. As noted in my Britannica ref, the rishis were responsible for spreading Hinduism to South India. Hindu priests evangelized the ahom and Meitei people. There is a history of conversion and proselytization associated with Hinduism, as demonstrated in this

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.Bakaman 20:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Baka, I don't think I can argue with the ridiculous hypothesis that you propose. Despite all the research in genetics there are people who still claim that "evolution didn't happen" and they will present isolated speculation as scientific facts. Then despite all the advances in space exploration and research, there are people who still claim that "moon landing didn't happen" and will present isolated speculation as scientific facts. I don't think I can argue with such positions. Although I do expect you to explain why the position adopted by leading experts (Arvind Bansal, Linda Johnsen, Steve Lansing, etc) in Hinduism are contrary to the position that you seem to be adopting. Desione (talk) 07:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems like at this point you are just pulling my leg. Desione (talk) 07:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe in both evolution and the moon landing. There is no link between documenting the obvious history (up from the rishis) of proselytization in hinduism and being a lunatic that doesnt believe in evolution.Bakaman 22:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Baka, I really don't think that you can say that it does not matter what people believe. That would be true of a hierarchical religion, if the Pope makes a declaration it becomes church law despite what the people believe. In the case of Hinduism, to a very real extent what the people believe is part of Hinduism, though secondary to the Vedas. Yes the article should state that conversions take place, an that there are groups that readily accept converts. If a majority of Hindus do not believe in conversion, however, this should certainly be in the article also. -- Q Chris (talk) 08:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok Folks, just so that there is no doubt, I think I am going to spend a couple of days to dig up all the facts and details regarding how Hinduism spread in south east Asia. It will pretty much be mind blowing to me (so to speak) if Hinduism spread in South East Asia through active proselyzation and evangelization (as in the case of spread of Christianity in Hawaii) or through conquest,proselyzation, and evangelization (as in case of spread of Islam in India) Desione (talk) 09:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It spread even in India through proselytization. Case in point, Shantidas Gosai converting Pamheiba to Hinduism in the 1700's. Or Mihirakula, who converted to Saivism in the early 6th century CE. Even during Mughal times, conversion to Hinduism was so prevalent, Shah Jahan announced edicts fining Hindu men that converted Muslim women, and numerous Hindus were martyred for converting Muslims (including Shahid Dalpat & Sant Kalyan Bhati noted in History of Shahjahan of Dihli - Banarsi Prasad Saksena). I will concede, that Hinduism does not have an active history of aggressive evangelization, but certainly has accepted converts through time. Unless someone actually has a reference stating that the majority of Hindus oppose willing converts, the statement that Hinduism is silent on conversion still stands. The bold rewrite section is the most well-sourced as notes a number of things quite well.

• Talks about who thinks what about conversion (that some Hindus are unabashed racists)
• Talks about the Rishis, certainly the experts on Hinduism (more so than Linda Johnsen, Arvind Sharma, Gandhi, etc)
• Talks about what the Indian government thinks (Indonesia has a similar law) and how it deals with conversion, since that does affect a good 80-85% or so percent of Hindus
• Talks about reconversion
• Talks about actual evangelization throughout history by Hindus (it happened, we document it).

Unless another section is put forth that is well sourced and depicts a holistic and sourced version of this view, there is no reason to change the bold rewrite version.Bakaman 22:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Baka, Hold your horses for a while and I am not reverting your version of the article. I think everything can be resolved Desione (talk) 02:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok folks, I think I am going to leave the conversion section as it is. Although the way it reads right now seems like the only thing that Hindus do is convert others (probably worse than what it was originally). So yes, atleast 60% of the Hindus (including experts such as Arvind Sharma, Linda Johnsen) have been deluding themselves into thinking that their religion is more assimilative rather than evangelistic/prozelyzing. Arguing with such points is beyond my abilities. Thank you for your time. Desione (talk) 09:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Can't we just go back to the original then? As you say this reads as though Hinduism is a strongly evangelising religion, like Southern Baptists or Mormons. As far as I could see there only argument originally was over acceptance of willing converts, not over whether Hinduism was strongly evangelising or that proselyzing was common place. I am going to revert to GourangaUK's previous version, which whilst not perfect is better than the current. -- Q Chris (talk) 11:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the original version. I merely cannot believe the hypocrisy of some that suggest Hinduism is closed to converts, while claiming it is an accepting and pluralistic religion. You do realize, that many people wishing to convert to Hinduism look for information on this page, and so we have to be cognizant of the real world rammifications here. Saying Hinduism is closed and most Hindus will not accept the converts (when this is not substantively backed up) certainly does little to portray Hinduism in a positive light.Bakaman 22:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Baka, please see the description below, I hope the so called "hypocrisy" will be resolved. Thank you Desione (talk) 05:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Its a shame that a religion cannot spread without proselytization.22:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• The number system spread without proselyzation
• Americanization, for good or for bad (whatever is your perspective) spreads without proselyzation today (example: small cities in iran where people listen to american music, cities in pakistan laying close to afhan border have "american" style restaurants.)
• Hinduism largely (though not always) did spread without proselyzation.
• GOOD IDEAS spread ON THEIR OWN MERIT.

Why has a new conversion section been dumped onto the page? The previous section was balanced, precise and well-written. Haven't observed the citations in great detail, but whatever the sources say, if they are reliable, and are not based on one person's opinion, I doubt what they said is reflected in the current version. I suspect WP:OR and maybe WP:SYN. If anything, the previous section had to be shortened since this article must follow WP:SS. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 04:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)