Conversion is Violence - Swami Dayananda Saraswati - Part I

[Guest guest]

Reproduced below is a Lecture given by Swami Dayananda Saraswati some time ago

in Madras.

 

 

 

Friends,

 

I have been thinking on this topic for a long time. It is very clear to me

and perhaps to many of you that there are two distinct religious traditions in

the world. Some of them have a good following. Some others may not have.

 

One tradition does not believe in conversion. A Jewish person is born of a

Jewish mother. A Zoroastrian is born of Zoroastrian parents. A Hindu is born of

Hindu parents. And so too are the followers of Shintoism, Taoism and many other

religious groups all over the world. They are born to be the followers of their

religions. In other words, they do not want to convert anybody. In India, when

the Parsis, Zoroastrians, came as refugees, being driven from Iran, they came to

Bombay. They were received and allowed to settle down in India. They were very

faithful to their religion and they lived in their religion. They did not cause

any problem to others. Hindus accommodated them as even they accommodated the

Christians, the Muslims and many other small tribal traditions. Our vision of

God allows that. We generally accept various forms of worship. We accept many

forms of prayers; one more really does not matter to us. In fact, some of our

Hindu friends in their puja rooms have a

picture of Jesus and they do not see anything wrong about it, nor do I feel

anything wrong about it.

 

I would call the Jewish, the Zoroastrian and the Hindu traditions as

non-aggressive traditions. For me, aggression is not just a physical one. It

need not be the Kargil type. There are varieties of aggression. You can

emotionally be aggressive. In the United States, it is a crime to be aggressive

towards the children. Simple abuse is looked upon as aggression. Verbally you

can be aggressive. Physically you can be aggressive. Economically you can be

aggressive. And the worst aggression, which I consider more than physical

aggression is cultural aggression or religious aggression.

 

Hurt is born of many sources. I am hurt if somebody encroaches upon my

piece of land that is vacant and the court supports that person and gives men

the responsibility of finding a new house for him; it is an aggression. I get

hurt. That he encroached upon my property is itself a good source of hurt. It is

enough tom hurt. That the law protects the one who encroached makes me more

hurt. That hurt cannot be easily healed, because it leaves you helpless and the

helplessness is an source of great hurt. If somebody physically hurts you, of

course, it is very well known that it is a hurt. It is treated as a crime and

there is a penalty for it.

 

If I am emotionally abused, then, that also is a great hurt. For example

people in authority can abuse you. The employer can abuse you emotionally.

Husband can abuse. Wife also can abuse the husband. In-laws can abuse. For

these, I can seek some redress somewhere.

 

But the worst hurt, I would say, is the hurt of a religious person –

whether what the person believes has a basis or not. It is not my domain of

enquiry to say whether it has a basis or not. Each one is free to follow his or

her religion. Everybody would have a certain belief system. Either the person is

convinced or the person needs to be convinced. On the whole, he believes in the

whole theology and follows that theology. He has the freedom to follow that

theology. That is human freedom.

 

What is it that one is connected to as a religious person? He is connected

not to any particular person here, who is the member of the contemporary society

or his family. I am connected to my parents as their son. I cannot take myself

as just a son; I am connected to other people too. I am son to my parents; I am

also the father to my children and husband to my wife. I am uncle, neighbor,

employer, employee and citizen. I have a number of hats to wear every day. As

the religi0ous “I” I have different roles to play, day after day.

 

A son is related to a person outside. A brother is related to a person

outside. A citizen is related to country, a state. As a religious person, who am

I related to?

 

Let us for the sake of convenience call that religious person a devotee. To

whom is that devotee connected? Definitely, not to any one here. I may be a

religious son. I may be a religious father, religious mother, religious brother,

and religious husband. In fact, if I am religious, the religi9us “me” is going

to pervade every role I play.

 

Basically, first and the last, I am a religious person, if I am one. That

religious person is the basic person not related to anything empirical. He is

related of, course to a force beyond – whatever that force may be. One may say

that force is God, and He is in heaven. Another one may say, He is in Kailash,

another may say, He is in Vaikuntha, another may say, He is in Goloka Brindavan.

And another may say, He is elsewhere, elsewhere and elsewhere. Bur the person

related to that force is the one whom we call a devotee, and that person has an

altar. That person is not an empirical person in the sense he is the father or

son or daughter. He is the basic person.

 

The hurt of a basic person is going to be a hurt, which is deep, and true.

There is no healing power, which can heal that hurt. That is the reason why any

religious sentiment, if it is violated, in anyway, will produce a martyr. There

is a martyr ready to be born in that basic person. And thus the religious

sentiment seems to be the most sensitive.

 

Whenever a religious sentiment is hurt, you will find that, in the Indian

press, there is a complete black out, in terms of who did what. Even the names

are not given. They will say one community fought within another community. I

think it is correct because it prevents further escalation. We generally do

guess work and say it must be this community or that community.

 

This is so because that sentiment is very deep and has to be respected –

whether it is a Muslim sentiment or a Christian sentiment or a Hindu sentiment

or a Jewish sentiment. That sentiment has got to be respected. If that respect

is not shown, then the State has to protect that sentiment. You tell me whether

it is correct or not! The State has got the responsibility to protect the

religious sentiment of all the people. That I consider is secularism.

 

In America, the religious sentiment of every individual is protected. You

can go to the court and get an answer, if there is something wrong done to you

as a religious person. There is justice. They respect. In fact, if you register

an institution as a “religious church”, they take it as a religious church. You

do not require submitting even an income tax return. Until there is a public

complaint, they respect it. They give you the freedom. Here if an institution is

said to be a “Hindu Religious”, there is no tax exemption for the donor. It is

entirely a different thing altogether.

 

A religious sentiment has got to be respected by everyone, whether he

believes in my religion or not. Just because I do not believe in your ideas, you

cannot stand on my toes! If you do not like my nose, it is your problem. I do

not have any problem. If my ideas and my belief systems are not acceptable to

you, I give you the freedom not to accept them. But you do not have any business

to stand on my toes to hurt me in any manner.

 

In fact, I will fight for your freedom to think differently. You must be

free enough to differ from me. Bhagwan has given us the faculty of thinning, of

discrimination. We are not shy of enquiries. Our whole method of enquiry is to

invite purvapakshas, objections. We will create objections that cannot even be

imagined by you and then answer them. We welcome them because we are not shy. We

want to explore and find out what the truth is. But that is entirely a different

thing. You have the freedom to differ from me; I have the freedom to differ from

you. This is what I am telling you.

 

This is the attitude of the non-aggressive traditions. On the other hand

the second category of theologies, by their theologies, is committed to

conversion.

 

Conversion is not only sanctioned by their theologies, but also is

practiced by their followers. And that is their theology. They have got a right

to have their own belief systems. But they don’t have a right to thrust them on

you. They are free to believe that unless one is a Christian, one will not go to

heaven. They have a system, a set of non-verifiable beliefs – nitya-paroksha –

on which they base their theology.

 

Someone says, “I have been sent by God to save you”. I can also say the

same thing. I will have ten people with me, because I can talk. If I don’t talk

and be a mouni baba, still there will be ten people. It is easy to get ten

people anywhere especially in India. I can say, “God sent me down to save all of

you!”

 

--\

--------------------------

 

to be continued

 

 

 

 

for Good

Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.