CONVERSION IS VIOLENCE. there is no doubt about it.

[Guest guest]

Hari OM! OM Ariteswariye Namaha!

 

Dear Mike and all of my dear friends,

 

Please read the artcile by Swami Dayananda Saraswathi of Arsha Vidya

Gurukulam regarding conversion. He delivered this lecture in Chennai

Citizen's Committe for Dharma Raksha Sammellan.

 

 

Conversion is violence.

 

Mahadhyo Namaha

 

 

 

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 tribal 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

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 don't 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 very 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 me 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 to 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 a 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, cousin, neighbour,

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

day. As the religious T, 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 a 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 anyone

here. I may be a religious son. I may be a religious father,

religious brother, religious husband. In fact, if I am religious, the

religious 'me' is going to pervade every role I play.

 

 

 

Basically, first and 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 Kailasa. 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. But 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 with 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 don't require to

submit 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 "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 every one, whether

he believes in my religion or not. Just because I don't believe in

your ideas, you can't stand on my toes! If you don't like my nose, it

is your problem. I don't 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 don't have any business to stand on my toes to

hurt me in any manner. (Long cheers)

 

 

 

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

be free enough to differ from me. Bhagavan has given us the faculty

of thinking, of discrimination. We are not shy of enquiries. Our

whole method of enquiry is to invite poorvapaksha 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 religions, by their theologies, is

committed to conversion.

 

 

 

Conversion is not only sanctioned by their theologies but also is

practised 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‑paroksa ‑ on which

they base their

theology. (Applause)

 

 

 

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!"

 

 

 

Once, I went to Kilpauk Mental Hospital. Just for a visit, of course.

(Laughter) It is my own imagination. It is not true. The Kilpauk

Hospital is one of the most ancient mental hospitals in this country.

Next one is in Agra. We have got the number one status in many things

and this is one!

 

 

 

Early morning, all the crows had flown away. Nobody was there. I saw

a man standing under a huge tree talking in loud voice, "Listen to

me. I have come here, sent down by God, to save ail of you. You

please ask for forgiveness of your sins. Those who want to be saved,

please raise your hands". Then he said, Thank you, thank you, thank

you". He thought that from the audience many people had raised their

hands. But there was no audience. I was the only one standing behind

him. Not even in front of him. I was naturally amused but I was not

surprised, because I knew where I was. (Laughter)

 

 

 

As I was enjoying this situation, well, I heard a voice from the

heaven. It said, "This is God speaking. I did not send him down.

(Laughter) Don't believe him". When I looked up, there was one more

fellow ‑ sitting on the tree. (Loud laughter and applause)

 

 

 

This is a non‑verifiable belief as you can see. In addition most of

these religions, when they talk of heaven, are promoters of tourism,

really speaking. (Laughter) I am interested in making my life here,

right now. If there is something you have got to say to make my life

different, I am ready to listen to you. If there are some pairs of

ears ready to listen to some other thing, let them have the freedom.

 

 

 

That there is a heaven is a non‑verifiable belief. That, following

this person, I will go to heaven, is another non‑verifiable belief.

That I will survive death, is a non‑verifiable belief. There is

nothing wrong in believing. But we have to understand that it is a

non‑verifiable belief. And having gone to heaven I will enjoy heaven,

minus cricket match, is another non‑verifiable belief. The

unfortunate thing is another fellow says: I am the latest and the

last. Don't follow that fellow; follow me". (Laughter) That really

confuses me. He ha~ really no argument to give that he is the fast.

That I am the latest, is another non‑verifiable belief and what is

promised is again not verifiable.

 

 

 

I say, let those non‑verifiable beliefs be there. I want them to have

those beliefs, even though I will not advocate them. I want them to

have freedom. Let them enjoy the freedom to have their beliefs. But

what is the basis for that person to come and convert me? If you are

convinced of something, you can try to convince me and not convert

me. Did you ever notice a physics professor knocking at your door,

asking for your time, so that he can talk to you about the particles?

Never! If you want to learn physics, you have to go to him.

 

 

 

But here, every day, I am bothered. At the airport I am bothered, in

the street corners I am bothered, at home, I am bothered. They want

to save my soul!

 

 

 

I say this is not merely an intrusion; this is an aggression. There

are varieties of intrusions. If the sound is too much outside, with

all the loud speakers, well, it is an intrusion into my privacy. One

can complain; not in India, of course! Here also we have got laws. It

is not that we do not have laws. But we have 'in-laws' at right

places. You know! (Laughter)

 

 

 

So nobody has any business to intrude into my privacy. You come .and

tell me that I have got to save my soul. But I don't look upon myself

as condemned for you to come and save. We, really, don't have a word

in Sanskrit, equivalent for salvation. Because, 'salvation' means you

have been condemned. Unless you are condemned, you need not be saved.

 

 

 

But this man comes and tells me that I am damned. I have to believe

that first. Then he appoints himself to save me. This is very

interesting. This is how the union leaders work. You create a problem

and then appoint yourself as a leader to solve it. (Laughter) You

become inevitable thereafter.

 

 

 

Instead of the word 'salvation', we have a word 'moksha'. Here, among

the dignitaries there are may gurus. All of them have a common word

and that common word is moksha. Is it not true? For every one of them

it is moksha.

 

 

 

Moksha is not a word which is equivalent to salvation. It is derived

from the verbal root moksh = mokshane. It means freedom from bondage.

All of them use the word moksha. Even Saankhyas use this word.

Vaiseshikas, Naiyaayikas and all others use this word moksha. In

fact, if moksha is not an end in view, it is not 0 school of thought

to talk about. We all have a moksha. Even Chaarvaakas, the

materialist, has his own concept of moksha. 'Body goes'; that is

moksha for him. He says, bhasmeebhutasya dehasya punaraagamanam

kutaha.

 

 

 

So the word moksha does not mean salvation. It refers to freedom from

bondage. On the other hand the aggressive religions have this belief

system that you are condemned and you have to be saved.

 

 

 

When I look into these theologies, what I see is very interesting. I

need not say anything to prove that they are illogical. I have to

only state what they say!

 

 

 

I would like to illustrate this:

 

 

 

You must have heard about the 'Godfather'. You know the Mafia don is

called the Godfather. He makes an offer that you cannot refuse.

 

 

 

He comes and tells you: I am buying your house".

 

 

 

You may say, I am not selling".

 

 

 

He says, "You are selling".

 

 

 

This type of approach was existing in Madras for some time, I am

told. I hope it does not come back again. (Loud laughter and applause)

 

 

 

The fellow comes and tells: I am buying your house!"

 

 

 

And you reply, "This is my house and I am not selling".

 

 

 

He says, "You are selling it and you are selling it at this price".

 

 

 

He decides the price also and then tells you, I know exactly where

your children are studying and when they are coming home also".

 

 

 

He threatens you and buys the house.

 

 

 

Thus, a Godfather is one who makes an offer that you cannot refuse.

 

 

 

Now, what about God, the Father? He is worse, I tell you, because he

says either you follow this person or I will condemn you eternally to

hell. This is worse than the offer of the Mafia don! This too is an

offer, which I cannot refuse. And it is worse.

 

 

 

In the other case at least, I can do something. But here he is not

even visible. He is sitting in a place even safer than Dubai! I

cannot do anything to him. This is the non‑verifiable belief on which

their religion is based.

 

 

 

He has the right to follow that religion. Let him follow his

religion. All that I say is he does not have anything much to offer

to me. If he thinks he has something to offer to me, let him have the

freedom to think so. But he has no freedom to intrude into my privacy.

 

 

 

He converts the Hindus by any means ‑ by marriage, by some enticement

or by some preaching which creates a fear. He talks about the goodies

available in heaven ‑if you go to heaven, you will enjoy this and

that. You will have beatitude and be saved. Otherwise, you will go to

hell. It will be too hot etc. So, more out of fear of hell, one may

choose to go to heaven.

 

 

 

He says and does all this to convert others to his religion. I say,

this is wrong because if one Hindu or Jew or a Parsi is converted,

and the other members of the family are not converted, they are all

hurt. Even the converted one must be hurt underneath. He will be

debating whether he was right in getting converted, It takes sometime

for him to heal that. He is also hurt. All other members are

definitely hurt. The community that comes to know of this conversion

is hurt.

 

 

 

Please tell me, what is violence? What do you call this act that

hurts? I call it violence. It is not ordinary violence. It is

violence to the deepest person, the core person, in the human being.

The religious person is the deepest. And if that person is hurt, I

say, it is violence, rank and simple.

 

 

 

It is pure violence. And what does it do? It wipes out cultures.

 

 

 

I would like to go to Greece and see the live culture of the people

who lived there. Where is that culture now? I have to imagine how

they might have lived. I only see the huge monuments that are left

behind.

 

 

 

And like this, many other cultures have been totally destroyed. The

native cultures of South America, North America and Australia have

all been destroyed. What about the Hawaiian culture? Gone! All the

tribal cultures in Africa have been destroyed. How many cultures, for

the past two thousand years, are methodically destroyed? The humanity

is the sufferer and is poorer for it.

 

 

 

We need all the cultures. And let the humanity enjoy the riches of

the different cultures. It is a mosaic of cultures, Each one has got

some beauty. With the destruction of religion comes the destruction

of culture. When a new religion replaces the old, a culture is

destroyed.

 

 

 

After converting, they may try to preserve the art forms like

Bharatanaatyam with the themes of the new religion. But without

Nataraaja where is Bharatanaatyam, without devotion, where is nrityam?

 

 

 

And therefore, the culture cannot be retained if the religion is

destroyed. It is true with reference to all other cultures also. But

definitely it is true with reference to our culture, because, you

cannot separate culture from religion.

 

 

 

Our religion and culture are intertwined. The religion has gone into

the fabric of the culture. When I say 'Namaste' to you, it is

culture. It is religion. When you are throwing rangoli, it is

religion; it is culture. There is a vision behind all that. Every

form of culture is connected to religion and the religion itself is

rooted in the spiritual wisdom. This is because we have a spiritual

tradition.

 

 

 

And therefore there is no cultural form unconnected to religion.

Destruction of culture is destruction of religion. Destruction of

religion is destruction of culture. If this destruction is not

violence, what is violence? I would like to know?

 

 

 

I say CONVERSION IS VIOLENCE. (Thunderous applause) It is rank

violence. It is the deepest violence.

 

 

 

Not only that, in our dharma‑shaastra, it is said that if somebody

forcefully occupies another's piece of land, he is called an

aatataayi. For an aatataayi, in our shaastra, there is capital

punishment.

 

 

 

Occupying another's land or another's house or flat, against the will

of the owner is a grave paapa according to our dharma. Many times,

when the owner asks, "Give me back my house", the tenant invariably

replies, I am sorry. I cannot give you the house, because my children

are going to the school in this area. Please find a similar house for

me. Then I will move". When the owner finds such a house for him, the

tenant says, It is too far away for the children to go to school.

Please find something in the same neighbourhood". It means, I would

like to be here". If you go to the court, twenty five years would be

gone. But occupying another's land is not dharma as per our culture.

 

 

 

Another's kshetra is another's kshetra. It has nothing to do with me.

Kshetra-apahaari is an aatataayi. The one who does arson or poisons

somebody is an aatataayi, and there is capital punishment for him.

One who kidnaps another's wife is an aatataayi and there is capital

punishment for him. All these actions deserve capital punishment. And

if, simply for occupation of a land of another, there is capital

punishment, think of what would be the punishment for the destruction

of a culture.

 

 

 

Suppose somebody is ashastrapaani, unarmed, and you kill him, it is

not correct. Karna in the Mahaabhaarata uses this argument when he

was completely unarmed. Talking to Arjuna, he said, I am an

ashastrapaani; you should not hit me now. Krishna had to tell him

that Karna was not unarmed, but he was duly disarmed. There is a lot

of difference between the two. Krishna had to convince him.

 

 

 

So here, a Hindu is an ashastrapaani. A Jewish person is an

ashastrapaani. A Buddhist is an ashastrapaani. A Parsi is an

ashastrapaani. That is, they are all non‑aggressive. When you try to

convert them, it is like hurting an ashastrapaani.

 

 

 

You cannot ask me to change the genius of my culture, the genius of

my religion. It is the tradition of my culture and religion that I do

not convert. It is not a situation where, you convert and I convert.

And the one who has a better organisation is going to convert more

number of people. It is not a percentage game of the market.

 

 

 

Here it is one sided. I cannot change the genius of my culture

because I do not believe in conversion. I allow you to be a

Christian. I allow you to be a Muslim. You be a Christian, you be a

Muslim. You pray; it is fine for us. I let you be a Muslim or a

Christian, even though I do not say, "All religions lead to the same

goal". I don't commit that ubiquitous mistake. (Cheers)

 

 

 

But I give you the freedom. You please follow your religion. Don't

ask me to convert others to my religion like you, because I cannot

convert. It is because I do not believe in it. My parents did not

believe in it. My grand parents did not believe in it. My Rishis did

not believe in it. And I don't believe in it. You cannot change a

culture in order to be on par with the others. It is against the

genius of our culture.

 

 

 

It is not only our culture, which is like this; there are other

cultures too. The number of the Parsis is dwindling. I loathe to see

the destruction of the Parsi culture. They are harmless good people.

But now they are the losers.

 

 

 

Jewish people are also the losers; their numbers are also dwindling.

They are fighting to preserve their culture and religion. They are

not converting. There is no evangelism in Judaism. There is no

proselytization. There were never any inquisition. They were the

sufferers; they were the victims of aggression, and planned

aggression for ages.

 

 

 

And therefore, conversion is not merely violence against people; it

is violence against people, who are committed to non‑violence.

(Prolonged cheers)

 

 

 

I don't say Hindus do not fight. They can fight very well. You don't

tell me, "You put your house in order". I will put my house in order,

in my own time and in my own way.

 

 

 

If two brothers are fighting over an empty piece of land that is

there next door, and a third man occupies the land saying, "Because

you two are fighting, I am occupying this piece of land", what is

this logic? Some people advance this logic to me and say that we are

all fighting and therefore they are in. We may be fighting amongst

ourselves but we have to settle that among ourselves. That does not

mean YOU can be violent. (Applause)

 

 

 

Somebody says we must have ecumenical dialogue. I had attended some

of these dialogues. And I stopped attending them. Because I don't see

any use in it. On one such occasion, I said, I can have a dialogue

with a Christian, if he is ready to change, if convinced, after the

dialogue". Is he, if convinced, going to change his stand? Is he

going to stop conversion? Don't ask me to have a dialogue with you

when you are standing on my toes. You just move away. Then we can

have a dialogue.

 

 

 

The world religious conferences that are held are only meant to

neutralise any protest against conversion. That is all. (Cheers)

Because they don't want to stop conversion. So what is the use of

saying, "We are all same. We are all going to the same God". It is

something like saying, you know, your property is my property; my

property is your property; your money is my money; my money is your

money. Therefore, let my money be with me and let your money also be

with me! (Laughter) So this is all wrong thinking.

 

 

 

All forms of prayer are valid. That I can accept. They don't accept

that. I can accept because of my understanding of the shaastra. The

Lord will understand, definitely, if I pray in Tamil or, Latin or

Greek. There is nothing Latin and Greek to the Lord. He will

understand in whichever language the prayer is made. If I pray in

Samskritam, definitely, he will understand because it is His language

anyway. (Laughter) I am very Catholic, understand'. I don't have this

kind of silly notions that it has got to be in one language and it

has got to be in one form etc.

 

 

 

But we have certain special forms of rituals ‑ Vedic rituals ‑ which

cannot be compromised with. Because we do not know how they can be

different. We have no other pramaana for it. We do not have a means

of knowledge to prove that this can be different.

 

 

 

They do not accept any of that. And they preach. It is not that they

preach their own religion. They preach against other religions. And I

consider that kind of preaching is violence. It breeds violence. I

have a genius which does not permit me to convert. I cannot be asked

to convert.

 

 

 

Therefore, the violence against me is a one‑sided violence. It is a

rank one‑sided violence. They have gotten away with it for two

thousand years. I want them to know that this is violence. Let them

prove conversion is non‑violence.

 

 

 

I am hurt and many others like me are hurt. Millions are hurt. There

are so many other issues to be discussed with reference to

conversion. But I have only one to discuss here. It is the violence

that is allowed to be perpetrated against humanity, against cultures,

against religions. That is the only issue here; there is no other

issue. (Applause)

 

 

 

Violence is the only issue. Humanity should not stand with hands down

and allow violence to be continued against a person who is non-

violent.

 

 

 

There is another important fact in the Indian context, I tell you. I

am a Swami committed to ahimsa. A sannyasi's vow is ahimsa, really.

It is nothing but ahimsa ‑sarva‑bhootebhyo abhayam. l am taking this

sanyasa and offer a complete assurance to all the beings and to all

the devataas, that I am not a competitor to any of them and that I

will not hurt any of them ‑ kayena vacha manasaa. That is sannyasa. I

am aware of this. I am a sannyasi .

 

 

 

Now I sit in Rishikesh. These two people come to me. One is a Padri

and the other is a Moulvi. I invite both of them. They are religious

people. I respect them. I give them seats. They try to argue with me

about something. Generally, I do not argue with them. You can argue

with people whom you can convince. I don't want to argue with people

who only want to convince me.

 

 

 

So I don't argue. I enjoy their company. I sit with them and talk to

them. They pick up a quarrel with me. And then they begin to beat me.

Please note that, this is just an imaginary tale. And there is a

policeman standing there. They go on beating me black and blue. I

implore to the policeman, "Please stop them. I am committed to

ahimsa. I don't want to fight them back. You please do something". I

appeal to him.

 

 

 

He says, This is a matter between religious people. I am secular.

(Prolonged cheers) I am supposed not to interfere". I appeal to him.

Twice, thrice I request him. He does not respond to me positively.

Then I think I have to protect myself. My shaastra will forgive me.

Even though I am given to ahimsa, still I can protect myself.

 

 

 

And therefore I thought I will take care of myself. I am not just a

weakling. I have got enough strength. And therefore, I can take care

of these two fellows plus one more. I began to defend myself. The

best form of defence is offence. That is what every husband does. And

therefore, you defend yourself. (Laughter)

 

 

 

But the policeman stops me and says, They are minorities. They have

to be protected and you should not fight against them". (Prolonged

cheers)

 

 

 

"Hey, policeman, you are supposed to protect me. You are the

Government. You are the State. You are supposed to protect me. You

cannot be like this".

 

 

 

This is the situation that prevails in India.

 

 

 

You have to change the whole blessed thing here. If the constitution

has to be changed, let it be changed for good. (Prolonged cheers) My

dharma is not violence. It does not allow conversion. And that dharma

has to be protected. The State has to protect. If the protector does

not protect, people should have a new protector to protect. That is

all. (Prolonged cheers)

 

 

 

Conversion is violence. And *it breeds violence. Don't convert

because, by this, you are converting the non‑violent to be violent.

(Applause) You are doing something wrong. This is drastically wrong.

This error has to be realised. The sooner it is corrected, the better

it is for all of us ‑ even for Christians and even for Muslims.

 

 

 

I want the Islamic culture to be there. I want the Christian culture

to be there. I want the Hindu culture and every other culture to be

there. Every culture is to be protected. That is secularism.

 

Thank you. (Prolonged cheers)

 

Please click the link for the above.

 

 

http://voi.org/general_inbox/pramod/conversionhimsa.html

 

 

 

With Love & OM!

 

OM Nama Shivaya!

OM Amriteswariye Namaha!

 

Krishna Prasad

[Guest guest]

Ammachi, "Krishna Prasad" <rkrishp99>

wrote:

> Hari OM! OM Ariteswariye Namaha!

>

> Dear Mike and all of my dear friends,

>

> Please read the artcile by Swami Dayananda Saraswathi of Arsha

Vidya

> Gurukulam regarding conversion. He delivered this lecture in Chennai

> Citizen's Committe for Dharma Raksha Sammellan.

>

>

> Conversion is violence.

>

> Mahadhyo Namaha

 

 

Conversion attempts are irritating, but violent? Sure looks like

things are really heating up in India over the issue of "offenses" to

everyone's various religious sentiments. I think I'll leave this

issue alone. I'm just a free lance "mystic" who is not really

associated with any "ism".

 

 

 

 

 

> 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 tribal 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

> 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 don't 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 very 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 me 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 to 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 a 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, cousin, neighbour,

> employer, employee and citizen. I have a number of hats to wear

every

> day. As the religious T, 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 a 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

anyone

> here. I may be a religious son. I may be a religious father,

> religious brother, religious husband. In fact, if I am religious,

the

> religious 'me' is going to pervade every role I play.

>

>

>

> Basically, first and 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 Kailasa. 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. But 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 with 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 don't require to

> submit 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 "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 every one, whether

> he believes in my religion or not. Just because I don't believe in

> your ideas, you can't stand on my toes! If you don't like my nose,

it

> is your problem. I don't 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 don't have any business to stand on my toes to

> hurt me in any manner. (Long cheers)

>

>

>

> In fact I will fight for your freedom to think differently. You

must

> be free enough to differ from me. Bhagavan has given us the faculty

> of thinking, of discrimination. We are not shy of enquiries. Our

> whole method of enquiry is to invite poorvapaksha 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 religions, by their theologies, is

> committed to conversion.

>

>

>

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

> practised 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‑paroksa ‑

on which they base their

> theology. (Applause)

>

>

>

> 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!"

>

>

>

> Once, I went to Kilpauk Mental Hospital. Just for a visit, of

course.

> (Laughter) It is my own imagination. It is not true. The Kilpauk

> Hospital is one of the most ancient mental hospitals in this

country.

> Next one is in Agra. We have got the number one status in many

things

> and this is one!

>

>

>

> Early morning, all the crows had flown away. Nobody was there. I

saw

> a man standing under a huge tree talking in loud voice, "Listen to

> me. I have come here, sent down by God, to save ail of you. You

> please ask for forgiveness of your sins. Those who want to be

saved,

> please raise your hands". Then he said, Thank you, thank you, thank

> you". He thought that from the audience many people had raised

their

> hands. But there was no audience. I was the only one standing

behind

> him. Not even in front of him. I was naturally amused but I was not

> surprised, because I knew where I was. (Laughter)

>

>

>

> As I was enjoying this situation, well, I heard a voice from the

> heaven. It said, "This is God speaking. I did not send him down.

> (Laughter) Don't believe him". When I looked up, there was one more

> fellow ‑ sitting on the tree. (Loud laughter and applause)

>

>

>

> This is a non‑verifiable belief as you can see. In addition

most of

> these religions, when they talk of heaven, are promoters of

tourism,

> really speaking. (Laughter) I am interested in making my life here,

> right now. If there is something you have got to say to make my

life

> different, I am ready to listen to you. If there are some pairs of

> ears ready to listen to some other thing, let them have the freedom.

>

>

>

> That there is a heaven is a non‑verifiable belief. That,

following

> this person, I will go to heaven, is another non‑verifiable

belief.

> That I will survive death, is a non‑verifiable belief. There

is

> nothing wrong in believing. But we have to understand that it is a

> non‑verifiable belief. And having gone to heaven I will enjoy

heaven,

> minus cricket match, is another non‑verifiable belief. The

> unfortunate thing is another fellow says: I am the latest and the

> last. Don't follow that fellow; follow me". (Laughter) That really

> confuses me. He ha~ really no argument to give that he is the fast.

> That I am the latest, is another non‑verifiable belief and

what is

> promised is again not verifiable.

>

>

>

> I say, let those non‑verifiable beliefs be there. I want them

to have

> those beliefs, even though I will not advocate them. I want them to

> have freedom. Let them enjoy the freedom to have their beliefs. But

> what is the basis for that person to come and convert me? If you

are

> convinced of something, you can try to convince me and not convert

> me. Did you ever notice a physics professor knocking at your door,

> asking for your time, so that he can talk to you about the

particles?

> Never! If you want to learn physics, you have to go to him.

>

>

>

> But here, every day, I am bothered. At the airport I am bothered,

in

> the street corners I am bothered, at home, I am bothered. They want

> to save my soul!

>

>

>

> I say this is not merely an intrusion; this is an aggression. There

> are varieties of intrusions. If the sound is too much outside, with

> all the loud speakers, well, it is an intrusion into my privacy.

One

> can complain; not in India, of course! Here also we have got laws.

It

> is not that we do not have laws. But we have 'in-laws' at right

> places. You know! (Laughter)

>

>

>

> So nobody has any business to intrude into my privacy. You

come .and

> tell me that I have got to save my soul. But I don't look upon

myself

> as condemned for you to come and save. We, really, don't have a

word

> in Sanskrit, equivalent for salvation. Because, 'salvation' means

you

> have been condemned. Unless you are condemned, you need not be

saved.

>

>

>

> But this man comes and tells me that I am damned. I have to believe

> that first. Then he appoints himself to save me. This is very

> interesting. This is how the union leaders work. You create a

problem

> and then appoint yourself as a leader to solve it. (Laughter) You

> become inevitable thereafter.

>

>

>

> Instead of the word 'salvation', we have a word 'moksha'. Here,

among

> the dignitaries there are may gurus. All of them have a common word

> and that common word is moksha. Is it not true? For every one of

them

> it is moksha.

>

>

>

> Moksha is not a word which is equivalent to salvation. It is

derived

> from the verbal root moksh = mokshane. It means freedom from

bondage.

> All of them use the word moksha. Even Saankhyas use this word.

> Vaiseshikas, Naiyaayikas and all others use this word moksha. In

> fact, if moksha is not an end in view, it is not 0 school of

thought

> to talk about. We all have a moksha. Even Chaarvaakas, the

> materialist, has his own concept of moksha. 'Body goes'; that is

> moksha for him. He says, bhasmeebhutasya dehasya punaraagamanam

> kutaha.

>

>

>

> So the word moksha does not mean salvation. It refers to freedom

from

> bondage. On the other hand the aggressive religions have this

belief

> system that you are condemned and you have to be saved.

>

>

>

> When I look into these theologies, what I see is very interesting.

I

> need not say anything to prove that they are illogical. I have to

> only state what they say!

>

>

>

> I would like to illustrate this:

>

>

>

> You must have heard about the 'Godfather'. You know the Mafia don

is

> called the Godfather. He makes an offer that you cannot refuse.

>

>

>

> He comes and tells you: I am buying your house".

>

>

>

> You may say, I am not selling".

>

>

>

> He says, "You are selling".

>

>

>

> This type of approach was existing in Madras for some time, I am

> told. I hope it does not come back again. (Loud laughter and

applause)

>

>

>

> The fellow comes and tells: I am buying your house!"

>

>

>

> And you reply, "This is my house and I am not selling".

>

>

>

> He says, "You are selling it and you are selling it at this price".

>

>

>

> He decides the price also and then tells you, I know exactly where

> your children are studying and when they are coming home also".

>

>

>

> He threatens you and buys the house.

>

>

>

> Thus, a Godfather is one who makes an offer that you cannot refuse.

>

>

>

> Now, what about God, the Father? He is worse, I tell you, because

he

> says either you follow this person or I will condemn you eternally

to

> hell. This is worse than the offer of the Mafia don! This too is an

> offer, which I cannot refuse. And it is worse.

>

>

>

> In the other case at least, I can do something. But here he is not

> even visible. He is sitting in a place even safer than Dubai! I

> cannot do anything to him. This is the non‑verifiable belief

on which

> their religion is based.

>

>

>

> He has the right to follow that religion. Let him follow his

> religion. All that I say is he does not have anything much to offer

> to me. If he thinks he has something to offer to me, let him have

the

> freedom to think so. But he has no freedom to intrude into my

privacy.

>

>

>

> He converts the Hindus by any means ‑ by marriage, by some

enticement

> or by some preaching which creates a fear. He talks about the

goodies

> available in heaven ‑if you go to heaven, you will enjoy this

and

> that. You will have beatitude and be saved. Otherwise, you will go

to

> hell. It will be too hot etc. So, more out of fear of hell, one may

> choose to go to heaven.

>

>

>

> He says and does all this to convert others to his religion. I say,

> this is wrong because if one Hindu or Jew or a Parsi is converted,

> and the other members of the family are not converted, they are all

> hurt. Even the converted one must be hurt underneath. He will be

> debating whether he was right in getting converted, It takes

sometime

> for him to heal that. He is also hurt. All other members are

> definitely hurt. The community that comes to know of this

conversion

> is hurt.

>

>

>

> Please tell me, what is violence? What do you call this act that

> hurts? I call it violence. It is not ordinary violence. It is

> violence to the deepest person, the core person, in the human

being.

> The religious person is the deepest. And if that person is hurt, I

> say, it is violence, rank and simple.

>

>

>

> It is pure violence. And what does it do? It wipes out cultures.

>

>

>

> I would like to go to Greece and see the live culture of the people

> who lived there. Where is that culture now? I have to imagine how

> they might have lived. I only see the huge monuments that are left

> behind.

>

>

>

> And like this, many other cultures have been totally destroyed. The

> native cultures of South America, North America and Australia have

> all been destroyed. What about the Hawaiian culture? Gone! All the

> tribal cultures in Africa have been destroyed. How many cultures,

for

> the past two thousand years, are methodically destroyed? The

humanity

> is the sufferer and is poorer for it.

>

>

>

> We need all the cultures. And let the humanity enjoy the riches of

> the different cultures. It is a mosaic of cultures, Each one has

got

> some beauty. With the destruction of religion comes the destruction

> of culture. When a new religion replaces the old, a culture is

> destroyed.

>

>

>

> After converting, they may try to preserve the art forms like

> Bharatanaatyam with the themes of the new religion. But without

> Nataraaja where is Bharatanaatyam, without devotion, where is

nrityam?

>

>

>

> And therefore, the culture cannot be retained if the religion is

> destroyed. It is true with reference to all other cultures also.

But

> definitely it is true with reference to our culture, because, you

> cannot separate culture from religion.

>

>

>

> Our religion and culture are intertwined. The religion has gone

into

> the fabric of the culture. When I say 'Namaste' to you, it is

> culture. It is religion. When you are throwing rangoli, it is

> religion; it is culture. There is a vision behind all that. Every

> form of culture is connected to religion and the religion itself is

> rooted in the spiritual wisdom. This is because we have a spiritual

> tradition.

>

>

>

> And therefore there is no cultural form unconnected to religion.

> Destruction of culture is destruction of religion. Destruction of

> religion is destruction of culture. If this destruction is not

> violence, what is violence? I would like to know?

>

>

>

> I say CONVERSION IS VIOLENCE. (Thunderous applause) It is rank

> violence. It is the deepest violence.

>

>

>

> Not only that, in our dharma‑shaastra, it is said that if

somebody

> forcefully occupies another's piece of land, he is called an

> aatataayi. For an aatataayi, in our shaastra, there is capital

> punishment.

>

>

>

> Occupying another's land or another's house or flat, against the

will

> of the owner is a grave paapa according to our dharma. Many times,

> when the owner asks, "Give me back my house", the tenant invariably

> replies, I am sorry. I cannot give you the house, because my

children

> are going to the school in this area. Please find a similar house

for

> me. Then I will move". When the owner finds such a house for him,

the

> tenant says, It is too far away for the children to go to school.

> Please find something in the same neighbourhood". It means, I would

> like to be here". If you go to the court, twenty five years would

be

> gone. But occupying another's land is not dharma as per our culture.

>

>

>

> Another's kshetra is another's kshetra. It has nothing to do with

me.

> Kshetra-apahaari is an aatataayi. The one who does arson or poisons

> somebody is an aatataayi, and there is capital punishment for him.

> One who kidnaps another's wife is an aatataayi and there is capital

> punishment for him. All these actions deserve capital punishment.

And

> if, simply for occupation of a land of another, there is capital

> punishment, think of what would be the punishment for the

destruction

> of a culture.

>

>

>

> Suppose somebody is ashastrapaani, unarmed, and you kill him, it is

> not correct. Karna in the Mahaabhaarata uses this argument when he

> was completely unarmed. Talking to Arjuna, he said, I am an

> ashastrapaani; you should not hit me now. Krishna had to tell him

> that Karna was not unarmed, but he was duly disarmed. There is a

lot

> of difference between the two. Krishna had to convince him.

>

>

>

> So here, a Hindu is an ashastrapaani. A Jewish person is an

> ashastrapaani. A Buddhist is an ashastrapaani. A Parsi is an

> ashastrapaani. That is, they are all non‑aggressive. When you

try to

> convert them, it is like hurting an ashastrapaani.

>

>

>

> You cannot ask me to change the genius of my culture, the genius of

> my religion. It is the tradition of my culture and religion that I

do

> not convert. It is not a situation where, you convert and I

convert.

> And the one who has a better organisation is going to convert more

> number of people. It is not a percentage game of the market.

>

>

>

> Here it is one sided. I cannot change the genius of my culture

> because I do not believe in conversion. I allow you to be a

> Christian. I allow you to be a Muslim. You be a Christian, you be a

> Muslim. You pray; it is fine for us. I let you be a Muslim or a

> Christian, even though I do not say, "All religions lead to the

same

> goal". I don't commit that ubiquitous mistake. (Cheers)

>

>

>

> But I give you the freedom. You please follow your religion. Don't

> ask me to convert others to my religion like you, because I cannot

> convert. It is because I do not believe in it. My parents did not

> believe in it. My grand parents did not believe in it. My Rishis

did

> not believe in it. And I don't believe in it. You cannot change a

> culture in order to be on par with the others. It is against the

> genius of our culture.

>

>

>

> It is not only our culture, which is like this; there are other

> cultures too. The number of the Parsis is dwindling. I loathe to

see

> the destruction of the Parsi culture. They are harmless good

people.

> But now they are the losers.

>

>

>

> Jewish people are also the losers; their numbers are also

dwindling.

> They are fighting to preserve their culture and religion. They are

> not converting. There is no evangelism in Judaism. There is no

> proselytization. There were never any inquisition. They were the

> sufferers; they were the victims of aggression, and planned

> aggression for ages.

>

>

>

> And therefore, conversion is not merely violence against people; it

> is violence against people, who are committed to

non‑violence.

> (Prolonged cheers)

>

>

>

> I don't say Hindus do not fight. They can fight very well. You

don't

> tell me, "You put your house in order". I will put my house in

order,

> in my own time and in my own way.

>

>

>

> If two brothers are fighting over an empty piece of land that is

> there next door, and a third man occupies the land saying, "Because

> you two are fighting, I am occupying this piece of land", what is

> this logic? Some people advance this logic to me and say that we

are

> all fighting and therefore they are in. We may be fighting amongst

> ourselves but we have to settle that among ourselves. That does not

> mean YOU can be violent. (Applause)

>

>

>

> Somebody says we must have ecumenical dialogue. I had attended some

> of these dialogues. And I stopped attending them. Because I don't

see

> any use in it. On one such occasion, I said, I can have a dialogue

> with a Christian, if he is ready to change, if convinced, after the

> dialogue". Is he, if convinced, going to change his stand? Is he

> going to stop conversion? Don't ask me to have a dialogue with you

> when you are standing on my toes. You just move away. Then we can

> have a dialogue.

>

>

>

> The world religious conferences that are held are only meant to

> neutralise any protest against conversion. That is all. (Cheers)

> Because they don't want to stop conversion. So what is the use of

> saying, "We are all same. We are all going to the same God". It is

> something like saying, you know, your property is my property; my

> property is your property; your money is my money; my money is your

> money. Therefore, let my money be with me and let your money also

be

> with me! (Laughter) So this is all wrong thinking.

>

>

>

> All forms of prayer are valid. That I can accept. They don't accept

> that. I can accept because of my understanding of the shaastra. The

> Lord will understand, definitely, if I pray in Tamil or, Latin or

> Greek. There is nothing Latin and Greek to the Lord. He will

> understand in whichever language the prayer is made. If I pray in

> Samskritam, definitely, he will understand because it is His

language

> anyway. (Laughter) I am very Catholic, understand'. I don't have

this

> kind of silly notions that it has got to be in one language and it

> has got to be in one form etc.

>

>

>

> But we have certain special forms of rituals ‑ Vedic rituals

‑ which

> cannot be compromised with. Because we do not know how they can be

> different. We have no other pramaana for it. We do not have a means

> of knowledge to prove that this can be different.

>

>

>

> They do not accept any of that. And they preach. It is not that

they

> preach their own religion. They preach against other religions. And

I

> consider that kind of preaching is violence. It breeds violence. I

> have a genius which does not permit me to convert. I cannot be

asked

> to convert.

>

>

>

> Therefore, the violence against me is a one‑sided violence.

It is a

> rank one‑sided violence. They have gotten away with it for

two

> thousand years. I want them to know that this is violence. Let them

> prove conversion is non‑violence.

>

>

>

> I am hurt and many others like me are hurt. Millions are hurt.

There

> are so many other issues to be discussed with reference to

> conversion. But I have only one to discuss here. It is the violence

> that is allowed to be perpetrated against humanity, against

cultures,

> against religions. That is the only issue here; there is no other

> issue. (Applause)

>

>

>

> Violence is the only issue. Humanity should not stand with hands

down

> and allow violence to be continued against a person who is non-

> violent.

>

>

>

> There is another important fact in the Indian context, I tell you.

I

> am a Swami committed to ahimsa. A sannyasi's vow is ahimsa, really.

> It is nothing but ahimsa ‑sarva‑bhootebhyo abhayam. l

am taking this

> sanyasa and offer a complete assurance to all the beings and to all

> the devataas, that I am not a competitor to any of them and that I

> will not hurt any of them ‑ kayena vacha manasaa. That is

sannyasa. I

> am aware of this. I am a sannyasi .

>

>

>

> Now I sit in Rishikesh. These two people come to me. One is a Padri

> and the other is a Moulvi. I invite both of them. They are

religious

> people. I respect them. I give them seats. They try to argue with

me

> about something. Generally, I do not argue with them. You can argue

> with people whom you can convince. I don't want to argue with

people

> who only want to convince me.

>

>

>

> So I don't argue. I enjoy their company. I sit with them and talk

to

> them. They pick up a quarrel with me. And then they begin to beat

me.

> Please note that, this is just an imaginary tale. And there is a

> policeman standing there. They go on beating me black and blue. I

> implore to the policeman, "Please stop them. I am committed to

> ahimsa. I don't want to fight them back. You please do something".

I

> appeal to him.

>

>

>

> He says, This is a matter between religious people. I am secular.

> (Prolonged cheers) I am supposed not to interfere". I appeal to

him.

> Twice, thrice I request him. He does not respond to me positively.

> Then I think I have to protect myself. My shaastra will forgive me.

> Even though I am given to ahimsa, still I can protect myself.

>

>

>

> And therefore I thought I will take care of myself. I am not just a

> weakling. I have got enough strength. And therefore, I can take

care

> of these two fellows plus one more. I began to defend myself. The

> best form of defence is offence. That is what every husband does.

And

> therefore, you defend yourself. (Laughter)

>

>

>

> But the policeman stops me and says, They are minorities. They have

> to be protected and you should not fight against them". (Prolonged

> cheers)

>

>

>

> "Hey, policeman, you are supposed to protect me. You are the

> Government. You are the State. You are supposed to protect me. You

> cannot be like this".

>

>

>

> This is the situation that prevails in India.

>

>

>

> You have to change the whole blessed thing here. If the

constitution

> has to be changed, let it be changed for good. (Prolonged cheers)

My

> dharma is not violence. It does not allow conversion. And that

dharma

> has to be protected. The State has to protect. If the protector

does

> not protect, people should have a new protector to protect. That is

> all. (Prolonged cheers)

>

>

>

> Conversion is violence. And *it breeds violence. Don't convert

> because, by this, you are converting the non‑violent to be

violent.

> (Applause) You are doing something wrong. This is drastically

wrong.

> This error has to be realised. The sooner it is corrected, the

better

> it is for all of us ‑ even for Christians and even for

Muslims.

>

>

>

> I want the Islamic culture to be there. I want the Christian

culture

> to be there. I want the Hindu culture and every other culture to be

> there. Every culture is to be protected. That is secularism.

>

> Thank you. (Prolonged cheers)

>

> Please click the link for the above.

>

>

> http://voi.org/general_inbox/pramod/conversionhimsa.html

>

>

>

> With Love & OM!

>

> OM Nama Shivaya!

> OM Amriteswariye Namaha!

>

> Krishna Prasad

[Guest guest]

There are big differences in Indian society and US or European

society regarding things like marriage, raising children and care of

the elderly. Conversion affects families in these societies very

differently.

 

Here in California, I can tell a Christian missionary who comes to

my door that I am not interested and close the door. This reply to

him or her will not affect the future schooling of my children. If

I lived in an area in India where the best school was a Christian

school and I had two children I hoped would attend there, the matter

might not be as simple. And, yes, in India, missionaries have and

do take advantage of such opportunities.

 

Here in California USA, if I convert from the religion of my family,

probably I will still be able to manage my parents' funeral

arrangements. In India, in some communities, if I converted to

Christianity, I would not be permitted to participate in these

rites. This would cause my parents very great anguish while they

were still alive.

 

It's not as simple as just saying "no" or "yes."

 

Aikya

 

 

Ammachi, "Mike Jamieson" <mdj1950> wrote:

> Ammachi, "Krishna Prasad" <rkrishp99>

> wrote:

> > Hari OM! OM Ariteswariye Namaha!

> >

> > Dear Mike and all of my dear friends,

> >

> > Please read the artcile by Swami Dayananda Saraswathi of Arsha

> Vidya

> > Gurukulam regarding conversion. He delivered this lecture in

Chennai

> > Citizen's Committe for Dharma Raksha Sammellan.

> >

> >

> > Conversion is violence.

> >

> > Mahadhyo Namaha

>

>

> Conversion attempts are irritating, but violent? Sure looks like

> things are really heating up in India over the issue of "offenses"

to

> everyone's various religious sentiments. I think I'll leave this

> issue alone. I'm just a free lance "mystic" who is not really

> associated with any "ism".

>

>

>

>

>

> > 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 tribal 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

> > 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 don't 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 very 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 me 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 to 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 a 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, cousin, neighbour,

> > employer, employee and citizen. I have a number of hats to wear

> every

> > day. As the religious T, 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 a 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

> anyone

> > here. I may be a religious son. I may be a religious father,

> > religious brother, religious husband. In fact, if I am

religious,

> the

> > religious 'me' is going to pervade every role I play.

> >

> >

> >

> > Basically, first and 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 Kailasa. 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. But 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 with 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 don't require

to

> > submit 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 "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 every one,

whether

> > he believes in my religion or not. Just because I don't believe

in

> > your ideas, you can't stand on my toes! If you don't like my

nose,

> it

> > is your problem. I don't 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 don't have any business to stand on my toes

to

> > hurt me in any manner. (Long cheers)

> >

> >

> >

> > In fact I will fight for your freedom to think differently. You

> must

> > be free enough to differ from me. Bhagavan has given us the

faculty

> > of thinking, of discrimination. We are not shy of enquiries. Our

> > whole method of enquiry is to invite poorvapaksha 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 religions, by their theologies, is

> > committed to conversion.

> >

> >

> >

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

is

> > practised 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‑paroksa

‑

> on which they base their

> > theology. (Applause)

> >

> >

> >

> > 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!"

> >

> >

> >

> > Once, I went to Kilpauk Mental Hospital. Just for a visit, of

> course.

> > (Laughter) It is my own imagination. It is not true. The Kilpauk

> > Hospital is one of the most ancient mental hospitals in this

> country.

> > Next one is in Agra. We have got the number one status in many

> things

> > and this is one!

> >

> >

> >

> > Early morning, all the crows had flown away. Nobody was there. I

> saw

> > a man standing under a huge tree talking in loud voice, "Listen

to

> > me. I have come here, sent down by God, to save ail of you. You

> > please ask for forgiveness of your sins. Those who want to be

> saved,

> > please raise your hands". Then he said, Thank you, thank you,

thank

> > you". He thought that from the audience many people had raised

> their

> > hands. But there was no audience. I was the only one standing

> behind

> > him. Not even in front of him. I was naturally amused but I was

not

> > surprised, because I knew where I was. (Laughter)

> >

> >

> >

> > As I was enjoying this situation, well, I heard a voice from the

> > heaven. It said, "This is God speaking. I did not send him down.

> > (Laughter) Don't believe him". When I looked up, there was one

more

> > fellow ‑ sitting on the tree. (Loud laughter and applause)

> >

> >

> >

> > This is a non‑verifiable belief as you can see. In

addition

> most of

> > these religions, when they talk of heaven, are promoters of

> tourism,

> > really speaking. (Laughter) I am interested in making my life

here,

> > right now. If there is something you have got to say to make my

> life

> > different, I am ready to listen to you. If there are some pairs

of

> > ears ready to listen to some other thing, let them have the

freedom.

> >

> >

> >

> > That there is a heaven is a non‑verifiable belief. That,

> following

> > this person, I will go to heaven, is another

non‑verifiable

> belief.

> > That I will survive death, is a non‑verifiable belief.

There

> is

> > nothing wrong in believing. But we have to understand that it is

a

> > non‑verifiable belief. And having gone to heaven I will

enjoy

> heaven,

> > minus cricket match, is another non‑verifiable belief. The

> > unfortunate thing is another fellow says: I am the latest and

the

> > last. Don't follow that fellow; follow me". (Laughter) That

really

> > confuses me. He ha~ really no argument to give that he is the

fast.

> > That I am the latest, is another non‑verifiable belief and

> what is

> > promised is again not verifiable.

> >

> >

> >

> > I say, let those non‑verifiable beliefs be there. I want

them

> to have

> > those beliefs, even though I will not advocate them. I want them

to

> > have freedom. Let them enjoy the freedom to have their beliefs.

But

> > what is the basis for that person to come and convert me? If you

> are

> > convinced of something, you can try to convince me and not

convert

> > me. Did you ever notice a physics professor knocking at your

door,

> > asking for your time, so that he can talk to you about the

> particles?

> > Never! If you want to learn physics, you have to go to him.

> >

> >

> >

> > But here, every day, I am bothered. At the airport I am

bothered,

> in

> > the street corners I am bothered, at home, I am bothered. They

want

> > to save my soul!

> >

> >

> >

> > I say this is not merely an intrusion; this is an aggression.

There

> > are varieties of intrusions. If the sound is too much outside,

with

> > all the loud speakers, well, it is an intrusion into my privacy.

> One

> > can complain; not in India, of course! Here also we have got

laws.

> It

> > is not that we do not have laws. But we have 'in-laws' at right

> > places. You know! (Laughter)

> >

> >

> >

> > So nobody has any business to intrude into my privacy. You

> come .and

> > tell me that I have got to save my soul. But I don't look upon

> myself

> > as condemned for you to come and save. We, really, don't have a

> word

> > in Sanskrit, equivalent for salvation. Because, 'salvation'

means

> you

> > have been condemned. Unless you are condemned, you need not be

> saved.

> >

> >

> >

> > But this man comes and tells me that I am damned. I have to

believe

> > that first. Then he appoints himself to save me. This is very

> > interesting. This is how the union leaders work. You create a

> problem

> > and then appoint yourself as a leader to solve it. (Laughter)

You

> > become inevitable thereafter.

> >

> >

> >

> > Instead of the word 'salvation', we have a word 'moksha'. Here,

> among

> > the dignitaries there are may gurus. All of them have a common

word

> > and that common word is moksha. Is it not true? For every one of

> them

> > it is moksha.

> >

> >

> >

> > Moksha is not a word which is equivalent to salvation. It is

> derived

> > from the verbal root moksh = mokshane. It means freedom from

> bondage.

> > All of them use the word moksha. Even Saankhyas use this word.

> > Vaiseshikas, Naiyaayikas and all others use this word moksha. In

> > fact, if moksha is not an end in view, it is not 0 school of

> thought

> > to talk about. We all have a moksha. Even Chaarvaakas, the

> > materialist, has his own concept of moksha. 'Body goes'; that is

> > moksha for him. He says, bhasmeebhutasya dehasya punaraagamanam

> > kutaha.

> >

> >

> >

> > So the word moksha does not mean salvation. It refers to freedom

> from

> > bondage. On the other hand the aggressive religions have this

> belief

> > system that you are condemned and you have to be saved.

> >

> >

> >

> > When I look into these theologies, what I see is very

interesting.

> I

> > need not say anything to prove that they are illogical. I have

to

> > only state what they say!

> >

> >

> >

> > I would like to illustrate this:

> >

> >

> >

> > You must have heard about the 'Godfather'. You know the Mafia

don

> is

> > called the Godfather. He makes an offer that you cannot refuse.

> >

> >

> >

> > He comes and tells you: I am buying your house".

> >

> >

> >

> > You may say, I am not selling".

> >

> >

> >

> > He says, "You are selling".

> >

> >

> >

> > This type of approach was existing in Madras for some time, I am

> > told. I hope it does not come back again. (Loud laughter and

> applause)

> >

> >

> >

> > The fellow comes and tells: I am buying your house!"

> >

> >

> >

> > And you reply, "This is my house and I am not selling".

> >

> >

> >

> > He says, "You are selling it and you are selling it at this

price".

> >

> >

> >

> > He decides the price also and then tells you, I know exactly

where

> > your children are studying and when they are coming home also".

> >

> >

> >

> > He threatens you and buys the house.

> >

> >

> >

> > Thus, a Godfather is one who makes an offer that you cannot

refuse.

> >

> >

> >

> > Now, what about God, the Father? He is worse, I tell you,

because

> he

> > says either you follow this person or I will condemn you

eternally

> to

> > hell. This is worse than the offer of the Mafia don! This too is

an

> > offer, which I cannot refuse. And it is worse.

> >

> >

> >

> > In the other case at least, I can do something. But here he is

not

> > even visible. He is sitting in a place even safer than Dubai! I

> > cannot do anything to him. This is the non‑verifiable

belief

> on which

> > their religion is based.

> >

> >

> >

> > He has the right to follow that religion. Let him follow his

> > religion. All that I say is he does not have anything much to

offer

> > to me. If he thinks he has something to offer to me, let him

have

> the

> > freedom to think so. But he has no freedom to intrude into my

> privacy.

> >

> >

> >

> > He converts the Hindus by any means ‑ by marriage, by some

> enticement

> > or by some preaching which creates a fear. He talks about the

> goodies

> > available in heaven ‑if you go to heaven, you will enjoy

this

> and

> > that. You will have beatitude and be saved. Otherwise, you will

go

> to

> > hell. It will be too hot etc. So, more out of fear of hell, one

may

> > choose to go to heaven.

> >

> >

> >

> > He says and does all this to convert others to his religion. I

say,

> > this is wrong because if one Hindu or Jew or a Parsi is

converted,

> > and the other members of the family are not converted, they are

all

> > hurt. Even the converted one must be hurt underneath. He will be

> > debating whether he was right in getting converted, It takes

> sometime

> > for him to heal that. He is also hurt. All other members are

> > definitely hurt. The community that comes to know of this

> conversion

> > is hurt.

> >

> >

> >

> > Please tell me, what is violence? What do you call this act that

> > hurts? I call it violence. It is not ordinary violence. It is

> > violence to the deepest person, the core person, in the human

> being.

> > The religious person is the deepest. And if that person is hurt,

I

> > say, it is violence, rank and simple.

> >

> >

> >

> > It is pure violence. And what does it do? It wipes out cultures.

> >

> >

> >

> > I would like to go to Greece and see the live culture of the

people

> > who lived there. Where is that culture now? I have to imagine

how

> > they might have lived. I only see the huge monuments that are

left

> > behind.

> >

> >

> >

> > And like this, many other cultures have been totally destroyed.

The

> > native cultures of South America, North America and Australia

have

> > all been destroyed. What about the Hawaiian culture? Gone! All

the

> > tribal cultures in Africa have been destroyed. How many

cultures,

> for

> > the past two thousand years, are methodically destroyed? The

> humanity

> > is the sufferer and is poorer for it.

> >

> >

> >

> > We need all the cultures. And let the humanity enjoy the riches

of

> > the different cultures. It is a mosaic of cultures, Each one has

> got

> > some beauty. With the destruction of religion comes the

destruction

> > of culture. When a new religion replaces the old, a culture is

> > destroyed.

> >

> >

> >

> > After converting, they may try to preserve the art forms like

> > Bharatanaatyam with the themes of the new religion. But without

> > Nataraaja where is Bharatanaatyam, without devotion, where is

> nrityam?

> >

> >

> >

> > And therefore, the culture cannot be retained if the religion is

> > destroyed. It is true with reference to all other cultures also.

> But

> > definitely it is true with reference to our culture, because,

you

> > cannot separate culture from religion.

> >

> >

> >

> > Our religion and culture are intertwined. The religion has gone

> into

> > the fabric of the culture. When I say 'Namaste' to you, it is

> > culture. It is religion. When you are throwing rangoli, it is

> > religion; it is culture. There is a vision behind all that.

Every

> > form of culture is connected to religion and the religion itself

is

> > rooted in the spiritual wisdom. This is because we have a

spiritual

> > tradition.

> >

> >

> >

> > And therefore there is no cultural form unconnected to religion.

> > Destruction of culture is destruction of religion. Destruction

of

> > religion is destruction of culture. If this destruction is not

> > violence, what is violence? I would like to know?

> >

> >

> >

> > I say CONVERSION IS VIOLENCE. (Thunderous applause) It is rank

> > violence. It is the deepest violence.

> >

> >

> >

> > Not only that, in our dharma‑shaastra, it is said that if

> somebody

> > forcefully occupies another's piece of land, he is called an

> > aatataayi. For an aatataayi, in our shaastra, there is capital

> > punishment.

> >

> >

> >

> > Occupying another's land or another's house or flat, against the

> will

> > of the owner is a grave paapa according to our dharma. Many

times,

> > when the owner asks, "Give me back my house", the tenant

invariably

> > replies, I am sorry. I cannot give you the house, because my

> children

> > are going to the school in this area. Please find a similar

house

> for

> > me. Then I will move". When the owner finds such a house for

him,

> the

> > tenant says, It is too far away for the children to go to

school.

> > Please find something in the same neighbourhood". It means, I

would

> > like to be here". If you go to the court, twenty five years

would

> be

> > gone. But occupying another's land is not dharma as per our

culture.

> >

> >

> >

> > Another's kshetra is another's kshetra. It has nothing to do

with

> me.

> > Kshetra-apahaari is an aatataayi. The one who does arson or

poisons

> > somebody is an aatataayi, and there is capital punishment for

him.

> > One who kidnaps another's wife is an aatataayi and there is

capital

> > punishment for him. All these actions deserve capital

punishment.

> And

> > if, simply for occupation of a land of another, there is capital

> > punishment, think of what would be the punishment for the

> destruction

> > of a culture.

> >

> >

> >

> > Suppose somebody is ashastrapaani, unarmed, and you kill him, it

is

> > not correct. Karna in the Mahaabhaarata uses this argument when

he

> > was completely unarmed. Talking to Arjuna, he said, I am an

> > ashastrapaani; you should not hit me now. Krishna had to tell

him

> > that Karna was not unarmed, but he was duly disarmed. There is a

> lot

> > of difference between the two. Krishna had to convince him.

> >

> >

> >

> > So here, a Hindu is an ashastrapaani. A Jewish person is an

> > ashastrapaani. A Buddhist is an ashastrapaani. A Parsi is an

> > ashastrapaani. That is, they are all non‑aggressive. When

you

> try to

> > convert them, it is like hurting an ashastrapaani.

> >

> >

> >

> > You cannot ask me to change the genius of my culture, the genius

of

> > my religion. It is the tradition of my culture and religion that

I

> do

> > not convert. It is not a situation where, you convert and I

> convert.

> > And the one who has a better organisation is going to convert

more

> > number of people. It is not a percentage game of the market.

> >

> >

> >

> > Here it is one sided. I cannot change the genius of my culture

> > because I do not believe in conversion. I allow you to be a

> > Christian. I allow you to be a Muslim. You be a Christian, you

be a

> > Muslim. You pray; it is fine for us. I let you be a Muslim or a

> > Christian, even though I do not say, "All religions lead to the

> same

> > goal". I don't commit that ubiquitous mistake. (Cheers)

> >

> >

> >

> > But I give you the freedom. You please follow your religion.

Don't

> > ask me to convert others to my religion like you, because I

cannot

> > convert. It is because I do not believe in it. My parents did

not

> > believe in it. My grand parents did not believe in it. My Rishis

> did

> > not believe in it. And I don't believe in it. You cannot change

a

> > culture in order to be on par with the others. It is against the

> > genius of our culture.

> >

> >

> >

> > It is not only our culture, which is like this; there are other

> > cultures too. The number of the Parsis is dwindling. I loathe to

> see

> > the destruction of the Parsi culture. They are harmless good

> people.

> > But now they are the losers.

> >

> >

> >

> > Jewish people are also the losers; their numbers are also

> dwindling.

> > They are fighting to preserve their culture and religion. They

are

> > not converting. There is no evangelism in Judaism. There is no

> > proselytization. There were never any inquisition. They were the

> > sufferers; they were the victims of aggression, and planned

> > aggression for ages.

> >

> >

> >

> > And therefore, conversion is not merely violence against people;

it

> > is violence against people, who are committed to

> non‑violence.

> > (Prolonged cheers)

> >

> >

> >

> > I don't say Hindus do not fight. They can fight very well. You

> don't

> > tell me, "You put your house in order". I will put my house in

> order,

> > in my own time and in my own way.

> >

> >

> >

> > If two brothers are fighting over an empty piece of land that is

> > there next door, and a third man occupies the land

saying, "Because

> > you two are fighting, I am occupying this piece of land", what

is

> > this logic? Some people advance this logic to me and say that we

> are

> > all fighting and therefore they are in. We may be fighting

amongst

> > ourselves but we have to settle that among ourselves. That does

not

> > mean YOU can be violent. (Applause)

> >

> >

> >

> > Somebody says we must have ecumenical dialogue. I had attended

some

> > of these dialogues. And I stopped attending them. Because I

don't

> see

> > any use in it. On one such occasion, I said, I can have a

dialogue

> > with a Christian, if he is ready to change, if convinced, after

the

> > dialogue". Is he, if convinced, going to change his stand? Is he

> > going to stop conversion? Don't ask me to have a dialogue with

you

> > when you are standing on my toes. You just move away. Then we

can

> > have a dialogue.

> >

> >

> >

> > The world religious conferences that are held are only meant to

> > neutralise any protest against conversion. That is all. (Cheers)

> > Because they don't want to stop conversion. So what is the use

of

> > saying, "We are all same. We are all going to the same God". It

is

> > something like saying, you know, your property is my property;

my

> > property is your property; your money is my money; my money is

your

> > money. Therefore, let my money be with me and let your money

also

> be

> > with me! (Laughter) So this is all wrong thinking.

> >

> >

> >

> > All forms of prayer are valid. That I can accept. They don't

accept

> > that. I can accept because of my understanding of the shaastra.

The

> > Lord will understand, definitely, if I pray in Tamil or, Latin

or

> > Greek. There is nothing Latin and Greek to the Lord. He will

> > understand in whichever language the prayer is made. If I pray

in

> > Samskritam, definitely, he will understand because it is His

> language

> > anyway. (Laughter) I am very Catholic, understand'. I don't have

> this

> > kind of silly notions that it has got to be in one language and

it

> > has got to be in one form etc.

> >

> >

> >

> > But we have certain special forms of rituals ‑ Vedic

rituals

> ‑ which

> > cannot be compromised with. Because we do not know how they can

be

> > different. We have no other pramaana for it. We do not have a

means

> > of knowledge to prove that this can be different.

> >

> >

> >

> > They do not accept any of that. And they preach. It is not that

> they

> > preach their own religion. They preach against other religions.

And

> I

> > consider that kind of preaching is violence. It breeds violence.

I

> > have a genius which does not permit me to convert. I cannot be

> asked

> > to convert.

> >

> >

> >

> > Therefore, the violence against me is a one‑sided

violence.

> It is a

> > rank one‑sided violence. They have gotten away with it for

> two

> > thousand years. I want them to know that this is violence. Let

them

> > prove conversion is non‑violence.

> >

> >

> >

> > I am hurt and many others like me are hurt. Millions are hurt.

> There

> > are so many other issues to be discussed with reference to

> > conversion. But I have only one to discuss here. It is the

violence

> > that is allowed to be perpetrated against humanity, against

> cultures,

> > against religions. That is the only issue here; there is no

other

> > issue. (Applause)

> >

> >

> >

> > Violence is the only issue. Humanity should not stand with hands

> down

> > and allow violence to be continued against a person who is non-

> > violent.

> >

> >

> >

> > There is another important fact in the Indian context, I tell

you.

> I

> > am a Swami committed to ahimsa. A sannyasi's vow is ahimsa,

really.

> > It is nothing but ahimsa ‑sarva‑bhootebhyo abhayam.

l

> am taking this

> > sanyasa and offer a complete assurance to all the beings and to

all

> > the devataas, that I am not a competitor to any of them and that

I

> > will not hurt any of them ‑ kayena vacha manasaa. That is

> sannyasa. I

> > am aware of this. I am a sannyasi .

> >

> >

> >

> > Now I sit in Rishikesh. These two people come to me. One is a

Padri

> > and the other is a Moulvi. I invite both of them. They are

> religious

> > people. I respect them. I give them seats. They try to argue

with

> me

> > about something. Generally, I do not argue with them. You can

argue

> > with people whom you can convince. I don't want to argue with

> people

> > who only want to convince me.

> >

> >

> >

> > So I don't argue. I enjoy their company. I sit with them and

talk

> to

> > them. They pick up a quarrel with me. And then they begin to

beat

> me.

> > Please note that, this is just an imaginary tale. And there is a

> > policeman standing there. They go on beating me black and blue.

I

> > implore to the policeman, "Please stop them. I am committed to

> > ahimsa. I don't want to fight them back. You please do

something".

> I

> > appeal to him.

> >

> >

> >

> > He says, This is a matter between religious people. I am

secular.

> > (Prolonged cheers) I am supposed not to interfere". I appeal to

> him.

> > Twice, thrice I request him. He does not respond to me

positively.

> > Then I think I have to protect myself. My shaastra will forgive

me.

> > Even though I am given to ahimsa, still I can protect myself.

> >

> >

> >

> > And therefore I thought I will take care of myself. I am not

just a

> > weakling. I have got enough strength. And therefore, I can take

> care

> > of these two fellows plus one more. I began to defend myself.

The

> > best form of defence is offence. That is what every husband

does.

> And

> > therefore, you defend yourself. (Laughter)

> >

> >

> >

> > But the policeman stops me and says, They are minorities. They

have

> > to be protected and you should not fight against them".

(Prolonged

> > cheers)

> >

> >

> >

> > "Hey, policeman, you are supposed to protect me. You are the

> > Government. You are the State. You are supposed to protect me.

You

> > cannot be like this".

> >

> >

> >

> > This is the situation that prevails in India.

> >

> >

> >

> > You have to change the whole blessed thing here. If the

> constitution

> > has to be changed, let it be changed for good. (Prolonged

cheers)

> My

> > dharma is not violence. It does not allow conversion. And that

> dharma

> > has to be protected. The State has to protect. If the protector

> does

> > not protect, people should have a new protector to protect. That

is

> > all. (Prolonged cheers)

> >

> >

> >

> > Conversion is violence. And *it breeds violence. Don't convert

> > because, by this, you are converting the non‑violent to be

> violent.

> > (Applause) You are doing something wrong. This is drastically

> wrong.

> > This error has to be realised. The sooner it is corrected, the

> better

> > it is for all of us ‑ even for Christians and even for

> Muslims.

> >

> >

> >

> > I want the Islamic culture to be there. I want the Christian

> culture

> > to be there. I want the Hindu culture and every other culture to

be

> > there. Every culture is to be protected. That is secularism.

> >

> > Thank you. (Prolonged cheers)

> >

> > Please click the link for the above.

> >

> >

> > http://voi.org/general_inbox/pramod/conversionhimsa.html

> >

> >

> >

> > With Love & OM!

> >

> > OM Nama Shivaya!

> > OM Amriteswariye Namaha!

> >

> > Krishna Prasad