Hinduism's great strength is that it grants other religions the utmost respect (NEW)

Hinduism's great strength is that it grants other religions the utmost respect (NEW)

Posted By: Vir Sanghvi   |   Posted On: 18 Sep 2010 12:52 PM

Did you know that Julia Roberts has become a Hindu? I didn't either till I read that, in one of the interviews she had given to promote her new movie Eat, Pray, Love, the actress declared that while making the movie (part of which is inspired by author Elizabeth Gilbert's experiences at the Muktanand Ashram in Ganeshpuri) she discovered the Hindu faith and adopted it.

 

Why are we so surprised when famous people become Hindus? I guess it is because we don't regard those who subscribe to cults as being particularly Hindu. For instance, the Beatle George Harrison was an early convert to the Hare Krishna movement and had an on-off relationship with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. But we regard the Hare Krishnas as weirdos who do not truly represent mainstream Hinduism and Mahesh Yogi was, in our eyes, a jet-set guru with a nice line in transcendental meditation but not much of an advertisement for mainstream Hinduism.

 

The cultists and guru-worshippers we can deal with. They don't follow our sort of Hinduism. But it is rare to find somebody who adopts mainstream Hinduism with its beguiling mixture of simplicity and complexity, ancient purity and latter-day practicality.

 

Hinduism may well be the oldest religion to come out of India but it is not the only one. Sikhism has a global presence because Sikhs are easily distinguishable and travel the world. Jainism is less well known outside of India. But Buddhism is probably better-known abroad than it is in India even though the Buddha was an Indian. (In strict geographical terms, the area of his birth would be in the Terai on the border of India and today's Nepal.)

 

The contrasts between Hinduism and Buddhism are interesting. As far as we can tell, Buddhism only became a global religion after Ashoka converted to it after the conquest of Kalinga (around 273 BC). Ashoka spread Buddhism throughout India and sent emissaries abroad to spread the Buddha's teachings. It took a few centuries but eventually Buddhism held sway in much of Asia: China, Japan, Thailand and even Ceylon (today's Sri Lanka). Tibetan Buddhism took on a different form from Indian Buddhism and eventually Buddhist monks came to rule Tibet. (The Dalai Lama is descended from this tradition.)

 

For some centuries Buddhism held sway in India till gradually Hinduism re-asserted itself and virtually pushed Buddhism out of our borders. (In contrast, Jainism which never spread globally retained its small and committed following within India.)

 

Because we are subliminally conscious of this background we are not particularly surprised by the fervour with which Hollywood stars adopt Buddhism. Richard Gere may well be one of the Western world's most famous Buddhists and Uma Thurman was born into a family of Tibetan Buddhist experts. Somehow, we think of Buddhism as being a religion that welcomes converts and is more instantly appealing to followers of other religions.

 

Why has Hinduism – one of the world's two oldest religious – remained an exclusively Indian religion? When we do find Hindus abroad, they tend to be ethnic Indians (in South Africa, Mauritius, Guyana, etc.) rather than people who converted from other faiths. The only exception is the Indonesian island of Bali where Hinduism arrived centuries ago, long before Islam took over the rest of Indonesia. (I'm generalizing, there may be other exceptions but my guess is that they are too minor to matter.) In other parts of Asia – Thailand, for instance – Hindu traditions survive (the King calls himself Rama, the ancient capital was called Ayutthaya etc.) and the mythology has been co-opted (in Thailand, Hanuman is a comic figure) but the religion itself has few adherents.

 

I can think of only one answer. Hinduism does not actively seek converts.

 

I concede that this may not always have been true. (How are there Hindus in Bali, then?) But for over a thousand years, Hinduism has taken the line that you have to be born a Hindu to belong. There are cults (such as the Hare Krishnas, for instance) and there are individual converts, but by and large, Hinduism is not the sort of religion that seeks to win converts.

 

"No religion is better than the other. Each religion is only as good as the behaviour of its followers."

In that sense, it is not unlike the other great and ancient religion: Judaism.

 

We may argue about which religion is older — Hinduism or Judaism. (Hinduism would be a clear victor if it would be established that it was the religion of the Indus Valley Civilization but so far, proof has been elusive.) But the one thing they have in common is that they don't bother too much about finding converts. To be a Jew you must be born to a Jewish mother. (In all fairness, the comparison is slightly complicated by the Jewish belief that all Jews are not just followers of the same religion but are a distinctive race – though there is some controversy over this claim – whereas Hinduism claims no racial purity.)

 

The traditional view of religion is that it is a great and glorious thing to spread the word of your God and to win converts everywhere. And yet, can it be a coincidence that the two religions that have survived for the longest are the two that stubbornly refuse to do so?

 

One of Hinduism's great strengths is that it grants other religions the utmost respect.  Christianity, on the other hand, holds that if you are not a Christian you will never get into heaven. (That's why missionaries travelled to convert heathens.) Islam regards followers of other faiths as being misguided and regards itself as the only true faith. In the early days, conquerors offered vanquished people a choice between Islam and death. (When Hindus were un-cooperative enough to opt for death, such mechanisms as jaziya were introduced to tax those who did not follow the true faith.)

 

Whenever other religions have not taken arms against Hinduism, they have been co-opted into the Hindu faith. Buddhism may have overshadowed Hinduism centuries ago but now Hinduism recognizes the Buddha as an avatar of Lord Vishnu. Most Hindus venerate him as 'Bhagwan Buddh' and act as though Buddhism is only a sect of Hinduism. (Which, of course, it is not. And Hindus are always horrified to discover that the Dalai Lama eats beef!)

 

Hinduism has done the same to Jainism. Lord Mahavir is also regarded as a Vishnu avatar. And today most Jains celebrate Hindu festivals and treat themselves as honorary Hindus. (When the last BJP government had to appoint a Jain to the Minorities Commission, this led to huge debates about whether Jains were a religious minority or Hindus.)

 

Even though colonial Christianity took an aggressive anti-Hindu line, early Christianity (the Saint Thomas version which led to the conversion of the Syrian Christians) co-existed happily with Hinduism.  Syrian Christians were widely respected. (Sadly, the caste system, one of Hinduism's least attractive features, infiltrated there too.)

 

These days, when so much is heard about the clash of civilizations between Islam and Christianity, I can't help thinking that Hinduism had the right idea. No religion is better than the other. Each religion is only as good as the behaviour of its followers. Nothing is gained by aggressive conversion. Let religion be private and personal; stop killing people in its name and stop believing that you are superior to the next man only because of the God you follow.