Sanathana Dharma - 8- Unity of Religions - Paramacharya

In this I will try to explain Paramacharya of Kanchi's views some of which will easily be considered reasonable and some which is likely to be difficult to comprehend for a Non Hindu

http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part1/chap6.htm

All religions have one common ideal, worship of the Lord, and all of them proclaim that there is but one God. This one God accepts your devotion irrespective of the manner of your worship, whether it is according to this or that religion. So there is no need to abandon the religion of your birth and embrace another.
The temple, the church, the mosque, the vihara may be different from one another. The idol or the symbol in them may not also be the same and the rites performed in them may be different. But the Paramatman who wants to grace the worshipper, whatever be his faith, is the same. The different religions have taken shape according to the customs peculiar to the countries in which they originated and according to the differences in the mental outlook of the people inhabiting them. The goal of all religions is to lead people to the same Paramatman according to the different attributes of the devotees concerned. So there is no need for people to change over to another faith. Converts demean not only the religion of their birth but also the one to which they convert. Indeed they do demean God.

A perspective that is common among some scholars is that polytheism gave way to monotheism . There is also a strong view that there are religions that are clear that there is more than one God, and the efforts to
present a one god behind the many is a later development. These views are born from the belief that religions are disconnected from an earlier religion and many religions excepting a few ( or one or two ) are nothing other than human invention. Question of religions being disconnected does not arise unless it is proven that at some stage of human development there was no religion of any kind. All that we know about civilized and uncivilized world points to the fact that religion has always been there wherever a human settlement has existed. Thus every religion must have been preceded by another religion. Thus the question would arise that if today according to scientific view, all humans must have originated from a single place, and if this is a reasonable argument to accept, then it is reasonable to accept that all religions have come from a parent religion. Whether the first religion was monotheistic or polytheistic is difficult to answer but if we look at the major religions atleast there is a similarity in some outlook and the fact that today all these religions endorse a single god principle. Paramacharya points to this fact and his spiritual experience and insight indicates that there is much that is similar in the different religions, the differences not being denied. He therefore goes one step further and says that conversion in religion is wrong.

 "A man leaves the religion of his birth because he thinks there is something wanting in it," so you may think. 'Why does the Svaamigal say then that the convert demeans the new religion that he embraces? " I will tell you why. Is it not because they think that God is not the same in all religions that people embrace a new faith? By doing so, they see God in a reduced form, don't they? They presumably believe that the God of the religion of their birth is useless and jump to another faith. But do they believe that the God of their new religion is a universal God? No. No. If they did there would be no need for any change of faith. Why do people embrace a new faith? Is it not because that the continuance in the religion of their birth would mean a denial of the blessings of the God of the new faith to which they are attracted? This means that they place limitations on their new religion as well as on its God. When they convert to a new religion, apparently out of respect for it, they indeed dishonour it.

The Quote above  is self explanatory. Two things are being denied by the convert
   1. That blessings of the God of new religion is available only to the convert and that God is not universal in his blessings, and not helping out people of different attitudes and circumstances.
   2. That God's grace was absent in the life of the individual until a certain period of the individual's life and that God is selectively guiding

Howsoever the missionary sugar coats the purpose of the conversion, the implication above cannot be sidestepped or overridden at any step even if the conversion be only for the purpose of marriage or convenience. It is either a hypocrisy or lack of patience or sincerity that is behind any conversion.

One big difference between Hinduism and other faiths is that it does not proclaim that it alone shows the path to liberation. Our Vedic religion alone has not practiced conversion and the reason for it is that our forefathers were well aware that all religions are nothing but different paths to realise the one and only Paramatman. The Vedas proclaim: "The wise speak of the One Truth by different names. " Sri Krsna says in the Gita: "In whatever way or form a man worships me, I increase his faith and make him firm and steady in that worship. " And says one of the Azhvars: "Avaravar tamatamadu tarivari vahaivahai avaravar iraiyavar". This is the reason why the Hindus have not practiced- like adherents of other religions- proselytisation and religious persecution. Nor have they waged anything like the crusades or jehads.

The above view is not agreed by many sociologists in India. They present a violent hinduism which absorbed the tribal religions and they see the ruins of buddhism in every idol and forest god which was eliminated by hinduism. Less said the better about most of these theories. A crucial point in these theories is lack of actual evidence, either in any ancient oral or written tradition for most of these specific instances.

Our long history is sufficient proof of this. All historians accept the fact of our religious tolerance. They observe that, an empire like Srivijaya was established in the East, people there accepted our culture and our way of life willingly, not because they were imposed on them by force. They further remark that Hinduism spread through trade and not through force.
In my opinion the Vedic religion was once prevalent all over the world. Certain ruins and relics found in various regions of the planet attest to this fact. Even historians who disagree with my view concede that in the past people in many lands accepted Indian culture and the way of life willingly and not on account of any force on our part.

There are a lot of interesting pointers to this fact starting here http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2007-01-04/rest-of-world/27876299_1_ancient-coins-ancient-village-ancient-town
here

All religions that practice conversion employ a certain ritual. For instance, there is baptism in Christianity. Hinduism has more ritual than any other religion, yet its canonical texts do not contain any rite for conversion. No better proof is needed for the fact that we have at no time either encouraged conversion or practiced it.
When a passenger arrives at a station by train he is besieged by the driver of the horse-cart, by the rikshavala, by the cabbie, and so on. He hires the vehicle in which he likes to be driven to his destination. It cannot be said with reason that those who ply different vehicles are guilty of competing with one another for the fare. After all it is their livelihood. But it makes no sense for the adherents of various faiths to vie with one another to take a man to the one and only destination that is God.
There is a bridge across a river, consisting of a number of arches, each of them built to the same design and measurement. To the man sitting next to a particular arch it would appear to be bigger than the other arches. So is the case with people belonging to a particular religion. They feel that their religion alone is great and want others to join it. There is in fact no such need for anyone to leave the religion of his birth for another.
That the beliefs and customs of the various religions are different cannot be a cause for complaint. Nor is there any need to make all of them similar. The important thing is for the followers of the various faiths to live in harmony with one another. The goal must be unity, not uniformity.

The simple thing to add here is that attempts to have uniformity is the cause of disunity as there is always a different view of what should be uniform. It is better to establish practices which have deep roots in tradition which give moral strength in the individual, which he/she can be influenced from the time of his or her birth, which is acceptable to a group of people who can provide ethical/moral support to each other. A human being is a man of a community and not an isolated person. The community must have a commonly accepted set of practice and a strong commitment to these ethics and which must be naturally vibing with their mindset and mental makeup. The commitment to ethics can be only fostered across generations if the individual discipline is maintained from  childhood.  This later becomes a habit and then strong rooted . the grown up individual would then act out of conviction not because of some kind of blind adherence or worry about what others think. By allowing intermarriages this kind of committed attitude to any set of religion specific beliefs would tend to become diluted and lost overtime in such families. It is common to see communities arising out of intermarriages break the taboos in both their parent cultures . I may be labelled as someone possessing a strong and outdated view. Also I could be labelled as a person promoting differences in people. The point is if individuals can be comfortably fit into communities suitable to their family and also to their temparement then we have a better way of propagating good practices and reforming the bad within. The other scenario is chaotic and unmanageable. The disunity among communities is a result of conversion or aggressive attempts by one community to influence or sidestep the other. Some implications of having multiple communities in a state cannot be avoided unless the Government has a neutral and impartial planned policy to accomodate the interests of all.  Other aspects are purely because of the aggressive attitude to absorb another culture or break a stable setup of another community or a family within that community. Reading this some might tend to think it is better to have one community and one religion. My answer to this is that it is good to speak theoretically and for name sake define one common religion but as long as there is a wide difference in ethical standards or in emotional responses or in desires of individuals , a natural division of society into specific groups is unavoidable. The only question that remains is that "Given the fact that a natural division of human society into parties with different interest , inclinations and beliefs is unavoidable, howsoever the effort may be to bring uniformity, what is the way by which we can regulate formation of groups and to allow stable societies to exist and which  have a clear agenda not to cross over into another's path?" The answer is there and one must logically evaluate all options and previous experiences in societies. Therefore when the Acharya says "The goal must be unity, not uniformity."  he has pointed to the key thing that we all must understand and he could not be more right. This is truly the spirit of Sanathana Dharma.