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.