7

Taking into consideration the birth based practice of Varnashrama prevailing for a couple of millennia, kindly give a clear scriptural sanction/ permission from the ultimate— apaurusheya Vedas, Smrutis or Upanishads only— for converting non- Hindus to Sanatana Dharma ( excluding (ghar wapsi). Pl do not provide historical examples or opinions from saints, neo- vedantists/ universalists/reformers etc. They are more like exception.


I have checked all the other answers suggested to me. These are full of opinions and overwhelming number of them are not backed by any scriptures. Saying Shruthi is silent about it because back when Vedas were bestowed on us, there were no other non-hindus is a speculation. Secondly, if Vedas only dealt with what was the then prevailing situation, we are indirectly saying they are obsolete!! Secondly, the much touted Arya Samaj is mentioned as doing shuddhikaran conversions based on Devala Smriti but if that is so, this Devala Smriti deals with only reconversions or ghar wapsi and not conversions of non-Hindus. This is what I find-- K.M. Munshi in his work "Chakravarti Gurjaro translated into Glory that was Gurjaradesa says quote-

Devala, the author of the Smriti of the name, is placed between A.D. 800 and 900, when the fortunes of Islam in Sind, as stated before were on the decline. He also wrote his Smriti while in Sind. The movement represented by him appears to be largely responsible for the active campaign of reconversion from Islam, which led the Muslims to seek asylum in al-Mahfuzah, a fortress specially constructed for the purpose. Devala gives sanction to the practice of reclaiming mlechchhanita - a person converted by the mlechchhas. It deals with the problems of those who were kept as slaves by the mlechchhas and compelled to do unclean things, like killing cows, sweep the leavings of the food taken by the mlechchhas, taking flesh of asses, camels and pigs, and the forbidden food or drink. As regards women abducted or raped by the mlechchhas, the smriti shows a breadth of vision difficult to find in any Dharmasatra of later age.

So, this Devala Smriti written in 800 AD after the advent of all the three Abrahamic religions is the only text I could find and that too only for ghar wapsi which is not what I have asked about.

My question is not asking for opinions, historical examples or certificates given by converting bodies but the shastra pramaana that all of them should be finally relying on.

Rubellite Yakṣī
  • 2,052
  • 7
  • 40
9bilvapatra
  • 139
  • 5
  • Please take a look at this answer: https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/24330/what-is-dharma-for-mlecchas-according-to-hinduism – Ikshvaku Nov 25 '19 at 01:32
  • 1
    Who remained there to be converted to other faiths, when the Rig veda says there is only ONE (RV 1.164.46) ? The Story of Adam and Eve, which formed basis for all Abrahamic faiths, was taken from Rig veda and re-written by the scholars of Western world. When the concept of conversion is itself flawed, why should scriptures of Hinduism contain authority for that ignoble act? – Srimannarayana K V Nov 25 '19 at 03:00
  • Then on what scriptural basis are people inserting themselves into Hinduism? Ironically if they truly believe in the tenets of Hinduism it says categorically that our prarabdha decides our race, religion and caste as their are NO mistakes in Divine plans..they should be content to stay where they are and do satkarmas..not change the ship! Also what gotta, Kati, mula and Varna they would be integral to being a Hindu.. – 9bilvapatra Nov 25 '19 at 04:20
  • I meant gothra kula jaati and varna ...sorry for predictive text.. – 9bilvapatra Nov 25 '19 at 04:48
  • @ikshvaku I went through the recommended post, thank you, but it is not about conversion or karma theory etc but only Kali Yuga, mleccha and how all the avarnas will be.. – 9bilvapatra Nov 25 '19 at 05:06
  • I could not understand your statement - Then on what scriptural basis are people inserting themselves into Hinduism?. Can you explain?@9bilvapatra – Srimannarayana K V Nov 25 '19 at 13:13
  • @srimannarayanakv- when you agree that conversion is a flawed concept from SD pov, and we know that whatever happens in our society has to have the final green light from Sruthi, else it is invalid and yet—people are being blithely certified to be Hindu by sundry Hindu institutes within and outside India..that’s what I mean. – 9bilvapatra Nov 25 '19 at 15:19
  • You are deviating from your question on authority for converting non- Hindus to Sanatana Dharma to being Hindu. Please check. Further, there is a difference between core spiritual beliefs that were propagated by Veda to day to day affairs of society. It is like shouting at mad elephant running at you that it is also BRAHMAN and you are also BRAHMAN. The degree of perception matters.@9bilvapatra – Srimannarayana K V Nov 25 '19 at 15:40
  • When the sanatana dharma was revealed, there were no separate religions, there was only the sanatana dharma. There is no 'conversion'. This is a Western Abrahamic concept. There is only the path of dharma and adharma. the idea of there being separate 'religions' is a modern idea. There is only one religion, the sanatana dharma. All modern ideas of separate religions are really sectarian. Understand what sanatana dharma really means. – Swami Vishwananda Nov 26 '19 at 04:49
  • @srimannarayanakv- may I say Vedas are eternally relevant and applicable and binding on Hindus, where in Vedas, is it authorized? I am hoping somebody will point it out clearly...I am not deviating at all! I didn’t quite understand your example. Pl can u elaborate it? Do you consider religious conversions “day today affairs” ?? They have a deep impact imho on demographics and society. And even if we consider them so, where is the go-ahead given by Shruthi...? – 9bilvapatra Nov 26 '19 at 05:03
  • Even during Vedic times there were avarnas and Havana’s, mlechhas etc..who followed their own codes which were not Hindu... – 9bilvapatra Nov 26 '19 at 05:05
  • 1
    My (admittedly limited) understanding is that Hindu is an ethno-geographical term for practitioners of āstika AND nāstika systems which developed in Bharata Khanda. This term was invented by Muslim invaders to denote non-Muslims. In the same way that the philosophy of science is based on some assumptions (the validity of empiricism, reasoning, and abstract thinking; cause & effect exist; the Universe operates according to discoverable laws [logos]; events have natural causes; two contradictory statements cannot both be true; the Universe operates independently of our perception of it),… – Rubellite Yakṣī Nov 28 '19 at 01:22
  • @RubelliteYakṣī- I am not hung upon hair-splitting of the word Hindu but using it in the most contemporary way..it is almost misleading the people if in reality there indeed is NO Shruthi or Smruthi sanction for the arbitrary conversions we are now witnessing and all those are invalid.. even the acharyas who are approving it must ultimately be able to show Shruthi pramaana...but I still have no answer from anyone..☹️ – 9bilvapatra Nov 28 '19 at 01:37
  • Sanātana Dharma is rooted in certain assumptions (pratyakṣa [empericism]; karma exists; the Universe operates according to ṛta; the puruṣārthas [dharma, artha, kāma, and mokṣa] are worthwhile; saṃsāra exists; there is value in discerning the real and māyā; all things are classifiable into the three guṇas; ātman exists; Vedas are authoritative [yet questioning authority can lead to deeper understanding]). As you can see, both assume certain things exist. Nāstika people assert that at least one of these assumptions is wrong. So, nāstika is rooted in SD, but has diverged, thus Hindu, but not SD. – Rubellite Yakṣī Nov 28 '19 at 02:04
  • @9bilvapatra Hello, and welcome to Hinduism.SE Here are a couple useful links: https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/help/how-to-ask & https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/help/how-to-answer I don't yet have a good answer for you, lest I would've made an Answer Please be patient, it takes time for us volunteers. My above comment was a global response to all commenters because of the idea "all religions are one." If so, they would all have the same assumptions. The assumptions of the Hebrews, for example, differed from the Vedics. Sorry my 2nd comment took a while. I was verifying the IAST – Rubellite Yakṣī Nov 28 '19 at 02:17
  • @RubelliteYakṣī- i am sorry for any mistakes..this is my first experience of any forum and hope you seniors will help me along in case of any inadvertent breach of rules. – 9bilvapatra Nov 28 '19 at 03:20
  • Welcome to Hinduism Stack Exchange. Your question is already asked on our site several times. Please check [tag:conversion]. https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/q/33589/5212 , https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/q/407/5212 which makes your question a duplicate. Please search before you post a question. Searching is not difficult to understand. – Sarvabhouma Nov 28 '19 at 06:59
  • 3
  • @sarvabhouma-i have gone through all the links you have given and none of them answer my question. I am detailing it in my question – 9bilvapatra Nov 28 '19 at 21:16
  • @9bilvapatra No worries at all. A better way to explain has come to me. I differentiated the terms SD & Hinduism to emphasize the fact that SD underlies the cosmos. It is the essential way things work, thus, when someone says "it is this first religion" they are right, but saying it in a potentially confusing way. I prefer to think of it as the operational instructions of the Universe which several religions have tapped into to different degrees. Yeshua ben Yosef (commonly called Jesus) tapped into this same wisdom. The religion that followed couldn't fully comprehend so metaphors were… – Rubellite Yakṣī Nov 29 '19 at 21:58
  • thought to be real. Aspects that were culturally meaningful became misunderstood & the message was nearly lost. Hinduism, in my view, is another example of a culture trying to make sense of the deepest mysteries of the Universe. It is always impossible to explain the inexplicable. However, because Hindus have a long cultural continuity, the meaning behind metaphors used to explain the inexplicable have been better retained. So, if talking about converting it can be important to differentiate between conversion to the cultural-religious "characterized" form or underlying wisdom it points to – Rubellite Yakṣī Nov 29 '19 at 22:06
  • Very sorry for such long comments And keep asking good questions – Rubellite Yakṣī Nov 29 '19 at 22:07
  • "Taking into consideration the birth based practice of Varnashrama prevailing for a couple of millennia" - not just a couple millenia. this has and will always be the case. varnashrama dharma that one has to follow is decided at birth. but people may not follow it. Next, regarding 'conversion' or 'ghar-wapsi', the only thing to understand is that Hinduism is a PATH, not a destination. A Muslim follows Hinduism if he follows its principles. But we're not going to immediately give him title of Brahmin or Kshatriya. Unless he is a rishi like Vishvamitra who does so much tapas. – ram Jun 20 '20 at 00:37
  • What does conversion even mean in vaidic sense? What is not sanatan? Is there any component of universe left to be described that you'd convert them? So in Vaidic sense, conversion has no meaning. In cultural and politcal sense, yes not all follow vedanta or its close derivatives. Hence, approaches taken by Sant mahatma can only guide you in this direction. – sbharti Jun 19 '21 at 21:30
  • @SrimannarayanaKV The western world got to know of the existence of Vedas only in 17-18 th century but the story of Adam Eve is since Christianity and later Islamic version too..hence, they couldn’t have rewritten from Vedas. – 9bilvapatra Jun 21 '21 at 03:35

5 Answers5

2

There is no scriptural passage dealing with conversion of non-Hindus to Hinduism. If there had been such a passage then it would have been mentioned somewhere by someone. I give below an interview of Vivekananda where he was asked this question. He does not quote any scriptural passage even though he says that non-Hindus can become Hindus.

"I want to see you Swami", I began, "on this matter of receiving back into Hinduism those who have been perverted from it. Is it your opinion they should be received?

"Certainly", said the Swami (Vivekananda)," they can and aught to be taken."

He sat gravely for a moment, thinking, and then resumed, "Besides," he said, "we shall otherwise decrease in numbers. When the Mohammedans first came, we are said -- I think on the authority of Ferishta, the oldest Mohammedan historian --- to have been six hundred millions of hindus. Now we are about two hundred millions. And then every man getting out of the Hindu pale is not only a man less, but an enemy the more. Again the vast majority of Hindu perverts to Islam and Christianity are perverts by the sword, or to the descendents of these. It would be obviously unfair to subject these to disabilities of any kind. As to the case of born aliens, did you say? Why, born aliens have been converted in the past by crowds, and the process is still going on. In my own opinion, this statement not only applies to aboriginal tribes, to outlying nations, and to almost all our conquerors before the Mohammedan conquest, but also to all those castes who find a special origin in the Puranas. I hold that they have been aliens thus adopted. Ceremonies of expiation are no doubt suitable in the case of willing converts, returning to their Mother church, as it were; but on those who were alienated by conquest-- as in Kashmir and Nepal -- or on strangers wishing to join us, no penance should be imposed."

― Vivekananda (Complete Works V, p233, interview given in "Prabuddha Bharat", April, 1899)

Any way it is a moot point whether shastras talk about conversion of non-Hindus to Hinduism. Sri Chaitanya converted Muslims to Hinduism. A famous example is Haridas Thakur. Millions of Hindus of non-Indian origin live in Indonesia. The important point is that shastras do not prohibit conversion of non-Hindus to Hinduism. The implication is that non-Hindus can become Hindus if they want to do so.

A princess of Java recently (2017) converted to Hinduism. http://www.currentriggers.com/world/indonesia-princess-java-became-hindu/

Pradip Gangopadhyay
  • 37,405
  • 3
  • 54
  • 124
  • 1
    -How is my question a moot point??? The princess of Java case is one of Ghar wapsi because Javanese were forcibly converted from Hinduism by Islamists..I mentioned I wasn’t looking for neo Vedantist opinions..Vivekananda ji was on a mission to spread his neo Vedanta in the West so how could he then backtrack..? Besides he is from modern times and twisting of our scriptures and misinterpretation had already begun in the early 18th century. Chaitanya was a sant like Kabir Raidas Meera. He is not authority for scriptures. – 9bilvapatra Jan 24 '20 at 03:00
  • -assuming that whatever our holy scriptures do not talk about means they allow it is dangerous eg.they don’t say each man can have 4 wives so does it allow them to go ahead and have four wives...? Rather we should have faith that if we were meant todo something our Shasta’s would ably guide us in that respect... – 9bilvapatra Jan 24 '20 at 03:04
  • Vivekananda would have surely mentioned scriptural source for his mission in the west since that would have helped him in his cause. His silence shows that there is no mention in scripture.. Whether he twists our scripture is a matter of opinion and not shared by every one. The different positions taken by various Hindu organizations also show that scripture is silent on this issue. Your claim that scripture doesn't say each man can have four wives is not completely true. – Pradip Gangopadhyay Jan 24 '20 at 14:31
  • Yes, Princess of Java is a ghar wapsi. However, the first Javanese who converted to Hinduism surely cannot be classified as ghar wapsi. As for faith in scripture, scripture itself says that 'scripture is no scripture if it cannot stand the test of reason'. – Pradip Gangopadhyay Jan 24 '20 at 14:34
  • What makes you only think a Javanese converted? The first Javanese to be a Hindu could have been a person with a Indian Hindu father and Javanese mother...pl give me the exact source of your quote ‘scripture is no scripture....etc pl don’t confuse between core scriptures and religious books written in the course of history, commentaries etc – 9bilvapatra Jan 24 '20 at 17:38
  • 1
    I gave the four wives merely as an example...pl don’t cling to it literally. Swami Vivekananda was there in West wanting the then western society interested in neo Vedanta...not Sanatana. He didn’t delve into our Gods and itihasas etc. These people were completely new to every aspect of Hinduism..so giving scriptural citations would be irrelevant to such an audience..all social reformers do things according to their prevailing circumstances, no consistency..Therefore I asked about scriptural sanction mandatory bedrock without which this whole conversion becomes a matter of opinions,agendas.. – 9bilvapatra Jan 24 '20 at 17:51
  • You are wrong to think that 'these people were completely new to every aspect of Hinduism'. There were people who knew a lot of the Upanishads and the Gita. Scripture can not possibly say everything on every issue. So there will always be issues where it will boill down to opinions.Moreover everything written in scripture is not acceptable today. I don't see any Hindu woman marrying 5 men the way Draupadi did. – Pradip Gangopadhyay Jan 25 '20 at 14:16
  • I am surprised at your comments! Swami Vivekananda was the first person to take Hinduism to N. America we were ‘heathen’ you’re trivializing conversions as a small concept within religions without realizing that the wars fought and being fought indirectly in society are at the core about religious conversions only this is explicit in main scripture of every religion ..pl read up the story of the marriage of Arjuna and what Kunti said..one needs to be discerning farsighted when thinking of conversions and their ramifications to that religion, culture and society in the long term future.. – 9bilvapatra Jan 25 '20 at 16:13
  • Swami Vivekananda may have been the first Hindu monk to visit N. America. However, that does not mean that 'these people were completely new to every aspect of Hinduism' as you have written earlier. Henry David Thoreau wrote "In the morning I bathe my intellect in the stupendous and cosmogonal philosophy of the Bhagavad Gita in comparison with which our modern world and its literature seem puny and trivial." ... Ralph Waldo Emerson said this about the Gita: "I owed a magnificent day to the Gita." Yes conversions can be destabilising but it is a fact that scripture says nothing about it. – Pradip Gangopadhyay Jan 26 '20 at 15:16
  • With due respect, Thoreau was one of the very few philosophers US has produced while SV was targeting the masses who were white Christians who were not knowing anything I about neo Vedanta...Thoreau was not propagating Hinduism in any form to people..if westerners can gain entry into savarna society with certificates Dalits too can be given and there will be no Dalits?? Why this selective treatment? – 9bilvapatra Jan 26 '20 at 16:39
  • SV was not targetting anyone. SV actually forbade the Vedanta Societies from converting Americans to Hinduism. He actually met many of the elites and was offered Professorship by Harvard which he declined. Your comment about savarna and Dalits suggest that you think the caste system is the same as the Varna system of the Vedas and the Gita. They are not infact the same. There is in fact no concept of Dalits in the Vedas and the Gita. – Pradip Gangopadhyay Jan 26 '20 at 17:02
  • If he forbade the societies he formed from converting, it shows he probably had a good reason behind it which could have been lack of scriptural sanction..Contrary to what you think I am fully aware that caste is different from Varna but the so called Dalits are nothing but Panchamas of Hindu society ie all those who do not belong to chaturvana...including mlechchas and all foreigners. Dalit is simply a political term replacing the word harijans.. – 9bilvapatra Jan 27 '20 at 22:44
  • The 4 varnas form the Purusha according to Rig Veda. To say that anyone is outside the 4 Varnas makes no sense. That would imply that there is anything outside Purusha. All human beings are part of the Varna system. The Gunas which form the basis of Varnas are present in all humans and not just among so called 'higher castes'. – Pradip Gangopadhyay Jan 28 '20 at 15:00
  • Sorry but you seem to come across as prejudiced...the term avarnas and Panchama have been part of Hindu society for thousands of years...you think even smriti doesn’t understand the point you made about Purusha...? These outcastes are exactly that...OUTSIDE the pale of Hindu society and hence no social rules are framed for them though there certainly are for Shudra (OBC). So they are to be considered outside Hindu society not outside Purusha as you contend. – 9bilvapatra Jan 29 '20 at 17:18
1

The question is

kindly give a clear scriptural sanction/ permission from the ultimate— apaurusheya Vedas, Smrutis or Upanishads only— for converting non- Hindus to Sanatana Dharma ( excluding (ghar wapsi).

Good question indeed.


Let us understand the complexity of the issue.

The Veda, per se, advocates Self enquiry, but not idol/god's messenger/saints worship. So BASIC tenets of Sanatana Dharma aka Hinduism rest on ONE formless God/pure spiritual concepts only.

Idol worship or eulogising VISHNU/SHIVA/SHAKTI, etc, to be SUPREME and denigrating other Gods such as Indra, Vayu, Agni,etc, (epithets used in Veda), is not Vedic Culture.


The subtle concepts of SPIRITUALITY were expressed in the Veda had been spread through out the World in earlier era, in ONE form or the other.

For example, the Adam and Eve story from Abrahamic religions, has roots in this Rig Vedic mantra. So those religions have nothing new to offer to Sanatana Dharma. And, if the followers of those religions would like to come back and adopt Self enquiry advocated by Sanatana Dharma aka Hinduism, it amounts to coming back to own house (ghar wapsi) only.

So the people those following Abrahamic/other religions belong to Sanatana Dharma only.


Rig veda I.110 says about Ṛbhus

  1. When, seeking your enjoyment onward from afar, ye, certain of my kinsmen, wandered on your way, Sons of Sudhanvan, after your long journeying, ye came unto the home of liberal Savitar.

  2. Savitar therefore gave you immortality, because ye came proclaiming him whom naught can hide; And this the drinking-chalice of the Asura, which till that time was one, ye made to be fourfold.

This mantra talks about some people, in search of enjoyment, by forgetting the goal of Almighty Savitar (self realisation), went away. And, after long time, they came back to Savitar again and got immortality (LIBERATION/mukti).


So this converting non- Hindus to Sanatana Dharma has the approval of Veda.

Srimannarayana K V
  • 17,497
  • 3
  • 38
  • 128
  • 3
    What is the reference for the claim that Adam Eve story has the basis in the RigVeda? This is Hinduism Stack Exchange. We don't interfere into other religious texts. They have different opinions and interpretation in this. Kindly stick to Hinduism. – Sarvabhouma Nov 28 '19 at 06:13
  • What was the authority of purana for claiming Shiva/Vishnu as supreme god, contrary to Vedas? It depends on interpretation@Sarvabhouma – Srimannarayana K V Nov 28 '19 at 06:25
  • Even Sri Sankaracharya of Kanchi mutt quoted this mantra to be source of Adam and Eve story @Sarvabhouma – Srimannarayana K V Nov 28 '19 at 06:27
  • 3
    Purana are Hinduism. We can discuss about it. Adam and Eve are not Hinduism. That's the difference. Christianity is not our subject to discuss. We even don't entertain questions who is Supreme since we are not supposed to declare or dictate one's faith. We discourage debates on that topic. – Sarvabhouma Nov 28 '19 at 06:36
  • The question is about conversion of non-Hindus. Then you should have closed the questions themselves, if discussion of other religions like Buddhism, Christianity,etc, is off topic @Sarvabhouma – Srimannarayana K V Nov 28 '19 at 06:43
  • 1
    The question is asking what is the procedure or reference of converting non Hindus to Hinduism. It doesn't ask about Adam Eve story or Buddhism. The question is not cross religious. If it is, I would have let the OP know it and cast my vote. Moreover, it denies opinions of historians too. What you have added in the answer is an opinion. The two birds analogy doesn't mean it's Adam and Eve. Anyway my intention is clear. Please avoid talking about other religions with own interpretations. That is not our subject to deal with. – Sarvabhouma Nov 28 '19 at 06:49
  • @Sarvabhouma: I think you missed the point. The OP was asking for scriptural sanction/ permission from the ultimate— apaurusheya Vedas, Smrutis or Upanishads only— for converting non- Hindus to Sanatana Dharma, whereas you interpreted to procedure. Your understanding is not correct, in my view. – Srimannarayana K V Nov 28 '19 at 06:53
  • Just a question. You seem to know a lot about Rig veda. Have you read Sayana's commentary? (It is translated to Hindi, I think). If yes, how would you rate it? –  Nov 28 '19 at 17:20
  • 2
    @srimannarayanakv- even the Abrahamics themselves vehemently establish that they are NOT belonging to or believing in Sanatana Dharma. Secondly, the RV quote given is specifically for Ribhus who made chariots for Ashvins...it is not for the Abrahamics or the non-hindus of those times.. – 9bilvapatra Nov 28 '19 at 22:00
  • @srimannarayanakv- even the Abrahamics themselves vehemently establish that they are NOT belonging to or believing in Sanatana Dharma. Secondly, the RV quote given is specifically for Ribhus who made chariots for Ashvins...it is not for the Abrahamics or the non-hindus of those times..SD is much more than a mere 'way of life' and its philosophy and fundamentals are completely different from Abrahamic/desert creeds. So, it is not about ''acting' like a hindu or just being a cultural hindu.. – 9bilvapatra Nov 28 '19 at 22:48
  • You are mistaken, my friend :-). Basically, there are 2 types of writers, in my view. 1) a scholar, who reads a lot, memorises many issues, and quotes them at relevant places while writing, 2) an ordinary person with intuition - a person who also reads or heard many issues, but cannot memorise as he is a person with an ordinary intellect. However, his intuition, a God's blessing, comes to his rescue. It will guide in time of need. 3) I belong to 2nd category. 4) Rig Veda is basically about spiritual matters. So if one touches the core spirituality, the rest will fall in place. @Lazy Lubber – Srimannarayana K V Nov 29 '19 at 01:34
  • I am not going to discuss about what the people belonging to Abrahamic religions think, as it becomes off topic here. Coming to the Rig Verse, we have to remember that many epithets were used in Rig Veda, which are to be understood in esoteric sense only. The epithets like chariots, horses, waters,etc. ,are for example.@9bilvapatra – Srimannarayana K V Nov 29 '19 at 01:45
  • It is clearly mentioned in the question body that OP is not talking about ghar wapasi yet your whole answer is dealing with ghar wapasi. Revise your answer to fix it and then flag to undelete. – Pandya Jan 20 '20 at 14:51
  • @Paṇḍyā: I think you have not read my answer properly. I had quoted the content of the question in the beginning itself. Ghar wapasi is about re-conversion of Hindus, who got converted to other faiths earlier. My answer is about adoption of people from other faiths to Hinduism. Anyways, you being a moderator have full powers to do what ever you want to. – Srimannarayana K V Jan 20 '20 at 15:09
  • @srimannarayanakv The question is about conversion, not re-conversion. I think ghar wapsi stuff in your answer is redundant – Pandya Jan 20 '20 at 15:47
  • Modified. Ok. @Pandya – Srimannarayana K V Jan 20 '20 at 15:57
  • @srimannarayanakv-You say it is not Vedic culture to eulogize Vishnu/Shiva/Shakti...but we all know the celebrated Sri Rudram in YajurVeda which profusely eulogizes Rudra and Chamakam mentions Indra, Varuna etc..are you saying that is Not part of Vedas or Vedic culture?? What about the popular Vedic sooktas? We all know that the core philosophy is of a Supreme Brahman who is transcendental and immanent simultaneously..hence Hindus conceptualise Him in various deities...how did you conclude that RV 1.110 Rbhus and mlechchas/non Indians are same..? Or even the interpretation that you give? – 9bilvapatra Jan 24 '20 at 02:37
  • @Sarvabhouma-I am not asking about the procedure of conversion. On the contrary I am asking for a scriptural approval/sanction for such an important aspect of Sanatana. I am repeatedly being given examples of social reformers and neo Veda twists who had different exigencies...but on what Shruti were they based or was it just personal discretion..very much like it is happening now..? I ask because major heads of ancient sects even today do not approve of conversion of mlechchas saying it is NOT SHASTRA SAMMATA! – 9bilvapatra Jan 24 '20 at 02:48
  • @9bilvapatra: One of definition of Mleccha is the "person whose language is not intelligible”. This word may not indicate a sect or foreign tribe. Further, the same Vedic people, who migrated to different places might have different dialects, in a similar manner as different dialects of the same language Hindi can be observed now in the entire Northern India. – Srimannarayana K V Jan 24 '20 at 05:30
  • @9bilvapatra: Coming to the aspect of RV 1.110 where adoption of different way of worshiping and again coming back by Rbhus was mentioned, we cannot for sure say that they got converted into different way of worship in the same Vedic concepts or altogether different deity or became agnostic, etc. The vedic mantra is very cryptic thus leaving little scope for any type of conjecture. One thing is sure, the Rbhus drifted from Vedic way of worship,ie., practice of SELF REALISATION and finally came back and got REALISATION by accepting Savitr. – Srimannarayana K V Jan 24 '20 at 05:37
1

There is scriptural authority for spreading the message of Vedas/Sanatana Dharma/Hinduism to everyone:

Shukla Yajur Veda 26.2:

यथेमां वाचं कल्याणीमावदानि जनेभ्यः। ब्रह्मराजन्याभ्यां शूद्राय चार्याय च स्वाय चारणाय च ।
This auspicious/beneficial speech I shall tell to the people - to the brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya, śūdra and vaiśya, and to our people and to outsiders.

Two ancient commentators also explain this verse to the same meaning:

Uvata:
यथेमाम् । यथा इमां वाचं कल्याणीं अनुद्वेजिनीम् । दीयतां भुज्यतामित्येवमादिकाम् । आवदानि जनेभ्योऽर्थाय । के ते जना इत्यत आह । ब्रह्मराजन्याभ्यां ब्राह्मणाय राजन्याय च शूद्राय च अर्याय च । अर्यो वैश्यः । स्वाय चात्मीयाय च । अरणः अपगतोदकः पर इत्यर्थः ।

Just as, this auspicious i.e. non-violent speech, I shall speak for the sake of the people. Who are these people? brahma-rājanya, i.e. brāhmaṇa and rājanya, and śūdra and arya - arya is vaiśya, one's own people and others (i.e. strangers).

Mahidhara:
इमां कल्याणीमनुद्वेगकरीं वाचमहं यथा यतः आवदानि सर्वतो ब्रवीमि दीयतां भुज्यतामिति सर्वेभ्यो वच्मि । केभ्यस्तदाह । ब्रह्मराजन्याभ्यां ब्राह्मणाय राजन्याय क्षत्रियाय च शूद्राय अर्याय वैश्याय स्वायात्मीयाय अरणाय पराय ।

This auspicious non-violent speech I speak all around. I say to them to use this speech. To whom? brahma-rājanya i.e. brāhmaṇa and kṣatriya, śūdra, arya i.e. vaiśya, one's own people and to outsiders.

So the Veda itself says that it is for the benefit of all classes of society and for all people, domestic and foreign.


Considering all the comments so far, I must say that there is a lot of wrong understanding of the place and authority of Shruti and Smrti scriptures.

Shruti, which means Vedas, deals with topics of eternal concern, i.e. metaphysics and spirituality (adhyātma). Vedas only incidentally touch upon matters of society. The Smrtis, which means the Dharmashastras, deal exclusively with laws and regulations for society. This separation of roles has been done on purpose because the topics of adhyātma do not change from time to time, so the Vedas are eternally valid and authoritative for topics of adhyātma, which deals with the ultimate nature of existence and the means of enlightenment (including yajnas). So the comment above saying that Shruti is no longer valid, is incorrect.

Smrtis, on the other hand, have limited authority and validity. Every Smrti has an expiration date. As Parāśara-smṛti (1.24) says:

कृते तु मानवाः धर्मास्त्रेतायां गौतमाः स्मृताः । द्वापरे शङ्खलिखिताः कलौ पाराशराः स्मृताः ॥

In the Kṛta-yuga, Manu's laws apply, in the Tretā-yuga, Gautama's laws, in the Dvāpara-yuga, Śaṅkhalikhita’s laws, and in Kali-yuga, Parāśara's laws.

And, notwithstanding this shloka, there are 21 different Smrti texts written during different periods, to address the changing needs of society. Even the much-maligned Manu-smṛti admits the limitations of Smrtis which cannot enumerate a rule for every single possible situation (12.108):

अनाम्नातेषु धर्मेषु कथं स्यादिति चेद्भवेत् । यं शिष्टा ब्राह्मणा ब्रूयुः स धर्मः स्यादशङ्कितः ॥

In cases where the rule has not been specified, whatever wise scholars say, that is to be followed.

So the question of converting non-Hindus to Hinduism has come up only in the last 1000 years, due to the increased encounters with non-Hindus (i.e. Christians and Muslims). All of the classical Smrtis were written much earlier, and hence they did not have occasion to give a directive on this new social phenomenon. But the tradition of Smrtis clearly allows present-day Hindus to self-legislate a new directive in regards to endorsing conversion of non-Hindus.

RamAbloh
  • 2,754
  • 11
  • 35
0

It's right there in the Veda (Rig Veda 9.63):

enter image description here

इन्द्रं वर्धन्तो अप्तुर: कृण्वन्तो विश्वमार्यम् । अपघ्नन्तो अराव्णः ॥

(Hindi) विश्व को आर्य बनाओ OR सम्पूर्ण संसार को आर्य बनाओ OR सकल विश्व को आर्य बनाएँ

Make the whole world Arya

In Vedic Samhita Arya refers mostly to 3 higher varnas. Krishna Yajurveda also in same way make difference between Arya & Shudra. There are also many other examples from Brahmana and Upanishads which you have already read (but if you deny then I will edit this answer and prove it). Even when we look at other shruti (Tantras) its given in many places that anybody can become high level Tantrik.

R. Kaushik
  • 2,517
  • 8
  • 22
  • 2
    "In Vedic Samhita Arya refers mostly to 3 higher varnas. Krishna Yajurveda also in same way make difference between Arya & Shudra." - Please quote original Vedic Samhitas to support your statement. – RamAbloh Dec 11 '20 at 22:27
-1

As P. V. Kane categorically says in History of Dharmaśāstra, Vol II Part I, there is no provision for admitting people of other faiths into Hinduism.

Hinduism has not been an avowedly proselytizing religion. In theory it could not be so. For about two thousand years the caste system has reigned supreme and no one can in theory be admitted to the Hindu fold who is not born in it.

A Hindu may lose caste, be excommunicated and driven out of the fold of Hinduism, if he be guilty of very serious lapses and refuses to undergo the prāyaścittas prescribed by the smṛtis.

...

When the sinner performed the prāyaścitta prescribed by the śāstras, he was to be welcomed by his relatives, who took a bath along with him in a holy river or the like and throw therein an unused jar filled with water; they were not to find fault with him and were to completely associate with him in all ways.

Say No To Censorship
  • 30,811
  • 17
  • 131
  • 257
  • 1
    So, at last we see here clear admission that no one born outside Hindu fold can be part of it...of course if some people deliberately turn a blind eye to this fact and hell bent on doing things to suit their convenience eg. Getting paid caste certificates for entry into chosen Varna like a supermarket and ignoring Karmic ramifications for such fake forced entry..well Kali is reaching extremes... – 9bilvapatra Jan 29 '20 at 17:26
  • 1
    This clarifies completely that all so called conversions into Hinduism are completely invalid and unrecognized by our Sanatana itself and hence totally fake!!! Those people are into make-believe and truly duped.... – 9bilvapatra Jan 29 '20 at 18:08
  • 1
    Read my extended answer here, based on P V Kane's observations. No scripture or constitution in the world is followed to the letter. @9bilvapatra – Say No To Censorship Jan 29 '20 at 18:23