Dear folks,
Since this thread mentions Atma, reincarnation, conversion, etc, i thot i can say a few things here for an other kind of perspective.
In Rigveda, the etymology of Atman referred to breath or vital essence (Rigveda X.163) (Banerjee,1973). The term gradually acquired the meaning of 'soul' or 'self'.
It was in the Shatapatha Brahmana that 'Atman' was invested with a high degree of abstraction, said to 'prevade the universe' (Shatapatha Brahmana X.vi.3).
The doctrine of 'Brahman-Atman' comes up (per se) in the Upanishads. However, the doctrine of 'Brahman-Atman' is found in Atharva and is regarded to have come down from remote antiquity (Banerjee, 1973).
This may mean the concept of Atman as Soul or Self with the doctrine of Brahman-Atman actually comes to us from the Atharva texts. The passage in Atharva is rather intriguing (Atharvaveda, Whitney's translation, Lanman, Vol 7, p.143).
It says:
"The Brahman that was first born of old
Purastat (purastat = east?), Vena hath widened from a well shining edge (
Simatas, horizon)..".
I feel it is of note that there was someone called 'Vena', referred to as a Jain, in Puranic literature
in this way. The Atharva passage also alludes to expansions.
In much later times, there were some Rashtrakuta rulers who as staunch jains, were involved in military conquests.
What we basically have is a situation where all religions involved, in some way or the other, in military conquests, which we may persume was for bettering their resources (fresh water sources, fertile land, increasing their number of cattle, etc - ie., requirements which helped a population sustain, along with the freedom to practice their culture).
It is my personal opinion that abrahamic religions practiced indiscriminate killing in the forms of jihad , crusades, etc. Whereas, imo, religions of the east (jaina, vedic, buddhist) were better in the sense of involving some amount of intellectual edge to this situation, wrt debate, tribal mergers, etc.
In a tribal state, imo, the eviction of a large set of people may have depended on small groups of warriors who lost, for we find no clue of large scale killings in various vedic, jain and buddhist religious literature.
There was also movement of various religious ideas across different social circles or different regions of ancient India, in a peaceful manner (without military involvement).
So when it comes to conquering and converting, i feel the context is different in the way religions of the east versus west have conducted themselves.
There is definitely a provision for peaceful interaction, with an intellectual basis for debate, etc, in the religions of the east. They also allow their religions to grow and do not depend on the final words of one god or one prophet.
Even today, anyone with a deep understanding of various concepts in different scriptures, can produce a thesis with an alter view, on the concept of Atman, Brahman-Atman, etc.
Imho, the religions of the east will someday or the other, eventually prevail, as they are more suited to the sensibilites of a technological world.
Regards.
