Socio-theology of Conversion: Karma, Divine Will, and the Complex Journey of Faith

Introduction

In an earlier article on “Conversion: Individual or Social?”¹ I discussed the idea of religious conversion through the authentic voices of Mahatma Gandhi and Sri Chandrasekara Bharati Swami of Sringeri Peetha. Gandhi emphasized conversion as a communal process embedded in the social and family fabric, while Swamiji underlined the soul’s karmic journey as central to transformation.

Building on this, the following imagined dialogue explores a theological question posed by an American Christian who does not believe in karma or rebirth and seeks salvation within a single life. Through Swamiji’s responses, the dialogue brings together karma, divine will, theology, and sociology to present a Hindu view of conversion.

Dialogue

The Question of Karma and Salvation

American: Swamiji, I respect your views, but I do not believe in karma or reincarnation. I only have one life. In that single life, shouldn’t I follow the faith that satisfies my spiritual aspirations—as I found in Hinduism—which Hinduism itself never denies to any individual?

Swamiji: Your question is sincere and important. Let us examine it carefully.

Let us begin from your own Scripture. It emphasizes a “now or never” approach to salvation, giving no second opportunity. From our point of view, you were born in that faith because of your past karma. Therefore, your path, too, lies within that context: you must “work out your salvation” within the destiny karma has allotted you.

Though our kind of karma theory is absent in your faith, by disregarding your dharma and the karmic conditions into which you were born, you might earn further karma in this life—karma that must eventually be resolved in future births. Hindu scriptures, in fact, warn strongly against postponing the pursuit of salvation to future lives.²

Predestination and Divine Will

Swamiji: According to your faith, if you violate the Will of God, you risk eternal punishment. The doctrine of predestination plays a crucial role here: it is not the ātman who determines the chance of attaining mukti (liberation) here and now—as various Hindu scriptures note—but only God, who chooses some for heaven and others for hell. Your theology offers diverse interpretations of this complex doctrine of predestination, though it need not always be controversial.³

In Hindu thought, however, God never creates the ātman. God aids the soul through grace, which manifests as bhakti (devotion) toward the chosen deity, helping the soul attain mukti. Apart from this, there are two other legitimate paths—karma (righteous action) and jñāna (knowledge). Since you may already know these concepts, I shall not elaborate further.

Yet, according to your theology, it is God who created the soul. Though He grants free will to choose one’s path, He also determines who will be saved. Whether one interprets this as divine will or as the doctrine of predestination is debated among your own theologians. But since you were born in your faith by God’s will, it is best to follow it.

Trying to convert to Hinduism, which differs fundamentally in its understanding of God, creation, soul, salvation, and karma, would mean violating both your God’s will and the Hindu law of karma. Even the very desire to convert could obstruct your own karmic progress.

American: Then my belief that Hinduism helps a Christian to become a better Christian—is that correct?

Swamiji: That may not be entirely correct. To believe that one religion makes another’s follower “better” leads to competition, which Hinduism rejects. Some may promote such views, but they misunderstand the essence. Each religion is sufficient in itself to make a person better. At the same time, Hinduism welcomes all noble thoughts from every direction, as the Rig Veda says:

“Ā no bhadrāḥ kratavo yantu viśvataḥ”
“Let noble thoughts come to us from every side.” — Rig Veda 1.89.1⁴

Conversion, Proselytism, and Dharma

American: Swamiji, your explanation helps greatly. While Hinduism does not encourage conversion, what about the Christian call to “Go and preach the Good News and make disciples”? Our faith mandates spreading the message so that others may take salvation seriously. Your tradition offers many chances through rebirth.

Swamiji: Every faith naturally presents itself as the best path to fulfillment, but proclaiming one’s faith as the only path can reduce genuine transformation to mere proselytism. Whether the Great Commission emphasizes inner change or outward expansion is for you to discern. You, as a Christian, can better distinguish between conversion of the heart and conversion of membership.

Hinduism respects freedom of belief but questions coercive or manipulative methods—whether imposed by outsiders or even within one’s own tradition. Sharing one’s perspective is right, but it must respect the freedom of others—it ends where another’s begins. We honor your right to promote your faith, but if it conflicts with dharma or the law of the land, both will take their course.

Historically, missionary efforts in India have had mixed results. Despite vast resources, they rarely achieved their intended outcomes. India’s pluralism and resilience have withstood all assaults and continue to do so.

Rta, Dharma, and the Christian Analogy of God’s Free Will

American: Swamiji, you said dharma will take its own course. I understand the legal aspect, but how does dharma operate independently? For us, only God governs both cosmic and moral order by His Free Will. It seems to us that any order without God’s personal intervention would feel like fatalism.

Swamiji: This is a subtle point, and unless one shares the Dharmic worldview, it is difficult to fully grasp. I understand that from your perspective, seeing cosmic and moral order function autonomously may feel like fatalism. But in Hinduism, dharma is never fatalistic. It always requires human participation and choice.

R̥ta and Dharma: The Macrocosmic and Microcosmic Orders.⁵

Both R̥ta and Dharma are cosmic principles, but they operate at different scales and dimensions of existence. R̥ta governs the macrocosm—the laws of nature, celestial movements, and the stability of the universe. It represents the eternal order that sustains all creation, ensuring that the cosmos operates in harmony and rhythm.

The Ṛgveda repeatedly celebrates R̥ta as the principle by which the heavens move, the dawn returns, and the rivers flow according to their bounds (cf. Ṛgveda Rg Veda 4.23.8-10).
Thus, R̥ta stands as a comprehensive principle of order—physical, ritual, and moral—binding cosmos, community, and conscience in a unified vision of reality.
From the Ṛgveda to modern Hindu thought, it underlies the evolution of Dharma and embodies the Indian understanding that truth, morality, and the structure of the universe are one and the same.

• Dharma governs the microcosm—the moral, ethical, and social actions of individuals and communities.
  The Manusmṛti (2.6–8) defines Dharma as that which upholds both social and cosmic order, encompassing duty, conduct, and righteousness.
  The Mahābhārata affirms this relational principle: “Dharmo rakṣati rakṣitaḥ” — Dharma protects those who protect it (Vana Parva 312.128;).
  In this way, Dharma mirrors R̥ta at the human level, translating the universal order into the sphere of moral action.

These principles are autonomous but not arbitrary. Rta ensures the universe functions harmoniously; dharma requires humans to act rightly within their context—varna, ashrama, and situation. Both are eternal and self-regulating, yet dharma always involves moral agency.

If you wish, you can see God as the power behind them, much like you perceive God’s Free Will in Christianity. The difference is: in Hinduism, cosmic order is co-eternal with creation, not contingent on an anthropomorphic God. Chaotic events in the universe—colliding planets, exploding stars—still follow rta; they do not violate cosmic law. Similarly, our moral choices, guided by dharma, participate in this cosmic order.

For a Christian, it may help to think of dharma as analogous to God’s Free Will: both allow for moral agency and responsibility. But unlike fatalism, dharma does not compel action; it enables order and balance through participation. As in your faith, God’s Free Will operates through human choices (cf. Bible, Deuteronomy 30:19–20: “I have set before you life and death…choose life, that you may live”), showing that divine order and human freedom coexist.

When a Christian prays, “Thy will be done,” and when a Hindu says, “May I do my dharma,” both speak the same faith in different tongues.

Thus, whether one sees God as the author of dharma or dharma as part of an autonomous cosmic order, the effect is the same: protection, balance, and moral order. Understanding these principles requires faith, reason, and context. Without this Dharmic perspective, one may mistakenly equate Hindu dharma with fatalism.

Some aspects of our inheritance are subtle and cannot be easily understood by those outside the Dharmic tradition—but using familiar analogies, such as God’s Free Will, can help bridge the gap.

Conclusion

This imagined dialogue is not new; thinkers from both sides have pondered it for centuries. What remains urgent today is rethinking how Hindus interpret the Abrahamic agenda of conversion. Even within the Bible, conversion intertwines theology and sociology—neither alone can explain it fully.

Hinduism’s long record of engaging non-Hindu inquiries offers a balanced framework for reflection. In our plural world, such exchanges remind us that conversion, when seen as transformation rather than transfer, can deepen faith rather than divide it.

Notes

1. Dayanand Bharati, Conversion: Individual or Social?, available at https://dayanandbharati.in/conversion-individual-or-social/.
2. See Appendix One: Human life as the Gateway to Mukti.
3. See Appendix: Summary of Views on Predestination.
4. Rig Veda 1.89.1: “Ā no bhadrāḥ kratavo yantu viśvataḥ”—“Let noble thoughts come to us from every side.”
5. See Appendix on Rta

Appendix: Human life as the Gateway to Mukti.

The Siva Purana – Umaasamhitaa 20:37
“Indeed, the soul is deceived by that man who does not strive for welfare despite attaining human form in this land of Bharata Varsha.”
— Ancient Indian Tradition & Mythology, Translated by a Board of Scholars, Edited by Prof. J. L. Shastri, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Pub. Pvt. Ltd. (1970), 2002, The Siva Purana, Four Volumes, p. 1536.

1. Kena Upanishad II.5a
   Iha ced avedid atha satyam asti n aced ihaavedin mahati vinastih
   — “If here (a person) knows it, then there is truth; if here he knows it not, there is great loss.”
   — S. Radhakrishnan, The Principal Upanishads, Delhi: Oxford University Press, (1953), 1974, p. 587.
2. Isa Upanishad, Verse 3
   Asuryaa naama te lokaa andhena tamasaa vritaaḥ
   Taams te pretyaabhigacchanti ye ke caatmahano janaah.
   — “Demoniac, verily, are those worlds enveloped in blinding darkness, and to them go, after death, those people who are the slayers of the self.”
   — ibid., p. 570.

Appendix: Summary of Views on Predestination

Predestination, in Christian theology, refers to the divine plan by which God orders all things towards their final purpose, particularly the salvation of rational beings. Cyril Veliath defines it as “a plan conceived by God from all eternity, whereby rational creatures are conducted to their eternal end” and emphasizes that it involves both divine foreknowledge and human freedom (Veliath 1993:215). Veliath notes that while everything in creation unfolds according to God’s eternal decree, human freedom and divine grace remain integral to this plan.

He further clarifies that “predestination as understood in Christianity formally exists only in the mind of God” and applies exclusively to rational beings (ibid. 216). It is “gratuitous, unmerited, and independent of all that is divorced from God.” Summarizing the Christian position, Veliath lists four essential affirmations:

1. God does not predestine anyone to evil; He wills the salvation of all.
2. Christ’s redemptive death was universal, not limited to the elect.
3. Grace is sufficient and extended even to sinners for repentance.
4. Those who are lost are so by their voluntary refusal of grace, not by divine causation. As Prosper of Aquitaine observed, “that many perish is the fault of those who perish; that many are saved is the gift of Him who saves.”¹

Sisir Kumar Das, writing from a comparative perspective, observes that the Christian notion of predestination—particularly as affirmed by Luther and Calvin—was “equally unacceptable to the Hindu.” The idea that “from eternity God elected and predestined to eternal life a determinate number of individuals” conflicted with the Hindu conception of divine justice and karma (Das 1974:158). Thus, he notes, the Christian emphasis on grace and redemption arose precisely from this theological necessity.

Craig Keener, interpreting Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, cautions against reading later theological developments back into the New Testament. Commenting on Romans 8:30, he states that predestination based on divine foreknowledge “does not cancel free will,” since “most of Judaism accepted both God’s sovereignty and human responsibility” (Keener 1993:431). The supposed conflict between divine sovereignty and human freedom, he argues, is a later construct “based on Greek logic.” Furthermore, Keener insists that God’s election is not arbitrary but related to human response and faith: “God can sovereignly choose to elect whom he wills… on the basis of (foreknown) faith in Christ” (ibid. 433). Thus, Paul’s teaching on predestination concerns God’s freedom to include both Jews and Gentiles in salvation history, rather than an abstract decree of individual destiny.

Sukumari Bhattacharji offers a broader cultural-theological comparison, contrasting Calvin’s predestination with Indian fatalism. While both share “traits of inscrutability, unintelligibility and immutability,” they differ in foundation and outcome (Bhattacharji 2014:150–151). Calvin’s view presupposes divine omniscience and retains a limited sense of human free will, though often illusory; in contrast, Indian fatalism allows for rebirth, thus avoiding eternal doom. Yet she notes a striking similarity in their theological purpose: “man should be kept in the dark regarding what awaits him in life and after death,” ensuring dependence on divine grace or fate. This shared structure, she suggests, may reflect inherited Greek and Indian metaphysical traditions concerning destiny and liberation.

Bibliography

• Bhattacharji, Sukumari. Fate and Fortune in the Indian Scriptures. New Delhi: Foundation Books, 2014.
• Das, Sisir Kumar. Shadow of the Cross: Christianity and Hinduism in a Colonial Situation. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1974 (1973).
• Keener, Craig S. BBC New Testament Commentary: Romans. Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1993.
• Veliath, Cyril S.J. The Mysticism of Ramanuja. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1993.

Appendix: The Concept of Ṛta

The Vedic term Ṛta represents one of the most profound and foundational ideas in Indian thought—an idea encompassing cosmic order, ritual correctness, and moral law.
It signifies not only the way the universe operates but also the ethical and ritual norms that sustain both cosmos and society.

1. The Threefold Meaning of Ṛta

Prof. Kane points out that Ṛta possesses a threefold aspect: (1) the regular and general order in the cosmos, (2) the correct and ordered way of the cult or sacrifice, and (3) the moral conduct of man.¹
In the Ṛgveda, Ṛta and Satya are closely related yet distinct—the former being “order,” and the latter “truth.”²

2. Cosmic Order and Moral Law

Benjamin Khan explains that Ṛta signifies both physical and moral order, holding together the fabric of creation. It represents a unifying principle in which order “is” in nature, and “ought to be” in man.³
Even natural irregularities such as eclipses and droughts were viewed as temporary deviations from Ṛta, not as contradictions to divine perfection.⁴

3. Human and Cosmic Participation in Order

As Jebanesan notes, humans live within an ordered cosmos, imposing nomos—an ordering principle—on their environment, which transforms chaos into a meaningful, predictable world.⁵
Similarly, Menski distinguishes between Ṛta as macrocosmic order and Dharma as microcosmic order, where individual self-regulation mirrors the cosmic principle.⁶
This continuity is echoed by Basham, who calls Ṛta the forerunner of Dharma.⁷

4. Ṛta as Law of Nature and Sacrifice

Peringalloor emphasizes that Varuna is the guardian of Ṛta, which can be understood as both cosmic law and moral ordinance.⁸
Quoting B.G. Gokhale, he affirms that Ṛta encompasses the physical order of the universe, the ritual order of sacrifice, and the moral law in the world.⁹
Trautmann adds that Ṛta, unlike modern scientific law, includes moral content, and that the maintenance of cosmic order was achieved through sacrifice, preventing a relapse into chaos.¹⁰

5. Ṛta and Dharma

According to Matilal, while Dharma came to concern the individual and social realm, Ṛta remained the underlying cosmic moral order by which all actions are ultimately measured.¹¹
Rukmani further notes that as Dharma evolved, it retained its Ṛta-component—the universal moral ideal giving Dharma its mystical depth and universality.¹²

6. Philosophical and Comparative Perspectives

Coomaraswamy interprets Ṛta literally as ‘Order’, linking it etymologically with “right” and “rite,” thus distinguishing it from Satya (“truth”) as principle versus application.¹³
Walton’s comparative analysis of biblical cosmology parallels this, describing God as creator, judge, and planner who brings order out of chaos and sustains moral order in human society—conceptually akin to Ṛta’s dual cosmic and ethical roles.¹⁴
Rajiv Malhotra situates Ṛta (Ritam) as a unified metaphysical principle governing both the macrocosm and microcosm, bridging the Western dichotomy between the sacred and the secular, spirit and nature.¹⁵
Finally, Sukumari Bhattachari interprets Ṛta as the principle of moral justice operative in the universe, the very law by which sin is punished and truth vindicated, with Varuna as its custodian.¹⁶

---

Summary

Ṛta thus stands as a comprehensive principle of order—physical, ritual, and moral—binding cosmos, community, and conscience in a unified vision of reality.
From the Ṛgveda to modern Hindu thought, it underlies the evolution of Dharma and embodies the Indian understanding that truth, morality, and the structure of the universe are one and the same.

---

Footnotes

1. Sins, expiations and the residual consequences of sins, vol. IV, p.2. ↩
2. Ibid., vol. V, part II, p.988. ↩
3. Benjamin Khan, The Concept of Dharma in Valmiki Ramayana, Delhi: Munshi Ram Manoharlal, 1965, p.29. ↩
4. Ibid., p.27. ↩
5. Albert W. Jebanesan, Changing of the Gods, Delhi: ISPCK, 2004, p.25. ↩
6. Werner F. Menski, Hindu Law: Beyond Tradition and Modernity, Oxford, 2005, p.78. ↩
7. A. L. Basham, The Wonder That Was India, Delhi: Rupa & Co., 1990, p.114. ↩
8. Joseph Peringalloor, Salvation through Gita and Gospel, Bombay: Institute of Indian Culture, 1972, p.11. ↩
9. Ibid., p.12, citing B.G. Gokhale, Indian Thought Through the Ages, Bombay, 1961. ↩
10. Thomas R. Trautmann, India: Brief History of a Civilization, New Delhi: Oxford, 2011, p.34. ↩
11. Bimal Krishna Matilal (ed.), Moral Dilemmas in the Mahabharata, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2014, p.23. ↩
12. T. S. Rukmani, in ibid., pp. 20–34. ↩
13. Ananda K. Coomaraswamy, Perception of the Vedas, ed. Vidya Nivas Misra, New Delhi: IGNCA/Manohar, 2000, p.168. ↩
14. John H. Walton, Victor H. Matthews & Mark W. Chavalas, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament, Downers Grove, Illinois, 2000, p.666. ↩
15. Rajiv Malhotra, Being Different: An Indian Challenge to Western Universalism, New Delhi: HarperCollins, 2011, p.186. ↩
16. Sukumari Bhattachari, Fate and Fortune in the Indian Scriptures, New Delhi: Foundation Books, 2014, p.187. ↩

---

Bibliography

• Basham, A. L. The Wonder That Was India. Delhi: Rupa & Co., 1990.
• Bhattachari, Sukumari. Fate and Fortune in the Indian Scriptures. New Delhi: Foundation Books, 2014.
• Coomaraswamy, Ananda K. Perception of the Vedas. Ed. Vidya Nivas Misra. New Delhi: IGNCA/Manohar, 2000.
• Jebanesan, Albert W. Changing of the Gods: The Process and Experience of Religious Conversion among Sri Lankan Tamil Refugees in London. Delhi: ISPCK, 2004.
• Khan, Benjamin. The Concept of Dharma in Valmiki Ramayana. Delhi: Munshi Ram Manoharlal, 1965.
• Malhotra, Rajiv. Being Different: An Indian Challenge to Western Universalism. New Delhi: HarperCollins, 2011.
• Matilal, Bimal Krishna (ed.). Moral Dilemmas in the Mahabharata. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2014.
• Menski, Werner F. Hindu Law: Beyond Tradition and Modernity. Oxford, 2005.
• Peringalloor, Joseph. Salvation through Gita and Gospel. Bombay: Institute of Indian Culture, 1972.
• Trautmann, Thomas R. India: Brief History of a Civilization. New Delhi: Oxford, 2011.
• Walton, John H., Victor H. Matthews & Mark W. Chavalas. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament. Downers Grove, Illinois, 2000.