There exists a belief that the educators of Hindu philosophy endeavoured to formulate concepts aimed at enticing individuals who had departed from Hinduism back to the fold. Such ideas were proposed by a highly regarded figure in this forum (Mr Sangom, a mentor of me in early days of being member here), yet they are unfounded.
All acharyas genuinely sought to comprehend the truth as influenced by their own conditioning. They provided interpretations that aligned with their perspectives, drawing from the most profound thoughts and sentiments, regardless of their origin. The notion of persuading others to adopt one’s beliefs is foreign to Hindu philosophy. It is primarily those who adhere to an exclusive religious mindset that attempt to convert others, often under the pretext of saving them from eternal damnation or integrating them into their community. When one's thinking is along those lines, it is possible to view the teachings of Acharyas in negative light.
Prominent acharyas, including Sankara, Ramanuja, and Madhva, did not seek to assimilate ideas from other religions merely to reclaim their adherents. Buddha was not a sunyavadi (he was a advita vedantin based on his writings of Dhammapadam), despite the beliefs of his followers. The propagation of Krishna consciousness does not align with the vision presented in the Gita. That is how religions evolve.
Hinduism is not strictly a religion; rather, it represents a way of life and a perspective on existence, as articulated by President Radhakrishnan. The term 'Hindu' was assigned by outsiders to the region. The Mahavakyas are applicable to all beings, thus negating the necessity to convert anyone to their ideology. In the pursuit of truth, individuals engaged in debates in ancient times. This practice has since diminished, giving way to a culture steeped in superstition and ignorance.
