[QUOTE=TatTvamAsi;61698]Surya,
Your quoting exceptions and as I stated earlier, they do NOT form the rule. Furthermore, these “Hindus” are Hindu in name. They will never be allowed to be priests of any real Hindu temple.
Yes, they certainly do not form the majority, but what these exceptions do show is that it is possible to be Hindu and not be Indian. Moreover my friend, being a Hindu priest is an exception and not the rule.
Please show me ONE self-realized person who is not Indian-Hindu with the exception of Lao Tze over the past 3000 years. You think it’s a coincidence that all the great rishis and mahants of Sanatana Dharma were from India? Many of them came from “lower” castes but they were nonetheless from Bharata.
Who is self realised and who is not is based on what people say. Only the one who can experience the atman knows the atman. Others, can at best guess based on the behaviour of a person and how that person makes them feel. There are plenty of people we say are realised, but what we really mean is that they are more developed than we are. When we are speaking of people in history who we have not met, we must simply take testimony for granted. If we go by testimony if you look into the archives of non-Indian cultures you will see their own equivalent list of great spiritual people like saints, such as St Fracis of Assisi. In any case I will grant your point that non-Indian cultures have little to show for themselves in terms of producing great spiritual personalities. This is why India is the spiritual capital of the world and the spiritual teacher of the world.
There can be Hindus from outside who are free to learn about Hinduism. None has the adhIkArA to teach or engage in scriptural exegesis. That would be transgressing their svAdharmA and thus causing conflict with the higher order of things.
These “Hindus”, as you call them, what is their svAdharmA? What is their varnA? What gOtrA are they? Thor? Or was it Valhalla?
You are looking at a very limited sociological definition of Hinduism based on Indian social context, which I will add is an evolving context. All of these social categories and classes you mention are changable. One of shudra varna can move up to brahmana varna and vis versa. The varna system of Hindu dharma has never been a fixed and rigid system, but fluidic and changing.
In the Gita Krishna talks about svadharma and manava dharma. Svadharma is important, but it is changing and defined by your social context. Arjuna was kshatriya and therefore he had a duty to uphold kshatriya dharma. But this does not mean that Arjuna could not have later adopted brahmana dharma. In the Mahabharata, guru Dronacharya and Kripacharya who are brahmanas adopt kshatriya dharma due to the needs of the hour.
Manava dharma is higher than svadharma because while svadharma will change, manava dharma will not change. If I asked you who are you? You may first give your name, then your profession, then your gender, then your age, then your cast creed or sect, than your nationality. If we reduce you to your bare nature you are a human being(manava) a conscious self-aware entity. This is as true for you as an Indian Hindu, as it is for an American Christian or an Arabic Muslim.
Humans have been born in different places throughout this universe. On planet Zog, the Zogians have an eternal religion called Zogo, they practice meditation, they have linages of spiritual teachers and their primary focus is to reach self-realization. They are not Indian, they have not even read the Indian Vedas and have no connection to Indian lineages - and yet they are following the same manava dharma that the Gita speaks of. They are Hindu as you and me without even being born on this planet.
On this planet humans have been born in various parts of the world, with different societies and cultures - and yet they are all human and all seeking the same goal of happiness and self fulfillment. When I fold my hands to greet another human being by saying “Namaste” I am recognizing the unity of our dharma. We may all wear different bodies, but the soul within us is the same. The divinity within you also exists within me and within everybody else. This divinity is what unites us all. When I see another human being I try to see that divinity. I have seen that same divinity shine in Indian people, Black people, Chinese people, White people.
It is highly dubious to call these people “Hindu”. Erwin Schrodinger read the Upanishads, as did Heisenberg et al, and came to the conclusion that Vedanta very closely parallels QM and modern cosmology. Their acknowledgement of the parallels does in no way make them “Hindu”. Schopenhauer was a philosopher that saw the lofty principles of Vedanta and the garbage that are the Abrahamic religions and called them as they are. How does that make him “Hindu”? Same goes for the other examples you’ve quoted.
People being positive about Hinduism does not make them “Hindu” just as some westerner who has read the Gita and some (mis)translations of the Vedas does not make him/her an “expert” on VaidIka Dharma or even the Vedas. I’ve heard some Indians say, after seeing some westerners at ASrams in India, that they are “saint-like”. LOL… These people will think that some guy wearing a saffron-robe is a “swami” and is a Brahmin just because he has traveled to India.
Simply put, being Hindu is a state of development, rather than a title one inherits. The Hindu texts themselves say that Hindu is synonymous with one who is virtuous/aryan. One who is on this path to cultivate virtue within them is a Hindu. In fact there are very few real Hindus amongst the 1 billion Hindus today. The first step to becoming Hindu is imbibing the teachings of Vedic dharma, the second step is to practice the teachings of Vedic dharma, the third step is to realise the teachings of Vedic dharma.
Well, technically correct but in reality, no. There are very few exceptions like the Saiva Siddhanta swami in Hawaii who has dedicated his entire life to Hindu Dharma. They are truly Hindu and more so than the average Indian Hindu. However, don’t confuse someone like that with the average schmuck who reads Amar Chitra Katha and teaches a class on Hinduism at “Harvard”.
Well, does this not prove that one can be Hindu without being Indian. It maybe an exception and not the rule, but even one exception can show the rule is not absolute.
That is a very myopic picture of what a Hindu is. There is so much more to being a Hindu than what you have described here. Indian culture is Hinduism in practice. There are some aspects that are of course associated with specific places and time periods but the overwhelming evidence of Indian culture that has sustained in the subcontinent for the past several thousand years is Hindu Dharma in action. There can be many Hindus who know next to nothing about the Vedas but LIVE its principles. That is the fundamental difference.
Vedic dharma has remained in India for the past thousands of years because then we were not living in a time of globalization. Today we are, and therefore Vedic dharma is spreading beyond the borders of India to as far as Hawai(your own example) So while I accept how important India is to the history of Vedic dharma on this planet, it does not define it. Countries like India will come and go, nay planets will come and go - but Vedic dharma will remain because it is santana. It is important to acknowledge how important Bharata and Bharata sanskriti is because it is the homeland of Vedic dharma on this planet, but it is not absolute.
Never said that and I agree with you that Hinduism is indeed universal. However, what Hinduism is, its history, its practices, its traditions can ONLY be defined by Bharata Dharma. Otherwise, we can have Italians converting to Hinduism and doing pUjas with pasta and SrArdham with lasagna. Tomato sauce anyone? “SVAHA” :eek:
But one can do puja to any of the 330 million devas/devis. I can do puja to fire and so can an Italian. In fact fire worship is common to many cultures. In the Yagya one gives the offering of food such as rice, but does that mean that one who has no rice cannot do a yagya? No, they could use other food stuff.
You are looking too much at the particular ways of a culture rather than the universals. A ritual can be amended in anyway to suit a social context. Today in the age of computers Hindus even do virtual puja. Is it less effective? Perhaps, but the point is that the devotion should be there. The rest is superfluous.
Again, I agree with your assessment there but the embodiment of those principles are primarily found in Indians and Indian Hindus. That is why Indian Christians and Indian Muslims are the best Christians and Muslims in the world; they are heavily influenced, albeit subliminally, by Hindu culture. Some extremists are of course there, but they are not in the majority.
I disagree to be honest, I do not find these qualities in Indians at large. In Indians of today(80% of which are Hindu) I find greed, lust, anger, ignorance, sloth - vice. I did not meet the Indians you are talking about when I went to India many times. I met some of the worst people in the world: uncivilised, rude, spiteful, lazy, sleazy. I lived in India for 6 months and I saw a lot of corrupt Indians. Therefore, clearly being born Indian does not automatically mean that one is virtuous.
I strongly feel, and am convinced by experience and interaction with various cultures and peoples, that India is a place that is conducive to spiritual growth. To be born there is a great boon and opportunity for the jIvA to progress to its goal (home - aham ;)). People from other parts of the world simply are not spiritually developed enough to embrace Hindu Dharma. That is why the desert cults are flourishing there. If not those, then crap like communism and rampant materialism.
I agree that India is the most spiritual place on the planet and that is why I am going there. However, this is changing now as Indian gurus set up ashrams all around the world. Spiritual communities are appearing all over the planet. All I ask for in my next life is to be born in a spiritually developed community, whether that be India or Japan.
There are always exceptions and to those people who are truly sincere in their pursuit of sat (truth), they eventually find their way to Bharata (India) and we should welcome them with open arms. Yet, many of these disillusioned people are quacks and finicky and come to gouge themselves spiritually and once their appetite is filled, they throw the host away and go on to feed on others and other cultures. Those kind of people, we must reject. The hard part is distinguishing the two!
Yes, the study of all spirituality brings one to India. There are many sincere Western seekers who have gone to India, then returned home and spread Indian spirituality in their country. Yes, there are also many who have just used it for their own self-gain and have not credited the source. But this is no different to how there are some gurus who spread Vedic dharma and some who spread only their own fame. Good and bad is to be expected in everything.
Well, that is somewhat debatable in the sense that being born in a country that is steeped in Hindu Dharma will have an influence on the individual. Nobody is impervious to their surroundings and Indian non-Hindus are no exception. I personally believe lineage is very important in Hinduism but have been excoriated for that many times online and offline (by my parents even!). I am also sick and tired of the hacks and so I guess I’m overly cautious of foreigners who say, “I love the dhaaarmaaa and the caaarmaaa!” Vasanas I guess! lol…
Again, if we look at the state of Indians today in terms of their character I would strongly doubt this. We cannot become complacent and think that those being born in India are naturally Hindu or more Hindu. We must do our part to spread Vedic dharma everywhere. If Indian Hindus want to play a more important role in this they need to take part in it, and not just sit there smugly thinking they don’t have to do anything because they’re already Hindu, otherwise they will reach a point where the Westerner will be teaching the Hindus Vedic dharma. In fact that is already happening.
I am doing my part as an Indian Hindu(ethnically I am Indian, though born in the UK) to master my own tradition so I can teach it to others. I have put in the time, energy and commitment into studying it and practicing it. If all Indian Hindus did what I am doing, then India will forever remain the teacher of Vedic dharma. Otherwise, in the future Vedic dharma will be taught by America and not India.
You are conflating cultural traits with intellectual capacity of the individual. Indians, that is Hindus, have never been the cause of any genocide. That is an irrefutable fact. The west cannot hold a candle-light to India’s civilization in the real sense of the word. Being civilized alludes to selflessness and self-abnegation. The western categorical framework is dependent upon the individual (ego-mind/body-mind complex); which is ultimately a falsity or impermanent state of experience according to Hindu Dharma. The two cannot be reconciled.
It is definitely true India has never commited any genocides any never invaded another country in 10,000 years of its history. However, India did obviously have wars between kingdoms and these wars were ongoing as empires fell and rose in India constantly. A big shame is how India could not maintain unity for an extended period of time - everytime somebody succeeded in uniting India, it fell apart a few generations later. There was an obvious failing of India in this regard. In totality Indian culture is obviously more civilised than the West, but it by no means perfect.
Those three examples (gnosticism, sufism, and wicca) you gave are all heavily influenced by Eastern thought. It was not developed within the framework of the abrahamic cults; that is why they are still considered “fringe” by their ‘parent’ faiths.
Yes, I know they are not purely indigenous developments, but my point was that the West did have spiritual traditions, but they did not develop to the level of a science. We could say that India had fringes of materialism, but for some reason India did not develop material sciences to the level the West did. This goes without saying really.
Yes, to the Hindus in Hawaii and the likes of Frawley and Knapp, they are doing great work. They are also exceptions as I said.
Hence, why I am saying when you have so many exceptions it proves that the rule is not absolute. My point is simply non-Indians can be Hindu just as Indians cannot be Hindu.
It is great that you have done so much research of Hindu Dharma and converted to it from Sikhism but you have to realize that when it comes to adhIkArA, you do not have it. You cannot become a priest or a ShankarAcharyA at any Mutt. That is because you do not have the right lineage. Thus, there are many Hindus who are “more” Hindu than you. As a practicing Hindu, you might say, “I don’t care about that” and that is fine. However, you cannot make that claim as universal and applicable to everyone.
I do not want to be a priest or a shankarcharya, and obviously out of 1 billion Hindus the number that are priests and sankarcharyas is negligible. What I can become though is a guru. In the future the requirements for becoming priests and sankarcharyas will change and non-Indians and non-Hindu borns will be allowed to take such posts. This more of a matter of social customs than sanatana dharma. Anybody who knows the self is by default a brahmarishi, irrespective of their caste, creed, sect, gender, religion.
In conclusion, I agree that anyone can become Hindu in mindset to a certain degree. Those who are born in India and are Hindus are much more spiritually developed than others. Birth is not accidental; you should know that if you understand Karma.
And to add, after reading your posts, you are doing a great thing for Hindus and Hindu Dharma. You are most definitely Hindu but I am stating what I have learnt after reading about various principles in Hindu Dharma.
Thank you. I am not sure I accept being born in contemporary India means you are more spiritually developed. There are murderers, rapists, corrupt politicians who are born in India - does that mean they are more spiritually developed? Rather it is not being born in India which makes one fortunate, but being born in a spiritual household and family. However, if you are not fortunate enough to be born in a spiritual household, nothing is lost. You can change your karma at any point in your life. The atman knows no country.
[/U]
