On Saturday 04 Aug 2007 9:15 pm, Charles Haynes wrote: But that > raises the next question - just how "sticky" is that cultural > Hinduism? If that person rejects their Hinduism, moves out of Hindu > society, and raises their children without Hindu traditions, are their > children Hindu? For how many generations?
That remains to be seen IMO. There seems to be a certain pull that is exerted by Hinduism that makes people stick. Glimpses of that are evident from Naipaul's autobiographical references to his past in Trinidad, but closer in time and space are non resident Indians in the US. Another cultural group of Hindus are in Malaysia - whose may be worth studying. > Conversely, is someone NOT raised in Hindu society or by Hindus who > converts to Hindu religious practice considered a Hindu? If not, if a > couple does this, and raises their children in Hindu society, as > practicing Hindus, will their children be accepted as Hindus? To what > degree does caste still play a role? The children of "converts" will > forever be outside the caste system, no? Can they ever "really" be > Hindus? I know of no sociological studies - only anecdotes. I personally do not know of this occurring among couples. But there are numerous examples of one partner being Hindu after which the children may or may not opt to be Hindu. I know (and am related to in the usual extended Hindu family manner) to Hindu-Muslim and Hindu-Christian couples who are indistinguishable from anyone else and are as much part of Hindu society as anyone else. Some Christians in India have no problem is describing themselves as Hindu - which they are culturally. (Udhay, Ram and Jace know one such person). If caste is involved in a mixed marriage - the children tend to break out of the caste mould when they come of age (again - anecdotal) > > But this begs the question - who gets to decide "who is a Hindu" and > who is not? If someone says they are not a Hindu, but some Hindus say > they are and others say they are not, who is to say if they are Hindu > or not? Is it not that no matter what, if you are born of Hindu > parents you are forever Hindu (by the terms of Hinduism) and even if > you become proselytizing convert you're just being particularly bad at > following dharma and even the children of such a person are still > Hindu and on and on unto the last generation? I don't know the answer to this question. It is a political one that carries a burden of history with various groups converting, unconverting, harvesting souls and freeing minds or whatever. > ... and even some who do, no? Don't some Hindus claim that Buddhists > are Hindu even in the face of dogmatic claims by Buddhists otherwise? Hindus can claim that everyone is Hindu. You could be one too. You may deny it but arguments can be offered to tell you why you are wrong. Having said that Hindus also do exactly the opposite and reject anyone who is slightly different - so a Hindu from Karnataka may not even recognise a Hindu from Bengal as Hindu. In the ultimate analysis it might be that if you are born to a Hindu family and have a whole lot of Hindu relatives - you can look and act like Michael Jackson, but you will be called Hindu. If you are not born Hindu, you will have to take pains to appear and behave like a "standard Hindu" in order to get accepted as one. By "standard Hindu" behaviour I am referring to the wearing of a bindi (vermilion), visits to temples, performing poojas and looking like an ISKCON candidate. > > Isn't the perceived "weirdness" your own personal cultural > conditioning? Isn't "weird" just another way of saying "something I'm > not used to or comfortable with?" The only alternative objective > definition would seem to be "something unusual or rare" in which case > every religion will have weird practices as a matter of course. > Certainly symbolic necrophagia and cannibalism are central to > Christianity, and explicitly ordered by God. If it's believed and > practiced that widely, how weird can it be? Weirdness by definition is "something I'm not used to or comfortable with". I was unaware of necrophagia and cannibalism in Christianity and - I would look out for more information on this. If true these "ordered by God" acts have certainly been hidden from the public eye, and given that I have received a substantial dose of Christianity as part of my upbringing, this statement comes as a complete surprise. But I mention weirdness with a purpose. There is a tendency among Hindus - at least nowadays (I have observed this tendency for at least 35 years) to accept anything and everything as compatible with Hinduism. Everything has an explanation or a rationalization. Basically Hindu belief seems to cover the extremes of God not making any rules at all - you make the rules, to "God makes all the rules", to "there is no God", and of course the belief that there are plenty of Gods. All these thought processes have found their way into Hindu narrative and you can often have a single person with no fixed belief - saying any one of these things as it suits him. A lot of "swamijis" point out all these contradictory statements as part of their swaminess. After I started comparing Hindu belief with Islam and what I know of Christianity the thought that occurred to me is that range of Hindu beliefs expressed are basically subversive to faiths like Islam and Christianity and actually constitute at best "unsaved souls", and at worst, a real threat to those religions. No rules exist for Hindus that cannot be broken. No rules that will definitely lead to punishment. How a degree of unity, order and morality has been achieved among Hindus, without wanton rape, larceny and murder is something that I am trying to figure out. I have theories, but I am not sure. I read an interesting statement today. Shashi Tharoor apparently asked about Hindus, "How can you get a fundamentalist from a religion that has no fundamentals. I am sure Tharoor has got something wrong - but I believe he may be partially right about the religion without fundamentals. shiv
