On Tuesday 07 Aug 2007 5:11 am, Charles Haynes wrote: > If that is not sufficiently clear, what about the hypothetical case of > a Hindu infant, adopted by secular non-believers and raised in a > non-Hindu culture. Is that child still Hindu? Ignore for the moment > how unlikely this is to actually occur, I'm trying to get at what it > is that determines "Hinduness." It seems pretty clear that neither > belief nor practice are either necessary or sufficient.
That child can in no way behave or appear Hindu and will not be recognised as one. There is nothing sticky about Hinduism that comes bundled with genes. I believe that "Hinudism" is merely a function of geography, physical appearance and behavior. A particular range of behaviors and physical characteristics that are found to occur commonly over a particular geographic area came to be associated with the word "Hindus" and "Hinduism". The people who were classified in that way did not spontaneously come out and say "We are Hindus" That nick was initially placed on them as a general description by visitors from outside the region. These people (dubbed Hindus) were more obsessed with themselves than what lay outside, and were particularly deficient in connecting up time with events and keeping a record of history. There is a beautiful analogy comparing this "Hindu" characteristic with some tribe elsewhere in the world by Naipaul - I need to dig that up. I will do in due course. Religion, and the specific identity of a God is not the only, or the strongest indicator of Hindu. I suspect that the concept "my religion is my identity" came with Christianity and Islam, but this was at best a highly variable characteristic among the mass of people who were dubbed Hindus. In that sense the dubbing of Hinduism as a religion is a mixed bag that suits some agendas and is detrimental to others. But the world has no other word for it currently and "the world" is as mystified by Hinduness as you are and I am. shiv
