Hinduism's Conquest of the West (Continued )

I am starting this new thread as the earlier thread has been hijacked and the present discussions there have no relevance to the topic.

This is better than abandoning the thread. I am copying the last posting dated 20/01/2009 here.

Vedism, Sanatana Dharma

I had said in my earlier post that the educated Hindus were not very happy with the name Hinduism.

The reasons given were:

1. The name Hindu was given by the Persians. It does not refer to the religion, but the people living on this side of the Sindhu river (Indus) river.

This is true. It is a term used by the Persians to denote the people and not the religion. The Hindu religion extended far beyond the Indus river, into what is today Afghanistan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan. Since the Persians did not have a "S" Sindhu became Hindu.

2. This is not the term used by Hindus to describe their religion. It was given by the British.

It is again true that this term was used by the British. Initially they called the religion Brahminism (after Brahmins) and then Brahmanism (after Brahman). But these terms did not take into account all the aspects of Hinduism. So they took the Persian term and made it the name of the religion.

There was another development in the sixties which might have reinforced this renaming of the rename of the religion.

Islam was earlier referred to as Mohammedism or Mohammedanism. This was changed in the early sixties to Islam.

The word for the followers of Islam is "Muslim". It is sometimes transliterated as "Moslem", which some regard as offensive.

Until at least the mid 1960s, many English-language writers used the term Mohammedans or Mahometans. Muslims argued that the terms are offensive because they allegedly imply that Muslims worship Muhammad rather than God.

English writers of the 19th century and earlier sometimes used the words Mussulman, Musselman, or Mussulmaun. Variant forms of this word are still used by many Indo-European languages.

Now two of the terms thought of were Vedism and Sanatana Dharma.

Vedism was a word advocated by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. David Frawley was also initially a supporter. But this lost out to the term Sanatana Dharma.

Sanatana Dharma: The eternal religion/law.

Now this term has not been used by Swami Vivekananda or the earlier Swamijis. Swami Sivananda has used the term, but not to describe the Hindu religion. The first person to have popularized it seems to be Swami Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada (ISCKON).

There is no historical evidence of what the Hindus called their religion.

Sruitismiritivihita Sanatana Dharma is Hinduism as per the oldest definition available in a copper plate dating back to the Gupta period.

As per this definition only Shruti and Smiriti are included in Sanatana Dharma. There are some organization which have called it Sanatana Vaidic Dharma. The problem is that this excluded the Agamas, Tantras and the popular worship of village deities all over India.

This was considered to refer to the Orthodox Hindu religion only.

But this term has found more acceptance over a period of time. But the problem still exists that it means different things to different people. It is still to be accepted by all Hindus.

Of late there has been attempts to redefine Hinduism by organizations affiliated to a particular political party.

This kind of attempts to redefine Hinduism has led to some situations in the U.S about which I will post later.

Nacchinarkiniyan said:

I am starting this new thread as the earlier thread has been hijacked and the present discussions there have no relevance to the topic.

This is better than abandoning the thread. I am copying the last posting dated 20/01/2009 here.

Vedism, Sanatana Dharma

I had said in my earlier post that the educated Hindus were not very happy with the name Hinduism.

The reasons given were:

1. The name Hindu was given by the Persians. It does not refer to the religion, but the people living on this side of the Sindhu river (Indus) river.

This is true. It is a term used by the Persians to denote the people and not the religion. The Hindu religion extended far beyond the Indus river, into what is today Afghanistan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan. Since the Persians did not have a "S" Sindhu became Hindu.

2. This is not the term used by Hindus to describe their religion. It was given by the British.

It is again true that this term was used by the British. Initially they called the religion Brahminism (after Brahmins) and then Brahmanism (after Brahman). But these terms did not take into account all the aspects of Hinduism. So they took the Persian term and made it the name of the religion.

There was another development in the sixties which might have reinforced this renaming of the rename of the religion.

Islam was earlier referred to as Mohammedism or Mohammedanism. This was changed in the early sixties to Islam.

The word for the followers of Islam is "Muslim". It is sometimes transliterated as "Moslem", which some regard as offensive.

Until at least the mid 1960s, many English-language writers used the term Mohammedans or Mahometans. Muslims argued that the terms are offensive because they allegedly imply that Muslims worship Muhammad rather than God.

English writers of the 19th century and earlier sometimes used the words Mussulman, Musselman, or Mussulmaun. Variant forms of this word are still used by many Indo-European languages.

Now two of the terms thought of were Vedism and Sanatana Dharma.

Vedism was a word advocated by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. David Frawley was also initially a supporter. But this lost out to the term Sanatana Dharma.

Sanatana Dharma: The eternal religion/law.

Now this term has not been used by Swami Vivekananda or the earlier Swamijis. Swami Sivananda has used the term, but not to describe the Hindu religion. The first person to have popularized it seems to be Swami Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada (ISCKON).

There is no historical evidence of what the Hindus called their religion.

Sruitismiritivihita Sanatana Dharma is Hinduism as per the oldest definition available in a copper plate dating back to the Gupta period.

As per this definition only Shruti and Smiriti are included in Sanatana Dharma. There are some organization which have called it Sanatana Vaidic Dharma. The problem is that this excluded the Agamas, Tantras and the popular worship of village deities all over India.

This was considered to refer to the Orthodox Hindu religion only.

But this term has found more acceptance over a period of time. But the problem still exists that it means different things to different people. It is still to be accepted by all Hindus.

Of late there has been attempts to redefine Hinduism by organizations affiliated to a particular political party.

This kind of attempts to redefine Hinduism has led to some situations in the U.S about which I will post later.

Click to expand...

hi nacchi sir,
now hinduism conquered in inaguration ceremony of president Obama/
and echoed in senate hall of USA

Politics in the U.S is about money power and lobbying. Hindus have enough money power now for them to be counted. This is a victory for money power.

The Hindus in general may have to pay a price for that because the rich groups will decide what is Hinduism. I will be posting today about how the rich and powerful Hindus of U.S have redefined Hinduism and rewritten the text books in such a way that I am no longer a Hindu as per their definition.

No politics please. We have had enough of religion being politicized in India.

Dear Nacchinarkiniyan,

Right move. I appreciate your clear and simple methodology by starting a new thread

Dear Nacchinarkiniyan,

Assuming this topic is about conquering the minds of people through the concepts of Hinduism, could you please explain, how in your perspective this is currently happening in the west?

I am posing this question because, there seems to be a deep erosion of age old good practices or life style right here in India.

I had posted about the spread of Vedanta, Yoga, Meditation, Tantras and the worship of Kali in detail. These show about the spread of Hindu ideas in the West particularly U.S.

About the Conquest part of it, I always like to give my threads headings which will draw the interest of the viewer. Like the Dhinathanthi heading "Kudukudu kizhavi chadukudu aadinal!"

The westerners have the distinct advantage in that they have chosen to follow Hindu practices. Most of them choose to follow the teachings of a guru whether it Sri Ramakrishna, Ramana Maharishi or Swami Rama and others. They do not have any existing Hindu practices to give up. And the most important thing is they are not indoctrinated by the views and prejudices of a community.

For example when we talk about animal sacrifices in Hinduism, the westerners remark that "O.K. This is an accepted practice in Hinduism. But not my path. My Guru was against it." As simple as that. But Indians tend to argue about the good and bad of the practice and are judgmental.

I envy the westerners in that they are able to take off for some years, explore the world and then get back to normal life again. Recently a friend of mine who is from the U.S went back after doing Sadhana for 5 years in India. She has got a job and is able to continue where she left 5 years back.

I do have a reasonable chunk of friends and relatives in many different parts of the world. I haven't heard of any of them raving about the impact Hinduism has had on the people's life style there. I too have traveled my own bit, and haven't found any significant impact.

It's true the westerners have an edge, they do not have much to give up in their tradition to take up something sound and new from our tradition.

It is also true the average educated westerner earns at least 5 times what an Indian in India earns. It is also true the average expenditure in India can keep them going for years without any pay because they already earned in dollars. We do not have this edge. So they can afford to come here and do sadhana for 5 years, but cannot survive for 5 months in europe without pay.

Isn't it true that there are very few tourists from the western world to India compared to the large number of western tourists who go to parts of Europe, Americas, Australia or even Africa?

I had been going around the Himalayas for some time. I hardly saw handful of westerners even there, even though it was the right season for tourists.

My nephews and nieces all over U.S would hardly know anything about the impact of Hinduism in the West. I will cover this aspect about the reaction of the NRI to these people in my next post.

It is a fact that not many of the people who are influenced by Hindu thoughts or even those who have converted to Hinduism come to India. The reasons are many. For many it is only a dream.

I was thinking of posting about the developments in the redefining of Hinduism in the west and India and its impact. But then that is not directly relevant to this thread.

Now how does the Indian residing in the West react to these people?

The attitude is one of indifference at the best and outright hostility at the worst. Hindus in general do not believe in conversion. The average NRI who has gone to the west is not an expert in religious matters. They are by and large conservative. They are very keen on preserving their tradition. That basically means continuing the existing rituals.

The Hare Krishna devotees are the most visible ones. But they are considered freaks. There is some improvement now. Still....

The only time that there is even a meeting of the new converts and an NRI is at the temples. The western convert is made at home in the Hare Krishna temples. But they meet a negative reaction at the traditional temples run by Indians. The new converts do not always have an idea about the rituals of the temples. Our temples are very much ritual oriented. So if you are not aware of the rituals you do have problems. Again the temples in India and abroad are priest oriented. If you have a ritual to be performed the priest helps you. But if you do not have any ritual to be performed the priest looks askance at the visitor.

Many westerners do complain about this attitude. They tend to believe that they would be welcomed as new converts and are disappointed.

How are they treated here in India?

Abominably. There are still temples like Guruvayur which insist on a certificate of conversion. Many temples display a board prohibiting the entrance of non-Hindus. This is used to deny the new Hindus admission. Now there is no central authority in Hinduism who can certify that you are a Hindu. Now the certificate from the Arya Samaj is accepted in some temples. But even then you can be questioned any time by any one who wants to prove to others that he is a protector of Hinduism.

Even this is changing. Slowly, but changing.

What is the profile of the person who takes to Hindu ideas? Not the rich and successful. Some academics do after studying the books about Hinduism. But the vast majority are people who are searching for getting mental peace. People who find that the western values do not give them peace of mind. These people find solace in Hinduism. Like a friend of mine who stays in a mountain place in California. I had
once sent her A CD of Sri Ramakrishna. She wrote to me

I was in an automobile accident once. I spent six months in a leg cast and an arm cast, wheelchair and bed. All I did during my waking hours was to read the Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna. It became a holy retreat.

Click to expand...

What does she do? She has a small altar with photographs of Hindu Gods/Goddesses. Does Puja every day reciting some Sanskrit slokas. She is a Baktha.

This is what Hinduism is about. Reaching out to the ordinary people who are facing problems and give them peace of mind. This is what the Vedic Seers taught. Does it matter that my friend is not known to any NRI, can not afford to visit India?

Hinduism is not promoted either to benefit individual Swamijis/Gurus or India by way of tourists.

We tend to look at Hinduism from our own point of view. Many of the people who have taken to Hindu ideas may not be accepted as Hindus by many of us. But the fault is ours. Not of Hinduism.

Hinduism will flourish till eternity because of its great ideas. Practices may disappear and change. But not the basic ideas.

This thread which has lost its steam ends here. I am looking forward to the creation of the Blogs for posting my articles in future.

Good analogy. Appreciate the deep thinking on behalf of why people come here in less numbers to pursue Hinduism. You have a penchant for sincere effort.

However, is this topic not about the conquest of Hinduism in the western world? Is you analogy just about saying yes we haven't conquered their minds yet? Are you saying, if Hindus in the Hindu land can be so indifferent then how can we be inspiring for them to follow Hinduism?

Just for discussion sake, You go to a party, you cannot gel with the crowd unless you do certain things basically required at the party...like the right kind of clothing, body language, way of talking, and even participation. You cannot even imagine getting into a party meant for the elite, without the right clothes and right cards. And you do not get the right looks from even the bartender if you are naive about what to order. That's the ritual there. You don't blame the party crowd for not accepting you. You try to do things that make you acceptable there.

You can see the same in any place where many people meet. Similarly, it is in a temple. I found it was the same, when I visited a Gurudwara, Church, or Buddhist monastery. I haven't been into couple of other places of worship, but from what I have heard, its the same there too.

And let's remember, Hinduism does not believe in conversion and there are no real rituals for conversion. Where as every other one has a conversion ritual. So they tend to at least not mind or even encourage people from other beliefs visiting their place of worship.

Hinduism was existent in many parts of the world ages earlier. But, today even in our own land, it is merely a identity of birth for many. So, naturally it is non-existent in many parts of the world but for the land which clings on to documentation based on religion by birth.

What I would be REALLY interested in knowing is how many people pursue Hindu ideals and spiritual practice with an understanding of the goal of life. It is a fact that there are not many compared to yester years.

(Secretly) I hope the above posting will encourage you to write more about the foothold of Hinduism in the hearts of westerners.