What Do Hindus Require to Recognize Another from Outside Their Culture As Hindu?

[SalixIncendium]

This is the continuation of a discussion begun in What Is Your Religion or Worldview?.

Some world religions require some sort of initiation ritual to be performed to be accepted into that religion and to be recognized by that religion's followers as fellow members. Thereafter, there is an expectation to require certain tenets, dogma, traditions, practices, etc. to continue to be recognized as such, or at least a member in good standing. One must believe and practice a certain way in order to not be judged by other members of their faith. On a personal note, this is the catalyst to my aversion to organized religion.

I'm curious what the Hindus here perceive to be requirements of someone outside of their culture to be recognized as Hindu. What do you consider to be the core requirements or teachings one must follow to recognize someone as Hindu?

 

[Valjean]

Tulsi beads -- always a sure giveaway.

 

[Jainarayan]

Tulsi beads -- always a sure giveaway.

Not sure if srs, but funny.

 

[SomeRandom]

This is the continuation of a discussion begun in What Is Your Religion or Worldview?.

Some world religions require some sort of initiation ritual to be performed to be accepted into that religion and to be recognized by that religion's followers as fellow members. Thereafter, there is an expectation to require certain tenets, dogma, traditions, practices, etc. to continue to be recognized as such, or at least a member in good standing. One must believe and practice a certain way in order to not be judged by other members of their faith. On a personal note, this is the catalyst to my aversion to organized religion.

I'm curious what the Hindus here perceive to be requirements of someone outside of their culture to be recognized as Hindu. What do you consider to be the core requirements or teachings one must follow to recognize someone as Hindu?

Sincerity?
Of course tribalism will occur, people will be skeptical of outsiders due to past scorn etc.
People are free to label themselves however they please.

 

[Jainarayan]

What do you consider to be the core requirements or teachings one must follow to recognize someone as Hindu?

This is a pretty good description. What Makes Me A Hindu? I'm not wild about the "if you think you're a Hindu you are" for the simple reason that it leaves too much room for some wild and crazy eclecticism and syncretizing.

Basically the things I agree with from the article:

• Dharma (ethics and duties)
• Samsara (rebirth)
• Karma (right action)
• Moksha (liberation from the cycle of Samsara)
• A belief in reincarnation
• A belief that everything in the world operates in cycles and nothing is ever created or destroyed. There is no death without renewal
• A belief in divinity within myself and other living beings, and within all creation
• A belief that our experience of the world is not the ultimate reality
• A belief in a perfectly just world that keeps its own balance by a system of action and consequence
• A belief that we can break the cycle of life and death to become one with the ultimate God

There's also the "authority of the Vedas" thing people use. But that's a misnomer. The Vedas are not some law book; they are not the Ten Commandments or the Torah. I prefer to use the term "genuine" or "valid". They are hymns, poetry, prayers, philosophies, on which Hinduism is pretty much based. But keep in mind most Hindus have never read the Vedas or even know what's in them. They are technically apauruṣeya, meaning "not of man", that is, they are divinely inspired. No, not a booming voice from the Himalayas, but what the rishis perceived and understood after long and intense meditation, and transcribed.

That's beliefs and philosophy. As for practice, most Hindus will do some type of home worship. Most have at least a small shrine. I don't consider it a requirement, because it's said over and over again that the best worship of the gods is from the heart and mind with devotion, not externals. Most people like touchy-feely stuff and ritual and routine. Some go to temple regularly, semi-regularly, seldom or never.

 

[Vinayaka]

This is the continuation of a discussion begun in What Is Your Religion or Worldview?.

Some world religions require some sort of initiation ritual to be performed to be accepted into that religion and to be recognized by that religion's followers as fellow members. Thereafter, there is an expectation to require certain tenets, dogma, traditions, practices, etc. to continue to be recognized as such, or at least a member in good standing. One must believe and practice a certain way in order to not be judged by other members of their faith. On a personal note, this is the catalyst to my aversion to organized religion.

I'm curious what the Hindus here perceive to be requirements of someone outside of their culture to be recognized as Hindu. What do you consider to be the core requirements or teachings one must follow to recognize someone as Hindu?

It varies by person ... a lot. In India there are maybe 3 or 4 temples I wouldn't be allowed into. The fact that I'm white makes it so. Those temples have had problems with tourists, and/or Christian missionaries, so they effectively banned white folks. In actuality there is no way you can tell anyone's religion by skin colour, but it does give you a really high percentage chance of being right, especially in India.

For me personally, I respect the opinion of the other person. So if you say you're Hindu, I respect that. If you don't, I respect that too. It used to be more of an inner argument with myself, but that's how I've resolved it. Who am I to judge? The lines are just so incredibly blurred. We here had long discussions in the threads 'What makes a Hindu a Hindu?" that might be helpful to you.

There are even other ways of dividing it, that makes it more confusing. For example some Vedantins wll say Vedanta is separate from Hinduism, whereas others will say it's a philisophical stance within Hinduism.

Edited to add ... What makes a Hindu a Hindu - Version 2

 

[sayak83]

This is the continuation of a discussion begun in What Is Your Religion or Worldview?.

Some world religions require some sort of initiation ritual to be performed to be accepted into that religion and to be recognized by that religion's followers as fellow members. Thereafter, there is an expectation to require certain tenets, dogma, traditions, practices, etc. to continue to be recognized as such, or at least a member in good standing. One must believe and practice a certain way in order to not be judged by other members of their faith. On a personal note, this is the catalyst to my aversion to organized religion.

I'm curious what the Hindus here perceive to be requirements of someone outside of their culture to be recognized as Hindu. What do you consider to be the core requirements or teachings one must follow to recognize someone as Hindu?

There may be some ceremonies (dikhsha) if you are following a specific order of Hinduism. Such sects usually have explicit leadership (called guru) who usually perform the initiation ceremony.
However, associating with a particular sect to become a Hindu is not necessary. One can be a self-declared or self-practicing Hindu as well...though associating with some sort of practicing Hindu community in some way or the other helps. Some social connection is always useful to keep one from going off the deep end so to say.

Here is a blog that might be useful in this context.
Where Does a White Hindu Start?
Why Am I Called The "White" Hindu?

 

[Jainarayan]

Here is a blog that might be useful in this context.
Where Does a White Hindu Start?
Why Am I Called The "White" Hindu?

You read her too? I follow her FB page.

 

[sayak83]

You read her too? I follow her FB page.

No. I just found it.

 

[Vinayaka]

There are a whole lot of white Hindus that have no problem at all declaring their Hinduness and there are millions more influenced in some way by Sanatana Dharma but don't call it that. Too bad some bring remnants of some negative western traits with them, like proselytizing.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I suppose the biggest issue I have with religion in general is I don't take to blind belief in things. Most, if not all, of my worldview is rooted in experience and rationalized conclusions based on those experiences.

I struggle to take something I'm told or something I read as truth, especially if it is in conflict with what I feel intuitively to be true. A good example is being told at a young age by a clergy member that humans have souls and animals don't. This statement inherently made no sense to me, so I investigated by speaking to other clergy members and found that this was indeed an accepted truth, which ultimately led to my departure from that religion.

With every religion I've taken the time to learn about or embark on practice, I have run up against a barricade that prevented or concluded any self-identification with that religion, all except Hinduism. And no, I don't know everything there is to know about Hinduism, nor can I say I've learned everything there is to know about every other religion.

Yes, I struggle with the Saguna aspect of Brahman and struggle with belief in deity in general, because again, that does require a degree of blind faith. But I have had personal experiences that lead me to believe that this perceived reality is not the absolute reality, which brings me to rationalize or realize the Nirguna aspect of Brahman. Other experiences in my life have also led me to rationalize truth in Samsara and Moksha. Dharma actually comes pretty naturally to me; my duty to others and my duty to self; a morally right way of living.

I suppose my point is it would be disheartening to commit to locking myself into a label only to find later such a barricade that I mention above, or to dishearten others by identifying myself as they do, only for them to realize I've met such a barricade decide that I was wrong to commit to such self-identification.

 

[Vinayaka]

I suppose the biggest issue I have with religion in general is I don't take to blind belief in things. Most, if not all, of my worldview is rooted in experience and rationalized conclusions based on those experiences.

I struggle to take something I'm told or something I read as truth, especially if it is in conflict with what I feel intuitively to be true. A good example is being told at a young age by a clergy member that humans have souls and animals don't. This statement inherently made no sense to me, so I investigated by speaking to other clergy members and found that this was indeed an accepted truth, which ultimately led to my departure from that religion.

With every religion I've taken the time to learn about or embark on practice, I have run up against a barricade that prevented or concluded any self-identification with that religion, all except Hinduism. And no, I don't know everything there is to know about Hinduism, nor can I say I've learned everything there is to know about every other religion.

Yes, I struggle with the Saguna aspect of Brahman and struggle with belief in deity in general, because again, that does require a degree of blind faith. But I have had personal experiences that lead me to believe that this perceived reality is not the absolute reality, which brings me to rationalize or realize the Nirguna aspect of Brahman. Other experiences in my life have also led me to rationalize truth in Samsara and Moksha. Dharma actually comes pretty naturally to me; my duty to others and my duty to self; a morally right way of living.

I suppose my point is it would be disheartening to commit to locking myself into a label only to find later such a barricade that I mention above, or to dishearten others by identifying myself as they do, only for them to realize I've met such a barricade decide that I was wrong to commit to such self-identification.

You're certainly thinking it through. I echo most of this, including the thinking it through. I would say I do have more blind faith than this, due to unexplained personal experiences with deity.

In the end, it matters not what we call ourselves, dharma is what matters.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I'm curious what the Hindus here perceive to be requirements of someone outside of their culture to be recognized as Hindu. What do you consider to be the core requirements or teachings one must follow to recognize someone as Hindu?

Belief in one of the myriad philosophies of Hinduism, and acceptance of being known as a Hindu and not as any other.

Myriad (Dictionary.com): a very great or indefinitely great number of persons or things (Aup. adds: or philosophies or creating one for him/herself from within the fold).

Yes, I struggle with the Saguna aspect of Brahman and struggle with belief in deity in general, because again, that does require a degree of blind faith. But I have had personal experiences that lead me to believe that this perceived reality is not the absolute reality, which brings me to rationalize or realize the Nirguna aspect of Brahman. Other experiences in my life have also led me to rationalize truth in Samsara and Moksha. Dharma actually comes pretty naturally to me; my duty to others and my duty to self; a morally right way of living.

I suppose my point is it would be disheartening to commit to locking myself into a label only to find later such a barricade that I mention above, or to dishearten others by identifying myself as they do, only for them to realize I've met such a barricade decide that I was wrong to commit to such self-identification.

There is no need to accept either Saguna or even Nirguna deities. I have rejected both and, as you perhaps know, am a strong atheist. As Jai said, I consider 'dharma' necessary for conduct in the world (irrespective of whether one takes it as real or illusion). I do not accept any of his other qualifications for being a Hindu. As Vinayaka said, we respect a person's views even if he/she does not accept the 'Hindu' label, but then one cannot claim to be a Hindu. Same goes for those Vedantists and any others who would not like to be labeled as 'Hindus'. But, to be a Hindu, one has to accept the label, IMHO. If one says 'I am not a Hindu', then why should we (the Hindus), accept or term him/her as a Hindu?

 

[sayak83]

I suppose the biggest issue I have with religion in general is I don't take to blind belief in things. Most, if not all, of my worldview is rooted in experience and rationalized conclusions based on those experiences.

I struggle to take something I'm told or something I read as truth, especially if it is in conflict with what I feel intuitively to be true. A good example is being told at a young age by a clergy member that humans have souls and animals don't. This statement inherently made no sense to me, so I investigated by speaking to other clergy members and found that this was indeed an accepted truth, which ultimately led to my departure from that religion.

With every religion I've taken the time to learn about or embark on practice, I have run up against a barricade that prevented or concluded any self-identification with that religion, all except Hinduism. And no, I don't know everything there is to know about Hinduism, nor can I say I've learned everything there is to know about every other religion.

Yes, I struggle with the Saguna aspect of Brahman and struggle with belief in deity in general, because again, that does require a degree of blind faith. But I have had personal experiences that lead me to believe that this perceived reality is not the absolute reality, which brings me to rationalize or realize the Nirguna aspect of Brahman. Other experiences in my life have also led me to rationalize truth in Samsara and Moksha. Dharma actually comes pretty naturally to me; my duty to others and my duty to self; a morally right way of living.

I suppose my point is it would be disheartening to commit to locking myself into a label only to find later such a barricade that I mention above, or to dishearten others by identifying myself as they do, only for them to realize I've met such a barricade decide that I was wrong to commit to such self-identification.

Go for a "Hindu wannabe" label. Like Jedi padawan.

 

[SalixIncendium]

As Vinayaka said, we respect a person's views even if he/she does not accept the 'Hindu' label, but then one cannot claim to be a Hindu. Same goes for those Vedantists and any others who would not like to be labeled as 'Hindus'. But, to be a Hindu, one has to accept the label, IMHO. If one says 'I am not a Hindu', then why should we (the Hindus), accept or term him/her as a Hindu?

Please don't confuse my hesitation to self-identify as Hindu with rejecting being labeled as Hindu.

I have openly stated many times both on the forum and IRL that my worldview his heavily influenced and inspired by and in line with Hinduism. If a Hindu, or anyone else for that matter, labeled me as a Hindu, I would would have no aversion or dislike to being labeled as such. Depending on the context and who says it, I may even consider it a compliment.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Go for a "Hindu wannabe" label. Like Jedi padawan.

I had to look that up.

Now I can't decide which needs more work. My knowledge of Hindu culture or my knowledge of Star Wars terminology.

 

[Shantanu]

This is the continuation of a discussion begun in What Is Your Religion or Worldview?.

Some world religions require some sort of initiation ritual to be performed to be accepted into that religion and to be recognized by that religion's followers as fellow members. Thereafter, there is an expectation to require certain tenets, dogma, traditions, practices, etc. to continue to be recognized as such, or at least a member in good standing. One must believe and practice a certain way in order to not be judged by other members of their faith. On a personal note, this is the catalyst to my aversion to organized religion.

I'm curious what the Hindus here perceive to be requirements of someone outside of their culture to be recognized as Hindu. What do you consider to be the core requirements or teachings one must follow to recognize someone as Hindu?

It is for anyone who has the inclination to state the truth to work out which body of religion describes him or her best. For me the essence of Hinduism is Jata dharma, tata jaya, or where there is dharma there is victory. If one subscribes to this philosophy you are a Hindu. Because it is a universal truth anyone who believes in this tenet can go by being categorised as a Hindu. Is it not a unique statement?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Please don't confuse my hesitation to self-identify as Hindu with rejecting being labeled as Hindu.
I have openly stated many times both on the forum and IRL that my worldview his heavily influenced and inspired by and in line with Hinduism. If a Hindu, or anyone else for that matter, labeled me as a Hindu, I would would have no aversion or dislike to being labeled as such. Depending on the context and who says it, I may even consider it a compliment.

I suppose, that is enough for us; and we are grateful for your views on Hinduism. Now, we leave it completely to you as to whether would would like to wear the label now or at any other time in future or perhaps never. That is all OK.

 

[Shantanu]

I suppose, that is enough for us; and we are grateful for your views on Hinduism. Now, we leave it completely to you as to whether would would like to wear the label now or at any other time in future or perhaps never. That is all OK.

Some people would not like being called a Hindu even if they are advaitists of some description, which is a pity. The origins of Advaita Vedanta are rooted in Hinduism. An English term for Advaita Vedanta is required for them: I would suggest Existentialism because it describes oneness with Reality attained through the path of satya-advaita.

 

[Valjean]

Some people would not like being called a Hindu even if they are advaitists of some description, which is a pity. The origins of Advaita Vedanta are rooted in Hinduism. An English term for Advaita Vedanta is required for them: I would suggest Existentialism because it describes oneness with Reality attained through the path of satya-advaita.

I'll have to think on that.
Myself, I've always seen Advaita Vedanta as a school of theoretical physics.