PDA

View Full Version : Could Hinduism be Westernised?



ScottMalaysia
12 May 2010, 01:42 AM
Do you think it would be possible to “westernise” the Hindu religion – i.e. to separate the beliefs of Hinduism from Indian culture and still practice the religion? I am by no means saying that we should do this, I’m simply hypothesising if such a thing would be possible.





For example: On Sunday morning everyone gathers at the temple, which has rows of seats up to the front. In the front is an altar with Hindu Deities and a pulpit. People light candles and place them before the Deities for particular prayer intentions. Everyone wears Western clothes. The priest is dressed in either a business suit or a clergy suit with white collar. A bhajan is sung – in English. The priest welcomes everyone in English and proceeds with some prayers and intercessions, followed by another English-language bhajan and then a reading from the Bhagavad-Gita in English. After this he gives a sermon on Hindu beliefs with reference to the Bhagavad-Gita reading.





Could Hinduism ever become like this? Or is it so much entwined with Indian culture that to separate it would make it something else entirely?

Darji
12 May 2010, 02:26 AM
sure, but why would you want to?

Eastern Mind
12 May 2010, 07:40 AM
Vannakkam Scott:

I'm with Darji. Why?

It is already westernised enough. Many temples have the choice of pews. Some have carpets. In northern countries different building codes for construction, and the laws of the land had to be applied.

But these are necessities. All of the ancient rules had reasons. Bare feet has a reason. Not wearing leather has a reason. Dressing in certain attire makes one feel religious and ready to communicate with God. The moment you put another man's preaching in front of me, I will leave. Its between the soul and God, and that's it.

Aum Namasivaya

Darji
12 May 2010, 08:08 AM
I never understood the concept of walking into a place of worship with shoes on, seems disrespectful to me, also the sitting at the pews always irked me as being too leisurely, like you're waiting to have tea and biscuits with Jesus.

I do see your point none the less, but why model it on a Christian format? Because it is familiar? Singing bhajan in your native language could have some benefits, but the rest not too sure about.

:)

saidevo
12 May 2010, 09:14 AM
namaste SM.

I hope you would allow me to express my views without taking any offense.

• Your ideas and descriptions of westernizing Hinduism is perhaps an indication that although you have switched over to Hinduism, you are yet to outgrow your western/Christian culture and way of life. You had all that you describe in your earlier religion, so perhaps you should think as to why you wanted a change in religion.

• Hinduism is inextricably bonded with Hindu culture and tradition. This is why Hinduism is described as a way of life and not a religion. And the Hindu culture has its focus on spirituality in every action and aspect of life. As EM has pointed out, from barefoot-walking in temples to sitting barefoot on the floor in sukhAsana have proven spiritual benefits, which our Hindu sages have long foreseen and prescribed.

• This is not to say that Hinduism does not adapt to the western habits and manners of modern life that our Hindu youth love to love. If we consider the ideas in your description,

‣ Hindu devotees wear western clothes, yes. Still they are barefooted inside the temple.

‣ Hindu priests wearing a business suit is unthinkable for a Hindu, an apachAram. It's the same case with a Hindu man/woman performing a puja in the house.

‣ A candle, compared to a lamp of sesame or other permitted oil, is gross in the sense that candle is made from wax which is not a vegetable substance.

Do you know that the fumes of an earthern lamp burning sesame oil can prevent snakes from entering the home, which is the reason Hindus burn them every evening at their doorsteps?

As against this, candles emit pollutants, which can cause health problems. Check this article for details: http://www.geocities.ws/mcs_australia/candles.html

• Every day of the week--not just Sunday--is associated with a divine personality in Hinduism. Friday is associated with Shakti the Mother Goddess as well, so it is considered more sacred in temples than the other days.

• English, IMO, is a language not suited for Hindu songs and bhajans, because of its vague spelling, pronunciation and slurring of words in speech. A person speaking English experiences irregular breathing, which is not spiritually conducive as breath-control leads to thought-control.

Indian languages that use the DevanAgari alphabet, on ther other hand, have all the sounds with clearly and distinctly intonated letters, which are the most suitable for a nAmAvaLi bhajan, a shloka or a stotra.

• "The priest welcomes everyone in English and proceeds with some prayers..." In many Hindu temples in Tamilnadu, specially the VaiShNavite ones, as the priest waves the Arati to the deities, he explains in English and vernacular about the legends behind the deity and the temple. But no prayers in English for the reasons mentioned in my previous point.

Whether you are convinced or not, like it or not, Hinduism as I said is inextricably bonded with the Hindu culture and tradition, and would become lifeless and soulless like the Abrahamic religions without them.

**********

SethDrebitko
12 May 2010, 09:19 AM
I don't think that Indians should go out of their way to westernize themselves in order to pander to western culture. That said I don't see a problem with westerners showing their culture through in their practices so long as it remains within the basic confines of the faith.

Sahasranama
12 May 2010, 10:29 AM
I would have no problem if the kathas and pravachanas were partially in English. But I agree that saying the prayers in English reduces the power significantly. Even chanting shlokas in sanskrit with an american accent does not convey much power. There are many westerners who have made an attempt to chant mantras and stotras, but as long as they don't learn to pronounce the aksharas correctly, it will not sound like a mantra.

Westerners have a problem hearing the nuances of sounds in Indian language. They were not raised with the language. What will happen to Indian children when they are only exposed to prayers in English?

Another problem with doing everything in English is that the translations of mantras and of shlokas of the gitas can never convey the exact meaning of the original Sanskrit. Hinduism is a very diverse religion with various sampradayas and philosophical beliefs. They hold one thing in common though, everyone uses (mostly) the same Sanskrit versions of mantras.

NayaSurya
12 May 2010, 11:04 AM
Can you be Hindu and not be Indian? This is a question I ask a lot lately.

There is a fine line.

For example. I don't like Indian food...oh how I've tried...it's no use. Give me some vegetable Lo mein any day.:P

So am I to suffer by trying to eat foods that upset this anglo stomach? Absolutely not....it's too spicy for my ulcer...and ugh I hate yogurt. I am native American and Irish...milk products make me so sick...just the thought of yogurts...butters...honey...all of this...not me.

I perfer low milk fat cheese and simple bread. Stuck on an island this is all I would bring. I sometimes look at a food and wonder...(in this American culture rightly so) Is this food free of animal products. I search the lables...even on cans of beans. Such an arduous task living within an ocean of ignorance.

But, learning to accept who you are in this vessel is just as important as knowing who you are not. So this girl eats anglo and chinese foods primarily.

I am a barefoot westerner...it's the soul's design to do this. I go barefoot in schools..at Holiday World...because this is inside of me. You look at most of the churches here, you will find many in Kentucky where shoes are chucked at the door. Especially the small ones.

There is a middle path, one to honor the vast wonderful history of Sanskrit...and the humble ways of ahimsa and anglo participation in the best ways we can.

Learning the words in the natural form is so important, it enriches my life daily.

My western body worshiping humbly without candles...learning the Sanskrit words flawlessly so that I do not fumble...knowing each word's meaning as I utter it....this is whole satisfaction.

But I will wear humble western clothes to temple and not mask who I am this time. I'll be bare foot before coming through the door...and on my knees praying the entire time anyway. That's why there are no pew...at the feet, it's simply not needed.

I may never be Hindu because of my belief in accepting this location as my point of origin and the needed perspective of this lifetime. But I will be a devotee of Most Beloved Siva. This can never be changed.

I run around an amusement park all summer floating on crystal blue water, praying to Siva thanks for this moment. . Kroger's grocery store in front of the heap of meats and seafood. I pray: raghupati raaghav raajaaraam, patit pavan sitaram, siitaaraam,bhaj pyaare tu sitaram, iishvar Allah tero naam, sab ko sanmati de bhagavaan!
As the shoppers walk by in their Sunday church clothes. These are my familiar temples.
Scott, I think I understand what you are saying...it goes beyond things such a pews more so to the ideals western churches have.

That comfortable western ideal of a place where you go and can be instructed, your hand held at every step. The Christians do this. Every step is carefully helped along by many hands. The Christians immediately put you in learning the bible classes.

I remember when I was 5 years old, I had read everything they had in Sunday school...and I began to ask the questions..that always come for one who is Hindu on the inside.

They removed me from class and put me into the adults classes. I was five and everyone around me in this class was over 40. The Mormons recognize the seekers and move them up accordingly...but they could not hold me with their irrational philosophy...even at that high level of monitoring. The western church carefully holds you, always there helping you into more indoctrination.

It is as the gentle hand delivers the dose of anesthetic....bringing you blissful ignorance to the truth.

In the Temple, there is no such hands. We carve out our own way...and with luck some kind Hindu soul recognizes us and helps us along.



What I wish most of all is that I had a place that I could take my family, that would help us go deeper into Sanatana Dharma and worshipping Most Beloved Siva.

This, is my hearts greatest desire.

satay
12 May 2010, 11:43 AM
Namaskar,







Do you think it would be possible to “westernise” the Hindu religion – i.e. to separate the beliefs of Hinduism from Indian culture and still practice the religion?













If by westernize you mean separate it from Indian culture then the answer is a resounding NO!

As an Indian (and Canadian!) and as a 'nominal' hindu, I don't want it to be 'westernized'. People like me will do whatever it takes to ensure that it doesn't happen. If I ever see shoes allowed in a hindu temple, there is no way I am going to attend that temple ever again. No ifs and buts about that.

I am sure many of the 'western' hindus are on the same page i.e. they don't want it to become westernized.

Hope my post is not too offensive.

NayaSurya
12 May 2010, 12:18 PM
Westerners go barefoot. Perhaps where it's colder in Canada it's not as feasible.

Culturally speaking being western should not = being in shoes...or even being without shoes. This is too vast a group to say such a thing about.

It would be like saying everyone in the west is rich.

What does westernized mean exactly? How can two people living side by side in the same country be that different? Our children attend the same schools...go to the same markets to buy food. Our children play baseball together...soccer/football.

Please explain what this dirty word means for the confused, ignorant mother here who can not seem to grasp what is so wretched about this society that everyone seems to be flocking to by the millions every year?

We have problems, but all of mankind shares these similar issues.

Western isn't a culture. American is. European is...but even then you would have to go down to smaller groups and understand the vast cultural differences of each. I am Kentuckian, this culture is very different than that of California. Many of us here are barefoot even in large places such as Walmart.

Because "western" is such a huge amalgamation of cultures, it is impossible to pin point it down in such a way.

Seek the good of the culture around you...there is common ground.

I would like to believe we have more in common that we have not.

Sanatana Dharma makes the whole world of cultures only that more beautiful. We need it in every corner...every single location.

yajvan
12 May 2010, 12:21 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~

namasté satay


If by westernize you mean separate it from Indian culture then the answer is a resounding NO!

Perhaps we will see it dispensed at McDonalds? :)
http://www.3dwarfs.com/pagesflyingwest/stockton/images/mcdonald.jpg

sambya
12 May 2010, 01:01 PM
it would be more difficult to 'westernize' hinduism than any other faiths simply beacuse hinduism is a way of life than an organised religion . but some alterations and modifications are bound to appear when it stays in an alien land for long . history has been a proof for this . when hindu empires spread over to southeast asia and colonized them , hindu religions and even folklores like ramayana underwent some changes . even today that hinduism thrives in pockets and is different from indian hinduism .

personally i have noticed changes in the 'isckon hinduism' in modern times. for example the deity of radha in a typical iskcon temple in west often dresses in western styled gowns instead of lehenga choli . she carries a woven flower basket on her left hand like medieval european maidens ! and she has blue eyes !! and slowly this has become the norm of iskcon deities . this is a change , though a minor one . slowly these changes would become more prominent and might give rise to seperate sects in distant future .

Hiwaunis
12 May 2010, 02:36 PM
Do you think it would be possible to “westernise” the Hindu religion – i.e. to separate the beliefs of Hinduism from Indian culture and still practice the religion? I am by no means saying that we should do this, I’m simply hypothesising if such a thing would be possible.



For example: On Sunday morning everyone gathers at the temple, which has rows of seats up to the front. In the front is an altar with Hindu Deities and a pulpit. People light candles and place them before the Deities for particular prayer intentions. Everyone wears Western clothes. The priest is dressed in either a business suit or a clergy suit with white collar. A bhajan is sung – in English. The priest welcomes everyone in English and proceeds with some prayers and intercessions, followed by another English-language bhajan and then a reading from the Bhagavad-Gita in English. After this he gives a sermon on Hindu beliefs with reference to the Bhagavad-Gita reading.



Could Hinduism ever become like this? Or is it so much entwined with Indian culture that to separate it would make it something else entirely?



Pranam,
I personally donot think it is possible nor would I ever want to see it happen. I was hoping to see the word "Hinduism" either disappear or only be used when one is referring to culture. As for westernizing the religion I once read an article that stated there were 330 million Gods. This says to me that our relationship with God is very, very personal. I would not want anyone telling me again which God I should pray to, how I should understand or what I should believe or not believe.

Remember, westerners (at one time use to) think that their way of life is the right way and the only way. The sanskrit language would disappear since westerners only want to speak english. We donot want to loose sanskrit.

Here's a suggestion, let easternize the west. Do away with the western religions and have only Sanatana Dharma.

Namaste,

Eastern Mind
12 May 2010, 02:44 PM
Here's a suggestion, let easternize the west.

Namaste,
Vannakkam Hiwaunis:

Too late, its already happening. But let us continue with it now that the snowball is rolling.

But I do see a `The grass is greener on the other side of the fence`syndrome a bit.

Aum Namasivaya

sanjaya
12 May 2010, 05:01 PM
For example. I don't like Indian food...oh how I've tried...it's no use. Give me some vegetable Lo mein any day.:P

Can't blame you. I personally hate most Indian foods, and I'm Indian. To be fair, I personally think the West has better food.

Anyway, as to the topic at hand, my personal unqualified opinion is that to Westernize Hinduism would be to take something fundamental away from the religion. Can we say that a puja performed in English would have nearly the same effect as the traditional means? All religions are bound to a specific culture. Those religions which try to propagate by conversion will often try to portray themselves as somehow universal, but this portrayal is ridiculous. Likewise, I think that a Westernized Hinduism would look too irreverent and ridiculous for anyone to take seriously.

SethDrebitko
12 May 2010, 06:21 PM
Isn't the big point of the faith that many paths lead to god? It seems always that people in the east are fully ready to accept other eastern paths to the same means why not consider that a westerners walk is just as valid? When I hear some one speaking another language it never sounds as fluid as mine, but this is because we are used to hearing differant things.

I know that the prayers and texts of the Hindu faith are regarded as a path to the oneness we seek, but a core concept is that we can not discredit the paths of others. Traditional Hinduism itself is splintered between many views on the one true path.

Eastern Mind
12 May 2010, 06:58 PM
Vannakam Seth:

If many paths lead to God, why not choose one rather than walk the many at the same time? I respect all true spiritual people, regardless of faith. But herein lies the problem. Because of misinterpretation of what constitutes actual spirituality, we end up with problems like deceptive conversion tactics, even taking to the sword to propulgate one;s faith. The first yoga statement of Patanjali is non-violence.

Aum Namasivaya

NayaSurya
12 May 2010, 07:24 PM
Religion is like a beautiful pond that has streams flowing down from various mountain peaks. When one stream becomes too strong and breaks over it's banks...flooding into others...the streams become muddy...and the creatures die that once dwelled within that sacred pure water.

Such is our world. Each stream is a very important stopping point on our journey...just as Kindergarten is needed before Highschool...or college.

I wanted to post this earlier and fought with myself. Today I was silent in the home sort of a words fast...problem is I am working on bookII and this is impossible where typing is concerned:P

As I sat outside this morning, I thought of all of you, in various places in the world, all with various wonderful perspectives of truth. Then I let myself travel into the heart of folks on this forum...and put my barefeet in your shoes.:P

But, this did not end the lesson, it was only the begining. For from the tree a bird began to sing...

There is a bird in Kentucky called the Cowbird. Already this story sounding like a Hindu tale:P

The Cowbird sits in my tree....oh it has a strange beautiful song...it's almost like your heart stops the first time you hear it. Such raptured beauty.

But all the other birds attack it...driving it from my trees...I do not understand this at all...the innocent kind Robin...and the Tanager...they attack the bird constantly.

Yet it sings on...

To the ignorant human below...it is merely a beautiful bird singing a beautiful song.

But upon reading about the Cowbird, I discover the truth.

It waits for the innocent songbirds to lay their eggs...then waits for the quiet moment to sneak in...then it lays it's eggs into the nests of the other birds! (It follows herds of cattle so it can not make it's own nest.)

All the while the song birds fly around attacking it...but the bird is undeterred by their attacks.

Once the egg is laid, it goes to a near by tree and watches...it actually waits to see what the other bird will do.

Some birds...the Blue Jay...is very clever, it notices the egg immediately and kicks it from the nest. But this causes the cowbird to descend and knock every egg from the nest. (this is called Mafia behaviour)

Then it watches for that Blue Jay to build a new nest and again lays an egg inside. But the Jay knows too well what will happen...so in it's intelligence...it shoves the egg under the straw of the nest and causes it to become too warm...too cold and kills the baby inside.

Because if the baby is born...it will kill the true offspring of the Jay.

There are other, more stronger birds...ones that allow the Cowbird to lay the egg without fighting...the baby is born amongst the true children of the bird. But the diet of this new family is so unusual that the Cowbird's baby dies of this...often I think this happens to those who cross into other beliefs.

Now you may ask what this has to do with the Western- Eastern discussion going on.

The song birds see the Cowbird as a threat, and they should....absolutely.
But God made this bird just exactly how it has to be...only the strongest, smartest birds survive in a nest that has become infected with this alien invader.

Just as God made places of diversity to make us stronger.

We become strong living amongst the barbarian.

(But, given the option I would give this beautiful place up for one with less risk.)

For we in the West are the Robin, and I can hear the Cowbird's beautiful song outside my door....I know they wait for a moment of chance to take my children for their own ways to survive...and propagate.

But in that very struggle my children learn valuable lessons...they learn to overcome this aggression. So I do embrace this home for the lessons it brings.

I'm not saying to accept vast changes that destroy the culture which is engrained into SD...I say continue strong.
But I do say there is room for some passive accomodation (based on location)within the sturdy, strong, timeless religions of SD. Sometimes a foreign culture can bring about good things?

If it were not for some blessed SD seed being planted in this mother's heart as a child...I would not have been strong enough to make this journey.


I should add my nephew who is only 12 was converted this week to Christianity after being in a eastern philosophy household his entire life...

The risks are great living here...I do understand.

Eastern Mind
12 May 2010, 07:51 PM
Vannakkam: We had cowbirds here too. At the temple there are two varieties of woodpecker. Big one, and smaller ones. The big one returns every year. They're both pretty cool. I didcovered the tree where the smaller variety is nesting yesterday. Will be watching that site. The big guy, he's just cool.

Aum Namasivaya

ScottMalaysia
12 May 2010, 09:06 PM
Thanks for all the responses. You guys confirmed what I thought - that Hinduism and Indian culture are inextricably linked together.

However, the Hindu youth in the West has become extremely Westernised. My sisters-in-law (who did spend much of their time in Malaysia as well as NZ) are not interested in religion. When I lived with my in-laws, they only took the children to the temple once (not counting Dipavali, engagement ceremony or prayers for the deceased). My mother-in-law did not teach them about Hinduism or how to perform worship. The only time they wear Indian clothes is the few times a year that they go to the temple. They are almost totally Western in their outlook. Also, an Indian (Catholic) colleague of mine in Malaysia told me that the number of Indian couples who cohabit prior to marriage is on the rise.

At the temple here in Wellington, the times I've been to the Sunday service, I haven't seen many young people there. Most of the people who come regularly are middle-aged or older. I have seen some there before, and there were many young people there for Holi, but those who come regularly are rare.

Many of the Hindu youth in the West also do not speak their ancestral language. When all the prayers at the temple are in this language or another which they don't speak, it makes it difficult for them to participate. A Westernised service might therefores appeal to them.


Hindu devotees wear western clothes, yes. Still they are barefooted inside the temple.

At the temple here in Wellington, the norm is that the women all wear either saris or shalwar kameez, while the men wear Western shirts and trousers. I am generally the only man there who wears Indian clothes, except for the priest. My mother keeps telling me that I'd fit in better if I wore Western clothes.


personally i have noticed changes in the 'isckon hinduism' in modern times. for example the deity of radha in a typical iskcon temple in west often dresses in western styled gowns instead of lehenga choli . she carries a woven flower basket on her left hand like medieval european maidens ! and she has blue eyes !! and slowly this has become the norm of iskcon deities . this is a change , though a minor one . slowly these changes would become more prominent and might give rise to seperate sects in distant future .

I haven't noticed any of these changes, although I've only seen pictures of ISKCON Radha deities. However, ISKCON seems less strict at following some of those rules. I remember reading in Srila Prabhupada's biography how he was given a set of Radha-Krishna Deities for one of the temples he opened. They were ordered from India by a mainstream Hindu group, but a small part of Radha's finger broke off in transit, meaning that according to mainstream Hindu teaching, the Deities could not be installed. However, Srila Prabhuapda accepted them anyway and installed them in the temple.

I also heard that the excommunited ISKCON guru, Kitanananda Swami, dressed in a Western cassock and collar instead of a dhoti for a time when he founded his own community after his excommunication from ISKCON.

I'm not saying that we should westernise Hinduism, I was asking if, hypothetically, it would be possible. I like the format of the service at the temple here. However, I would like to see the Sanskrit Gita reading followed by an English translation, and the sermon delivered either entirely in English, or each paragraph read first in Gujarati, then in English (I encountered this in the Malankara Orthodox Church in Kuala Lumpur - the priest delivered the sermon in alternating paragraphs of Malayalam and English). I'd also like a book with all the bhajans and slokas presented in Gujarati script, transliteration into the Latin alphabet and English translation. There is nothing of the sort because the majority of the Hindus who attend (not all) speak Gujarati (plus the priest can only speak Gujarati and Hindi, with a very basic level of English). Possibly if there were more immigrants from other parts of India as well as more Hindu converts, then we would see more things in English.



So what it comes down to is that Hinduism is made up of both Hindu beliefs and Hindu practices, and that neither can be separated from the other. It’s just a shame that there aren’t any guides around on the practices.

saidevo
12 May 2010, 11:03 PM
namaste Nayasurya.

You said in your post no.8:
"Can you be Hindu and not be Indian? This is a question I ask a lot lately."

Yes, one can be a Hindu without being an Indian. That's what our Western Hindus are. However, when a Hindu is involved in a religious activity, specially a puja or a ritual at home or visiting a temple, he/she better not wear/have anything related to leather, wool and plastic on the body. This is because leather and wool are from animal substances and plastic from chemicals. However, silk is allowed, although it is from an animal substance, because of its ability to retain and pass on the spiritual currents. And in areas of cold climate, even the priests do wear woolen shawls. Leather shoes or sandals of any kind, however, are disallowed in the temples and the puja room as well as in traditional Hindu homes in India.
=====

"So am I to suffer by trying to eat foods that upset this anglo stomach? Absolutely not....it's too spicy for my ulcer...and ugh I hate yogurt. I am native American and Irish...milk products make me so sick...just the thought of yogurts...butters...honey...all of this...not me"

Yes, many items in the spicy Indian foods do not suit the Westerners. But then a vegetarian food, prepared in whatever manner desirable, is enough for a Hindu who seeks spiritual enlightenment. In the olden days, chilies, tamarind, tomatoes and some other vegetables of Western origin were unknown in the Indian food. Only pepper and lemon were used for the hot and sour/astringent tastes, and jaggery and honey for sweetness.

Curiously, many Hindus in the olden days ate only one meal a day, since pepper takes time to digest, and to make it digest faster, they took buttermilk. Today the traditional way of cooking with pepper and lemon is done only in the ancestor rites like shrAddha. In the evening, Hindus had only phala-AhAram--diet with fruits and cow's milk. Today the term pala-AhAram has come to be used as palakAram in Tamil to refer to our tiffin items such as iddlies and dosas and snacks such as the mixture, kArAchev, etc.

As for your disliking the yogurt, try drinking buttermilk, that is, diluting yogurt with water, and adding salt and lemon juice to it, after a meal. For us, such preparation of buttermilk with some smashed ginger and a pinch of asafoetida added, would taste heavenly, and would stimulate digestion. The buttermilk rice taken with a piece of the lemon pickle or mAvaDu--pickled baby mangoes, is designed to balance the effects of the other two courses of the South Indian meal which are spicy.
=====

"Learning the words in the natural form is so important, it enriches my life daily.

"My western body worshiping humbly without candles...learning the Sanskrit words flawlessly so that I do not fumble...knowing each word's meaning as I utter it....this is whole satisfaction."

IMHO, a Hindu should learn and use some Sanskrit in his/her religious activities. The easiest way is to learn the text and meaning of simple shlokas, memorize and recall them when chanting. That said, I have no AkShepaNa--objection, to the use of English in translations, descriptive lectures and commentaries.
=====

"But I will wear humble western clothes to temple and not mask who I am this time. I'll be bare foot before coming through the door...and on my knees praying the entire time anyway. That's why there are no pew...at the feet, it's simply not needed."

Pews are simply unthinkable in a temple because a Hindu is(/was) used to sit on the floor in the sukhAsana--legs folded on top of each other. We have our thiNNais--raised bench-like constructs, in temples where people sit for a while after darshan to relax. Hindus in temples either stand or sit on the floor in the temple pavilion, to listen to religious talks from the priests or other religious personalities. A Hindu IMO should practise sitting on the floor as it is spiritually very beneficial. While listening to pravachanas--lectures, a Hindu can use an Asana--seat, such as a mat or linen and sit comfortably on the floor.
=====

"I may never be Hindu because of my belief in accepting this location as my point of origin and the needed perspective of this lifetime. But I will be a devotee of Most Beloved Siva. This can never be changed."

As you rightly feel, you are a "Hindu on the inside", which matters more than comforming to external appearances. Location IMO has less hindrance to practising Hinduism than the climate. A Hindu at home can always have the comforts needed, so personal practice may not be a problem. SanAtana Dharma as the mother of all religions was in practice in one form or other the world over before the advent of Christianity and Islam.

As Sambya has observed in his post no.12, RAmAyaNa has undergone changes in the SE Asian countries. He has also rightly observed that the changes in practice are due to differnt lifestyles necessitated, and because Hinduism is a way of life. What cannot change are the recitation of Veda mantras and ArAdhanas performed in the traditional style, which should only be in Sanskrit and in the prescribed form and manner.
=====

"In the Temple, there is no such hands. We carve out our own way...and with luck some kind Hindu soul recognizes us and helps us along."

Unlike Christianity, Hinduism encourages vichAraNam--inquiry, and one of the first things that a seeker forgoes is material comfort beyond what is strictly required. Hindu temples are built and designed for a seeker to sit quietly in seclusion in natural surroundings and meditate, learning to use the fanfare of bhakti that goes on in the inner chambers as aids to his meditation.
=====

ScottMalaysia
12 May 2010, 11:16 PM
Pews are simply unthinkable in a temple because a Hindu is(/was) used to sit on the floor in the sukhAsana--legs folded on top of each other. We have our thiNNais--raised bench-like constructs, in temples where people sit for a while after darshan to relax. Hindus in temples either stand or sit on the floor in the temple pavilion, to listen to religious talks from the priests or other religious personalities. A Hindu IMO should practise sitting on the floor as it is spiritually very beneficial. While listening to pravachanas--lectures, a Hindu can use an Asana--seat, such as a mat or linen and sit comfortably on the floor.The temple here in Wellington, which I must mention is a North Indian style temple, has several rows of chairs on either side of the carpet in the middle. These are basically a modern version of pews (indeed, some churches have rows of chairs now instead of pews). There is plenty of room in front of the chairs for people to sit on the ground if they prefer. I sit on the chairs because it is very uncomfortable for me to sit cross-legged on the floor.

But I wouldn't expect chairs in a South Indian temple because from my experience they don't generally hold congregational worship and in the ones that do, people would sit on the floor. It's a totally different style of worship.

I also agree that Sanskrit is necessary, but translations in English as well as modern Indian languages need to be provided since it is no longer spoken as a vernacular language. I also think it would be a good idea for temples (and Hindu schools) to teach Sanskrit to children, the same way that Catholics learnt Latin at school before Vatican II in the '60s. Of course this presents a problem for immigrant children in Western countries, whose parents want them to learn their ancestral language as well.

As for Westernizing Hinduism, do any of you think it would be acceptable to place a statue or picture of the Virgin Mary on a home altar alongside Goddess Durga? She is the face of the Sacred Feminine in the West and I consider Her to be a form of Goddess Durga.

sanjaya
13 May 2010, 01:18 AM
However, the Hindu youth in the West has become extremely Westernised. My sisters-in-law (who did spend much of their time in Malaysia as well as NZ) are not interested in religion. When I lived with my in-laws, they only took the children to the temple once (not counting Dipavali, engagement ceremony or prayers for the deceased). My mother-in-law did not teach them about Hinduism or how to perform worship. The only time they wear Indian clothes is the few times a year that they go to the temple. They are almost totally Western in their outlook. Also, an Indian (Catholic) colleague of mine in Malaysia told me that the number of Indian couples who cohabit prior to marriage is on the rise.

I've noticed similar behavior, and at times I'm quite frustrated by this too. There is of course hope for these people. Until a couple years ago I fit into this category of Westernized Hindu youth who do not care about religion. OK, I'm still a Westernized Indian, but I do care rather deeply about the Hindu religion. It's actually very strange. Most of my Indian friends from high school emigrated here shortly before their teens (and I still see them regularly, since I go to grad school not too far from home). They used to mock me for not being terribly Indian. Now they mock me for being religious, while they engage in premarital sex and various other activities that don't befit Hindus. Westernization is a problem for us. There are some ways in which it doesn't matter, e.g. clothing, food, musical tastes, and the like. But there are other ways in which it matters quite a bit. The adoption of Western morals and religions is eroding the fabric of Indian culture among Indians here in the West, and I'm not really seeing an obvious solution.


I'm not saying that we should westernise Hinduism, I was asking if, hypothetically, it would be possible. I like the format of the service at the temple here. However, I would like to see the Sanskrit Gita reading followed by an English translation, and the sermon delivered either entirely in English, or each paragraph read first in Gujarati, then in English (I encountered this in the Malankara Orthodox Church in Kuala Lumpur - the priest delivered the sermon in alternating paragraphs of Malayalam and English). I'd also like a book with all the bhajans and slokas presented in Gujarati script, transliteration into the Latin alphabet and English translation. There is nothing of the sort because the majority of the Hindus who attend (not all) speak Gujarati (plus the priest can only speak Gujarati and Hindi, with a very basic level of English). Possibly if there were more immigrants from other parts of India as well as more Hindu converts, then we would see more things in English.

While I'm not sure that a puja or other temple function is the best place for English, I completely agree with your underlying sentiment that we need to understand what we're reading. If temples published explanations of the puja rituals for those of us who are less enlightened, I think that would be most helpful.


Isn't the big point of the faith that many paths lead to god? It seems always that people in the east are fully ready to accept other eastern paths to the same means why not consider that a westerners walk is just as valid? When I hear some one speaking another language it never sounds as fluid as mine, but this is because we are used to hearing differant things.

I've heard it said quite a bit that a fundamental tenet of Hinduism is that all paths lead to God. This is a nice sentiment, but it doesn't make logical sense if taken literally. At least two religions teach mutually exclusive things. How can Jesus and Mohammad both be the only path to God? I would certainly agree that all people will end up reaching God, some through more births than others. But logically speaking, all religions cannot be equally valid. And philosophically, it is very weak for Hindus to make the objective claim that there is no objective truth. Example: we've all heard the parable about how different religions are like four blind men each trying to describe an elephant by feeling its different parts. The fallacy with this story is that it assumes the narrator is sighted. In order to say that different religions are different ways to experience different parts of the divine, you have to have some transcendent knowledge.

What makes more sense is to make at least a few objective claims. Sri Krishna says "all things depend on Me." We may not believe that practicing the wrong religion is a sin or a punishable offense, but we must believe that certain levels of divine truth are only accessible via the Hindu path, and that other paths are inferior. Perhaps it sounds elitist, but at least it's logically consistent. And when you belong to a non-proselytizing faith, this really takes the edge off of most exclusive truth claims.

NayaSurya
13 May 2010, 05:09 AM
namaste Nayasurya.

You said in your post no.8:
"Can you be Hindu and not be Indian? This is a question I ask a lot lately."

Yes, one can be a Hindu without being an Indian. That's what our Western Hindus are. However, when a Hindu is involved in a religious activity, specially a puja or a ritual at home or visiting a temple, he/she better not wear/have anything related to leather, wool and plastic on the body. This is because leather and wool are from animal substances and plastic from chemicals. However, silk is allowed, although it is from an animal substance, because of its ability to retain and pass on the spiritual currents. And in areas of cold climate, even the priests do wear woolen shawls. Leather shoes or sandals of any kind, however, are disallowed in the temples and the puja room as well as in traditional Hindu homes in India.
=====

"So am I to suffer by trying to eat foods that upset this anglo stomach? Absolutely not....it's too spicy for my ulcer...and ugh I hate yogurt. I am native American and Irish...milk products make me so sick...just the thought of yogurts...butters...honey...all of this...not me"

Yes, many items in the spicy Indian foods do not suit the Westerners. But then a vegetarian food, prepared in whatever manner desirable, is enough for a Hindu who seeks spiritual enlightenment. In the olden days, chilies, tamarind, tomatoes and some other vegetables of Western origin were unknown in the Indian food. Only pepper and lemon were used for the hot and sour/astringent tastes, and jaggery and honey for sweetness.

Curiously, many Hindus in the olden days ate only one meal a day, since pepper takes time to digest, and to make it digest faster, they took buttermilk. Today the traditional way of cooking with pepper and lemon is done only in the ancestor rites like shrAddha. In the evening, Hindus had only phala-AhAram--diet with fruits and cow's milk. Today the term pala-AhAram has come to be used as palakAram in Tamil to refer to our tiffin items such as iddlies and dosas and snacks such as the mixture, kArAchev, etc.

As for your disliking the yogurt, try drinking buttermilk, that is, diluting yogurt with water, and adding salt and lemon juice to it, after a meal. For us, such preparation of buttermilk with some smashed ginger and a pinch of asafoetida added, would taste heavenly, and would stimulate digestion. The buttermilk rice taken with a piece of the lemon pickle or mAvaDu--pickled baby mangoes, is designed to balance the effects of the other two courses of the South Indian meal which are spicy.
=====

"Learning the words in the natural form is so important, it enriches my life daily.

"My western body worshiping humbly without candles...learning the Sanskrit words flawlessly so that I do not fumble...knowing each word's meaning as I utter it....this is whole satisfaction."

IMHO, a Hindu should learn and use some Sanskrit in his/her religious activities. The easiest way is to learn the text and meaning of simple shlokas, memorize and recall them when chanting. That said, I have no AkShepaNa--objection, to the use of English in translations, descriptive lectures and commentaries.
=====

"But I will wear humble western clothes to temple and not mask who I am this time. I'll be bare foot before coming through the door...and on my knees praying the entire time anyway. That's why there are no pew...at the feet, it's simply not needed."

Pews are simply unthinkable in a temple because a Hindu is(/was) used to sit on the floor in the sukhAsana--legs folded on top of each other. We have our thiNNais--raised bench-like constructs, in temples where people sit for a while after darshan to relax. Hindus in temples either stand or sit on the floor in the temple pavilion, to listen to religious talks from the priests or other religious personalities. A Hindu IMO should practise sitting on the floor as it is spiritually very beneficial. While listening to pravachanas--lectures, a Hindu can use an Asana--seat, such as a mat or linen and sit comfortably on the floor.
=====

"I may never be Hindu because of my belief in accepting this location as my point of origin and the needed perspective of this lifetime. But I will be a devotee of Most Beloved Siva. This can never be changed."

As you rightly feel, you are a "Hindu on the inside", which matters more than comforming to external appearances. Location IMO has less hindrance to practising Hinduism than the climate. A Hindu at home can always have the comforts needed, so personal practice may not be a problem. SanAtana Dharma as the mother of all religions was in practice in one form or other the world over before the advent of Christianity and Islam.

As Sambya has observed in his post no.12, RAmAyaNa has undergone changes in the SE Asian countries. He has also rightly observed that the changes in practice are due to differnt lifestyles necessitated, and because Hinduism is a way of life. What cannot change are the recitation of Veda mantras and ArAdhanas performed in the traditional style, which should only be in Sanskrit and in the prescribed form and manner.
=====

"In the Temple, there is no such hands. We carve out our own way...and with luck some kind Hindu soul recognizes us and helps us along."

Unlike Christianity, Hinduism encourages vichAraNam--inquiry, and one of the first things that a seeker forgoes is material comfort beyond what is strictly required. Hindu temples are built and designed for a seeker to sit quietly in seclusion in natural surroundings and meditate, learning to use the fanfare of bhakti that goes on in the inner chambers as aids to his meditation.
=====


Thank you so much for the reply, I will read it several times.

It is very helpful<3

sambya
13 May 2010, 06:08 AM
I've heard it said quite a bit that a fundamental tenet of Hinduism is that all paths lead to God. This is a nice sentiment, but it doesn't make logical sense if taken literally. At least two religions teach mutually exclusive things. How can Jesus and Mohammad both be the only path to God? I would certainly agree that all people will end up reaching God, some through more births than others. But logically speaking, all religions cannot be equally valid. And philosophically, it is very weak for Hindus to make the objective claim that there is no objective truth.


well , equally valid doesnt mean they are identical in every matter. they are essentially different in their beliefs , mannerisms and customs , and even in their end experience . for example , a christian may be stsified with a vision of father in heavens(whatever that means) or jesus , a advaitin may look forward to nirvikalpa whereas a gaudiya vaishnava may strive for eternal seva of radha krishna in goloka vrindavana . but they are all reaching out to one same god , albiet in his different aspects . clearly god cannot be two . so , if he is one , then then there can be two hypothesis . either only one of the relgions is correct or all are correct to a certain extent . each one sees god , as he wishes to view him .


Example: we've all heard the parable about how different religions are like four blind men each trying to describe an elephant by feeling its different parts. The fallacy with this story is that it assumes the narrator is sighted. In order to say that different religions are different ways to experience different parts of the divine, you have to have some transcendent knowledge.

hehe . well the origin of this famous parable is sri ramakrishna paramahamsa himself !!!!

there are two other parables coming from him which i would like to mention here for a clear understanding of facts .

once he said to a man who was opposing the idea of 'idol worship'---- " You were talking of worshipping the clay images. Even if made of clay, these need to be worshipped. The Lord Himself has provided various forms of worship. He who is the Lord of the universe has made all this ­ to suit men in different stages of life. The mother so arranges the food for her children that everyone gets, what agrees with him. “Say, a mother has five children and she has fish to cook. She makes different dishes out of it and gives each one of her children what suits him. Pulao[16] (http://www.kathamrita.org/kathamrita/k1sec%2001.htm#_ftn16) with fish for one; fish with sour tamarind for another; charchari[17] (http://www.kathamrita.org/kathamrita/k1sec%2001.htm#_ftn17) of fish yet for another, and fried fish still for another ­ she prepares exactly what they like, exactly what agrees with their stomach. Understand? " . for those who might jump up to read 'fish' remeber here that fish had been a part of staple diet in eastern states and it was natural for him to provide such an example for easy understanding .

then one day when he was on his way back to his temple from attending a festival in a marwari(a hindi speaking caste) family , he praised them for their 'true hindu bhava' and said -- " hindu religion is the eternal religion . it has been there and shall remain . others (hints at brahmo samaj) that you are seeing nowadays will all come and vanish "

Eastern Mind
13 May 2010, 07:33 AM
Vannakkam all:

I would like to add my two bits to Hindu kids in western culture. I agree that the youth seem to be wanton, and are losing their Hinduness. This is one of the facts of any migration of peoples. Here in Canada we are into 4th 5th and 6th generation Ukrainian settlers. Do any of them speak Ukrainian? No? Do they celebrate Ukrainian Christmas? Perhaps. Wear the beautiful dress of the Ukraine? Never. Mostly it is in the hands of the elders and maybe a few who get interested. There has to be a strong consistent effort to retain culture, and not be totally assimilated.

The Indians (Hindus, but others as well) are now second and third generation. Why did the Hindus migrate here to the west? It wasn't to further their religion. It was for economic reasons, either to better their situation, or as in the Sri Lankans, refugees.

So here in the west we are bombarded by 'the west'. It includes fast cars, horrible ethical television shows, cursing, disrespect as teenagers, availability of alcohol, drugs, and all sorts of other stimuli, some dharmic (sports) , but most not. So what do we expect? It is totally unrealistic to expect children to be raised over here, totally surrounded by the non-culture and then maintain their religious sense.

Kids NEED friends. It is one of the strongest psychological needs of the teenage years. How do you go about finding Hindu friends when none exist?

Now compare that with India. There you find a temple on every corner, you are immersed in the mother language, your friends are all Hindu, people dress like Hindus, your family might take you on pilgrimage, you might do a yatra at age 8, etc. So there it is easy. You have no choice really. That too is changing, especially in urban settings.

So any Hindu who complains about their kids being westernised should be looking in the mirror and blaming themselves. You chose to move here? What did you expect?

Of course there are many variations on this theme. Things are definitely better where large groups gather in enclaves, in the 'Little Indias, and the 'Little Italys'.

My 5 children are non-practising Hindus. I dragged them off to temple for a few years. But once they hit the teenage years, they stopped going. They still understand the philosophy somewhat. They are all primarily vegetarians, except for the few days of 'trials from curiousity'. They are honest citizens of my country. Perhaps one day they will return. But it is my opinion that for real belief, one NEEDS to have that experience, that tangible mystical experience that demonstrates in an experiential manner that Hinduism works, Gods answer prayers, or there is an underlying sameness to everything. Some hint of the path we are all on, in a personal way. Not just because Amma or Appa says so.

Aum Namasivaya

ScottMalaysia
13 May 2010, 07:44 AM
Namaste Sanjaya and Eastern Mind,

Do you think the reason that many young Hindus aren't religions is that the Hindu religion is hard for them to understand and possibly in a language they don't speak, or is it simply that they're not interested in religion full stop?

SethDrebitko
13 May 2010, 08:16 AM
I've heard it said quite a bit that a fundamental tenet of Hinduism is that all paths lead to God. This is a nice sentiment, but it doesn't make logical sense if taken literally. At least two religions teach mutually exclusive things. How can Jesus and Mohammad both be the only path to God? I would certainly agree that all people will end up reaching God, some through more births than others. But logically speaking, all religions cannot be equally valid. And philosophically, it is very weak for Hindus to make the objective claim that there is no objective truth. Example: we've all heard the parable about how different religions are like four blind men each trying to describe an elephant by feeling its different parts. The fallacy with this story is that it assumes the narrator is sighted. In order to say that different religions are different ways to experience different parts of the divine, you have to have some transcendent knowledge.

What makes more sense is to make at least a few objective claims. Sri Krishna says "all things depend on Me." We may not believe that practicing the wrong religion is a sin or a punishable offense, but we must believe that certain levels of divine truth are only accessible via the Hindu path, and that other paths are inferior. Perhaps it sounds elitist, but at least it's logically consistent. And when you belong to a non-proselytizing faith, this really takes the edge off of most exclusive truth claims.


Well I don't mean to say that a Christian will obtain that inner oneness with all, or even that they won't it is not my place to judge those things. What I meant was more along the lines that within Hinduism to those that adhere to the base principles there are many paths.

Take from a cultural perspective my view on the cow; regardless of my knowledge why it is a divine animal, and my respect for it, it always ultimately a food source for me. Now consider a redwood tree, and I get this same sense of aw inspire divinity, but you might not. We are taking two separate views to our devotion but that does not mean they should invalidate one another.

Eastern Mind
13 May 2010, 08:22 AM
Namaste Sanjaya and Eastern Mind,

Do you think the reason that many young Hindus aren't religions is that the Hindu religion is hard for them to understand and possibly in a language they don't speak, or is it simply that they're not interested in religion full stop?

I think its fairly easy to understand.. it doesn't need to be philosophical at all. It is my view that something metaphysical has to happen. There needs to be an awakening or two of some sort. The car doesn't go unless the key is turned.

Aum Namasivaya

Ashvati
13 May 2010, 11:13 AM
I believe a certain degree of westernization is needed if the Dharma is to thrive in the west, mainly in terms of making it more accessible to those born in the west not speaking any indian language. There should still be an insistance on learning and adapting so that one can function in a non-westernized satsang (assuming congregational worship rather than a more south indian style of course). Even something as small as making sure there's at least one person working at the temple who speaks fluent english and having that person or literature to explain whats going on during different ceremonies and pujas, as well as how to perform them, would go a long way.

Perhaps some temples could have a program of having someone who can make himself easily understood in english asigned to help out those who need this kind of help on a one-for-one basis. I for one would find this immensely helpful and comforting. When I attended one of the swaminarayan temples (the ISSA one) within reasonable travelling distance to me the night after Shivaratri (I was unable to make it the night before, but I did fast) there was a part of the ceremony involving the waving in circles of trays of burning incense that were being passed around. I wasn't sure if there was a pattern to wave them in and the idea of doing it wrong in front of so many people intimidated me, so I just kind of moved myself so that a tray wouldn't come to me and hoped no one would notice. I wanted to participate, but I was just so afraid of screwing up and I let that fear keep me from it. I was also slightly afraid of dropping the burning incense on the nice carpet out of nervousness, but that wasn't as much of an immediate possibility. If there were volunteers to sponsor the westernized and people in situations like mine (which I feel may be the most extreme example among many of the white hindus here as far as difficulty and slow progress) then I feel hinduism could be far more accessible in the west and would be strengthened as a whole. Indian morals wouldn't have to be relaxed, anyone not willing to adjust to them or who finds hinduism unsuited to parts of their lifestyle they're unwilling to change could just leave if they want to and tell their sponsor they're not cut out for it. I don't feel their should be direct pressure on them to change, but there should still be an insistance on a dharmic lifestyle.

There we go, I think I've got all my thoughts on this subject straightened out.

Oh, and in-temple language courses would be great, but I'm sure many temples may already offer this for children.

NayaSurya
13 May 2010, 11:34 AM
Trust me, you are not alone in this subject. We came at time for Abhishekam and my husband was offered to stand in line and get the sweetend milk.

Now I am allergic to lactose so I stand back...but bless his heart...he was right in line.

They poured a huge ammount into his tiny hand and it ran down everywhere! Oh the humiliation of this. I immediated take my hands and catch most of it. But he was horrified. It was such a sweet thing to offer this to him...but again...not a good moment. It made him very sad, and me too.

No one stood to help, most laughed...and honestly it made me go home and really work on what caused our sadness.

But, first, I take my part in this, knowing I am very welcoming and happy person. Here it is custom to take both hands and cherish a person. Hindu culture...left hand is offensive. I know we had to work on ourselves to be more modest and less hugging and open. For a whole year I did this. When we went back last time we avoid big crowded time...and simply prayed alone.

But, truly with all my heart, what I had hoped for is to have someone come to us and be the hand to help us along.

Ashvati...trust me, you are not alone in this. You have my heart for going through that alone. Siva gave me Ron...as the best friend and partner anyone could hope for...he is my beloved Hanuman in every endevour. Always moving the mountains for us.

If the hand never comes, I will live knowing we have done our best...and I vow to be that hand to anyone who needs me, despite being utterly unworthy to be such a thing.

Even now, this clown tells you of the embarassment...in the hopes that it eases your moment with the knowledge all of us go through such things. Rarely is one so brave to speak about it as you have.<3

Eastern Mind
13 May 2010, 12:38 PM
Perhaps some temples could have a program of having someone who can make himself easily understood in english asigned to help out those who need this kind of help on a one-for-one basis.

Too bad you didn't live here. Our temple does that. There are about 3 people who will take school groups on tour, explain etc. If I am there, I'll offer my services and introduce myself. It's a pleasure really. Many Hindus don't know their religion very well and are hesitant to say much because their own ignorance shows. Of course, usually the smartest ones are the elders who often don't feel comfortable in English.

I must look the part because when we were on pilgrimage in Omaha, these students from Nepal studying in nearby South Dakota were there for their first time and approached me asking questions. I though that was kind of funny.

Aum Namasivaya

Eastern Mind
13 May 2010, 12:46 PM
Vannakam again:

Embarrassment? There are 100 ways to drape a sari, and when a westerner wears one, every single lady she encounters feel it is HER god given duty to instruct on the correct way. One continues.

At my Hindu wedding, my veshti fell down as I stood up from a prostration. Things like this happen. Thank God veshtis aren't like kilts.

Naya: The milk from abhishekam has a knack for holding it, (right hand cupped) but it sounds like they may have given Ron too much on purpose. I can see that, unfortunately. Here we gently correct the kids (and newcomers) if possible ... things like which finger to take kumkum with etc.

Aum Namasivaya

NayaSurya
13 May 2010, 01:49 PM
The heart could not allow it to be said...

With him working many hours I know he hopefully will not see this. As I think it would be very bad for him to know. He was so busy trying to gather it that he did not even look to see.

Truth be told, they did...it was double that of every other.

Eastern Mind
13 May 2010, 02:02 PM
Naya: Unfortunate but not that surprising. (Nothing much surprises me.)

But as I've said before, the temple is God's house. So God witnessed all that as well. We westerners have just got to get it out of our heads that the temple is a place for people. It is God's house. Think of it as the Presidents white room or whatever its called. You get invited, He invites you. You are there to see Him and Him alone. There is a direct connection between each devotee's hearts and eyes towards God, and His blessings are coming back. This is called Darshan, and Hindus will walk a mile, 100 miles, spend money, sacrifice, fast, ride long distances in airplanes, just for three seconds of this mystical magic. For a bhaktar, THAT is Hinduism. The priest, other devotees doing the same thing are all like trees on the side of the road, to be appreciated but ignored. I would put my focus completely on God. Once you do that, the people will see it, and then they will majke you welcome as then they can see you are one of them.

I remember not going to temple for a long time when an old friend came running up to me to talk. I just politely said, "I have to see Ganesha first. We can talk later." He understood completely. The other night a very interesting couple from, Tiruvanammalai was there, and the priest pointed them out to us. One would of thought it would have been fun to chat with them. While they were getting archana, we left. Its NOT about the people.

You can tell the two points of view here in the west. The people crowd goes on Sunday to see other people. The God crowd goes on other days to see God.

Aum Namasivaya

Satyaban
13 May 2010, 09:53 PM
Satsangs in America are great but the chanting is not in English and it should not be. What is it with a suit and tie anyway? Why is it that newsreaders, weatherman, sports announcers and everyone else on TV wear suits?

ScottMalaysia
13 May 2010, 09:53 PM
I believe a certain degree of westernization is needed if the Dharma is to thrive in the west, mainly in terms of making it more accessible to those born in the west not speaking any indian language. There should still be an insistance on learning and adapting so that one can function in a non-westernized satsang (assuming congregational worship rather than a more south indian style of course). Even something as small as making sure there's at least one person working at the temple who speaks fluent english and having that person or literature to explain whats going on during different ceremonies and pujas, as well as how to perform them, would go a long way.

Perhaps some temples could have a program of having someone who can make himself easily understood in english asigned to help out those who need this kind of help on a one-for-one basis. I for one would find this immensely helpful and comforting.

These are all good ideas, Ashvati. From my experience, most of the people at the temple do speak English (many with New Zealand accents even!). I'm assuming that the reason that Gujarati is spoken is that the priest doesn't speak fluent English. Plus the people there may like to have a place where they can come once a week and converse with each other in their own language.

But there should be someone there who can explain things to newcomers. A man helped me out when I first came by getting me a book, although most of the book was in Gujarati, with some parts romanized; however there was only one place where anything was translated into English. There aren't any books with English translation and also no copies of the Gita in English. My mother said that the probable reason for that is they don't generally expect Westerners to come to their temple. Possibly those that do come would be religious studies students, who are interested in seeing how Hindus worship rather than learning how to do the worship themselves. And possibly some of the Hindus there believe that conversion to Hinduism is not possible - you have to be born into it, so therefore they have no need for materials for non-Indians.


Oh, and in-temple language courses would be great, but I'm sure many temples may already offer this for children.Our temple has classes for children, but currently no Gujarati classes for adults. I wish they did have some (both Gujarati and religious classes).

ScottMalaysia
13 May 2010, 09:58 PM
Satsangs in America are great but the chanting is not in English and it should not be. What is it with a suit and tie anyway? Why is it that newsreaders, weatherman, sports announcers and everyone else on TV wear suits?

You're right - the songs should be in whatever language they are in, however there should also be a book with the English translation for those who don't speak that languge.

The reason I mentioned the priest wearing a suit is because that's what a lot of Protestant pastors wear in church. The whole thread was about Westernising Hinduism.

TatTvamAsi
14 May 2010, 12:04 AM
The funny and sad thing is, it has already been done! yes, one of the main reasons I am against these clowns claiming to be "Hindus". lol..

In an adjacent city to mine, there is a place called CHURCH OF SELF REALIZATION run by these drugged out hippies who think they are Hindu. They are devotees of Yogananda I should add as he is supposed to have established his "Self Realization Fellowship" in Los Angeles in the 1920s.

It is really a comedy show if you go.

I went there, by mistake, as apparently they were "shocked" to see a Hindu who's interested in Hinduism! No way! Nobody would have thought of that! :rolleyes:

At first I gave them the benefit of the doubt. I was mistaken.

These clowns carry out their prayers and 'worship' EXACTLY like a christian church. scott has described in his first post what these muppets do in this organization.

There is a guy who dresses in a suit, wearing shoes (leather too I might add), picks up a book, it's a Gita (English version by Srila Prabhupada), and quotes a couple of verses and starts to pontificate on them as if he is self-realized!

The 'devotees' all sit in rows of benches, just like a church and "pray" at his behest. It is really sickening. The funny thing is, these dopes are not Hindus at all. Again, the reason why I don't think any of these goofs can be Hindu even by guna/karma, simply because they simply REPLACE jeebus the charlatan with Krishna and instead of saying 'hallelujah', they say 'hare Krishna' etc. They still practice christianity with Hindu symbols and deities. That is all.

They never were, never are, and never will be Hindu.

Next.

eriko
14 May 2010, 01:12 AM
Westernizing Hindu Dharma sounds very stupid. I wasn't really aware that Hindus in the West face so much of problem in connecting with their roots. But I don't understand one thing, why don't they speak Indian language? I don't think that just because you live in a foreign country you stop conversing in your language. I mean if I can be good in English in a Hindi environment, they why can't they be could in their native tongue in an English environment?

Urban India is as modernized as any Western country. Here as well people have no interest in the culture and religion. And frankly, I only go to temples on tuesdays, that too on being forced by my Ma. But then even if people are so uninterested in Dharma, still the parents teach them a thing or two. For eg, how much my friends might be unaware of Hindu ideology, but still they can chant the Maha Mritunjaya Mantra, even if it is the only one. Of course most people don't even do that but still.

I don't think that just because you live in India you are a good Hindu or whatever. Most people find it embarrassing to express their Dharma, which is something I totally fail to understand. It all depends on your upbringing and not the country you live in.

Eastern Mind
14 May 2010, 07:02 AM
I'm assuming that the reason that Gujarati is spoken is that the priest doesn't speak fluent English.

Vannakkam Scott:

My guess from the experiences here in Canada is that the original 5 (a guess) people who decided to build a temple were all Gujarati. From there it expanded. There must be a reasonably sized Gujarati community in Wellington. My temple was built and is run by Sri Lankan Tamils, but of the total number of people who come worship, only about 20% are Sri Lankan Tamil. Temples run better this way, as there is less 'village mentality' divisiveness this way. But that's just my take.

Aum Namasivaya

Eastern Mind
14 May 2010, 07:05 AM
"Self Realization Fellowship"

Yes, the Christianisation of SRF is well documented. It's an excellent example you used. Many leaning more towards keeping it eastern had to leave.

Aum Namasivaya

ScottMalaysia
16 May 2010, 01:01 AM
Yes, the Christianisation of SRF is well documented. It's an excellent example you used. Many leaning more towards keeping it eastern had to leave.

Aum Namasivaya

So what makes the SRF not Hindu? Is it because they use a Westernised style of worship? They accept Lord Krishna as God and the Bhagavad-Gita as scripture. I don't know if they accept the Vedas, but I think that if they accept the Vedas, they are Hindu. If they believe that Krishna is God and the Bhagavad-Gita is scripture, then they are not Christian as Christians must believe in God as the Holy Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Using a Christian style of worship does not make them Christian.

Does the style of worship really make a difference? Is it really integral to the Hindu religion? To Christianity, the style of worship isn't that important; it's secondary to the belief in Jesus. There are "Messianic Synagogues" and "Jesus Mosques" where Christians worship in the same style as Jews and Muslims respectively. They are still Christians, as they believe in Jesus Christ as their Saviour. Using Jewish or Muslim styles of worship does not make them Jewish or Muslim.

devotee
16 May 2010, 03:21 AM
Dear Scott,


So what makes the SRF not Hindu? Is it because they use a Westernised style of worship? They accept Lord Krishna as God and the Bhagavad-Gita as scripture. I don't know if they accept the Vedas, but I think that if they accept the Vedas, they are Hindu. If they believe that Krishna is God and the Bhagavad-Gita is scripture, then they are not Christian as Christians must believe in God as the Holy Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Using a Christian style of worship does not make them Christian.

I know SRF much better than anyone can tell you here. It is a Hindu organisation, there is no doubt. Yes, this organisation believes in divinity of Christ too. The Christ is considered one of the Gurus within the organisation. The prayers are available in English, HIndi, Bengali and other regional languages like Tamil.

The Param Guru of Paramhansa Yogananda i.e. Sri Yukteshwar ji did a lot of research on similar teachings of the Bible and Hindu scriptures and wrote a book, "The Holy Science" obeying the orders of his Param Guru, Mahaavtar Baba ji (the deathless Monk who roams in the Himalyas with his disciples). Sri Yuketshwar has found many teachings in the Bible which indicate that the science of Yoga was known to Christ and by which he attained One-ness with God. Baba ji had asked Sri Yukteshwar to make one Guru ready who could go to the West and spread Yoga teachings there for the benefit of true seekers in the West. He had also promised that he would send a suitable disciple for this task and under that plan Yogananda ji was trained and made ready for spread of Yoga teachings in the west.

Basically, the teachings of SRF is teaching Yoga (meditation and Kriya Yoga) for Self Realisation. This technique is based on Hindu scriptures and secret techniques developed by Hindu Gurus. It is an Advaitic organisation ... so the main goal is Self Realisation. There is a lot of emphasis on practice and experiencing than on theoretical teachings. All teachings are complementary to the practice and experiencing.


Does the style of worship really make a difference? Is it really integral to the Hindu religion? To Christianity, the style of worship isn't that important; it's secondary to the belief in Jesus. There are "Messianic Synagogues" and "Jesus Mosques" where Christians worship in the same style as Jews and Muslims respectively. They are still Christians, as they believe in Jesus Christ as their Saviour. Using Jewish or Muslim styles of worship does not make them Jewish or Muslim.

Style of worshipping does differ in Hinduism but it also differs from one path to another within Hinduism itself. In Advaita Saadhana, there is not much worshipping involved .... you actually try to attain one-ness with God in meditation. So, the worshipping styles are not that important. The language is hardly important .... God knows the language of heart.

We must shed all labels before we can truly seek and find God. God doesn't differentiate people on the basis of any man-made differences. We, whether white or black, whether man or woman, whether Brahmin or Sudra or outcaste, speaking English or Sanskrit ... are all equal in the eyes of God. There is no doubt about it.

OM

ScottMalaysia
16 May 2010, 04:27 AM
I know SRF much better than anyone can tell you here. It is a Hindu organisation, there is no doubt. Yes, this organisation believes in divinity of Christ too. The Christ is considered one of the Gurus within the organisation. The prayers are available in English, HIndi, Bengali and other regional languages like Tamil.

I do not see a problem with Hindus believing in the divinity of Christ. I personally believe that He was an incarnation of God who taught the ancient Israelites about God.



The Param Guru of Paramhansa Yogananda i.e. Sri Yukteshwar ji did a lot of research on similar teachings of the Bible and Hindu scriptures and wrote a book, "The Holy Science" obeying the orders of his Param Guru, Mahaavtar Baba ji (the deathless Monk who roams in the Himalyas with his disciples). Sri Yuketshwar has found many teachings in the Bible which indicate that the science of Yoga was known to Christ and by which he attained One-ness with God. Baba ji had asked Sri Yukteshwar to make one Guru ready who could go to the West and spread Yoga teachings there for the benefit of true seekers in the West. He had also promised that he would send a suitable disciple for this task and under that plan Yogananda ji was trained and made ready for spread of Yoga teachings in the west.

Basically, the teachings of SRF is teaching Yoga (meditation and Kriya Yoga) for Self Realisation. This technique is based on Hindu scriptures and secret techniques developed by Hindu Gurus. It is an Advaitic organisation ... so the main goal is Self Realisation. There is a lot of emphasis on practice and experiencing than on theoretical teachings. All teachings are complementary to the practice and experiencing.

You mention that Yogananda was trained to spread "yoga teaching" in the West. No mention is made of spreading the Hindu religion. Is this just a different name or was Yogananda only spreading a small amount of the Hindu religion (such as the teaching of self-realisation) but not the practices that are distinctly Hindu and Indian? To me it seems like he's disseminating only the teaching of self-realisation (through meditation) and not the practices of the Hindu religion that make one distinctly Hindu.


Style of worshipping does differ in Hinduism but it also differs from one path to another within Hinduism itself. In Advaita Saadhana, there is not much worshipping involved .... you actually try to attain one-ness with God in meditation. So, the worshipping styles are not that important. The language is hardly important .... God knows the language of heart.

But the language becomes important when the other people at the temple sing and hear instruction in a language that you don't understand.

I am against groups that take Hindu teachings and disseminate them to others while not spreading the other aspects of the Hindu religion (such as puja, temple worship and rituals). It's almost like they're ashamed of Hinduism as a whole and want to take the bits they agree with and leave the bits they don't agree with.

Eastern Mind
16 May 2010, 07:00 AM
Vannakkam:

I confess to actually knowing very little personally about SRF. My problem with mixing is the contradictions in philosophy that leads to confusion. If I was a radio interviewer speaking with an SRF leader, the first question I would ask is "So why is it, reincarnation, or heaven/hell?" There are many other contradictions, such as "What is the goal of life?"

What I do base much of my musings on is my gut and feel when listening to talks, or sitting in temples. I've sat in Christian churches (family and friend weddings and funerals, never services) . I go by that. There is one temple here in town that has the distinct feel of a Christian church (to me) . So this is where I get my info.As far as Christ goes, I just don't see the necessity. Perhaps its like putting one lime on top of 3 oranges. But if it helps some people become better people , fine. But if it confuses an individuals subconscious, well then not fine.

Some groups (not sure about SRF) even declare themselves to be non-Hindu, like Deepak Chopra saying yoga is not Hindu.

On the Wiki page, the center has a cross on the front. That's an indicator to me. Other research shows that many Christians don't like the view of altering 'original' Christianity.

Aum Namasivaya

devotee
16 May 2010, 07:10 AM
I am against groups that take Hindu teachings and disseminate them to others while not spreading the other aspects of the Hindu religion (such as puja, temple worship and rituals). It's almost like they're ashamed of Hinduism as a whole and want to take the bits they agree with and leave the bits they don't agree with.

So that puts me off for any further discussion on this issue. However, just to make you understand I would hint that once you know Hinduism well enough, you will know that there are various paths in Hinduism and no Guru Parampara follows all paths ... it is simply ridiculous ..... there is nothing like being ashamed or not agreeing with ! Yogananda's Path is of Raaj Yoga (with Kriya) & he taught that & that path alone is complete in all respects ! Gurus who follow the path of Bhakti will talk about that path ... Gurus following Tantra Saadhana will talk & teach about that path .... etc. etc. ... where is the question of being ashamed and not agreeing with anything ? Without knowing even this, you have decided to act against all such groups ?

You need to study a little more on Hinduism. :)

OM

Sahasranama
16 May 2010, 07:27 AM
I am against groups that take Hindu teachings and disseminate them to others while not spreading the other aspects of the Hindu religion (such as puja, temple worship and rituals). It's almost like they're ashamed of Hinduism as a whole and want to take the bits they agree with and leave the bits they don't agree with.
I am not really against people who only practice certain aspects of Hinduism. It is almost impossible to practice everything within Hinduism. What does bother me are the people who take part of Hinduism, like meditation and hatha yoga and then preach that the rest of Hinduism is only bigotry, dogma and superstition meant for people with little understanding. Personally, I am all for an integrative approach of jnana, karma, bhakti, yoga etc. That's how most Hindus practice Hinduism.


Some groups (not sure about SRF) even declare themselves to be non-Hindu, like Deepak Chopra saying yoga is not Hindu.There are many gurus who will tell this. Westerners don't like the term Hindu, they will use words like tantra, yoga and meditation. The yogajournal even deliberately avoids the word Hindu, they have admitted it has too much "baggage." The bhagavad gita was even called a "tantric scripture." There are yoga teachers out there who sell books telling people to go ahead and eat beef, because it has good protein. Some claim that yoga isn''t even Indian and that the techniques were also known to the Jewish and the Christians. I believe these things are only said to commercialise Hinduism, like a thief stealing a car and selling the pieces.

devotee
16 May 2010, 07:42 AM
I am not really against people who only practice certain aspects of Hinduism. It is almost impossible to practice everything within Hinduism. What does bother me are the people who take part of Hinduism, like meditation and hatha yoga and then preach that the rest of Hinduism is only bigotry, dogma and superstition meant for people with little understanding. Personally, I am all for an integrative approach of jnana, karma, bhakti, yoga etc. That's how most Hindus practice Hinduism.


Actually, many people don't understand the meaning of "Yoga". Once you tell a person that it is "Yoga" .... he would immediately relate it with Hath Yoga Asanas (Sitting postures), some breathing exercises and concentration techniques to calm down (which they call "meditation"). They fail to understand that there are eight limbs of Yoga .... and any set of activities which is done for not attaining one-ness with God is not Yoga. Oneness with God/Self realisation is central to Yoga which means union (with the Source).

Raaj Yoga is a higher path (for union with God) which comes alongwith Bhakti and Karma. It outlines a scientific path to reach God. The Patanjali Yogsutras talk about Raaj Yoga in detail. A few Upanishads too give guidelines how to meditate on the Supreme and attain Oneness.

OM

Eastern Mind
16 May 2010, 07:50 AM
Vannakkam: One of the ironies is that the westerners are really missing out on something big. (This coming from a bhaktar, Devotee knows what I mean)

Its EASIER to meditate in the confines or surroundings of a temple. The shakti or darshan of the temple almost pushes you inward.

But, hey lets blame it on the British and Christian anti-Hindu press that has gone on for such a long time. Many in the west don't even know that Islam and Hinduism are separate religions let a lone having VAST differences.

I get a kick at how they marvel at ancient Egyptian or Greek temples but don't notice the ones that are alive and operating in South India that are just as old and probably more architecturally impressive.

Then thee are the groups that focus on a single Guru, and the worship of Him or Her. What are you left with when the Guru goes?

Aum Namasivaya

Eastern Mind
16 May 2010, 07:52 AM
The Patanjali Yogsutras talk about Raaj Yoga in detail.
OM

I think 3 verses of some 65 are on Hatha.

Aum Namasivaya

MahaHrada
16 May 2010, 12:49 PM
Its EASIER to meditate in the confines or surroundings of a temple. The shakti or darshan of the temple almost pushes you inward.


I get a kick at how they marvel at ancient Egyptian or Greek temples but don't notice the ones that are alive and operating in South India that are just as old and probably more architecturally impressive.



Temples are not connected to meditation but used for public worship.

Serious sadhana yoga, upasana or meditation done for higher purposes related to spiritual progress is today and ever was in the past done in privacy and seclusion, never in public places like temples or near temples because there is always a lot of noise and traffic and impurity in and around meeting places.

Building temples and public worship in Temples began relatively late in India, compared to Greece or ancient Egypt, no wonder that it is not considered comparable.
The first small rock cut dravidian (south indian) temples were built around 600 CE, but temple building became prominent in the middle ages another 600 years later, while huge egyptian sandstone temples were already built as early as the first dynasty , that is 4000 years earlier. That means these belong to a completly different age. At that time nobody in India has thought of building permanent places of worship. The ancient vedic shrauta tradition of that age disposes of the ritual structures immediately after use even today. (by burning them down) Indigenous traditions also used impermanent structures and natural objects like trees and stones, sacred fire called dhuni etc. as a focus for worship. Frequenting public temples is not at all necessary for a Hindu.

Ancient ways of worship without any permanent Temple: Yagyashala offered to the fire during end of the vedic agnistoma and eternal sacred fire worshippped as the akhanda dhuni of the nath siddhas, attached as thumbnails: