White Hindu Converts: Mimicry or Mockery?

[wundermonk]

Who are you and what have you done with wundermonk?

My position has consistently been that Hindu philosophy should be open to commentary by anyone and everyone. To be a useful commentator on this subject in any case has a high bar that demands rigorous scholarship which in itself makes it worthy of consideration.

It is when some people begin to then comment on history and cultural issues (instead of sticking with philosophy) that they practise third rate advocacy worthy of probing whether there is any ulterior motive.

[Kumar_Das]

Not only "White people" I've seen plenty of Middle-Upper Class "Blacks" or "Blacks" in the academia who are in some extent practicing Hindus or have very favourable/sympathetic views of Hinduism. It's usually in the East Coast.

[Jetavan]

Not only "White people" I've seen plenty of Middle-Upper Class "Blacks" or "Blacks" in the academia who are in some extent practicing Hindus or have very favourable/sympathetic views of Hinduism. It's usually in the East Coast.

The African-American community has had interest in India and Hinduism ever since Howard Thurman, Benjamin E. Mays, Mordecai Johnson, and Martin Luther King, Jr., went to India to talk with Gandhi and/or the Gandhians (in the 1930s, '40s, and '50s) regarding the application of non-violent resistance to the struggle for civil rights in America.

[Jeffery D. Long]

Dear Friends (if I may be so bold), I am a little puzzled and disheartened by a couple of your reactions to my response to Deepak Sarma's Huffington Post piece.

Webimpulse, from reading your posting, it seems like you and I should be in complete agreement (and I'm looking forward to your Hinduism Today article; I occasionally write for them as well, and have a piece coming up on Swami Vivekananda to commemorate his 150th birth anniversary). I never claimed in my response to understand the psychology of colonized peoples. I only claim to have a very close vantage point (though I admit not a direct one) of racism against people of Indian descent in the USA because I am married to one. But my response is not about that. It's about why I became Hindu, and the fact that I do not see myself described in Sarma's piece. You see to agree. So why am I "intellectually masturbating"? That's just...bizarre.

Sahasranama, the fact that I still say the Prayer of St. Francis and have a small picture of Jesus in my home mandir only discredits my sincerity if you have a certain "purist" idea of what it is to be Hindu. One of my points in response to Sarma is that Westerners who are drawn to Sanatana Dharma need not be expected to undergo a complete cultural makeover in following our chosen path. My guru teaches, as did his guru before him, and his guru before him, going back to Sri Ramakrishna, that Jesus is one avatar among many: no more, but also no less. Perhaps you disagree, and that is fine. It does not discredit my sincerity, because I make no secret of it nor do I apologize for it. You may think it makes me some kind of Christian secret agent; but that is certainly not how Christians see me!

Anyway, I respect all of your opinions and views. I just want to understand how I have given offense, if indeed I have done so.

[Omkara]

Sahasranama, the fact that I still say the Prayer of St. Francis and have a small picture of Jesus in my home mandir only discredits my sincerity if you have a certain "purist" idea of what it is to be Hindu. One of my points in response to Sarma is that Westerners who are drawn to Sanatana Dharma need not be expected to undergo a complete cultural makeover in following our chosen path. My guru teaches, as did his guru before him, and his guru before him, going back to Sri Ramakrishna, that Jesus is one avatar among many: no more, but also no less. Perhaps you disagree, and that is fine. It does not discredit my sincerity, because I make no secret of it nor do I apologize for it. You may think it makes me some kind of Christian secret agent; but that is certainly not how Christians see me!

It certainly does not make you a 'Christian Secret Agent', however, a substantial number of Hindus feel that Jesus does not have any place in Sanatana Dharma,and people who try to incorporate him into Hinduism do so because have not been able break away from Christuanity completely.

Many people are also opposed to Ramkrishna Mission's propagation of a (mis)interpretation of a vedic verse ekam sat bahu vaipradayanti and to their claims that all religions are the same (which have sadly been picked up and regurgitated by other neo-Hindu organizations.)

[Twilightdance]

It certainly does not make you a 'Christian Secret Agent', however, a substantial number of Indian Hindus feel that Jesus does not have any place in Sanatana Dharma,and people who try to incorporate him into Hinduism do so because have not been able break away from Christuanity completely.

Bold red my incision. For west, Christ forms is a formidable cultural icon and it may not be possible to discard him unless worshiping or praying to him is somehow detrimental to goals of sanatana dharma. This is not an easy thing to argue out even if some of us believe it to be true.

E.g Christians believe Christ can only give salvation so praying to other Gods is meaningless or even harmful if they are representing the devil. One can make good case based on christianity why one should not pray to Hindu gods.

Buddhists believe that only Buddhas are reliable support as they are free from samsaric cycles. Praying to other deities all of whom are themselves trapped in samsara will not help but infact will further the cause of samsaric existence. So only Buddhas should be prayed to.

It is impossible to construct such reasoning in Hinduism except for sticking with puritanism, which would be historically dishonest.

[Sahasranama]

I don't think it's just Indian Hindus who feel this way. There are western Hindus who do not want to have anything to do with Christ. There are also some members on this forum who are western converts and don't want to have anything to do with a bleeding zombie nailed on a stick. On the other hand, there are Indian Hindus, mostly Vivekananda followers, who believe that Jeebus is just as good a deity as any of the Hindu gods. I don't think it's as much a psychological crutch of westerners as it is confusion caused by the writings of neo-Hindu swamis. Indian Hindus are also getting confused by this. A nephew of mine who is also an actor, once told me how he believed that Jesus was a yogi who raised his kundalini and became an avatar (LOL). There are a lot of westerners who are happy to let go of Jesus, but unfortunately when they find Hinduism, they also rediscover Christ. It is probably psychological that coming in contact with another religion brings up associations of your own childhood religion, except only in Hinduism it is reinforced and encouraged with universalistic attitudes. Other religions indeed have a more unified voice against this kind of thing.

[devotee]

Namaste Deepak Sharma,

Deepak Sarma is a Professor of Hindu Philosophy at Case Western Reserve University. He has written a provocative article here.

The gist of the article are:

(1)Indian Hindus suffer from a deep post-traumatic, post-colonial servile disorder.

(2)White Hindu converts, have historically benefitted, on account of being "White", from colonialism.

Is he (Depak Sharma) important enough to earn his place on this forum ? BTW, Sharma should be not be called Sharma but be-sharma (means shameless) as he appears too shameless in denigrating his own ancestors. Acclaimed Hindi poet of India (awarded Rashtrakavi (the poet of the Nation) title) Ramdhari Singh Dinkar said, "He who is not proud of his country and his ancestry, is not human but a beast and is better dead".

OM

[Twilightdance]

The article itself is quite irrelevant stretch and generalizations of his own problems with colonialism on hypothetical white converts. I did not also find that gist of the article is what wundermonk has written.

The gist seems be:- Hinduism is a religion of the backward victims of western colonialism [who desperately want to get out of it], so in his worldview, the masters converting to Hinduism must be mocking it.

[Jeffery D. Long]

I would certainly never argue that any Hindu, whether by birth or by choice, must or should adopt Christ as a form of the divine. Absolutely not! One of the things that I love about this tradition, though, is the fact that we are free to choose how we wish to conceive of the divine: our iṣṭadevatā. One person's gateway to the Infinite is another's "bloody zombie nailed to a stick."

In support of this view, I would cite the following:

ākāśāt patitaṃ toyaṃ yathā gacchati sāgaram
sarvadevanamaskaraḥ keśavaṃ pratigacchati

and:

ye yathā māṃ prapadyante tāṃs tathaiva bhajāmyaham
mama vartmānuvartante manuṣyāḥ pārtha sarvaśaḥ

Also, the Ramakrishna tradition does not actually teach that all religions are "the same." Swami Vivekananda in fact refutes this view in his lecture "The Way to the Realisation of a Universal Religion," as does Pravrajika Vrajaprana in 'Vedanta: A Simple Introduction,' in her chapter on "The Harmony of Religions." The teaching, rather, is that devotion to any iṣṭadevatā, from any religion, can lead one nearer to mokṣa, and that the religions contain insights that can be seen as complementary to one another. It is a nuanced teaching, and it is true, and unfortunate, that many oversimplify it into the obviously and empirically false view that all religions "are the same."