Do converts accept Indian Hindus?

[Viraja]

Namaste Sunyata,

After reading your post and NayaSurya's, I understand what a pain all this conversion can be sometimes - and, like NayaSurya says, it is very hard to escape the 'racial profile' one is subjected to - like she says she was asked to chew someone else's chew-gum and so forth... It is always good to know 2 sides of a coin. I have realized in the meantime that i) it is not always a good idea to talk about one's eating habits, leave alone vegetarianism or veganism, for some, it may sound personal, we do not know ii) It isn't a good habit to 'racial profile' others - yes, I admit quite honestly, it was a hasty emotional response I had, which had basis on my own exposure to the world outside here in America (as an Indian immigrant) and sometimes, it had been painful. So I had written with this influence sitting on my background and now I realize, that it wasn't the right one afterall, to racial profile the gentle fora people! Afterall, there are good and bad people all over the place!

Coming to what you had been saying, yes, it can be very, very unsettling to move on into a completely different religion, for one, you are a stranger to a new religion which you feel know nothing about, and secondly, you are also intimidated by the various cultural factors such as having to learn the customs and practices (including speech) of a new society (such as Indian ways). So I do understand, that it can be intimidating, and also, sometimes, as I've become aware, people aren't very sensitive to the use of terms such as for instance, the term 'convert'. (yes, I myself used it, but rather unknowingly, but then I realized it is not such a beautiful term but it was too late). And, there are varying factors, some people do not accept that non-Indians are practicing their religion, due to prejudices that are their own...

I convey my sincerest pranam to all who answered me in this thread... I hope to hear from others as well as to what they find offensive about the conversion process, this could be a good thread to let it out.

Thank you again.

[satay]

namaste,
Yeah, what Believer said...

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namast�

• I can convert DC current to AC current - but its still electricity.
• I can convert potential energy to kinetic energy - but its still energy
• I can convert my car from a fuel based system to a LP gas system , yet it's still a car and gives transportation.
• I can convert sold gold to some trinket yet it is still gold.

I can convert from ( fill in the blank) to sanātana dharma, yet I am still the Self, nothing has (really) changed.

The realized one knows what ācamanayam� really is ; the one in ignorance, well, not so much. As long as one takes pride in one's actions ( of converting, not converting, of being this or that, of being king, or queen or doing this action or that action, of doing X, Y or Z) he or she must be considered to be uncertain about the true nature of Self (ātmā).

iti śivaṁ

1. ācamanayam - āca is 'of a man' , ācam is to sip water ; ana is inhalation; ; yet to the realized it is the notion of consuming the whole universe. one who inhales the whole universe - this is our very core; everything else is just a minor detail.

[NayaSurya]

Hari Om and big *hugs* to you all (if you would accept).

We come from different cultures our languages may not be the same...or our manners. But, we share a Love. It surpasses all this baggage we have collected in this birth.

Our hands up to Bhagavan who has hands to hold onto that junk anyway?


Yajvan, mostly we are "this" here because online or in real life, the realized, are in such short supply...if not, almost nonexistant.

Being a Mother, has made me realize it is important to be "here". None of us can escape our reasons.

We are all here and share a mutual condition, or we wouldn't be...at all.

For those that would read and think...holy gee! Going to a Temple sounds like a Karma BEATING!! lol

Please...understand, i deserved it!

Go to the Temple!

It is the missing portion of your lesson on this, promise.

Going was hard, took years for me to step in the door, i didn't feel i was worthy...knowing i had deserved this isolation from the Truth...It took even more years to understand that the true reason for coming was Him..and that it didn't matter the how or why...or even the when of my arrival. I was here, and He was the reason.

I have a family now, it took a while for them to recognize me...but i waited my turn to speak and instead... began to sing...Mahadeva took care of the rest.

Go, again and again...go. Mahadeva will cover the rest.

[philosoraptor]

a. A resentment when told about vegetarianism - such as going to the extent of calling names on another Hindu if he happens to cite the importance of non-violence through eating vegetarian food. Since Westerners predominantly come from the background of eating meat, it becomes a challenge to them that many Hindus adopt to vegetarianism and thus seem to have a certain resentment towards Indian born Hindus who are vegetarians.

I was once called "inhumane" when I tried to politely explain that there was no such thing as a homosexual marriage in Hinduism, and why such a thing could not exist in Vaidika Hinduism as per principles elucidated in our shAstra-s. So yes, I know exactly what you mean.

b. An almost violent reaction when Indian born Hindus speak out against bringing Christianity, worship of Christ, etc, including the damage done to India by Christians and Muslims.

It's not just Christianity. Some Western converts into Hinduism become quite hostile towards Hindus when any discussion of Hinduism-in-reality takes place which contradicts their Hinduism-of-fantasy. This includes, but is not limited to:
1) Discussions about the frankly hereditary basis of varNa, as seen in shruti and smRiti (one member here opined that such a thing was "vile," before his chauvinistic comments were wisely deleted by the moderator).
2) Discussions of the differences between dharma for men and women
3) Explanations about why vedAntic Hinduism is fundamentally incompatible with faith-based, prophet religions like Christianity, et. al.
4) Accusations of fundamentalism for anyone who suggests that cow-protection was intended to be a universal principle - since Christianity allows cow-slaughter, these people feel that Hindus should be more open-minded and accepting that cow-killing might be ok if you happen to follow one of those other religions.
5) Temper tantrums when some Hindus quote from veda to establish religious truth. Ironically, these are often the same people who talk about the greatness of vedas in some contexts. Yet in other contexts, they refer to them dismissively as sectarian Hindu holy books.
6) Frankly dismissive behavior of persecution of Hindus elsewhere due to lack of sectarian allegiance. Some years ago when a Hindu priest gave the invocatory prayer at the US Congress and was heckled by Christian fundamentalists, I observed a Hare Krishna devotee on one Internet forum exclaiming that the priest in question got what he deserved because he was not a Vaishnava (wow, seriously, Mister Humbler-Than-a-Blade-of-Grass?).
7) Often not-so-subtle jibes against various Indian Hindu customs, like wearing of sari for women, performing shraddha rituals for deceased loved ones, condescending remarks about the suitability of icon-based worship, etc.
8) Hostility towards anyone discussing the scriptural basis of a philosophical position that is not consistent with one's own.

Now, the irony here is, points #1-8 are also true of some uninformed, Indian Hindus I have observed as well. So, I would be hard pressed to consider it a problem exclusive to Western converts.

The above factors make me wonder if there is really 'racism' that is the underlying factor towards the Western peoples' negative reaction against Indian born Hindus...? If not for racial supremacy, why would someone react in an out-of-context manner resorting to name calling when they encounter the above sentiments being thrown by Indian born Hindus?

Anybody care to respond?

It's not racism. Basically, these attackers, whether they are Indians or Western converts, are just plain insecure. They spend their time in all sorts of non-religious pursuits, but never seem to have time to study shAstra and have a regular sAdhana. Which is all fine and good, until they come face to face with someone who has put in the time, and who commits the unforgivable crime of explaining what actually is in shAstra, especially when that contradicts their own pre-conceived notions. The noble response to such a situation would be for one to think, "Really? I did not know that," and then to invest the time himself or herself to study the evidence. Unfortunately, some people do not take the high road. Instead, they more frequently react by impugning the character of the person who dared to contradict their biases. "How dare that person disagree with me? He is clearly a sectarian person. Or a narrow-minded person. Or an inhumane guy. Or an extreme intolerant. My opinions which have no basis in scripture are just as important as everyone else's, and the proof of my broad-minded outlook is that I am well-respected by all other people who also believe in unfounded ideas. Only this narrow-minded, sectarian, inhuman, extreme intolerant fellow who thinks his conclusions based on evidence trump mine, has failed to give proper regard to my opinion. Therefore, it is his problem for being a Bad Person. He should spend less time reading, and more time doing other things. He should get a life, like I have." And so on, and so forth.

Your post deals with more than one issue. First the vegetarianism. ‘Knowledge is purifying’ the banner at the top of the page declares, so please meet up with hindus of ALL backgrounds and gain some good first hand information first and, only then, come back and give readers your account on the veg and non veg issue influencing one’s hinduness. Your perception of vegetarian vis a vis hinduism is very misleading (if any consolation you are not alone on this one). A majority of Indian/Nepali/ Bali/Fiji/ Caribbean born brown hindus do eat meat by family tradition. And that is a demographical fact, I must assure you that social scientists and other reliable sources of census confirm this statistics.

Charitra, as usual, has missed the point completely, and I am sure it is only a matter of time before my attempts at rational discourse trigger the typical, knee-jerk, virulent reaction. But, here it is:

"Hinduism" is not necessarily what Hindus say it is, nor is it necessarily what Hindus do or believe. "Hinduism" is what the Hindu shAstra-s say it is. Charitra and others like him (her?) are perpetually locked into a feedback loop of answering questions of "Is this practice X ok within Hinduism?" by referring to the presence of Hindus who do indeed think that X is ok. Because if they believe in X and do X, then clearly that is ok, by Hinduism, right?

Unfortunately, this logic can lead to any number of untenable conclusions. Q: "Is it acceptable to bribe someone in power to get something which you were not otherwise entitled to? A: "Well, yes, look around, Hindus bribe people all the time, therefore paying bribes is ok as per Hinduism. Q: "Is it ok to sexually harass young women on the streets?" A: "Well, yes, look around. There are indeed young Hindu males who sexually harass women. It's practically a 50-year-old tradition on the streets of Mumbai!" Q: "It is it ok to drink beer? A:"Yes, there are many Hindus who drink beer, therefore drinking beer is ok as per Hinduism."

Our authority in Hinduism is shAstra: veda-s, purANa-s, itihAsa-s, and other smRiti-s which uphold the authority of shruti. It is perfectly acceptable to question the legitimacy of our suddenly acceptable culture of animal-torture, slaughter, and consumption, even though compassion for the plight of these animals is too inconvenient for the modernist ideologues. Every instance of meat-eating I have seen in shAstra can be classified in 1 of 4 situations:
1) Eating meat from a properly-performed, vedic sacrifice.
2) A kShatriya on a forest excursion, or other forest-dweller, eating animal meat for survival in areas where food is not plentiful.
3) A hunter living in a forest, eating meat, again because he has no other readily available source of food. Again, in this situation, it is said that there are certain mantras one is supposed to chant to free himself from the sin of the act.
4) A rAkShasa
Now, if you are in one of the 4 above situations, then I would agree that you might have a case. On the other hand, when you cite these instances of meat-eating to rationalize your decision to go to a restaurant and order some chicken, and still call yourself a "Hindu," then the right thing to do would be to admit that you are lying to yourself, and to others, and that your unnecessary dietary choices are creating the pain and suffering which other creatures are forced to bear for your actions.

[Viraja]

Namaste Phil,

Sorry for the inhumane wording. I still stand by my support for homosexual unions for those who qualify, but I apologize for the 'inhumane' terminology as I realize that isn't very pleasant.

Regards,

[Sudas Paijavana]

Pranam-s,

Something to ponder about, though: What if the adoptee is not from an Abrahamic background?

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam:

It's a tough life, both ways. It's hard some days to accept the other side, and this goes both ways. Some days I look out from this spot I've found, and really wonder. It takes humility and tremendous observational skills to truly understand why a person is behaving the way they are behaving, regardless of color, born/adopted/converted.

Aum Namasivaya

[Eastern Mind]

Pranam-s,

Something to ponder about, though: What if the adoptee is not from an Abrahamic background?

Vannakkam SP: Many of us aren't. In the west, there are lots of people who have no religious affiliation at all, and some of those find Sanatana Dharma, as their very first faith.

Aum Namasivaya

[Sudas Paijavana]

Many of us aren't. In the west, there are lots of people who have no religious affiliation at all, and some of those find Sanatana Dharma, as their very first faith.

Pranam-s,

I agree. I believe the notion that "Westerners retain their Abrahamic background upon converting/adopting" is overplayed.