conversion to Hinduism

[Vinayaka]

Here are some random thoughts on it ...
There is a myth that you can't convert to Hinduism. Actually, I should say there is debate on the matter, depending on who you talk to. Some sects will say no, while others will say yes, you can. In the west, the myth gets perpetuated by lots of people for lots of reasons.

Here are some of the 'reasons' and the people who say you can't.

Some very conservative sects just believe that one has to be born a Hindu in order to be one.

Some less conservative sects are very wary of allowing just anyone to convert, as they think it might water down the faith. They also often say that it simply isn't necessary.

Some non-Hindus do their best to keep the myth alive, recognising that if conversion from Hinduism is allowed, but to Hinduism isn't allowed, growth can only happen one way.

There is no need to convert in any official way. You can just start practicing it, as 95% of the people of the Hindu 'converts' in the west do. If you think, act, and talk like a Hindu, you probably are one. This category comes into a wide variety ... including variations of Hindu universalism, and pick and choose. Some people in this 'category' avoid the term 'Hindu' and use another term like 'spiritual' but in reality, for all intents and purposes, they're practising Hinduism. I'm guessing many of the professed Hindus on this site are in this category.

Others like to fully convert, (by this I mean including a ritual and a legal name change) and there are basically three ways I know of to do this.
1) In India the Arya Samaj sect does it, but it is primarily intended to get the converted out of Hinduism back into the fold. So when whole villages of tribals get 'converted ' to non-hindu faiths, the Arya Samaj will go in and re-educate and convert them all back, often through mass ceremonies that may number in the 100s. I'm not sure if the Arya Samaj does it outside of India.
2) Saiva Siddhanta Church, a small Saiva Natha Sampradaya in the west will convert you, but it is a long process, and you also are converting to Saivism, and that sampradaya. The founder, Subramuniyaswami, wrote a book on how it's done called, "How to Become a Hindu".
3) Individuals, on their own, can follow that book, or another process, and start calling themselves by a Hindu name, or even do a legal change of name, or get a priest to do a conversion ceremony, although many priests might be reluctant unless some degree of sincerity was shown.

Comments?

 

[Jainarayan]

Some very conservative sects just believe that one has to be born a Hindu in order to be one.

...

There is no need to convert in any official way. You can just start practicing it, as 95% of the people of the Hindu 'converts' in the west do. If you think, act, and talk like a Hindu, you probably are one. This category comes into a wide variety ... including variations of Hindu universalism, and pick and choose. Some people in this 'category' avoid the term 'Hindu' and use another term like 'spiritual' but in reality, for all intents and purposes, they're practising Hinduism. I'm guessing many of the professed Hindus on this site are in this category.

Good thoughts put forth in this thread, very concise and true.

I tend to avoid the phrase "I am Hindu" because to many people it connotes having been born Indian. And as a clearly glow-in-the-dark Italian-American (no, we're not all olive-complexioned ) I find myself saying "I follow Hindu beliefs" or "I follow Hinduism". It's just a small, but important distinction, imo.

If you think, act, and talk like a Hindu, you probably are one.

This has been me since high school, even when I was a very active member of an Eastern Orthodox parish. At the time I felt Jesus was my Ishta-devata, believing in his divinity. I'm not so sure about that now. Even if he is a manifestation or avatar of God, he is not one whom I pray to or worship. I do accept that he was a teacher and prophet ('prophet' being one who speaks for God to the world). I always accepted and believed the Hindu deities were powerful manifestations of God, even back then.

OK, end of rambling (one word Frank... "decaf" ).

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

For many years all the non-Indian devotees that I had contact with called themselves Vedantins Over time I started associating with people who did call themselves Hindu without being of indian decent. Since I have been given a Hindu mantra. It is fair to call my self a Hindu.

Some could argue if you dont have a caste you're not a Hindu. Well, according to one of the Smirits if you sail over the seas you lose your caste. Low and behold he who says no to me, ends up kicking themselves out of Hinduism.

Also, I really don't mind being disassociated with the caste system. It really goes against all my white liberal sensibilities.

 

[Vinayaka]

Also, I really don't mind being disassociated with the caste system. It really goes against all my white liberal sensibilities.

Me too. Although I see it a bit amongst my born Hindu friends, I won't practice it.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Some could argue if you dont have a caste you're not a Hindu. Well, according to one of the Smirits if you sail over the seas you lose your caste. Low and behold he who says no to me, ends up kicking themselves out of Hinduism.

Also, I really don't mind being disassociated with the caste system. It really goes against all my white liberal sensibilities.

The cast system is the worst thing to happen to Hinduism, and the most apparent reason many are not willing follow Hinduism. People dont realize that the cast system has entered into Hinduism recently and was not originally a part of it.

I think the worst of cast based discrimination started during the Moghul (Islamic) rule of India and was used as a pedestal for domination later by the British.

This is the major blockage when people of the WEST think of Hinduism. Their minds clouded by preconceived notions about Hinduism, and the obvious Christian negative thought has a major role to play, they tend to regard Hindus as heathens and Pagans without knowing a Hindu or their beliefs.

One example is that i got called a Nazi for having a Swastika on my work desk, but i soon educated the ignorant of its (Swastika) original true meaning.

And as regard to converting to Hinduism, i had already posted something which i re-post below, a bit out of topic i think but somewhat on point.

How is Vedic religion different from Hinduism?

Several reasons:
- Even if you consider Vedic religion to have anything to do with the 4 Vedas, the word Hinduism is nowhere present there. Its a very recent term. Vedas thus remain a parent of Hinduism.

- Hinduism has a variety of interpretations including loyalty towards Hindusthan aka Indian subcontinent and its culture. But Vedic religion is for every human being – be he or she belong to India, or Zambia, or Sweden or Saudi Arabia.

- It is true that core essence of Hinduism is derived from Vedic religion. But one would still continue to be called Vedic even if he or she has never visited India or read any Indian text but still follows the basic tenet of rejecting falsehood and accepting truth.

In short, a true Hindu is Vedic but all Vedics need not necessarily be Hindu.

 

[Atman]

I think the worst of cast based discrimination started during the Moghul (Islamic) rule of India and was used as a pedestal for domination later by the British.

Caste discrimination, and the idea that varna was based on birth existed in India far before the advent of the Mughals or the British. Shankaracharya's and Ramanujacharya's commentaries on Brahma Sutras make it clear that the idea that those of the sudra varna could not study Sruti (Vedas and Upanishads). Likewise the lives of Nandanar Nayanar, and Thiruppan Alvar make it clear that discrimination against the low caste Hindus was prevalent in ancient India.

I am in agreement with you that authentic Shastras do not support discrimination against the so-called "low-catse" varnas, nor that varna is based on birth alone, but such practices existed in India prior to the Mughals stepping foot on Indian soil.

Returning to the topic of conversion to Hinduism, I myself am a Hindu of non-Indian origin, but I have never faced any opposition from the local Hindu community for my having converted to Hinduism. I have been lucky enough to live in close enough proximity to a mandir headed by a very open-minded and knowledgable pundit, who five years ago preformed upanayana for me. At any rate, I don't feel it is an upanayana, diksha, or any other sort of ritual that determines ones status as a Hindu. Belief in the Sastras, in the Hindu concept of Ishwara (God), and following Hindu religous practices and customs makes one a Hindu, regardless of whether or not they were born into a Hindu family, or have had any formal ritual preformed to bring them into the fold.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Atman;2803240]Caste discrimination, and the idea that varna was based on birth existed in India far before the advent of the Mughals or the British. Shankaracharya's and Ramanujacharya's commentaries on Brahma Sutras make it clear that the idea that those of the sudra varna could not study Sruti (Vedas and Upanishads). Likewise the lives of Nandanar Nayanar, and Thiruppan Alvar make it clear that discrimination against the low caste Hindus was prevalent in ancient India.

Yes I know, what I said is that it got worst during the Moghul and British rule.

 

[Me Myself]

I prefer to say "What I believe has alot of hinduism".

Belief in reincarnation and karma and telli9ng people I am a Shiva bhakta comes if there are more questions.

"hindu" makes me think too much on the nationality, and as I understand, hinduism is not even a term that came from the "hinduists" so idk, I just feel it doesn´t fit to me to msay it.

I am not from India, but I practice hinduism (hey! I think I like that one! "I practice hinduism" or I "I have hinduist practices" )

 

[Atman]

Namaste Satyamavejayanti

Yes I know, what I said is that it got worst during the Moghul and British rule.

My apologies for misinterpreting what you have said. It is becoming a some what more common claim to attribute the creation of caste discrimination to the British and the Mughals, hence my mistake.

 

[K.Venugopal]

Non-Hindu religions consider a person as converted to a particular religion only if the person converting repudiates his or her former religion. Hinduism, on the other hand, is offered as yet another approach to God and does not call for the repudiation of any other religion to practise it. Therefore, it can be said that Hinduism does not believe in conversions because it does not believe that God is approachable only through a particular religion. It would indeed do a whole lot of good for the world of religions if the Hindu idea that God is approachable in many ways is spread and thereby the pernicious doctrine of conversions is killed.

 

[Vinayaka]

I prefer to say "What I believe has alot of hinduism".

Belief in reincarnation and karma and telli9ng people I am a Shiva bhakta comes if there are more questions.
"hindu" makes me think too much on the nationality, and as I understand, hinduism is not even a term that came from the "hinduists" so idk, I just feel it doesn´t fit to me to msay it.
I am not from India, but I practice hinduism (hey! I think I like that one! "I practice hinduism" or I "I have hinduist practices" )

Most people from India do see a difference between Hinduism and Indian. Here in my city all the various linguistic groups celebrate India Independence day, and it is a secular festival. What I don't get is absolute avoidance of the term. I think if you;re a Shiva bhaktar, then you are a Hindu. Certainly being a Shiva bhaktar wouldn't fall into a category of any other religion, would it?

For a couple of different reasons in the past, a couple of different groups distanced themselves from the word 'Hindu' as well. I find it odd, but that's just me.

Just a reminder that I posted this thread to discuss conversion, not caste. Perhaps we need a new thread on caste (again).

 

[Jainarayan]

It would indeed do a whole lot of good for the world of religions if the Hindu idea that God is approachable in many ways is spread ...

:clap

This is one of the reasons (the main reason?) I always quote R.V. 1.64.46 "The truth is one, but the wise know it by many names".

Actually, and I'd have to think on this a bit more to be absolutely sure, but I believe it is only the Abrahamic religions that do not believe what the Rig Veda says in that line. What makes it so noticeable is that the Abrahamic religions (though Jews are really pretty open-minded) is because Christians and Muslims make up about 54% of the world's religious adherents, at about 3.6 billion.

Major Religions Ranked by Size

 

[Vinayaka]

Non-Hindu religions consider a person as converted to a particular religion only if the person converting repudiates his or her former religion. Hinduism, on the other hand, is offered as yet another approach to God and does not call for the repudiation of any other religion to practise it. Therefore, it can be said that Hinduism does not believe in conversions because it does not believe that God is approachable only through a particular religion. It would indeed do a whole lot of good for the world of religions if the Hindu idea that God is approachable in many ways is spread and thereby the pernicious doctrine of conversions is killed.

This is just one point of view, and perhaps the most common. Some sects and groups of Hindus do believe in conversion, as mentioned in the OP. In India, the idea of no religion isn't there. In the west, probably 30% of all people would profess no religion. So there is no religion to repudiate, as you say. In India this figure of no religion is closer to 1%. In Europe its higher that 30%.

Conversion to Christianity in India often is done just for financial gain, and the person continues to practice a mixed religion, part Hindu part Christianity. That is why the Arya Samaj has little difficulty getting them back ... because they never left in the first place.

I agree that you don't have to do an official conversion to begin practising Hinduism, but it does exist ... for those who wish to take that step.

 

[ratikala]

dear prabhu ji's

This is one of the reasons (the main reason?) I always quote R.V. 1.64.46 "The truth is one, but the wise know it by many names".

then of course there is , bhagavad gita ch 4 ... v 7 , When ever, or where ever there is a decline in religion , O decendant of bharata , and a predominance of irriligion , at that time I myself manifest .

so of course there are traditions which are devoted to , and honour each individual manifestation ,
to my mind that best describes a hindu , one who happily accepts that truely vedic approach.

so equaly my fellings on this question of conversion , is more one of realisation

realising something to be true one addpots it , one puts it in to practice , honours it , and becomes devoted to it .

I addopted vaisnava beleifs , because I found them to be worthy of devotion , as a buddhist I followed buddhas instructions and examined what was infront of me and finding it to be true and benificial , I addopted it .

if what one knew before becomes redundant by the discovery of this knowledge then it is naturaly left behind , this is the nearest I can come toas an understanding of conversion . if on the other hand there is benifit in both beleifs and one can reconsile any apparent contradictions , then both will automaticaly be remembered

however I tend to concider myself vaisnava out of love and loyalty , but often use the term hindu as an umbrella title for all the vedic traditions, especialy when talking in general terms discussing prehaps with others who might not be familliar with the different traditions .

and because of my buddhist background and the gratitude I owe buddha dharma for all that I have learnt through it I remain equaly loyal to lord buddha ,
but in all my time spent amongst vaisnavas only one person was foolish enough to tell me to forget what I had learnt there on the grounds that this tradition was by far superior ?

I some how expect I answered with some thing allong the lines of ....to deliver the devotees and annihilate the miscreants , and to re establish the principles of religion , I my self appear millenium after millenium ......B.G. 4 , 8 .

or just smiled and said nothing , as it is what is in the heart that matters , most hindus seem to be happy with that :bow:

 

[K.Venugopal]

then of course there is , bhagavad gita ch 4 ... v 7, When ever, or where ever there is a decline in religion, O decendant of bharata , and a predominance of irreligion, at that time I myself manifest.

The precise words used in the Gita are Dharma and Adharma, by which words are meant "that which causes harmony" and "that which causes disharmony" respectively. For religion the word used is "matha", with which word the Gita ends and means opinion. Not only is Dharma mistranslated as religion, but in Hindi Dharma has unfortunately come to mean religion.

 

[K.Venugopal]

The approach of non-Hindu religions towards conversions seem encapsulated in the Biblical quote - No servant can serve two masters. Hinduism on the other hand seems more tuned to the Vedic quote - Let noble thoughts come to us from all sides.

 

[ratikala]

dear prabhu

The precise words used in the Gita are Dharma and Adharma, by which words are meant "that which causes harmony" and "that which causes disharmony" respectively. For religion the word used is "matha", with which word the Gita ends and means opinion. Not only is Dharma mistranslated as religion, but in Hindi Dharma has unfortunately come to mean religion.

what good will be accheived by mincing words when it comes to translations ,
some translations say ' dharma and adharma' others say 'rightiousness and un rightiousness' the translation I was taught says ' religion and irriligion'

the often given translation of dharma is 'that which holds together'therefore as religion principles hold together society , I see no in acuracy with this translation ????

this is a genuine question , why do people make a habit of objecting to the translation of another school or master ? when if we listen without prejudice to all serious translations we might simply gain a deeper understanding ?

is it not against the very principle of broad mindedness that tipifies the hindu faith at its best , to act in such a sectarianaly prejudiced manner ?????

 

[Vinayaka]

this is a genuine question , why do people make a habit of objecting to the translation of another school or master ?

This is an excellent question. Not sure if I know any definitive answers, but I can guess. For me personally, when faced with a multitude of translations (not that I'm a scholar and go there much, but just supposing I did) I'd just chalk it up as different understandings, or different translations based on how each translator saw it. Of course each translator is like a filter, the thoughts and words are filtered through the subconscious mind of than individual, so someone with a Buddhist subconscious mind may come out with a 'Buddhist sounding' translation, whereas an Abrahamic translator will do the same. If faced with, say three different translations, I'd read, reflect and ask, "Honestly, Vinayaka, which one of these makes the most sense to me?" But then I wouldn't go and diss the other ones at all, fully understanding that they would make more sense to others.

As far as why, my guess it is just ego ... my wife is prettier than yours, my Guru is better than yours, my mind works better than yours, I'm more capable than you are of figuring this out, etc... just ego, and of course ego, as we all know is just caused by insecurity.

For western converts to Hinduism, I think it may be a carryover from previous religions, especially when part of the religious practice was to diss all other religions.

I think all faiths have their place and role in the world, just not on my table. My table is too big already, without more stuff to cloud and confuse it.

 

[ratikala]

dear vinayaka ,

not being the slightest bit dismissive of your answer as it is good , and the answer I would expect from an honest and rational practitioner .

but I wondered why venugopal seemed to be so ridgid in his approach ?

prehaps venugopal would like to answer ?

after all in the next breath you say

Hinduism on the other hand seems more tuned to the Vedic quote - Let noble thoughts come to us from all sides.

and could the same noble truth not be expressed in diferent ways ???

 

[K.Venugopal]

Differentiating between words, particularly between words of different languages, can often lead to much quibbling. The idea is that Dharma is more about the goal whereas religion is about particular paths towards it. It is true however that usage has made both words often interchangeable. It should not matter so long as we get the idea.