Question for Hindus only, 'what in your eyes makes for a real Hindu?'

[Marcion]

The biggest challenge I imagine would be discrimination from Hindus. I thought that was why @Marcion started the thread but maybe I’m mistaken.

Well, as someone who wasn't raised in a Hindu culture but ended up practising a path designed by an Indian born guru I am just curious how cultural Hindus see and describe themselves (and of course also a bit how they see people like myself).

But Vinayaka's topic of 2011 has already been quite enlightening.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Well, as someone who wasn't raised in a Hindu culture but ended up practising a path designed by an Indian born guru I am just curious how cultural Hindu's see and describe themselves (and of course also a bit how they see people like myself).

I would hope you would be seen as a friend and a brother, not as a stranger and outsider.

 

[Marcion]

I would hope you would be seen as a friend and a brother, not as a stranger and outsider.

It feels to me like the huge flow of Indian traditions is so wide and deep that it can easily accomodate all the other streams of traditions of the wider world if these were only willing to adjust and correct themselves somewhat in the direction of practical spirituality. Sufism managed it, they can also do it.

 

[LuisDantas]

If someone considers themselves a "Hindu" or a follower of Sanata Dharma, then what I have to say on the matter is irrelevant. Indeed it is none of my business. A person chooses whatever label seems appropriate to them. No one can interfere. It is sheer arrogance to think otherwise.

In the sense of interfering with their own practice, I have to agree.

But it is not only possible but also unavoidable to have our own opinions, and the time may well come when we have a duty to express them.

Word has it that at some point there were questionable attempts at spreading Christianity in India under the guise of Hinduism, even.

 

[SomeRandom]

In the sense of interfering with their own practice, I have to agree.

But it is not only possible but also unavoidable to have our own opinions, and the time may well come when we have a duty to express them.

Word has it that at some point there were questionable attempts at spreading Christianity in India under the guise of Hinduism, even.

I'm afraid I've become rather dissillusioned with labels.
People squabble die and kill over them. They create infighting and suffering. To hell with them. People can call themselves whatever they wish. They can carry out whatever Trojan horse like mission they want. It is not my mission in life to protect Sanatha Dharma. It will persevere on its own.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Who do you as a Hindu see as your "fellow Hindu"? What are the minimum requirements from your own very personal perspective?

You are a Hindu if,

1. You are born into a Hindu family and have not explicitly disavowed the religion.

2. You are not a born Hindu, but you hold one or more beliefs that you consider Hindu and hence, consider yourself Hindu.

That is all there is to it. Contrary to what some people believe, there is no binding on the Hindu to accept the Veda or to worship any of the various Hindu Gods.

 

[Agent]

You must believe in reincarnation. That is the foundation of the Hindu faith. Your karma determines what you will be in your next life. This is what makes a Hindu believer.

 

[Marcion]

You must believe in reincarnation. That is the foundation of the Hindu faith. Your karma determines what you will be in your next life. This is what makes a Hindu believer.

So if as a Christian you were to believe in reincarnation (Jesus already teaches about the law of karma) you would (in your eyes) be a Christian Hindu?

 

[stvdv]

This is an excellent question. I’m really interested to hear how Hindus respond and if they don’t, why not?

I also like the question. I never thought of this question myself. To me if someone says "I am a Hindu (or something else) then I consider him to be that"

I believe Lord Krishna was an incarnation of the supreme Deity Vishnu. Do I get to join the ‘Hindu’ club?

You forgot to change your vote in your own thread "who was Krishna in your tradition". There you voted for "Manifestation of God"

 

[Aupmanyav]

This is an excellent question. I’m really interested to hear how Hindus respond and if they don’t, why not?

I believe Lord Krishna was an incarnation of the supreme Deity Vishnu. Do I get to join the ‘Hindu’ club?

Respond to what? Bahaiism?
However you are welcome to join, even if you are a spy. We don't have secrets.

.. may choose not to consult astrologers.

Yeah, some sects have the tradition of burial. Consulting astrologers is a personal thing. I may want to shoot them for helping to spread superstition. The person would be hard to suffer company, talking about Bahaullah all the time like you..

 

[ajay0]

Who do you as a Hindu see as your "fellow Hindu"? What are the minimum requirements from your own very personal perspective?

So I'm not so much interested in any external view that you may have found elsewhere but more in your own feelings and thoughts.

Is someone born from Christian parents who became a Brahmin through study and merit in ISKCON a Hindu?
Is someone who visits Hindu temples regularly or not so regular a Hindu?
Is someone who believes in karma and reincarnation a Hindu?
Is someone who has a small house temple and prays to Hindu gods a Hindu?
Is someone who just does astaunga yoga and eats lacto-vegetarian a Hindu?
Are followers of Satya Sai Baba all Hindus?
Are people who have a connection to Pandits only the real Hindus?
Are people who declare themselves as Hindus the real Hindus only?
Are Buddhists or Jains or Sikhs also Hindus?

Is it a certain combination of things that makes them Hindu in your eyes and if so then what is the minumum combination?
Are there things that definitely disqualify people for being seen as Hindus such as eating cow's meat or accepting Christ as their guru?

If you feel some type of people are not quite real or complete Hindus, then what do you feel is missing?
I'm asking about your own direct gut-feelings (not for an idealised answer).

As Nisargadatta Maharaj stated, " Self-awareness is yoga."

I consider him or her a true follower of Sanatana Dharma who lives in present moment awareness consciously, and does not allow his or her mind to dwell unconsciously in the past or future under the impact of desires in the form of cravings and aversions..

All rituals, emphasis on virtues, character and conduct has its focus the expansion of consciousness or meditative awareness.

Swami Satchidananda states in this regard, “When even one virtue becomes our nature, the mind becomes clean and tranquil. Then there is no need to practice meditation; we will automatically be meditating always. ”

 

[Marcion]

As Nisargadatta Maharaj stated, " Self-awareness is yoga."

I consider him or her a true follower of Sanatana Dharma who lives in present moment awareness consciously, and does not allow his or her mind to dwell unconsciously in the past or future under the impact of desires in the form of cravings and aversions..

All rituals, emphasis on virtues, character and conduct has its focus the expansion of consciousness or meditative awareness.

Swami Satchidananda states in this regard, “When even one virtue becomes our nature, the mind becomes clean and tranquil. Then there is no need to practice meditation; we will automatically be meditating always. ”

It seems a fine way to see Hinduism. But that would mean that anyone who masters this practice could be called a Hindu and I'm sure many advanced Sufi's, Buddhists, Jains, mystic Christians, Sikhs, Kabbalists etc. etc. could do just that. But then the identification of a Hindu would become quite meaningless.

So what it is really that makes Hindu's see others as fellow-Hindu's? Am I even seen as a Hindu just because I practise tantra-yoga?
Or is it such that people in "outside" religions are seen as somehow "imperfect" Hindus that need to become a little more civilized?

 

[ajay0]

It seems a fine way to see Hinduism. But that would mean that anyone who masters this practice could be called a Hindu and I'm sure many advanced Sufi's, Buddhists, Jains, mystic Christians, Sikhs, Kabbalists etc. etc. could do just that. But then the identification of a Hindu would become quite meaningless.

So what it is really that makes Hindu's see others as fellow-Hindu's? Am I even seen as a Hindu just because I practise tantra-yoga?
Or is it such that people in "outside" religions are seen as somehow "imperfect" Hindus that need to become a little more civilized?

The term 'Hindu' is a label, just like the term Muslim, Christian, Bahai, Jew and so on. If you get stuck in the label it can limit your spiritual growth. Most religious fundamentalism, conflict, intolerance and terrorism comes out of this tendency to find psychological security in a label and corresponding group.

The focus of any religion is just this expansion of consciousness. It is true that present moment awareness is taught in every religion, but how much these teachings are implemented in real life is in question. If they were implemented 99 % of the world's problems would evaporate overnight.

The only label I see is a good human being and a bad human being. A good human being is conscious and abides in present moment awareness while a bad human being tends to be unconscious and lives in psychological time, that is the past or future .

The Self which Rama, Krishna and Upanishads teaches about can be found only in present moment awareness, and not in psychological time.

If a Christian or Muslim lives consciously in present moment awareness they can be termed as good human beings while a Hindu who lives in psychological time cannot be termed as one.

I have illustrated this in more detail in this thread of mine.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I also like the question. I never thought of this question myself. To me if someone says "I am a Hindu (or something else) then I consider him to be that"

I feel the same way, but perhaps some feel judged by their fellow Hindu or not all Hindus are equal.

You forgot to change your vote in your own thread "who was Krishna in your tradition". There you voted for "Manifestation of God"

Incarnation of Vishnu and Manifestation of God mean the same thing to me. They will have very different meanings for different people of course.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Respond to what? Bahaiism?
However you are welcome to join, even if you are a spy. We don't have secrets. Yeah, some sects have the tradition of burial. Consulting astrologers is a personal thing. I may want to shoot them for helping to spread superstition. The person would be hard to suffer company, talking about Bahaullah all the time like you..

Thanks for your comments about burial and astrology.

Stop crticising Baha'u'llah and the Baha'i Faith and I'll stop talking about it. Simple as that.

 

[Marcion]

Incarnation of Vishnu and Manifestation of God mean the same thing to me. They will have very different meanings for different people of course.

God cannot "incarnate" Himself. How would someone Who is already One and Whole be able to "incarnate" within a part of Himself? So what then is the huge part of Himself "outside the so-called incarnation"? Would that then not also be Him?

So rationally this idea of God incarnating into a human body makes no sense at all.
What exactly is meant by a "manifestation" of God needs to be clarified. Everything is a manifestation of God since all are His creation. So you would have to mean some kind of "special manifestation or expression". This needs further clarification or philosophical explanation or it will become just a mythical thing.

If you personify god into Vishnu then you are no longer talking about the same god as Allah or Brahma.
Then you could perhaps speak of an incarnation of Vishnu, but then what is the meaning of that for you as a monotheist if this Vishnu is not the same as God the Absolute?

The term 'Hindu' is a label, just like the term Muslim, Christian, Bahai, Jew and so on. If you get stuck in the label it can limit your spiritual growth. Most religious fundamentalism, conflict, intolerance and terrorism comes out of this tendency to find psychological security in a label and corresponding group.

I agree totally with you and my preceptor also stated that Dharma does not mean a religious or Hindu dharma. However on this forum and elsewhere there are people who identify themselves as Hindu. So I am interested to find out why and how they see themselves as being Hindu rather than just people trying to follow Bhagavad Dharma.
It starts to feel like they define themselves as Hindu by what they are not and they perceive as "outsiders".

 

[Dawnofhope]

God cannot "incarnate" Himself. How would someone Who is already One and Whole be able to "incarnate" within a part of Himself? So what then is the huge part of Himself "outside the so-called incarnation"? Would that then not also be Him?

So rationally this idea of God incarnating into a human body makes no sense at all.

This is how many Hindus and Christians view incarnation as a literal physical phenomenon. I see it as being spirital.

What exactly is meant by a "manifestation" of God needs to be clarified. Everything is a manifestation of God since all are His creation. So you would have to mean some kind of "special manifestation or expression". This needs further clarification or philosophical explanation or it will become just a mythical thing.

It does need further clarification but it would be off the topic.

If you personify god into Vishnu then you are no longer talking about the same god as Allah or Brahma.
Then you could perhaps speak of an incarnation of Vishnu, but then what is the meaning of that for you as a monotheist if this Vishnu is not the same as God the Absolute?

They are good questions as we consider the metaphysical nature of reality. Unless you are trying to define the nature of Vishnu to assess whether it come under the umbrella of being Hindu then best not to elaborate.

 

[Marcion]

This is how many Hindus and Christians view incarnation as a literal physical phenomenon. I see it as being spirital.

So you would rather see it as God "incarnating spiritually" or having a very special presence in the personal body of these special personalities?

 

[Dawnofhope]

So you would rather see it as God "incarnating spiritually" or having a very special presence in the personal body of these special personalities?

That is correct. The Divine attributes of love, compassion, justice, wisdom, knowledge, power etc would manifest in these Great Beings to a degree that is not possible in ordinary human beings. They have miraculous power that can transcend the physical realm. They manifest the dharma or universal truth to those around them. They are very attractive individuals and exert enormous influence of the hearts and minds of many who they come in contact with. Their union and communion with God is such of such intimacy that if they were to declare themselves God, they would speak the truth. For me Krishna was such a being.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Thanks for your comments about burial and astrology. Stop crticising Baha'u'llah and the Baha'i Faith and I'll stop talking about it. Simple as that.

I come only when Hinduism, Krishna is mentioned, otherwise you would never encounter me.