Hinduism in America on the rise

Houston Examiner ^ | July 28, 2009 | D.M. Murdock

[Willie Green]

Festivities in a new temple dedicated to the Indian monkey god Hanuman  in Frisco, Texas, earlier this month remind us that a minority of religions exists within the shores of the United States that is relatively silent. The faith that is the subject here, of course, is Hinduism, which in that North Texas town, at least, is enjoying an "expanding population," according to the Dallas Morning News. Despite the fact that Indians have been quietly enriching the American melting pot for decades to centuries, few non-Indians know much about the colorful religion of Hinduism.

In actuality, the term "Hinduism" represents not a monolithic faith but a conglomeration of more or less varied religions, sects and cults largely originating on the Indian subcontinent and often incorporating beliefs, doctrines and traditions dating back several thousand years. What we perceive of as "Hinduism," then, encompasses and embraces a wide variety of beliefs, to the extent that even recent icons such as Elvis Presley, Princess Diana and Mother Teresa have reputedly made it into the extensive Hindu pantheon of a traditional "333 million" deities, demigods and saints, etc.

According to his hairdresser-cum-spiritual advisor Larry Geller, the "King of Rock and Roll" Presley, who was raised a Christian, was fond of reading books about Eastern spiritual traditions. The affection for Indian philosophy by members of the music group the Beatles is legendary, especially in the case of George Harrison. Many Indian gurus and yogis have found welcome on this side of the Atlantic and Pacific, and the ancient physical and spiritual exercise of yoga in a myriad of forms is practiced by up to 20 million Americans.

Yet, Hinduism remains a mystery to most Americans, both at times intriguing and bizarre with its sundry gods and goddesses. Part of the reason for this oversight is because Hinduism in its fullness seems so alien to cultures largely dominated by either the Abrahamic faiths with their aloof monotheistic God or the "New Atheism," which has a tendency to ridicule and dismiss such lively piety.

Hinduism plays nice in the U.S.

Another reason Americans as whole are largely oblivious to Hinduism is because its practitioners in general do not rabblerouse, set up terrorist camps, call for the destruction of the U.S. Constitution, bilk the American public for millions, establish bogus "charities," engage in unethical and seedy "televangelism," lobby Congress for special favors and consideration, challenge constantly the principle of separation of church and state, abuse the First Amendment and all of the fun stuff (sarcasm) we are used to seeing from fervent religionists in our country and elsewhere.

This lack of aggression by Hindus in America does not reflect that they do not take their faith very seriously, as they certainly do. Like Christians who proclaim that Jesus Christ is real because they have had visions of him, devout Hindus often feel as if their deities have made their very real presence known, as in the case of Cheeni Rao, author of In Hanuman's Hands, who while going down the destructive path of drug abuse was "saved" by the monkey-headed god. Rao's experience was every bit as life changing as that of Christians in a similar position—and this instance illustrates that the form of a profound spiritual presence purportedly experienced is largely if not entirely dependent upon one's cultural conditioning, not upon any "ultimate reality" or "absolute truth."

"Hinduism" as a monolith has its flaws—and non-Hindus both religious and secular will no doubt point them out—including taking itself too seriously to the point where, in its native land, a certain amount of strife and atrocity can be traced to Indian beliefs, such as the rare but ongoing practice of widow-burning or sati in various districts, as well as other sexism, prejudices—such as the caste system—and violence committed by its fanatical minority. Yet, while some "enlightened gurus" have been opportunists preying on a gullible American public with enticing stories of metaphysical and supernatural wonders, so far traditional Hinduism's practitioners generally have not brought unsavory and violent "traditions" along with them to their new homelands and demanded they be allowed to break the law of the land in practicing them, unlike members of other faiths.

We can only hope that other religionists in the United States and elsewhere will follow suit and behave in a similar, more spiritually mature manner as the American Hindu population, rather than bullying and elbowing their way in, exploiting the system and creating enmity. Rarely if ever do we hear complaints or derogatory news items about Hindus in America, while members of other groups such as Christianity, Judaism and Islam often make it into the news for unethical and illegal behavior. Does this frequent broadcasting of these three faiths result because they are under a bigger microscope, or could there be a problem with the Abrahamic monotheism itself, whereby it insists on its own way, to compel and force itself upon people against their will, with dire threats of eternal punishment for rejecting it?

Concerning the fanatical monotheism depicted in the Old Testament, from which the Abrahamic faiths arose, in Pagan Christs (17-18) John M. Robertson remarked:

Monotheism of this type is in any case morally lower than polytheism since those who held it lacked sympathy for their neighbors. Most of the Jewish kings were polytheists. What I am concerned to challenge is the assumption—due to the influence of Christianity—that Jewish monotheism is essentially higher than polytheism, and constitutes a great advance in religion.... If the mere affirmation of a Supreme Creator God is taken to be a mark of superiority, certain primitive tribes who hold this doctrine and yet practice human sacrifice must be considered to have a 'higher' religion than the late Greeks and Romans."

Monotheism in America will simply need to become accustomed to the fact that this country is inhabited by polytheists such as the Hindus as well as atheists, humanists and secularists, and to stop being so aggressive and insistent upon its own way. That's America under the U.S. Constitution, a fact that freedom lovers everywhere will appreciate.

[Steelfish]

Of course no disagreement that we have a constitution that allows for freedom of religion and worship so long as one and there is no religious oath of office. But this does nor mean that our naton’s traditions, culture and heritage are founded on Judeo-Christian principles. At the time of the ratification of our constitution six of the 13 States had a state Christian religion.

The National Cathederal was chartered by an Act of Congress and signed into law by President Benjamin Harrison on the Feast of the Epiphany in 1893 “for the promotion of religion and education and charity.” Settled!

[Steelfish]

Sorry- I mis-wrote:

Of course no disagreement that we have a constitution that allows for freedom of religion and worship so long as one does not deny the Judeo-Christian heritage of our nation, and of course there is no religious oath of office. But this does not mean that one can ignore our nation’s traditions, culture and heritage as founded on Judeo-Christian principles. At the time of the ratification of our constitution six of the 13 States had a state Christian religion.

The first Congress did hire institutional chaplains. The National Cathederal was chartered by an Act of Congress and signed into law by President Benjamin Harrison on the Feast of the Epiphany in 1893 “for the promotion of religion and education and charity.” Settled!

[allmendream]

One has freedom of religion and worship EVEN IF they (incorrectly)deny the Judeo-Christian heritage of our nation.

My point was that the founders DID envision a land of religious plurality, with Muslims “Hindoos” and “infidels” of whatever denomination covered under the protection of religious freedom which is the natural right of all mankind.

[Steelfish]

Yes- this is a correct analysis.

[Cronos]

Hinduism in all its forms is myth that has survived the long bygone era of paganism only because of the vast swath of illiterate Indian masses. Its belief, practice, rituals and customs can only charitably be described as barbaric and unfit for accommodation in western societies whose civilization

incorrect -- hinduism has survived beyond Roman and Greek paganism because it has a deep philosophy and culture -- and much of that is GOOD. And I'm not talking about hippie-like things, but they also share Christian beliefs about non-violence, tolerance etc.

Otherwise, why would Hinduism have survived islam and survived centuries of British rule?

Don't forget also that Christianity came to India with the Apostle Thomas and for centuries Christians lived with the locals well and peacably.

Only with the recent induction of aggressive protestant missionaries who believe in aggressive preaching (come on, they'll even tell Catholic "you worship the devil") -- no one likes that. and like we paint all hindus the same, they club Catholics with the aggressive evangelicals

[Cronos]

Only after the Enlightenment movement and the Protestant reforms tamed the Catholic cult did the West really begin to progress. Until then, Catholics were jabbing spears, barbs, stretching, boiling and burning others at the stake, like uncivilised barbarians.

Really? where did you get that from? The Renaissance started up in Catholic Europe due to the fall of Constantinople and a rediscovery or rebirth (re- naissance) of Roman and Greek culture. The Church spent a lot of time in the middle ages civilising the Germanics, Slavs, Magyars etc. and in keeping civilisation alive in Europe.

[Cronos]

It’s not coicidental that Sikhs support this Hindu fundamentalist group, to this day.

You're kidding, right? Sikhs don't club themselves with the RSS in any way -- maybe the fundamentalist Akal Takht, but not others. And yes, the Congress played politics with the Sikhs, just like the BJP plays politics in Orissa etc. The politicians like chaos, because they can then play it up to get elected.

[Cronos]

steelfish is right in asking that if you can come to the US to preach about Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam etc. then Christians should be allowed to preach in other countries. Reciprocity.

steelfish is WRONG in assuming that India does not legally allow you to preach -- it does.

[Cronos]

Hindus do not proselytize, and simply want to abide in their own villages without their children or their faith subject to proselytization

They don't proselytize because they believe their religion to be of the earth itself, so if you are indian you are part of the fabric, if you aren't, then tough luck. It's true of any non-reveled faith.

In contrast, Sikhism, Buddhism and Jainism, all offshoots of Hinduism do proselytize. Also, Hinduism does preach outside -- haven't you met any Hare Krishna's?

[Cronos]

And though it is against Hinduism, some Hindus feel so threatened by Catholic proselytizing that they feel their violence is a response to what they perceive as a relentless and generationally unending Catholic violence towards their minds, faith and culture

Also, this is not due to Catholic missionaries who generally imbibe local cultures -- what's wrong with doing an aarti to worship Jesus? The fundamentalist evangelicals are the ones who consider hindu culture verboten.

[Steelfish]

“Hinduism in all its forms is myth that has survived the long bygone era of paganism only because of the vast swath of illiterate Indian masses. Its belief, practice, rituals and customs can only charitably be described as barbaric and unfit for accommodation in western societies whose civilization”

The survival alone of a certain dogma does not disprove what is a myth, a legend, or a belief. But when a belief inherently incorporates rituals, practices and customs in ingraining into the body politic and its customary laws a doctrine of casteism; dowry; and misogyny that includes a preferential of female abortions, it is an accommodation that we cannot and must not make with western civilization.

[Cronos]

As well, Hindu beliefs existed thousands of years before the coming of Jesus Christ, and therefore hardly represent any reaction whatever towards Christianity

Not quite. Modern day Hinduism bears little to no resemblance to Vedic Hinduism with it's worshipping of Aryanic gods like Mithra, Varuna and especially Indra (the god of thunder and war, analogous to Thor or, in the form of Dyaus Pitr, to Zeus).

Hinduism reacted to the philosophy of Jainism and Buddhism by incorporating ahimsa and vegetarianism (remember that the Rig Veda does talk about eating meat too).

It then absorbed many of the Greek religious thoughts (which, since ancient Greek religion was another sister religion of the pan-Aryan religion)

Then, it was influenced by Christianity in the early centuries of the common era.

how? A very clear one is the gradual "decay" of the status of the Asuras. In the Rig Vedas, the Asuras are just another family of supernatural beings, like the Daevas. Slowly, in the Christian era under the influence of Christian and Zoroastrian ideas of demons, the Asuras are now purely considered demonic figures.


Remember that the ancient Indo-European/Aryan religion had TWO families of gods -- most clearly depicted in the Germanic religion (the most primitive) which retained these as the Aesir and Vanir families of gods.

In India, as we saw, the Devas got the upper hand and the Asuras were relegated to demons

in the sister land of Iran, the opposite happened -- the Ahuras (in Avestani and Persian, the "s" of Sanskrit becomes "h", hence to the Persians, the people of the Sindhu river were Hindus) got supremacy and the daevas become minor spirits. Then Zoroaster came along and acknowledged ONE spirit AHURA Mazda as the one God.

We mustn't forget of course that ZOroastrianism under the Persians influenced the Hebrew religion in 400 BC when the Israelites were freed by the Persians.

The Zoroastrians gave the concept of angels and a messiah to the Hebrews.

And Christianity, in it's turn came back to India to give the Hindu culture the concept of a trinity (Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva).

[Cronos]

Latin America is not uniformly Catholic — parts like Guyana, Belize, Suriname were ruled by Dutch and English, so are Protestant.

[Cronos]

Archbishop S Arulappa said "I am Indian by nationality, a Hindu by culture and a Christian by religion"

Remember -- most Americans don't know anything about hinduism and think it's the same as an animist belief. But it's not -- no animist belief can survive in a modern age. Hinduism survives and thrives because it has a strong philosophical base and because it is tolerant.

As a Catholic I think the Da Vinci code is harmful because it portray fiction as fact and people who wouldn't know better could easily be led to believe this. Ditto for the innumerable books about INdia and Hinduism that seek to portray hinduism as eating monkey brains (many Americans would have watched that piece of FANTASY and believed it to be true because they didn't know any better)

[Cronos]

americans are doers. hinduism is navel-gazing

That's not really true. Hinduism is a lot more about doing too -- you're talking about one religion within the Hindu umbrella. They have other philosophies in their (and no, it's not like Christian groups, but something more expansive, like all Abrahamic religions).

old hindus are scary looking. they all have really worn out faces and wicked dark circles under their eyes

You mean old Indians? because the Christians, Muslims and Jews in India look exactly like the various ethnicities in India.

Those words are embarassing as they portray Americans as ignorant.

Do read a bit more about India and the rest of the world outside our borders.

[Cronos]

Sigh, ignore the ignorant, their ignorance is so mind-boggling it’s funny, no, wait, it’s pitiful

[Cronos]

Again -- you are showing your own blanket brush -- Jim was talking about various evangelical groups that meet in little "house-churches" -- if you've lived in any part of India, you'll see a nice building housing the local Catholic Church -- and you'll see many Hindus and even Muslims going there to pray every now and then.

It's the evangelicals who get the funding from the US to proselytise aggressively by condemning the other's God or Gods as demons. They don't only do this in India but also in Brazil and Russia and Moldova.

[Cronos]

sensible post

Well, everyone was deviating from the topic.

I do blame to a large extent the writer of the post who says "Hindus are mature but Jews, Christians aren't -- as hindus don't make unreasonable demands".

They're wrong, not about hindus not making unreasonable demands, but that Christians and Jews DO -- Hindus protested when some idiots used portraits of Hindu gods and goddesses on flip-flops or to sell burgers. And that's not being unreasonable.

Hindus are tolerant and mix with Christians in the US. Christians in India also mix with Hindus.

Islam is something different, remember -- that's the only bit the author got correct.

[Cronos]

At least I has the courtesy of presenting you proof of several thousands of Sikhs massacred at the Golden Shrine over something as flimsy as the claimed birthplace of one of the lengendary gods

well, that never happened -- you quoted from Tim Phares, who's a known Paki sympathiser

Some Hindus -- especially the fundamentalists like to call Sikhism a branch of Hinduism, but Sikhs will deny that (after all Sikhism is monotheistic and have their own religious book).

Without going into much details, the Golden Temple incident wasn't a massacre and it has nothing to do with any gods birthplace. The Sikhs were "persuaded" by Pakistan to fight for their own country and break up India (the Pakis never got over the loss of Bangladesh) -- most ignored them, but some started an armed rebellion

these armed sikhs holed up in the golden temple (a habit no doubt gained from the follows of Al) -- the Indian army flushed them out. I'm NOT going to debate the merits or demerits of doing that -- I don't have an opinion on it and don't know enough to make one. Whether they were right or wrong, there was a battle within the holiest of holies of the sikhs.

This angered MOST of the community (heck, it would anger me) -- so two guards killed Indira gandhi.

The gandhis had (and have) their own personal cult who went beserk and killed Sikhs.

Politicians -- damned politicians....

[the invisib1e hand]

Those words are embarassing as they portray Americans as ignorant.

I'd be embarrassed if I said your comments made everyone in your country look ignorant.

In fact, there's an irony here...