An article in Indolink today caught my eye because it examines something very familiar to most SM readers, Christian Evangelicals attempting to convert Hindus, except in a very different context than usual. The setting of these conversions isn’t rural India but American college campuses:
…there is increasing evidence that Christian evangelical groups are aggressively targeting Hindu students in American college campuses for conversion.
In fact, a sampling of Asian American-identified evangelical fellowship websites reveals mission statements targeting Asian and Asian American students for outreach and membership, while simultaneously affirming a non-race-specific evangelical identity.
There is evidence that large numbers of Asian American college students are turning to a personal relationship with Jesus Christ through the encouragement and support of national and local prayer and Bible study organizations. Alongside the large national organizations, there are numerous local bible studies and fellowships that are often sponsored by local churches and are ethnic specific…One reason for the present renewed aggressive effort is that, unlike other Asian Americans, Hindu-Americans have staunchly resisted efforts at conversion. Also, unlike other Asian Americans who are becoming increasingly associated with evangelical Christianity on college campuses, Hindu-Americans have their own campus groups such as Hindu Students Federation.
Nevertheless, evangelical “parachurch” organizations like Campus Crusade for Christ (CCC), The Navigators, and IVCF are soliciting large numbers of students to their weekly bible studies, prayer meetings, and social events. There is no doubt that Asian Americans – especially Korean and Chinese – are becoming increasingly associated with evangelical Christianity on the college campus. The hope is that Indian-Americans will follow suit. [Link]
I don’t particularly care if someone that follows Hinduism decides to convert to Christianity. The idea that someone is born into a religion has always seemed rather silly to me, as does a notion I have previously read on our comment boards which declares that “white people can be real Hindus.” Religion should be a personal choice. In the context of America you definitely can’t accuse Evangelicals of taking advantage of poor or illiterate people. College students aren’t typically poor (although most are now illiterate). The real reason I found this article interesting is that it contained strategy advice on how-to, and how-not-to convert a Hindu.
<
p>
“Do not criticize or condemn Hinduism. …. Criticizing Hinduism can make us feel we have won an argument; it will not win Hindus to Jesus Christ…Never allow a suggestion that separation from family and/or culture is necessary in becoming a disciple of Christ. …Avoid all that even hints at triumphalism and pride. …Do not speak quickly on hell, or on the fact that Jesus is the only way for salvation. …Never hurry. Any pushing for a decision or conversion will do great harm. …. Even after a profession of Christ is made, do not force quick changes regarding pictures of gods, charms, etc. …Do not force Christian ideas into passages of Hindu scripture. … Empathize with Hindus. …. Learn to think as the Hindu thinks, and feel as he feels…. Those who move seriously into Christian work among Hindus need to become more knowledgeable in Hinduism than Hindus themselves are…A new believer should be warned against making an abrupt announcement to his or her family, since that inflicts great pain and inevitably produces deep misunderstanding……” [Link]
That’s some good stuff. It’s like finding a general’s battle plans. 🙂
Christian evangelist Rajendra Pillai of Clarksburg, Md. adds a few more specific pointers:
Pillai observes, “We can effectively reach Asian-Indians by knowing a little about their culture, beliefs and practices. First and foremost, we need to learn as much as possible about Hinduism.”
And he offers the following pointers:
“The Indian culture is highly collectivist. This means that most Indians will consider their acceptance of the Gospel in light of how it will impact their families and friends. There is also a strong possibility of being rejected by family members if a person changes his or her religion. Chances are you will not get an immediate response. Be prepared to walk with and support your Indian friend if he or she wrestles spiritually.
“As Indians come from a collectivist society and yearn for community, many will be open to coming to church if it means being a part of a community where people are genuinely concerned about each other. You might start by inviting them to less-threatening events outside of a Sunday church service.
“Most Asian-Indians yearn for community. Coming from a collectivist society, they have a tough time adjusting to the American individualistic culture. This is where Christians can step in, and the church can become the community they are seeking…” [Link]
<
p>
<
p>
Nobody better try and turn the comment section into anti-Christian rants. That isn’t what this post is about. I find strategic plans fascinating whether they be military, political, or business related. I found this article educational because it shows a religious strategy laid bare. It is also something that many of us who walk across college campuses every day see in action.
Also, we all know that Sahej is perfectly correct. People who speak Tamil are far smarter than the rest 😉
Couldnt agree more. Thats why unfortunately some Pakistani born brothers cant take pride in the Harappa-Mohenjodero civilization and the worlds first University of Taxila. Its sad.
But marketing helps and works. Americans made the “choice” of drinking sugar water with every meal after intense marketing for 3 decades, starting from 1950. (I am talking about Coke).
say what you will but cola is a pretty nice product when you first drink it. our taste buds aren’t wrong. but now that we know it leads to obesity people’ll drink it less. i find this reluctence to trust el pueblo odd. as a group of humanity, we love a few things. soccer/football, and cola are among them. along with poetry, pop music and hip hop. and dancing. and intercourse. those things should be celebrated as the true love of the people
The turks in turkey were not same group as central asian turks. Babar called himself a called mugul (cause babar didnt like uzbeks…even though he had ancestors who called themselves uzbek) oojbak is still a gali north india, it means wierd and lack of intelligence. The eary moguls were turkish speaking uzbegs. Babar was ‘chugtuy turk’ racialy he was a different mix than the turks in turkey.
i never said smarter than the rest, i just said its got to make you pretty smart to be reading a language thats been in play for 2,000 years. thats a lot of collected wisdom
well he did claim to be possesed by satan for a few verses, were those cooked
Incidentaly early muslims prayed towards jerusalem not mecca.
Actually our test buds are wrong. Well, again marketing told us that they are wrong and we “bought” it. PEPSI’s Aquafina brand is showing highest growth amongst PEPSI’s protfolio of beverages and in a few years will provide more revenue than the Soda products at PEPSI.
Marketing works !!!
marketing is not the reason people like Coca Cola. coca cola is fizzy and has sugar, people like sugar
marketing works for water bottles because people like water. the delivery now is different, in that we pay for it. you’re welcome to run a tap and put water in a bottle all you want, but people don’t because we’re lazy. another thing about people, they’re lazy
Absolutely Particularly in low income areas, you can see the dynamics at play idealy no soda/drinks or even alcohol would be consumed there b/c the assumption is that its a luxury but not nesecity but it doesnt work that way. I will bet that as a %age of population immune to marketing more people in higher income bracket would be immune to that.
hinduism is not a religion, it is a sadflasfd! if you disagree with you, that hinduism isn’t a sadflasfd, well, you’re dumb.
Razb in Post 110:
I did a Google search for sadflasfd and drew a blank. Could you explain to this dumb bloke what “sadflasfd” means?
and dharma!= religion. If you believe it you are dumb
Re #111
Probably some pathetic attempt at humor 🙁
Razib – You have a point. As long as there’s an “it” that one is points to, it does not make a difference whether one labels it religion or xyz. Scholars never fail to remind us that there is no adequate definition of religion – and then promptly proceed to define it themselves (equally inadequately). However, Xtianty, islam and judaism at least recognize themselves in this description. Hindus do not.
Secondly, and more importantly, hindus do not have a belief system that revolves around truth claims. Christianity for example claims that there is a God and his son is Jesus. At a minimum being a Christian means acceptance of Jesus, with certain constraints on what Jesus can be interpreted to mean. Jesus cannot be interpreted to be the son of the devil for example. Hindus do not have any such constraints on interpretation of their stories. Of course they must hold up to some sort of logic or tradition but there is no concept of blasphemy or heresy.
Remember, xtianity and islam were super-imposed upon existing pagan traditions. Hence the similarity between religious and pagan practices. But the similarity is merely superficial. Religion constructed a belief system upon traditions. Hindus do not have a required belief system – not even belief in karma or reincarnation.
Hindus do not have a required belief system – not even belief in karma or reincarnation.
Good to know.. So you can get anyone who doesn’t believe in the selfish God (who claims he alone controls heaven) can be captured as Hindus. This is another good marketing strategy.. 🙂
I think if you have a good military power and good marketing skills, you can start your own cult / religion..
Bush can try his hand now.. I’d support him. 🙂
Or perhaps Razib indeed meant the sort of nuanced thing Divya implies…in which case I apologize. Perhaps just an unfortunate choice of a ‘nothing’ word — the ‘sad’ at the beginning and ‘fd’ at the end made me suspicious!
hinduism is not a religion, it is a sadflasfd!
We always come back to the question of wtf is Hinduism.
I would define Hinduism as ethnos – a cluster of traditions, practices and identification with cultural motifs informed to a great extent (but not exclusively) by our locality. Belief is secondary, which is not to say that there are not deities or darsanas, temples or orthodox lineages going back thousands of years, but just that such beliefs are not absolutely crucial to the definition. Even within so-called “spiritual” traditions, it is behavior – kindness, charity, the elimination of the subjecive ego, even yogic practice, which takes priority over beliefs in gods or godesses. Hinduism as ethnos is also why several people here have no problems going to church and mosques or being atheists.
Hinduism as a universal faith tradition is still struggling to find expression. Though some organizations, like the Arya Samaj, will convert you into a Hindu, such conversions are still the exception rather than the rule. (This may change in the future.) I believe in South East Asia, where Vaishnava and Shaiva traditions certainly exist, such a culture came into being by the will of the governing elite, rather than by individual conversion, for the most part. I may be wrong.
Ethnos is also community. Brownitude may be ethnos secularized, informed and altered by the ever-transforming tradition.
My two cents…
my point is that we should be instrumentalist in how view these definitions. look at the muslim idiots (as opposed to some muslim non-idiots too) on this comment thread who are arguing that allah’s name is allah, not god, and he wants you to call him allah, because that’s his name, blah, blah, blah
three issues
a) there are definite issues with how to define hinduism in india, and definite issues with how to define hinduism in the USA. many japanese who arrived to the shores of these united states in the early 20th century had to reorient their world view so that they could understand the point of confessional and congregational religions of choice. they did, and they created the buddhist churches of america. similarly, reform judaism started in germany, and some joke it is basically ‘christianity with curly hair.’ it is in the USA that reform judaism has flourished. in contrast, in the vast majority of the world the diaspora is either secular or orthodox, no ‘middle-way’ really arose. my point is that these arguments that ‘hinduism is not a religion’ are defensible on academic grounds, and might have some relevance in india, the organic matrix in which hinduism developed. but in the USA hinduism is operationally going to live as a confessional religion. or, it will die as a non-religion. pick your poison.
b) by defining the undefinable as undefinable aren’t you defining it?
c) if hinudism has no central belief system, if one can not explicitly capture it in words, then i fail to see the point of really talking about it as opposed to practicing it. i also am skeptical that many people who define themselves as hindu would agree with some of the generalizations made on these boards.
finally, some of the attributes you use to define the abrahamisms are not as strong as you might assume. judaism, as it is generally interpreted today, is not a confessional belief-centered faith. much of islam, despite the shahada, does not revolve around formulaic confession. some might argue that christianity’s preoccupation with theology is a greek pagan tendency, a syntheses of philosophical systemetization along with the milieu of formula based mystery cult/clubs which pervaded the roman empire circa 300.
A good deal of hindus in US are tied to india. The migration pattern is not some one came here and stayed here. A lot of them go back more frequently for business or R&R.
YahWeh wants to be called YahWeh. its my way or the highway now call me YahWeh.
As a hindu, I have practiced Animism(worhiped the sun), Ancester Worship(my grandfather), Atheism(while waiting in line at Tripathi), Monotheism(hindu philosophy) and Polytheism(a God for each holiday). But now mostly I’m an Agostic and feel lost at these multi-deity temples they build in USA. I don’t think I’ll get reincarnated, only recycled. I’ve given up caste, astrology, vastu, and other sideshows of hinduism. I eat beef sometimes and feel guilty about it but only because of the fat content. But I identify myself as a hindu. And I rejected all other forms of religion for myself not because they are wrong and their gods are false, but they don’t have anything to offer me. I don’t buy that I’ll go to hell if I don’t accept Jesus or Allah. And I have no need for their company or assistance.
If you have good values, community and support system where you live, you wouldn’t convert. Those are the lackings evangelists look for in a person as supported by the article covered in the blog. But these are things outside of the religion itself.
Why else would someone convert?
That hits the nail on the head. If you ask me, the thing that’s crazy is not that people are converting to Christianity, but that people who are part of an open philosophy like Hinduism feel the neccessity to essentially take a step backwards into a dogmatic religion. If you’re going to abandon culture and tradition, at least do it for a good reason like atheism.
A good deal of hindus in US are tied to india. The migration pattern is not some one came here and stayed here. A lot of them go back more frequently for business or R&R.
that’s irrelevant to my main point. american hindus are american, not indian, and that is the key issue. i see no reason that the confessionalization and abstraction of hinduism into a more sectarian protestant form won’t happen. it happened to roman catholicism, it happened to judaism, and it happened to buddhism (for that matter, it happened to some of the more traditional protestant faiths like lutheranism that came from a religious monopoloy society). all it takes time is for people who were raised in a predominantly hindu society where their way of life was implicit and shared with many to being raised in a pluralistic society where individual beliefs need to be made explicit because if the din of diversity and discord.
i really doubt that hindu americans will ever be as binational as american jews (i hope not!), and even american judaism has shifted into a protestant self-image (aside from the 5% or less who are ultra-orthodox).
good reason
sociology of religion (see stark’s work) tells us that most people join religious traditions sharply at variance with their own for social reasons, not intellectual
ones. they will give intellectual rationalizations, but those aren’t the real reasons. to give you an example i knew a girl of chinese origin who was raised in a moderate buddhist family. she told me she left buddhism because it was superstitious. since she was a christian i asked her if she really felt that the nicene confession made sense to her. she really didn’t have a good idea of what i was talking about, and so i asked, “if you come into a religion with a lot of esoteric philosophy and agree to that without understanding that philosophy, isn’t that superstition?” i think i made my point to her, and knowing this person, she obviously needed a support group, and there were reasons she felt like a “black sheep” in her family. christianity made sense for her because of social reasons, not that buddhism was superstitious (though she’ll tell other people that ’till the day she dies).
^^ well no at people are lazy. people without running tap water who go to wells are not lazy
not all — referring to comment #108
GGK:
Yes, you are absolutely right in making that distinction. That is why I said “Turco-Mongolian”. Turks in present day Turkey are not the same Turks as back then. Babur was not Turk in the present sense but from the region of Samarkand, as you quite rightly point out. So it is inaccurate to say that Babur was the founder of the “Moghul Empire” (I don’t think he referred to himself as “Moghul”, did he? In his memoirs he says something different).
For those of you who are interested in this topic, Babur’s Memoirs, translated by Wheeler Thackston, is very informative.
But everyone and everybody in this globalized world have oriented themselves to the JC outlook. Hindus talk exactly the same way as Christians. They talk of right and wrong as if they were clear cut categories. They talk of God as if heÂ’s up in the sky. They treat non-violence as a normative value. They seek meaning in texts and let that serve as proof rather than what they can see with their own eyes. When talking about abortion, they take for granted that life begins at some point or the other, which does not even bother to take into consideration the alternate hindu notion that life is cyclic. This automatically becomes a moral issue rather than a practical one. I could go on and on but basically I agree with your point that hindus treat Hinduism exactly like a religion.
But in the last 20 years hindus have woken up to this fact. Besides, there is a genuine interest in understanding their culture. So things will improve. Yoga is certainly helping.
And most sadly of all, it happened to the gay community. TheyÂ’ve adopted the same exact pattern of values and erased a lot of their distinctiveness. Feminists too aspire to fit into the pre-existing framework. But I think this too will change.
Driver-you said previously,
Some say the Bhakti movement/philosophy in Tamil Nadu was influenced by Christianity. Christianity today doesn’t resemble what it was in the beginning. The bible has similar stories/parables as Indian puranas.
Any lines and definitions have already been smudged. To insist on drawing new lines between religions and cultures is arrogance. Evangelists are mostly seeking validation for their religion.
We disagree here. As you may notice that India did give the option to dual citizenship. some people like me did not bother becoming US citizen till that option was open. Although i am a minority who went this route. In US a reasonably successful group that has laid the foundation so to speak(contrast it to trinidad where it did not happen that way but totaly opposit yet a surprisingly large number did remain hindus w/o morphing their identity into a church like structure) Culturaly Hindus are tied to India(well i know 1 who is tied to bali but thats another story). & like other groups from the subcontinet they dont have a problem w/ it. Other groups from subcontinent may have a more deeper identity issues(as it can be seen in india itself where some really want to be arabs/persians). For the most part hindus dont have that.
30 years ago if there was a large migration that uccored things would have been different. But pattern is different. The numbers are small almost fixed amount per year. I dont like to act like a prophet but to me the outcome looks more likely to be a more assimilated hindu(duh!) but not aping of church structure.
[Deleted at the request of the commenter]
Rano did you not read the memo. It is making accusations like that it told to avoid. Now do your homework and make it different.
Regarding Jindal I dont live in that part of the woods so dont read about day-day politics of the region, but Jindal appears to be an ass kisser. He ‘milked’ his religion for all it was worth, had he not done so I would look at him differntly.
They talk of God as if heÂ’s up in the sky.
you should read some cognitive science. 99% of human talks of god as if he’s up in the sky because that’s what they “reall believe”. abstract idea space is malleable, but our cognitive architecture has bounds and our actions are primarily dictated by abstract idea space, and that is what you are “missing” in your analyses. differences on paper matter because of perceptions of differences, as opposed to reality of difference.
ggk,
i think you are missing my point. my point is this: living a society where 80% of the population is “hindu” and “hinduism” has thousands of years of history and is fundamentally a permeating aspect of culture is very different from living in a society where 99% of your fellow citizens are hindu and hinduism is a “new religion” whose values do not necessarily have a transparent direct connection with the “mainstream” culture. the key is to remember that humans have different levels of cognition. on a surface conscious layer i think it is not implausible that american hindus will avow the same beliefs in indian hindus. but, to borrow a phrase, america is the oxygen that american hindus will breath, and that will have an implicit and wide-ranging effect on their interpretation of their religion.
this does not mean an explicit church structure, rather, my prediction is that american hinduism will be
a) more explicit and creedal b) more socially congregational c) more personal
these transformations can be seen in orthopraxic religions like judaism in the USA, or in liturgical religions like catholicism. i don’t see why it shouldn’t happen to hinduism unless hinduism is sui generis. i don’t think it is. jews have a connection with israel and catholics with rome, but if you survey the viewpoints of american jews and catholics there is a definite “americanist” tinge which is reflective of a “protestant confessional” mindset.
I have spent much of my life in the midwest (north and central) and come from a lutheran-hindu religous family background. Each time I am “approached” with an evanagelical message I have come to realize that it is an expression of faith for belivers who are still seeking their traditions truth in their own lives– hindu, christian, jewish, catholic, muslim, or jehovah’s witnesses ..there is no difference. Through selling “the pitch” to others, they themslves are in the act of vaildating their own faith in the stories by being able compare how it is different (good and bad) from other belief systems. this is why its important then to “..First and foremost…learn as much as possible about Hinduism.”
This is quite different however from being invited to social functions, organized by religous groups, simply for the human need to be social with other beings..the brunch after a baptist church service has much the same intent as the dhal, chai and puri stop at the roadside stand after the morning cycle out to the village temples on weekends in santiniketan. I do puja at home, but at the same time, go to church when invited on the holidays because its important for my friends…we also do yoga togther…we “share” activites because aknowledging our different traditions strengthens our unique friendhip bond.
The percived increases of “targeting” particular groups, I feel, is only a partial telling of the entire picture. It is very much a product of the increased frequency of interaction between individuals an increased mobility of populations today than there was 10 years ago, but it is still up to us individually decide if these interactions are threatening or just part of being human.
Well Indian professional culture is more or less secular, and in india it is only to accomodate non hindu.
The scenario you are describing should be looked in the hindus working in middle east context where the culture is very different and accomodations towards hindus is seen differently.
I dont see much evolution in those circumstance so i doubt that i will see it here. Regarding hinduism being personal…For many it has been for most it hasnt been I dont see any thing coming out there. Regarding it being more congregational, it happens in india itself as well as here My family often used to go to a south indian style temple in bridgewater nj, which interestingly made the exact same accomodations that I saw another south indian temple in vishakhapatnam make for north indians (ie create another mini complex for North indian style ram,sita,hanuman mandir)… But certain ritualistic practices are community based and ritual based and dont extend congregations that easily Aryasamaj it is still comprised of north indian hindus. In aryasamaji practice reading veds is a bigger part and yog practice as well. So they are not open to increasing congregation size at the expense of ditching reading ved(as). incidentaly there is 1 arya samaj mandir that that shares its building and with a tibetan org, cause the founder is from manikarn, HP where similar sharing is done between hindu and tibetan influenced buddhism, but the buildings are on separate floor, each side is a bit of a spectator on the other sides ritual. But Its not that off in HP ascetic sadhus were used to stay in buddhist monastaries…Even though a sadhu is more of a hindu culture than a buddhist culture(where he would have to be a proper monk)…Even Guru Nanak was given accomodation in buddhist monastaries when he traveled in HP region going into tibet proper. So now if sikh org or a hindu org invites dalai lama, its not being extra congregational in US sense as in india this sort of thing has been in the flux.
I do however see the role of desi professional/semiproffesional club eg The Indus Entreprenuer, PunjMech(to be renamed indian Mech and civil),Association of indian physicians etc…. So i do see such orgs becoming a bridge between different groups. and since for the most part indians being allowed to come here are professionals only so i do see a them playing a bigger part.
And of course you will have some SAsian groups here and there too.
rasudha
Can you clarify this? Is it it the same thing like some Christian evangelists coming with statements that ‘Kural’ was a christian document and Valluvar was inspired by the bible. That was one of the most ridiculous assertions. But they make these claims because they know Indian philosophy/culture/tradition can’t be as easily shown to be inferior/supertitious compared to Christianity and will backfire with the natives, so it is better to coopt the native traditions as derived from/inspired by Christianity.
Okay.
Om nomo durgaya nomo.
🙂
In seriousness, I wonder if you’re adequately incorporating both sociological and political/historical lenses of this–though perhaps because I only think this because I didn’t fully understand this installment of the Collected Works of Razib 😉
I think I’ve argued this with you before–it seems like the evolution of “Hinduism” at least since 1757 fits into a modernity/nation-forming framework at least as well as it describes a body of believers or their traditions in religious terms. “Hindoo” was a word of imperial convenience that described all desis and had nothing(?) to do with faith–based largely on generalized notions of “what Indians are like” as far as I know; “Mohammadans” and others were then separated out (thouhg this is probably a key question here–why were they separated out and on what thinking by the Orientalists?) and eventually the remainder–“Hindoos” were given a rather large and incoherent box to put themselves and their diverse traditions in to make coherent into modern “Hinduism”. You can still see the vestiges of the two understandings of “Hindu”.
Which is not to say there are no common threads among these traditions now…I just wonder how much these commonalities were present prior to the consolidation of identities that happened with the imperialism/colonialism/nationalism/capitalism (or perhaps more gradually over time with different states establishing sovereignty over larger numbers of and more diverse peoples) and how much they were post-1757 innovations.
As opposed to every other topic that gets discussed here (and elsewhere)? 🙂 Replace “hindu” with any other identity category and you have Saurav’s First Law of Internet “Dialogue.”
Regardless, there’s obviously some notion of identity, now that the identity-formation has happened–that different people apply to their faith or practices or however they understand their religion and call it “Hindu,” despite how different it is from mine or the next person or the next person who, in some circumstances, calls themselves “Hindu.” Some people don’t get this last part, obviously, or are still trapped in the relentless drive to categorize one’s self and all around him/her that pervades modernity.
s,
1) you need to push it back before 1757. the late 19th century british censuses had a big impact on ‘systematizing’ and formalizing hindu & caste self-perception, as did the earlier attempts by the british to find appropriate categories…but it seems pretty clear from the historical record that muslims were boxing and categorizing south asian kaffirs well before the british showed up. they had to, remember that traditional sharia doesn’t give much quarter to pagans, so one had to figure out if hindus were basically like pre-islamic arabs, ergo, had to face the sword or the shahada.
2) one can trace particular cultural motifs in south asia all the way back to the indus period. some might contend this is ascertainment bias, that we’re looking for commonalities that thread across the centuries, but, i think a good argument can be made that a non-trivial continuity exists. additionally, the genetic and linguistic coherence (roughly speaking) of south asian peoples (indo-aryan speech in the north, dravidian in the south) gives them a sense of identity. from on high it seems clear that a sense of otherness toward mlecchas existed amongst south asian peoples at a relatively early stage, just as chinese & greeks viewed others as barbarians. but there is a class issue here: the typical villager in rural india (or greece or china) probably never encountered these issues because they didn’t conceive of them identity in picayune detail. on the other hand, literate administrative & religious classes had to elucidate these differences because to some extent differences between peoples were necessary precondition for their bread & butter.
what i’m saying is
a) brown pan-identity predates the british at the elite level. systemating thinking wasn’t invented by europeans, they simply turned in into a science 🙂
b) hinduism was probably “created” by the muslims who had “name the enemy” more or less (one could argue it was created by the emergence of local converts, “black” muslims, who were ethnically hindu but religious muslim, so that the ethnic reading had to be nuanced)
3) different identities have different distributions of expression and clarity of category. there is less debate about “what is a black american” than “what is a hindu” because the latter is a lot more malleable, but purely about ideas. there are blonde haired blue eyed black americans (by self-definition), but there is an average physical prototype around which a range (variance) exists of a black american. additionally, since being a black american is partly a function of familial history, biological identity, etc., it is somewhat clearer beliefs about a set of beliefs, which are naturally more slippery (e.g., it is weirder to deny that your mother is your mother than to say that 3 = 1 a la trinity, or the other typical religious gibberish-that-passes-as-profundity).
4) history and politics are higher order social processes that are interesting, but most people here have read some history and politics and can understand those biases are aware of them. i’m trying to reiterate that there are cognitive biases and blinders which are relevant to this discourse. divvya’s categories and word-games are relevant because humans, especially elite humans, tend to fixate on verbal demarcators and outward markers of difference. they tend to to think that what is said and written is the sum of all existence, that because the bible is written in script and generates a creedal religion while hinduism (despite the vedas, upanashiads) is more distributed in its “canon” (e.g., in place and people as well as book) and not tied to fixed sets of beliefs, that this has a fundamental effect on the worldview of a human, that abrahamic man is on a deep level a different mental creature from non-abrahamic man. my point is that experimental results from cognitive science point to the fact that abrahamic man talks a big game about difference, but that when you get down to it abrahamic man worships the same idol as non-abrahamic man, and that this might be do to the limits of human cognitive architecture (mathematicians talk about higher dimensionalities, but humans can’t really imagine 4-space, 5-space, etc.). talk matters, but it isn’t everything (people kill each other over words, so i’m not going to dismiss it).
I don’t see why one has to abondon Hinduism as ethnos for the sake of “atheism.” Amartya Sen, Debiprasd Chattopadhyaya, and so many others in the modern period identify with Lokayata, which is perfectly materialistic and rational, without reliquishing their Hindu identity. Heck, the founder of Hindutva was not a “believer.” This is far more difficult, perhaps irrational even, if you subscribe to a creedal faith, where the basis of the community rests upon shared supernatural beliefs though Jews have been doing so for a long time.
I read that the intelligentsia in India – three out of four – according to Arvind Sharma, subscribe to “Absolutistic Hinduism,” which is based upon Advaita Vedanta, though not as dependent upon orthodox tradition. The basic idea is this: there is a state beyond thought in which the subjective sense of “I” is not present, (making it non-dual),which can be approached through meditative practice, and which is uniquely liberative.
In this admittedly modern formulation, God in the sky has been dismissed or at least marginalized, which is not the case with classical Advaita Vedanta, where Brahman is rendered into relative(saguna) and absloute (nirguna) conceptions. The relative (God as form) must still be approached through Bhakti, and the caste order must be maintained.
So the elite, in any case, have found at least two ways out of the God-in-the sky problem. (And the Absolutistic formulation of Hinduism is under challenge constantly by ppl adhering to different sects, especially ISKCON, the Sri Vaishnava and Madhva sampradeyas, and Saiva Siddhanta.) And everyone else belonging to the ethnos continues on as always, where philosophy has been superimposed onto what is essentially an animistic substrate.
The problem of Hinduism as belief system rests on the definition of creedal boundaries. For the most part its a non-starter and leads to very restrictive definitions (Hinduism is the religion of people who pay allegience to the Vedas, or too wishy washy (Hinduism is a journey and the journey is the goal). In truth, the “creedal boundaries,” for lack of a better term, are constantly in flux. For example, there is a move to appropriate the Indus Valley Civilization into the Hindu ethnos (with some justification based on shared cultural practices, and readily identifiable motifs. Buddha (Buddhist thought has a great deal of appeal among many modern Hindus) has similarly been appropriated. The atheistic Sankhya may be the oldest Darsana on the subcontinent, and originally probably very radical, but now its considered an “orthodox.” On the other hand, you have some modern Hindu Gurus claiming not to be Hindu at all.
To me, Christianity or Islam is a step backwards, not a step forwards, and that is why conversion should be resisted. Lest anyone misunderstand me – It is as though calculus is banned from high schools and all you learn is geometry and algebra; any such move should be resisted too, and that is the nature of the resistance I mean.
algebra and geometry are easier than calculus. also, for most people they are probably easier.
sigh This is getting very contentious. I went to a Catholic university in the US, but didn’t really have to deal with anyone wanting to bring me over to the side of Christ. Ironically enough, I got most of that from a handful of British friends who were at high school with me in Karachi.
As far as the Mormons go? I’ve managed to have sex with three of the seven that have shown up at my door. Not my best rate, but give me time! (I can’t resist, something about those Utah boys, ROWR.)
consider case of scribes Literate hindu scribes were used in most islamic courts for a very long time, ie kayastha. Even today some lowcaste villagers in UP would ask me if i was a kayastha(if i was to tell them so) I wouldnt be extended any hospitality. Kayasth were seen as traitors by many. while they saw themselves as pragmatic people making adjustment w/ new rulers. Mostlikely it was because they were visible, and also some kaysth did the job of a patwari too They were 1 group that was used for a long time in adminstration w/o much change. A lot of them did not become muslims(probably cause socio economic conditions) And in ‘modern india’ rural settings have kept this kind of stuff alive.
Regardless of what the SA types say during the end of british era the identities had imerged as Muslims and others. “Islam khatre mein hain” by Jinnah worked cause how the muslims perceive themselves. Even today inside india this can be seen where muslims dont feel part of india. In bangladesh the situation is funnier b/c they did not want to be dominated by west pakistanis and wanted a bangla identity(the same identity they ran away from), and now still are playing mental gymnastic over accepting begali culuture vs islamic culture.
Any attempt at increasing the congregation size to a larger brown identity doesnt go easy w. many. as many others have blogged about some on this board may be ok w/ a Sasian label most indians are not (despite Saarc or what ever geo political games happen back in india or some universities SA/postcolonial studies department)
I havent read any of the previous comments this seems to have somehow veered towards math.
Getting back to the original point of the post – How do you get American Hindus to convert ?
Here are some strategies I offer to the evangalicals: – Try to make it seem like there isn’t much difference between hindusim and christianity. – Remember most hindus don’t know jackshit about hindu philosophy, they are funcunally pantheist. Defeat pantheism using sentimental slogans like “Hindus believe every thing is god. We believe that everything is god’s”. The main difference between hinduism and christianity is the aphorstope s. – Target 2nd gen hindus in their teens. (the best time to get them) – Marry them. Then convert them. Hindus in general are horny this is not as difficult as it sounds. Any hot evangalical women need a soul to save give me a call. (note: must be willing to experiment beyond missionary style) – Get them interested in running for political office in America. – Impress them by speaking their language. – Megachurches are nice.
Strategies you should NOT try: – Free Stuff: the hindus are cheap bastards (specially gujaratis) and will take whatever you are giving them without converting. – Free Food: Same as free stuff plus Hinduism has many food taboos. – Handing out bibles: They usually end up being thrown in the trash. – Invitations to casual get togethers: Same as free stuff. – Trying to incorporate hindu motifs into christianity. (this corrupts christianity, and strengthens the pantheist belief of hindus). – Dress like a crazy homeless person, then stand on the street corner shouting “Jesus Saves”. – Trying to convert the beef-eating-atheist-hindu (unless you are trying to use the seduction strategy I outlined above). He will dazzle you with science and leave you upset and confused.
Keep fighting the forces of Satan. Peace out.
In bangladesh the situation is funnier b/c they did not want to be dominated by west pakistanis and wanted a bangla identity(the same identity they ran away from), and now still are playing mental gymnastic over accepting begali culuture vs islamic culture.
Well. How did Islam spread in Bangladesh. i would contend that the majority of the current Bangladshis are descendants of people who were on the margins of Hinduism – semi-Hinduized tribals and others not fully settled into the jati structure that is common throughout the subcontinent. See Richard Eaton’s pathbreaking work on the spread of Islam in Bengal.
Such schools of thought have existed even prior to nagarjun…….. But i doubt it that the number is that high.
Regarding the origin of the word “Hindu”, I believe Razib is correct; the term pre-dates European arrival in the subcontinent by many centuries and was derived from a Persian term referring to everyone in India who lived east of the River Indus (ie. Sindhu).
Also, in point #4 of post 138, my friend Razib has (unintentionally) actually described the Sikh view on God, in relation to the limits of Man’s cognitive abilities in this regard. In fact, Sikh teachings explicitly state that, beyond a certain point, a person who claims to able to accurately “pidgeonhole” the nature of God is a liar.
Speaking from an objective perspective, this makes sense to me too. It would be extremely arrogant for a person to be able to claim to know (and/or accurately predict) the “mind of God”, considering that the difference between Man and God would be like the difference between an amoeba and Einstein, but extrapolated to infinity. The former refers particularly to individuals who perpetuate negative behaviours (especially towards other people) while claiming that “This is what God wants” etc. You get the idea.
This is especially pertinent in the case of excessively anthropomorphosizing God’s “personality” by ascribing certain negative human behavioural traits (eg. Anger, hatred, jealousy, vengefulness etc) to such an entity; even more so when, bearing in mind “hard science” issues such as advanced physics on both a macro and micro level, one considers the sheer complexity, size, and age of the universe, and the staggering difference in scale that must exist between us and a being which would have the capacity and awareness to create, “run”, and permeate the universe and everything within it to this degree.
Following on from this, since we’re comparing Abrahamic & non-Abrahamic faiths, another difference is the fact that in the latter (at least in the case of faiths originating in the subcontinent), all the answers are not handed to the adherent on a silver platter, ie. there is room in the theology for the unknown. This also overlaps with the concept that the adherent must make some effort himself/herself too in order to find out the “truth” and gain an awareness of God & spirituality directly, rather than simply blindly believing whatever is written within their respective holy book, overemphasising academic, theoretical, scholarly “knowledge” in religious matters, and/or essentially taking someone else’s word for it (ie. the writer(s) of the scripture(s)). This does make a significant difference to a person’s views on spirituality – and, indeed, their attitude to people of other faiths.
I did briefly skimmed through rise of islam in the frontier and do find eatons work and do find many inconsistencies, briefly tribals he is identifying many were in nefa,assam,manipur. not bengal proper, so i doubt it he has it correct(but i didnt bother reading it b/c of that reason alone he may have some other points) But my point was with this assumptions that
you can isolate events that happened in india and create a new pan brownness in US only
I think hindus wont be ok with it a broader pan brownness in some kind of UK model.
Aha! But here’s my point–do the chracter of the term (“purely about ideas”, “malleable”) come about because the process of identity formation here was an attempt to take a vast range of people and groups and put them all into one category without common points? Incidentally, if anyone can recommend a good scholarly book on identity formation, i might be interested.
Yes, Aristotle and all those other pre-Enlightenment folks–including many non-“Westerners”–whom I don’t know about either because they didn’t teach me about them or their work was lost. My point is simply to ask to what extent the intersection of state power and systematic thinking made the term and the “faith” of Hinduism and to what extent it was something that developed more organically and has a more internal and organic meaning today (i.e. “grew” out of some shared sensibilities or something) than one that was caused by external forces (definition) and then people in the community responded by trying to make it make sense, in varying ways.
Regardless of who started it (or where we attribute the starting point), the question still remains to what extent an understanding of contemporary “Hinduism” and “Hindu” identity can be understood without looking at the process by which the hypothetical faith (community) and identity were formed. It may have preceded the British, though certain elements of that process were very strongly implemented under British rule–census, control over the entirety of South Asia, generally the attempt to learn, categorize and taxonomize South Asians, etc. on a much broader scale by an external power with concrete ideas about hte world and how to divide it up.
It’s not the origin of the term that’s at issue. It’s the extent to which the term has a meaning as a member of a religious community rather than simply being geographical (or nationalistic) and how that came to be. Maybe someone who’s studying pre-modern South Asian history can elucidate 🙂