Rachel Williams18 said:See, that’s exactly it! So you aren't "Hindu" unless you have the entire Vedas memorized? Or if you can translate them into one or more European languages? From that logic, every Hindu is basically genetically locked in, just like a Jew or a Mujahideen. That makes it a sociological or political definition first and foremost. And honestly, there's no room for that kind of stuff in true spirituality. I see Hinduism as the oldest, most universal spiritual practice and theory out there—it isn't limited by where you came from or your genetic tie to a specific nation. I perceive it as "knowledge"—a legacy meant for all possible incarnations, races, or whatever... basically a total spiritual and "scientific" heritage for every living being incarnating on this planet.
Based on what you're writing, it sounds like you can't be "Hindu" unless you were born an Indian in some isolated Brahmin community. To me, that mindset is basically just fascism, communism, or National Socialism in a spiritual mask. Either way, you're basically turning Hinduism into nothing more than elitist hermeticism, Gnosticism, or some occult secret society doctrine...
So, yeah, nothing new here. It’s always that same vibe: "We hold onto these secrets for centuries and it's not for everyone." If someone takes "that" away from us, or if "that" goes mainstream—then suddenly our elitist status is under threat.
In contrast to those elitist esoteric circles, our "knowledge" is hidden behind the ancient Sanskrit language. You have to be crazy enough to spend years mastering Sanskrit just to even have a chance at resonating with the Vedic texts. Because without resonating with the Vedas—there is no resonance with Hinduism.
But my take is totally different—it's more of a personal experience. I view Sanskrit and the Vedas generally as technology, not just a language. Like, an advanced vibrational technology that bypasses the consumer's linear-logical perception, which means the rhetorical importance of the Vedic script fades into the background. Instead, the main focus—in the spiritual, mental, and physical experience—becomes that fine internal structure we call the soul.
Look, just because you aren't a Christian doesn't mean you've memorized the Bible, and just because you aren't a lawyer doesn't mean you know every statute by heart. You still need the licenses, the degrees, and the credentials to back it up.
Even if you can translate them into one or several European languages.
That makes you sound more like a linguist than a Hindu. Our most prominent—or at least most famous—Sanskrit expert is an active, practicing Catholic, for instance.
It follows that every Hindu is genetically limited, just like a Jew or a mujahideen.
It’s more about culture than genetics. Ethnicity acts as a cultural phenomenon, while culture itself is a social construct—they aren't the same thing biologically. Even American identity isn't baked into our DNA; if you look at genetic testing, you just see a massive, messy mix of everything.
Judaism is more strictly defined by ethnicity and faith than Hinduism is, but it still maintains a formal process for conversion.
In a way, ethnicity gets factored into the equation too.With Hinduism, things get messy because the doctrine and administration lack any real sense of universality.
You see some of that stuff in the walls too, though it’s less intense and lacks the sheer variety you find in Hinduism. Nothing else really comes close.).
Islam isn't an ethno-religious group. It’s more like Christianity or Buddhism—missionary, transnational faiths where ethnicity doesn't really play a role.
So, we're looking at a sociological definition first, or maybe a political one. It's hard to say which comes first.
Religion and formal religious identity are, first and foremost, sociological phenomena.
Spirituality doesn't have much room for rigid definitions.
I’m not entirely sure what spirituality actually is. Everyone seems to throw the word around lately, yet nobody can ever land on a single, clear definition for it.
I see Hinduism as the oldest living tradition out there.
Why is it considered the oldest, and what collective label are you using to justify treating Hinduism as a single, unified phenomenon, given that it’s really just a massive collection of conflicting sects and doctrines from all sorts of different eras?
a universal spiritual practice
What exactly is universal about Hinduism when, as mentioned before, there isn’t anything unique or universal within the individual themselves?
and a theory that isn't tied to ancestry or being part of a specific ethnic group, but rather something I see as "knowledge"—a legacy intended for all possible incarnations, races, and essentially a collective spiritual and "scientific" inheritance for all living beings inhabiting this planet.
I could also perceive it as ice cream, but religions and their memberships define those groups, not some third party's personal whims or feelings. I’d love to be a member of the House of Saud and live as an oil tycoon, but my desires, feelings, or convictions don't exactly bring oil wells to my doorstep.
From your posts, it sounds like you can't be "Hindu" unless you were born Indian into one of those isolated Brahmin communities.
It doesn't have to be isolated or Brahmin (
if we're talking about the priestly caste), though it is highly debated (
with no final consensus) whether one can be Hindu without being born into it. Opinions range from it being impossible to saying it’s enough to simply consider oneself Hindu. Since there is no central authority or strict doctrine, there is no religious equivalent to a "Supreme Court" to settle the matter. But given how strong the ethno-cultural identity is, it's very unlikely an average person in India will view you as a true Hindu, regardless of what you do.
To me, that stance is ideologically identical to fascism, communism, or Nazism.
By that logic, being a member of the first Dallas Mavericks roster would also be fascism, communism, or Nazism because you can't join just because you want to. Any social group—a company, a club, a religion, or a casual circle of friends—chooses its members as it sees fit. There's nothing controversial about that. We aren't talking about public institutions, government agencies, electoral systems, or the conduct of civil servants. For those comparisons to make any sense, you'd need to be talking about public administration.
So, nothing new here. It's just the usual: "We've kept these secrets for centuries and they aren't for everyone." If you take "that" away and it becomes commercialized, then you're threatening our elitist status.
1 - You can certainly adopt the practices of most Hindu traditions; the question is whether that makes you Hindu. Mind you, you can't become a Vedic priest, as that specific branch of the religion is the most closed off, not just ethnically but by caste, which naturally leads back to ethnicity. Other devotional, yogic, Tantric, and various other paths are plenty open to non-Indians.
2 - I don't see the issue, even if that were the case. I have the right to give or withhold my money, to let someone into my house, or to offer intimacy... similarly, I have the right to share or withhold information, socializing, or membership in a group... provided we aren't talking about a public government office, of course. I don't quite get why you assume everything should be accessible to everyone and that everyone should be met with open arms.
Unlike those elitist esoteric circles, our actual "knowledge" is tucked away inside the ancient Sanskrit language.
Language is just a vessel for moving information; there’s nothing hidden within it except for excessive mystification. If you really think learning Sanskrit is the key, I suggest enrolling in an Asian Studies program. Once you have that degree, maybe these debates will actually become constructive.
Just because you achieve that doesn't mean you'll be accepted as a Brahmin. But if you believe Indira's magic trick is to multiply your flock of great wisdom, by all means, go ahead.
First, you have to be crazy enough to spend years mastering Sanskrit just to gain the ability to resonate with the Vedic texts. Because without resonating with the Vedas, there is no resonance with Hinduism.
Resonance is a physical phenomenon, and I fail to see how it relates to learning a language.
Most modern Hindu traditions only claim a connection to the Vedas; in practice, they rely much more on other scriptures. It’s not like you need to read the Torah in Hebrew to be a Christian. Most Americans who follow Hinduism don't know a word of Sanskrit.
But my perception is entirely different—it's a personal experience. I generally view Sanskrit and the Vedas as technology rather than a mere language. Specifically, an advanced vibrational technology that bypasses linear-logical perception, pushing the rhetorical meaning of the Vedic script to the background. Instead, the spiritual, mental, and physical experience is occupied by that subtle internal structure we call the soul.
OK 😁
