# Ask the Hindu **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 14, 2003, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-hindu/195201 "2003-08-14T18:00:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![litost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c4cdca/32.png) [@litost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/litost)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2003, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-hindu/195201/41 "2003-08-15T18:18:09Z")
**BNS and Monty** In some southern parts of India, Diwali (or Deepavali as it is called) is celebrated commemorating a different avatar of Vishnu, Vamana. [http://members.tripod.com/~srinivasp/mythology/vama.html](http://members.tripod.com/~srinivasp/mythology/vama.html) ---
**Author:** ![ramesh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d07c76/32.png) [@ramesh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ramesh)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2003, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-hindu/195201/42 "2003-08-15T18:31:23Z")
Small hijack: This thread is doomed; Hinduism is a huge mish-mash of lots of stories intersecting and contradicting each other. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by BrightNShiny \* > **A version of the reason why Brahma is not worshipped by anyone** This is an instance of what I am talking about. I have heard alteast _two_ other versions. I am sure there are many more!! You cannot get your head around this religion. There is no one book or practice that is universal. The more you discuss Hinduism the richer the stories get; it may be fun, but you will end up nowhere. (But then, I have always thought religion has to be necessarily ambiguous) ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2003, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-hindu/195201/43 "2003-08-15T18:47:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by plain\_jane \* > \*\*BrightNShiny, thank you so much for starting this thread! I find Hinduism fascinating and wonderful. However, for an outsider, it’s sometimes hard to follow everything one reads. > > I have a few questions, if you don’t mind. From this thread, the impression I get is that a non-Hindu cannot become a Hindu. You either are already (born into it), or you are not, period. Is that correct? Or does the religion allow converts? > > Additionally, can you tell me anything about the goddess Santoshi Mata? And Saraswati? > > Also, could you recommend some good books on Hinduism, as well as a listing of the sacred texts? > > One last question, if you don’t mind. Could you explain the belief in reincarnation in greater detail? > > Thanks so much for your time! \*\* In general, people can convert to Hinduism, but there are some communities which will not accept converts. And in general, Hinduism does not seek converts either. However, it has been traditional for sages or other learned persons to travel on what could best be described as a lecture circuit and give discourses on topics related to Hinduism (more on this in a later post). Saraswati is the goddess of learning and Brahma (the Creator)'s wife. She is usually depicted with a veena, a four-string musical instrument. Once a year, growing up, we did a Saraswati puja (ritual) where we placed our text books in front of an idol of Saraswati to ask for her blessing with our studies. I would like to do some more research on Santoshi Mata before giving you an answer. As for the sacred texts, the usual view is that all knowledge was released into the fabric of the universe at its construction. From time to time, there are gifted individuals, or seers, who can discern this knowledge and translate it for the rest of us. Sanskrit is the usual language for these works, but some writings of importance are written in Pali. Some communities also will accept non-Sanskrit versions of the texts as being authoritative. My community views the Tamil version of the Vedas as being equally authoritative with the Sanskrit version, for example. The major works are: The Vedas: This is supposed to be the authoritative basis for Hinduism. It consists of four books (Rig, Sama, Yajur, Atharva). It describes numerous gods, rituals for worship, layout of altars, spells, incantations, and medicinal treatments. The Upanishads: These build on Vedic philosophy while laying the foundation for monotheism and the way to escape the cycle of rebirth. The Puranas: These cover in detail stories about Vishnu and Shiva and serve to provide greater insight into the Vedas. The Mahabharata: The great Hindu epic. The bulk of this is concerned with the epic war fought between the Pandavas and the Kauravas, two groups of kings. It contains the Baghavad Gita, which is Krisha’s lecture on the nature of Dharma. The Ramayana: I described this in a previous post. This site might serve as a good intro to Hinduism, and contains a complete listing of all works: [http://www.sivanandadlshq.org/religions/religions.htm](http://www.sivanandadlshq.org/religions/religions.htm) And now, for reincarnation. Hindus (most anyway) believe that you have an eternal soul which is constantly being reincarnated. The body is merely a physical vessel for the soul and is discarded at the end of a life, much in the way one discards clothes at the end of the day. The cycle (or wheel) of reincarnation is called samsara (reincarnation based on past actions). As the soul moves through its physical life, it creates Karma. This Karma determines whether or not one will be reborn, and the circumstances of your next life. In a simplistic sense, this means that if something good happens to you, it’s because of previous good actions, and if something bad happens, it’s because of previous bad actions. The soul may spend time in either heaven or hell before returning to Earth for its next reincarnation according to some schools of thought. This heaven/hell is similar to but not the same as the Christian heaven/hell in that it is not an eternal state of being. By performing certain actions, such as rituals, study, meditation, yoga, etc., one can escape the cycle of rebirth/death. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2003, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-hindu/195201/44 "2003-08-15T18:58:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by litost \* > \*\* In Advaitism, we have to be careful with the word illusion. The world is not necessarily unreal and illusory (though that appears to be a valid semantical interpretation) The illusion is the belief that the soul and the world it lives in is distinct from God. Once the illusion is removed, one will realize that everything is One. This philosophy is monotheistic on the surface but has a non-theistic streak to it. The non-theism stems from the fact that God is described as “unknowable”, “indescribable” etc, i.e., God is infinite, has no attributes, and is everywhere! (IMHO this abstract monotheism is what has allowed for a pantheon of Gods as they are all essentially one and the same - at a practical level, Hinduism is strongly pantheistic). \*\* I disagree with your characterization that there is a non-theistic streak to this in that Sankara, the proponent of advaitism, was decidedly theistic, and this philosophy seems to have arisen as a response to the non-theistic Buddhist philosophies. > [@](#): > > \*\*Dvaita (or the preferred term _Tattvavada_) does speak of a distinct difference between the soul and the transcendental God. They consider it “arrogant” to assume that all of our souls are in fact God. On attaining salvation, the soul does not become One with the world and everything, but the soul recognizes the existence of _Vishnu_ (the transcendental Being) and enjoys enlightenment while still living in the real world. > > Vishishta-Advaitism has always been difficult for me to understand. A good summary would be that it believes that the souls and universe are intricately linked to God with God dominating the relationship but they are not necessarily one and the same. This branch stresses the devotional route to salvation more than knowledge and self-realization.\*\* Hmm. I’ve always viewed Dvaitism as a subset of Vishista-Advaitism, in that the relationship between the soul and God seems to be the same. Perhaps we can debate this further. > [@](#): > > \*\*It is also MHO that the fundamental philosophies of salvation are by and large relegated to the background. \*\* This was not my experience growing up. YMMV. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2003, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-hindu/195201/45 "2003-08-15T19:00:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by litost \* > \*\*How about an easier answer? \* Brahma \* is indeed the creator but is not venerated because his job is done. Vishnu and Shiva are the ones keeping everything going! \*\* Interesting viewpoint. From where does this come? ---
**Author:** ![wolfman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/a8b319/32.png) [@wolfman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfman)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2003, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-hindu/195201/46 "2003-08-15T19:01:35Z")
Being an IT guy I have woked with a lot of guys from India. I became good friends with three of them at different times. And I always had a question I didn’t feel confortable asking them. There were four Indian Guys at my first company Three were great friends and alwayas hung out together. The fourth never hung out with them and hung out with me and my friends. I always wondered if it was kind of a caste thing but dismissed it as just the way things worked out, cause the group of three was very standoffish and basically rude. Then basically the same thing happened at my next two jobs, One standoffish group of Indian guys and one guy who became friends with my group of friends. My friends were also much darker skinned than the groups, is that a common part of the caste recognition? ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2003, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-hindu/195201/47 "2003-08-15T19:05:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by litost \* > \*\*Scholars of Hinduism have espoused three main ways to salvation, i.e., realize God: Bhakti, Karma and Gnana. You mentioned rituals, meditation and yoga. \*\* I’d use the term Dharma instead of Karma, but this is a better characterization. > [@](#): > > \*\*Rituals are part of the Bhakti route. One of the problems with Hinduism is its periodic degeneration into mindless recitation of hymns and performance of rituals. This numbs the spirit of enquiry and allows the religion to stagnate. \*\* I don’t see how. Some people may choose to follow only rituals, but considering how much the religion has been added to over the years, it’s hardly stagnating. > [@](#): > > \*\*It has been written in scriptures that there are 4 stages in a Man’s life which include the stage where he is married and performs “house-holder duties” and the stage (the last one) where he decides to seek God by giving up his material Life. \*\* This is the path layed out in the Gita. However, since Sankara did not follow this path (or may be said to have followed it in reverse), I don’t think it’s an exclusive path. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2003, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-hindu/195201/48 "2003-08-15T19:13:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by litost \* > \*\*AFAIK, cows are considered sacred because of Shiva’s ride being a bull. I have never heard the mythological story you wrote before! \*\* Here’s another version of it: [http://www.aptemples.com/templedethist/tirupati.htm](http://www.aptemples.com/templedethist/tirupati.htm) I am curious, though. Perhaps this story is peculiar to South India. Which part of India are you from? > [@](#): > > **All Shiva idols in temples have the accompanying _Nandi_ out in front. But, ISTM that a cow is a relatively easy animal to be revered. A quiet domesticated animal that supplies milk (important in Indian life), and mates regularly with the bulls, which were used for transportation (as oxen?). It seems to be a very convenient ecosystem for bucolic India where the majority lived (and continue to live).** I’ve heard an anthropological explanation that by letting cows wander, people get free manure (to use as fuel), and that the reason for cows being sacred is economic. > [@](#): > > \*\*And, that probably also explains the hypocrisy of selective veneration. Them pesky rats (Lord Ganesha’s animal consort) are killed without a thought. \*\* Except in the KarniMata temple: [http://judypat.com/india/karnimata.htm](http://judypat.com/india/karnimata.htm) Last year, my mother found a possum in the garage. She called animal control, and when they came, they caught it. They then informed her they were going to kill it, as there was a possum infestation in the area. My mom cried for four days. I think you are making sweeping generalizations here. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2003, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-hindu/195201/49 "2003-08-15T19:20:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\*The shivalinga is actually a phallic symbol (“linga” is Sanskrit for “penis.”) conjoined with a circular base representing a female “yoni.” > > I was told by an Eastern Religion professor that many Hindus now are not even aware of the sexual symbolism inherent in the Shivalinga, even to the point of denying it if pointed out to them. > > Is this true? Do Hindus recognize it as a phallic symbol anymore or has the Shivalinga simply become a more abstract representation of Shiva? \*\* I think most Hindus are aware of the symbolism, as the term linga is not unknown. However, it’s probably not discussed in polite company. At a few temples in India, there’s quite a bit of sexual imagery in the carvings. Hinduism has an odd relationship with sexuality. In some ways, it seems to be treated rather blandly, as just another aspect of life. However, from a social standpoint, I’ve found that most Indians tend to be very conservative when it comes to issues of sexuality. It’s possible that this is because of the influence of Muslim and then British Victorian culture. Although siva-linga usually refers to mound/base form, it has a more general usage in which it refers to a number of other forms (such as a stone with the appropriate markings). ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2003, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-hindu/195201/50 "2003-08-15T19:30:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by wolfman \* > \*\*Being an IT guy I have woked with a lot of guys from India. I became good friends with three of them at different times. And I always had a question I didn’t feel confortable asking them. There were four Indian Guys at my first company Three were great friends and alwayas hung out together. The fourth never hung out with them and hung out with me and my friends. I always wondered if it was kind of a caste thing but dismissed it as just the way things worked out, cause the group of three was very standoffish and basically rude. > Then basically the same thing happened at my next two jobs, One standoffish group of Indian guys and one guy who became friends with my group of friends. My friends were also much darker skinned than the groups, is that a common part of the caste recognition? \*\* I wonder if they were from different parts of the country. There are 16 major languages, and if you’re around people who are speaking a language you don’t understand, it gets boring. I don’t want to confuse social issues with religious ones in this thread (although they invariably become conflated in Hinduism), however, with regards to skin color: There is a common perception that the further North one goes in India, people are more fair-skinned. There is also another perception that people of higher castes tend to be more fair-skinned. However, in practice I’ve found that this is not necessarily true. I’m off for the weekend. I’ll try to come back to this thread on Sunday. ---
**Author:** ![litost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c4cdca/32.png) [@litost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/litost)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2003, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-hindu/195201/51 "2003-08-15T20:00:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by BrightNShiny \* > I disagree with your characterization that there is a non-theistic streak to this in that Sankara, the proponent of advaitism, was decidedly theistic, and this philosophy seems to have arisen as a response to the non-theistic Buddhist philosophies. It is indeed a matter of interpretation but the Upanishads (on which the Advaita philosophy draws liberally from) in many places speaks of _Brahman_ in highly abstract ways to the point of placing It beyond all attributes. If one were to compare religions, one can see that other Gods are somewhat well-defined though non-physical. It is from this that some scholars believe that there exists a non-theistic (non-deistic?) streak to Advaita. Buddhism definitely helped further this thought but I wouldn’t be too quick to dismiss the non-theistic streak. > [@](#): > > Hmm. I’ve always viewed Dvaitism as a subset of Vishista-Advaitism, in that the relationship between the soul and God seems to be the same. Perhaps we can debate this further. There does seem to be a distinction. If Sankaracharya provides much of the impetus behind the Advaitic school of thought, Ramanuja is a key figure in espousing Vishishta-Advaitism and Madhavacharya is one of the key figures in Dvaitism. Followers have found a difference between the last two schools that merits separation. As I said earlier, though Dvaitism is somewhat clear in my mind, and at the highest level sounds fundamentally opposed to Advaitism, Vishishta-Advaitism has been difficult to grasp. I have tried reading some of Ramanuja’s treatises and arrived at the conclusion that it will require many many hours of dedicated thought (something I cannot afford now). ---
**Author:** ![litost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c4cdca/32.png) [@litost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/litost)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2003, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-hindu/195201/52 "2003-08-15T20:30:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by BrightNShiny \* > I disagree with your characterization that there is a non-theistic streak to this in that Sankara, the proponent of advaitism, was decidedly theistic, and this philosophy seems to have arisen as a response to the non-theistic Buddhist philosophies. It is indeed a matter of interpretation but the Upanishads (on which the Advaita philosophy draws liberally from) in many places speaks of _Brahman_ in highly abstract ways to the point of placing It beyond all attributes. If one were to compare religions, one can see that other Gods are somewhat well-defined though non-physical. It is from this that some scholars believe that there exists a non-theistic (non-deistic?) streak to Advaita. Buddhism definitely helped further this thought but I wouldn’t be too quick to dismiss the non-theistic streak. > [@](#): > > Hmm. I’ve always viewed Dvaitism as a subset of Vishista-Advaitism, in that the relationship between the soul and God seems to be the same. Perhaps we can debate this further. There does seem to be a distinction. If Sankaracharya provides much of the impetus behind the Advaitic school of thought, Ramanuja is a key figure in espousing Vishishta-Advaitism and Madhavacharya is one of the key figures in Dvaitism. Followers have found a difference between the last two schools that merits separation. As I said earlier, though Dvaitism is somewhat clear in my mind, and at the highest level sounds fundamentally opposed to Advaitism, Vishishta-Advaitism has been difficult to grasp. I have tried reading some of Ramanuja’s treatises and arrived at the conclusion that it will require many many hours of dedicated thought (something I cannot afford now). ---
**Author:** ![litost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c4cdca/32.png) [@litost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/litost)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2003, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-hindu/195201/53 "2003-08-15T21:33:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by BrightNShiny \* > > Except in the KarniMata temple: > > [http://judypat.com/india/karnimata.htm](http://judypat.com/india/karnimata.htm) > > Last year, my mother found a possum in the garage. She called animal control, and when they came, they caught it. They then informed her they were going to kill it, as there was a possum infestation in the area. My mom cried for four days. I think you are making sweeping generalizations here. Well, I did say, by and large, rats are not venerated and I stand by it. I am aware of the presence of a temple for rats but that is a freak statistic. Rats are also generally not killed within temples. From what I have experienced, most Indians in their daily lives view rats as a pest and routinely buy traps and kill them. There is a point when survival precedes religion. ---
**Author:** ![plain\_jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@plain\_jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/plain_jane)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2003, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-hindu/195201/54 "2003-08-16T03:14:46Z")
Thanks for all the information and the link, BrightNShiny. I appreciate it. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2003, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-hindu/195201/55 "2003-08-16T04:09:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by litost \* > \*\*Well, I did say, by and large, rats are not venerated and I stand by it. I am aware of the presence of a temple for rats but that is a freak statistic. Rats are also generally not killed within temples. > > From what I have experienced, most Indians in their daily lives view rats as a pest and routinely buy traps and kill them. There is a point when survival precedes religion. \*\* You may be confusing Hinduism with Jainism. Jains practice a philosophy of extreme non-violence called _ahimsa_ which prohibits them from killing any living thing. IIRC, they often build “hospitals” for wounded animals including birds and rats. They don’t _worship_ these animals but they believe that they are garnering good karma by caring for them. ---
**Author:** ![litost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c4cdca/32.png) [@litost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/litost)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2003, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-hindu/195201/56 "2003-08-16T04:51:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > You may be confusing Hinduism with Jainism. Jains practice a philosophy of extreme non-violence called _ahimsa_ which prohibits them from killing any living thing. IIRC, they often build “hospitals” for wounded animals including birds and rats. They don’t _worship_ these animals but they believe that they are garnering good karma by caring for them. 😕 I was responding to a post by **BNS**. I had pointed out (an apparent hypocrisy) that the rat which is Lord Ganesha’s animal consort is not venerated while the cow is (by virtue of the _Nandi_) but **BNS** said I might be making a sweeping generalization. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2003, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-hindu/195201/57 "2003-08-16T05:15:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by litost \* > \*\*😕 > > I was responding to a post by **BNS**. I had pointed out (an apparent hypocrisy) that the rat which is Lord Ganesha’s animal consort is not venerated while the cow is (by virtue of the _Nandi_) but **BNS** said I might be making a sweeping generalization. \*\* My apologies. I’m rather tired and I skimmed your post, saw something about a temple of rats and totally misconstrued your point. (I was also distracted by a three-year old climbing on my computer table.) I’ve heard a people express a misconception that Hindus worship rats before and I just assumed that’s what you were talking about and posted an automatic response without bothering to read comprehensively or review the first page. _Mea culpa_. I’m guilty of not paying attention. Sorry. Carry on. ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2003, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-hindu/195201/58 "2003-08-16T13:46:03Z")
Jainism-I’m somewhat familiar with this faith(the kashrut is positively libertine in comparison. I’ve heard Jains explain that they eat no bread as living yeast is killed during baking), I’m not clear on if or how it is connected to Hinduism. Can you educate me on this? Death customs- Like most people I’ve come across tales of suttee, burning ghats and such in books and films. Do any of the canon texts specify how a corpse should be disposed of? The Simpsons- What particularly do you find offensive? IMO the show treats Hinduism the same way it does other faiths. Apu may have a stereotypical accent and run a convenience store. However, Reverend Lovejoy, Krusty, and Rabbi Krustovski also have stererotypical accents and behaviors. ---
**Author:** ![sunfish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/96bed5/32.png) [@sunfish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sunfish)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2003, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-hindu/195201/59 "2003-08-16T14:18:28Z")
Thanks for starting this thread, BrightNShiny. The question regarding conversion to Hinduism is an interesting one to me. I was told by some that if one wished to follow Hinduism (some subset of practices, obviously), you had only to do it, with no conversion required. I was later told that there is actually one temple (I cannot remember the name, but I think it was in Orissa) where one could be formally “converted” provided the chief priest was satisfied that you a) knew what you were talking about, and b) were sincere in your wish. The topic of conversion came up in relation to the more basic question of whether it was appropriate for a non-Hindu to enter an actively-used temple (i.e., not like most of the temples at Khajuraho). I was in India twice last year; on my first trip, I was told that many temples were increasingly less tolerant of non-Hindus making visits, and that I should never assume it would be okay for me to visit one. (It wouldn’t surprise me if this was in part a response to insensitive tourists, and though it’s regrettable I can certainly understand.) During my second trip, some Indian colleagues invited me to do pooja with them at the local temple. I mentioned that I hadn’t gone to that temple on my previous visit because of what I had been told before… they reassured me that it was all right as long as I was with them, and indeed there was no problem. In fact, I later attended aarti at the same temple, again with colleagues present (and it was a wonderful experience, I might add). So, I’m wondering now - is it your experience also that non-Hindus are generally not supposed to enter an active temple, or is it a stance meant only to keep out the casual tourist? Also… say I’m your average European-looking individual, and I have made a personal commitment to live as a Hindu. How much trouble am I likely to have convincing a temple priest away from home that I want to visit a temple for worship, and not for sightseeing, especially if there is in fact no formal process for conversion? ---
**Author:** ![litost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c4cdca/32.png) [@litost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/litost)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2003, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-hindu/195201/60 "2003-08-16T17:14:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by BrightNShiny \* > In general, people can convert to Hinduism, but there are some communities which will not accept converts. And in general, Hinduism does not seek converts either. In general, I am not aware of a process for converting to Hinduism. It is, of course, trivial to practise Hinduism or any religion for that matter, in the sense that it is a personal commitment. There could be some sects which may have a process for conversion and I can even imagine some temples/sects initiating a process for monetary reasons (given that it has some interest outside India) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-hindu/195201.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-hindu/195201.md?page=4)