liberal vs. literal Hindu

[Bandit]

liberal vs. literal Hindu

I was reading in a few places & forums where Hinduism would like for the world to be Brahma Maya. This may be a good thing if everyone agreed.
If I were to convert to Hinduism as a liberal Hindu, I would like to share that view and ask some honest questions.

Is it possible to be Hindu by rejecting 80% of the Vedas & only keep the 20% that I agree with?
I would insert the remaining 20% Veda & Bhavagad text with the 66 books of the Bible.
I also would want to worship & recognize only one God as one person instead of the core 33 Devas & different manifestations or celestial beings & replace with the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob & that Jesus Christ is Lord of Lords & eternal life comes through him.
Is this compatible from a liberal perspective in the Hindu Religion?

I like some of the Bhavagad & Yogi & find its core principle simple & easy to do.
However, instead of the different chants & using the entire Gita, it would be more sufficient & rewarding for me to say the prayers from the bible & end my prayers in the name of Jesus.
Is this appropriate among the majority of Hindus?

I believe in the possibility of some reincarnation if the one God would want to do that for a purpose, but exclude any absolute dogma concerning reincarnation & do not believe everyone is reincarnated, especially into an animal. As a liberal Hindu i would disagree with the literal law of Karma & multiple lives.
Would this teaching & belief make me a good example for a Hindu?

I respect the cow & its sacred relationship to Hindus, but do not find it sacred in the same literal sense, for me. I like fish, but sometimes I also like to eat pork & beef.
Is eating beef is more of a liberal view in the Hindu Religion?

I know that not all Hindus believe exactly the same. Please note this would only be a liberal view of Hinduism. I am being very serious & humble in my questions & application. this is not meant to disrespect, debate or change the Hindu faith.

I may have a few other questions & thank you in advance for the replies.

[Hustle Kong]

As much as I know about Hindu and Christian belief, this would not be acceptable to either (at least as far as your average Hindu or Christian goes).

I could, however, be entirely incorrect.

[jiii]

I am somewhat compelled to ask why you would want to be a Hindu if you didn't believe in 80% of their scriptures? I mean, being a Hindu isn't really anything special, so if you don't particularly like most of their scriptures, just enjoy the ones you do like. There is no need to determine whether your Hindu or not. It sounds that by saying 'liberal Hindu', your really trying classify your personal philosophies. Frankly, if you see the profound nature of your own personal philosophy, then what you have is better than Hinduism. So, if people ask, you might say you got a little something out of reading Hindu scriptures. This does not, however, mean that you are obligated to establish what type of Hindu you are, and if so, how much Hindu you are. You don't really need to worry about that, as the parts of the scriptures you enjoy are really the point.

As far as the specifics of compatability, there isn't much. Christian religion and Hindu religion are two very different religions. Even though they may aim toward the same truth, they do not share any mythology and neither religion really has any reason to go out of its way to determine what aspects of world religion it approves of and disapproves of.

It sounds like you're not particularly sure of what you believe or don't believe, so before you start considering whether you are a Christian or a Hindu or what have you, you should first determine if 'taking on' the title of a specific religion is something that really appeals to you, or works for you, at this point in time. Maybe it's not. People usually will choose a specific religion for themselves when they've decided to devote themselves to a particular doctrine. However, living by our own personal spiritual philosophy can be just as fruitful. A person is no less holy just because they don't adhere to a specific church or temple or other spiritual tradition.

[Bandit]

i see some good replies here, i will get back to these soon as i have time.
at this point i see some open doors. not sure how long they will stay open.

thanks jiii & thank you Hustle Kong

[Pathless]

Bandit, are you looking for a specific answer?

Hinduism could be considered a rather "liberal" religion (rather than "literal")in general--aside from the caste system--and jii's response seems to reflect that aspect of it. Yet I'm sure you can find fundementalist Hindus as well, if that is what you are looking for.

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by Pathless

Bandit, are you looking for a specific answer?

Hinduism could be considered a rather "liberal" religion (rather than "literal")in general--aside from the caste system--and jii's response seems to reflect that aspect of it. Yet I'm sure you can find fundementalist Hindus as well, if that is what you are looking for.

hey Pathless
thanks. i was looking for answers based on my questions, but dont seem to be getting that. they are kind of sort of being ignored.

it appears much of the writings are myth, so it would be pointless to literally believe in them. even for the fundalmentalist. i think i would need something a little more substantial to literally believe & so it is not too exciting so far.
..so i would be a liberal hindu & from that i would guess that most hindus are liberal and have no core to ther beliefs. that is what i am getting so far- yet i think there is more going on than that.

i had dinner with a hindu friend last week & he did not seem too excited about his religion when we talked briefly. actually i felt like he was pushing me away for some reason. i also get the same feeling from my neighbors who are also hindu. it could be my 'liberal' views.

thanks for pointing out the difference. at this point i am getting very mixed signals & i kind of suspected that would happen.

it appears i can believe & discuss, anything i want to in the Hindu religion & still be a liberal Hindu.
is that correct?

[Obvious Child]

For many, 'Hindu' is more of a culture than a religion. Various religious reformers in India considered themselves Hindu atheists, and others were Hindu Christians/Christian Hindus. As for your specific points: check out the Brahmo Samaj and its various offshoots. Many ate beef, rejected animal reincarnation etc.

If you genuinely entered into a Hindu culture and viewpoint (remember orthopraxy can be as important as orthodoxy) you may be a Hindu. Certainly many Hindus have believed in the single Divine Lord, probably many more than worship 33 core Devas.

If you simply used some of the core texts, probably not.

[Agnideva]

Namaste All,

Interesting topic and replies.

I would say that Hinduism can be as liberal or conservative as one wants depending on the particular tradition one chooses to follow. There are many different traditions and many different viewpoints on a given subject as I think we all know by now.

Originally Posted by “Bandit”

I was reading in a few places & forums where Hinduism would like for the world to be Brahma Maya.

Whether the world is considered maya, and even the definition of the term maya is different in different Hindu traditions. So, even if one says that the entire creation is maya one does not necessarily mean it to be an illusory existence.

If I were to convert to Hinduism as a liberal Hindu

What you refer to as “liberal” Hinduism, if I understand correctly, is actually universalist Hinduism exists as a popular stream of Hinduism in the west. Many of these univeralist branches do not believe in any formal conversions, and some even don’t use the H word (Hindu), and use the term Indian religion, or something of the sort.

Is it possible to be Hindu by rejecting 80% of the Vedas & only keep the 20% that I agree with?

It is up to the person, the tradition s/he follows and whether s/he wants to use the term Hindu. If you want to believe in only the parts that are compatible with another religion, why even use the term “Hindu”? You are, of course, free to do this on a personal level, but traditionally speaking, the answer would be no. This is not to say that such things do not exist or have not existed.

I would insert the remaining 20% Veda & Bhavagad text with the 66 books of the Bible. I also would want to worship & recognize only one God as one person instead of the core 33 Devas & different manifestations or celestial beings & replace with the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob & that Jesus Christ is Lord of Lords & eternal life comes through him. Is this compatible from a liberal perspective in the Hindu Religion?

Whether the 33 Devas of the Vedas are individual beings or aspectual personalities of the same being is the question to ask. Many will tell you the ultimate Vedic message is also of one Divine, and all the Devas are aspectual personalities of the same. Seeing one through the many is a common theme you will find in Hindu thought.

There are many liberal perspectives in Hinduism that have arisen in the last 200 years. There is no one liberal Hindu perspective either. Many modern “Hindu” movements, but not all, lean on the universalist side. Some do accept prophets, saints, messiahs from the Judeo-Christian and other traditions. However, I don’t know of any liberal Hindu perspectives that reject 80% of the Veda. The general theme among univeralist Hindu movements is to use Hinduism as an umbrella religion, and to explain all other religions, prophets and mystic experiences in the language of the Hindu scriptures. In other words, they accept more than they reject.

I like some of the Bhavagad & Yogi & find its core principle simple & easy to do. However, instead of the different chants & using the entire Gita, it would be more sufficient & rewarding for me to say the prayers from the bible & end my prayers in the name of Jesus. Is this appropriate among the majority of Hindus?

Is it not possible to use the Bible and end your prayers in the name of Jesus, while admiring the tradition of the Bhagavad-Gita and the yogis, and still call yourself a Christian? Or is it that you find the two contrary to one another?

I believe in the possibility of some reincarnation if the one God would want to do that for a purpose, but exclude any absolute dogma concerning reincarnation & do not believe everyone is reincarnated, especially into an animal. As a liberal Hindu i would disagree with the literal law of Karma & multiple lives. Would this teaching & belief make me a good example for a Hindu?

What exactly about the above beliefs/statements would you classify as being “Hindu”?

I respect the cow & its sacred relationship to Hindus, but do not find it sacred in the same literal sense, for me. I like fish, but sometimes I also like to eat pork & beef. Is eating beef is more of a liberal view in the Hindu Religion?

Eating beef neither makes one a non-Hindu, nor does not eating it make a Hindu. There are Hindus who eat beef, and Hindus who don’t eat beef. The same goes for any other meat product. Traditionally though in Indian Hinduism beef is considered a taboo for various reasons.

it appears much of the writings are myth, so it would be pointless to literally believe in them.

Whether the writings (I imagine you mean the Puranas) are myths are a matter of personal opinion. There are those who believe that the Puranas are myths, and those who consider them to be absolutely true. Either way, Hinduism is not defined by the Puranic literature, nor is the Puranaic literature the basis of Sanatana Dharma.

..so i would be a liberal hindu & from that i would guess that most hindus are liberal and have no core to ther beliefs. that is what i am getting so far- yet i think there is more going on than that.

Hinduism has strong core beliefs, but not all core beliefs of every denomination are the same. What causes confusion many-a-times is that Hinduism is not a religion like Christianity, but is rather a fellowship of multiple religions, which share several core beliefs, and hence are collectively considered one belief system. In reality, the term Hindu is broader than saying Judeo-Christian-Islamic. If I had to guess, most people who consider themselves as Hindus are not liberal to the point of diluting their religious beliefs with those of others. I would say that most, however, do believe that other religions are not necessarily wrong, and deserve our tolerance and understanding.

it appears i can believe & discuss, anything i want to in the Hindu religion & still be a liberal Hindu. is that correct?

As individuals we can and may have any opinion on any subject. There is nothing in Hinduism that enforces conformity, or stifles individual thought or opinion. However, serious seekers learn from Hindu masters, and follow the specific teachings of that master and lineage. The masters themselves belong to a long line of teachers from a specific teaching lineage (sampradayas), all of which can be categorized into a handful of denominations. The collections of the teaching lineages and denominations is what we call Sanatana Dharma or Hinduism.

I hope that helps.

OM Shanti,
A.

[Agnideva]

Originally Posted by Pathless

Hinduism could be considered a rather "liberal" religion (rather than "literal")in general--aside from the caste system--and jii's response seems to reflect that aspect of it. Yet I'm sure you can find fundementalist Hindus as well, if that is what you are looking for.

Namaste Pathless,

I agree with you here that there are both "liberal" and orthodox streams of thought within Hinduism. Even the caste issue that has been such a part of Indian Hinduism is now breaking down. After all, caste is not the defining feature of Hinduism. It is a defining feature of South Asian society, which has been for so long supported and rationalized by the Hindu orthodoxy. There are many many Hindu masters who have argued, and quite effectively I might add, that that casteism is contrary to central principles of the Vedas and Sanatana Dharma.

OM Shanti,
A.

[Agnideva]

Namaste Obvious,

For many, 'Hindu' is more of a culture than a religion.

This is true. This is possible because the medieval term "Hindu" actually means Indian. In the Indian context, Hinduism is a mixture of religious beliefs and traditional Indian culture. However, not all Hindus are Indians, so it becomes necessary to separate the reference to ethnicity from the reference to the followers of Sanatana Dharma.

Originally Posted by Obvious Child

Certainly many Hindus have believed in the single Divine Lord, probably many more than worship 33 core Devas.

Personally I don't know anyone who worships 33 crore (330 million) Devas . Nor do I know if this is possible.

There are two thoughts on the number 33 crore:

a. the number 33 crore is a play on the number 33 which is the number of Devas in the Vedas.

b. there are 33 crore Devas ("shiny ones") who are archangelic type beings who reside in the highest heavenly realms and control all aspects of existence. The 33 crore Devas are separate, yet inseparable, from the One Divine Being.

OM Shanti,
A.

[Bandit]

Hi Agnideva & thank you for the replies.

Originally Posted by Agnideva

I would say that Hinduism can be as liberal or conservative as one wants depending on the particular tradition one chooses to follow. There are many different traditions and many different viewpoints on a given subject as I think we all know by now.

By tradition, I would think this is referring to sect. Correct?
The liberal part would depend on what sect while not diminishing the core?
Or, is this a mix & match of the different cores?

Originally Posted by Agnideva

Whether the world is considered maya, and even the definition of the term maya is different in different Hindu traditions. So, even if one says that the entire creation is maya one does not necessarily mean it to be an illusory existence.

I agree. But many people claim a title as hindu or christian, then say maya is illusory existence & not literal, especially in any kind of worship & relationship. This is a bit contrary to those with experience of a relationship of maya.

Originally Posted by Agnideva

What you refer to as “liberal” Hinduism, if I understand correctly, is actually universalist Hinduism exists as a popular stream of Hinduism in the west. Many of these univeralist branches do not believe in any formal conversions, and some even don’t use the H word (Hindu), and use the term Indian religion, or something of the sort.

I was going to get to this & I am glad you mentioned it. I see a difference because it tends to keep some beliefs from all religions, but it is not possible to keep them all & be in agreement, because there are core writings & teachings. I would be extreme liberal & even put the universalist Hinduism out of business.

Originally Posted by Agnideva

It is up to the person, the tradition s/he follows and whether s/he wants to use the term Hindu. If you want to believe in only the parts that are compatible with another religion, why even use the term “Hindu”? You are, of course, free to do this on a personal level, but traditionally speaking, the answer would be no. This is not to say that such things do not exist or have not existed.

We see this the same. I do not understand why people do this, but they do. Many only pick parts & dump what does not fit their needs & expect other to accept this. I could honestly not do this to any religion, especially the foundations on which they stand.

Originally Posted by Agnideva

Whether the 33 Devas of the Vedas are individual beings or aspectual personalities of the same being is the question to ask. Many will tell you the ultimate Vedic message is also of one Divine, and all the Devas are aspectual personalities of the same. Seeing one through the many is a common theme you will find in Hindu thought.

there is a similar dogmas in Christianity, thus one reason for different sects. I don’t feel this should be something that brings division & I wish Christianity was more tolerant & understanding.

Originally Posted by Agnideva

There are many liberal perspectives in Hinduism that have arisen in the last 200 years. There is no one liberal Hindu perspective either. Many modern “Hindu” movements, but not all, lean on the universalist side. Some do accept prophets, saints, messiahs from the Judeo-Christian and other traditions. However, I don’t know of any liberal Hindu perspectives that reject 80% of the Veda. The general theme among univeralist Hindu movements is to use Hinduism as an umbrella religion, and to explain all other religions, prophets and mystic experiences in the language of the Hindu scriptures. In other words, they accept more than they reject.

thank you for bringing this up. You may be suprized at how many people today do this to other religions as well. I did not think it was a hindu movement in general. It is more of a ‘modern’ thing, diminishing other religions to nothing. The Veda is a core to all Hindu beliefs, or so it seems & this cannot be removed.

Originally Posted by Agnideva

Is it not possible to use the Bible and end your prayers in the name of Jesus, while admiring the tradition of the Bhagavad-Gita and the yogis, and still call yourself a Christian? Or is it that you find the two contrary to one another?

yes this is possible, but is it possible for Hinduism to end all prayers in Jesus Name?
if I said a prayer from hindusim, like for peace, I would end it in Jesus Name, because I believe all prayers go through Jesus.
I don’t think most of Bhagavad is contrary, the emphasis on SELF is just different.
titles are only used to be able to relate, as in this conversation.

What exactly about the above beliefs/statements would you classify as being “Hindu”?

From what I understand, reincarnation is indeed a core & foundation of Hinduism. not saying there are some who do not believe in reincarnation, but I think most do. There may be many doctrines concerning this. I don’t know. If all these written doctrines of reincarnation are removed, & we change it to only one life on earth, then we go to be with God. & maybe only sometimes someone may reincarnate only if God says so with no guarantee. Would this change the way people live & think in Hinduism? Would this be acceptable teaching & belief in the liberal view?
How would most Hindus relate & react if it were coming as a regular thought from my liberal view? Would they be glad?
The law of Karma is also a fundamental teaching in Hinduism. Is it not? Would it be ok in my liberal view to say it does not really matter what you do & nothing bad ever happens. There is no payment or curse, so you can do as you please. This would kind of mess things up in the Eternal Dharma, I think.

Originally Posted by Agnideva

Eating beef neither makes one a non-Hindu, nor does not eating it make a Hindu. There are Hindus who eat beef, and Hindus who don’t eat beef. The same goes for any other meat product. Traditionally though in Indian Hinduism beef is considered a taboo for various reasons.

Traditionally, I hear it is not acceptable. Is this a more recent liberal teaching?

Originally Posted by Agnideva

Whether the writings (I imagine you mean the Puranas) are myths are a matter of personal opinion. There are those who believe that the Puranas are myths, and those who consider them to be absolutely true. Either way, Hinduism is not defined by the Puranic literature, nor is the Puranaic literature the basis of Sanatana Dharma.

I realize the puranas are more cosmo histories & legends of gods & heroes but they are still related in a sense to Sanatana for those who believe them. Correct?

if I keep telling those who believe it is true, that the puranas & Sanatana Darma are not true & mostly myth, would this not begin to burden those who believe it is true? If someone truly believes, then what purpose is there to tell them it is not true, except to make them believe it is not true? Do you see what I mean? For example I keep going through all the threads here & repeatedly give my liberal view that changes the teachings of Sanatana, because I exclude them, by inserting other beliefs from other religions or my own philosospy which differs greatly from the traditional views, would this be acceptable in Hinduism?

Originally Posted by Agnideva

Hinduism has strong core beliefs, but not all core beliefs of every denomination are the same. What causes confusion many-a-times is that Hinduism is not a religion like Christianity, but is rather a fellowship of multiple religions, which share several core beliefs, and hence are collectively considered one belief system. In reality, the term Hindu is broader than saying Judeo-Christian-Islamic. If I had to guess, most people who consider themselves as Hindus are not liberal to the point of diluting their religious beliefs with those of others. I would say that most, however, do believe that other religions are not necessarily wrong, and deserve our tolerance and understanding.

I see you recognize there is a difference in Christianity, where the core is the same. Here you are saying there are many different cores in Hinduism, but within that particular tradition or denomination, the core of the tradition/denomination would still remain. In christianity the core remains the same, but there are many denominations. Sadly, the sects do not fellowship very well in the real world.
Are you saying one can mix & match the core beliefs?

Would it be ok for me to suggest that Krishna is not a real Lord & not a literal Savior? Krishna is just a regular man with some good teaching but not all. Would this become burdensome & contrary to those who believe Krishna is Lord? or is it acceptable?

If I am correct, in Hinduism, it is an expanding religion. New writings are accepted. Would it be contrary to try & stop or change this expansion & say no more writings in my liberal view? Or is it ok to do that?
I think the reason it varies so much is due to the many writings & different gods & goddesses with many descriptive arms & hands.

Originally Posted by Agnideva

As individuals we can and may have any opinion on any subject. There is nothing in Hinduism that enforces conformity, or stifles individual thought or opinion. However, serious seekers learn from Hindu masters, and follow the specific teachings of that master and lineage. The masters themselves belong to a long line of teachers from a specific teaching lineage (sampradayas), all of which can be categorized into a handful of denominations. The collections of the teaching lineages and denominations is what we call Sanatana Dharma or Hinduism.

Originally Posted by Agnideva

I hope that helps.

It does help & I appreciate your time with this. If I were to diminish the Hindu masters by making them not real masters & make them of less value to those who follow the masters & remove many of their teachings, would this become tiring for those who follow a particular master? For example to disagree with a master would imply that I am not truly following that master all the way, only using him for the teachings that I like, but removing much of his authority as a master that has been gained & accepted with others. Would this liberal view & alterations make those people weary & somewhat confused, who follow the masters & his teaching?

I have one more question for you. Lets say, the lineage of a certain tribe who pass down an heirloom from generation to generation for thousands of years. This heirloom also comes with an inheritance. If these people are fiction, would the heirloom & inheritance also become fiction?

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by Obvious Child

For many, 'Hindu' is more of a culture than a religion. Various religious reformers in India considered themselves Hindu atheists, and others were Hindu Christians/Christian Hindus. As for your specific points: check out the Brahmo Samaj and its various offshoots. Many ate beef, rejected animal reincarnation etc.

If you genuinely entered into a Hindu culture and viewpoint (remember orthopraxy can be as important as orthodoxy) you may be a Hindu. Certainly many Hindus have believed in the single Divine Lord, probably many more than worship 33 core Devas.

If you simply used some of the core texts, probably not.

hi Obvious Child

this kind of reform seems to change the religion quite a bit. a Christian atheist or Hindu atheist does not seem to work, unless viewing it just from culture.

this is a good point on orthodoxy & orthopraxy. do you feel that to change the orthodoxy & texts too much would in return change some of orthoproxy?
i think it would to a degree & would appreciate your thoughts on that.

i am not in reference to things such as love & respect, but the personal relationship that can be found through both orthopraxy & orthodoxy.

this is informative, that more Hindus believe in one Lord than the 33 Devas. i would view these Devas more like angels - actually more like attributes of the one true Lord. that is probably not too liberal.

i understand Hindu is not the same as Hindusim. one can be a Hindu & also be a Christian or Muslim. i suppose the title christian or christianity would also be the difference there yet the culture can be very diverse.

i hope i am making sense.

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by Hustle Kong

As much as I know about Hindu and Christian belief, this would not be acceptable to either (at least as far as your average Hindu or Christian goes).

I could, however, be entirely incorrect.

hello Hustle Kong

i think there would be some problems eventually also. especially when you consider the average.

[Bandit]

Hello Jiii

Originally Posted by jiii

I am somewhat compelled to ask why you would want to be a Hindu if you didn't believe in 80% of their scriptures? I mean, being a Hindu isn't really anything special, so if you don't particularly like most of their scriptures, just enjoy the ones you do like. There is no need to determine whether your Hindu or not.

well, it does not really make sense to me either.

It sounds that by saying 'liberal Hindu', your really trying classify your personal philosophies. Frankly, if you see the profound nature of your own personal philosophy, then what you have is better than Hinduism. So, if people ask, you might say you got a little something out of reading Hindu scriptures. This does not, however, mean that you are obligated to establish what type of Hindu you are, and if so, how much Hindu you are. You don't really need to worry about that, as the parts of the scriptures you enjoy are really the point.

i think this is wise. it really is substituting my own personal philosophy. but what if my own philosophy is really mixed up to most people?
by what 'type' of hindu do you mean,... would this be the different sects, denominations & traditions?

As far as the specifics of compatability, there isn't much. Christian religion and Hindu religion are two very different religions. Even though they may aim toward the same truth, they do not share any mythology and neither religion really has any reason to go out of its way to determine what aspects of world religion it approves of and disapproves of.

i think they are very different religions also. for either to go out of its way to change or try to prove one over the other, would certainly bring some conflicts.

Originally Posted by jiii

It sounds like you're not particularly sure of what you believe or don't believe, so before you start considering whether you are a Christian or a Hindu or what have you, you should first determine if 'taking on' the title of a specific religion is something that really appeals to you, or works for you, at this point in time. Maybe it's not. People usually will choose a specific religion for themselves when they've decided to devote themselves to a particular doctrine. However, living by our own personal spiritual philosophy can be just as fruitful. A person is no less holy just because they don't adhere to a specific church or temple or other spiritual tradition.

LOL- i am sure it does sound like i am not sure what i believe. that is kind of why i am doing this. iam doing my best here, for what little i know about your religion.

i dont really see too much meaning in titles but the meaning of the title can be severely changed. how many established Hindu temples do you think would allow such extreme liberal views that removes so much of the Veda? or removes the authority that is generally accepted by particular Masters?
these are of course established beliefs i am refering to.
would you view this as a challenge if you saw it all the time?
how much of a challenge would you say there is to change & alter basic Hinduism? by change, i mean the freedom that is found in that religion.

what if the own spiritual philosophy extremely changes the establsihed or more accepted view? do you think the liberal philosophy could become a hinderance to the main core & foundation, if the liberal Hindu view removes them? & vice versa...
i am not saying there is anything wrong with that persons choices either way, but do you think there will arise conflicts when the established belief meets with the personal belief that removes too much of the Veda & the basic core of a tradition by trying to claim such titles???

thank you again for the reply.

[jiii]

Well, I suppose that from a certain persepctive, religions of any kind are basically just models for what has been called many different names: "spiritual power", "faith", "enlightenment", the list goes on... I say this only because the real benefit that 'established' doctrines offer a spiritual seeker is in their clarification of that faith's path that is free of the eccentricities of the individual. With Hinduism, as well as any religion, this is the case. You could say that 'the Hindu' in a man is, excluding ritual dress or what have you, indistinguishable from the man. A man may be a dedicated and devoted Hindu, but he's still going to look mostly like a regular man that could, to the untrained observer, appear to be of any religion.

So, for example, when ancient people wanted to begin learning how "amazing" Indian men discovered their "spiritual power" or "wisdom", they invented Hinduism as an on-going system of teachings, texts, and ideas designed, in theory, to be an external replica of the inside of a Hindu man. That is to say, the entirity of the Hindu faith as it can be known through ideas and concepts is an attempt to cleave the essentials of the Hindu attitude from their "hiding places" in the physical body and transcribe them for teaching or reading. Thus, Hinduism is the best model that can be offered to explain the attitude of a Hindu, which is invisible to the senses.
My point, after all of this, is that people can, and probably will, argue back and forth forever about what it means to be a 'real' Hindu. However, a 'real' Hindu will see that this is all in vain, because he knows that every word ever said about Hinduism is really a one-sided abstraction of spiritual experience that is always available without saying a word. Bear in mind, this is not at all to say anything of the value of Hinduism. Though, it is important to keep this point in mind to get a broader perspective of the religion.

Furthermore, 'belief' seems to be a factor mentioned quite a bit. The fact is, there are plenty of Hindus that don't really "believe" in reincarnation. The idea of reincarnation, for example, is simply part and parcel to the doctrine to which they claim allegiance. More important than belief in reincarnation is understanding the implications of the idea and how it alludes to so many different feelings and sheds light upon many conceptual roadblocks. You can, but certainly do not have to, truly believe that you will be reincarnated. However, if you were to call yourself a Hindu, you should not be particularly opposed to understanding life using something like reincarnation as a conceptual model. You should feel comfortable with the mythologies even if you don't believe them to be literal truths. If, on the other hand, you specifically believe these ideas to be foolish, then this is ALSO belief. That is to say, you don't really know whether or not people are reincarnated. This is what you could call the 'prerequisite' attitude of the Hindu. "Maybe it's true, maybe not..." Determining if one wants to believe or disbelieve in reincarnation isn't the point. People that have been Hindus for eighty years still don't know and never will. Thinking of life as something that repeats over and over again can shed some light on ideas and ways of understanding yourself that you may never have considered...this is the point really. Therefore, many Masters of Eastern religion do not formally "believe" the more esoteric principles of their doctrines...BUT, they do understand that those things which at first are called and sometimes misinterpreted as "beliefs" are really paradoxical subjects for contemplation that can, in many individuals, awaken a more lucid understanding of the faith.

Hopefully, this can clarify things concerning the further questions you offered.