Given the number of times I've had to tell people that all Indians aren't "Hindi" and the lack of interest (most) White Americans display in the culture (beyond aping bhangra beats and Desi style), I'm really not surprised by the stat that "59 percent of those surveyed indicated that they had no interest in learning more about the religion".

But then, I'm Sikh and didn't know much about Hinduism until I took a class in college. Not that my parents shunned any learning about Hinduism, or that we didn't go to pujas, I just had no idea what was going on.

As an aside, I've always laughed when I see evangelical Christians trying to convert the Hindus on Devon Street in Chicago - a "get them before they get us" mentality. And I think, "But you cannot convert to Hinduism!" So it's a bit alarming to see that you've gleaned that some may be trying to make Hinduism as marketable as possible. Wouldn't that mean so it's more palatable to dominant culture (not that that's ok or anything).

So it's a bit alarming to see that you've gleaned that some may be trying to make Hinduism as marketable as possible. Wouldn't that mean so it's more palatable to dominant culture (not that that's ok or anything).

But it should be stressed that EVERY religion is trying to make itself as palatable as possible. Acceptance and/or converts=power and influence. It has been the same throughout the history of religion.

Seems we're the only two commenting at this hour! Grad school allows for lots of late nights.

Anyhoo, you're totally right - religions have had to make themselves palatable for growth. And for non-Christian religions (and some offshoots of Christianity, as with the Mormon Church), there has been an effort to make the religion more palatable to dominant culture to gain acceptance. My whole thing about palatability not being ok (and this is my hippie-dippie side coming out) is that we shouldn't have to change anything about ourselves to be accepted, and that makes me kinda sad.

Of course, I know people have been fighting to gain acceptance for all sorts of reasons for milennia. So much for my dreams of holding hands and singing "Kumbaya". ;-)

Seems we're the only two commenting at this hour! Grad school allows for lots of late nights.

Except I'm not technically at grad school now. Full time job and a defense in three weeks. I shouldn't be on here now. :)

59% of Americans have no interest in learning about Hinduism. That number would be the same in Japan, China, Jordan, Nigeria,Iceland and in Peru. I don't see that being just an American thing. Most people in the mainstream culture in any country feel that other should learn more about there culture. Right or wrong that just the way it is.

There are about 1.5 million people of Hindu background in America that makes up 0.5% of the culture. And not all of those people are religous. Also the last 6 years Islam is get alot more American media coverage, so most americans don't get much info about hinduism.

I meant to say 0.5% of the American population, not culture. Sorry about that.

Much of Hindu miilitancy in the west, its growing intolerance of the denigration of Hindu symbols, and of internal critique, is starting to disturb me. This American diaspora is very upper caste, and comes with wounded sensitivities--about reservations, anti-Brahmin movements etc., that will not disappear easily. This is why we're seeing spirted defenses of the caste system, couched in anti-western and anti-modern terms, with the underlying idea that India is "awakening" from the hegemony of western categories. At the political level, one must concede that there are other millitancies and particularisms that fuel the response (and the "clash" mentality in American politics certainly legitmates a confrontational "civilizational" stance) but spiritually (at the personal level) its exceedingly damaging--it is much harder to live without hate. We Hindus have really lost our spiritual bearings, I think. It remains to be seen if this is simply a transitional period or the beginnings of something darker.

Interesting also is the fact that the author is a Kurien - that's as Mallu Christian as surnames can get. I suppose "The Development of an American Hinduism" is a catchier title than "The Development of an American Jacobite Syrian-ism". :)

And also increasingly ludicrous critques of islam and christianity. Check out this forum

What worries me is not the Indian Hindu diaspora, but the American new age movement that has made a bhel puri out of Advaita, vishishta advaita, and dvaita, combined it with Buddhism to create a mish-mash exotified marketing oriented culture. This culture is as materialistic as it gets; books, retreats, "ayurvedic" medicines, CDs and clothes are palmed off to the unsuspecting and (emotionally) vulnerable hordes. This is damaging to the true essense of Hinduism.
See this crackpot, for example.

Much of Hindu miilitancy in the west, its growing intolerance of the denigration of Hindu symbols, and of internal critique, is starting to disturb me.

What's wrong with fighting against the denigration of Hindu symbols? Is it OK, for example, if the EU were to ban the Swastika?

re: hinduism, etc. i've done a lot of reading on the evolution of american judaism and catholicism. the short of it is that both these religions had to become "protestant" to really survive in the USA. in the "old world" the catholic church had a special relationship with the powers that be, whether that be as mediators for an ethnic community as ireland, or as the dominant dispensation as in italy (though many italian americans came from an anti-clerical milieu). once in the USA they were faced with a protestant culture which was extremely hostile toward them, the public school system emerged in part as a way to assimilate and acculturate catholic youth. the roman catholic church, with its irish heirarchy, in the 19th century tried to do two things:

a) establish itself as a "pillar" of society which was separate but equal, where the church represented the interests of its own people to the US gov.

b) force the assimilation of ethnic groups like germans into the english speaking culture so that a common catholic front could be generated (ironically, it was the irish who militated against the german language schools in the midwest and separate dicoeses and what not)

it was successful in b, but not a. today american catholics, on average, have many similar religious and social attitudes as protestants. this happened in the early 19th century, before the mass immigration of the irish. american catholics exhibit many peculiar attitudes and folkways that are rather like the sectarian protestants who are their fellow citizens, and within the catholic church this tendency is called the 'americanist' movement. the short if is that catholicism had to adapt or die. the same is true for judaism, reform judaism, and later conservative judaism, was a response to the american religious marketplace. the ghetto/shtetl life was not viable, so the religion/ethnicity would either lose its young folk to the gentile culture, or it would create its own jewish "church" to compete. "traditional" separatist judaism exists only in isolated pockets because american culture fundamentally respects and enshrines the rights of citizens, not communities.

there are players within the catholic or jewish community that don't accept this, and see themselves as 'community leaders' who have a right to negotiate and dictate for their community. but they're basically opportunists, and don't constrain the typical catholic or jew, who exists in a marketplace of ideas. a large minority of americans are religious converts, and this includes catholics and jews. the "old world" is not the new world, and people can't assume that religion and culture are fundamentally tied. two of the democratic candidates in 2004 were ethnically half-jewish, but religiously catholic.

finally, i've addressed this with hinduism before: it will either adapt or be absorbed by christianity and secularism. there really isn't a choice in the united states, the surrounding culture does not give an implicit support toward hindu religiosity so the hindu temples need to promulgate an aggressive and relevant vision of their faith. or simply lose subsequent generations. it might be "sad" (i'm an atheist, i don't care who gods you worship as long as you don't blow yourselves up on buses like some religions), but that's probably the reality. i've noticed lately that muslims in the USA have been using 'arminian' language when traditionally their religion is 'predestinarian.' since most people are ignorant about the theological details of their religon this shouldn't be surprising, but it is interesting as it suggests that even muslims are protestantizing in their outlook.

p.s. some hindus who emphasize that "hinduism is really monotheistic" exhibit the same tendency of reformulating the religion to be in keeping with mainstream american standards. i'm a nominalist re: religion, i don't think hinduism is essentially monotheistic or non-monotheistic, it is what you make of it. but, i suspect in india the typical hindu wouldn't really think about this question in detail. those that did, such the early 'reformists' in brahmo and arya samaj were reacting pretty explicitly to christian critiques.

It does mutate in the States, it would be hard not to. One reason, as we've often discussed before, is that Hindus in desh often don't have to explain or justify their religion to anyone, or actively seek it out, whereas Hindus in the US have to, are more self-conscious about it, and probably want their kids to have lessons or read up on the stuff (not that different from Westernized parents like mine giving us Amar Chitra Kathas to read along with Krishna stories and Ramayana and Mahabharata stories from the elders).

The desire of a migrant community to maintain solidarity with their own should not be underestimated either, and this is something that Hindus in the US do have in common with Muslims in Europe - the relatives I know in the States do go to the temple, if there is one, or have poojas at home much more often than we ever did at home. I also wonder if this has something to do with the church model in the US, whether Hindus and their kids feel like they "should" have a place of worship to go to and call their own as well (similarly, many sanatani Hindus I know who came to the States in the 70s and 80s before it was trendy to be multiculti and so on felt defensive about their lack of a "core book," and, rather like the Brahmos and Arya Samajis confronted with the Christian challenge in the late 19C, got themselves and read up on the Bhagvad Gita). Plus you have the VHP and their presence among lots of highly-educated migrants in the US, who organised Hindu youth camps and the like that appeal to a desire among parents to not have the kids lose touch with "their culture" and particularly "their moral values" (i.e. not having sex!) By contrast, the average elite, educated Hindu in India will come into contact with institutionalised religion mainly for births, deaths and marriages.

Risible makes a good point too: "This American diaspora is very upper caste, and comes with wounded sensitivities--about reservations, anti-Brahmin movements etc., that will not disappear easily." Many of those who came to the US for education in the 80s from South India were often upper caste and couldn't get into elite institutions because of stringent caste reservations, I think this has something to do with the streak of conservatism I've noted in elite, well-educated Hindus in the US (far far more religiously conservative, in many cases, than an equivalent person back home).

Diana Eck has written about Hinduism in the US from an academic angle, IIRC. And Arvind Rajagopal has a great article/chapter (and forthcoming book?) about Hindu identity and the more Hindutva-oriented organisations in the US.

Re: converting to Hinduism, it's an innovation, started with "reconversion" (ghar vapsi) campaigns for those who had become Christian (even though they might have been tribal/dalit with a tenuous link to Hinduism), and now I've been reading about Christians who marry Hindus in the west having to do a nominal conversion?

"By contrast, the average elite, educated Hindu in India will come into contact with institutionalised religion mainly for births, deaths and marriages."

How are you defining elite? Are you South Indian btw?

I'm defining elite as someone with an advanced degree who makes good money, upper middle and upper class, and as I've lived mainly in the metropolises, I'm thinking of those who live in big cities. Am North Indian but grew up partly in the South, partly Bombay. I know there are more practising religious folks among South Indian upper castes, and probably more South Indians in the US desi population, so perhaps that's part of it - though the Hindus I know in the States are mainly North Indian, some Gujarati, and their families back home are a lot less practising than they are. It's also very much a generational contrast, which seems more striking for South Indians, I think, many of the (Tamil Brahmin) uncles and aunties I knew were quite regular with poojas but their kids were probably the most secular/religion-averse people!

"They also use the ideology of multiculturalism to justify and legitimize a militant Hindu nationalism"

What's knew about this? I thought Vijay Prashad and Biju Matthew have devoted their lives to spreading this enlightening information to, well, other Indian leftists. Seeing as how she's a part of the Maxwell school's sociology department, no surprise she's in total agreement with them.

I'll agree with her that there definitely are organizations out there that conform to her thesis, but she's made a pretty generalized statement, and I think that, overall, this idea of "militant Hindu nationalism" inflitrating the second generation is something that is ridiculously overblown by a miniscule but loud minority of Indian-American leftists.

it will either adapt or be absorbed by Christianity and secularism

I would bet on secularism. If one were to question Hinduism on an intellectual level, I doubt too many would opt for a monotheistic and messianic view of god. I agree that it will be difficult for Hinduism to survive in the "free market" if it exhibits even a semblance of polytheism. So it is likely that Hinduism will gravitate towards a more secular/spiritual belief system.

This part of the IndoLink article is interesting:

Ravi, one of the founders of a Hindu Student Council chapter that the author studied, talked about how hard it had been to set up the organization on campus. He attributed the difficulty in attracting Hindu students to the inferiority complex that many Hindu Americans had developed in this society. There were around eight hundred students of Indian ancestry on campus but only a hundred and fifty were even on the HSC mailing list. “People are ashamed to come out as Hindus. A few people faced racist comments from their white friends when they did. We can’t even have a puja [Hindu worship service] here since people don’t want to be associated with ‘idol worship.’” According to him, one of the main problems was that unlike other religious identities, a Hindu identity was a “vague” identity. “What does it really mean to be a Hindu? Most people haven’t a clue.” He and two other students decided to form the HSC club organized around a weekly discussion session so that Hindu students could talk about these issues.

You can definitely see themes from US multiculturalism here - pride in one's identity, suggestions that those who don't choose to identify primarily as Hindu are vaguely self-hating, or ashamed to "come out," that sort of thing. The conflation of ethnic and religious identity is also quite remarkable.

"It's also very much a generational contrast, which seems more striking for South Indians, I think, many of the (Tamil Brahmin) uncles and aunties I knew were quite regular with poojas but their kids were probably the most secular/religion-averse people!"

I disagree to some extent, mainly because I think you're not taking gender into account. I would agree that most South Indian boys, whether raised Indian or American, tend not to be religious and rarely practice the rituals. On the other hand, I think its rather different for girls. I think that to some extent, that has to do with gender roles. And while I don't think I can really articulate this, I feel that a lot of Indian boys see religion as being emasculating.

If you go to any South Indian temples in the US, while the people who actually sit through the entire puja tend to be the older first generation, most of the crowd who come in on the weekends for the quick archana are almost entirely composed of the younger immigrants, former H1 types.
Talking to my own cousins, a lot of the times its the wife that pushes for the visits and the archanas. you do see some groups of men come by themselves, but I think that has more to do with the opportunity of getting good cheap south indian food than any spiritual purpose.

Seeing as how she's a part of the Maxwell school's sociology department, no surprise she's in total agreement with them.

I don't know what the Maxwell school of thought is but her argument seems to be an extension of Anthony D. Smith's theory of nationalism, ethnosymbolism, ethnic identities developing nationalist identities, etc. Which might explain why student organizations that explicitly note their national identity (Indian) fare better than a campus Hindu student organization, as per SP's comment. I've anecdotally noticed a similar attempt to conflate identities amongst Sikh student organizations where as time has passed since 1984, the conflation of Sikh religious identity and Sikh nationalist identity has become weaker. One key difference being that a Hindu student organization has a nation and a national identity, however obfuscated, to fall back on.

If you go to any South Indian temples in the US, while the people who actually sit through the entire puja tend to be the older first generation, most of the crowd who come in on the weekends for the quick archana are almost entirely composed of the younger immigrants, former H1 types. Talking to my own cousins, a lot of the times its the wife that pushes for the visits and the archanas. you do see some groups of men come by themselves, but I think that has more to do with the opportunity of getting good cheap south indian food than any spiritual purpose.

Interesting - no, I've never been to the South indian temples in the U.S. It makes perfect sense that the older first-gens would be more serious about their religion than the recent H1 types, because they've probably spent more time in the US in a context where they had to struggle for their identity to be respected, plus all desis get rather more religious as they get older.

The point about gender is a good one, that seems to hold across generations and diaspora/desh religiosity. Possibly emphasized in the US context because Indian women are supposed to be the keepers of tradition generally and the tradition-preserving urge is naturally stronger away from the motherland. I've known many more South Indian uncles who were practising than North Indian ones, but that might be exceptional. As for the point about religion being emasculating, the interesting thing is that Hindu men are much more likely to vote BJP than women in India, and I daresay, to join groups like Sangh Parivar or VHP affiliated ones in the US, which points to a preference for a more "nationalistic" or identity-oriented religiosity - which also, at its origin, emphasized the strengthening and re-masculinisation (is that a word?) of the Hindu community.

As for the attraction of food - I'm guilty of that ;)

you do see some groups of men come by themselves, but I think that has more to do with the opportunity of getting good cheap south indian food than any spiritual purpose.

this may be the decisive point that brings down razib's theory. Free food and free entry can bring anyone closer to god.

The free food factor brings a whole new level of meaning to the idea of a "place at the table."

Here in the UK it is clear that some desis take refuge in a hyper politicised religious identity which becomes quite narrow in how it interprets religion. This is most pronounced as a phenomenon amongst British Muslims -- you will have read and heard lots about that. But it is also noticeable amongst Hindus and Sikhs. Whatever the background it has some noticeable features amongst all desis:

* A tendency to hunt down 'traitors' --- those from the same faith background who do not share the interpretation and viewpoint. Alot of energy is spent in delineating differences as part of a purifying of the community. The neo-religionists are obsessed with de-legitimising heterodox / liberal versions of the faith.

* The religion is in a perpetual state of crisis and persecution from outsiders. Historical events of genuine violence / oppression are amplified and made 'relevant' through propaganda and brainwashing to the condition of the 'community' living in the present day as a minority in the West. This begins to cloud how they perceive themselves as individuals; they exist on a continuum of persecution and are actively being persecuted, even though they live comfortable lives in the West and are more often than not from prosperous and economically comfortable backgrounds. Genuine issues of racism and discrimination in contemporary society are conflated with these threads and bolster the heightened sense of persecution.

* A romanticising and exalting of the past, an asserting of a period in history of virginal purity and innocence and peace which was spoiled by outsiders or / and conniving traitors from within. A historical touchstone from which much of their energy and romanticism derives (and the romanticism of it is what makes it so seductive)

* An imperialistic sensibility that underpins the rhetoric of 'nationalistic' pride --- a muscular aspiration (the creation of a Caliphate, Akhand Bharat, Khalistan, Tamil Eelam) as an endpoint to the ideology.

It has to be said that this is all in line with studies that show how social dislocation and emigration often do lead to movements that homogenise identity in order to cope with a communal sense of anomie, and that often they are catalysed by genuine discrimination and alienation / marginalisation from mainstream society. They can only exist, too, in parallel with the increasing integration and liberal interpretations of faith and identity which take place in the diaspora amongst the overwhleming majority of Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs. It is the alarm they feel at what they see as their brothers and sisters 'deracination' that propels much of this.

However, it has been the case that organised groups have been able to leverage themselves in terms of public legitimacy through the mechanisms of multiculturalism in some instances, either through accessing funds or claiming to be sole or significant spokespeople for their 'community'

smoking red snapper, I likes.

Red Snapper, the phenomenon you've described is really similar to that of cultural nationalism (cf John Hutchinson) and it certainly does seem to be taken to another level in diasporas.

I think, as Razib said, religion does have to morph to meet its new environment, including Hinduism. For example, Hinduism in India is practiced in so many different ways, within individual families, regions, states, etc. But in America, we are often one "Indian" community rather than being split by our groups (except maybe in major population centers like NYC). So in places like Salt Lake City, where I used to live, the small community of 5,000 had to face being a SERIOUS minority. Non-Mormons are 45 percent in the area, the majority of that are white Christians...so the community came together to make a temple and community center. I don't remember the major icon in their temple, but I don't think they tried to diversify by religion.

In Minneapolis, the new temple has icons from several parts of India to represent the population, like Ayyappa, Jagganath and Vishnu/Laxmi/Shiva. I guess that represents its growing population? Anyway, it was a big debate how to build the temple, what icons to put in, etc., because everyone wanted their specific area represented. I'm not criticizing that debate, but it definitely did slow down the process (the temple took about 20 years to build!) But whose regional preferences trumps others?

Oh yes, and I forgot to add that Hinduism allows for that change, adaptation and morphing. The way I learned Hinduism is that its an open, all-encompassing religion. Like someone said above, you can't "convert" persay. That's why there ARE regional differences in Hinduism--because every area adjusted it to their personal needs. Somewhere along the line, certain things that were done with no real reason behind them (or for the reasons that it was convenient, something else was missing, they needed to add more time to the ceremony, etc.) became "tradition" and suddenly people get really uptight about changing parts of rituals. That last part is my personal opinion...

>>Much of Hindu miilitancy in the west, its growing intolerance of the denigration of Hindu symbols... is starting to disturb me.

Wonders never cease!!

>>Much of Hindu miilitancy in the west, its growing intolerance .. of internal critique, is starting to disturb me.

If there is an internal critique(by practicing Hindus) that has incurred opposition, I would love some links.

>>This American diaspora is very upper caste,... This is why we're seeing spirted defenses of the caste system

You mean, the caste non-system, don't you?

M. Nam

If there is an internal critique(by practicing Hindus) that has incurred opposition, I would love some links.

And there's the gambit. If by 'practicing Hindus' you mean purists then purists see no problems with other purists but only with the non-comformists, waywards, sellouts, hybrids, and those that carve their own path. Forget the links yaar, listen in on the dialogue at a college campus- its the petri dish for this topic.

>>If by 'practicing Hindus' you mean purists then purists see no problems with other purists but only with the non-comformists, waywards, sellouts, hybrids, and those that carve their own path.

It's hard to define the term "practising Hindu". If my grandfathers came back from the dead and saw me today, they would clutch their heart and go back to the dead when they see my version of Hinduism.

I would say: Someone who is well versed in the basic concepts(Vedas, Upanishads, Gita etc), goes to the temple, attends/conducts puja (all at his/her convinience), conducts birth/marriage/death rituals as per Hindu practices etc etc.

M. Nam

If you go to any South Indian temples in the US, while the people who actually sit through the entire puja tend to be the older first generation, most of the crowd who come in on the weekends for the quick archana are almost entirely composed of the younger immigrants, former H1 types.

That's accurate As someone who grew up here and actually goes to sit down and recite the whole pujas once a month or so at the temple, I've seen that most of the other people that come for the whole thing are older (parents age). The thing about it is... no one (both male and female) comes to the temple by themselves to sit for an hour. It's always married couples (with or without kids), or groups of hungry grad students that come for the free food.

It just strikes me as unusual maybe. I certainly know many catholics or other christians that would go by themselves to church. And I could be wrong, but Hindus in India probably go too. But it's really unusual that it just doesn't happen here.

What's wrong with fighting against the denigration of Hindu symbols?

I am talking about absurdities put forth by US organizations such as finding Cricket Ganesha "defamatory".

If there is an internal critique(by practicing Hindus) that has incurred opposition, I would love some links.

The millitants view anyone who doesn't toe their line, essentially a nationalistic line in vehement oppostion to Muslims, communists, the English language media, as "anti-Hindu." It is, to quote Red Snapper's tour de force, "traitor hunting." During the Californian textbook controversy, the "anti-Hindus" included some Hindu professors who signed in oppostion to the Vedic foundation edits.link.

I'm having trouble posting what I want to write for some reason (possibly length?), but I do think that Hinduism in the States is not currently meeting the needs of younger Hindus. I think razib is right in saying the faith will need to adapt (at least superficially), but I don't think that's such a bad thing. A faith as diverse as Hinduism can survive a certain degree of Americanization. I think it should be easier for younger Hindus who are currently trying to navigate both American and Hindu identities to access Hindu mandirs.

Anyway, my original post was much more detailed, so I guess I'll just have to flesh it out in responses? :(

risible, that Cricket Ganesha link is hilarious. How dare people use artistic, "unscientific" techniques in creating murtis!

How influential are groups like ? Their tagline is, "Uniting Hindus Globally." If I didn't know anything about Hinduism and Hindus, I could easily have believed that they really did represent "the Hindu community," simply because they say they do. Likewise a very few violent Muslims have claimed to respresent Islam, and now the majority of American Muslims are on the defensive, continually asked to prove they're not nutjobs as well. Most Americans have at best a vague understanding of religions other than their own (not good, but that's how it is), so whoever makes the most noise in the name of religion, tends to establish the idea of the religion to everyone else. Zionists have been the loudest, most agitated Jews in the US, so most Americans assume all Jews are Zionists. It rankles me to hear people talk about "the Jews" when they mean Zionists, and when Zionists accuse non-Zionists of being "self-hating Jews." I made a similar mistake when I referred to a Forced-Birth organization as "the Christians;" an understandably insulted Christian friend corrected me.

Question for moderate Hindus: HJS and similar groups are claiming to speak for all Hindus. Are you concerned that Americans will believe their version of Hinduism is "the" Hinduism, or do you think they'll just be ignored? If they gain prominence in the US, what will you do?

Please add my praises to Red Snapper's post.

gah, I can't html tag to save my life.

>>During the Californian textbook controversy, the "anti-Hindus" included some Hindu professors who signed in oppostion to the Vedic foundation edits

A correct way of putting it is : Some professors with Hindu names. Madhav Deshpande uses the ManuSmriti to make his points. ManuSmriti!! It's like using "Mein Kampfh" to study today's Germans. No practising Hindu will ever use ManuSmriti to rationalize anything.

>>HJS and similar groups are claiming to speak for all Hindus.

Actually, it's the other way round. Some professors with Hindu names, Witzel, and a small bunch of leftist academics are claiming to speak for all Hindus.

Visit a temple. Any temple. Pick a random set of people and ask them who/what they believe in. Your definition of "moderate" will need a major adjustment.

M. Nam

Actually, it's the other way round. Some professors with Hindu names, Witzel, and a small bunch of leftist academics are claiming to speak for all Hindus.

Visit a temple. Any temple. Pick a random set of people and ask them who/what they believe in. Your definition of "moderate" will need a major adjustment.

So a Hindu who doesn't attend a temple frequently isn't a Hindu, just "someone with a Hindu name"? Maybe you could tell me, since I'm not a Zionist and don't go to temple, am I a Jew?

If one were to question Hinduism on an intellectual level,

believe it or not, very little religious change is driven by intellectual concerns. the best predictive variables are social, cultural and personal (e.g., check network theory and what not). like jews, i suspect hindus will tend to secularize toward a cultural identity and a nominal religious affinity which isn't very distinctive (i.e., different than christian monotheism, but aping its general outlines so as not to be too "weird"). but, if you look at the fact that 80% of americans are christian, a generation by generation period of conversion to christianity is pretty lethal for the numbers of a minority, if that minority isn't growing through conversion as well. jews have this problem, even though many (most) do not convert to christianity, enough do in every generation that without birth rate (e.g., galicia in the 18th century) they tend to get absorbed into the christian substratum.

The point about gender is a good one, that seems to hold across generations and diaspora/desh religiosity.

in the usa almost every religion has a female bias (islam and buddhism are the only exceptions). this is a cross-cultural tendency, males tend to secularize more quickly (see catholic europe, latin america, south korea). there are various social, economic and psychological explanations given, but it is an almost universal trend that women are more gullible re: superstitions.

It has to be said that this is all in line with studies that show how social dislocation and emigration often do lead to movements that homogenise identity in order to cope with a communal sense of anomie, and that often they are catalysed by genuine discrimination and alienation / marginalisation from mainstream society.

the multi-textured nature of islam, hinduism, buddhism, etc. in the old country is predicated on particular specific historically contingent parameters. once those are removed and you're thrown in with a bunch of new co-religionists then you are forced to generate a new identity de novo. that happened with hinduism in mauritius and guyana. it happened with judaism and catholicism in the USA. it is happening with islam in europe.

That's why there ARE regional differences in Hinduism--because every area adjusted it to their personal needs.

i think this gets it wrong. religion in many parts of the world is defined by a cartel system. you can't pick & choose, you're born. hindus in the USA tend to espouse this viewpoint because that's how it is in india. it is not how it is in the USA. there is a tacit agreemant among many that hinduism is a religion you can't be born into. taking into account conversion (even if minimal) to other religions, low birth rate, etc., that means by definition hinduism is a religion which will probably be an immigrant faith indefinitely, since native descendents will drift away (since there can't be replenishment via conversion). which means a new form will mutate which will say that you can convert, and that'll dominate amongst natives (krishna's are an example of this).

So many reactions, oof.

"You won’t be accepted into this culture, whatever you do."

That's crap. In that case, whatever you do isn't enough. There's also the mistake of assuming "this culture" as a static one that already belongs to a pre-authorized few.

Nina, to answer your question, the same can be asked of Christians in this country. The most vocal ones are the fundamentalist, gay-bashing, evolution-hating bigots, but that's not what I perceive most Christians as. No one who has friends outside his or her religion and culture could possibly categorize one religion as being its most zealous fringes.

Red Snapper, I agree with you up to the point that "social dislocation and emigration often do lead to movements that homogenise identity in order to cope with a communal sense of anomie, and that often they are catalysed by genuine discrimination and alienation / marginalisation from mainstream society." Well, I agree with you on that one, too, but have you not seen similar behavior in non-socially dislocated and non-emigrant groups? I have. This kind of behavior begins the moment a social difference, any difference, is perceived.

I think the "new agers" of the west have got the right idea when it comes to the various branches of Hinduism as well as other eastern religions/philosophical systems. They seem to take the postive, progressive aspects and leave behind the backwards, repressive and gender biased ones.

This is something my friends and I (Indian and non) have grappled with for years and we are still trying to find a balance between our traditional beliefs and lifestyles and the expression of our individuality.

When in India I see these new agers bring with them to the country a fresh sort of openness and non-judgemental attitude that is severely lacking amongst religionists who fancy themselves "authentic" and "traditional".

On the one hand you get someone who makes some sukriti or pious benefit by following this and that rule of dharma, but then totally absolves it via their criticism and fault finding of others who are not doing the same. Then on the otherhand you get people who are deemed "indisciplined" or lacking in culture/etiquette/rule following, but make up for all that via their ability to just simply relax and be nice to people.

It's very rare to meet someone who combines both a strict and traditional lifestyle with a totally chilled and non-repressive vibe.

That's crap. In that case, whatever you do isn't enough. There's also the mistake of assuming "this culture" as a static one that already belongs to a pre-authorized few.

some people are unpleasant losers. so they conflate hostility toward their innate unpleasantness with their ethno-religious identity. of course, racism, etc., exists. but, the fact is that a lot of people suck, and if you're colored you have an 'out' that it isn't because you suck (though a lot of people male losers are also getting in on the victim jig).

>>So a Hindu who doesn't attend a temple frequently isn't a Hindu, just "someone with a Hindu name"?

As I said before, it's not easy to describe a "practising Hindu". In these matters, perception is everything. Which is why I said, attend any temple, anywhere in the world - ask a random set of people whether they believe VedicFoundation's views to be true or MichealWitzel's views to be correct. The answer will be illuminating to you.

Of course, there are minority views as well. Most hold Sita in reverence and as an ideal wife. A small, insignificant minority may view her as a doormat. The question is: Whose views should be taught in schools? Again, take a random set of Hindus in any temple and ask them. The answer will be enlightening.

M. Nam

Of course, temples include self-selecting populations of older, conservative people because they create environments that are hostile to young people or new ideas.

So yes, go in to an old, conservative place and you'll find that a "random" selection of people have old, conservative values.

I have read Manu Smriti(translated into Hindi)
Its comparison to mein kamph is purposely frivolous attempt at your part to make a needlessly thwarting argument.

I take offense at 'religion' label being thrown as a blanket.
I am not that comfortable using dharma in all context either.

These are issues that me and my Indian and non-Indian friends talk about alot. As members of a "traditional" type of "Hindu" religion which requires us to adopt various aspects of what are thought to be "traditional Indian customs", but yet at the same time thinking of ourselves as very modern, progressive, etc, we often find ourselves at odds. Usually it has to do with aspects of behaviours that we are expected to incorporate into our lives that really don't have anything to do with the religion itself and more to do with expected behaviours of women who follow "traditional Indian culture/s" --- the modest dress, the reserved behaviour, etc, etc, etc.

Now that I've returned to the West I have discovered that the "new age" community - you know, the people into chakra-alignment, hot yoga, and all that stuff, seem to have achieved an almost perfect balance by incorporating only the progressive and "cool" aspects of Eastern religions/philosophical systems into their lives, while leaving behind the non-progressive and spirit-crushing repressive aspects of those very same systems.

Granted, when these folks go to India they generally go in groups of their own and don't really live with and amongst locals in a hardcore way like the way we do, and perhaps that is why they are able to still be their genuine selves.

Well, I agree with you on that one, too, but have you not seen similar behavior in non-socially dislocated and non-emigrant groups? I have.

Sure, but it is a driver in the context of the communities we are talking about here, not exclusive to them (us?), but in the context of migration it can be more immediate, acute and influential. But of course, it is not exclusive to desis in the West.

And besides, what looks to us on the surface like a bewildering turning to extremist nationalism, racial ideology and enclosed narrow identity movements amongst 'non dislocated groups' may actually be the result of those groups experiencing profound and disorienting change themselves. It's just that we don't see it, perhaps because, like you said, we don't consider them with enough attention as we do to our own experience. I was reading recently about how far-right white nationalist groups found some purchase amongst the children and grandchildren of white working class Londoners who in the post war period were effectively hustled out of the tightly knit white working class areas of East London and transplanted into social housing estates full of brutalist architecture that within a generation had become dens of drug abuse and social breakdown. In the meantime they were seduced by a narrative that placed them as the losers in a global conspiracy to favour black and brown immigrants and actively persecute the marginalised white working class youths abandoned on concrete wastelands far from the eye of the media or political classes. Without the extended family, the pan-generational networks and support systems and localised pride and common experience that had existed in the East End of London for generation upon generation amongst them, they too underwent something akin to what we can observe to varying degrees amongst some of our desi peers.

Here's an interesting exercise --- examine some of the similarities between right wing conservative movements and even white nationalists in the UK / USA with the rhetoric and psychological conditioning of various religious-identity based ideological groups amongst desis.

I would say: Someone who is well versed in the basic concepts(Vedas, Upanishads, Gita etc), goes to the temple, attends/conducts puja (all at his/her convinience), conducts birth/marriage/death rituals as per Hindu practices etc etc.

What if that person came from Bali?

Its not something i am saying facetiously, It is something I am saying to raise an important point which is to shun 'religion' as a label.

New Age Hinduism is ok, but the Western new agers have their own normative expectations about proper behavior (and hierarchy) that can be just as annoying and prescriptive. And I do miss some level of tradition and identity that can get lost in the sheer novelty of new age Hinduism. I don't mean to knock these groups, but I don't think they would satisfy my religious/spiritual needs either.

I guess I'm looking for something along the lines of Reform Judaism for Hindus.

"that means by definition hinduism is a religion which will probably be an immigrant faith indefinitely, since native descendents will drift away (since there can't be replenishment via conversion)."

I think this is another aspect that's overblown to some extent. I'm not sure what the age range of SM readers are, but I think there is somewhat of an age gap between those of us in college currently and those in their late twenties/early thirties.

Granted I can only speak from a South Indian perspective, but I don't think the attrition rates for my generation are that high, especially with regard to females. I guess I could be wrong, but I'd be interested to see how things work out once my generation starts settling down and having kids-I don't see many of them just throwing religion, music, dance etc. out the door. But we'll have to wait and see.

"What if that person came from Bali?"

My college roommate is actually Balinese! Or half Balinese, half Dutch rather. So I asked her your question. She says that its very possible to be well versed in their scriptures, myths, and rituals as well-and she would use that as requirement for a practicing Balinese Hindu. While Balinese Hinduism is quite different from Hinduism in India, there are some striking similarities, particularly with South Indian Shaivism. Apparently, while Javanese Hinduism is practiced by only a very small minority on that island, its much closer to hinduism in south india than it is to balinese hinduism.

but I don't think the attrition rates for my generation are that high

outmarriage rates for 1 & 1.5 brownz is around 30%. do you think the kidz are all being raised hindu? defection on the order of 10-20% is serious. if you hold population size equal (plausible since browns have TFR around 2.0) then a 10% defection rate per generation would mean that 35% would leave in the religion in 4 generations.

"do you think the kidz are all being raised hindu? defection on the order of 10-20% is serious. if you hold population size equal (plausible since browns have TFR around 2.0) then a 10% defection rate per generation would mean that 35% would leave in the religion in 4 generations."

My point is that there is pretty big difference between 1 and 1.5ers vs. second generation. Second, each generation isn't necessarily going to follow the exact pattern as the previous. For example, I'd say there are a lot more people involved in religious activities in my age group than any of the 1 or 1.5ers and it seems even more so for the even younger ones who have a plethora of activities and classes that I didn't have when growing up.

Also, I've seen a somewhat decreasing amount of mixed marriages when compared with the marriages 10 years back where almost all of them were mixed. But maybe that's my experience. Like I said, I'm only speaking from a south indian perspective. I have no clue what the patterns are for Punjabi, Gujurati, bengali hindus etc. Certainly there is attrition, but the crowds and demands for sunday schools, music and dance teachers have grown exponentially.

But as I said earlier, whether Hinduism survives a few generations down is something we'll just have to wait and see.

"Many of the teenagers and college students that I spoke with described the pain they experienced growing up with “brown skins” in a predominantly white environment. They said that their eagerness to be accepted had initially led them to turn away from their Indianness and to try to be as much like their white friends as possible. This, however, only increased their identity crisis and feeling of alienation since it became obvious to them that no matter what they did, they were not going to be accepted as “just American.”

You know, I'm still surprised when I read something like this-it just seems like a left over relic of the people who grew up in the 70s and 80s.

I think she's trying to hard to prove her identity argument. This just doesn't sound like what college kids would say today.

People who grew up in the 80s are in their late teens and early 20s today. That's not an insignificant, long-gone portion of the South Asian demographic :)

And I do think there are still major identity issues facing young Desis. Obviously it depends on the attitudes of parents, the specific tradition, and the general vibe of the local subpopulation. But, for example, if you're a young South Asian woman and you're interested in a non-Desi boy, obviously there are going to be hurdles for you to overcome even today. Sure, you could avoid that by simply limiting your social group only to Desis, but many people don't want to do that. Your South Asian identity places behavioral demands on you just like larger American culture does.

Javanese Hinduism is practiced by only a very small minority on that island, its much closer to hinduism in south india than it is to balinese hinduism.

Its often written that they are similar to S. Indian Shaivaites yet there isn't any evidence that would relate what one sees when they
visit both places.

In south India there is a more strict vaishnav-shaiv-adwait divide where often one has to choose one of them exclusively.
Its not so in North India.

Java has more Hindus numerically than Bali(as a %age of population sure a tiny minority)
Also in both there are strong pre-indic elements (often labeled as animist by scholars Yes I have problem with that label too).

Curiously MegaWati SukarnoPutri has an ambiguous relationship with her ancestry.
Which demonstrates the problem when you use the religion label.
Her ancestral makeup is Javanese Muslim and Hindu, and some Balinese Hindu.
Indonesian UDP(united development party ~islamic org)often uses that as a talking point against her.
For her to accept Islam as a religion means giving up the other stuff in their culture which is zahiliyat(in this the tenents of religion are clear), So she has decided to keep mum about the issue.

Of course, temples include self-selecting populations of older, conservative people because they create environments that are hostile to young people or new ideas.

"Its often written that they are similar to S. Indian Shaivaites yet there isn't any evidence that would relate what one sees when they
visit both places."

In Bali, the supreme being or there version of Ishwara (in some cases nirguna brahman what have you) is Shangyang Widhi Wasa-when I was in Bali, I had no shortage of people identify him as Shiva or Ciwa. Any Indian hindu would see that even the caricatures of him resemble Shiva much more than Vishnu. The also title Shiva as god of destruction and creation simultaneously as do Shaiva Sidhhantists in Southern India. nevertheless, brahma is still represented in the trimurti. This goes pretty close with general Shaivite thought. Just like shaivism in Nepal and Kashmir is pretty different from that of South India in terms of theology, not surprising that Balinese religion differs from South Indian shaivism. According to their legends, it was also a Shaivite brahman nirartha who introduced new aspects of hinduism after the fall of the majapahit empire. Plus there is a strong tradition of their version of Saraswati vandhanam which Vaishnavites don't have.

This is why people have deemed them as "Shaivite"

I agree though that its not as stark a divide as you see in Southern India, but there are people who identify themselves as Waisnawa on the island as well.

Javanese Hindus, while technically numerically larger than Balinese Hindus, have a large component of peoples who simply chose to go under the Agama Hindu Dharma to preserve animist beliefs or remain atheist under the governments requirement of belief in a "monotheistic" religion. In areas around Yogya and parts of East Java you get smaller communities and some newer converts who converted out of some sort "ethnic pride" type reasoning. You do see closer resemblances in their practices and older Javanese temple sites, like the presence of Ganesha as a deity of worship, the standing vishnu that resembles that of any Perumal temple down south, Durga, and even a slightly more explicit link of divinity accorded to Rama which you don't see in Bali, although due to Indian influence and that of groups like ISKCON, there is some recognition of Rama as Vishnu-but that's largely been a foreign introduction.

Too many stereotypes

Ok, true, and I should have modified that with an "in my experience" or somesuch. But I have found that temple populations skew older. I also doubt that a temple truly reflective of American Hinduism would produce the kind of results MoorNam suggests.

My point is that there is pretty big difference between 1 and 1.5ers vs. second generation.

oh, i mistyped. i mean that the census 2000 data shows that born here and raised here had those outmarriage rates. of for whether things have changed/are changing, i don't. i don't put stock in peoples' impressions because they're sample biased by their own experience (as you imply).

hindu group in vietnam: chams. many are converting to islam, as the numerically preponderant cambodian chams are muslim (the chams are ethnically malay).

and as of 2000, most of those people would have been in their late twenties or early thirties, right? I actually thought that the mixed marriage rates for that group were higher than 30%.

stats won't prove anything until at least the 2010 results are made public.

and as of 2000, most of those people would have been in their late twenties or early thirties, right? I actually thought that the mixed marriage rates for that group were higher than 30%. It was that group that I was referring to when I mentioned people who grew up in the 70s and 80s, i.e people who were nearing the end of high school in the late 80s or early 90s.

stats won't prove anything until at least the 2010 results are made public.

what do the chams converting have to do with anything?

New Age Hinduism is ok, but the Western new agers have their own normative expectations about proper behavior (and hierarchy) that can be just as annoying and prescriptive. And I do miss some level of tradition and identity that can get lost in the sheer novelty of new age Hinduism. I don't mean to knock these groups, but I don't think they would satisfy my religious/spiritual needs either.

Could be. I'm not that deeply involved enough with them to know. From the outside they seem really "well-healed".

I will say this - the "educated youth" of India really seem to take an interest in "hindu culture" when they see aspects of it being taken up by non-Indians, people who they see as "modern, cool" yada, yada, yada. I think the way to get the youth of India more into the POSITIVE and PROGRESSIVE aspects of traditional Indic schools of thought is via these types of people. There's a synergy between the two groups. Neither seem to be able to relate to the older "auntie and uncle" versions of Hinduism which lay stress on behavioural codes more than philosophical precepts, yet both of them have a deep yearning for an authentic spiritual experience.

Hey, why did you delete my comment? I meant it sincerely, although not too happily. Abhi, of all people, I thought you might understand it...

Except I'm not technically at grad school now. Full time job and a defense in three weeks. I shouldn't be on here now. :)

Curiously MegaWati SukarnoPutri has an ambiguous relationship with her ancestry. Which demonstrates the problem when you use the religion label. Her ancestral makeup is Javanese Muslim and Hindu, and some Balinese Hindu. Indonesian UDP(united development party ~islamic org)often uses that as a talking point against her. For her to accept Islam as a religion means giving up the other stuff in their culture which is zahiliyat(in this the tenents of religion are clear), So she has decided to keep mum about the issue.

CLWAT: Sir Naipaul writes extensively about this. It goes beyond having to renounce your ancestry to rejecting the localized versions of the Ramayana & Mahabharata which had been part of Indonesian secular tradition.

It's very rare to meet someone who combines both a strict and traditional lifestyle with a totally chilled and non-repressive vibe.

razib says:

p.s. some hindus who emphasize that "hinduism is really monotheistic" exhibit the same tendency of reformulating the religion to be in keeping with mainstream american standards.

Guilty as charged; where I was raised, it was often easier to begin a meaningful dialogue exchange on religous beliefs and practices by putting forth that point of view. Of course, those discussions were rare. The conversations were often one-sided harangues about finding Jesus ("why, is Jesus lost??" she asked, as an 8-year old.)

I haven't glanced through all the comments, so perhaps this aculturation has already been mentioned: "going to temple on Sunday." (Sunday??)

The temple I go to on occasion has cricket/ping pong/football teams, is forming a youth group as well as retreats for teens, has a 'choir' (er, a bhajan group), and 'Sunday' school for learning more about Hindu practices, cultural arts, and one's "mother tongue".

I happen to think these social structures have the capacity* to be positive, yet it's amusing to have grown up worshipping primarily at home, because (a) there were no temples in small-town America, and (b) well, most of my family's prayer took place at the family/home ashan anyway.

This particular brand of social structure centering around religous worship reminds me of midwestern-American Christianity, particular that of Baptist churches. I wonder how much of these social structures centering around a temple is because of American cultural influence, and how much is the old country's influence, the need for 'like' to come together in a community forum.

Thanks for the recommendation, Abhi - 'tis on my reading list.

* only if gossipy vituperative doesn't get in the way. (Do I have some "good news," indeed!)

The protest against 'Cricket Ganesha' is totally ridiculous. These ppl need to go see any average Ganesh puja in Mumbai.

MoS, I know only five strict Hindus who live a tradtional lifestyle. Three are sons of Indian immigrants and two are immigrants themselves. Four of them are totally chill and non-repressive. One I'm unsure of.

Kurma, I'm not even talking about "strictly religious" when I talk of "traditional". They could even be atheists but they have alot of cultural taboos and rules of conduct. So whereas they may not be living a "traditional" lifestyle in terms of religion or whatever, they are living by the taboos that their parents/grandparents/culture have set up for them. This then creates a culture of denial regarding certain subjects which are usually not deemed as appropriate for conversation.

Anyway, since I deal mostly with Indians and non-Indians who follow certains branches of Hinduism, we are plagued not only by cultural/societal taboos, but religious taboos also, many surrounding sexuality, which, coming from a religion which more or less idealizes brahmacharya (celibacy), can prove to be quite troublesome on many levels, psychological being one of them, for us.

Celibacy is the ideal. If you can't do that then sex only within marriage - not before. Even that is seen as something less than the ideal and something to be "overcome in time".

Kurma, I'm not even talking about "strictly religious" when I talk of "traditional". They could even be atheists but they have alot of cultural taboos and rules of conduct. So whereas they may not be living a "traditional" lifestyle in terms of religion or whatever, they are living by the taboos that their parents/grandparents/culture have set up for them. This then creates a culture of denial regarding certain subjects which are usually not deemed as appropriate for conversation.

Pardesi Gori, can't you forget about what others do for once and just live your own life? You're obsessed with Indian people and their habits! Get over it!

Pardesi Gori, can't you forget about what others do for once and just live your own life? You're obsessed with Indian people and their habits! Get over it!

Very good advice. Since being over here for more than a year and having the space to do that, I have gotten better at living my own life. But my more than a decade long experience in India is still alive and well within me - so I still sometimes speak from that space - although alot less than I used to, so I'm improving with time - getting more self-focused and chilled - like the people around me.

MoS #71,

but religious taboos also, many surrounding sexuality, which, coming from a religion which more or less idealizes brahmacharya (celibacy), can prove to be quite troublesome on many levels, psychological being one of them, for us.

Celibacy is the ideal. If you can't do that then sex only within marriage - not before. Even that is seen as something less than the ideal and something to be "overcome in time".

Let me quote what I said elsewhere on Celibacy.

Celibacy that is involuntary and imposed (either by oneself or by someone else) is not useful in any way. It may lead to frustration and increasing interest in sex, which defeats the purpose. If one is interested in sex, it is better to enjoy it and work it out rather than suppressing it. Abstention has to come from within oneself to be of any value. Abstaining from sex is only one part. Real abstention involves abstaining from all pleasure and pain of the senses and just be an objective observer of ones sensations (vedana). And this again is only one of the 8 yamas as prescribed by Patanjali in the Yogasutra for instance. There are of course 4 niyamas to complement these as well. Celibacy is helpful for someone on a single focused spiritual quest, it is not a taboo. Abstention from all desires not just sex in the single focused pursuit of a particular goal will lead to success in achieving that goal and most people have done that and continue doing that for a limited time in their lives and there is nothing unusual about that. The converse of that is true as well where one can pursue sex and sensory pleasures and abstain from everything else! That maybe a quicker path to spiritual self-discovery since one gets to know the fleeting nature of such pleasures and is forced to look elsewhere for paramaanandham. Of course we have Tantra that uses sex or more specifically maithunam as a tool for spiritual progress. Different strokes for different folks:) There is no one size fits all. So if it doesn't yet work for you don't force yourself into it and suppress the urges, work it out over time.

Celibacy that is involuntary and imposed (either by oneself or by someone else) is not useful in any way. It may lead to frustration and increasing interest in sex, which defeats the purpose. If one is interested in sex, it is better to enjoy it and work it out rather than suppressing it. Abstention has to come from within oneself to be of any value. Abstaining from sex is only one part. Real abstention involves abstaining from all pleasure and pain of the senses and just be an objective observer of ones sensations (vedana). And this again is only one of the 8 yamas as prescribed by Patanjali in the Yogasutra for instance. There are of course 4 niyamas to complement these as well. Celibacy is helpful for someone on a single focused spiritual quest, it is not a taboo. Abstention from all desires not just sex in the single focused pursuit of a particular goal will lead to success in achieving that goal and most people have done that and continue doing that for a limited time in their lives and there is nothing unusual about that. The converse of that is true as well where one can pursue sex and sensory pleasures and abstain from everything else! That maybe a quicker path to spiritual self-discovery since one gets to know the fleeting nature of such pleasures and is forced to look elsewhere for paramaanandham. Of course we have Tantra that uses sex or more specifically maithunam as a tool for spiritual progress. Different strokes for different folks:) There is no one size fits all. So if it doesn't yet work for you don't force yourself into it and suppress the urges, work it out over time.

I agree with this in general but since it is the rare person, if any, who can be celibate their whole life without hypocrisy, I think celibacy should not be regarded as an "ideal" at all. I think the Prophet Muhammed was onto something when he practically forbade it. It just does not work for most (if not all) people. I find that happy couples who have a regular and healthy sex life are much more balanced, peaceful and less concerned with sex than the actual "celibates" I know.

I do not understand how making love every once in a while can ever be a substantial hindrance to spiritual progress.

Why is celibacy touted as an ideal in so many different religious systems?

I do not understand how making love every once in a while can ever be a substantial hindrance to spiritual progress.

It is not a hindrance as long as you are making progress on other elements involved in spiritual progress. At a point further along the spiritual path it naturally comes about that celibacy is helpful and one gives it up naturally, without feeling the pain of having given it up.

Why is celibacy touted as an ideal in so many different religious systems?

But eventually (may not be in this lifetime), one realises by direct experience (not through suppression) that in our dualistic existence all sensations, pleasurable or painful, including the sensations that we enjoy from sex are fleeting and impermanent. That is why most margas (paths) require celibacy, because it is a distraction from knowing the ultimate. This is true only for the renunciate, the monk or nun or ascetic and not everybody may be ready to truly renounce. For a householder, it may be an easier restriction to follow, by having sex with one committed loving partner and only renounce sex, when you truly have a platonic relationship that doesn't need sex as an aid to keep the relationship truly loving and compassionate. The spiritual quest is the quest for paramaanandham (eternal joy), which comes from realising the truth as it is.

It is not a hindrance as long as you are making progress on other elements involved in spiritual progress. At a point further along the spiritual path it naturally comes about that celibacy is helpful and one gives it up naturally, without feeling the pain of having given it up.

But eventually (may not be in this lifetime), one realises by direct experience (not through suppression) that in our dualistic existence all sensations, pleasurable or painful, including the sensations that we enjoy from sex are fleeting and impermanent. That is why most margas (paths) require celibacy, because it is a distraction from knowing the ultimate. This is true only for the renunciate, the monk or nun or ascetic and not everybody may be ready to truly renounce. For a householder, it may be an easier restriction to follow, by having sex with one committed loving partner and only renounce sex, when you truly have a platonic relationship that doesn't need sex as an aid to keep the relationship truly loving and compassionate. The spiritual quest is the quest for paramaanandham (eternal joy), which comes from realising the truth as it is.

I understand the importance of sadhana. However, I do not see how making love is anymore distracting from one's sadhana and progress to param-ananda than is having that platonic and compassionate relationship sans sex??? Why is it considered higher or more favorable to one's progress to reach a point where you are platonic and no longing engaging in sex? One would still exchange affection via words and emotional support in times of need. Attachment is still there. How is that any more detached than having sex also?

In one's sadhana, one tries to go from the gross to the subtle. Detachment from the gross is easier than from the subtle. Sex is an act that needs one's volition and so it may be easier to give up than more subtle sensations and hence it comes earlier in the process. It is not considered any higher. Platonic love may be the wrong choice of words or maybe a station further along the path, but compassion and an all embracing love that expects nothing in return is even further along the path is what I was alluding to. Any how these are not something one does because x or y says so, although it may be helpful, but because one has progressed enough to realise onself directly that they are hindrances to the quest. So as long as you don't innately feel so, I would say carry on, don't suppress it.