[Prev][Next][Index]
Hinduism and Criticisms
-
To: alt-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Subject: Hinduism and Criticisms
-
From: mwcst1+@pitt.edu (Walia,Mohan)
-
Date: 21 Jan 1995 01:22:06 GMT
-
From news+@pitt.edu Fri Jan 20 20: 12:25 1995
-
Newsgroups: alt.hindu
-
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
My 10 All-Time Favorite Criticisms
These are heady times for Hinduism. Our staff sees copious signs of
a broad resurgence-a welling up of pride and enthusiasm, a new
discovery of old spirituality, even a new-found indignation which,
once timidly suppressed, now audaciously growls when confronted by
what some called the "enemies" of Hindu dharma.
To be sure, Hinduism has its adversaries. I for one hope they are
strong, not caring much for a wimpy rival. It seems to be the Law of
Things that good rivals make for great achievement, whether in sport
or science, politics or religion. I think of Sankara, Galileo,
Gandhi, Socrates, Appar and Martin Luther King, men whose encounter
with fierce opposition made them better for the experience. It's no
different in money. New York billionaire Donald Trump has financial
rivals which would buckle the knees of most national treasurers.
Bill Gates of Microsoft has IBM as his marketplace adversary. Do
these men bemoan the competition? Hardly. Their high-stakes
financial encounters just keep making them more creative, more
driven, more rich and powerful. I am reminded of a didactic dictum a
sage once told me: "A truly great man can be measured by the
greatness of his enemies." Wishing one's enemies strength is
strength-inducing.
In that spirit, much gratitude is owed to the critics of Hinduism. I
have collected criticisms, much like others collect firsition
novels, baseball cards or exotic stamps. You may smile at this, but
consider that a first-rate book will be gone in 500 years or so,
while even a mediocre criticism will last 1000, usually more. Just
ask Michael Jackson.
I am particularly fond of the slanderous story which American
missionaries spread in the press following Swami Vivekananda's
unexpected triumph at the 1893 Chicago Parliament of World Religions.
There suddenly appeared in nearly every major paper the "truth" about
the Indian faith followed by the turbaned Swami whose philosophy-so
lofty, so full of compassion and thoughtfulness-had charmed Yankee
audiences. The truth, missionaries contended, was that "Hindoos
throw their infant children into the open mouths of hungry river
crocodiles." There is a kind of genius in the sheer simplicity of
that ludicrous indictment. Similar accusations are being levied
against Hinduism 100 years later, from the television podiums of men
like Pat Robertson.
No one teaches us in school how to cope with criticism, how to turn
it to our advantage. They should, but they don't. A fortunate few
will learn-the aspiring opera singer or concert sitarist for whom
reproach and incessant, mostly uncomplimentary, evaluation are a
professional imperative. Great dancers and actors, athletes and
politicians will employ critics, paying good money for the privilege
of being corrected, faulted and assailed by negative feed-back.
Professionals blossom under it; the rest of us wilt and wail.
To rectify the absence of training in "critical appreciation," we
offer here the world's shortest course on "Adept Management of
Criticism." Never cringe before criticism. Take it like a man, even
if you're a woman. Winnow the true from the false, but keep them
both. Rise above it. Smile at it. Better yet, understand it; best
of allarn from it. And never, never offer the offender quid pro
quo. End of the course.
Now that we know just how useful criticism can be (and to allow
readers to practice the above techniques), here is a condensed list
of popular criticisms levied against Hinduism:
* Hindus are idol worshippers and have too many gods. (One is
tempted always to respond that Hindus are among the most vigorous
devotees in the world. By no means could our worship be called
idle-observe the smile technique.)
* Hindus worship cows. (They honor cows, they worship God. Hindus
abhor killing of any creature on the earth and one day will be
honored for this nonviolent ideal. Nothing like rational explanation
to thwart a mean-spirited jab.)
* Hinduism is life-negating and brings poverty to its followers.
(One need only visit the slums of New York, Rome, Bangkok or Lebanon
to know that no religion exists which has eliminated human suffering,
though all make the attempt.)
* Hinduism has no hell, no understanding of Satan, no real fear of
God. (Guilty as charged.)
* Hinduism is too ritualistic, complex and contradictory. (The
problem here is that an outsider is trying to comprehend Sanatana
Dharma as a single creed when it is 10,000 independent religions,
each allowed to believe as it chooses. I love ritual, the more
intricate the better. But there are many Hindus who hate the simplest
rites, and no one asks them to betray their natural inclinations.)
* Hinduism is fatalistic. (Only if your definition of fatalism
includes the belief that all of creation is sacred, that all souls
are equal, that all paths are good, that all experiences are of our
own creation and that all beings without exception are destined to
attain freedom, enlightenment and oneness with the Divine. If that's
fatalism, then Hindus are incorrigibly fatalistic.)
* Hindusrifice animals. (I cannot defend against such a
criticism, but can only hope that whatever few remaining expressions
of an earlier time that may still persist will pass soon.)
* Hindu gurus all have their cults. (One man's cult is another man's
spiritual family. The same complaint, couched not so differently,
was levied against Buddha and Jesus and Socrates. All religions
enjoy charismatic leaders, Hinduism no less than others.
Fortunately, Hindu cults have never resulted in anything like the
David Koresh or Jim Jones disasters.)
* Temples are crowded, dirty and run like run-down government parks.
(True. Let's try to remedy that.)
* Casteism in India is a terrible injustice. (No thoughtful person
will deny that. So is crime and homelessness and social inequality
in Western nations. Neither one has anything to do with the religion
of the population.)
Those are the classic insults levied against the Sanatana Dharma.
Sadly, they are old and worn by use. It is rare to find a really
innovative criticism. Not long ago, to my utter delight and
astonishment, I stumbled on an award-winning,
fresh-as-the-morning-dew slur. It came courtesy of the Jehovah's
Witnesses, as an article in the April, 1989, magazine Awake. Each
month they print over 11 million of these pamphlets in 54 languages,
so we're talking global character assassination here. According to
the Jehovah Witnesses, the fatal flaw in Hinduism is-dare I say
it-tolerance. That's right, Hindus are too open-minded, excessively
sympathetic of another man's faith, and this tolerance, the article
threatens, may open the door to lesser paths, to "bad religions."
This accusation will naturally find a cherished place in my
collection. It reminds me of judging a woman "too beautiful" or a
man "too rich," implying all sorts of unsavory, unsaid things about
theirper humanity. A religion that is too tolerant? In a world
so frightfully full of hatred, bias and provincial consciousness, let
us implore that the vice of tolerance may spread like a plague,
engulf the earth and infect every inhabitant thereon.
Mohan Walia
