[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Hinduism Outside India - the Future Hinduism Outside India - the Future
-
To: alt-hindu@cis.ohio-state.edu
-
Subject: Re: Hinduism Outside India - the Future Hinduism Outside India - the Future
-
From: susarla@owlnet.rice.edu (Hari Krishna Susarla)
-
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 95 23:39:14 GMT
-
From news@larry.rice.edu Tue Jun 27 20: 29:32 1995
-
Newsgroups: alt.hindu
-
Organization: Rice University, Houston, Texas
-
References: <3spl4h$brp@babbage.ece.uc.edu>
In article <3spl4h$brp@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
vivek@cs.rice.edu (Vivek Sadananda Pai) wrote:
>I've rambled for long enough, but I think that I'd be remiss
>if I didn't quote the following. It's the translation of verses
>8-12 of Chapter 12 of the Bhagavad Gita. It's from the
>Bhagavad Gita As It Is, Srila Prabhupada's translation, and
>it's where Krishna instructs Arjuna about the various "levels"
>of worship. It's best if you read the full purports, but this is
>a good place to bring them up.
>
>"Just fix your mind upon Me, the Supreme Personality of Godhead,
> and engage all your intelligence in Me. Thus you will live in Me
> always, without a doubt.
>
>"My dear Arjuna, O winner of wealth, if you cannot fix your mind
> upon Me without deviation, then follow the regulative principles of
> bhakti-yoga. In this way develop a desire to attain Me.
>
>"If you cannot practice the regulations of bhakti-yoga, then just
> try to work for Me, because by working for Me you will come to the
> perfect stage.
>
>"If, however, you are unable to work in this consciousness of Me,
> then try to act giving up all results of your work and try to be
> self-situated.
>
>"If you cannot take to this practice, then engage yourself in the
> cultivation of knowledge. Better than knowledge, however, is
> meditation, and better than meditation is renunciation of the fruits of
> action, for by such renunciation one can attain peace of mind."
>
>copyright Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, used with permission
Well, as long as we are talking about the degneration of Hindu culture... I
guess I will go out on a limb and beat a dead horse (well, only the horse's
body is dead, but the REAL horse is an eternal spirit soul...).
Verses like the above clearly point to the importance of bhakti in the
religious tradition. But many Hindus protest. They try to give their own
interpretations, and in this way contradict the information given in the Gita.
These people say that we don't have to take the scripture *literally*, but
rather we should just take what we like and reject everything else.
This is exactly the kind of attitude that contributes to the decline of Hindu
tradition. If the Gita is not a respectable enough text for me to take as a
manual for living, then how can I be proud of it? How can I be proud of the
religious tradition which offered the Gita for our study? In fact, how is it
really useful as a religious scripture if I am taught to put more emphasis on
my own concocted opinions than on the opinions of Lord Krishna?
Many Christians have a great deal of faith in the Bible. Of course, this leads
to all sorts of sticky inter-faith problems, but the bottom line is that they
at least have pride in their religion. HIndus, on the other hand, have always
been defensive in my experience. When confronted with adversity, they try to
change the meaning of their customs in such a way so as to make it seem more
palatable to the critics. For example, a Christian fundamentalist comes along
and chastises Hindus for 'idol worship', and then some self-proclaimed Hindu
swami comes along and says, "yes they are idols, but they are only for
primitive people to worship. Actually there is no need for idols" rather than
explaining the tradition of worshipping the arca-vigraha. Or, a Christian or
Islamic missionary says Hinduism is evil because it is polytheistic, and a
Hindu responds that actually it is not polytheistic, everything is a different
form of God (yes, God has many forms, but to say that every entity who is
worshipped is God is not correct).
There is so much confusion among Hindus as to who is God, and what is the
purpose of life. Everyone gives a different opinion, even though the facts are
there for us to read in scripture. One person says everything is God. Another
person says that God is ultimately unknowable. And another one says that God
is just some imaginary sentiment. And all of these people call themselves and
each other Hindus, and then pride themselves for their 'open-mindedness.' It's
ridiculous.
Another example of this sort of Hindu moral relativism: One group says that we
should be vegetarians, and that meat-eating is wrong. Another group says that
yes, yes vegetarianism is nice, but you don't really have to be a vegetarian.
One group says that certain regulative principles are necessary. Another group
says that everything is okay, just chant some mantra and you will be God in 6
months.
And when some rascal like Pat Robertson comes along and starts attacking Vedic
culture, we can try to do something about it by preaching the correct
understanding of the Vedic tradition. We Vaishnavas preach that we are all
ultimately persons, and that God is ultimately a person, and that we should
endeavor to serve Him. But guess what happens? The Hindus go crazy. They
scream "fundamentalist" or "intolerance" or some other combination of
less-than-flattering metaphors. They say that we "are not real Hindus" and
that Hindus "accept all religions" and ask everyone to simply disregard
us. It's a catch-22 situation.
Basically, then, it comes down to this. Hindus fear losing their culture and
say they want to learn about their religion and philosophy. But if you preach
from scripture and they hear something they do not like (such as the idea
that the Supreme Absolute Truth is a person), they automatically display their
own closed-minded ideas and refuse to even consider what you say. As a result,
Hindus continue to remain in ignorance as to the nature of God and the soul.
And then they preach some impersonalist sentiment which Christian missionaries
use as fuel for their hate campaigns.
I will give one more example. A little while ago I found myself in an e-mail
discussion with a Christian over the Vedic understanding of God. It got
absolutely nowhere because the Christian was convinced, after reading the
opinions of various unauthorized Hindu swamis, that the Vedas were a mass of
contradictory and confusing scriptures with no central idea as to the identity
of the Supreme Godhead. While talking to him, I had to knock down so many
impersonalist ideas which he kept bringing up, but still he would not listen.
He was convinced, after reading the speculations of many Hindu swamijis (none
of whom came from an authorized line of disciplic succession) that the Vedas
were just a mass of impersonalist speculation and that the Bible was superior
in every way.
Well, it looks like I have written a novel, so let me just summarize what I am
trying to say here:
1) Be open-minded. When someone presents an idea to you and it is based on
scripture, don't reject it because you disagree. Keep in mind that you are
fallible, and a religious scripture, which comes from God, should not be. It
takes a little faith and a little humility, but I think you can learn a lot
more this way.
2) Don't preach about the Vedic texts if you are not familiar with them.
Hindus who preach that the Gita is about becoming one with God are doing a
great disservice to us all by misrepresenting one of our Holy Texts. The
fundamentalist missionaries use these misunderstandings to assert the
superiority of their own religions, and consequently we have to deal with
fools like Pat Robertson and other evangelists.
Yours,
-- HKS
