[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Religious unity
vijia@pop.jaring.my (Singam) wrote:
>All over the world groups of people are trying to promote religious
>unity. Yet there are those who persist in dividing the world into
>camps.
>
>While no Indic texts identify a religion called Hinduism, many of us
>have become comfortable with calling ourselves Hindu. But what does
>that mean? What does one have to believe in, what ritual does one have
>to observe to 'qualify' as a Hindu?
Precisely. In the ultimate analysis, "hindu" is a word we have grown
comfortable with, that is all. There is no "Hinduism" in the sense that
there is Islam or Christianity.
>
>The land of Hindustan has seen the evolution of a variety of
>religious/social schools, some of which are happy to identify with the
>exisiting schools while others choose to claim exclusivity.
Your statement shows that there is strong connection between the land of
Hindustan and those who consider themselves Hindus. What about those who
have no real connection to the land of Hindustan, but follow the teachings
of a religious leader from Hindustan? Are they also Hindus? Do we have the
right to force them to call themselves Hindus also? These questions have
particular relevance in the light of SRV, discussed below.
>
>Are we not divided enough? Do we have to further subdivide?
>
>Much has been said about the reorganisation of SRH. This has been
>claimed to be 'in the interest of all'. Can I then ask the main
>proponents and opponents of the move to maintain their peace for a
>while and allow the others, in whose interest this move is being
>proposed, to have their say?
>
>In the first instance, those who proposed SRV, by choosing to exclude
>the word 'Hindu', sought to divide. Surely we do not need that.
>Perhaps the exclusion of the word 'Hindu' was oversight. If the
>proponents of SRV agree that the naming structure would not contribute
>to unity, we can turn back the clock and start all over again.
Much has been said for unity. What kind of unity are we talking about? A
Hindu unity to withstand all that is not-Hindu? What is not-Hindu? Does
mere reiteration of a statement "I am a Hindu" contribute to Hindu unity?
Is such unity real or permanent?
The non-inclusion of the word Hindu in SRV was discussed at length in the
RFD for SRV. A simple search on DejaNews or Alta Vista will pull out all
the relevant articles. Briefly, the reason for not including the
word hindu was that there are people in the world who have come to consider
themselves part of a vaishnava sampradaya. But they may not be equally
comfortable with calling themselves hindu. After all, the very word Hindu is
only something that we have grown comfortable with. We have no right to expect
others to also feel so. On the other hand, those vaishnavas who are hindu have
no such problems. In order to accomodate all people, whether they thought of
themselves as hindu or otherwise, the simple name of SRV was used.
In this connection, I would suggest that we refer to contemporary literature
in Indian languages. Terms like "vaishNava mata", "Saiva mata", "Esu mata"
are used to refer to vaishNavism, Saivism and Christianity respectively. The
closest English word to the sam.skr.ta "mata" is religion. When we talk of
sanAtana dharma, (as opposed to mata) we are talking of much more than religion
in the sense that religion is used in the West. I see nothing wrong in the use
of the phrases "vaishnava religion" or "Saiva religion". These are definitely
much more definable entities than "hindu religion".
Getting back to the applicability of the word Hindu to those who are not from
Hindustan but follow a religious leader from Hindustan. During the discussions
about SRV, much was made about ISKCON followers being Hindus or not. One
particular ISKCON follower said she did not consider herself Hindu. If we are
to insist that she must call herself Hindu, against her own personal
preference,
then we must insist that all followers of Buddha, Nagarjuna, Bodhidharma,
Kumarajiva and Santirakshita must call themselves Hindu also. After all, these
teachers were also from the land of Hindustan. That would make a majority of
Sri Lankans, Thais, Vietnamese, Koreans, Chinese and Japanese into Hindus.
If we cannot insist in this case, that they call themselves Hindu, we have no
right to insist that the followers of Prabhupada must call themselves Hindu,
over and against their own personal preferences. Finally, let us also be clear
that our own claim to being Hindus is also one of personal preference for that
word, no less and no more. Sanatana dharma is not endangered even if we refuse
to call ourselves Hindu.
>
>If the proponents of SRV insist on isolating themselves from the
>'Hindu' community, their presence or interest in SRH is suspect.
No. Vaishnavas are a subset, though not a proper subset of what we
have come to understand by the word "hindu". The proponents of
SRV (except one, who doesn't contribute to SRH anyway) have never
denied that they are also Hindus. If, as you say, there is no conversion
to Hinduism, then anyone who is willing to consider oneself Hindu
is in fact Hindu. Why suspect a few people only? Isn't that also divisive? If
you still think that the proponents of SRV are being divisive, do not suspect
their involvement with SRH. Welcome them and try to show them that such
divisiveness is wrong. (I was one of the proponents of SRV, by the way, even
though I don't consider myself to be exclusively a vaishnava. I reject the
premise that proponents of SRV are isolating themselves from the larger Hindu
community.)
>
>The use of multiple servers in a newsgroup is a good idea. Current
>hardware is still not immune from breakdowns. Any practical
>suggestions to this effect would be welcome.
>
>The suitability of Ajay Shah as a moderator has been questioned. I
>personally have no serious objections. If he can take care of delays
>caused by his absence or recruit the help of other persons to
>occasional clear overloads, there really is no need to change
>moderators or have a panel of medarators.
How do you suggest to take care of delays or Ajay's absence by recruiting
other persons? Who will be these other persons? Who decides who these other
persons are? What happens to the status of these other persons after Ajay
returns? Isn't it unfair to these other persons not to be designated as
moderators also? In any case, what great privilege does Ajay lose by admitting
that these other persons are also moderators? Finally, what specific objections
are there against the proposed moderators in this RFD? Any or all of them could
very well be these other persons that you talk about.
>
>Perhaps we should hear from other readers about whether they want a
>change. If only the same few people go on about it, that does not
>represent a majority view.
>
>Allow me say this again. Those who have been vocal about the matter of
>reorg, please maintain your peace for a few days. Let the others
>speak. If there is a clamour for change, then let us have change.
>Otherwise, let well enough alone.
Excellent suggestion, but really an impossible one. Note that the proponents of
the reorganization RFD have been personally attacked in this discussion, and
they have had to respond. Besides, it is the duty of the RFD proponents to
explain their reasons for their proposal. Also, note that there are many silent
spectators who probably don't want to discuss this in public, but who will vote
if it comes to that. Your expected clamor for change may not materialize at
all, but that silence is no indication of the eventual outcome of the vote. For
all one knows, the majority of the readers would probably vote for
reorganization.
Also, one cannot expect the proponents of the RFD to be silent for ever. Ajay's
silence on the compromise proposal essentially means that the issue will be
decided only by a vote and that requires a CFV to be put out, which the
proponents of an RFD are duty-bound to do eventually.
Regards,
S. Vidyasankar
