[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : On attempting to define Hinduism
Prasad Gokhale <f0g1@unb.ca> wrote in article
<ghenDw95u7.5HK@netcom.com>...
>
>
> HINDUISM
>
> by Ashok Chowgule
>
>
> 1 This note on Hinduism is written by one who knows
> very little of the Hindu scriptures. However, the au-
This is a very interesting point. Can any religion be defined without
knowledge of that religion's scriptures? It seems like this one statement
disqualifies the writer from making any further generalizations about what
Hinduism is and is not.
> 2 The Hindu philosophy can be best explained in the
> following manner:
>
> EKAM SAT VIPRAH BAHUDDA VADANTI
>
> Swami Vivekanand translated this to his American audience
> as "God is one, sages call him variously". However, SAT
> is translated by some to mean the Truth. Essentially,
> SAT refers to an ideal concept and not to an animate ob-
> ject. Thus, Hinduism says that man has made God in
> his own image, and not God has mad man in his image.
> Shiva, Vishnu and Brahma are never referred to as sons of
> God, or even prophets. They never claim that they are
> passing on the message of God to the people.
But there are some groups traditionally labeled as Hindu who do not believe
that "mad has made God in his own image." In fact, for such a
transcendentalist, the idea of a man-made Deity is a farce. Why would you
want to worship something that has its existence in the imagination of some
fanciful seer? Would such a group (who refuses to believe that man has made
God in his own image) still be eligible to be called Hindu? If so, then you
must repeal the statement " Hinduism says that man has made God in his
own image, and not God has mad man in his image."
Furthermore, if you want to talk about Lords Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva, I
don't see how anyone's opinion can be said to be as authoritative or more
authoritative than scripture. If they are all imaginative constructions,
then any talk about them is pointless anyway. On the other hand, if you
want to talk about them, you must go to an authoritative source of
knowledge in order to say anything about them with certainty.
> 3 This ethos of Hinduism permits each person to design
> his/her own method of salvation. Even atheism becomes a
What Hindu scripture "permits each person to design his/her own method of
salvation?" How can a person who does not already have salvation logically
be expected to design a means to attain it? If he doesn't have salvation,
then he does not even know what it is.
> legitimate form of salvation, and comes within the
> larger Hindu fold. However, what is important to un-
> derstand is that while each one is convinced that the
> method one follows is valid for oneself, one accepts
> another's method as valid for the other person. This
> is the essence of Hindu tolerance, and it is the reason
> why there is no concept of conversion in Hinduism.
This flies in the face of common sense. If everyone can design his/her own
method of salvation, then what restrictions are there on such a design? For
example, Osho, the free sex guru, told his disciples they could get
salvation by illicit sex. If you say that is okay, then that would be in
keeping with what you have written here. On the other hand, if you say that
it is not, then you presume to speak from authority. Consequently, the
moment you start presuming to speak from authority, your argument that
everyone can design his/her own method of salvation is defeated because you
demonstrate that one must obey some higher rules. And if one wants some
rules or principles to abide by, why not the scripture?
> The Shuddhi programme started by Swami Dayanand was a
> reaction to the proselytisation activities of Christian-
> ity and Islam.
If Hinduism accepts all religions, then why is it a problem for Hindus to
be converted to Christians and Muslims?
> 4 It is this ethos that makes me say that Hinduism
> is not merely a way of life, but a philosophy of life.
Hinduism is neither a way of life nor a philosophy of life. It is a
socio/political term coined by invading cultures to describe the indigenous
culture of India, which resided on the other side of the Indus river. The
term Indus was later corrupted to give Hindu. Consequently the term Hindu
came about. There was a variety of religions in India at that time, most of
which had some degree of faith in the Vedas, but to lump them all together
as one religion called Hinduism is misleading. Hinduism is not a single,
amorphous religion but rather an umbrella term encompassing various
religions most of which are not so easily reconciable.
> It enables a person to think for himself, which is
> highest degree of intellectualism. A person does not
> have to rely on what another tells him/her what is
Intellectualism is fine, but if you say that we should understand
everything by our minds, then you must conclude by your mind that there may
be topics of spirituality that our beyond the understanding of our mundane,
unaided minds. Consequently the need for hearing from an authoritative
source arises.
> right and what is wrong - of course, if a person chooses
> to do so, it is his method, but there should not be any
> compulsion. It is this ethos that has enabled Hinduism
Of course, no one would argue with that. Free will must be there, but a
person should use his free will to select an authoritative source. Free
will does not mean blindly ignoring any and all sources of knowledge while
presuming to make up one's own belief system.
> to absorb and assimilate inputs from all over the world.
> And it is this ethos that made so many who came here
> as invaders to integrate totally with the people of
> this country. No one claims descendant from the Shukas
> and the Huns who came as invaders around the last cen-
> tury BC.
I find that ethos strangely lacking on the internet. After all, the Muslims
came as invaders and they retain their distinct identity in many respects
(especially as compared to say, the Huns). I don't see many Hindus
welcoming them with open arms and asking them to assimilate.
> 5 When the Jews had to leave their homeland due to
> religious persecution, it is only in Hindu kingdoms that
> they were treated with respect and they did not have to
> face any persecution due to their religion. Similarly,
> it was in Hindu kingdoms that the Zoroastrians were per-
> mitted to maintain their religion when they left Iran
> again due to religious persecution, while in all the
> other parts of the world they were forced to adopt the
> religion of their now 'homes'. This unique record of
> tolerance is the natural fall-out of the ethos of Hin-
> duism - Ekam Sat Viprah Bahudda Vadanti.
Forced to adopt the religion... This is interesting. Do you think it is a
hallmark of tolerance to insist that someone label himself as Hindu? What
if some persons or groups said they didn't much care for the term? Is it
okay for them to disagree with being described as Hindu? My experience with
many Hindus on the net suggests otherwise, and consequently I don't see
this great tolerance and respect that Hindus like to speak about.
> 8 Hindus also resisted the Christian armies that
> came here. While the American civilisations were wiped
> out, the Hindu civilisation survived, making it the old-
> est surviving civilisation in the world. (Please re-
> cognise that the American civilisations were so totally
> destroyed, that today we know close to nothing of the
> society, the economy, the politics, etc., of the people
> who lived there. It is a clear sign that civilisations
> can be fragile, and have to be protected at all times.)
To quote the borg, "resistance is futile." Heh. Seriously though, what kind
of resistance is worthwhile when armies are repelled but elements of the
invading culture (which are at odds with the indigenous culture) are
retained? For example, you know that the most insidious part of the
Christian invasion was the intellectual one. Scholars were paid to analyze,
deconstruct, and insult the religions found in India by claiming that their
scriptures were degraded and useless. These so-called scholars tried to
break the faith of Hindus in their religions by claiming that the deities
and stories mentioned therein were all quaint mythology. Nowadays, the
Christians are gone, but the brainwashing remains. The beliefs of many
Hindus are strikingly in accord with those of the Christian missionaries
who sought so zealously to convert them. They (the Hindus) talk about
reinterpreting scripture and say that the stories in the Puranas are just
clever mythologies designed to bring them out of their spiritual childhood.
Implicit in such talk is the belief that there was something wrong with
their religion and scriptures in the first place - which is exactly what
the missionaries wanted them to believe.
> 11 The above has been an attempt to answer a first
> question, viz. "The word Hindu seems to
> have a very vague definition. How does one define a
> Hindu? And what criteria is there to be a good Hindu?"
> His other questions can be answered briefly.
So far the answers are unsatisfactory. In fact, the answers given would be
more exclusive than most Hindus are comfortable with.
> 12 The second question is: "Since there is no central
> scripture in Hinduism (for example Islam has the Koran)
> how does one determine the basic philosophy of Hinduism?
> And what if two scriptures say different things, how
> does not determine which scripture takes precedence?"
Since Hinduism is not a religion in any sense of the word, you would not
expect it to have a central scripture. Different groups will take different
scriptures to be authentic.
> The fact that Hinduism has no central scripture gives
> it the strength to evolve and to conform to the modern
> conditions. At the World Parliament of Religions, Swami
In other words, humans should invent religion. If people are responsible
for making/evolving religion, then their imperfections will find a place
within that religion.
> of their grand religion, sect after sect arose in India
> and seemed to shake the religion of the Vedas to its
> very foundations, but like the waters of the sea-shore
> in a tremendous earthquake it receded only for a while,
> only to return in an all-absorbing flood, a thousand
> times more vigorous, and when the tumult of the rush
> was over, these sects were all sucked in, absorbed and
> assimilated into the immense body of the mother faith."
What mother faith is that? Furthermore not all sects were absorbed.
Christians and Muslims still maintain their distinct identities.
> 13 As to the second part of the question, let us see
> what Mahatma Gandhi had to say on the subject. "My be-
> lief in the Hindu scriptures does not require me to
> accept every word and every verse as divinely
> inspired....I decline to be bound by any interpretation,
> however learned it may be, if it is repugnant to reason
> or moral sense." Thus Hinduism is always evolving, and
> does not need any organised effort to keep it evolving.
> A Hindu seer when he gives a discourse is really ex-
> pounding his own philosophy or his own interpretation of
> a scripture. At the same time, he never claims that he
> alone is right and the other wrong.
Then that kind of religion is useless to someone who wants to learn what
the Absolute Truth is. Such a person isn't interested in someone's
interpretation. He wants perfect knowledge.
> 14 The third question is, "I have heard both polythe-
> istic and monotheistic interpretations of the Hindu
> religion. I would like to hear arguments for both."
Hinduism is neither polytheistic nor monotheistic. It is a term
encompassing several religions, most of which are more or less
monotheistic.
> This issue never occurred to our great seers and sages,
> to whom "Ekam Sat Viprah Bahudda Vadanti" was the
> guiding principle.
I keep hearing certain Hindus using this as a slogan. Frankly, I would
really like to see the context.
The whole debate started with the
> advent of Semitic religions, with one god and one book,
> came into being. They tried to put forward that the
> concept of many gods (defined as polytheistic) as con-
> fusing, and hence inferior to the one god concept (de-
> fined as monotheistic). The whole debate about Hindu-
> ism also being monotheistic started in the early 1800s
> with the Brahmo Samaj trying to counteract the missionary
> activity in Bengal. They tried to say that "Ekam Sat"
> makes Hinduism also monotheistic. To my mind, the to-
> tality of the ethos makes Hinduism polytheistic, and I
> consider this to be a higher form of spiritualism than
> having a single path toward salvation. But, it matters
> not whether a religion is monotheistic or polytheistic.
> What is important is the way it is used, and whether the
> religion preaches its followers to respect other religion
> or not.
What if a religion advocates violence. Should such a religion be respected?
Why does it not matter whether or not polytheism or monotheism is correct?
Aren't you simply demonstrating by your comments a "live in the [material]
world" mentality? After all, atheists say the same thing - namely, that it
does not matter whether God is this or that, all that matters is whether or
not they are nice.
Let me put it this way. A man gets into a car. His friend inquires about
his destination. The first man merely replies that it does not matter, he
is simply going for a drive. The philosophy you propose is like that:
aimless wandering. You say it does not matter because you are not
interested in the Absolute Truth. Consequently, any talk of religion
becomes a pointless verbal excercise.
> 15 The fourth question is, "What is the general Hindu
> position on meat eating?" Here again, it is for the in-
> dividual to decide what is good for oneself. The Kash-
That's like saying that murder is either okay or not okay depending on
one's personal opinion. Either taking a life is wrong or it is not. By
refusing to take a stand, you are simply proving yourself to be a moral
relativist. You can't expect members of other religions to respect you if
you have no values which you hold sacred.
> miri Pandits, who are Brahmins, eat meat. The Saras-
> wat Brahmins, who live mainly on the west coast, eat
> fish. However, there is a general opinion amongst
So, because someone does it, it must be okay, right? Did it ever occur to
you that these so-called Brahmins could be in error? Don't blindly accept
something simply because someone who claims to be a Brahmin does it.
> 16 The fifth question is, "Is the concept of God in
> various Hindu philosophies that of a personal God or a
> distant God?" As said earlier, the Hindu philosophers
> have made God in the image of man, and not the other
> way round.
Either A) not all Hindu philosophers made God in the image of man or B)
some "Hindu" traditions are certainly not Hindu. The Vaishnava schools of
Vedanta do not accept such an absurd notion of a man-made God. Are they
still Hindu?
This comes out of the belief (which is now
> an accepted scientific basis) of man having evolved
> from a lower life form, and not having been created by
> God.
Oh boy, here we go again. I have my bachelor's degree in Biochemistry from
a fairly reputable American University. I do not believe in evolution, nor
do I see that it has a scientific basis. Rather, what I observe is that no
one believes in the evolutionary hypothesis unless they want to - the
evidence is certainly too fragmental to draw any worthwhile conclusions.
To this extent it makes God as a personal God. At
> the same time, God is used as a means to achieve some-
> thing sublime - and to this extent God becomes a distant
> God. Take your pick.
I find this insulting. Use God as a tool and then throw Him away when you
get what you want.
> 21 Much is written about Hinduism - the philosophy,
> the culture, the religion. Much more will be written
> in the future. Some will find fault with it, without
> having anything positive to offer. But let us once again
Well I do find fault with it, but experience teaches me that if I offer
something positive, Hindus will reject it because many of them don't like
the idea of believing in a higher, Absolute authority. They just love
discourses like this that teach moral relativism and hate any notion of an
Absolute Truth or an Absolute authority structure. Such discourses appeal
to our deeper desires of wanting to exploit the material world for our own
sense gratification.
recall what Prof Kalus Klostermaier said: "All of us may
> be already much more Hindu than we think." It would be
> worthwhile to see within oneself and see how much of a
> Hindu one is.
In order to see myself as Hindu, I have to know what Hindu is. I argue,
based on irrefutable historical facts, that it is nothing more than a
social and geographical term.
In my opinion, definitions like the above are completely evasive and
self-defeating. They are intended for people who don't want to believe in
anything but want to seem very religious. Their appeal is therefore
material, not spiritual.
regards,
-- Krishna
