[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : Just say no to "Hinduism" (was Re: ARTICLE : On attempting to define Hinduism)
BTW, thanks to Vidya for posting the Rig Veda excerpt I was looking for.
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar@braincells.com> wrote in article
<ghenDwHznC.9A0@netcom.com>...
> Well actually we needn't get rid of the term completely. Hinduism is a
> little useful as a general term for the various religions that claim to
be
> based on Vedic thought. But the "Hinduism" expressed in a recent article
> by Ashok Chowgule
>
> > ...one who knows very little of the Hindu scriptures.
>
> should be implacably opposed by all Dharmik people. This is my first
> criticism of "Hinduism" that its proponents are ignorant.
My thoughts exactly.
> My second is that when they do somehow manage to quote a shastra, they
> wilfully get it wrong.
>
> > 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".
>
> Vivekanand was no scholar either in the Western or the traditional sense.
> This translation is wrong.
> Vipra while literally meaning wise man is used throughout thousands of
> years of Sanskrt literature as a synonym for Brahman. Any dictionary
will
> tell you Brahman is the primary meaning of the word but "God is one, the
> Brahmans call him variously" doesn't sound sufficiently progressive so
the
> meaning is twisted to something more suitable.
This is interesting. I had thought vipra referred to a learned person. If
vipra means Brahman, then what exactly is the correct understanding of ekam
sat viprah... ? From an advaitist standpoint, it sounds quite bizarre
speaking of Brahman as plural.
> One could go on but the entire article is riddled with errors. Which is
a
> crying shame because there _is_ a need for Hindu intellectuals.
> Unfortunately Chowgule falls far short of the mark. To repeat my
> criticisms, people of his ilk are ignorant, duplicitous, and incoherent.
> Just say no to their misbegotten ideologies.
It may very well be that they are sincere, but unfortunately their
ignorance is a major stumbling block. This attempt by many modern-day
Hindus to lump the various schools of Vedanta and other Indian traditions
under the term Hinduism and then speak of it as a religion strikes me as
being inspired by a number of factors. Here are a few that I can think of:
1) The Indian experience with semitic religions such as Christianity and
Islam has never been particularly favorable. Many were converted forcibly.
Others converted on their own but became instant "Hindu/Indian haters." The
result of this is that many Hindus equate the idea of believing in
something with conviction as requiring conversions of the kind they have
become accustomed to hate. Consequently, they try to brag about their
religion as being one that requires no one to give up their beliefs.
Suddenly, according to them, all beliefs are correct, and differences of
belief are attributed to "different interpretations." This way, they don't
feel it is necessary to have conviction in their beliefs, and consequently
they don't think them through when trying to adopt some kind of belief
system.
2) Hindus have often exhibited a kind of inferiority complex vis-a-vis
Western culture. Many of them claim to be proud of their culture, but the
sense of shame is often there at some subtle level. By trying to claim that
Hinduism is a single, amorphous religion and that it requires accepting all
religions, Hindus try to feel proud by impressing Western secularist minds,
many of whom are also fed up with religious fundamentalism. They want
Westerners to feel that Hinduism is the greatest/most progressive of all
religions.
3) Hindus still feel that "united we stand, divided we fall" applies at the
religious level. They believe that in order to be one politically, we have
to be one spiritually. Consequently they gloss over irreconciable
differences between different schools of thought and advertise Hinduism as
a single, all-accepting religion.
Actually, there are many reasons why modern-day Hindus think like this. In
my opinion, the drive to advertise Hinduism as a single, all-accepting
religion has its roots in the mentality of a "defeated" culture which is
striving to right itself. How this is so, what factors influenced it, and
what the future might hold are interesting topics for discussion if anyone
is interested.
regards,
-- H. Krishna Susarla
