[Prev][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : Parallels/Divergences (Was Re: ARTICLE : Just say no...)
[also posted to soc.religion.sikhism]
Virginia Spatz (vspatz@access.digex.net) wrote on Mon, 23 Sep 1996 21:11:55 GMT:
>I doubt that anyone with any degree of familiarity with eastern or western
>religious traditions would fail to realize that Jesus was Jewish or that
>Siddhartha was Hindu and that each defined a new way of path
>which was born, in part, of the tradition in which the teacher lived.
This viewpoint is valid only to a limited extent, because it
conflicts with the claim of Revelation/Enlightenment of the founders
of the new religion. For example, while Guru Nanak was born to a
Hindu couple [Mehta Kalu and Mata Tripta], he never accepted any of
the Hindu activities he was encouraged to do, and Sikh religion is
considered, especially by Sikhs, to have been founded as a result
of the Revelation he received during one particular incident, and
not as any of the Hindu influences of the society or tradition he
lived in. This is in a way similar to the enlightenment of Gautam
Buddha, or Prophet Mohammed receiving the Revelation of the Quran
from the farishta [angel] Gibraeel [Gabriel].
Jesus was Jewish and Guru Nanak was Hindu only because we consider
them to be so; they themselves may or may not have been in
agreement. Take a more mundane example -- I was born and lived in a
village for 15 years. Am I a villager? Not anymore! I have given up
village life and it would be wrong to both myself and villagers of
my ancestoral village if I was to be described as a villager.
Ssimilarly, Jesus, Mohammed, Guru Nanak, Gautam Buddha and other
prophets and saints are, probably unjustly, wrongly labeled as
Jewish, Hindu and so on.
Whilst Virginia;s post was not concentrated on this point, I have
written this detailed response because it is a very important and
sensitive issue in interfaith understanding. The current right-wing
Brahminical ["Hindu"] imperialism that seeks to co-opt Sikhism as an
offshoot of "Hinduism" and deny Sikhs certain political and social
rights, stems from this root, inspite of the unique theology and
rest of the religious structure of Sikhs.
The same is true of Buddhism: the Shankaracharya co-opted the Ahimsa
principles and decimated Buddhists from the Indian Sub-continent as
soon as buddhist political power declined. This brings us to the
next point Virginia wrote, which I am sure must be true for
Christianity, sicne she knows about it, but:
>A futher parallel appears in that both new faiths became extremely
>important, especially among seekers who were at some distance from the
>original culture in which the revelation took place. Christianity spread
>more thoroughly among the Jews of the Greek disaspora than among those of
>Palestine, and Buddhism became much more important in China than in India,
>for example.
Buddhism flourished in India for about a thousand until classical
Brahminical Aryanism ["Hinduism"] bounced back; Buddhists were first
destroyed doctrinally [by the method of co-opting] and then
physically. Whilst the importance of the new faiths in faraway
places was perhaps due to distance, the other side of the picture is
equally important: in their land of origin the new faiths wwere
systematically persecuted -- Buddhism is of course the textbook
example, but the current persecution of Sikhs, especially the
"orthodox" Sikhs, is a part of that ever-repeating process, with the
same procedures albeit in a more disguised and sophisticated form.
>Jews among the Hellenes might have accepted Christianity more readily
>because of cultural conditions which made the one path more attractive
>than traditional Judaism. Similarly I believe that many may have
>accepted Buddhism in part because of cultural conditions which made it
>seem more attractive than Hinduism.
Could be true, but, as I wrote above, in case of Buddhism, the
political and social conditions made it extremely dangerous to stick
to Buddhism. those who did, were destroyed.
>But these situations arose AFTER THE FACT, i.e., after the deaths of the
>Buddha and of Jesus. If there is a difference between Buddhism/Hinduism
>and Christianity/Judaism in terms of which "stands alone", I would say
>that Buddhism branches much more sharply from Hinduism than does
>Christianity from Judaism in overall philosophy.
I agree with your perception here.
>On the other hand, my understanding is that the Buddha simply found that
>Hinduism was not working for him and set out on a new path, one which left
>behind most of the Hindus' beliefs about Brahman and his manifestations.
True. Buddha is said to have received enlightenment under the banyan
tree, and the legitimacy of Buddhist religion stems from this
singularity.
>I have been following this thread for sometime to the best of my non-Hindu
>abilities and it seems clear that "Hindu" is even less useful a label
>than "Christian" for the purposes of serious discussion. Cannot
>differences be acknolwedged without disavowing the importance of the
>tradition from which one differs?
You are actually hitting the nail right on its head -- until the
external visitors and invaders gave the label "Hindu" tehre was no
such thing as Hinduism. There were many quite unique and progressive
movements and religions and their common enemy has been classical
Brahminical "Hinduism" which has so far co-opted most of what arose,
and current targets include Sikhism and many other systems [tribals'
religions, for example] that arose within Indian subcontinent, as
well as faiths from outside that have encroached upon the domain of
Brahminical "Hinduism" -- notably Islam and Christianity.
It is a grave error to assume the grinding stones have halted in the
so-called modern era. the windmills of the gods are still turning
and churning.
Regards
rs
