Redefining Hinduism – Need of the Hour
Tavleen Singh wrote a great piece in Indian Express a few days back titled, “A dark, distorted Hinduism“.
In that article, Tavleen talked about how “in these jehadi times, when Islamists run around the globe killing innocent people to prove that their Prophet and their book are the best, now and forever, the Hindu idea becomes even more relevant. What grander idea of faith can there be than that everyone is entitled to their own truth?“.
I was reminded of “The Dangers of Monotheism in the Age of Globalization“, in which Jean-Pierre Lehmann suggests that India (and the Hindu tradition) can be the new ethical and spiritual role model for the world.
Sadly, the only “brand” of Hinduism that does get publicity these days is either the “make Shilpa Shetty apologise for kissing Richard Gere” variety or the “seeking guidance from spirits” variety.
In her story, Tavleen writes about her meeting with Rajiv Malhotra of Infinity Foundation who has made his life’s mission to rectify misconceptions and mis-representations about Hinduism by, amongst others, “highly regarded American professors who have written scholarly tomes on Hinduism that make it sound like a mix of voodoo and pornography”
As Tavleen writes, “Hindu gods and religious symbols have been put through Freudian analysis to establish such bizarre conclusions as Ganesha’s trunk representing a “flaccid phallus” and his love of sweets as a desire for oral sex….This Freudian analysis goes beyond the gods to actual Hindu religious practices, and it is then that these scholars show not just their abysmal ignorance but their deliberate distortion of reality.
They teach students in American universities that Brahmins drink menstrual blood and other human fluids and that this is Tantra. They teach that Shiva temples are dens of vice where priests routinely murder and rape unsuspecting pilgrims.”
Thankfully, Rajiv has decided to do something about this and “the result of his efforts is Invading the Sacred“, a book that I am looking forward to read sometime soon (Karigar has reproduced the foreword here).
Tavleen also points out that “the reason why dodgy scholars from a distant land have succeeded in becoming ‘experts’ on our civilisation is because our own scholars do not tread in this territory for fear of being branded with that much reviled word — Hindutva.”
This fear of being branded a “Hindu fascist” keeps most people away from any serious discussion about Hinduism, Sanatan Dharma, its relevance to current India and the fear of secular fundamentalists is what shuts most serious scholars up.
As we know, of course, the fastest way to loose credibility in India today is to get branded a “Hindu fundamentalist” – which is ironic considering that the “fundamentals” of Hinduism are ideals which one can hardly find fault with.
But the real pity is not even that there are not enough indigenous scholars studying Hinduism, Sanatan Dharma and Indology…the real pity is that “these so-called experts …(are)…aided and abetted by Indians like Amartya Sen, who attend their conferences and support their ignorant theories.”
Rajiv mentions in his book a recent “conference at the University of Chicago, where, along with Hinduism ‘experts’ like Wendy Doniger and Martha Nussbaum, (Amartya Sen) backed the idea that Hindu fanatics were a bigger threat to Indian democracy than the Islamists.”
Nussbaum is quoted as saying, “Thinking about India is instructive to Americans who in an age of terrorism can easily oversimplify pictures of the forces that threaten democracy . . . in India, the threat to democratic ideals comes not from a Muslim threat, but from Hindu groups.”
That sounds like a joke, but you will stop finding it funny if you remember that the current dispensation in Delhi is supported by Marxists, who openly state that they consider Hindutva a bigger threat than jehadi Islam.
So true.
Tragically, the damage that the Marxists and communists “have done goes beyond the political, for it is largely on account of ‘secular’ leftist pressure that Indian civilisation remains untaught in our schools and universities”.
I realised this first hand several years ago when the only “popular” book available on Indian History (other than text books) that I used to find in shops was Romila Thapar’s The History of India.
As the foreword mentions,
“The standard textbook story, which has schooled multiple generations including mine, goes as follows: caste system dominates India, strange and grotesque deities are worshipped in strange and grotesque ways, women are discriminated against, the practice of widow-burning exists and corruption is rampant.
If these properties characterize India of today and yesterday, the puzzle about what the earlier generation of Indian thinkers were doing turns into a very painful realization: while the intellectuals of European culture were busy challenging and changing the world, most thinkers in Indian culture were apparently busy sustaining, and defending undesirable and immoral practices. Of course there is our Buddha and our Gandhi but that is apparently all we have: exactly one Buddha and exactly one Gandhi. If this portrayal is trus, the Indians have but one task, to modernize India, and the Indian culture but one Goal: to become like the West as quickly as possible.
However, what if this portrayal is false? What if these basically Western descriptions of India are wrong? In that case, the questions about what India has to offer the world and what Indian thinkers were doing becomes important.”
In fact one of the major reasons for starting this blog was to help me understand more about our culture, tradition and religion because I found unbiased research and information increasingly hard to come by. This was also one of the major impulses behind Krishna’s initiative to start Hindupedia.
Today, more than ever, Hinduism is in desperate need of re-branding. Unless we take the initiative in redefining the core values of our great religion and tradition, we will forever be hostage to mis-interpretations, distortions and misunderstandings…
And the task is so urgent…and so thankless, that it can no longer be left to academics, experts and government-funded scholars…Let each one of us try and do something about it…
A good beginning might be to read Rajiv Malhotra’s book…or you can start here 🙂
Related posts: Is this too much to ask? and In Search of a “Hindu” Identity
.
If you liked this article, consider subscribing to my feed or Subscribe by Email
The post again attracted a lot of comments on DesiCritics.Org and I am attaching a few of them below:
***** Comment # 1 from Sujai ***** Note that Italics are sentences from my article *****
Shantanu:
Thanks for the piece.
You are talking about ‘your’ version of Hinduism, and you are hoping that your version is what you want others to embrace, brand and promote. You think other’s version of Hinduism is ‘unfortunate’.
Some of us, being Hindus, oppose that kind of imposing ‘your version’ of Hinduism onto the rest of us- whatever that version is, whether it is peaceful, violent, respects women, or treats them like shit.
This whole idea of rebranding a religion is anathema to us. I am quite OK if you keep your version of religion with you, practice it while you can. We don’t want anyone going out preaching their version. You may say your version is flawless and all-encompassing. But that’s exactly what preaching Muslims and Christians say- that their message is all-loving, all embracing, etc. When you say your version is a good version, you are no different from preachers of these other religions.
According to Tavleen:
Hindu idea becomes even more relevant.
Why does it become more relevant? You mean to say segregating people based on caste for eons suddenly becomes relevant? You mean to say keeping certain section of your people as bonded laborers for thousands of years becomes relevant? Why are we selectively choosing the most non-practiced version of Hinduism and touting it as the true version?
I was reminded of The Dangers of Monotheism in the Age of Globalization,
While you are it, you should get the opinion of the some of the Hindu revivalists who seem to believe strongly that Hinduism is IN FACT a Monotheistic religion. BTWscholars show not just their abysmal ignorance but their deliberate distortion of reality.
Do you have any idea what is ‘reality’? According to certain philosophies of Hinduism, there is no reality. So what are we talking about here? Whose reality is this that you want to save from deliberate distortion. And have you read all Hindu texts? Texts that describe gods in erotic poems, where phallus, mammary glands are described in great details- and these are Sanskrit texts. What version of Hinduism is that?
What is your obsession with this Sanatan Dharma. While we want to guard ourselves from all these new brands, you introduce another one. Which one is the right brand for Hinduism? The one which hides all its ugly truths?
“fundamentals” of Hinduism are ideals which one can hardly find fault with.
Really? Are you talking about sati, untouchability and methods of ritualistic sacrifices? I guess, you are going to say that, these are NOT the elements of the ‘TRUE Hinduism’ that you are proposing, right?
But the real pity is not even that there are not enough indigenous scholars studying Hinduism
Actually the pity is that there are too many out there who want to promote their own version, just like you here. And most of them want to hide the ugly truths of Hinduism (every religion has its share of these ugly truths- and Hinduism is no exception).
Hinduism is in desperate need of re-branding.
And what brand would that be? That we treat everyone with respect? Our Tamil brothers, our Muslim brothers, our Dalit brothers? That we treat our women with respect, while we keep killing the girl children? That we allow everyone into our temples while throwing massive amounts of food to cleanse our temples? That we promote our caste through blatant means, in recruitment, in promotion and even in politics? That we go about changing the Buddhist and Jain idols and convert them into Hindu gods?
Or is it the version of Hinduism which is only found in selected few texts which you seem to read, but non-existent in practicing India?
Sorry about this. But this whole charade of trying to brand Hinduism is a bit revolting. Nobody needs to brand a religion. Religion exudes its own brand through the practices of its people. Is Hinduism a ‘clean’ religion? Go to villages, go to towns and go to cities, and see the amount of plastic and garbage strewn all over, and then decide whether this religion preaches cleanliness – and please don’t go about finding some remote texts talking about different ways of ablution and hundred ways of keeping oneself clean. That version is found in texts which has no relevance to reality.
Thanks.
***** From Atlantean *****
Shantanu,
Thanks a lot for this article, especially the links. You have an important message.
Some people seem to have misunderstood you and your message.
Sujai,
Please go read what Shantanu wrote. He never expected YOU to follow his version of Hinduism. Where has he claimed that his version of Hinduism is the only version of Hinduism? He didnt. You simply set up a strawman and go about ranting against it in 11 long paragraphs. There are some fundamentals of Hinduism whatever brand of Hinduism you follow.
Shatanu had already replied to your misapprehensions in a previous post. I reproduce it here for your reading pleasure:
I hope that answers your concern about the “flaw” in Hinduism – and if I have come across as saying that Sanatan Dharma is the only acceptable form of Hinduism, clearly I have been misunderstood.
I am a firm believer in freedom and liberty of thought and belief…and who am I to say who is a “true” Hindu and who is not?
All I wanted to say was that lets get back to basics – lets accept that all beings are one. Lets accept that diversity of thoughts and beliefs is actually enriching; lets accept that there can be no basis for discrimination; lets accept that there is no universal set of practices/or rituals that a Hindu “must” adhere to or avoid…It was openness and tolerance that made the religion so rich – lets not forget that.
In other words, there ARE fundamentals in Hinduism. They are openness and tolerance. When a Hindu talks about going back to the fundamentals, s/he is simply stating that we should achieve, protect and practice openness and tolerance.
I am quite OK if you keep your version of religion with you, practice it while you can. We don’t want anyone going out preaching their version.
And who are you, SIR, to lecture us on what we can preach and what we cannot? For all your high posturing on tolerance and freedom of expression, here’s an example of what you preach and what you practice being in conflict. You simply want Shantanu to shut up and stop preaching. This shows how intolerant you are towards differing opinion. You just dont want to hear it!
Shantanu has complete rights on defining his own version of Hinduism, as you do and as I do and as any other Hindu does.
Yet again, when someone speaks of a Hindu renaissance, you go back to the usual “Are we going to practise untouchability, sati and discrimination against the girl child?” Maybe you’re not getting the message. Shantanu is not asking us to go back to sati, untouchability and casteism. He renounces all these evils and it is precisely on the renouncement of these, that he seeks to define a newer form of Hinduism.
Swami Vivekananda, Raja Rammohan Roy and Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar are all Hindu revivalists who based their movement on the renouncement of evils like sati, dowry, widow remarriage, untouchability and casteism. People like Shantanu and I want to carry forward this revivalist tradition, based on and respect for the human individual. Your apprehensions – whether this revival is going to strengthen the evils of sati, dowry, untouchability and casteism – are grossly misplaced.
It is noteworthy that sati, untouchability and casteism are later additions to Hinduism and that before the Maurya period (that is before Indians lived in states or kingdoms), Hindus lived in clans and tribes, in which society was remarkably egalitarian. Even your beloved Marxist historians, despite the deep and open hatred that they profess against anything Hindu, attest to this fact in their school history textbooks.
Ram Sharan Sharma, author of Ancient India, NCERT, July 2005 writes in the Chapter “Advent of the Aryans and the Age of the Rig Veda” under subheading Social Divisions:
In the age of the Rid Veda differentiation based on occupations had started. But this division was not very sharp. We hear of a family in which a member says: “I am a poet, my father is a physician, and my mother is a grinder. Earning livelihood through different means we live together….” We hear of gifts of cattle, chariots, horses, slaves etc. Unequal distribution of spoils of war created social inequalities, and this helped the rise of princes and priests at the cost of the common tribal people. But since economy was mainly pastoral and not food-producing, the scope for collecting regular tributes from the people was very limited. We do not find gifts of land and even those of cereals are rare. We find domestic slaves, but not the wage earners. Tribal elements in society were stronger and social divisions based on collection of taxes or accumulation of landed property were absent. The society was still tribal and largely egalitarian. [pages 75, 76]
In other words, the origin of social inequalities based on caste could be traced to economic reasons rather than religious. Later, as the people organised into kingdoms and later empires, the king (or the emperor) began to don a role of the saviour of the Varna System. Subsequently, this started getting a religious basis as, according to the religious orthodoxy, it was the king’s responsibility to protect the social system (varna) from breaking down. All this goes to show that rigidity in the varna system was a later occurence and had its origin in economic reasons. Religious sanction was only the plaster of paris to the already built brick wall.
We study history for a purpose. All this tells us that a Hinduism, without strong and rigid social divisions, existed and we feel, is worth revisiting in spirit.
Hinduism is an open religion, open to different forms and different interpretations. Shantanu’s is just one. If you dont like it, you may not follow it.
Thank you.
***** Comment # 2 from Sujai *****
Atlantean:
You vex me.
Where has he claimed that his version of Hinduism is the only version of Hinduism?
Shantanu wrote the following in his previous article:
we declare ourselves the true followers of Sanatan Dharma and commit ourselves to unite Hindu society
So who are these ‘true’ followers?
There are some fundamentals of Hinduism whatever brand of Hinduism you follow.
What are they?
***** MY RESPONSE to the above *****
Sujai: I can see that you love a good argument but in this case it may be mis-directed.
I have nowehere said that my version is the “true version” or the “only version” or anything like that. We got into a similar discussion re. my last article http://desicritics.org/2007/07/02/085935.php pl. see comments #4, 7 and 8.
You also appear to equate Tavleen Singh’s “Hindu idea” with “segregating people based on caste for eons” and “keeping certain section of your people as bonded laborers for thousands of years” – I doubt that she meant that. I certainly do not.
As for Hinduism being essentially monotheistic, please let us all be careful of definitions before we begin to rush labelling things. Do please have a read through this article in which I have treid to articulate that Hinduism is NOT monotheism in disguise https://satyameva-jayate.org/2007/03/01/hinduism-not-monotheism-in-disguise/
You ask: “According to certain philosophies of Hinduism, there is no reality. So what are we talking about here?” That is Tavleen’s quote you are referring to (just to be clear) and I am not a student of philosophy so I will let someone more qualified than me to comment on that.
As for reading Hindu texts, I have not read all – in fact I have not read even a significant fraction of them…I am hampered by the fact that I never learnt Sanskrit properly. I am hampered by the fact that authentic translations are hard to come by (they are coloured by interpretations) and I am constrained by time. That said, I have read quite a lot and possibly more than most Hindus – thanks to my upbringing and my love for history and books.
As for texts that describe “Gods in erotic poems”, yes they do exist – but have you ever attempted to delve into the complexities of Hindu culture, metaphors, art and erotocism?
You may know that sex was not viewed with any revulsion or perversion in the traditions of Hinduism. It was not considered a “sin” unlike in some other belief systems; it was considered a natural behavior. Vatsyayana’s Kamasutra exemplifies this approach even it as it lists 64 arts while expounding on the meaning of education, ‘vidyaasamuddes’a’. These arts also included study of arts such as: des’a-bhasha-jnana (spoken dialects), akshara-mushtika-kathana (gestures as metaphors of _expression) and mlecchita vikalpa (cryptography or writing system). These are in addition to arts such as: singing, playing musical instruments, dancing, tattooing, adorning a murti with rice and flowers, colouring the teeth, garments, hair, nails and bodies, i.e. painting, fixing stained glass into a floor and so on.
I find it hard to have a serious discussion with you if you have already made up your mind that “sati, untouchability and methods of ritualistic sacrifices” are the fundamentals of Hinduism. Having said that,
the fact that you wrote all this suggests to me that you are at least as troubled as I am by some aspects of it.
Thanks for contributing to the discussion.
Re. your point #3: I proposed that we “declare ourselves the true followers of Sanatan Dharma”. That is different from saying “we declare Sanatan Dharma/our version as the ONLY TRUE version”…isnt it?
Re. your remark to Atlantean on the fundamentals of Hinduism, Atlantean actually mentions two in his next sentence: “openness and tolerance” – both of which seem to be in short supply these days.
***
Atlantean: Thanks a lot for your comment and the references from historical research.
Dharma must be practiced, for its proper understanding and realisation. Vaidic Dharma or Sanatana Dharma or HIndu Dharma (call it by any one name) is the same. Rig Veda declared, Ekam sat vipra bahuda vadanti (Truth is one, wiseman call it by different names). The essence of Sanatana dharma is the same, no matter from what perspectives one looks.
Practice and true understanding can’t come without some efforts of learning sastras. Not many Hindus can recite even five slokas (verses) from the Bhagavad Gita or any other dharma sastras. Main reason is our faulty education system in India, which have anti-Hindu bias. All others can read/study their religious books in schools, but hindus are kept out from this under the banner of so-called secularism.
Nehruvian (which is inherently anti-Hindu) education system has done more harm to our nation and dharma than 1000 years of Islamist and Christian British rule. Most of us keep fighting on petty issues than working towards Hindu Unity and up;iftment of poor Hindus. Dharma is the cornerstone of our unity, it must be truely (not half-heartedly) practiced.
I appeal all to read at least a bit of Swami Vivekananda to energise the mind and heart, and proceeds towards right direction. And please read Bhagavad Gita! Make it a habit to read at least a verse each day. I bet you will become a better human being and a proud Hindu.
Well said Bharat! Most Hindus in my experience that have read the Great universal truth and message of the Sri Bhagavadtham Gita, do not understand its true essence and knowledge and just recite it, as though this is enough. Reciting on a repetative and ignorrant bases does not lead to understading. The divine and spiritualy uplifting Bhagavad Gita requires an open mind and guidence by a guru to understand it to the fullest, but can be done alone by focussing the mind heart and intelligence gifted to us by the lord of all the worlds. the Gita encapsulates all the enlightenment of the oldest written scriptures the vedas, since civilisation began and god realisation occured by the sindu and saraswati civalisations of india t. Can I just leave you with one thought I asked an Archeologist and a scientist about how an ancient and so called backward civilisation, invents Zero or infinity to some of you, without which mathamatics as we know it 0 to 10 and nothing scientific can exsist. They said to me that zero cannot be invented.
I couldn’t agree more that Hinduism – like anything else that is dynamic and vibrant – needs to be re-defined. Indeed Hinduism (or Sanatana Dharma, or Vaidika Dharma, or whatever one chooses to call That), has survived the ages because we always have had individuals, loners, leaders and visionaries who can re-define the Dharma.
It is happening all the time and every bhakta or any other practcioner in this vibrant tradition is always re-defining the Hindu dharma. It has to happen on the individual level. Individuals who don’t do it for themselves are clinging on to a dead system; it is those who re-define the Dharma who actually see its dynamism and its truth. Re-definers help Hinduism; they don’t hamper it. Those who are afraid of re-definitions should really look at the power of Hinduism deeply: Sanatana Dharma is so dynamic it can take almost any approach. And it invites all approaches. That is why it is Sanatana.
In this context may I invite readers to see my presentation of Hinduism on my website: I call it Visionary Hinduism.
Please visit http://www.ttscourses.com.au and look at Sanatana Dharma in the Indian/Asian Thought section.
My love and respects to all and everyone from all sides in this discussion.
Bharat, Nivedan and Raj: Thank you all for sharing your thoughts and comments.
Raj: I will have a look at your presentation in the next day or two.
Some more excerpts from the debate at desicritics.org
***** From Sujai (Comment #9) *****
Shantanu:
Sujai: I can see that you love a good argument but in this case it may be mis-directed.
Not really. I don’t come here because I like a good argument. Yeah, may be when I was quite young, I used to engage people in a good debate. Now I don’t. I come here to see the pulse of the Indian people, those who are hijacking the fabric of this nation by redefining Hinduism and Nationalism according to their tastes. They are creating an India where some of the views are trounced down as anti-national, as immoral, as indecent. Already MF Husain has left this country. It all starts this way. Artists leaving, authors being banned, scientists fleeing, and then you create a Nazi Germany.
You say love your history. I do not know how much you know your history, but the same precursors have shaped the Europe for its fascist times. The same efforts to indigenize the sciences, the same efforts to redefine the histories and religions, the same efforts to say who is a ‘true christian’, a ‘true Italian’, etc.
I come here to know how stupid Indians are, and how dreadful they can be. I come here to know where and how my kids will grow up. I want to know what kind of India these educated masses are creating for tomorrow. These educated fools I would rather call them are everywhere- on the road throwing filth, in offices taking bribes, on blogs propagating hatred.
I write NOT to engage in a good argument, but to educate those selected few who want to learn. Give hope to those who have given up hope because of rise of fundamentalism, rise of nepotism, intolerance of minority views, perpetuating class difference by opposing all policies to bridge them, etc. Even if one person comes around, changes their view, I am quite happy – I would think it’s worth it. I don’t cater to all- for me that one single person who writes me an e-mail saying that they believe in what I said and now they have changed their perception is worth it.
And what some of the commenters here (who are quite idiotic and are general representation of this country) say does not matter.
People say that I am self-conceited. I would rather be self-conceited than be a fool.
Thanks anyway.
***** From Mansingh *****
Ancient Hindu literature gain n again epmphasizes three words whenever it gives any recommendations. ie Desh kaal and Paristhiti (time place and circumestances).
Dharma is is very well defined in teh scriptures and it is composed of 10 characterstics very clearly and very openly. All religions on the earth adopted thee 10 values in diferent forms from here though in place of saying thanks to those great seers these proponent of new religions call them ppl of darkness.
Dhriti Khsama damoasteyam, shocham indriyanigraham.
Dhee vidya satyakrodho dashakam dharam lakshanam.
Daya(kindness) Dhriti(Courage) Khsama (forgiveness) Dam(control of senses), asteya(non stealing)Shoch, Indriya nigraha, intellect, knowledge, truth, akrodh
There are very very clear methodologies suitable for people of diferent temperaments and mental intellectual to inject these 10 characerstyics of Dharma.
There is no restriction on number of methods used to inject these human values.
I feel definition is more then clear. its its presenetatiuon to suit modern set of time space n environment.
Please come froward.
***** From Atlantean *****
Sujai,
You said:
Atlantean:
You vex me.
Where has he claimed that his version of Hinduism is the only version of Hinduism?
Shantanu wrote the following in his previous article:
we declare ourselves the true followers of Sanatan Dharma and commit ourselves to unite Hindu society
So who are these ‘true’ followers?
1. Apologies.
2. I guess Shantanu explained himself in #8 on the question “who are these ‘true’ followers.”
There are some fundamentals of Hinduism whatever brand of Hinduism you follow.
What are they?
I already mentioned them in #2. I reproduce here:
In other words, there ARE fundamentals in Hinduism. They are openness and tolerance. When a Hindu talks about going back to the fundamentals, s/he is simply stating that we should achieve, protect and practice openness and tolerance.
What makes Hinduism what it is? Its open ended nature. It has the ability to accept and absorb newer and foreign concepts. I am an atheist and I’m a Hindu. Hinduism allows me to discard the belief that God exists. Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism are the only religious systems in the world which allow this. If there are any, openness and toleration are the two qualities that define Hinduism. That is why we believe that the spirit that sustains Hinduism is worth preserving. Not because we want obscurantist practices like sati, untouchability and casteism to continue. I already explained “Your apprehensions – whether this revival is going to strengthen the evils of sati, dowry, untouchability and casteism – are grossly misplaced” in my previous comment but the following is all what you have for a rejoinder:
Rest of your argument is utter crap.
Is that ALL you can come up with? Not even a short explanation as to why my argument is “utter crap”!
***** From Desh *****
Shantanu:
Thanks for a nice article!! I think what we need to do is once again understand the basics of Vedic and Vedantic thought. Many people have come who have for reasons best known to them – lack of intellect or just plain ignorance – messed up the greatness of the Vedic/Vedantic message.
I think it is not “Hinduism” as in the religion – which is more of a counteraction to Islam or others – but the Vedic and other teachings and philosophy itself that dwarfs EVERY known pursuit of knowledge by man EVER.
Those who think we have achieved the pinnacle of glory in science need to check back on their grandkids in a 100 years – who will be without Water, without oil and high up holed up in the mountains with sea level… well IN the sea itself!
For a good understanding of how the Rishis had gotten to the same understanding and results as the most scientific techniques have brought us to – read some articles by Dr. Avtar Singh (MIT alumnus) on Intentblog.com – eg: http://www.intentblog.com/archives/2007/07/how_to_live_in_1.html
As for Sujai.. you utter ignorance of what the truth is .. .is amazing!
Cheers,
Desh
Drishtikone.com
***** From Diganta *****
Thanks for the article but I fail to understand why you are pointing to the Western media and researchers so heavily for having misunderstood Hinduism. I consider ourselves to be responsible for those. Forget about the past, do you watch all saas-bahu soaps in Tv channels to get an idea how superstitions are portreyed there? Do you know how Zee Tv, a premier Indian news channels shows Tantra and the wired effects as the unexplained? Do you know how the viewership of these programs are growing? Don’t you think all these are enough to create a worldview of Hinduism as a ‘religion of superstition’? I think it is so. And to change those, we need a labour from a whole generation.
***** From Sanjay Garg *****
@Diganta: Don’t you think all these are enough to create a worldview of Hinduism as a ‘religion of superstition’?
First, Tantra is a complex system of philosophies, theologies, practices etc and exists in Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism etc. The Dalai Lama is a practitioner of the Buddhist version and many westerners practise a form of the Hindu version. To label it “superstition” betrays profound ignorance about an aspect of our own culture.
Second, the practice of Tantra shows Hinduism to be a religion that is mature enough to allow multiple forms of expression. Just because we are not mature or secure enough or have not taken the time to understand it or are somehow threatened by it, we cannot just conveniently label it superstition.
As long as someone’s belief or practice does not interfere or encroach on someone else’s life, I do not see what is wrong with it. All Hindus should be defending this freedom to practice Tantra, indeed be proud that Hinduism allows esoteric practices within its fold.
If there is a “worldview” out there that Hinduism is superstitious due to Tantra, then the proper thing to do
1. Correct any misapprehensions about Tantra if we have the knowledge, ability or willingness
2. If we disagree strongly with Tantra, it should still be presented to outsiders as evidence of the plurality, diversity and freedom of Hinduism.
The last thing one should do is to try and ban some Hindu practice just because some foreigner doesn’t like it.
***** From Sanjay Garg *****
@Sujai: This whole idea of rebranding a religion is anathema to us.
This is evasion, pure and simple. Re-branding becomes required if our religion has been incorrectly or unfairly branded by outsiders. It would be as if Coke left all its brand management to Pepsi! This is the point Shantanu makes – we have let someone else drive the bus for too long and we need to take charge.
It becomes obligatory to defend Hinduism if you believe that our religion is pluralistic, allows multiple forms of self-expression, including atheism (i.e Charvak philosophy) and encourages diversity to its fullest extent. In a rapidly globalizing world, this is indeed the need of the hour. Tavleen Singh is correct – the world does need to learn from India how to manage diversity better.
Just because there are ills and excesses – real or imaginary – in society, it is a lazy excuse for failing to do our part.
I am quite OK if you keep your version of religion with you, practice it while you can. We don’t want anyone going out preaching their version. You may say your version is flawless and all-encompassing. But that’s exactly what preaching Muslims and Christians say- that their message is all-loving, all embracing, etc. When you say your version is a good version, you are no different from preachers of these other religions.
You cannot just say that “all are the same” and leave it so – this is comatose thinking. The devil is in the details and the proof of the pudding lies in the empirical evidence.
***** MY RESPONSE to above *****
@ Sujai (#9): I think you are vastly exaggerating. How many artists, authors and scientists have “fleed” the country – as opposed to leaving simply because they had better opportunities (or careers elsewhere)?
I don’t think MF Husain has left India either – can you pl. let us all know where you picked up this information? To the best of my knowledge, he was in London and/or Dubai on a private visit – which is different from “fleeing the country”.
Please don’t compare the history of a civilization of 5000 years with something else.
And is an attempt to unearth the truth redefining history? Will we prefer to be fed half truths and lies just because it is “convenient” and it is too much trouble to “redefine” what we wrote before? I am sure you are aware of how the whole idea of “Aryan Invasion” is now under doubt.
Is that an attenpt at redefinition or merely putting the record straight?
And you are in danger of loosing the thread of your argument by lumping ideas in the following sentence: “These educated fools I would rather call them are everywhere- on the road throwing filth, in offices taking bribes, on blogs propagating hatred” – really?
Sujai: are the people taking bribes not on both sides of the argument? Are the people throwing filth not on both sides of the argument? Are the people propagating hatred not on both sides of the argument?
And where in my post did you get the feeling that I am promoting the following:
“rise of nepotism, intolerance of minority views, perpetuating class difference by opposing all policies to bridge them, etc”
In fact if you had read my earlier post and comments, that was precisely I was trying to rectify.
Unlike you, I do cater to all – to those who agree with me, I say: thank you and express my gratitude; to those who do not agree with me, I say: help me understand why you think the way you think.
That however requires patience and a genuine desire to understand the “other” – and it is not served best by remarks dismissing others viewpoints as crap or by calling others (or their thoughts as) ideiotic.
I will stop here but I am sure you have understood what I meant to say.
@ Mansingh: Thank you. That’s a very nice quote. Can you please provide me with a reference or a link?
@ Atlantean: Thanks again for your remarks and I admire your tenacity and perseverance
@ Desh: Thanks for your kind words and encouragement. And thanks for the link. I will definitely check it out.
@ Diganta: You are right. To a large extent, we ourselves are responsible for it. As Tavleen mentioned in her article, “the reason why dodgy scholars from a distant land have succeeded in becoming ‘experts’ on our civilisation is because our own scholars do not tread in this territory for fear of being branded with that much reviled word — Hindutva.”
I added: “This fear of being branded a “Hindu fascist” keeps most people away from any serious discussion about Hinduism, Sanatan Dharma, its relevance to current India and the fear of secular fundamentalists is what shuts most serious scholars up.”
You are quite right that the task is daunting – yet, giving up is not an option; neither is inaction.
@ Sanjay Garg: Thanks for your clarification re. Tantra and I completely agree with you that we should be “proud that Hinduism allows esoteric practices within its fold” And it “should …be presented to outsiders as evidence of the plurality, diversity and freedom of Hinduism”
Thanks also for underscoring the need for re-branding. That’s a great analogy…and yes, the devil is indeed in the details – which is easy to overlook…and the proof of the pudding does lies in the empirical evidence…which some people prefer to turn a blind eye to.
More than redifining Sanatana Dharma, I feel it is high time we spent our time reinventing it.