premjan

I think the Ram temple is an important political statement: that Hindus will also stand up explicitly for their beliefs. Hindus tend not to be reluctant to defend their beliefs but they need to.

I do not expect the building of a Ram temple to conflict in any way with Islamic belief. Nation-states exist in the modern day, and they must cater to their majorities as well as their minorities. I also believe that the Temple on the Mount in Jerusalem should be rebuilt according to Judeo-Christian direction. Islam has to get over its imperialistic hangover.

victorialis

Why? Why allow oneself to be put on the defensive?

hinduwoman

Yes, one can look at it that way. But what about the various ways of worship before and the holy texts? After all, Bhagavat Gita is now THE text (hindus swear on it in court) but it was before Shankara.

hinduwoman

I am baaaack!

Did you read my pages on caste? Is it too difficult for the average reader?

premjan

Hinduism is not belief-based. The important thing is experience of God and not belief in him. Hence Hindus are reluctant to stand up for the beliefs that they do have. Unfortunately, wherever beliefs become a political statement (as it is the case among Muslims) it is very easy to bully Hindus, since in their hearts they believe that if another person is so positive about his beliefs, probably he is right and I am wrong.

It is a weakness of the scriptural system in Hinduism. If Hindu beliefs were more explicitly laid out, cross-referenced and considered important, as it is with biblical scripture, then Hindus would be equally at ease with defending the belief system as a political statement rather than a religious statement. However, the Judaic scriptural system has grown up in an entirely different milieu.

This is one of the big contributions of Semitic belief systems to the world: democratization of belief. Belief in the creed is a condition of entry into the system. There is no particular condition of entry for Hinduism. It is a philosophical worldview rather than a belief system, and admits all changes as possibly necessary. The only test is the subjective experience of devotees.

The need for organized religion arises from the fact that all human beings are not equally gifted in their god-sense. Women are generally considered to have a greater intuitive god-sense due to their ability to have children (but I am sure there are many differences among them, and also it may not be as well analytically differentiated as among men, on average). Among men, there is wide disparity, so there is likely to be great jealousy (or esteem) of those who seem to have better existential knowledge than others. This is probably one of the rationales for the caste system. The early reforms of Buddha and Mahavira were probably addressing this very problem, since both Buddha and Mahavira were Kshatriyas. Actually this is another good argument for the fictionality of both Rama and Krishna, since traditionally, Brahmins would be expected to write scriptures and belief systems that favored whoever was primarily responsible for their meal tickets: namely Kshatriya landowners. Hence (perhaps) Krishna and Rama were mythologized as being kshatriyas. Or perhaps they were both real, or maybe one was real. The Aryan invasion theory put forward by Max Muller has caused a great deal of political factionalization in India and has been the focus of anti-Brahmin sentiment. This is oddly in contrast with the proletarian movements in the west, which were anti-capital. In India it has been an anti-priest or ant-theocracy movement. Anyway, in the interest of political integration of the country, the Aryan invasion theory has been fought (and rightly so). A little information or a little theory is a dangerous thing in a semi-literate country.

Truth is that the Vedas have been steadily losing ground in Hinduism and the strongest branch of Hinduism is the cult of Krishna with the associated metaphysical text: Bhagavad Gita. Also the epics which have become widely popularized on TV.

I'm sure this is not new information, but I wonder whether you heard it presented from this point of view before.

Thanks,
Prem

victorialis

greetings hinduwoman! I hope your hiatus was enjoyable!

re your two articles: such interesting and absorbing material tends to put my "copyediting hat" firmly upon my head. I would be happy to PM a detailed reaction: my comments would be minimal but specific.

The writing itself is excellent and the content fascinating -- detailed enough to satisfy a reader with an active interest in the subject, general enough to serve as a springboard to further study.

victorialis

prem, I'm still thinking about what you've said. I've just read about the Mumbai bombings and realised I may be knee-deep in the Ayodhya controversy here. I shall think further on it before saying more... you've raised some interesting points.

hinduwoman

Prem, if Hinduism becomes an organized religion with beliefs explicitly laid out, then will it be Hinduism any longer as we know it? After all that is what the Sangh Parivar is trying to do.

Hindus are defensive mostly because they are not educated about their own society; also they lack the cocksureness that they alone are to be saved. If it simply becomes a religion of the book, then it would only lead to further bloodshed and hatred.

Vedas had started losing ground from 1000 B.C, since they could not satisfy the emotional needs of the devotees. But is it really such a loss? After all, I defnitely prefer the Mahabharata.

hinduwoman

Victorialis, read one Brian K .Smith on ritualism. He says Hinduism is basically based on Vedas. One reason he says he is adopting this approach of a foundational text is that it has the advantage of making hinduism less exotic and more understandable to Westerners!. Talk about being obssessed with categories! Of course he also says at the end of the book that Hinduism is a process, not a category.

RE Mumbai blasts: It does not neccessarily have to do anything with Ayodhya controversy which is more political than religious anyway. The blasts were scheduled to happen. The timing is significant in the sense that it is only a week before Ganapti festival, and the place is in front of Mumbadevi temple who is the patroness of Mumbai.

premjan

I am not a subscriber to the Sangh Parivar. The state can never create real religious belief. However, when so much breath has been wasted on the temple issue, and we have a democracy with a Hindu majority, I fail to see the point in debating the construction of this temple any longer. It is preventing thought from moving forward, in my opinion. We need to stop obsessing over insubstantial details and just get it over and done with. Even Krishna would have no argument with this, since he was a man who advocated action. The Bhagavad Gita, beautiful though its sentiments and metaphysical insight, lacks in matter and substance to some extent. This is a weakness of metaphysical thinking generally. It is not concrete.

However: Hinduism has degenerated from being a religion which provided more of direction and meaning to a person's life through the associated rituals and symbolism into a mere folk faith. In other words, it has become shallow and a spent force. Now, there is no reason that religion should have to be particularly important, but IMO Hinduism still contains many existential insights that are not there in other religions so it is worth saving in my opinion. The rituals and practices are where Hinduism begins and their meaning and associated ritual has to be at least preserved and refurbished for posterity.

A religion begins with the racial memories of a culture, and these are there in the Vedas only. I think the Vedas are being revived through scholarship and that is a good thing. Since we have a right-wing government, it is logical to go the European way, and bring major religious institutions under the aegis of the state. In other words, if the government is directly responsible for major articles of the religion such as temples, mosques and so on, there cannot be any more religious bloodshed on trivial grounds. I feel the main problem right now is indecision. Although right-wing, the government is still confused in its thinking.

You have to be a Hare Krishna to believe that Hinduism's "essential character" is assimilation and New Age tomfoolery. Throughout history, Hindus have considered them separate from those who are not Hindus through their unique culture and civilization, the only problem is they have not been strong and clear enough about the distinctions when they mattered. In some respects the Bhakti movement has done a lot of damage in creating a very amorphous and diffuse mass in place of religion. Brahmanism was the backbone of Hindu religion and scholarship in the old days, and it is a good thing that this function is being taken over by the government directly in these days.

I cannot see what the Mumbai blasts have to do with, if not the temple controversy. There is only one essential problem in India, the failure of the Indian nation to assimilate its Muslims. The only way forward is statism in matters of religion. Establish standard religous committees of all faiths managing religious matters on a day-to-day basis and make them part and parcel of the government.

The truth is that religion is inevitably losing ground anyway. Today Hinduism is 50% religion and 50% culture. In the future, there will be no religion in the conventional sense, but there will be a large variety of cultural beliefs to choose from. We have to move forward and stop stalling in the past where we seem to have become stuck.