hinduwoman

When it comes to Hinduism most Indologist scholars seem to be obsessed with trying to reduce it to categories they can understand. Each group keep on insisting that this and this are the 'essence' of Hinduism, these are the common factors that unite whole Hinduism, there is actually a coherent structure that make it a religion in the Western sense, or even that it is actually a plurality of religions.

The problem is that Hindus never bothered their heads about such things. For the ordinary man everything just overlaps, and they are not worried about any coherent structure or essence. Except high-end intellectuals I don't think the average Hindu even aims at synthesis.

So why do the scholars ignore living Hinduism, as it is actually practiced, and instead focus on categories? Does this have something to do with Christian concept of what constitutes a religion or reductionism?

Lohan

More likely simply the difference between the analytical approaches of Western and Eastern thinkers. Whereas Western thought has been historically based on reducing things to smaller and smaller divisions and categories to understand the whole, Easterners have always looked first at the larger, holistic picture. Whether this reflects the influence of Christianity, or just the trend dating back to Enlightenment rationalism, I couldn't tell you. However, I do lean towards the latter.

NearNihil Experience

Lohan pretty much said it, but here's my take.

They are Deconstructionists.

Can't leave anything alone...or understand that in all its little parts, from atoms to galaxys (and us somewhere in between), can be understood as a singular whole.

You also mentioned reductionism. Quite possibly another underlying motivation for the inability to understand the universe as one -and- many, is the western intellectuals underlying non-pluralism...polytheism has not really been a cultural issue for over 1500 years. The underlying one -and- many mentality was gone with it. As I understand Indian\ Hindi polytheism, a major theme is Brahma(One) and Dharma(Many) are both required to get a full understanding of the universe and your individual place in it. PLease tell me if its otherwise...I'm just starting to study Hindu. And theres alot to it, history especially.

Western religions don't really have that. They teach a seperation and elevation above nature. Thats why we don't have veggetarians as a majority and some of us think its funny that Hindus and Buddhists don't eat meat for religious\ spiritual reasons. And why we rape the planet most effectively with industry and pollution and overuse of resource. :banghead:

And remember, these are mostly people who claim to have one God, but spend alot of time and effort worshipping very different aspects and incarnations of that "one". No category error here.


And the need to put things in easy to label and find categories. White people in general don't like unknowns in their lives, and stereotypes and break-down categorization makes it easier for us to handle life's encounters. Otherwise we get edgy and patriotic...

hope this sheds a little light

victorialis

Scholars write theses. A good thesis is built around a single idea.

It is difficult to write effectively about plurality and come off as though you've actually said anything -- that is, as though you've drawn a conclusion. A multifaceted analysis unresolved by a single, supportable, logically drawn conclusion seems unsatisfying and poorly argued. If one must write without making value judgements (like those implicit in a preference for categories), one cannot draw conclusions; one can only report. That makes the work difficult to evaluate in a general context.

Scholarly writing in any discipline is built upon other scholarly writing. (I've always disliked that fact. It seems incestuous.) Scholars in training have to adopt the habits of their mentors in order to gain their approbation and be validated as scholars themselves. In his own research Prof. X quotes the work of Dr. Y, whose work has already been validated by his peers.

I don't know how Eastern scholars work, so I can't make a comparison. But an older culture that has had an oral tradition before having developed a written one is likely to be a lot more comfortable with the inconclusiveness that comes with discussions of plurality.

I thought I remembered someone on this board saying that Hindu sacred texts run to hundreds of volumes. Is that right?

Sarpedon

Christians, muslims and jews are easily divided up into groups, because whenever they disagree with each other, they kill each other. This makes it easy to categorize them. I think that scholars from christian backgrounds therefore assume that conflicts are intinsic to religion, and simply to expect to see them everywhere. I expect that ornithologists, when looking at clouds, see bird shapes more frequently, while entymologists see bugs. These things are probably similar.

hinduwoman

Contratheos:
Actually Hinduism enfolds monotheism, pantheism, polytheism, monism, henotheism, the personal God, the Impersonal Unmoved Mover, animism, totemism, stoneworship --- in devotional literature they are all woven together as if there is no distinction. Except philosophers and leaders, the ordinary devotee rarely bothers to separate the various strands.

Brahman is the Supreme Being who pervades the whole universe. It is present everywhere in rocks, in fire, in water, in trees, in worms, in birds, in both predator and prey, in humans. The various gods are its various aspects on a higher level. Though it is the creator it is not distinct from creation. When the universe grows old it dissolves and fades back into Brahman in its unmanifest form; then time begins again, a new universe is created and Brahman becomes manifest in various forms.
The truly wise man learns to disregard outward appearance and instead find the Reality of the Brahman underlying whole creation.
According to one explanation when there was nothing but the consciousness of Brahman existing, it desired companionship and declared "I shall be many". That is the origin of creation. It then split itself into male and female principles and went about procreating the various forms of lives. That is why humans desire companionship of their own kind and do not like to be alone.
This is the most well known philosophical school.

However there are dualists who believe that God is distinct from creation and worship accordingly. To them God created the world merely willing it.



Also there is another problem. There are various communities in Hinduism each with a particular God which they think is the Highest/Brahman. The Vaisnavas worship Vishnu as THE God, Saivas Shiva, while Shaktas focus on the Mother Goddess as creator, sustainer and destroyer ( it is slightly different from classical Brahman). The Vaisnavas acknowledge Shiva as a great god, but to them he is only an aspect of Vishnu. For the Saivas it is reversed.
There are smaller communities where the Highest God is different. Over the millienas many of these smaller groups were absorbed into larger ones.

There are various ways to attain God. One can know God through knowledge, through work, or through bhakti (devotion , love). The latter is felt to be highest because it is the most intense. Again the forms of devotion vary. For example in Krishna worship, (an incarnation of Vishnu) Krishna can be worshipped as master, as a friend, as a lover, or as a child while the devotee is the mother.
The last two are extremely popular. I think that is because in these two phases, God comes down to earth in human form as supplicant to human beings for their love; the humans have power over God. When Krishna is worshipped as a lover/beloved his youthful exploits of an affair with Radha, dancing with shepherdesses etc. is celebrated; the devotees imagine themselves to be Radha or a shepherdess with whom he had flirted. When he is worshipped as a child his exploits of stealing butter, playing with other boys, being punished for his naughtiness and generally driving his mother to distraction is stressed.
For myself I think it is significant that these two phases of Krishna's life is referred to as lila or play. When Krishna became adult he did all kind of serious things and preached in Gita. As a child and adolescent he of course did obligatory demon-slayings, but so far as I can see these are not really stressed in bhakti. When he steals the clothes of shepherdesses bathing in a pool, or lies his head off to his mother he is not setting any noble example or remotely contributing to the welfare or salvation of the world, for which purposes avatars are born. God here is just playing around for the sheer fun of playing --- that makes these two phases very attractive (A paper here I fancy).

At popular levels there are lots of gods and goddesses worshipped indiscriminately. Sometimes a tree, a snake would start getting worshipped. Usually they are worshipped with material expectations or getting a better rebirth. Last year when there was a draught, inhabitants of several villages dumped the images of Hanuman Ganesh and Shiva in fields; the unfortunate deities were told in no uncertain terms that until rain comes they are going to stay there.
A kind of dichotomy --- village deities are worshipped not for salvation but for immediate gain and they get miffed if you refuse to propitiate them; Brahman does not give a damn if you worship it or not.


Because there are so many varities, one common theme is that all religions are equally valid paths of salvation. (This cuts down religious wars). "Truth is One, sages call him by many names".
However various communities differ as to what is the most superior. For example, Islam will take Muslims to God but a Shakta will say that he will know God far quickly and easily than a Muslim by worshipping the Goddess . Or that though searching for knowledge would eventually bring God to you, bhakti is the easier path: difference between travelling by plane and walking the whole way.
There is nothing that can be called orthodox, heterodox or heresy.
*************************************************

Dharma has no exact equivalent in European languages, though it gets translated as religion. It literally means that which sustains or holds up. It covers every sphere of life:
It is the dharma of snow to be cold.
It is the dharma of a plant to do photosynthesis.
It is the dharma of poison to kill.
Dharma makes the sun set.
The householder's Dharma is to marry and maintain his family --- work.
The warrior's dharma is to fight --- duty.
Raj dharma --- the king's obligations.
Lok dharma --- the things the public usually do.
Kula dharma --- customs of a particular family.
Vaishnav dharma --- creed centreing on worship of Vishnu
Dharma anusthan --- ritual ceremony
Sadharan dharma --- conduct obligatory on everyone regardless of caste or gender: charity, forgiveness, non-violence, compassion etc.
Varna dharma --- if you are born into a certain community then you are dutybound to carry out the work associated with it/ caste -system.
Sanyas Dharma --- renunciation of the world
Dharma in the sense of virtue or righteousness.
Appad dharma --- in times of distress it is permitted to abandon one's caste duties, rituals, taboos.
Yuga dharma --- in every age laws regarding people's behaviour change to suit new circumstances. What was good in one age become forbidden in next and vice versa. (In short, except sadharan dharma no eternal commandments; this allows flexibility in changing society)
Sanatan Dharma --- the eternal way; actually name given by Hindus to Hinduism as a whole (Hinduism is a foreign word).
(Probably left out a few other meanings).

When it comes to the cosmic level the term can mean the law of the universe, the principle that keeps everything running and dying, or simply balance.

Dharma is thus practically everything, meaning the whole social-moral-cosmic complex.

Dharma as moral conduct is context-specific. While one must tell the truth everytime, it is dharma to lie to a murderer about his intended victim. If one tells the truth in this case knowing the consequence he is guilty of adharma.
CONTEXT IS VERY IMPORTANT WHEN DISCUSSING DHARMA AS ETHICS.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Victorialis:
You have got it right. Hindu sacred texts were never written down as revealed scriptures. They were written but everyone happily revised them to their heart's content. Mostly the sacred stories were passed down orally. This meant that even today the texts are being constantly revised and new deities generated.

This is why there are hundreds of Hindu scriptures. It is important to note that none can be really said to be elevated over others on all-India level. The British desperately tried to find the equivalent of Bible and fixated on Vedas. But really, before Muller the Vedas were not even collected as a single text. Many communities had their own different sacred text and simply ignored the Vedas. Similarly, the British administration fixated on Manusamhita as THE authoritative lawbook for Hindus just because it was the oldest. But again, it was one book among many. The laws Hindus followed varied from region to region, and which religious group had influenced it most. Also Pundits if called to judgement did not actually base all decisions on what the books had written: they interpreted them according to their temperament (could be worse, could be better).
Today, Bhagawat Gita tops the charts, but that was not the case before.
The Missionaries got it more right when they complained about Ramayana and Mahabharata being the source of all Satanic errors in Hinduism.. They were pan-Indian texts and the more popular source of morality, religion, role models. Of course once again the problem is that there are numerous versions of the epics and all of them are true (for a given value of 'truth').
________________________________________________

RE Environment: I am not sure what to think of it. In the past people sacred groves were tended, pools dug, feeding animals were considered a sacred duty: good for environment which has degraded ever since modern scientific education and industrialism took hold and nature became less sacred.
See http://www.goodnewsindia.com/Pages/c...s/bishnoi.html

But the basis of these are superstitions; Ganga is heavily polluted because images and offerings are submerged into it.

victorialis

hinduwoman, this is interesting. I have heard the Brits compare their legal system to the American system and say that the British system is better because it focuses more on the spirit of the law than on the letter (most recently with regard to the section of business law that has to do with accounting). They say this is more efficient as well as more just, because (1) it keeps bad law from proliferating (as in the US) and (2) it is more flexible.

Unfortunately, this approach is no less prone to abuse than the American system. It relies not only upon the probity of whoever does the interpreting, but also upon the integrity of the bureaucracy that manages the cases that get brought. Especially with regard to the second part, this is asking a lot these days; if the system mangles the caseload by getting bogged down in its own procedures, the probity of the interpreters doesn't really mean much because the system has already failed.

So it is interesting that the British in India attempted to establish "seminal" religious texts for social engineering purposes when (it appears to a layperson like me) their own legal history and precedents point in precisely the opposite direction. Maybe the attempt to be legally monolithic in India was intended to utilise the benefit of hindsight, but it was certainly rolling the ball uphill.

The concept of dharma as you've described it seems to fill all the troublesome experiential gaps that exist between the individual and the law. But it leaves the concept of justice to have meaning only on the "cosmic" level, which I think is why westerners reject it and prefer the illusion of what justice can be had in civil society.

Westerners are able to accept that portion because of the messianic elements in the major religions. For everyone, "jam tomorrow" -- if not for me, then perhaps for my grandchildren. This messianic hope of "jam tomorrow" motivates the monolithic western attitude toward the whole world -- as opposed to the more realistic pluralist attitude of the east.

The idea of having to "mother" a deity, as you've described in some of the bhakti devotional ideas, would either frighten or dismay most westerners. Too dizzying a role reversal. I intuit a connection here to my own observation that there are a lot fewer adults about in the west than there used to be. I often wonder where they've all gone, the adults.

Amit Misra

Hinduwoman wrote:
...and a lot of lyrical prose besides. From a position of ignorance and extreme irreverence, I reiterate: there is no such thing as Hinduism or even Sanatan Dharma. Both are categories of convenience. Hinduwoman's insistence that there is such a thing as "living Hinduism" is specious. Of course, there is a huge bunch of people who would reply "hindu" if asked what their religion is, but IMHO, what they mean is that they are not adherents of a standardized, canonical religion.
What I mean to say is that hindus can't have their cake and eat it too. Hinduism has no attributes associated with other religions, including several of Eastern origin like Buddhism. It is more like a hodgepodge of tradition, custom and beleif.
Scholars (and not thesis writers per se as Victorialis suggests) engage with subjects of study in the real world. This is what differentiates them from mystics. Scholars can be mistaken, but an honourable mistake is (again, IMHO) far better than sloppy acceptance of... as all applicable to a phenomenon described prima facie as a religion.
In this context, it is important to ask why "Hindus never bothered their heads about such things." The easiest explanation is: because they never were, nor shall be, Hindus. They were, and continue to be, practitioners of the mishmash of tradition, etc., alluded to above. Had they concieved of an inclusive category larger than the caste identity (or lack thereof) forced on them, they would have certainly questioned whether there was worth assigning an appelation, e.g., hinduism.
Equally important, this imagined religion that Hinduwoman refers to: "Living Hinduism, as it is actually practiced," begs the question: how is it practised? If I may dare to anticipate a Hindu answer that turneth away wrath, a reply could well be something to the effect that anything done by a hindu is hinduism. The ritual murder of infants by Tantriks ? Sure. All-night jamborees of devotional music in residential localities at 100,000 watt amplification? That too. Massacre of muslims in Gujarat from Feb 2002 onwards? Of course!
Amit

victorialis

Amit, I applaud your differentiation between scholars and thesis writers, and would like to begin undergraduate work at the institution where you observed this.

I can't agree about the differentiation between scholars and mystics, however. With the passage of time, the two look more and more alike to me. The idea that anything done by a hindu is hinduism has a strongly mystical fragrance about it. Or is any conclusion drawn by a scholar, scholarly and not mystical? Such are the answers that turn away wrath.

But I take your point about sloppy acceptance. Hinduism was presented to me as "a way of life rather than a religion." This formulation raised more questions for me than it answered -- which is all to the good. Hence, in vigilance against sloppy acceptance, I ask the following question:

Is anything done by a jewish person, Judaism?

I mean no disrespect to genuine scholars, by the way. And they know who they are, even when they profess ignorance.

Amit Misra

My first feeling is of relief: for not having been sat upon by hinduwoman for my views...
Victorialis, my institution does not offer undergraduate studies, specially not in religion and philosophy, but you are welcome to sit at the feet of the master if you'd like to work on drug delivery systems for tuberculosis!
Lets not get too deep into the "no true scotsman" line of discussion. Would you agree to my position that it is possible to intuitively differentiate between scholarship and humbug? Similarly, to distinguish b/w mystics (the inspired) and scholars (the perspiring)? I'd say that an answer put forward by a scholar is likely to be an answer, while a mystic is more likely to pose a question than to answer it.
You also wrote:It does, and I'm sorry if I sounded as if I was endorsing such mysticism. I'm most vehemently not. I stick to my stand: hinduism is nothing at all. Its a word. Like god. There is no social reality that can be described as hinduism. There is no practice that can be called 'non-hindu.'
And then you ask me (rather unfairly, if I may say so!), whetherI must answer No. The hassidim have to conform to various tenets, observe various rules and have the (dubious) advantage of being able to refer to a limited body of written work in the event of disputes about practice and belief. Things that they do outside the ambit of religious prescription are not Judaism-- that's called living your life. It is the hindu apologists who make such a big deal out of living your life by calling whatever you do "hinduism."
And thanks: I got the compliment right at the end of your post, though belatedly.