hinduwoman

That is the title for an article, where the author argues that a person can have more than one religion.

http://www.sulekha.com/column.asp?cid=294339

__________________________________________________-

(1) That a religion is conclusive, that is to say it is the one and only true religion; (2) That a religion is exclusionary, that is to say, those who don't follow it are excluded from salvation and (3) That a religion is separative, that is to say, in order to belong to it one must not belong to another. In each of these three ways the notion of dharma, which is the original Indian concept, is very different from the notion of religion.
In the essay, Prof. Sharma, points out that these three notions of religion are not a universal idea and by and large do not express the reality of what are called Eastern religions. For instance, the conclusive and separative notion of religion implies that one can only be a member of one religion or another. In both Eastern and many indigenous societies, this does not hold true. For instance the 1985 figures for religious affiliation in Japan were 95% professing Shintoism and 76% professing Buddhism – clearly a considerable number (over 70%) chose to suggest that they subscribed to multiple “religions.” Similar statements of non-exclusiveness can be made about Confucianism and Taoism in China, again not religions in the Western understanding of the word….
dharma itself does not create a religious identity. One's worldly self-identity in the dharmic model derives from one's local community, profession or ancestry, jati or kul, but that identity is not a religious identity, fundamentally opposed to the existence of the identity of the “other” as a manifestation of falsehood.
… So how did “Hindu” become a religious designation? It was in the encounter with the adherents of two major proselytizing Abrahamic religions – first Islam and then Christianity that the idea of “Hinduism” successively took shape in the form of an Abrahamic religion. The question of religious identity was first posed to the dharmic community in its encounter with Islam, which had a very clear separation of believer and infidel, of us and them, in a way that was alien to the dharmic way, and was not a party to the dharmic truth treaty of “Sarva Pantha Samadar.” “Hindu”, which started of as a geographical term, was turned into a religious identity mainly by negation, first in contrast to the Islamic invaders; and later on by the British.
…
With the native schooling system and economy destroyed, there was a huge demand for English education among the Indians for government jobs. In their education system, the British trained an intermediary ruling class from among the natives. This ruling class learnt first to understand religion in Western terms, including the use of the term “Hindoo” as a religious designation to refer to a large part of the dharmic community, and then later learnt the antidote of secularism for this peculiar, but apparently universal, disease of religion.
… The politics of independent India have played a part in the continued formation of the Hindu identity along religious lines, largely by exclusion. After having accepted Western categories of religion and having just emerged from the terrible religious conflict of the partition, the political elite of India was highly sensitized to assuring a religiously harmonious India. So they swore by the secularism that they had dutifully learnt was the antidote for the disease of religious conflict and “minority rights” the antidote for “majoritarianism.”
… Thus, for our dharmic plurality, there is an anguish in this encounter with separative, exclusivist religions in either direction – the option of not having a religious identity has not really been available in the encounter, since the “other” is insistent that they do have a clearly defined religious identity; yet the option of taking on an identity in the image of “religion” is equally a cause of anguish, since it is a lie to who we are. This anguish is the very source of the debate and ambivalence in the Indian society towards the idea of “Hindu identity” that is present in the rise of “Hindutva.”
… Adds Raimondu Pannicker, author of A Dwelling Place for Wisdom: "If we as Christians... could succeed in undergoing the Advaitic experience... then Christians, at least of Indian origin, would be automatically enabled to live an advaitic-Christian faith, which makes possible both a fully Hindu and a fully Christian life—without the pain of a split personality
… The sad part is that we are nostalgic for pluralism -- wasn't secularism, the antidote for the disease of religion, supposed to make us “more plural”? Why do we then find ourselves less so after 50 years of taking secularism pills? Or are we suffering from a misdiagnosis instead?

________________________________________________

Comments?

philechat

Great article, hinduwoman.

In the modern East Asia and India, as well as among ancient religions of the west, religious pluralism is indeed the norm rather than the exception. People freely incorperate the cults and deities of local and foreign origins, which in some case becomes central religious figures in a given culture.

In ancient Greece it is obvious that Dionysus had a foreign status--there are speculations on him being a god from the East, most likely from India or Persia. The ancient Romans often practiced religions from all over the greater empire, and the Egyptian, Celtic, and Persian deities were likewise established in the Empire.

I would say exclusivism to be a characteristic of the Abrahamic religions, since it was also considered foreign and disturbing in the ancient Pagan world. In modern times the East Asians still practice pluralism in the most part, and Indian deities and religious leaders (Kuan-Yin the Boshevitta, Siddartha Gautama among the Buddhists) and local non-Chinese deities are freely incorperated into Chinese religions.

Interfaith marriage and intra-family religious differences are also much more common (and accepted) among the East Asians/"Hindu" Indians than among the Muslim and Christian believers.

hinduwoman

I sometimes wonder if the evangelist religions' dislike for polytheism stems from this confusion. Abrahamic religions are very simple: a schematic divided into black and white and never the twain shall meet. Polythiesm offers no such clear cut garauntantees.
also the latter is a lot more fun.

Nowhere357

What a great point. Good humor is definitely lacking in the western religions.