Primal

That's somewhat unfair. I celebrate Christmas because I like presents and good food. I'd likewise celebrate a Hindu festival if that gave me presents and good food. I do not celebrate Xmas because I'm "culturally a Xian", whatever that means. I think the whole idea of that is pointless. I also do not support Xianity or defend the Xian belief system because I consider Xianity to be part of my culture.

It's not even like Xmas was a Xian holiday to begin with, the Xians stole it from the Pagans. I consider myself to be simply stealing it from the Xians.

I'm criticizing both. As Hinduwoman seems to be defending Hinduism and giving a false impression of the religion and acompanying social system. I also see it as rather pointless, and misleading to declare one's-self an atheist and at the same time, declare one's-self culturally committed to a theistic system.

Yes, I realize most Xians aren't really there for the noblest intentions, but that doesn't remove their right to be there. Nor does it mean all their criticisms of the Hindu system are incorrect. I also don't think Xians could go there and attempt to dominate/eridicate anything; they'd be too outnumbered. Remember that India is composed of almost a billion people, mostly Hindu. If any Xians went there to preach I imagine they'd have to step lightly. I doubt they'd get away with any foolish attempt to dominate or eradicate anyone.

I do know a bit about Hindu beliefs and social structure. In fact, it should be noted that the Hindu social structure is directly derived from the Hindu religion. Making social reform that much more problematic there. In any case I do not like any religion in any form and will not make exceptions for people in foreign lands.

hinduwoman

Geotheo, if disagreeing with other religions in thinking that only you know the truth, and saying non Christian people would go to hell is not abuse, then myself calling you an idiot for believing in a God whom no one has seen and accepting blindly what a book says without any empirical proof is not name calling either. It is simply a fact.

Yes many untouchables had converted, but they found that brotherly love extended only so far. Among Christians in casteist areas untouchability is heavily practised: separate castes have separate pews; the high caste priest (hardly any bishops from low castes) carry waterbottles when forced to venture into low caste parishoners' village; untouchables have separate graveyard. There was a Catholic priest who protested against this but the authorities at Rome after getting complaints shut him up; money and political clout are too important to be abandoned for the sake of principles. So hypocrite is another title that Christians have attached to themselves. But not surprising, I guess. After all, Paul did tell the Christian slave to humbly obey his Christian master, and the master only to love his slave, not to make the slave a social equal.
The result is there is considerable disillusionment. Also there are complaints that after conversion, the missionaries forget their promises of giving food and medicine. Consequently Hindu organizations have successfully managed to reconvert many back to Hinduism and succeeded in stopping missionary activities in many places. And of course that the situation of untouchables has improved after 50 years of democracy and State patronage has also helped. There is still resistance, but there are now even untouchable priests (I suppose I would have to call them Brahmins now), which would have been unthinkable in my childhood.

You don't understand the karmic cycle of rebirth very well. Anyone has the chance of attaining salvation in one life irrespective of caste, if he/she attains true knowledge of Brahman once his/her mind has been purified. Of course some people would say lower castes cannot, but the texts and great teachers agree that God does not make distinction when it comes to salvation. That was what all the Bhakti movements and Gita was about. Heck, in Bengal the statue of Durga has to be made from clay taken from prostitutes' houses to stress that very point! Also why would rebirths be endless? If you manage to attain salvation, then it is the end. But people who commit sins have to return until they learn the Truth.

You spoke about culture and freedom of religion. But did you bother to read the webpage about what the Baptists are doing in NE India: asking non-Christians to stop their festivals and way of life under the shadow of the gun? Is that the freedom which Christianity offers?

hinduwoman

Hey brighid, thanks for defending me.

Primal, Hinduism is a culture and social system with a certain worldviews imparted through the myths, embodied in the gods. Identifying yourself as a Hindu in such a system is more important than actually worshipping the gods. That is why Hinduism do not have word that corresponds to religion; the closest is Dharma, which means way/righteousness/duty/nature depending on the context. Even the supreme court of India concurs on this point: it does not matter what a Hindu believes or not; what lifestyle he follows or not; unless he embraces another exclusionist religion, he remains a Hindu --- that was the judgement delivered in several court cases.

As far as I can see there is no definition of being a true Hindu as there is of a Christian and Muslim:
Don't worship the gods? Well the samkhyas did not, to name the most prominent and respectable atheistic philosophical school, though they believed in the soul being eternal. Again this concept confuses many Westerners because they think that God and soul go hand in hand.

Don't believe in Vedas?: again many otherwise orthodox schools held that they are not transcendental, and the Mahabharata states that those who refuse to accept the Vedas are not to be censored.

Don't/do accept the caste system? : easy! There had been reform movements again and again,/ and people insisting this is natural.

Don't accept a certain custom? : there is no uniform ritual or custom; it varies from community to community, region to region and even from family to family. There is not even uniformity of gods. That is why the concept of monism arose in the first place.

Oh yeah, you also get a lot of flak for not accepting the first three,(nowadays, not for the caste thing) but the point is you can get by without accepting them. Of course it is easier in the 20th century.
To conclude, it is an emotional attachment on my part, not a rational one. (I think the ancient Romans would have understood, as will Japanese Shinto and Chinese Taoists).
.
Also you are getting confused because I feel it imperative to assert my cultural identify in the face of concerted attacks by Marxists, Christians, and Muslims all who would like to make me over into their image of perfection. It is vitally important for me to let them know that I am happy with what I am, and I do not believe a word of their creed. In India we also get a breed of politically correct liberals from whom I am determined to keep my distance. There are also as brighid says ignorant Westerners, well-meaning and otherwise who know nothing about my culture. To them I must explain and stress that I am proud of my civilization. The result is I have to speak from both sides of my mouth. For example I am going to have to explain maya to you, though I am a materialist. So of course I sound religious.

Maya is translated as illusion only because English language could not handle the concept adequately. Maya is the medium through which unmanifest God manifests itself. It is god's energy made material. It is material as opposed to Brahman who is pure consciousness/spirit. This world is objective and real; but it is the lesser reality, while Brahman is the Absolute Reality. It is a covering like the clothes on a body. "It is not real because it has no existence apart from Brahman. It is real because it projects the external world. It is true because it gives knowledge of the objective world. It is false because it vanishes when we learn about Brahman". Maya is not something unreal, but it is a miscognition. We misapprehend the oneness of Brahman as many different entities. Maya in fact is an original contribution to a previous theory of world as illusion: the phenomenal reality is real as far as it goes, but it is not the Reality. But it allows us to interact with the material world as real for practical purposes.
(i) Unreal in Mayavadins' parlance is really unreal or non-existent, like a hare's horns. But mithya/maya here is not non-existent, for the world exists as a practical reality to our senses.
(ii) Brahman is cause and the world of experience is effect; therefore it cannot be a lie --- other wise the cause will be a lie as well.
(iii) Maya is not illusion in ordinary sense, because Reality of Brahman underlie the Maya. We see the shell as silver, but while the silver is an illusion, the shell is real. So too the reality of Brahman makes this phenomenal world real.

This Maya easily shades off into pure idealism and world negation, though that was not the founder's objective.
But I would also like to point out, (a) maya is not well understood by Westerners, (b) the point is it is not the whole of Indian thought, or even of Vedanta, popular belief notwithstanding.
How am I expected to have a serious debate when the other side does not even understand the issues?

Of course the caste system can be and often is abusive. Lower castes did convert to Christianity and Islam but their condition remains the same because their new masters are not really interested in equality. Nowadays, when they feel they have to make a protest they convert to Buddhism. What has that got to do with anything? But about women, again only 'some Hindus' say women cannot reach Moksa; the usual opinion is salvation can be reached by women. In fact the number of women priests are on the increase for the last 20 years. Not to mention that you are leaving out the whole Goddess worship sects where women can gain salvation simply by the virtue of being female, but the men have to worship women as portals to heaven. But again what does all this have to do with me? Same with cows: from being useful they became taboo, to sacred, but what does that have to do about my being a Hindu or not?

You said that one can be murdered for taking pictures at Hindu funerals. Where did you get such nonsense?

To conclude: your experience has been only with monotheistic religions, yet you conclude that your limited experience encompasses all other alien cultures, and so you accuse me of lying. Actually you have something in common with some ultra-religious Hindus --- they are not willing to concede I can be both Hindu and atheist. No one is asking you to accept that Hinduism is a nice cheery religion, but congratulations on having the same closed minds as the fanatically orthodox.


Never been there, Shiv Sena started as a trade union, had no great success and decided to branch out to religion. The Muslims obligingly provided the pretexts and viola! Shiv Sena's career as protector of Hindus was made.

JohnR

They can be eased into the 21st century without losing their culture or lifestyle. If their well being was really the prime concern medical people could be introduced without trying to bring outside culture to them. Food and medicine is the carrot and converting to christianity the price. Why does the easing of suffering have to be followed by the cramming of religion? Couldn't health care people slip in innoculate check out and then leave? I don't understand missionnaries.

DigitalDruid

GeoTheo wrote:
I think obviously there was a distinction between missionaries and imperialists ;the imperislists ruled and the missionaries proselytized. Yet there was a close nexus between the two in India.

And there is no need to speculate; lots of it is on historical official record.
For example, from the writings of a high-ranking nineteenth century British administrator, Richard Temple : "...the missions in India are doing a work which strengthens the imperial foundations of British power.. the results are fully commensurate with the expenditure."

Another high-ranking nineteenth century British administrator, Charles Treveylan wrote:
"A generation is growing up which repudiates idols. A young Hindu, who had received a liberal English education, was forced by his family to attend the shrine of Kali, upon which he took off his cap to'Madam Kali,'made her a low bow, and hoped her ladyship was well."

Imperialists, desiring docile subjects with familiar western sensibilities, welcomed and aided proselytization.

hinduwoman

Digitaldruid, yes, there was a close connection between colonization and proselytization. Of course to be fair many company officials refused to encourage the missionaries because they were afraid that meddling with religion would stirr the Indians up. After 1857 mutiny, many blamed the missionaries; the missionaries in their turn argued that it wouldnot have happened if they had been allowed to convert everyone because "Christianity does not teach subjects to rebel".

About the young man mocking Kali, I think he would probably have reacted similarly faced with the concept of Virgin-Mother. Many educated students learned to despise Hindu religion, but also Christianity. Alexander Duff records sadly that "Removal of error does not necessarily lead to acceptance of Truth".

Primal

Hinuwoman:

I still see Hinduism as a religion and most professors of world religions do as well. You can say as much as you want that Hinduism is not a religion, many Christians in fact say the same thing (claiming that Xianity is a relationship with God, not a religion).

The fact is to be a Hindu you have to believe in Gods. You may not believe in the Gods, or Brahma, or the caste system or Vedas then I'd have to say you are not a Hindu. That's like saying "well I don't believe in Christ or the Bible or God or the Trinity but I'm a Xian" and yes, I have met people like that. Basically if you do not believe in the tenets of a religion, why claim to be an adherent to that religion instead of something else?

Likewise as for Maya meaning "illusion" I think the term illusion fits adequately. If you mean by Maya, "lesser reality" then yes, it definately does. And in Hindu tales demons disguise themselves as other people using "Maya". So the term sticks.

I think the Indian supreme court, if it has not decreed Hinduism a religion is being dishonest and in need of reform. What is it saying then exactly? That the Vedas can be taught in school as fact but India is still secular because Hinduism isn't really a religion. Kind of like when O'Riely says "Belief in God is not religion: it's spirituality." Of course it is.

victorialis

Primal seems to think that world religion professors, as a group or singly, are always to be believed -- even when their writ conflicts with valid life experience graciously described by persons from the actual culture involved.

Who needs knowledge or experience when you've got an education?

There's something quite religious about such an attitude.

roshan

there are hindu philosophical systems such as sankhya which do not believe in any god or gods.

if there are sects of hinduism which have atheist teachings, then how can you say that one needs to believe in god to be a hindu?

you are confusing 2 diff meanings of maya.

in the tales you refer to maya most probably does mean illussion.

but in the 7th century a hindu philosopher named shankara started the advaita philosophy. he taught that the world was maya, but he also gave a different definition to the word, which hinduwoman has already explained.

miscreant

Primal,

I found it quite interesting how you simply brush off the religious ceremony you participate in as not meaningful, but insist that hinduwoman participating in equally cultural events as evidence of her religion, not culture.

Though you may not admit it, Christmas, Easter, and most of the other western holidays are religious. Yes, they may have originally developed out of pagan rituals, but the reason they are here now is because Christianity brought them to us. If you participate in these rituals (have a christmas tree, exchange gifts, go on easter egg hunts) you are participating in christian activities and acting culturally like a christian.

Therefore, though you may not like the title, you could easily be considered a religious atheist, but cultural christian... which is what hinduwoman seems to be saying about herself.

Miscreant