roshan

can you post the answer as well?

brahma

Oh, I can understand that, even identify with it. The culture thing is cool, everyone needs a culture fix from time to time. I was just curious about how you reconcile your atheism with the theism that is inherent in hinduism.

I would definitely be interested in reading your deep reflections

hinduwoman

OK ---

The problem started when India became independent. The Constitution allowed different religious communities to keep their personal law. Some Hindus at that time petitioned the court arguing that the Govt. was interfering with their religious laws (like banning polygamy). The resulting judgement was very flattering to the Hindus --- the community at large was ready for reforms, while the Muslims were not, and neither the Christians. Anyhow the Constitution had the proviso that an uniform civil code will be implemented within 10 years. Somehow that never happened. It was easier for the politicians to keep the religious leaders in good humour who could deliver votes, rather than stir up trouble by active measures. The Christians themselves finally demanded reforms. Only this year the law was passed that a Christian woman could divorce her husband for adultery, though the church leaders kept on grumbling. However the Christians are at best 3% of the population. The Muslim masses listened to their imams and naturally it suited the ulema to keep their flock ignorant. So every time any attempt was made to reform the Islamic law, there would be screams of Islam in danger and millions would march in the streets threatening violence. The govt. --- of whatever party --- would think of riots in the streets, votes, and of the reputation of being secular liberals. Today there are many among the Muslims who are free from Islamic ideology; but everytime they try to do something, they are shouted down as traitors. And with Islamic violence on the rise it is really unsafe. One Muslim columnist wrote in answer to a query that it is ok to touch the feet of a senior; but since that is a Hindu practice, he got death-threats and his paper was finally forced to fire him. Naturally all these things do not make Hindus feel enthusiastic about Islam.

Indian secularists are relicts of communism. Nehru was a socialist deeply impressed by Soviet Union. So Marxists captured the academia, newspapers, .economic commissions, political thinktanks. Thanks to institutional inertia their breed keeps on being churned out. Moreover, though communism fell, leftist-tinged thought is still popular in Europe and USA. Since this is what the white man teach, our intellectuals follow the latest theories like lemmings. Even the thoroughly hopeless position of West Bengal and Kerala ruled for decades by communists (poverty, lawlessness, strikes) do not faze them --- the states would have been Utopias, but the Central government conspired against them/ there was 'foreign hand' (usually unnamed, occasionally CIA) acting against them. (Yeah, right! the USA is trembling with fear of them!!!). The problem is as more and more people become educated and prosperous thanks to capitalism, they are no longer willing to listen to the intellectuals. So the former scream very loudly.

If you look at it from a certain angle, then India is composed of nothing but minorities. The States are arranged on linguistic and ethnic basis, but there is always a good number of other language speakers hanging about in every state. Hindi is the national language merely because (hold your breath) about 28% of the population speak it. It was felt that a modern State ought to have a national language and so there it was. There are however eight officially recognized languages. There are also a number of unofficial languages and dialects. Many people, even educated ones, know only a few words of Hindi. Incidentally, the South Indians flatly refuse to speak Hindi. So English remains the lingua-franca. So language is a barrier all right. As usual, the Muslims further compound the problem by insisting on having a special language of their own. It is Urdu, a mixture of Hindi and Arabic and Persian -- supposedly the authentic language of all good Indian Muslims, and there are Urdu schools in which they study. Then they complain they cannot get jobs! Some actually go so far as to refuse to speak in any other language.

Poverty does breed religious zeal, but the problem with Hindu revivalism is not only that. The poor are easily swayed by the name of gods. The peculiarity here is that the upper and middle class are interested in it as well. The reason is constant bashing of Hinduism. Apparently Indian secularists are under the impression that to belittle the majority's culture, and to glorify minority religion is secularism and it shows how fearless they are. The only result had been a growing belief that they are too afraid to criticize Islam and find Hindus a soft target because critics are not killed. After years of being told that there is no religion as uniquely evil as Hinduism, that all bad things India suffers from are solely due to the result of Hindu culture, all other religions are goody-goody, negation of Hindu-Muslim conflict, and the constant upholding of Western culture or communism as purely good, minority-appeasement, fear of Islamic terrorism, people are damned tired of it. I do not think it is a coincidence that Hindu revival movement took off after the fall of Soviet Union and reports from immigrants that the West is not a paradise.
This is from a letter written to Nehru, fifty years ago:
"In its (i.e., secularism's) name, politicians again adopt a strange attitude which, while it condones the susceptibilities, religious and social of the minorities, it is too ready to brand similar susceptibilities in the majority community as communalistic and reactionary. How secularism sometimes becomes allergic to Hinduism will be apparent from certain episodes relating to the reconstruction of the Somnath Temple. ...These unfortunate postures have been creating a sense of frustration in the majority community. If, however, the misuse of the term 'secularism' continues, ... if every time there is an intercommunity conflict, the majority is blamed regardless of the merits of the question, the springs of traditional tolerance will dry up.... While the majority exercises patience and tolerance, the minorities should adjust themselves to the majority. Otherwise the future is uncertain and an explosion cannot be avoided"..
Of course no one paid attention and so now the situation is truly explosive. That is why the RSS call, "Say with pride I am a Hindu" was such a hit. Everyone felt that the RSS-BJP combine would 'look' after the interests of the majority community.
Personally I think that the lack of leaders of stature is another reason. Indians are getting more well-off, but the leadership is incompetent, uneducated and corrupt. So Indians are looking back to the epics for models.
Frankly, the secularist scene is surreal now. Their stand is simple --- anyone who do not toe our line exactly is fascist. If the Rss or BJP is doing something, it must be evil, never mind what they are actually doing. (They are spreading knowledge of Sanskrit --- a militant activity/ means to drag India back to medieval darkness). So perfectly ordinary people, who don't like the RSS, end up being labeled as Hindu Nazis. That of course only pisses them off more. So the secularists are generally called here pseudo-secularists or professional secularists.

I think RSS definitely has a great influence on the Kashmir conflict. The govt.'s stance has become harder. Also, though the technology was available before, it was only during the BJP's rule that the nuclear bomb was made.

Social work done by Rss is a ruse in the sense that it is not done unselfishly. It is done to strengthen the Hindu community and to actively propagate the religion.
Certainly it expects a Hindu nationalist govt. like BJP to be in power and establish a Hindu rashtra. Right now they do not have any specific agenda. The ministers of the BJP govt, have all done their stints with the RSS, but they are not diehard. But once the actual leaders of the RSS come to power it is a sure bet that they would turn conservative. Already they are obsessed with banning cow-slaughter.

Hindutva means literally "essence of Hinduism". It is a new term in circulation for the last few years. To the secularists it is Hindu nazism. To the rest it varies. The supreme court had to pass judgement whether using it in elections is improper manipulation of religion: "'Hindutva is indicative more of the way of life of the Indian people'; it is not to be understood or construed narrowly'; 'it is not Hindu fundamentalism'; 'nor is it to be confined only to the strict Hindu religious practices'; or as 'unrelated to the culture and ethos of the people of India, depicting the way of life of the Indian people'. The ordinary people do not use it usually. But in secularist English writing it always crops up and is defined in a hostile manner.

hinduwoman

Again, that will be a lenghty post coming a day or two later. Be warned --- I am about to mount my soap-box.

hinduwoman

Why I call myself a Hindu:

I know that theism is present in Hinduism (obviously!), but as far as culture is concerned I see not God but 'Dharma' as being the driving force of cultural imperative. As you know Dharma does not even mean religion, but 'what binds together'. 'Dharma' as far as I can make out when it comes to human beings, simply means righteous action. It has been used to refer to caste duty, but it is not really as rigid as that. It can easily be interpreted to mean to do one's work conscientiously. It also allows one latitude in doing what one's conscience says. My free will is therefore not hampered by presence of any God or whatever, though of course others might quarrel with what exactly my Dharma consists of. In spite of the intense religiosity, I have always felt that the world-view and particular way of thinking that conditions our behaviour is more important to Hindu society than worship or sacred scriptures.

Take a look at that entire portion where Bhisma advises Yuddhistir and Krishna. It sums up the earthly behaviour expected of human beings. There seems to have been interpolations, but religion as such is not given great importance, except where describing the duties of the priest. The common Dharma of all human beings are said to be --- abandoning anger, telling the truth, equal distribution of wealth, fidelity to one's wife (as usual taking male as the norm!) , purity, ahimsa, forgiveness, simplicity and caring for one's dependants. Throughout the epic these are the qualities stressed on, which does NOT include worship. Happiness comes from doing one's duty and controlling evil passions: not submission to God. When Yuddhistir answered the Yaksha as to who the happy man is, it is someone who has no debts, lives in his own country, and eats food in his own house --- again no gods. In fact while speaking of the duties of Varna, the three lower Varnas do not seem to have any duties regarding religious practices except holding occasional yagnas. Gods are remarkably absent from their daily duties. And this is the definition given of a Brahmin, "the person in whom resides truth, charity, forgiveness, courtesy, rejection of cruelty, austerity ,is a Brahmin". Ideally, it is not learning in Vedas nor conducting pujas that make a Brahmin. That is why I think it is social cohesion and not religion that Hinduism is concerned with basically; the gods come in simply as another way of binding together society.

Even in the ideal world of Ramrajya, gods do not come up. This is the definition given in Valmiki's Ramayana (original version): no one suffered from snakes and dangerous animals, no one suffered from widowhood, there were no robbers, misfortune never touched anyone, the old did not hold funerals for the young, no on was jealous of anyone else, people lived for a thousand years, there was no disease or grief, the trees were firmrooted and did not fall, fruits and flowers were produced regularly, the winds were pleasant to touch, rain fell in required proportions, all were without greed, all happily did their own work, no one told lies, all were righteous, there was only happiness everywhere. This is a human Utopia, not a theocratic one. Never once is the question of duty towards God, or any religious observance is mentioned, even though Ram is the avatar. This is not a Ramrajya that a freethinker would be afraid of, though he would say this is very unlikely.
There is of course no fixed book or prophet. This simply means people are free to ignore anything that no longer suits and make up new laws, as valid as the old. Yugadharma from the earliest times has been considered to be a valid precept --- every age has its own laws, so that the old laws need not be applied to the new age. This does not mean atheism, but it is one reason why I feel comfortable with the culture. Besides in the Mahabharata, it explicitly states that those who refuse to accept the Vedas as sacred are not to be censured.

The morality part too I think comes largely from the myths and stories I was told. I am not sure, but how I behave seems to match how people in all these stories behave. (OK, OK, probably a vague argument).

Finally, atheist or nastiks always had a place in Hindu society. People might grumble and think that atheists go to hell, but nothing physical was done to them. Hinduism does not have anything like blasphemy law or Inquisition. One is not excommunicated from society because one embraces atheism. That is why even the Supreme Court ruled that mere disbelief does not make one a non-Hindu. My devout relatives are depressed about me but they do not cut me off or bother me. All I ever endured was curses from some disappointed pandas and complaints how I could call myself Hindu. Other wise I explained my unbelief even in pilgrimage temples and to sadhus and got away physically and verbally unscathed. {I was simply amazed to read about how atheists are treated by many in USA.} I think this lack of hostility is another reason why I go on calling myself Hindu; if everyone was after my head, I certainly wouldnot have.

The arguments probably has huge holes in them, but can't help it. These are really all rationalization after the fact.

Dr. Jagan Mohan

Hinduwoman, you seem to take advantage of the fact that it is difficult to define what constitutes Hinduism and who is a Hindu.

Your endeavour to divorce Hinduism from God seems a bit far-fletched


It is perfectly acceptable that a Hindu can be an Atheist. Why? not because of those arguments you had listed. With all due respects to your deep convictions, analysis and conclusions, you are somewhat right. That you can be a Atheistic Hindu.

Hinduism in the strictest sense cannot be claimed to be a definite religion, similiar to Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity or Islam.. simply because it is not a man- invented religion, but rather a Natural Religion.

Now lets analyse Hinduism through its Philosophical Schools.
Astika or Orthodox schools of thought in Hinduism are those that accept the authority of the Vedas as the Supreme Scripture.
Nastika religions are those that do not commit to Vedas as Scriptures, e.g Buddhism, Jainism etc.

While all the Six classical schools of Thought, which are also referred to as the Orthodox systems accept the authority of Vedas, they are all not theistic!!
The most startling example is the Exegesis Viewpoint, which focusses on problems raised by the interpretation of the practical spects of the ancient scriptures, but which regards the Veda as having no personal author. The Enumerationist Viewpoint (Samkhya) is concerned with personal liberation, and distinguishes sharply between spirit/ consciousness and the evolving material world, but has no doctrine of God

Therefore, you can be a Hindu as well as Atheistic..
As you had mentioned, your arguments have many loopholes..

I hope you haven't forgotten the Advice by Vidura and the whole Bhagavad Gita! not to mention a number of minor 'advises' by other prominent personages of the Epic?

Queer Logic..

I hope you are referring to Dharmashastras like Manushastra, etc.. and not Shrutis like Vedas!!
Of course Hinduism has its own everlasting Scriptures that exist in eternity: The Vedas!!

It is true that Dharmashastras which govern only the moral aspects of society are to change with time. I think you are confusing the whole lot of Smirtis/Shrutis and Puranas as well as minor shastras.

Is that an exclusive definition of a Brahmin?
I am afraid not!

Are you sure? Vaishnavites and Shaivites have forms of excommunication. This sentence seems to be a over generalized statement.

Some people tend to potray Hinduism as a very flexible, open, all embracing and a lot other qualities, which on retrospect are generally over simplification of facts.

The six classical Philosophical systems (Darsana) are very specific and concise.. not vague and all inclusive like Hinduism is thought to be..

Madam, although you might claim to be a Hindu, but unfortunately, you really cannot claim to belong to a particular school of thought.. unless you really decide and adhere to a particular School.... thats the irony.
You might be culturally Hindu, born Hindu, but religiously Hindu?

[ June 20, 2002: Message edited by: Dr. Jagan Mohan ]</p>

hinduwoman

Jaganmohan, as I stressed, my attachment to hinduism is emotional. I simply tried to explain why I feel my atheism do not clash with my hindu identity.

Certainly there are lots of references to God in Mahabharata, but the portions I mentioned are also there.

Why shall I want to belong to any certain school of philosophy? Besides you left out the Carvakas who are called 'nastik-shiromoni' because they denied God, Vedas, afterlife and reincarnation. Remember Jabali in Ramayana? If anything, I am their follower.

Again I stress I am not a religious Hindu, only cultural hindu.

brahma

There, that's all I needed to hear
Good informative post hinduwoman

sbaii

Thanks for your insights regarding India today. I have been reading a little about Hinduism. THe top website given to me by google is crystalinks.com/hindu which mentions a Sai Baba as someone who is recognized in recent times as an avatar. I don't know how recent this info is. Have you heard of such a person? Is he affecting the politics of India? That site does mention that Hinduism has incorporated a lot of local gods and goddesses from the subcontinent in the past milennia.
I live near the Center for Jewish Humanism in Southfield, Michigan. Their philosophy to culture sounds similar to your own.
I did find it ironic that you said Hinduism values equal distribution of wealth since the caste system seems to be built on or contribute to
unequal incomes. My guess is that wealth and power are obtained in the same ways the world over. Hinduism just reinforced it the way the Catholic church did in the Middle Ages. I was dismayed to hear that Christian churches have only just recently allowed women to initiate divorce. Which sects are you referring to? Unfortunately, I guess churches need to play politics too if they want to exist.
What are the feelings of the people around you and the pundits of India regarding the Bush administration?

hinduwoman

There are two Saibabas. One is dead and was more or less harmless. The living one is a charlatan. However they have their sects which think of them as avatars. But they are not major sects. The living one's influence comes through being the guru of some rich men and politicians.

"you said Hinduism values equal distribution of wealth" --- I must not have expressed myself clearly. What I meant was the rich are supposed to share their wealth and Brahmins are strictly forbidden to acquire substantial wealth at all. according to Hindu teaching wealth is a very desirable thing. If you can make it honestly, get as much as you can.

The christian churches both Catholic and Protestant were against women allowing to divorce their husbands merely on grounds of adultry or cruelty. Of course men could divorce only on adultery.

Everyone is a bit stunned about Bush adminstration. he does not seem to have any clear cut foreign policy. In his war with terrorism he makes Pakistan an ally, when his own intelligence agency tells him al-Quieda are living safely there. There is a hardening against American adminsitration as hypocrites and that Indians must do what they feel is best irrespective of what America wants.