victorialis

Incredible, isn't it. This is clear only to those who are outside the experience. Can you imagine being surrounded, in your work life, with people who think, learn and socialise this poorly?

I am no bible scholar, and it took me about ten seconds to come up with the following scripture from the New Testament, apropos of the link you just gave me:

"How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye. " Matthew 7:4-5.

I guess they missed that one in their bible study.

What do these people know about India? Zero. What do they really know about themselves? Less than zero -- and that's the plank in their eye.

The persistence of their nonsense has cut them off from nearby human beings, so now it is necessary to find distant human beings over whom to loom majestically -- in their own minds. It'll never be more than that.

Stuff like this "30 Days of Prayer" is a kind of sedative for these people.

Clearly: they need sedation.

If they could get along better with others in their own community, they wouldn't have this attitude toward people they've never met.

Most of them do eventually snap out of it. A couple of years after graduation, I got a letter from a former classmate, apologising for some of the obnoxious things she said and did during her "holy phase."

hinduwoman

You mean they would be much nicer if they went to more parties instead of worrying about everyone else and the state of their own souls?
This reminds me of what I read about a Christian missionary in 19th century. As usual he would preach to crowds about sin and redemption. Finally the local Brahmins told him, "Stop wailing constantly about your sins. If you have sinned then do penance, but keep quiet. Don't go on all day how you are a miserable sinner". The missionary pointed out that Brahmins are required to confess their sins in morning prayers. , "Yes", said the Brahmins, "but we don't go broadcasting them to the public".

What went really bad with Christianity and Islam is their identification with state religion. Once they were backed up with full military and political power, they simply forgot the language of accommodation because no one forced them to learn.
In India on the other hand there were too many gods to displace. The Vedic tribes managed to get an edge over others, but it was never complete. "Let all the gods, old and new [?] share the feast together"-- Rigveda, X. By the time there were large powerful kingdoms there were too many subjects following gods other than the royal patron-deity. Of course this did not prevent various sects, Buddhists and Jainas from dueling it out and kings neglecting or making it difficult for followers of one religious system. But on the whole a king was taught that unless all religions were respected there can be no order, and they did manage keep up pluralistic traditions. And the rest too had to learn to let live.

hinduwoman

run across this interesting document
http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2003...4001504900.htm
Of course Christianity only came to Nagalim (which never existed in the first place as a territorial unit) during British rule and replaced the real national religion of the Nagas, a mixture of animism and Hinduism.
But Abrahamic religions are very good at brainwashing and completely destroying previous cultures.

When you cross pluralism and monotheism you get something like Sikhism, whose followers get extremely confused.
Sikhism was supposed to be something separate from Hinduism and modeled closer on Islam. But it retained Hindu capacity of fluidity. So that meant the earlier Gurus saw no problem with calling Krishna, Brahma as the One God or worshipping Durga. But they did show certain signs of intolerance. During British rule the British strengthened their self-regard as something separate and more Abrahamic. The result was post-Independence India saw a lot of Sikhs feeling confused about whether they can be considered Hindus or not. In an effort to return to their 'original' religion the Khalistani movement was created --- literal reading of scriptures, political and religious leader will be the same, killing of Hindus and hinduized Sikhs. Even today lots of Sikhs are conflicted about what the hell they are.
Abrahamic and Eastern religions don't mix; something or other has to give.

victorialis

hinduwoman, I really enjoyed the anecdote with the Brahmin saying, "we don't go broadcasting them to the public." This sort of wisdom is usually ignored by those who most desperately need to hear it.

An open confession of sins is supposed to have the effect of separating the believer from egocentric thinking. Unfortunately, when it becomes a ritual practice, there's nothing to stop it turning into a strange sort of reverse boasting contest. The more fascinating aspect of this phenomenon is how few of the participants ever notice this thorough defeat of confession's purpose!

I had composed a long reply to your earlier post, but deleted it because I felt my response was unbalanced. There are plenty of Christians who integrate themselves harmoniously into their communities. It's easy not to count them as Christians for that reason. I wonder how they count themselves.

So much of what works well in our world, works invisibly. We don't notice what is working -- only what is not working.

It's the messianic interpretation placed upon these two faiths by some of their followers that makes these creeds so easy to politicise. Messianism gives rise to evangelism (preaching and crusading) -- or, in the case of Judaism, to Zionism (campaign for a permanent Jewish homeland).

If a people's religion -- or, to be exact: If their spiritual leaders -- tell(s) them it is their duty to evangelise and force others to their god, it is impossible for them to avoid an us/them mentality and to live in the peace that is possible with their neighbours. Mutual respect is simply not permitted. The faith community will enforce and reinforce intolerance because it is tied directly to righteousness.

I don't read much science fiction, but there is one classic sci-fi novel that has something to say about this:

It has always fascinated me: how few of the adherents of any religion actually understand the nature and effects of sacrifice.

You went on to say:

This reminds me that one's own self-concept is never the whole story; account must also be taken of what is projected upon one by others. This can be assessed, but I doubt it can ever be fully overcome.

I can see why the Sikhs would have this question. The question turns, not upon whether Sikhs themselves think they are Hindus, but upon what Hindus think about the position of Sikhs. To maintain a Sikh distinctiveness is to maintain an us/them mentality. So any hope of "blending in" with Hindus is already doomed.

This kind of situation is why I have given up self-labeling entirely.

I read the "Illusory Homeland" article with interest. People everywhere are concerned about this now. I suppose it is an inevitable natural reaction to globalisation -- this reversion to separatist concerns. Everybody wonders who they are; there is a potentially catastrophic demand for categories.

What could make us all wonder this same thing at once? Who am I, and who are all these other people, and what in the world are they all doing?

Yes, it is necessary at times to assert oneself. The problem is that when self-assertion becomes a habit, it loses all effect. When it becomes the centre of one's activities, one has thrown away all constructive purpose to chase after shadows instead; yet the question compels attention and seems essential to all that might follow.

This in turn makes me suspect that when one is provoked into self-assertion, one has already lost half the battle... which means one has already given up some ground unnecessarily...

...or is willing to be persuaded that some such loss has occurred.

hinduwoman

The thing is by law Sikhism is considered to be a part of Hinduism, and Hindus regard Sikhs as Hindus. This is resented by a number of Sikhs specially the well-educated middle class. This is most acute among Sikhs in the West where they try to carve out an identity --- this leads to fierce rejection of Hinduism in any form, quarreling with Hindus who think otherwise, and also mindless quarrels over who getrs to sit on which chair in meetings and wheter dining should be done on the floor because that was how gurus ate! leading even to violence. Also the 1984 riots also made them assert themselves more as Sikhs.
On the other hand sikhs living in India do not seem so uptight. At village level they amiably worship Hindu deities. But again a number of educated urbanites seem to have a fear of Hinduism --- quiet a number protested that hinduism assimilates without anyone noticing and sikhism is in danger of being reabsorbed in Hinduism. so that also provided fuel for the Kahlisthani movement. But soon enough the militants started extroting Sikhs and kidnapping Sikh girls which led to their support base eroding. In fact the higher the level of education and prosperity, the more assertiveness, but I don't really know whether it will work. After all they literally worship the holy book and it quiet cheerfully informs them that Hindu gods are manifestions of the One. Of course whether the agitators actually read the book is another question!

I agree that globalism has probably led to assertion of imaginary homelands. It seems to be a widespread phenemenon.
Recently there had been even Hindu revivals in Java, Malayais, Africa.

hinduwoman

Victorialis, I will be on hiatus for two weeks.
If you come back to keep you out of mischief here is my latest webpage on caste: http://www.hindunet.com/home/social_...man/varna.html
http://www.hindunet.com/home/social_.../casteism.html

Please please review before I unleash it on the unsuspecting public of iidb.

victorialis

Thanks, hinduwoman, and enjoy your two weeks, whatever you spend them doing.

premjan

Technically, Hinduism is the formulation of the sage Adi Shankara in the 8th Century AD. What he has created is what most people today consider orthodox Hinduism.

victorialis

hello, premjan, I hope you're well.

Is it possible for those who consider Shankara's formulation to be orthodox Hinduism, to arrive at that conclusion without having made an interpretation of their own?

Orthodoxy is a starting point ("square one," a baseline, a set of assumptions or "givens"). It's good to have a starting point.

premjan

The recognition of Shankara as the start of the Hindu Renaissance (known as the "Bhakti" era) is universal at least among scholars (and he is widely acknowledged by others). There are some sects who adhere to earlier purer ideas, but he is recognized by nearly all as the key reformer and uniter of Hinduism in the modern era.

He is basically a monist philosopher, who's thinking is akin to Buddhism in the philosophical department. You could compare him to Spinoza in the modern era.

He was primarily addressing the problems caused within India by the overapplication of Buddhist concepts which were leading to very nihilist thinking in those times.