hinduwoman

The trouble as I keep on saying is that we are using Western terms to discuss Hinduism.
For the West it is religion, for Hindus it is Dharma: two very diufferent terms.

premjan

Dharma is an abstract philosophical notion. To be put to use, it needs a practical instantiation. The varnashrama dharma of Vaivasvata manu is a concrete example of a dharma. you could take this concrete instantiation of dharma to mean roughly the same as the western notion of "religion". The shastras of old are similar to the western notions of religion. Hinduism has, however, retained a regenerative and abstract character compared to the western religions, whose interpretations have been relatively fixed by their historical origins. Even the philosophy of the Sangh Parivar could be termed a Dharma. There are as many Dharmas as there are philosophers. It so happens that the dharmas of Islam, Christianity and Judaism have sprung up in existentially more challenging climates, so they are more resistant to change than Indian dharmas. However, they are also changing. In this sense, the Hindu religion is more similar to the ancient Greek notion of religion, with its "Logos" being analogous to "Brahman". But the philosophical notions, being more abstract, may not have survived so well, being less accessible to the common man. Their very flexibility makes them subject to change. So Hinduism is a collection of mini-religions rather than one expansive and all-inclusive religion.

One of the big difference in practise between Hinduism and the western creeds is that Hindus tend to be "cyclical" in their thinking at all times, trying to find a way to close the circle rather than keep it open-ended. This is because of the notion of Rta or cosmic cycles lies at the root of Hinduism.

hinduwoman

In Islam and Christianity, temporal and spiritual power fused together when they became the State religions. So they were more resistant to change and autocratic. Hinduism never managed to become a state religion like that with a hierarchial church and a political arm.

premjan

I suppose it was there under the Hindu rulers. But the Hindu rulers lost power. That was what happened. Hindus played by too many "universal" civilized rules, like not killing the enemy but letting him go etc. Under the BJP, there is some state centralization of religion.

Under Islam the fusion is maximum, whereas in Christianity, there is nowadays separation of church and state.

premjan

to remember that survival of the fittest has always been a more fundamental principle than any made-up religious-socio-economic principle of man. Those who survive in power continue to retain power.