andy_d

I don't think it's an East/West thing at all. Look how many lists Buddhism has. There's a list for everything.

It's a preoccupation of academics the world over.

victorialis

The allure of an environment in which results matter is powerful indeed. If I had any science background I'd begin looking into the possibilities today, but alas, I haven't. It made my day to have the offer, though.

Having enjoyed the heart-cleansing mirth that overtakes me whenever "no true scotsman" is mentioned, I will agree to this without reservation. It's not only possible but indispensable.

This observation sits well with me. In return I observe that mystics do come up with answers, but no one will endorse them; therefore, in order to retain an audience, mystics stick with questions (Socratic method). Mystics, too, perspire -- only not in a collegial setting; they do not thrive there. And scholars are also inspired, although they prefer being in the nominative rather than the accusative with regard to the action of the verb inspire. Scholarship is an active-voice activity (as it should be; it maintains accountability). A mystic who employs active voice is better known as a loony. This does not reflect so much upon his/her work product as upon the environment in which s/he works.

What scholars and mystics have in common is commitment, diligence, sincerity, and a work product that the overwhelming majority of their fellow beings have no idea how to apply -- which is also, probably, as it should be. If we didn't lose what we can't use, we'd all be carrying too much kit to do anything.

This has to be true if the whole concept of "hindu" was imposed upon the scene from without, which I think hinduwoman already mentioned -- that "hindu" is a foreign word. I take this to mean it was coined or put into usage as a catch-all for the diversity of what is now India. If that's correct, the act of coining is itself an admission that what is being described by the word is not fully understood. Otherwise, the coiner would use the correct and specific terms that apply. It seems appropriate that those whose business it is should now take up the term and make something authentic of it.

Amit, I never suspect you of endorsing mysticism. I recognized some irony in the statement I chose to challenge. It illustrates the pitfalls of this analysis so well. If we say hinduism is nothing at all (I understand the sense in which this is true), we appear to be dismissing the topic out of hand. That seems unwise; the concept is the ground upon which some (many? or just a very vocal minority?) define themselves and understand their world. In the presence of a desire for self-definition, I have nothing better to suggest -- except to mention that any label we stick on ourselves and our world will eventually transform itself into a limit, so it's well to choose labels carefully, if at all.

Constructive social self-definition is a popular pastime. Successful attempts at it seem to be very short-lived, though. Constructive asocial self-definition, OTOH, seems to create mystics.

Margaret Thatcher said, to general horror and outrage, "There is no society." For my money, she was absolutely right. Society is an idea we launch with constructive and benevolent intent, but when wielded, it promptly turns into an exclusionary device or a rationale for aggression.

My question was unfair, and I appreciate your tackling it despite that. An outsider to both hindusim and judaism might well ask the question anyway, with no ill intent. What about reformed judaism, or orthodox judaism, or zionism, or any other particular strand in the fabric of historical judaism which is not the hassidic portion? It is no longer possible for judaism to be viewed apolitically. Many individuals who are jewish by heritage feel this as a tremendous subjective burden that intrudes drastically upon their personal sense of identity.

It's the outsider's view that messes up these definitions. Yet they exist as much for the outsider as for the members of the group. To an outsider to judaism, it's all very well for a member of one subgroup to disavow the activities of another subgroup -- but it sheds little light. I'm inclined to think judaism will never get over this. One can't unring the bell.

I thank you for batting these ideas around with me. It's always a pleasure to talk with people who think.

Amit Misra

That sounds like a goodbye line..."gee, its been nice knowing you, but, well..."
I bat on regardless, though, addressing a disappearing back.
Disagree. I'd say the majority have their own ideas about how to use the work product of each. Nuclear fission and the Bomb, Jesus and the Christian Church(es), and several other instances of ideas going the way that is endorsed by their executors and not their originators. Ergo, the majority of their fellow beings are much smarter than scholars and mystics.
Disagree strongly. As you said, one can't un-ring the bell. There is a moral obligation on those who make it their business to define present-day hindus to declare whether they propound a 'new' or 'protestant' hinduism; the adherents of which are to be henceforth known as "neo-hindus;" or to admit that what they're talking about is not the great tradition of obfuscation referred to in the international literature as 'hinduism.' In order to claim legitimacy, they must define the scotsman, however untrue he may be to the historical personage with the coffee. I wonder if you are aware of the political ideology of 'hinduttva.' It is a kind of fascist / neo-nazi / BNP credo that keeps throwing "hindu" in the face of all Indian citizens (and, cannily enough, at prosperous Indian emigres to get funds).
I may have put my foot in my keyboard right then: anyone who admires Baroness Thatcher (condolences, Sir Denis passed away yesterday) is not likely to empathise with my pinko mewlings about fascist and suchlike....

victorialis

I see why it looked like an exit line. There's no chance of my turning my back on anyone who has courtesy, a computer, and a command of language. The bell curve is bulbous with those who possess no more than two out of these three.

Here is a fascinating endorsement for a fully interdisciplinary approach to life on earth -- fascinating because all the examples continue to have a negative net impact on humanity. That's a value judgment, of course, for which I must bear responsibility.

If I take your premise correctly, it would follow that the intent of the originators has no lasting significance. This is a strong disincentive to innovation -- although it would certainly account for Brahman's indifference to worship.

Brahman, OTOH, is also beyond moral obligations.

I suspect that those most actively concerned have no more use for a true scotsman of their own than the Scots have. Isn't the authentic neo-hindu protean by design?

Hang on, it's coming to me as we speak, couched upon a glowing cloud -- I can see the prototypical neo-hindu now: s/he is the embodiment of obfuscation. What, therefore, can the prototypical neo-hindu not do? Nothing is beyond his/her compass!

That's a very sexy idea. It loses nothing by having no concrete characteristics -- to the contrary: because it's fully interactive, one can fill in all the gaps oneself. I am reminded of the school of thought from which a self-proclaimed artist can point to an utterly inscrutable object in the studio and say, "That's art because I did it."

Honestly: on its own terms, is such blather worth refuting? But that's its greatest strength.

My limited understanding of hinduttva and the BNP is responsible for my curiosity about the bigger picture. It amazes me that a pluralist tradition is actually being put to this use. I sense that it should not amaze me and I am interesting in finding the gap in my thinking through this example.

No doubt someone here could enlighten me as to the kinder, gentler side of hinduttva -- in reply to which I am bound to say, "That is your hinduttva." It is unlikely to be the egalitarian individual's hinduttva that will have perceptible social impact. Perceptible social impact will come from the lowest common denominator in the discourse, whether that LCD is constructive or destructive.

Baroness Thatcher is a phenomenon that could not fail to intrigue me. It seems important, living in England, that I never forget: it took a handbag-wielding Valkyrie to turn the UK economy around in my lifetime. That speaks volumes to me about socialism in general and about British national life in particular, neither of which have settled comfortably into my understanding and probably never will.

He must have been quite a character, Sir Denis. I was surprised to learn he was in his late 80s. He had been ill for some time, I think. I am sorriest for her sake.

Vylo

Within hinduism there is a concept of many paths to the same destination. That is, that hinduism, christanity, judiasm, etc etc, are all correct, yet different paths to the same destination; salvation.

hinduwoman

Victorialis ---
Don't know about Westerners, but the performance of Dharma had always been greatly controversial and subject to debate. "hard it is to know what right Dharma is". --- Mahabharatra; a perpetual lament through the epic.

hinduwoman

Amit, had not sat on you because havenot connected to the net for a while.

In that case you are backing up my argument that Western desire to categorise Hinduism is futile.
Also I venture to guess that in arguing Hinduism does not exist as a religion but there are only disparate groups, you have overlooked its political ramifications. This means that Muslims are the majority religion in India. Therefore they should not claim any special privileges, but instead it is various Hindu groups that should be pampered because they are minorities.
Either Hinduism is a majority religion, or there are only minority groups which must be protected by virtue of being a minority and Muslim attacks on Hindus must be regarded as majority oppression. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

Again you have backed up my position. Living Hinduism is how the Hindus express their devotion to their chosen gods, the daily religious rituals they practice. Every family and region has their own myths and customs. Tantriks sacrifices are Hindu, so are attempts to stop them. Flesh and blood offered to Khandoba is Hindu, so is the Veg. Brahmin. The unbreakable saptapadi marriage is Hindu, so too is the divorce initiated by woman by leaving two coconuts. Touching the sivalingam is Hindu religious worship, so is the worship of a HP goddess where she is not seen by anyone and the priest binds a cloth round his eyes in case he looks at her image. All these is what I call living Hinduism, as actually practiced by Hindus.
Or take the creation of Santoshi Ma, a brand new goddess, through nothing other than a film --- not all scholarly studies are going to be able to make sense of that phenomenon in theological/mystical terms or by studying old scriptures.
However massacre of Muslims in Gujrat is not yet Hinduism as such. If this becomes an annual rite with invocations to Ram then it would be a Hindu ritual.

Yes there is, when you are referring to Hinduism as a religion.
There is eternal soul (though I am not sure about the rebirth part). You can get away claiming there is no God, but not that there is no eternal soul.
Saying that your religion alone possess the TRUTH. Claiming that all other religions are false is absolutely non-Hindu.

Ok, now for a note of my own:
There is something called Hinduism because Hinduism has produced a specific culture and concepts associated with it that no other culture has produced. In Hinduism secular and sacred are thoroughly mixed up and so there is difficulty in separating religious components from cultural components. But the fact remains: Hindus are not Jews, Christians and Muslims (though in places there had been fusion of the two), they are not Shintoes, Taoists or aboriginal (though they would welcome foreign gods and philosophies). People are defined as much as what they are not and how they differ from other groups as by what they are and the similarities they share.

Take the concept of Dharma. I believe it is something no other culture has come up with. It is specifically Hindu. The problem is that it has both sacred and lay implications.

There are pan-Indian gods and tradition that enable the Hindus to identify themselves as Hindus. When Hindu labourers were taken as indentured slaves to Carribean plantations, they could no longer keep up with their traditional practices and caste rules. Because they came from different regions their deities were not known to each other either. But everyone knew the story of Ramayana, who Kali was. That provided a common bond and created a distinctly Hindu community.
There was this hit song from (completely forgotten the film) where Rekha (?) stands in the gardenhouse of the villainous politician overlooking the Ganges in Allahabad and sings, "Ram teri Ganga maili papiyoki pap dhote dhote". Every person that calls himself Hindu, from Ph.D. holder to the illiterate landless worker knew what she meant. The songwriters expected their target audience to respond to the religious cues.

There is a common background that can be called Hinduism or sanatan dharma

hinduwoman

BJP/RSS is commonly called fascist/Nazi which just goes to show that the critics have not studsied definitons properly.

Theirs is a new kind of domination that reflects Hindu pluralist ethos. Instead of trying to exclude anyone they try to include every Indian under the name 'Hindu' whether they want to be Hindu or not.
Their rationale is that anyone who lives in India and shows respect for Indian way of life is a Hindu whatever the religion may be. Unfortunately they equate Hinduism as a religion as well as a culture, with Indianness. Muslims and many Christians object to being called Hindu-Muslim or Christian-Hindus while a number of Sikhs complain about being legally considered Hindus.

One reason for their popularity is because pure Islam is a threat. History of Islamic rule + war with Pakistan + Islamic terrorism within the country + Muslim mullahs and politicians + resistance in Islam to reform = demand for protection by Hindus.

As for calling their movement neo-Hindus, sorry, that again is a lable being stuck on them by outsiders. In commonspeak, neo-Hindus are converts from other religions.

Amit read a little history and you will see that Hinduttva is not a new movement but a long time in the making. It begun with Brithish rule when the Hindus reformers were seized with zeal of creating Hindu churches on the models of Protestant Churches. So it is silly to complain that this is a completely new movement that is destrying traditional Hinduism. It arose inevitably from historical and social circumstances. Read the debates during the writing of Constitution and you will see that even Nehru and Ambedkar --- heroes of secularism --- sound rather like Savarkar.

victorialis

hinduwoman, I was fortunate the other day to find in my miniscule local library Zaehner's Hinduism, accounting for about 1/6 of the entire philosophy section and tantalisingly described on the cover as "the best short introduction to Hinduism in existence." A bold claim!

Zaehner makes a qualified case for Gandhi as an historical Yudhishthira ("the fact remains that he {Gandhi} saw himself as an interpreter of the Hindu dharma as it really is, not as, in a corrupt age, it had come to be" p.184). Zaehner points out that subsequent reformers have not answered the questions posed by the need for change (with reference to the orthodox group Mahasabha, Zaehner says "they are fighting a losing battle and they know it," p.186).

Is there any merit in Zaehner's observations?

If attempts to define the present-day Hindu are politically inapt, perhaps it would be more beneficial to approach the matter from the opposite direction and address (as Zaehner claims Gandhi did) the sanatan dharma. Its very elusiveness would offer ample scope.

Has hinduttva made any perceptible inroads in explicating aspects of the sanatan dharma? It does not seem an unreasonable expectation, if hinduttva is a natural development of social and historical circumstances. I would not expect such grapplings with the sanatan dharma to be conclusive or even overt; but shouldn't there be some hint, some clue, that can be traced to Gandhi's dharma of conscience?

Re pure Islam: I am also looking forward to reading Olivier Roy's The Failure of Political Islam, from which I've just chosen the following excerpt at random:

"In short, what prevents Islamic society from producing totalitarianism (its respect for the family and lack of interest in the social sphere) also prevents it from producing any true social framework: it rejects any space for conviviality and sociability, if only by the strict implementation of the separation of the sexes and, in particular, of the confinement of women to the house."

Roy's book was written nearly ten years ago, and it will be interesting to see how well its ideas and conclusions have held up. The above excerpt paints quite a stark picture.

Amit Misra

hinduwoman tries to hoist me by my own petard in claiming "pampering" for the diverse social groups that converge under the umbrella term of hinduism. Touche, I say. I still maintain that democracy is not majoritarianism, and that if these diverse groups were to absolutely reject the claim of the Vishva Hindu Parishad to be representative of 80 million hindus, I'd say good for them. The fact is they show no signs of doing so. I therefore maintain that hinduttva is a political philosophy, notwithstanding hinduwoman's appreciation of its urge to include rather than exclude diversity within its fascist ambit. i do not go against my stand that it is not a religion.
hinduwoman says islam, then, must be the majority religion of india. i'd agree if the rest of the hindus came out with express statements of their lack of allegience to hinduism and claim the pampering that they would then deserve. you cannot have your cake and eat it too (we bandy that about a great deal, don't we?)
hinduwoman's well-meant advice to read history is well take, but returned with interest. she finds me unedeucated as far as the work of koenraad elst is concerned. i did, you know, try to read what he calls his "last book" on ayodhya. i blew my top at the preface. the man has the gall to admit that "Ayodhya has been fun" !! he finds it funny that hundreds of people lose their lives, india's parliamentary politics gets subcverted by fundamentalist hindu initiatives, its secular institutions get eroded to parodies of themselves, and a host of other collateral issues "funny"! i, on the other hand, find it alarming that she is not even aware of the popular journo-historiography of William L Shirer (The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich). Read it, hw, and see for yourself German history repeating itself in India.
Victorialis's riposte to hw and her reply to me go unanswered this time. Just want to ask if V has read Julian Barnes' description of how baroness Thatcher used to "bawl at the opposition like a fishwife"?
Actually, I confess to grudging admiration for an ability to bawl, like a fishwifeor a hindu...
amit