04-22-2005, 05:15 AM
Many Indians detest Nirad C. Chaudhuri or are at least ambivalent towards him regarding him as a "brown sahib". However his book "Hinduism - A religion to live by" (coincidentally, I bought this book on the very day of his death - sometime in 1998 I think) is thought provoking. Note that Sir Chaudhuri accepted some form of Aryan invasion/migration theory and moreover seemed to believe that there is a strong possibility that devotionalism in India is the result of Christian influence. However one can ask if he would have modified his views had he been living today. I quote some material from the book that I think is relevant to this thread and which may perhaps throw some light why Indians are reluctant to assert their identity - a question that is implicit in many of the posts made by esteemed members.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Hindu religious sentiment never [took the line of development that christianity did], but remained true to the original motivation of spirituality, which was to become free of all restraints imposed on man by nature. Thus Hindu spirituality is a pursuit not of beatitude, but of power. It has to be pointed out that in Sanskrit there is no word for spirituality, nor was there any in any modern Indian language until the notion was introduced through the english language. Then with a grotesque and illogical disregard of its original meaning, a sanskrit word (adhyatmik = concerning the self) was made the equivalent of "spiritual" in English.
This has never been understood by occidental writers who have dealt with Hindu spirituality. I might illustrate this failure by referring to the famous story of Kipling, that of saint Purun Bhagat. The story was based on fact. In it the Prime minister of an Indian princely state, with an outstanding record of public service, becomes a hermit and devotes himself to religious meditation in the himalayas, living only on the food brought to him by the people of a nearby village. One night he is awakened by the tremors of a landslide and rushing out as a man of action saves the villagers. On this Kipling's comment was: 'He was no longer the holy man, but sir Purun Dass, K.C.I.E., Prime minister of no small state, a man accustomed to command, going out to save life.'
This was all wrong, for in Hinduism the distinction does not exist. In it the minister and the man of action Purun Dass, and the saint Purun Bhagat are the same man in two characters and roles, complementary to each other. In the ultimate analysis, Hindu spirituality is interwoven with the cosmos. It is the old guard of the world, always held in reserve to be launched into action when a serious crisis arises which cannot be met with any mode of rational action open to man. Or to vary the metaphor, in his spiritual activities the Hindu is like the dynamo which generates electricity, and in his wordly life the motor which expends it. Hindu spirituality and Hindu phenomenal existence are inseperable. They stand together.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He further goes on to say that there do exist observable features of Hindu spirituality of a different quality that can mainly be attributed to the influence of bhakti (which he believes was influenced by Christianity) and the worship of Krishna - and that these tendencies have been reinforced by Christianity and also by the impact of Islam. He goes on to say about the Bhagwad Gita:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->[Two new elements] of the Gita were not part of established Hindu traditions. The first of these was the doctrine of disinterested action, or <i>niskama karma</i>. According to it a man could remain in the world and do everything he had to do in it without any sacrifice of his religious aspirations. Indeed no renunciation was expected from him. But the condition was that he must not expect to profit from his wordly actions and efforts This is emphasised again and again in a couplet that has become a proverb among the Hindus [For those who understand Sanskrit]:
<i>
Karmany eva dhikaras te
ma phalesu kadakana
</i>
Thou art entitled to work
But never to its result.
Now such a doctrine is opposed to the natural inclinations of the human mind, and even more opposed to the inclinations of the Hindu mind, for a Hindu does not even worship his Gods without the motive of gain. None the less it appealed to the choice spirits among the Hindus as Stoicism appealed to the Greeks and Romans. In fact in India the attraction was greater for reflective minds.
....
[The] second new thing that the Gita offered was infinitely higher, something that was not merely an armour but an adequate and positive prop of life, a great love. And the object of this love was to be a God who would never disappoint the devotee who loved him. This God was totally different from any God the Hindus had known before.
...
But in assessing [this part of the Gita] it must not be forgotten that it was neither a dogmatic nor a philosophical treatise, but a work of devotional poetry. It follows from this that the grandeur of its message cannot be felt fully unless it is read in the original, whereby all the combined power of its diction, sound and rhythm, all of which transmit an intense passion, even an unbeliever is swept off his feet.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then from the next chapter titled "Gain from religion", he says:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The two most powerful human desires are for power and protection [security], the first being dominant in those whose vitality is above average and the second in those in whom it is not sufficient for the trials which they have to pass.
...
Naturally the two urges cannot be wholly separated even in one individual, but by and large those who want power and those who look for protection can be found to form distinguishable groups in society.
...
The professionals in Hindu religious life, that is to say, those who left the world to devote themselves to religion, were ready to concede that a majority would remain satisfied with protection and peace, but they had a certain condescension for this aspiration, and considered power to be the higher end.
One day this was brought home to me in a casual, but therefore all the more significant way. I was listening to a conversation between an eminent barrister of Calcutta who was also a well known political leader, and a learned professor of Sanskrit who belonged to the Guru clan of the barrister. The barrister suddenly looked up and appeared to be meditative. Then he remarked as if to himself: "There is peace in religion". The pundit who had a blazing vermillion mark on his forehead, replied with a smile which seemed to be compassionate, though he was the younger man: "Also power.". The barrister had completed his education in England, the pundit was the product of traditional Hindu learning.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now in my opinion, these two aspects of the Hindu character are not mutually exclusive as they might seem. Over the ages have not all the sages said that "the other" cannot be willed, invited or attained by desire. In that sense the doctrine of disinterested action is a continuation of this idea. It says perform your duties but don't get carried away in the act of performing them for that will only diminish you. By asserting an identity you only narrow yourself so be grounded - that gives you the energy and power to do whatever is required. Thus ironically all of Hinduism tells us that the power exists but you can never attain it by desiring it, the ultimate contradiction - To have power you must renounce power.
This said, what are the immediate manifest reasons why Hindus are reluctant to assert their identity? I would say, depending on the individual, one or more of the following:
1. Hindus feel they would narrow themselves by asserting an identity.
2. Fear of getting hurt if they assert their identity.
3. Fear of getting carried away by an identity.
4. No awareness of the power inherent in Hinduism - so why assert anything?
The last of these reasons cant be underestimated and is probably the most debilitating in its effect. If you dont even know or are unsure of what you have, how do you assert it? But the very fact that this thread exists means there is something - and if one has doubts it behooves one to find out and clear them. If I am unsure about whether there is any real power left in Hinduism then I need to take the risks neccessary to remove any doubts - one way or the other - to dirty my hands and not be afraid of experience so to speak, and the exact actions that need to be taken are, I think, clear to each one of us. After that assertion will be but a minor issue.
A final quote from Sir Chaudhury which may surprise some of us:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Historically, the great achievement of Hindu religion is that it has enabled Hindu society and culture to survive through vicissitudes which have destroyed other cultures contemporaneous with it.
In addition the religion has created what must be regarded as the true nationalism of the country. It is this which gives appropriateness to the name of <i>Hinduism</i>, which foreigners have given to the religion of the Indo-Aryans, for whom their religion was nameless. The word <i>Hindu</i> was only a geographical term, employed by the Persians to designate the inhabitants of the country which is known to the outside world as India. And the words 'India' and 'Indian' are only Greek and Latin adaptations from the persian word. But since the inhabitants could never in any aspect of their life be separated from their religion the word <i>Hindu</i> became religious, and the national identity became the same as adherence to a religion. The fusion is the only real guarantee behind the national identity of Indians. If Hinduism disappears at any time, the inhabitants of India will, unless they acquire identities from other religions like Islam or Christianity, cease to have any distinctive identity.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Regards,
Sandeep.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Hindu religious sentiment never [took the line of development that christianity did], but remained true to the original motivation of spirituality, which was to become free of all restraints imposed on man by nature. Thus Hindu spirituality is a pursuit not of beatitude, but of power. It has to be pointed out that in Sanskrit there is no word for spirituality, nor was there any in any modern Indian language until the notion was introduced through the english language. Then with a grotesque and illogical disregard of its original meaning, a sanskrit word (adhyatmik = concerning the self) was made the equivalent of "spiritual" in English.
This has never been understood by occidental writers who have dealt with Hindu spirituality. I might illustrate this failure by referring to the famous story of Kipling, that of saint Purun Bhagat. The story was based on fact. In it the Prime minister of an Indian princely state, with an outstanding record of public service, becomes a hermit and devotes himself to religious meditation in the himalayas, living only on the food brought to him by the people of a nearby village. One night he is awakened by the tremors of a landslide and rushing out as a man of action saves the villagers. On this Kipling's comment was: 'He was no longer the holy man, but sir Purun Dass, K.C.I.E., Prime minister of no small state, a man accustomed to command, going out to save life.'
This was all wrong, for in Hinduism the distinction does not exist. In it the minister and the man of action Purun Dass, and the saint Purun Bhagat are the same man in two characters and roles, complementary to each other. In the ultimate analysis, Hindu spirituality is interwoven with the cosmos. It is the old guard of the world, always held in reserve to be launched into action when a serious crisis arises which cannot be met with any mode of rational action open to man. Or to vary the metaphor, in his spiritual activities the Hindu is like the dynamo which generates electricity, and in his wordly life the motor which expends it. Hindu spirituality and Hindu phenomenal existence are inseperable. They stand together.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He further goes on to say that there do exist observable features of Hindu spirituality of a different quality that can mainly be attributed to the influence of bhakti (which he believes was influenced by Christianity) and the worship of Krishna - and that these tendencies have been reinforced by Christianity and also by the impact of Islam. He goes on to say about the Bhagwad Gita:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->[Two new elements] of the Gita were not part of established Hindu traditions. The first of these was the doctrine of disinterested action, or <i>niskama karma</i>. According to it a man could remain in the world and do everything he had to do in it without any sacrifice of his religious aspirations. Indeed no renunciation was expected from him. But the condition was that he must not expect to profit from his wordly actions and efforts This is emphasised again and again in a couplet that has become a proverb among the Hindus [For those who understand Sanskrit]:
<i>
Karmany eva dhikaras te
ma phalesu kadakana
</i>
Thou art entitled to work
But never to its result.
Now such a doctrine is opposed to the natural inclinations of the human mind, and even more opposed to the inclinations of the Hindu mind, for a Hindu does not even worship his Gods without the motive of gain. None the less it appealed to the choice spirits among the Hindus as Stoicism appealed to the Greeks and Romans. In fact in India the attraction was greater for reflective minds.
....
[The] second new thing that the Gita offered was infinitely higher, something that was not merely an armour but an adequate and positive prop of life, a great love. And the object of this love was to be a God who would never disappoint the devotee who loved him. This God was totally different from any God the Hindus had known before.
...
But in assessing [this part of the Gita] it must not be forgotten that it was neither a dogmatic nor a philosophical treatise, but a work of devotional poetry. It follows from this that the grandeur of its message cannot be felt fully unless it is read in the original, whereby all the combined power of its diction, sound and rhythm, all of which transmit an intense passion, even an unbeliever is swept off his feet.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then from the next chapter titled "Gain from religion", he says:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The two most powerful human desires are for power and protection [security], the first being dominant in those whose vitality is above average and the second in those in whom it is not sufficient for the trials which they have to pass.
...
Naturally the two urges cannot be wholly separated even in one individual, but by and large those who want power and those who look for protection can be found to form distinguishable groups in society.
...
The professionals in Hindu religious life, that is to say, those who left the world to devote themselves to religion, were ready to concede that a majority would remain satisfied with protection and peace, but they had a certain condescension for this aspiration, and considered power to be the higher end.
One day this was brought home to me in a casual, but therefore all the more significant way. I was listening to a conversation between an eminent barrister of Calcutta who was also a well known political leader, and a learned professor of Sanskrit who belonged to the Guru clan of the barrister. The barrister suddenly looked up and appeared to be meditative. Then he remarked as if to himself: "There is peace in religion". The pundit who had a blazing vermillion mark on his forehead, replied with a smile which seemed to be compassionate, though he was the younger man: "Also power.". The barrister had completed his education in England, the pundit was the product of traditional Hindu learning.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now in my opinion, these two aspects of the Hindu character are not mutually exclusive as they might seem. Over the ages have not all the sages said that "the other" cannot be willed, invited or attained by desire. In that sense the doctrine of disinterested action is a continuation of this idea. It says perform your duties but don't get carried away in the act of performing them for that will only diminish you. By asserting an identity you only narrow yourself so be grounded - that gives you the energy and power to do whatever is required. Thus ironically all of Hinduism tells us that the power exists but you can never attain it by desiring it, the ultimate contradiction - To have power you must renounce power.
This said, what are the immediate manifest reasons why Hindus are reluctant to assert their identity? I would say, depending on the individual, one or more of the following:
1. Hindus feel they would narrow themselves by asserting an identity.
2. Fear of getting hurt if they assert their identity.
3. Fear of getting carried away by an identity.
4. No awareness of the power inherent in Hinduism - so why assert anything?
The last of these reasons cant be underestimated and is probably the most debilitating in its effect. If you dont even know or are unsure of what you have, how do you assert it? But the very fact that this thread exists means there is something - and if one has doubts it behooves one to find out and clear them. If I am unsure about whether there is any real power left in Hinduism then I need to take the risks neccessary to remove any doubts - one way or the other - to dirty my hands and not be afraid of experience so to speak, and the exact actions that need to be taken are, I think, clear to each one of us. After that assertion will be but a minor issue.
A final quote from Sir Chaudhury which may surprise some of us:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Historically, the great achievement of Hindu religion is that it has enabled Hindu society and culture to survive through vicissitudes which have destroyed other cultures contemporaneous with it.
In addition the religion has created what must be regarded as the true nationalism of the country. It is this which gives appropriateness to the name of <i>Hinduism</i>, which foreigners have given to the religion of the Indo-Aryans, for whom their religion was nameless. The word <i>Hindu</i> was only a geographical term, employed by the Persians to designate the inhabitants of the country which is known to the outside world as India. And the words 'India' and 'Indian' are only Greek and Latin adaptations from the persian word. But since the inhabitants could never in any aspect of their life be separated from their religion the word <i>Hindu</i> became religious, and the national identity became the same as adherence to a religion. The fusion is the only real guarantee behind the national identity of Indians. If Hinduism disappears at any time, the inhabitants of India will, unless they acquire identities from other religions like Islam or Christianity, cease to have any distinctive identity.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Regards,
Sandeep.