<!--QuoteBegin-vishwas+Apr 25 2007, 11:21 PM-->QUOTE(vishwas @ Apr 25 2007, 11:21 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Shiv, are you posting the Hindu narrative or the atheist's narrative? There is enough of that on the web. The narrative of Indian "social reform" usually ends up in the narrative of the typical atheist Gandhian, as it has ended up in the case of the writer you quote.
Or is it your belief that every ex-Hindu's narrative is an important part of the Hindu narrative? There is a lot of that too on the web.
Administrators, I think much of what is called the "Hindu narrative" in this thread is more or less an uncharitable <i>modernist narrative</i> of Hinduism, not the narrative of a believer. That may be good for the Indian state (which encourages "scientific temper") but why is it good for Hinduism?
I was afraid it would come to this. Perhaps administrators should consider closing this thread?
[right][snapback]67841[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is a valid criticism - but I think it is important not to be afraid of what is thrown up by a narrative. The "Hindu" narrative includes all experiences and thoughts of Hindus and in this case the particular author has had some thoughts that you do not necessarily find pleasing. Nevertheless - it is Hindu narrative. A narrative of a man born into a Hindu family with such restrictive practices that he rebelled. That is why I put it on here. But neither he, nor his descendants converted. They were reacting to the deficiencies of seemingly pure Hindus around them and changing some restrictive and mindless rules for a better life. You won't see a Muslim being able to do that without being threatened.
If we dig around and allow narratives to come out - we may well find a Hindu narrative that explains how and why a person converted. It could be a story of coercion or of voluntary conversion or of conversion based on a fit of pique. Or it could be a fight for improvement within the framework of Hindu belief.
If we think it is important to see how Hindus think and feel and what historic forces have acted on their minds, being judgemental about their writing will gradually narrow down our choice of whose records we want to look at to a level where real pure Hindus are a minority.
In fact it may already be true to say that real Hindus are a minority, but while people such as yourself find it easy to recognize signs of atheism or some other characteristic (perhaps dhimmitude or something else) nobody has yet managed to define what he is looking for when he says "Hindu". There seems to be a quest for a real Hindu who is not an atheist or a dhimmi or a convert or something else. There is nothing wrong with such a quest - it would be far easier if the characteristics could be defined and nobody has done that yet and I suspect that nobody will do it either. I am willing to eat my words on this issue.
What we have is a motley bunch of people with thoughts, feelings, emotions, needs, fears and joys who have called themselves "Hindu" by virtue of their birth. They have had a certain amount of knowledge passed on to them as "Hindus" that they have internalised but have gone ahead to live their lives based on lessons life has taught them. The Hindu narrative has to include that story if we are to begin to understand how or why a Hindu sees things in a particular way. Throwing away some things just because one is uncomfortable with what comes out is in my opinion, a choice of "agnana" over "gnana". Only when we are able to look at uncomfortable things along with reassuring things will Hindus be able to understand what (if anything) makes them tick and face the future with confidence and awaremess.
A shirt-pant DIE like me will be able to tell you how plague affected London and the connection of plague with certain angrezi nursery rhymes. But how many records are there of how actual Hindu communities felt and saw epidemics?
Here are a couple of excerpts:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In the words of our aunt Padmavathi, who told me the story, the occasion of her husbandâs death was poignant beyond grief and her brotherâs arrival at the critical moment was the only saving feature in her grief stricken condition. Padmavathi and her husband lived in Kolar in their small house along with two younger brothers of Varaha Ramachar and an aged blind aunt as well. Varaha Ramachar was the sole bread winner and he was doing fairly well as a popular priest. Padmavathi, though young, was managing the economics of the household very well. Her husbandâs immediate brother was still struggling to pass the lower secondary examination after several attempts while the youngest brother was already fairing good in the secondary school. Both of them were married but had not as yet started their own families. Things were looking promising for them. Around this time, plague struck Kolar district in a severe epidemic form and one of the very first victims was Varaha Ramachar. As soon as his fever was diagnosed as the dreaded plague, information was sent to Father who came post-haste to Kolar. When he arrived at the house, he found it vacant and on enquiries with terror stricken neighbors found his sister sitting alone under a tree next to the local water tank, with her husbandâs body next to her. The plague was such a dreaded disease when no specific treatment was available, that neighbors boycotted the victimâs family to save their own lives. Even family members would flee from the stricken homes and the community was helpless to offer the needed services to the dead and living alike. With the onset of Varaha Ramacharâ fever, his brothers fled the town to seek protection in their in-laws homes. If they had delayed fleeing in time from an infected town, they would not be admitted to other communities. When Varaha Ramachar died, the town officials insisted that the body be handed over to them for immediate mass cremation. Not wanting to commit her husbandâs remains to the humiliation of mass cremation, she had voluntarily agreed to remove the body from the town. Leaving the old blind aunt to fend for herself, Padmavathi carried and dragged her husbandâs body to the outskirts of the town and waited there, with hope against hope, that someone would turn up to perform the necessary rituals for the cremation of a bramhin. She sat with the body for an entire day. She later told me that she had no time for tears or thoughts of fear. She had made up her mind that in event no help came by nightfall, she would push the body into the water tank and follow it by jumping in herself. Her only concern at that time was the care of the old blind aunt who had been left alone in the house.
Towards evening she suddenly heard her brotherâs voice and when she looked up, she saw him walking up the road to her. At last her savior had arrived! It was only then that she wept loud and long at the tragic turn of her life. Later, brother and sister carried the body to the nearest cremation ground where Father performed the rituals to the satisfaction of his sister and cremated the corpse. Father returned to Immagondanahalli with his widowed sister and her blind aunt. There they were joined by the brothers of Varaha Ramachar and proper funeral ceremonies were held. Once the plague subsided, the ancestral house in Kolar was sold and the two brothers-in-law divided the proceeds between them, with the full consent and blessings of Padmavathi. She and the blind aunt continued to stay with Father. Her main interest in life was to serve her invalid aunt and her loving brother and his family. Gradually she got interested in the strict observance of Kanimbele practices and precepts. Towards her old age, she had become an authority on these by her own rights and was often consulted with by other family members.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here is another story of Plague and Malaria. Until public health measures helped control them they remained scourges in India (Malaria is still a scourge in areas).
It is interesting that the story of plague in Europe is linked with the development of public health measures against plague. Antibiotics came much later. It is not surprising that doctors who were trained in "English medicine" who were able to make a difference were treated with so much respect. I am not sure - but plague itself may have come to India from Europe. Malaria of course was "indigenous" and helped fight the British - but the first cures were also brought in by the British from Europe. Quinine as a cure for Malaria was first used by natives in South America whose narrative is now dead. It was brought to Europe by Jesuit priests, rejected by Protestant doctors, but eventually accepted by all.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->This happiness was unfortunately short lived. News was received that his elder sister had died suddenly at Mulbagal. She, with her husband and 5 year old son had come home for vacation when the plague epidemic struck. The husband was the first victim to the raging sickness, but was nursed back to health by his devoted wife. Relatives have narrated to me how this devoted lady spent days and nights at her husbandâs bed side singing bhajans in her sweet voice. A fortnight after her husbandâs recovery, she herself fell a victim to the same disease and died very soon. Father had to rush to Mulbagal to participate in the funeral of his sister and to console his brother-in-law, who was grief stricken and was in a state of shock.
There was more bad news to follow. Within a month or so came the news of the death of Ugracharâs wife. She had gone on a visit to Malur where plague had been reported. She returned to Kommanahalli with high fever and before the signs of the dreaded disease could be recognized, she was dead. She left behind a sorrowing husband and 4 young children. The religious studies, at Marikanve were cut short and Ugrachar, with his father Rangannachar, returned to Kommanahalli to face the catastrophe. By this time, our step mother was pregnant with her first child and the deceased lady was her elder sister. With these tragedies in both the families and the scourge of plague still lurking about in the region, our father decided that their first child would be born in Marikanve instead of Kommanahalli. The engineering projectâs colony had an hospital and a trained mid-wife. Fatherâs younger sister, Padmavathi, offered to help with the delivery and was to arrive the following month. Everything seemed to be set for the young couple to welcome their first child. But the scourge of malaria, which always followed the construction of large reservoirs of water, was just round the corner. When Sukhalaya Bai was 5 months pregnant, she was struck with malaria. Treatment was started through the local doctor but her physical condition was not conducive for strong doses of medicine. Within 2 months she aborted a dead child and in a couple of days she followed it with her own sad end. Except for her young husband no one else was with her when she breathed her last. In her delirious condition she repeatedly asked for her elder sister and for her father who was away on a pilgrimage. Our Aunt Padmavathi recalls that our fatherâs first wife was a girl of lean build and fair of color and with a sweet voice for bhajans. She had been reared in the religious tradition and had enjoyed the vigor of religious life in her husbandâs home.Â
Within a year of his marriage our fatherâs cup of misery was full and he was distraught. He gave up his job, closed his house and collecting the few belongings he traveled back to Kommanahalli to be with his friend and to find solace mutually. Ugrachar was also bereaved but he had his father and sisters to care for the young children. Our father performed the final rites for his wife and since his father-in-law was expected to return home soon, it was the proper thing to wait and pay his respects to the elderly gentleman.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
sengotuvel,
For now, I will leave your main question (Who is a Hindu?) untouched. However, I have a question:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->A narrative of a man born into a Hindu family with such restrictive practices that he rebelled. That is why I put it on here. But neither he, nor his descendants converted. They were reacting to the deficiencies of seemingly pure Hindus around them and changing some restrictive and mindless rules for a better life. You won't see a Muslim being able to do that without being threatened.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you believe that the question "Who is a Hindu?" is both important and, as yet, unanswered, then you have a few problems:
1. what makes the narrative of one person, a Hindu narrative? After all remember, you don't know he is a Hindu in the first place.
2. How do you know that neither he nor his descendants converted? Converted from what? After all, since you don't know he is a Hindu, then how did you decide he was not converted?
From your series of posts here, I understand that you do have an implicit, working definition of what makes a Hindu, a Hindu: it is self-identification. But I have to ask whether the writer actually identifies himself as a Hindu, or even thinks that being a Hindu is an important aspect of his personality?
<!--QuoteBegin-vishwas+Apr 26 2007, 08:05 AM-->QUOTE(vishwas @ Apr 26 2007, 08:05 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->But I have to ask whether the writer actually identifies himself as a Hindu, or even thinks that being a Hindu is an important aspect of his personality?
[right][snapback]67859[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The writer is dead, and I never met him or knew him although I know his descendants and other relatives who identify themselves as Hindus.
His writing revolves around the family life of Madhwa Brahmins of Karnataka - or so he says. I am taking his word for it.It is upto you to judge what you think.
I have a worry about your question myself and I will voice it because it is a genuine worry.I see mullahs of India and Pakistan dissecting deep into the actions of a Muslim to judge whether he is truly Islamic or not. Self identification is not enough. Your deep questioning of what is Hindu about a person apart from self identification sounds exactly like that of a mullah of Hindusim.
To me that dogma is the antithesis of Hinduism. How do you see your own questions?
In fact even your earlier question about a person being an "atheist" and perhaps not Hindu bothers me. What is a Hindu who has realised the absolute if he is not an atheist? What Gods does this ultimate Hindu's theism submit to?
Religious Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know--And Doesn't
Today, I was browsing this book, On Hinduism he writes -.... they worship cowherd Krishna and blood thirsty Kali....... They are not converting Caucasians.... Busy constructing temples everywhere..... They are not politically active..... In 2000, Hindu priest opened Congress session.....
One paragraph,less than 8 lines explained Hinduism. <!--emo&  --><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
04-26-2007, 02:54 PM
(This post was last modified: 04-26-2007, 07:47 PM by Husky.)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In fact even your earlier question about a person being an "atheist" and perhaps not Hindu bothers me. What is a Hindu who has realised the absolute if he is not an atheist? What Gods does this ultimate Hindu's theism submit to?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> Argument of theism vs non-theism is irrelevant in Hinduism. The words are not descriptive of Hindu (Jaina, Buddhist) experience.
Just as a point of reference, the words/concepts 'theism' and 'atheism' come from Theos, not Deus. Note that theos and Deus do <i>not</i> have a common origin, in spite of sounding similar. From what I understand, Theos only ever referred to the christian gawd. The Ancient Romans used Deus regularly to refer to the Gods.
Theism, being a western christian invention, actually referred originally to belief in the christian gawd and atheism was concerned with the same hypothesis... Their sphere of application - until recent times - was only christian surroundings. For a long time, any heathens - though they be European - worshipping other Gods were called atheists also.
People have now adopted this term unthinkingly. It is only today that some people bandy these words about as if they should equally apply to other religions.
In it's original meaning which concerns only christianity, then: yeah, Ayyappa, Kamisama and Le Grand Esprit know I am very much an atheist... after all, the christoislamic gawd is non-existent, no amount of believing in it is going to bring it into existence.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->What is a Hindu who has realised the absolute if he is not an atheist? What Gods does this ultimate Hindu's theism submit to?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Also, is your opinion now the final determinant of what an "ultimate Hindu's" 'theism' is like? And you would know this, how?
The only ultimate Hindus I know of, my Grandparents and other older Indian people (probably like most other older Hindu generations from all over India), lived with the entire spectrum of Hindu Gods in their lives. That certainly puts a full-stop to any thesis on what makes and does not make an ultimate Hindu.
Our ill-informed and unqualified opinions on the matter do not trump the informed old generations' complete knowledge on what Hinduism entails. Heck, they had been living it daily while we can only ponder about what it all signifies. We are now that much estranged.
The 'modern' Hindu who thinks (s)he knows better than all the Hindus who'd lived since ancient times about what is and isn't Hinduism, and feels the need to discuss and lecture on the finer points of theism and atheism and Hindu Gods is only making things up as they go along. To them the older Hindus' beliefs, traditions make no sense or, at best, mean nothing.
(Same applies by symmetry to any modern commentating on Shinto, native American and similar cases.)
I'm wondering how Hindu narrative can have any meaning when it ignores the ways Hindus lived before this generation - they were people far more knowledgeable on Hinduism, after all. Our generation just tends to 'invent' a Hinduism and think it's what all the earlier Hindus followed; regarding all the Hindu things our ancestors did and lived as merely quaint. It is a highly condescending attitude. Their experiences certainly deserve more respect than that. We should also drop the pretence that we know as much about it as they did.
At least they lived Sanatana Dharma, whereas we can only have discussions about things of which we have next to no clue about, and to make it worse, we feel we need to discuss such matters from within the utterly unrelated parameters of atheism and theism.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->(Book) Religious Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know--And Doesn't
On Hinduism he writes -.... they worship cowherd Krishna and <b>blood thirsty Kali</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->What does the writer of that book know of Kaali? Nothing. Not knowing anything about her, he likes to comment (and his is a work about Religious Literacy, no less - ooh the irony).
On the other hand, genocidal-though-fictional gawd goes about massacring men women and animals throughout the very bloody babble, and that author probably failed to notice. Western scholarship for ya, right there.
<!--QuoteBegin-Husky+Apr 26 2007, 02:54 PM-->QUOTE(Husky @ Apr 26 2007, 02:54 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->The only ultimate Hindus I know of, my Grandparents and other older Indian people (probably like most other older Hindu generations from all over India), lived with the entire spectrum of Hindu Gods in their lives. That certainly puts a full-stop to any thesis on what makes and does not make an ultimate Hindu.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well despite your tendency to sound as though you are rubbishing everyone else's opinion you have at least contributed your own narrative on what you think are the ultimate Hindus. Thanks.
Now for another 25,000 such narratives from 25,000 other people and we can start building up some kind of picture of what people who think they are Hindus think Hinduism is all about.
04-26-2007, 06:37 PM
(This post was last modified: 04-26-2007, 07:03 PM by Husky.)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->you have at least contributed your own narrative on what you think are the ultimate Hindus.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Yes, by grouping all the old generations of Hindu people (who I think I'm fairly right in assuming they're just like all the old Hindu people I've personally known) as the 'ultimate Hindus' (<- that's your term, note). That's <i>billions</i> of people.
Of course, I don't include myself in that.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->to sound as though you are rubbishing everyone else's opinion<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Not really. But I do tend to be rude. Just ignore it. I'll try 'n learn politeness soon, I'll have some time.
Is Hindu faith so fragile that if an atheistâs perspective is presented in the âHindu narrativeâ thread, there are immediate calls from a certain member for closure of this thread? Surely Hinduism that withstood the onslaught for centuries against Islamic Invasions and Brit rule is strong enough to take some atheists perspective in its stride. And anyway, what makes one Hindus perspective more âpureâ than perspective of another Hindu?
Then again, what primarily distinguished Hinduism from radical ideologies like Islam was Hinduism innate strength that allowed healthy debates amongst Hindus when discussing about Hinduism. Also, going on the defensive about Hinduism was never a trait displayed by Hindus as Hinduism has always been an outward looking faith.
One more thing, how many amongst us can say honestly that we are aware of the significance or the historical background of some of our Hindu customs and rituals? This thread gives us a historic opportunity to record some customs for posterity so that our future generations would benefit from this record. So I laud the effort of Shiv & others who are giving a lot of their time and effort to breath life into this thread to at least this thread reaches the âtake offâ point i.e. a point where feedback from various members about Hindus rituals, traditions, customs becomes a flood from a trickle which it is right now.
04-26-2007, 07:13 PM
(This post was last modified: 04-26-2007, 07:36 PM by Husky.)
Post 71:
I don't think you're referring to me, but just in case -
Hindus have always consisted of people who had many Gods, or one (or more) ishtadevas, as well as some who did not think of Gods at all. Doesn't stop any of them from being Hindus.
My gripe was with this statement Sengotuvel made:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->What is a Hindu who has realised the absolute if he is not an atheist? What Gods does this ultimate Hindu's theism submit to?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->They're equating 'ultimate Hindu' with being an atheist (assuming they meant Hindus not occupying themselves with thoughts of any Gods). My point was there have been billions of 'ultimate Hindus' before us who did have Gods. So who's to define that only Hindus without Gods are deserving of the label? It's just one person's opinion, but the claim was made as if it were established fact rather than an arguable personal view. The quoted statement as written looks like this when reduced to its essentials: "the ultimate Hindu, who's realised the absolute, can only be an atheist".
Post 72
please check post no.56. <!--emo& --><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Who is a Hindu, or who thinks he is a Hindu, or who thinks another person is or is not a Hindu are all individual opinions that need not be the whole truth. But they will form part of the truth.
What one person writes or says means little - which is why I believe the stories of a lakh Hindus needs to be brought out - and from all sections of society.
Earlier today I discharged a patient after major surgery. She asked if she could attend a wedding on Sunday - and I said "Yes, but no dancing"
So she replied, "We won't dance, we're Hindus" <!--emo&:omg--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/omg.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='omg.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Each Hindu or group of Hindus thinks that they represent Hinduism and have little idea of what a Hindu may be doing elsewhere in the country, or indeed in the state. This needs to be set right and that again can only happen is there is a general spreading awareness of what being Hindu means in different parts of the country. It has to go beyond Doordarshan's sterile "Diwali was marked with gaiety and fervor all over the country"
Once again I find people on the thread objecting to narratives without themselves putting up any kind of narrative from the real Hindus that they profess to know about. This action is a throwback to what is normal for Hindus - i.e to wait till and evangelist or Mullah makes up an egregious narrtive and then say "No NO NO we are not like that"
Come on. Stop fighting with what people post. Post your own narratives.
The year I joined medical college I recall a couple of seniors discussing a female classmate of mine whose surname was Guha.
One asked:
"Is she Bengali?"
The other replied "No. she's Hindu"
The exchange became a standing joke that was never forgotten, but this is indicative of the level of awareness that people still seem to have - although this story is 35 years old.
It is easy to rubbish someone else's Hinduness and pump up one's own. No law against that - but is we are looking for truth we have to be careful not to go about rubbishing other people until we have a better understanding of how Hinduism has touched and brought color and comfort in a trillion different ways across a continent. Hinduism is not about one book - one god - one path - one menu - one MacDonalds.
Don't make yourself and your views of Hinduism bigger than something that is older, more diverse and greater than you are or ever will be. Just narrate what you know and let the knowledge fill up space that needs filling.
<!--QuoteBegin-Husky+Apr 26 2007, 02:54 PM-->QUOTE(Husky @ Apr 26 2007, 02:54 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Our ill-informed and unqualified opinions on the matter do not trump the informed old generations' complete knowledge on what Hinduism entails. Heck, they had been living it daily while we can only ponder about what it all signifies. We are now that much estranged.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is absolutely no need for this abject self flagellation.
You are placing your grandparents on a pedestal and then saying "We are so useless". This is fine for penance, but no good for sharing information.
You have decided that you are useless compared to your grandparents and have further decided that the rest of use are equally useless in comparison. You might not be all that useless. And if you are actually that useless do you have any insight into why or do you just want to lament?
Why don't you make an attempt to say why you think you are not up to your grandparents' standard? Let's have more gyan and less moan.
i think atheism is inclusive in the theory of hinduism, if hinduism stands for a "theory of everything". atheists are those "believers", whose beliefs are about "non-existence" rather existence of supreme force. now, it is left to the atheists, what they believe as supreme and what is not supreme.
atheists normally argue from the perspective of "christianity theory".. atheists are definitions of anti-christ, and has nothing to do with hinduism or better SD, since the word "hindu" itself a persian word.
recently met an atheists, as he invited me for a dinner. arguments were filed, and finally he was disproved, that if I would classify something that existed that is supreme force. I said, first you should believe in me saying something is supreme within my definition and understanding as supreme. don't be in a magical world. he agreed, and I said why don't we see anything in nature as supreme. there were no arguments, he was pure naturalist.
the problems come when we take a view and get complexes like modernity & tribalistics, super natural and natural, magic and illusions, God concepts, and all that is written in the other's religious texts are inferior to what we have.
imho, these are all human issues and as such religious issues. not because, that super natural being wishes that, there exists a problem for humans of different faith. this can't be proved, since the super-natural itself is a concept derived out of mis-understanding of the unknowns.
i am a hindu, hence i don't dance does not qualify as a hindu narrative, as its not a collective theory. its something personal, and that person simply puts the group interest in jeopardy while boasting it as "self" religion. its a fallacy, that we should not support., unless proven that is true.
i think, we should be looking for narratives that can be applicable to a hindu group.
<!--QuoteBegin-saik+Apr 26 2007, 11:37 PM-->QUOTE(saik @ Apr 26 2007, 11:37 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->i am a hindu, hence i don't dance does not qualify as a hindu narrative, as its not a collective theory. its something personal, and that person simply puts the group interest in jeopardy while boasting it as "self" religion. its a fallacy, that we should not support., unless proven that is true.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No not at all. I certainly does not qualify as narrative.
I posted it only to indicate what people who call themselves Hindus believe are hallmarks of being Hindus. The point I am trying to make is that there is no use wasting time in a witch hunt and saying this person is Hindu, therefore look at his narrative; this person is not a Hindu, so throw away his narrative (as is being done one here by some)
The judgement of who is Hindu and who isn't Hindu is full of discrepancies and contradictions. Each of these groups, who do not necessarily recognise Hindu characteristics in another group, consider themselves as Hindu. They will accept the other group as Hindu only after you explain to them that the other group, despite their appearance ("dancing") or origin/name ("Bengali/Guha") are Hindu too in terms of their narrative, history and worldview.
The narrative of that Madhwa Brahmin that I have posted is more than 125,000 words long. It is an indicator of how fossilized Hindu attitudes had been towards other Hindus - and how Hindus were rejected by each other for failing to meet standards.
There is a passage (that I am searching for) that speaks of an actual fight (with hitting and beating) between two groups of Madhwa Brahmins because one group is not seen as devout enough for not following a strict fast on ekadasi days. I have already posted a passage where the author says how Smartha Brahmins and Iyengars are shunned by this group of Madhwa Brahmins as impure.
This was the attitude of one sect of Brahmins towards another, but it is a reflection of how India, full of Hindus, had divided itself up into little pockets of jealousies and discrimination. This attitude is fading now but has not disappeared. It is exactly this parochial ("He's from my parish so he's mine, while that guy is not from my parish so he's not mine") attitude that I am seeing on this forum as well - with people questioning the Hindu credentials of anyone whose words they are uncomfortable with.
This is a discriminatory, divisive Hindu narrative being lived out in real time, right here on this forum, on the internet in 2007. A little history of India.
But fortunately things are changing in India. One nephew of mine is marrying a Kashmiri Pandit in a couple of months. Another marries a Punjabi girl from Jammu next week. I quote these only as family examples - but there are many such unions caused by a refreshing breakdown of barriers that Hindus had. Drop the barriers first don't keep on posting objections and conditions to ask everyone to prove that he is not Christian/Muslim/psec/marxist/atheist etc first.
Post your OWN story if you think you are Hindu and you can post it boldly when you know that others will not jump on you like a ton of bricks to prove your "Hindu credentials". The requirement of proof of Hindu credentials first is something that has divided up Hindus into a million groups like chopped onions and I am frankly amazed to see it on here.
That reminds me - do you know that some Hindus consider the eaters of onions and garlic as impure/not proper Hindus? Other people think Hindus are always vegetarian. Why act like that on this forum? Pergaps a judgement of Hindu narrative of the past 1000 years may characterize paranoia and distrust of other Hindus and inability to accept them as Hindus is both a characteristc and a failing of Hindu in general.
But unless we educated Hindus can rise up and out or our own petty and narrow views and look at Hindus as a whole, it wil be very difficult to judge the the "state" that Hindus are in at this point in time (in 2007). If we are dishonest with ourselves about our own state - we will be doing Hindus and Hinduism more harm. We need objectivity and honesty and that might mean looking at uncomfortable and unhappy narratives along with all the comforting good stuff. We cannot afford to throw away what is uncomfortable - because it is precisely that sort of stuff that has been used by Christianity and islam. It requires guts to face up to things that may be bad in any narratives that are thrown up.
Let us not fool ourselves into thinking that a Hindu narrative will be a completely happy story. There may be some shameful stuff - but facing up will make us stronger. Unfortunately there are many among us who prefer not to face up and I would like to see that changing.
In the posts #6-#9, there was an exchange between sengotuvel and me on the matter of why Europe saw more of scientific advancements during a period of time in history. Later I remembered something that S.Radhakrishnan had said which I wanted to post here. So why do I think this subject matter is important?
It is important in the current context of Hindu narrative, because it is one of the narratives that sheds light on why we are what we are.
<b>Natural situation of India</b>, an excerpt from S.Radhakrishnan's "Indian Philosophy" , Oxford India Paperbacks (Chapter 1, Introduction, Pages 21-22)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->For thinking minds to blossom, for arts and sciences to flourish, the first condition necessary is a settled society providing security and leisure. A rich culture is impossible with a community of nomads, where people struggle for life and die of privation. Fate called India to a spot where nature was free with her gifts and every prospect was pleasing. The Himalayas, with their immense range and elevation on one side and the sea on the others, helped to keep India free from invasion for a long time. Bounteous nature yielded abundant food, and man was relieved of the toil and struggle for existence. <b>The Indian never felt that the world was a field of battle where men struggled for power, wealth and domination. When we do not need to waste our energies on problems of life on earth, exploiting nature and controlling the forces of the world, we begin to think of the higher life, how to live more perfectly in the spirit.</b> Perhaps an enervating climate inclined the Indian to rest and retirement. The huge forests with their wide leafy avenues afforded great opportunities for the devout soul to wander peacefully through them, dream strange dreams and burst forth into joyous songs. World wary men go out on pilgrimages to these scenes of nature, acquire inward peace, listening to the rush of winds and torrents, the music of birds and leaves, and return whole of heart and fresh in spirit. It was in the asramas and tapovanas or forest hemitages that the thinking men of India meditated on the deeper problems of existence. The security of life, the wealth of natural resources, the freedom from worry, the detachment from the cares of existence, and the absence of a tyrannous practical interest, stimulated the higher life of India, with the result that we find from the beginnings of history an impatience of spirit, a love of wisdom and a passion for the saner pursuits of the mind.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-sengotuvel+Apr 27 2007, 07:53 AM-->QUOTE(sengotuvel @ Apr 27 2007, 07:53 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->I have already posted a passage where the author says how Smartha Brahmins and Iyengars are shunned by this group of Madhwa Brahmins as impure.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can't find this, where was it ?
and shiv how do the Madhwa Brahmins view the Kerala Nambudiris ?
|
