04-13-2007, 10:22 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Abhijit+Apr 13 2007, 05:42 PM-->QUOTE(Abhijit @ Apr 13 2007, 05:42 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->I have a simpler, geopolitical definition of Hindu. It doesn't serve the purpose of this thread fully because of the narrative aspect.
A Hindu is somebody that has an ancestry in India and someone whom a jihadi would have no compunction killing or converting or EJ would have no compunction proselytizing. This makes all indic religions Hindu - whether they currently feel part of it or not (undoubtedly they were Hindus in some distant past).
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hi Abhijit, yes we don't really see eye to eye here. In the sense that, yes surely the vast majority of indic people now part of some other organized religion were Hindus before they were coopted, coerced, or changed through other means. Being inclusive in the way you suggest is rather generous indeed and is a historical fact. What I cannot see is how it would have any meaning if this isn't what they propound too.
There is a sort of dynamic that forms here. The descendants of converts have a cultural connection to India, but not a religious connection to Hinduism. They don't really know how to deal with this contradiction and many choose to simply delete their Hindu past and just start a new book. Now things get complicated. They need to assert this identity and maybe this becomes a rallying point for all sorts of divisions. Of course, prompted all along by the evangelists and sucked into a worm-hole by the jihadists. May be they need rescuing maybe they don't.
To me, there is no need to appeal to their Hindu past. If we can produce a narrative and sing it joyously, protect from the loss of our inheritance by drawing a line here and now, ensure that religion is intellectually rigorous in keeping truth on its side, savvy enough to adapt with the times, and effective enough to bring its subscribers the benefits they seek, we would succeed in large measure. Maybe those that deny their history now will come back to the fold, maybe they won't. We would however be doing what it takes to sustain us.
I agree with you that perhaps that discussion on defining a Hindu is probably not for this thread. Perhaps a definition will naturally emerge from our narrative.
A Hindu is somebody that has an ancestry in India and someone whom a jihadi would have no compunction killing or converting or EJ would have no compunction proselytizing. This makes all indic religions Hindu - whether they currently feel part of it or not (undoubtedly they were Hindus in some distant past).
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hi Abhijit, yes we don't really see eye to eye here. In the sense that, yes surely the vast majority of indic people now part of some other organized religion were Hindus before they were coopted, coerced, or changed through other means. Being inclusive in the way you suggest is rather generous indeed and is a historical fact. What I cannot see is how it would have any meaning if this isn't what they propound too.
There is a sort of dynamic that forms here. The descendants of converts have a cultural connection to India, but not a religious connection to Hinduism. They don't really know how to deal with this contradiction and many choose to simply delete their Hindu past and just start a new book. Now things get complicated. They need to assert this identity and maybe this becomes a rallying point for all sorts of divisions. Of course, prompted all along by the evangelists and sucked into a worm-hole by the jihadists. May be they need rescuing maybe they don't.
To me, there is no need to appeal to their Hindu past. If we can produce a narrative and sing it joyously, protect from the loss of our inheritance by drawing a line here and now, ensure that religion is intellectually rigorous in keeping truth on its side, savvy enough to adapt with the times, and effective enough to bring its subscribers the benefits they seek, we would succeed in large measure. Maybe those that deny their history now will come back to the fold, maybe they won't. We would however be doing what it takes to sustain us.
I agree with you that perhaps that discussion on defining a Hindu is probably not for this thread. Perhaps a definition will naturally emerge from our narrative.