04-15-2007, 09:51 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Husky+Apr 15 2007, 06:50 PM-->QUOTE(Husky @ Apr 15 2007, 06:50 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"comparative theology" catholicism vs Hinduism<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->There is no theology in Hinduism. The minute people start talking about some 'Hindu theology' or 'Hindu doctrines' or whatever, is the minute they stop talking about Hindu Dharma and start talking about christoislamic views on Hinduism.
When Hindus start using the same terms, they're already entering into the christian paradigm. Sigh. When one can't use ones own terms to discuss something (or, though even this is insufficient, <i>utterly redefine</i> another language's terms to do the same) but is forced to use another language/framework's terms, is when you're at a severe disadvantage. A disadvantage there's no recovering from.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I see no problem in using the word "Hindu theology vs whatever theology" as long as you are on the offensive ("you farted") right from the beginning and are in slash and burn mode - tearing down all that you are against.
The "vs" bit is only a title and has nothing to do with content. Pointedly it is NOT debate and I personally will not waste any time in worrying about the semantics of theology. If some better word comes up - fine - but till then I will interest myself only in the content of what needs to be said rather than the rightness or not of the title.
The point I am getting at is that it is wrong to allow the other to get on the offensive by making you explain yourself and explain what "dharma" is so he can play dumb or ridicule as he likes. You go on the offensive right off by saying why what he stands for is all balls. For that you need to know his theology more than you need to worry about whether Hinduism has theology or not. To an extent - worrying about the title when the job in hand is to take something down by wherever means, fair or foul is a mistake. Like Arjuna worrying on the battle field.
I had spoken about "conflicting narratives" for a reason.
There are two goals here
a) Bringing forward the positive Hindu narrative that has been suppressed
b) Equally exposing the negative Christian and Islamic narrative that has been suppressed.
This has nothing to do with opposing nice people.I love all nice people who are my brothers and sisters no matter what their religious, sexual or dietary persuasion might be.
This has everything to do with the fact that
a) The "visible" Hindu narrative is all negative and is available to people to beat Hindus with if there is a whiff of a Hinduism mentioned. That visibly negative narrative is always contarsted with the "egalitarianism" of Islam - and the "love" of Christianity.
b) For Hindus in India the the Hindu narrative automatically exposes the manner in which both Christianity and Islam have been pushed into India.
These represent the conflicting narratives.
Islam came in with murder, looting and wanton destruction
Christianity has used more subtle methods of coercion and blackmail - except in Goa where it has been Islamlike murder, looting and destruction
Why is it difficult for Muslims and Christians to face that if Hindus can face their own history?
May I point out with respect that there is no point in talking of "dharma' if Hindus feel embarrassed to speak facts. On the other hand, if a Hindu does feel embarrassed in speaking these facts - then he should not be treated with contempt. Contempt only attempts to show that "I" (who do not feel embarrassed) am superior to "you" (who is feeling embarrassed to speak the truth and may be a dhimmi). Contempt at dhimmi Hindu is laughable - like a slave ridiculing at another. We are in the same boat and should not be against each other. The dhimmi has to be converted. And he can be converted only if you show confidence and affectionate conviction. Not uncertainty and contempt. It is easy to suppress contempt, but uncertainty can be removed only with knowledge of your own narrative.
Equally important is not to attempt to show anger or triumphalism at Muslims or Christians because that often puts off Hindus who are a sensitive people - who look for visible justice. You may score a "victory" over Islamic or Christian narrative -but if you laugh or mock - you are offending the sensitive Hindu who believes that such behavior is not mandated by proper Hindus. A vulgar display of anything - be it anger or triumphalism will often push Hindus to take the other's side because Hindus are brought up to see everything as a balance of good and bad, darkness and light, sorrow and happiness. If you create sorrow for the Christian and create joy for yourself, you will not win allies among Hindus as you will be seen as doing an injustice NOW, You will not be seen as righting a historic wrong. Until you have worked on the Hindu so that he understands that it is not your intention to "wrong" a Christian or a Muslim, but only to set right a historic misconception about the badness of Hindus and the goodness of other faiths. This is a game that needs more finesse than I have seen displayed by many well meaning and concerned Hindus.
When Hindus start using the same terms, they're already entering into the christian paradigm. Sigh. When one can't use ones own terms to discuss something (or, though even this is insufficient, <i>utterly redefine</i> another language's terms to do the same) but is forced to use another language/framework's terms, is when you're at a severe disadvantage. A disadvantage there's no recovering from.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I see no problem in using the word "Hindu theology vs whatever theology" as long as you are on the offensive ("you farted") right from the beginning and are in slash and burn mode - tearing down all that you are against.
The "vs" bit is only a title and has nothing to do with content. Pointedly it is NOT debate and I personally will not waste any time in worrying about the semantics of theology. If some better word comes up - fine - but till then I will interest myself only in the content of what needs to be said rather than the rightness or not of the title.
The point I am getting at is that it is wrong to allow the other to get on the offensive by making you explain yourself and explain what "dharma" is so he can play dumb or ridicule as he likes. You go on the offensive right off by saying why what he stands for is all balls. For that you need to know his theology more than you need to worry about whether Hinduism has theology or not. To an extent - worrying about the title when the job in hand is to take something down by wherever means, fair or foul is a mistake. Like Arjuna worrying on the battle field.
I had spoken about "conflicting narratives" for a reason.
There are two goals here
a) Bringing forward the positive Hindu narrative that has been suppressed
b) Equally exposing the negative Christian and Islamic narrative that has been suppressed.
This has nothing to do with opposing nice people.I love all nice people who are my brothers and sisters no matter what their religious, sexual or dietary persuasion might be.
This has everything to do with the fact that
a) The "visible" Hindu narrative is all negative and is available to people to beat Hindus with if there is a whiff of a Hinduism mentioned. That visibly negative narrative is always contarsted with the "egalitarianism" of Islam - and the "love" of Christianity.
b) For Hindus in India the the Hindu narrative automatically exposes the manner in which both Christianity and Islam have been pushed into India.
These represent the conflicting narratives.
Islam came in with murder, looting and wanton destruction
Christianity has used more subtle methods of coercion and blackmail - except in Goa where it has been Islamlike murder, looting and destruction
Why is it difficult for Muslims and Christians to face that if Hindus can face their own history?
May I point out with respect that there is no point in talking of "dharma' if Hindus feel embarrassed to speak facts. On the other hand, if a Hindu does feel embarrassed in speaking these facts - then he should not be treated with contempt. Contempt only attempts to show that "I" (who do not feel embarrassed) am superior to "you" (who is feeling embarrassed to speak the truth and may be a dhimmi). Contempt at dhimmi Hindu is laughable - like a slave ridiculing at another. We are in the same boat and should not be against each other. The dhimmi has to be converted. And he can be converted only if you show confidence and affectionate conviction. Not uncertainty and contempt. It is easy to suppress contempt, but uncertainty can be removed only with knowledge of your own narrative.
Equally important is not to attempt to show anger or triumphalism at Muslims or Christians because that often puts off Hindus who are a sensitive people - who look for visible justice. You may score a "victory" over Islamic or Christian narrative -but if you laugh or mock - you are offending the sensitive Hindu who believes that such behavior is not mandated by proper Hindus. A vulgar display of anything - be it anger or triumphalism will often push Hindus to take the other's side because Hindus are brought up to see everything as a balance of good and bad, darkness and light, sorrow and happiness. If you create sorrow for the Christian and create joy for yourself, you will not win allies among Hindus as you will be seen as doing an injustice NOW, You will not be seen as righting a historic wrong. Until you have worked on the Hindu so that he understands that it is not your intention to "wrong" a Christian or a Muslim, but only to set right a historic misconception about the badness of Hindus and the goodness of other faiths. This is a game that needs more finesse than I have seen displayed by many well meaning and concerned Hindus.