04-18-2007, 03:03 AM
I will take on the short ones, the big ones are for the big guys here. <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Sumann Bharadwaja Sarma+Apr 17 2007, 06:04 PM-->QUOTE(Sumann Bharadwaja Sarma @ Apr 17 2007, 06:04 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->
a) Who is (not) a secular Hindu? Isn't Hinduism inherently secular?
(For example, there are those who call themselves secular Jews and that confuses me a heck of a lot more than the notion of a secular Hindu). <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> The word secularism has to do with a divorce from the laws of the state from a laws of a religion. The concept was borne out of the unique experiences of christianity in Europe.
In Hinduism, at a certain level, you could say it has been the opposite. Kings always ruled under the laws of Dharma. The ways of the land were wedded to the ways of the people.
However, there is a key difference. While monotheistic faiths have a central authority with a single source, which is exclusive, authoritative, totalitarian and claimed to be complete and completed and the only version of the truth - these philosophies have always resulted in a conflict between the state and the religion.
In Hinduism, Dharma though not fungible is infinitely more flexible and does not suffer from any of the issues that monotheistic faiths suffer from.
The result is the reformation process in Europe has produced the term secularism to provide a divorce between public laws and private matters.
So, is Hinduism inherently secular. The answer to that is a firm no - There was never any need for it - as it does not suffer with any of the afflictions and nor does it share any of the experiences of the Europeans. The question is moot and does not apply to the Hindu frame. Dharma is what has guided our rulers of the past.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->d) Who's got their narrative down and wants to go first?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> WIP.
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteBegin-Sumann Bharadwaja Sarma+Apr 17 2007, 06:04 PM-->QUOTE(Sumann Bharadwaja Sarma @ Apr 17 2007, 06:04 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->
a) Who is (not) a secular Hindu? Isn't Hinduism inherently secular?
(For example, there are those who call themselves secular Jews and that confuses me a heck of a lot more than the notion of a secular Hindu). <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> The word secularism has to do with a divorce from the laws of the state from a laws of a religion. The concept was borne out of the unique experiences of christianity in Europe.
In Hinduism, at a certain level, you could say it has been the opposite. Kings always ruled under the laws of Dharma. The ways of the land were wedded to the ways of the people.
However, there is a key difference. While monotheistic faiths have a central authority with a single source, which is exclusive, authoritative, totalitarian and claimed to be complete and completed and the only version of the truth - these philosophies have always resulted in a conflict between the state and the religion.
In Hinduism, Dharma though not fungible is infinitely more flexible and does not suffer from any of the issues that monotheistic faiths suffer from.
The result is the reformation process in Europe has produced the term secularism to provide a divorce between public laws and private matters.
So, is Hinduism inherently secular. The answer to that is a firm no - There was never any need for it - as it does not suffer with any of the afflictions and nor does it share any of the experiences of the Europeans. The question is moot and does not apply to the Hindu frame. Dharma is what has guided our rulers of the past.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->d) Who's got their narrative down and wants to go first?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> WIP.