04-27-2007, 07:53 AM
<!--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.
<!--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.