Anti Brahminism

[Guest]

Will Brahminism Become Extinct?

By: Saroja Hanasoge

Those who consider themselves “modern” may view Brahminism as a tradition of intellectualism. Whereas, the fact that it is considered a privilege conferred by birthright amongst the more tradition-bound set has not eased its entry into the 21st century. The future of Brahmin culture rests on resolving this rather fundamental dichotomy: Is Brahminism a set of practices to free the mind or is it a collection of rituals and beliefs for the preservation of the karmic earnings of those who follow them?



Many who came to the United States before the 1980s have generally found it convenient to categorize opinions about Indian culture as those held by the younger generation or those held by the elder generation. This type of sorting obscures the complexity and spectrum of opinions actually held by various members of the so-called second generation (i.e. younger) Indians. Homogeneity has never been a characteristic of the Indian mindset – regardless of the generation and geographical location. Thus, when older Indian immigrants try to preserve what they believe to be their dying culture by lamenting about its potential extinction, what they may in fact be bemoaning is the dynamic and malleable nature of Indian thought.



Some may agree that the defining feature of Brahminical thought is recognition of the importance of the mind. Freedom, a Brahmin might suggest, comes from having control of one’s mind. The optimal way to achieve this is by leading a disciplined and methodical life, he may add. Yet there is no consensus on the best method to pursue and the philosophical framework to select. At the two ends of the spectrum are Advaita and Dvaita philosophy. Advaita literally means non-duality and it expounds on the illusory distinction between object and subject. According to Advaita, there is no separation between the one who perceives God and God itself. On the other hand, adherents of Dvaita suggest that one’s ultimate aim is union with a separate God; the object and the subject are distinct. While there are additional philosophies, for the purposes of this discussion, it is sufficient to consider Advaita and Dvaita thought.



Based on these philosophical paths, it can be seen that the ancient thinkers did not have unity in their attitudes. Advaita and Dvaita are quite dissimilar. The question then arises: What exactly is Brahminism? The answer may be that there is no one correct answer. At best, one may say that the term refers to a collection of diverse sets of ideas regarding the nature of reality and perception. It would appear then that the term “Brahminism” is in fact a misnomer. The use of the term “Brahminism” suggests a uniformity of practice and thought that is not there.



Currently it appears that some believe that Brahminism is defined by specific dietary, social, and marital practices. It is easy to see then why those who subscribe to this point of view feel that Brahminism is threatened. Diet, society, and marriage are all subject to the vagaries of time and place. Presumably, Brahman is independent of time and place. It is not clear then why many decide to practice Brahminism in this time bound manner. I shall define “context” here as time and place. Anything that is defined by context-specific practices will inevitably become extinct when the context changes.



A tradition-bound lifestyle cannot replace the labor and analysis required to think of Brahman. Regardless of whether one marries within the community, eats meat, or spends time only with other Brahmins, realization of Brahman may not come any closer. Understanding Brahman may require an open and active mind and a great deal of mental effort. Careful and exhaustive inquiry might be key features of this process. On the other hand, dogmatism and rigidity may be the hallmarks of non-adaptive traditional ways. Incisive thought may be compromised by strict adherence to a ritualistic lifestyle. The idea of maintaining so-called Brahminical values with a stereotyped way of life and the actual body of thought espoused by something like Advaita appear to contradict each other. It appears that Advaita philosophy encourages the use of one’s own mind to understand Brahman. It could be that a past that may never have existed is what is being revered by a strict adherence to tradition. It also seems that neither the past nor tradition is equivalent to Brahman.



The timelessness of the Upanishads and the Vedas is due to their recognition that the truth of existence lies beyond the drape of society. The vitality of Hindu philosophy comes from its reliance on and encouragement of discussion and debate. Active engagement with a set of ideas ensures its longevity. Reverence from afar for ideas that are viewed as immutable will certainly hasten their demise. The reed that bends with the wind is the one that remains upright after the storm. Many in fact have injured and repressed genuine curiosity about the Vedas and Upanishads. Some believe that expert intermediaries are the only ones fit to interpret Hindu texts such as the Upanishads for the rest of society. Notably, it is in the Upanishads that a comment is found on the equality of a Brahmin, and a dog, amongst others.



Though the term “Brahminism” has been used throughout this paper, its definition is still not clear as suggested previously. Therefore it is peculiar that the departure of Brahminism is fretted about by the self-described older generation. What is in danger of going away exactly? It appears that those who are content with their fixed way of life may be the ones most likely to worry about Brahminism.



That certain lifestyles are changing does not mean that people are no longer interested in the mind and its development or the nature of the universe. The vigor of Hindu thought comes from its plurality. Therefore, the complaint that marriage outside the so-called community dilutes Brahminism is not justified. In fact by bringing new people into the folds of this way of thought, Brahminism is strengthened rather than weakened. The more exposure and involvement there is with a set of ideas the more likely it is that those ideas will persist. Given this, it may be a wasted effort to worry about the extinction of Brahminism.