If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed or email alerts. Thanks for visiting!
Everyone is born a Hindu, they are simply baptized into other religions.
Scandalous, eh? But that was exactly Dr. Rao, guest lecturer for SPIC-MACAY – a cultural organization at TAMU underlined in his talk on what it means to be an Indian. It was an interesting talk and refreshed several key points on Indian culture that I had not heard before. It can be pretty refreshing to hear someone talk about spirituality without once mentioning God. I had cited S G Vombatkere’s column for The Speaking Tree in my first week of blogging. The name Hindu is pretty much a bastardized version derived from the Indus river which was subsequently mispronounced by invading tribes from Persia and Greece. If understood correctly and seen beyond the clutter of the so-called 36 crore gods, Hinduism makes for interesting conversation and best of all, there is no wrong answer.
I used to feel that Hindus do not take the effort to emphasize their religion enough but I realized therein lies its strength and cohesiveness. It almost makes an economic argument by claiming that an individual is only in pursuit of three universal truths – survival, knowledge, and happiness – all in limitless measure. They make up the sat, chit, ananda the core of Hindu philosophy. Everyone desires these three qualities but the majority fails due to inherent human weakness. The being that manages to conquer these wishes is considered a divine spirit. Essentially the ‘god’ that we all look for is within us. The truth that we look for isn’t further from our own selves. I am no one to pass judgment on other beliefs but this brand of philosophy I can live with.
A Hindu fundamentalist is an oxymoron, says Dr.Rao. One ceases to be a Hindu if that person seeks to impose beliefs on others or castigates others for not adhering to so-called tenets. You are as Hindu as you like to be. There were plenty of other gems that I would like to cite but I am no authority on spiritual matters. I just wanted to share what I found enlightening. If this offends your brand of religion, feel free to leave, but if you wish to share your thoughts, head over to the comments section.
by Patrix | on Monday, September 12th, 2005 at 12:00 am | 
India, Religion . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
September 12th, 2005 at 2:00 am reply
this is very much the RSS line. it says that there are Hindu christians, and hindu muslims et al in india.
my own pov is that there is no such thing as a hindu - it is a catch old phrase that includes everything from an athiest to an animist to everything in between. it is a foreign and monotheistic way of seeing a polytheistic culture (which also had monotheistic components).
Which is my objection to the fundamentalists - -the guys who knocked down the babri masjid weren hindu fundamentalists -whatever its apologists may say. The guys who break cardshop windows on valentines day claiming that it is unHindu are fundamentalists. Problem is that What are the ‘fundamentals that they are representing? These are the same people who claim that Sati temples in Rajasthan are ok.
What is broadly this faith we all claim to be part of - is the admission that there is no one way. Everything goes. The choice is yours. By that standard we may just as well claim that christianity is hinduism or islam is hinduism. or atheism is Hinduism. Because there is no such thing as Hinduism). They all fit in as per the broad guidelines. And, those broad guidelines are very broad !
But, you talk to a Nun - and i have lots of friends who are nuns - and they tell me how similar Catholicism and Advaita are. or talk to devout Muslims they tell you that Shiaite philosphy is similar to the Shivaite philosophy. And that what Islam really says is that “there is no god but god” and you call god whatever name you want to.
The question here is whether Dr.Rao is a spiritualist who really means this from a spiritual perspective or is he someone from the RSS who says that the Hindu culture is dominant and therefore everyone is born Hindu and baptised as something else.
September 12th, 2005 at 4:19 am reply
That sounds quite interesting! I have wondered the same about why hindus never have so much ‘propaganda’ abt their religion unlike all others..even Sikhs don’t for that matter..but then théy were supposedly derived from hinduism.
What’s that about your ‘hindu’ birthday BTW? I never knew of any such concept :p
September 12th, 2005 at 9:05 am reply
Patrix … brilliant - Thanks :)
On the topic of legendary hindu tolerance, I had always thought / assumed that we welcomed foreigners / people from other religions into our temples. But recently someone told me that in many temples this is not allowed. Any idea?
September 12th, 2005 at 9:35 am reply
I’ve emailed this link to bal.thackeray@shivsena.org
September 12th, 2005 at 11:48 am reply
Harini, I do not necessarily disagree with RSS’s line of Hinduism especially since the Supreme Court also agree with their reasoning in their judgment on Dec.11, 1995. We have to understand that almost all religions are peaceful by nature and it depend on how much the fundamentalists have control over the ‘religion’s PR’. Dr.Rao’s lecture was basically on India’s ancient history in which Hinduism undoubtedly had a significant impact. If you look closely, being a Hindu doesn’t impose strict rules or restrictions on you nor can you convert into Hinduism. Imposing dominance of one particular religion, as you are making this out to be is also opposed by me. But I think the question is more spiritual than political.
Twilight, I have always admired tolerance and restraint from overtly propogating your religion. Hinduism is thankfully one of them.
‘Hindu’ birthday is simply my birthday according to the Hindu calendar. Tiththi birthday would be more correct. Mine falls on Hrishi Panchami incidentally the day after Ganesh Chaturthi.
Prerona, I have heard of certain orthodox temples that do not allow non-hindus. I refuse to enter such temples because I feel that you should be free to worship God in whatever form you see fit no matter what religion you belong to.
Gawker, Ha! you expect him to publish that in Saama…he might just issue a fatwa against me fo defiling Marathi Maanoos opinion on Hinduism.
September 13th, 2005 at 1:48 pm reply
Skewed Perceptions of Hindu Revivalism
The whole idea of the Hindu right is a ploy to discredit the Hindu movement as backward and prevent people from really examining it. Sandeep has an excellent essay on Hindu revivalism and its general perception in the Indian …
September 13th, 2005 at 4:32 pm reply
Hello Patrix,
Just some random thoughts triggered on a lazy afternoon after reading your post.
1) Saying that a hindu fundamentalist is an oxymoron is a little bit like saying that since Islam means peace, there are no muslim terrorists. Since there is no “one book” that all (or even a large number) hindus can begin thumping in unison, there is little of the organized fundamentalist movements that one sees in Islam or Christianity or Judaism. Having said that, hindus can and do have extreme opinions just like other people and there are extremist movements too. (e.g. Praveen Togadia, Ashok Singhal: While I can understand where they are coming from, its difficult to find any constructive agenda in their line of thinking).
2) Hindus claim that theirs is a way of life, not a set of beliefs or rules codified in a book. This cuts both ways, as at what part do social practices and cultural baggages stop being just that and start becoming a part of Hinduism ? Clearly, if Hinduism is a way of life, anything that happens in an ordinary hindus life is a way of practising his/her religion. In that case, Hindu organizations like RSS and VHP have a lot of ground to cover in reforming our religion.
3) Hindus say that all religions are different ways of discovering the same truth, but this statement should not be used to gloss over real differences. I find a believing and practising Muslim’s or Christian’s (someone who considers themselves to be following at least some of the rules/faiths/cultural practises/.. that define these religions) way of reacting to his/her condition in life and society, the way larger questions about interaction with other communities, nature of truth, .. very different from a Hindus, and the sooner hindus realize it the better.
September 13th, 2005 at 4:52 pm reply
>> my own pov is that there is no such thing as a hindu - it is a catch old phrase that includes everything from an athiest to an animist to everything in between. it is a foreign and monotheistic way of seeing a polytheistic culture (which also had monotheistic components).
What a load of crock !! This catch all phrase describes the self identified beliefs, faith and a larger world view of hundreds of millions of people, and also captures certain common beliefs held across communities native to India.
To deny the existance of this larger community is merely a secularist and communist ploy to deny these people their right to collective and communal (in my dictionary that means community based) identity and action.
>> But, you talk to a Nun - and i have lots of friends who are nuns - and they tell me how similar Catholicism and Advaita are. or talk to devout Muslims they tell you that Shiaite philosphy is similar to the Shivaite philosophy. And that what Islam really says is that “there is no god but god” and you call god whatever name you want to.
Thats when the pope himself declares Yoga to be (paraphrased) merely pleasing physical sensations that dont translate to spiritual well being.
September 13th, 2005 at 10:24 pm reply
Sudeep, if we leave aside political extrapolations that some people have used to further their interests aside, then we don’t seem to have much problem with Hinduism. Praveen Togadia, Ashok Singhal are hardly ‘religious’ authorities for Hindus and are largely considered crackpots by most Hindus. Their ‘fatwas’ would be roundly ignored. Other Hindutva proponents like Bal Thackeray have limited hold over people and even that has been waning over the years. Hinduism is indeed a way of life. No one can deny me the right to be a Hindu even if I choose not to visit any temple. There aren’t fixed laws that any devout Hindu is expected to follow. Hindus are largely tolerant and has mostly withstood invasions without having the need to protect itself. I will not compare religions because frankly I see no larger purpose to it.
September 14th, 2005 at 1:13 am reply
>> Praveen Togadia, Ashok Singhal are hardly ‘religious’ authorities for Hindus and are largely considered crackpots by most Hindus.
Which is exactly what I wanted to say. While they are not fundametalists in the sense that they dont refer to some fundamentals contained in a book, they are certainly crackpots and can cause as much damage to life and property as fundamentalists of other religions.
>> Hinduism is indeed a way of life.
In other words, the things that a hindu does in his/her life are delineated at least to a certain extent by hinduism. Then do the unsavory aspects of modern Indian realities such as discrimination against the girl child become a part of hinduism ?
>> Hindus are largely tolerant and has mostly withstood invasions without having the need to protect itself. I will not compare religions because frankly I see no larger purpose to it.
I am tempted to point out the extent of cultural and political influence hinduism had on large parts of Asia and compare it with the powerless state that we are reduced to today - but Ill pass. If you dont want to compare religions, suit yourself. But then, how do you arrive at a statement like “All religions lead to the same truth” without doing at least a minimal comparitive analysis first ?