Posted online: Saturday, November 27, 2004 at 0000 hours IST
If you come across a Communist, with a Hindu name, and ask him about his identity, he will deny being a Hindu. Yet, a Muslim Communist often claims his identity without hesitation. One wonders what causes this difference in attitude.
It is interesting to probe into the psyche of identity, which often is a source of security, insecurity, conflict and comfort. Perhaps the following reasons would answer the identity crises of the Hindus. The broadmindedness of Hinduism, its inherent inclusiveness and secularism, makes Hindus feel guilty about claiming their identity, as it is embedded in their philosophy that it is wrong to exclude others. Claiming a religious identity makes them feel they are excluding others and so they shy away from doing so.
Hindus have been traditionally groomed by the Vedanta to drop all identities. This has deeply influenced the Hindu psyche. Hindu philosophy is woven around egolessness. Let alone their religion, some sadhus don’t even say their name; they would say, “What’s in a name?” Sanyasis are even shy to talk about their parentage. A renowned ascetic in Rishikesh would meet with everybody, but not his own mother and family. When asked, he would say, “I am Vedanti; once I have taken sanyasa, I have dropped all my identities.”
This is an erroneous understanding of Vedanta. Why do we fear the identity so much? Seeing identity as stumbling blocks for one’s growth is ignorance. Sanyasa is transcending identity; it is being in that centredness from where you have equal love and compassion for all. It is the unshakable light and richness that one has found in one’s Being which is universal. Transcending identity is different from denying identity. When religious leaders themselves denounce their identity, the community follows suit. This is akin to the thought that secularism is anti-religion.
Caste identity is in some places much stronger than religious identity. The normal tendency is to go for one single identity than for a dual one. So, between caste and religion, many Hindus seem to go for caste. Hindus feel ashamed of the ills of Hinduism — its superstition, untouchability, and practices like sati are usually highlighted in the media, rather than its unparalleled philosophy and scientific temperament. Thus, for several centuries Hindu bashing has been a fashion.
The media seems to have given the prerogative of Hindu identity to the RSS and VHP and secular-minded Hindus would not like to associate with these two organisations. As a result they shy away from their own identity.
Within India itself, we witness a great deal of ignorance about the Hindu religion and its scriptures. Although Hindus form 80 per cent population of India, there is still only one university which teaches Hinduism — whereas there are five which teach Islam, five which teach Christianity, two which teach Sikhism and one that teaches Jainism. You would find every Muslim would know a couple of verses from the Quran; you can hardly find a Christian who has not read the Bible.
But Hindus who know Sanskrit or a few shlokas are rare. Most educated Hindus know the Bible; they know Christmas carols. When they know nothing about their religion, how can they take pride in it?
There are 1.25 billion Hindus in the world, a little over one-sixth of the world’s population, but you hardly find a single Hindu lobby at international forums. You will find a Christian lobby, a Muslim lobby or a Jewish lobby, but you can’t find a Hindu lobby. Just 12 million Jews in the world are such a powerful voice. Buddhists also have a voice and make their presence felt at world forums.
In countries of south and central America and in Europe, although they are secular democracies, they are not shy to proclaim their allegiance to Christianity. You will find the religious symbol of the Cross placed in their parliaments; chaplains offer prayer before every official dinner. While associations like YMCA (Young Men’s Christian Association) have gained wide acceptance. Why then is it that Hindu associations are viewed with scepticism?
A strong community is an asset to any nation. A weak community will always be in fear and because of insecurity will become aggressive. It is the pride in one’s identity which strengthens the community. Identity is in no way contradictory to universality.
People often ask, “Will not the concept of global family, Vasudhaiva Kutambakam, contradict patriotism? Similarly, will your religious identity not conflict with your universality?’’ The answer is “No”. Your duty as a family man is not a hindrance for your realisation that you are Brahman. You don’t need to run away to the forest to realise “All this is Brahman”. Your being spiritual in no way contradicts your being a socially responsible citizen. In fact, it enhances your ability to care and share.
The conflict in the world is because people are either stuck in their identity, and die for it, or shy away from their identity and lose their roots. One has to opt for a middle path. The ideal situation will be when every religion transcends its identity. Until that time, it is unwise for the Hindus to let go of their identity. We cannot, and should not, eliminate differences on this planet. We need to celebrate the differences. And this is the uniqueness of Bharat — from the atheism of Charvaka to Bhakthi Panth and Sufism, it’s one beautiful bouquet.
An identity is related to an action. Denial of identity will dump you in inaction, sloth and lethargy and hence Krishna reminds Arjuna of his Kshatriya identity even while giving “Brahma gyan” to remind him of his duties and responsibilities. Otherwise while giving this High knowledge of the Self, why would Krishna remind him again and again of his limited identity. The limited identity in no way contradicts the universal one. A policeman cannot perform his duties — steer the traffic — if he fails to acknowledge his identity. Similarly, if a businessman shies away from his identity, he cannot function. The same is the story of Hindu identity. India cannot make a distinct mark on the world if it ignores its religious and spiritual heritage.
8 comments:
I feel in the name of cultural nationalism, we are making India Non secular.
When a religious identity is given to a country, it becomes non secular.By taking a bad example of countries being theocrasies, you cannot justify your Non secularily.
You talk about Veda and Vedanta but why is that you become one sided in recognizing the contributions of world civilizations? Vedanta has come as a correction to a primitive not so profound Veda because of a mass appeal for Buddhism due to Brahmanic practices of Caste.Most Greecian philosophies predated Vedanta. Why are you adamant that Hindus should behave in a particular manner? Religions were the science of the past. But we need to move on and be secular in our thoughts with an honest quest.
Pseudo pride in hindu primitivism is something that needs to be shed.
In reply to your post here
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8095261766543007313&postID=4563786847763141196
You are making assumptions regarding what i think or read. Anyway,let me also.
If you have had a cursory glance of Vedas english translation, you find it is primitive writing. It majorly consists of hymns and rituals. It is only after 200BC and into AD that Vedanta suthra (Brahma Suthra was authored). These are the ones you quote to say that Veda talks about rationality and scientific methods.
Have you found anything profound in the Vedas? Do tell me about it.
This is the case with any olden scripture including parts of the Old testament of the Bible written before the advent of a primitive form of Philosophy of science and rationality during 5th century BC contributed by Charvakas,Buddha,Greecian Philosophers. It is the New Testament that has more rational teachings like Vedanta than Old testament or Veda to compare.But we indulge in a lot of primitivism.
About Vedanta arising out of a need for correction to prevailing thoughts like Chaarvaka and Buddhism which rebelled against the Brahmanic thoughts about caste only needs wikipedia. But we are somehow taught that anything in Vedanta is as old as Veda and thereby profound and and need to be considered unauthored and stuff like that. New Testament again is used to reinterpret things in Old Testament which was never the intention of its original author to give Bible a pseudo sanctity.
I posted this comment on Mr. Neo's blog prior to his second comment.
"Thanks for visiting my blog and commenting on the post.I always welcome constructive criticism.
Just to make things clear the post that you commented on is of Sri Sri Ravishankar ji. But I fully agree with him and hence, I posted his article on my blog.
Regarding your comment on the post I will request you to shed the Christian missionary influence that you are carrying and perhaps, start living in the reality. Freedom of expression gives you right to comment on anything and everything but being a literate person, freedom of expression is more of responsibility. You should read more books and check your resources and think clearly before commenting. It’s hard I know but knowledge doesn’t come easily.
Obviously you haven't read Ved-Upnishad because I am darn sure you have no idea about Sanskrit. Worst you haven't read anything about Vedanta even in English and yet you have audacity to comment about these profoundly enlightning thought processes. Something that baffles me beyond anything.
Oh yeh you have no idea about Buddhism either. You sprinkled your 'yapping' with word 'Caste' and it amply shows how much derivative your knowledge is. And the knowledge you are reflecting (rather than being original) is not only biased but outrightly wrong.
So my request to you is stop reading morons like John Dayal & Co.. Moreover, if you want to comment on Ved or Vedant my humble request to you is read the material first.
btw, do you even know who is Sri Sri Ravishankar ji?
And, when you say 'contribution of world civilization' do you mean to say Bible?
May 17, 2008 7:41 PM
"
This reply is for Mr. Neo's second post.
Thanks for the comment again! Your reply was quite confusing but I will try my best to explain few things.
I haven’t come across any English translation of Veda that is authoritive in nature. One, translation certainly looses original intent of the author or the content and second, in case of Veda, most of the westerners who did the translation were biased to begin with. Moreover, Veda are not supposed to be ‘understood’ merely by reading, lest reading a translations. They are supposed to be learnt under an able Guruji and the student has to follow strict code of conduct. I haven’t done any of that. So, commenting on Veda without iota of knowledge would not only be wrong but it would blasphemous. Then the question arises if I haven’t read Veda then how I know they are great scriptures. This is because I am fortunate enough read derivative philosophies. For example, Advait Siddhanta.
But I will strongly urge you to meet with learned souls who have devoted their life towards the studies of Sri Veda. You can find them in say, Vivekanandra Kendra or Ramkrishna Mission. Trust me, it’s not just rituals, it’s way beyond that. They are holiest book of oldest surviving religion on the mother earth. There has to be some reason for them to hold such a venerated position after so many millenniums. I wouldn’t dare to compare them with Old Testament or New Testament. The goal of Vedic scriptures is different than Abrahmic scriptures.
Charvak Samhita and Buddhist philosophy are Nastik school of thoughts of Sanatan Dharma i.e. Hinduism. Buddha never said anything against Ved or Upnishad. In fact, if you read closely then Gautam Buddha and Buddhists scriptures draw heavily from Upnishdic philosophy. Sometimes, its straight cut-copy & paste stuff. Due to misinterpretation, Bharatiya Samaaj grew way more concerned about rituals and hence, Buddhism initially drew so many followers and rightly so. But we have to remember that Adi Shankaracharya surpassed Buddhist philosophy merely by debating with them and showing them the real knowledge of Ved-Upnishad through Advait Siddhanta.
Charvak Samhita was nothing but abrasion of Sanatan Sanstha. It was materialistic in nature. The basic tenet was - This is our only life and we should do everything possible to enjoy and satiate our senses. WE should eat as much as possible; have sex and pretty much do nothing. Not only that Charvak Samhita could never grow roots in the fertile philosophical land of Bharata but it died its natural death without much trace.
Vedanta came much later than you think. There are whole lineage of school of thoughts between Veda-Upanishad and Advait Vedanta. But all of them (including Vedanta and Upanishad) maintain ultimate authority of Veda
None of these philosophies have anything to do with Caste system. The system that was in India is known as Varna-Aashram. And Varna-Sanstha has more to do with the profession rather than birth. The word Caste is a Spanish word and it’s merely means Class system. Such class system existed in every society on the mother earth. I will request you to read about Class system of Victorian British society. Having said that, I am in no way denying the ills of caste system that is prevailing in India. But to use the stick of ‘caste system’ to beat everything that is related to Hinduism is an old Christian missionary trick. The goal of these pathetic people was mere to ‘harvest’ souls towards Jesus Christ. Sadly, in their zeal to increase number of people in their denomination, these people lost the soul of Jesus the carpenter – who truly was a great soul. But that’s a different discussion.
I will request you to read Dr. S. Radhakrishnan’s literature on Sanatan Dharma.
The teaching that 'Veda should only be learned from a guruji' is a nice way to protect it from critical review.I would like to know how you came to believe in the sanctity of that statement. Many religions have done this before but gradually yielded to branding pressures.
Any translation would have its share of biases but we live with it unless a large scale distortion is evident. This holds good also for the treatises on Veda.The reason why none of the treatises converge on one nterpretation.More than interpretation of Veda,they seem to be their own ideas.They merely sought sanctity of their ideas by bringing in Veda to make it appeal to masses.They do this knowingly or unknowingly even to this day-trying to prove that velocity of light is said in Bible, Quran and Veda.
If there are biases in the english translation of Veda, why not point them out and correct them through a review process.Instead we like to hear from gurujis who talk as they please using Sanskrit words to create a sense of authority and divine ambience.We have not come to regard scientific methods when it comes to religion.
There are so many varied and inconsitent teachings by the avatars of Vishnu (including Buddha , Gandhi and probably Sri Sri Ravi shankar) that it is obvious that it is a growing knowledge than an absolute divine revelation in the past.
I would like to hear something in Upanishads that baffles you because of its profoundness. We do not like to pronouce what is profound not because it loses its profoundness but it was not profound to start with but a statement to reflect one's intellect.
Dude,
I knew you have no knowledge of Hinduism at all but looking at your reply it makes me ponder whether answering your question is waste of my time. See, if you are genuinely interested in knowing about Hinduism then I will try my best to shed some light. But that’s not the case. Apparently you know everything already and you are here not to discuss anything but to make profoundly idiotic statements about the stuff you have absolutely no idea about. My apologies if I sound little rude but I can’t help it man!
There are no inconsistencies in Vishnu’s avatar. Buddha ain’t avatar of Vishnu nor is Gandhi ji and I think you are joking when you mentioned Sri Sri Ravi Shankar as Vishnu’s avatar.
Ved-Upanishad is in Sanskrit and talking about them would naturally include lots and lots and lots and lots of Sanskrit words. If you don’t understand Sanskrit then that’s your problem.
As I said earlier, Hinduism wasn’t ‘started’ by any prophet and it’s ever growing and ever expanding philosophy.
I wouldn’t comment on English translation anymore because you haven’t read either of English translation or original versions.
Please read my prior reply regarding how I know Ved-Upnishads are deep philosophies.
Please read Dr. S. Radhakrishnan’s books on Indian philosophies.
That’s it from mano, adios! I am not running away from the debate but it’s just I can’t debate with someone who thinks that Hindus believe that Gandhi ji or Sri Sri Ravishankar were Vishnu’s avatar. I wish you could stop read missionary written material.
I guess your frustration is due to the fact that you are equipped to debate only with a person with Christian or other religious inclinations.Seems like you are not equipped to debate on a secular and scientific platform as you tend to invoke religious colors to secular English translations and Wikipedia.
Here is where it talks about Buddha being an avatar of Vishnu.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha_as_an_Avatar_of_Vishnu
Is wikipedia a Christian missionary literature?
The same link also talks about how Buddha's teaching denied the authority of Veda.Why was everybody then against the prevailing Vedic teachings?Why did the Charvaka deny the authority of Veda? Why did Ashoka promote Buddhism instead of the prevailing Vedic teachings that you claim were profound? There should have been something wrong with Vedic teachings.Caste(or Varna as you would like to call it) and the Brahmanic manipulative rituals?
My point was new knowledge leads to new avatars of a Vedic God called Vishnu. Nice way to connect new knowledge to Veda! And indulge in primitivism.
Upanishads might have Sanskrit.I was only asking YOUR views about the profoundness of Upanishad which you can aswell articulate in english. Or, are you claiming that there are some concepts which cannot be expressed in languages other than Sanskrit?
You say you depend on treatises which came later on to throw better light on Veda instead of corrections.Which treatise on Veda out of the numerous ones we have is your favourite or in other words authentic Vedic knowledge?
The one from Shankaracharya? or the one by Madhwacharya? or ?
Do their teachings point to inconsistency of Veda?
I guess you agree that Hinduism is a growing Philosophy which has taken a lot from many reformers, I am glad that you dont subscribe to what many claim as Veda being unauthored and being the absolute truth!
Today aswell there we are changing due to many thoughts from across the world. You feel ashamed saying we are aping the West in its petty things. But you dont feel ashamed when India tries to ape the west in its nonsecular nature by forming a pseudo secular state.
Atleast let it be unique to India that we are secular. Our constitution has only allowed religions. We dont promote them as it is a nonsecular idea.
We dont yet have such a thing as linking Christian values or Pastoral background checks in the campaign for US presidentship.
Or a need to be an anglican to become the Prime Minister of UK.
the most profound thought of going inward to know what one is....to know to feel to realize to prove with the athourity of direct internal experience...to use the mind ,intellect and intuition to go beyond all the three..to thus attain the deepest states of meditaion and declare from that highest pinnacle of the state of samathi..the most scientific revelation..this is the greatness of the age old indian thought.the modern classical physics is approaching towards the truth inch by inch...this truth told diffently by different seekers is one and the same..it is same that the budha told..it is SAME...though modern scholars understand it differently..
Post a Comment