eCharcha.Com   Support eCharcha.Com. Click on sponsor ad to shop online!

Advertise Here

Go Back   eCharcha.Com > Spiritual > Religion

Notices

Religion All religion related discussions...

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 7th, 2009, 04:26 PM
echarcha's Avatar
echarcha echarcha is offline
Sutradhar {admin}
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: CA, USA
Posts: 45,082
echarcha has a reputation beyond reputeecharcha has a reputation beyond reputeecharcha has a reputation beyond reputeecharcha has a reputation beyond reputeecharcha has a reputation beyond reputeecharcha has a reputation beyond reputeecharcha has a reputation beyond reputeecharcha has a reputation beyond reputeecharcha has a reputation beyond reputeecharcha has a reputation beyond reputeecharcha has a reputation beyond repute
Post Why did Hinduism never become an 'organised' religion like Christianity or Islam?

Why did Hinduism never become an 'organised' religion like Christianity or Islam?


Mumbai: When the Romans (after converting to Christianity) and the Muslims conquered a big piece of the world, they needed religion to do it. But Hinduism could remain diverse because Indian rulers felt no need to build an empire beyond the sub-continent, says one of the world's foremost scholars of Hinduism, Wendy Doniger, in her new book, The Hindus: An Alternative History. Seen in this light, the Hindutva project is a belated political enterprise aimed at homogenising the diversity of Hindu religious expressions and present a unitary front against Islam and Christianity, although that goes against the very essence of Hinduism, she tells DNA in an exclusive interview.


What prompted you to write The Hindus: An Alternative History? Did it originate as a series of class lectures?
In a way, all of my books originate as class lectures; I find myself teaching a subject I'm interested in, and discover that none of the available books on the subject tell the students what I want them to know.For The Hindus, that feeling was intensified by the growing realisation that the things that were being said about Hinduism on the internet, particularly but not only by the Hindutva faction, needed to be counteracted by a view of Hindu history documented by reliable sources.
In what way is this book an 'alternative history'?
It's alternative to the internet/Hindutva version of Hindu history, but also to the standard, Orientalist, British version (all about Brahmins and Sanskrit), and it's about alternative people -- women and people of the lower castes.
Never powered an empire
Your book makes the point that 'Hinduism' has never been as 'organised' or 'homogenous' as the Semitic religions, such as Islam or Christianity. Why do you think this 'homogenisation' didn't happen in the evolution of Hinduism?
I think Hinduism has developed in a world where there has always been intense, creative religious inquiry, which necessarily gives rise to a number of different myths and rituals. Hindus of any faction grew up in close interaction with Hindus of many other beliefs and practices. I think Hindus have also had from the time of the Rig Veda a conviction that there are always many answers to any question. And, finally, I think that those branches of Hinduism that do become rigid generally do so in the realm of praxis -- you must not eat this or marry this person -- rather than dogma -- you must not believe this.
But what is it about Islam and Christianity that is different from Hinduism, which contributed to their homogenisation at an earlier date? Did politics contribute to it? If so, why didn't political forces have the same effect on Hinduism?
The difference lies in their histories. The emperor Constantine converted to Christianity and the Romans then conquered a big piece of the world, and the Muslims also conquered a big piece of the world, but Indian rulers did not invade countries outside of the subcontinent. And while the forces that conquered the world used religion to do it, and made their religions into dogmas that could be governed from the imperialist center, with a centralised, standardised ideology, India in general, and Hinduism in particular, could afford to go on being diverse, since they didn't need a political/religious creed to power the machines of empire.
How do you read the Hindutva project? Is it a belated attempt to 'organise' the diversity of Hindu religious expressions into a unitary faith modelled on the Semitic religions?
I think the attempt to make Hinduism a unitary religion like the Semitic religions began first with the British, who wanted to have just one thing to control, and then was picked up by the Hindu nationalists of the 19th century, who wanted to present a united front to the Christian missionaries. The Hindutva project inherits both of these traditions, as well as the desire to present a unitary front against Islam as well as Christianity.
Many believe that the Hindutva project to revive a homogenous Hinduism is born of an "inferiority complex" among the semi-westernised, middle- and upper-middle class Hindu nationalists, in relation to their colonial rulers.
British missionaries persuaded some of the upper caste Hindus of the 19th century that (Christianity's) monotheism was superior to (Hinduism's) polytheism, which is a kind of inferiority complex, I guess.This led to a tendency (still in evidence today in Hindutva rhetoric) among Hindus to insist that Hinduism is, in fact, monotheistic.
Coversions and Hinduism
Conversions (forced or otherwise) is a big issue in India today. Speaking for myself, as a Hindu, the idea of anyone 'converting' to Hinduism makes no sense to me. Can you throw some light on the historical background of conversions vis--vis Hindusim?
Christian attempts to convert Hindus to Christianity, as well as much less prevalent earlier Musim attempts to convert Hindus to Islam, led to a counter-movement of this sort in Hinduism. But most Hindus, the Hindus of the Vedic, Puranic, and village traditions, have never cared to convert anyone; you were born a Hindu or you weren't, and that was that. I agree with you that for most Hindus, conversion makes no sense. Hinduism therefore, by and large, is not a proselytising religion as Buddhism, for instance, always was. However, some bhakti traditions and some Vedantic traditions became monotheistic and did try to convert people -- primarily other Hindus -- to their sort of Hinduism. But this is not at all the same thing as trying to convert Muslims or Christians to Hinduism (or back to Hinduism, as it is often claimed), as the contemporary Hindutva people do.
On Sita, you write, "she [Sita] is, like Shurpanaka, a highly sexual woman, a quality that may explain not only why Ravana desires her but also why he is able to carry her off." Are you suggesting that she collaborated in her own kidnapping?
No, no, certainly Sita did not collaborate in her own kidnapping! But there was a belief, often expressed in the Puranas and parts of the Mahabharata and Ramayana, that a virtuous woman had a kind of aura that protected her from being touched by any man other than her husband; this actually worked, in part, to keep Ravana from forcing Sita into his bed when she was captive in Sri Lanka (though the Ramayana also goes out of its way to offer another explanation: Ravana had raped an apsara whose husband cursed Ravana that his head would split apart if he ever took another woman against her will. This seems to imply that Sita would not have been protected merely by her moral armour, and the author had to offer another explanation for the otherwise surprising fact that Ravana never did assault her, as he might have done). Moreover, Sita's desire for the golden deer caused her to violate her husband's command to remain within the protected area he had established for her. So I am saying that Sita was not an ascetic, was not totally in control of her emotions, and that was why Ravana could fool her.
Are you aware that some Hindu academics in America have accused you of being a "Hinduphobe" and charged you with "out-of-context eroticising of Indian culture"?
I sure do know that people keep quoting that remark about the Gita that was made up by some reporter for the Philadelphia Inquirer years and years ago and that I never said.Oh, do please try to set that record straight! There is nothing that I have ever said or written to suggest that I fear Hinduism, which is what Hinduphobe would mean, nor that I hate it, as I have been accused of doing. In answer to the accusation that I have eroticised Hinduism, I should point out that only a few of my 30-odd books deal with sex or eroticism at all; all the others deal with karma, evil, dreams, history, the laws of Manu, and a host of other things. It is my critics who are sex-obsessed, who pounce upon those aspects of my work that do treat erotic topics and ignore all the rest.
Tantra: Orientalist's wet dream
You write that the Tantra tradition of Hinduism has undergone great distortions and become an "Orientalist's wet dream." Can you explain?
Well, one of the meanings of Orientalism is a view of the 'Orient' that is titillating and salacious, that assumes that 'Orientals' are all over-sexed, and so forth; views that I regard as stupid and politically driven, and that show a total lack of understanding of Hindu views of sexuality and eroticism. A wet dream is a sexual fantasy that excites the dreamer. So I think that the sort of Westerners who still hold Orientalist views of India find Tantra titillating in that way. I tried to show that the Tantric tradition in India is anything but titillating, that it has nothing at all to do with sexual excitement but is rather about sexual control and the creation of religious power.
Does New Age 'Tantric Sex' bear any relationship to what Tantra was supposed to be originally?
We don't know what Tantra was supposed to be 'originally', but we do know what is said by the earliest Tantric texts that we have, and those texts bear no relationship at all to the doctrines of New Age 'Tantric Sex.'


LINK



__________________
eCharcha.com
-Loud and Proud Desi Opinions
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old October 7th, 2009, 07:37 PM
ashdoc ashdoc is offline
senior echarchan
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,342
ashdoc has a reputation beyond reputeashdoc has a reputation beyond reputeashdoc has a reputation beyond reputeashdoc has a reputation beyond reputeashdoc has a reputation beyond reputeashdoc has a reputation beyond reputeashdoc has a reputation beyond reputeashdoc has a reputation beyond reputeashdoc has a reputation beyond reputeashdoc has a reputation beyond reputeashdoc has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Why did Hinduism never become an 'organised' religion like Christianity or Islam?

hinduism was liberal because it grew in the fertile climate of the indian subcontinent.

it was a land of plenty..........

rain was abundant , the soil was fertile and the population was large .

the people were by and large satisfied with their material condition.

that is why hindus were the original liberals.

they never felt a need to forcibly enforce their ideas on anybody else.

the great historian Vincent smith has said , '' If there was anything remarkable about the early hindus , it was their humanity !!!!! .

It was a humanity not to be found among the other cultures of the world . "
hindus were always of the view - let a thousand flowers bloom, let a thousand schools of thought contend .

out of a land of plenty and a satiated population ,grew a culture of tolerance.

no great campaigns of external conquest were planned ,and hindus never wished death upon a foreign people.

instead out of hinduism grew the two great pacific religions , buddhism and jainism, and two prophets of non-violence mahavir and buddha.

many hindus became vegetarians, and refused to kill even animals or eat them., a concept found in few regions of the world.

for such a people to enforce their religion on others ,especially by brute force ,was impossible........

the modern concept of hindutva grew because hinduism found its very existence threatened by islam .

on the other hand islam and christianity grew in the rigid ,unforgiving atmosphere of the middle eastern desert ,and knew no concept of liberalism .......except that of forcing their religion on other people.

but these '' politically correct '' historians are not going to admit that ,isnt it.

they have found that the liberalism of hinduism extends to accepting even an attack on it .......

and hindus are tolerant enough to accept even people who routinely are only critical of them in their midst.......

that is why such hinduphobes shall abound..........
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old October 7th, 2009, 07:49 PM
mammu mammu is offline
Junior eCharchan
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Pune
Posts: 145
mammu has much to be proud ofmammu has much to be proud ofmammu has much to be proud ofmammu has much to be proud ofmammu has much to be proud ofmammu has much to be proud ofmammu has much to be proud ofmammu has much to be proud ofmammu has much to be proud of
Re: Why did Hinduism never become an 'organised' religion like Christianity or Islam?

bahut badiya article.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old October 7th, 2009, 08:12 PM
tantric_yogi's Avatar
tantric_yogi tantric_yogi is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Jumrritalaiya!
Posts: 14,074
tantric_yogi has a reputation beyond reputetantric_yogi has a reputation beyond reputetantric_yogi has a reputation beyond reputetantric_yogi has a reputation beyond reputetantric_yogi has a reputation beyond reputetantric_yogi has a reputation beyond reputetantric_yogi has a reputation beyond reputetantric_yogi has a reputation beyond reputetantric_yogi has a reputation beyond reputetantric_yogi has a reputation beyond reputetantric_yogi has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Why did Hinduism never become an 'organised' religion like Christianity or Islam?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ashdoc View Post
hinduism was liberal because it grew in the fertile climate of the indian subcontinent.

it was a land of plenty..........

rain was abundant , the soil was fertile and the population was large .

the people were by and large satisfied with their material condition.

that is why hindus were the original liberals.

they never felt a need to forcibly enforce their ideas on anybody else.

the great historian Vincent smith has said , '' If there was anything remarkable about the early hindus , it was their humanity !!!!! .

It was a humanity not to be found among the other cultures of the world . "
hindus were always of the view - let a thousand flowers bloom, let a thousand schools of thought contend .

out of a land of plenty and a satiated population ,grew a culture of tolerance.

no great campaigns of external conquest were planned ,and hindus never wished death upon a foreign people.

instead out of hinduism grew the two great pacific religions , buddhism and jainism, and two prophets of non-violence mahavir and buddha.

many hindus became vegetarians, and refused to kill even animals or eat them., a concept found in few regions of the world.

for such a people to enforce their religion on others ,especially by brute force ,was impossible........

the modern concept of hindutva grew because hinduism found its very existence threatened by islam .

on the other hand islam and christianity grew in the rigid ,unforgiving atmosphere of the middle eastern desert ,and knew no concept of liberalism .......except that of forcing their religion on other people.

but these '' politically correct '' historians are not going to admit that ,isnt it.

they have found that the liberalism of hinduism extends to accepting even an attack on it .......

and hindus are tolerant enough to accept even people who routinely are only critical of them in their midst.......

that is why such hinduphobes shall abound..........

+ed you. You have good grasp over history ... ! ... for a medical professional!


Quote:
Originally Posted by ashdoc View Post
instead out of hinduism grew the two great pacific religions , buddhism and jainism, and two prophets of non-violence mahavir and buddha.
Whats so great about these two? Reason these two flourished and eventually ended up converting red-blooded in to waste-material is cause they hid behind and lived under chhatra-chhaya of Hindu khshtriyas!

Ashok and Mohan's five hundred million hijras is ample proof of how they have flourished.



edit/add ... with love and all due respects to our Landyabhai ... he often is an exception.
__________________
.................................................
Stupid Opinions ... All Mine ... worth 2 cents ... you can have for FREE.
Jamke Dushmani Karo Humse ... Magar Bas Itni Gunjaesh Hai Aapse
Kal Agar Hum Dost Ban Jaayen ... To Sharminda Na Ho!


LLKC ... pure and unadulterated ... LLKC!

दूर से देखने पर तो यही लगता था ... 'वाह! वहाँ क्या मजा होता होगा!'
बुरे फसें 'मजाल', आ कर जन्नत में ... हमने तो सोचा था, कुछ नया होता होगा!

Last edited by tantric_yogi; October 7th, 2009 at 08:15 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old October 7th, 2009, 08:18 PM
sarv_shaktimaan's Avatar
sarv_shaktimaan sarv_shaktimaan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: satva aasmaan
Posts: 15,541
sarv_shaktimaan has a reputation beyond reputesarv_shaktimaan has a reputation beyond reputesarv_shaktimaan has a reputation beyond reputesarv_shaktimaan has a reputation beyond reputesarv_shaktimaan has a reputation beyond reputesarv_shaktimaan has a reputation beyond reputesarv_shaktimaan has a reputation beyond reputesarv_shaktimaan has a reputation beyond reputesarv_shaktimaan has a reputation beyond reputesarv_shaktimaan has a reputation beyond reputesarv_shaktimaan has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Why did Hinduism never become an 'organised' religion like Christianity or Islam?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tantric_yogi View Post
Ashok and Mohan's five hundred million hijras is ample proof of how they have flourished.
I hope you didn't mean this the way it sounds.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old October 7th, 2009, 08:28 PM
chitrala's Avatar
chitrala chitrala is offline
Clown Prince
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Room 101
Posts: 8,199
chitrala has a reputation beyond reputechitrala has a reputation beyond reputechitrala has a reputation beyond reputechitrala has a reputation beyond reputechitrala has a reputation beyond reputechitrala has a reputation beyond reputechitrala has a reputation beyond reputechitrala has a reputation beyond reputechitrala has a reputation beyond reputechitrala has a reputation beyond reputechitrala has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Why did Hinduism never become an 'organised' religion like Christianity or Islam?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ashdoc View Post
hinduism was liberal because it grew in the fertile climate of the indian subcontinent.

it was a land of plenty..........

rain was abundant , the soil was fertile and the population was large .

the people were by and large satisfied with their material condition.

that is why hindus were the original liberals.

they never felt a need to forcibly enforce their ideas on anybody else.

the great historian Vincent smith has said , '' If there was anything remarkable about the early hindus , it was their humanity !!!!! .

It was a humanity not to be found among the other cultures of the world . "
hindus were always of the view - let a thousand flowers bloom, let a thousand schools of thought contend .

out of a land of plenty and a satiated population ,grew a culture of tolerance.

no great campaigns of external conquest were planned ,and hindus never wished death upon a foreign people.

instead out of hinduism grew the two great pacific religions , buddhism and jainism, and two prophets of non-violence mahavir and buddha.

many hindus became vegetarians, and refused to kill even animals or eat them., a concept found in few regions of the world.

for such a people to enforce their religion on others ,especially by brute force ,was impossible........

the modern concept of hindutva grew because hinduism found its very existence threatened by islam .

on the other hand islam and christianity grew in the rigid ,unforgiving atmosphere of the middle eastern desert ,and knew no concept of liberalism .......except that of forcing their religion on other people.

but these '' politically correct '' historians are not going to admit that ,isnt it.

they have found that the liberalism of hinduism extends to accepting even an attack on it .......

and hindus are tolerant enough to accept even people who routinely are only critical of them in their midst.......

that is why such hinduphobes shall abound..........
Nice one... but still disagree to some parts... I don't think this humanity or liberalism were exclusive to hinduism.... civilizations prospered on the fertile lands...on river banks.... almost all of them...


People were pretty flexible about their ideas about god and religion... At that time they could differentiate between 'mythos' and 'logos'...(wiki Karen Armstrong, she has written extensively on this)... If you see classic greek... it had many similarities with hinduism... they were polytheists... believed in afterlife... believed in moksha through proper cremation...etc.

Hinduism was/is hardly a religion...it is collection of different faiths with some common elements and a common 'geographia'.... You can find a monotheist/polytheist/Ramashray/Krishnashray/Shaiv/Shaqt/Vaishnav/nirgun/sagun all in hinduism... There is no common reference books.. some people may believe in ved/gita... some people might not even heard of it.. Some people may believe in reincarnation some may not.... it is contradictory at times...


Buddha screwed hinduism a bigtime.... he was a deserter... he saw the flaws and exploitation of common man... knew the way out but never bothered to start a reform... he kept preaching...needless to say he didnt say anything original... people formed a sect on his ideas because they needed a breather....strict vegeterianism came to hinduism from buddhism...

Buddha had this idea of ahimsa and daya and similar crap... eating meat was not consistent with his theory... so he came out with this story of 'trikoti' maans which was edible without flouting the rules... to one up this hindus came up with this idea that they would not touch meat at all(look who is holier now).... irony of all that Buddha died of consuming rotten meat...(mother nature was watching)


I am not sure when this idea came into hinduism that traveling out of the region will spoil their religion...but this may be one of the reasons for not planning a conquest beyond Afghanistan... it cant be Ahimsa because kings were fighting and killing each others like animals for ages...
And don't forget we kept assimilating foreigners and their thoughts into our fold all this time despite strong belief in blood purity and abhorrence to anything foreign(theoretically).... Whoever came to India became hindu...


The whole trouble of corruption of religion starts with monotheism...particularly abrahmic religions.... They came with all the answers and these moronic testaments which told the world who's the daddy(first commandment itself).... Then came bloody scientists with reasoned answers.... That shook the very basics of religion... earth is not flat... sun doesn't revolve around the earth..etc etc..
This made religions very dogmatic and they forced the believers to believe in texts...or pay for the consequences...



The modern concept of hindutva didnt arise from the fear of Islam...but it grew on the fear of islam.... this hindutva was not there for first 800 years of Islam in India of which 700 odd years were of Islamic rule.... Hinduism not only survived draconic islamic laws...it remained as much strong if not more....(several sects and new thoughts came during this period).... Hindutva rose from the support of christian baniyas... who were reaping harvests when hindu muslim fought.... Not that Islam was not bad for hinduism but I see no reason for fearing for the extinction of hinduism when it survived the earlier islamic tyranny.
__________________
I am here because I am nowhere else. But, am I there where I wanted to be?


Last edited by chitrala; October 7th, 2009 at 08:33 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
belief, catholics, christianity, christians, culture, hinduism, hindus, islam, jews, judaism, muslims, religion


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is Islam a religion of peace? Sane Less View - Counter View 31 January 7th, 2018 05:27 PM
Is Islam angry child (Corrupted form) of Hinduism? rahul_sharma Religion 38 November 9th, 2008 10:10 AM
To all Indian converts into Islam and Christianity desidude Indian Politics 12 October 9th, 2006 12:54 PM
Vedic religion and Islam have same roots... tinda SoapBox 9 June 26th, 2002 06:10 AM
Hinduism, Islam , Christianity... its a bit boring now echarcha Feedback 16 February 27th, 2001 07:06 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Site Copyright © eCharcha.Com 2000-2012.