04-24-2005, 06:14 AM
Xposted--
I think there are two lines of discussion around Arun's posts --
firstly, is there something that can be considered common in the
experience of the Indian traditions and secondly how should they be
classified.
I think there is reasonable consensus around the fact that the
Indian traditions cannot be described as religion as well as the
fact the phenomena is experienced differently within Western and
Eastern cultures.
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_7615...duism.html
Part of where we were stuck was the label of Hinduism -- i.e. even
if there is a commonality of experience (we won't say exactly what
right now), does the label Hinduism server to meaningfully
distinguish a category of phenomena from another one,
say "Buddhism." I think the point that Balu is making is that this
distinction is arbitrary and does not encapsulate a real category in
the world. In the new Encarta article on Hinduism we find:
"A Hindu is thus identified by a dual exclusion. A Hindu is someone
who does not subscribe to a religion of non-Indian origin, and who
does not claim to belong exclusively to another religion of Indian
originâBuddhism, Jainism, or Sikhism. This effort at definition
produces a rather artificial distinction between Hinduism and other
dharmic traditions, which stems from an attempt to limit a system
that sees itself as universal to an identity that is strictly
religious. In many ways, labeling the other dharmic traditions as
non-Hindu has a basis that derives more from politics than from
philosophy. Indeed, greater differences of belief and practices lie
within the broad family labeled as Hinduism than distinguish
Hinduism from other dharmic systems.
Indian historian Irfan Habib makes this point when he quotes an
early Persian source that Hindus are those who have been debating
with each other within a common framework for centuries. If they
recognize another as somebody whom they can either support or oppose
intelligibly, then both are Hindus. Despite the fact that Jains
reject many Hindu beliefs, Jains and Hindus can still debate and
thus Jains are Hindus. But such discourse does not take place
between Hindus and Muslims because they do not share any basic
terms.
"
Clearly however, that way (people in) the Indian culture experience
phenomena is itself a commonality as well as a distinction from the
West. However, can one say more that is in common vs. the experience
of other societies that are non-religious?
I think there are two lines of discussion around Arun's posts --
firstly, is there something that can be considered common in the
experience of the Indian traditions and secondly how should they be
classified.
I think there is reasonable consensus around the fact that the
Indian traditions cannot be described as religion as well as the
fact the phenomena is experienced differently within Western and
Eastern cultures.
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_7615...duism.html
Part of where we were stuck was the label of Hinduism -- i.e. even
if there is a commonality of experience (we won't say exactly what
right now), does the label Hinduism server to meaningfully
distinguish a category of phenomena from another one,
say "Buddhism." I think the point that Balu is making is that this
distinction is arbitrary and does not encapsulate a real category in
the world. In the new Encarta article on Hinduism we find:
"A Hindu is thus identified by a dual exclusion. A Hindu is someone
who does not subscribe to a religion of non-Indian origin, and who
does not claim to belong exclusively to another religion of Indian
originâBuddhism, Jainism, or Sikhism. This effort at definition
produces a rather artificial distinction between Hinduism and other
dharmic traditions, which stems from an attempt to limit a system
that sees itself as universal to an identity that is strictly
religious. In many ways, labeling the other dharmic traditions as
non-Hindu has a basis that derives more from politics than from
philosophy. Indeed, greater differences of belief and practices lie
within the broad family labeled as Hinduism than distinguish
Hinduism from other dharmic systems.
Indian historian Irfan Habib makes this point when he quotes an
early Persian source that Hindus are those who have been debating
with each other within a common framework for centuries. If they
recognize another as somebody whom they can either support or oppose
intelligibly, then both are Hindus. Despite the fact that Jains
reject many Hindu beliefs, Jains and Hindus can still debate and
thus Jains are Hindus. But such discourse does not take place
between Hindus and Muslims because they do not share any basic
terms.
"
Clearly however, that way (people in) the Indian culture experience
phenomena is itself a commonality as well as a distinction from the
West. However, can one say more that is in common vs. the experience
of other societies that are non-religious?