Who Is A Hindu

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-ramana+May 14 2005, 02:15 AM-->QUOTE(ramana @ May 14 2005, 02:15 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Carl I baited you? <!--emo&:o--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ohmy.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ohmy.gif' /><!--endemo--> [Surprised]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Gosh no, I was addressing sunder and "gangajal"!
I guess I'm not the only one around here who's skimming thru posts rather too quickly! <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /><!--endemo-->

<b>rajesh_g</b>,
Just wanted to complete my last post: about WHY reconciling the 2 objectives (socio-political and spiritual) is trickier than it sounds. Actually the Hindu family of creeds includes a "cross section" of all creeds found in the world, encompassing the whole continuum from the atheistic to the epitome of spiritual Truth. So analyzing this question is interesting even from the point of view of interpreting world socio-religious history. The "Semitic" vs "Indic" categorization, "social memes" blah blah, etc. is a sham. IMHO, this religious behaviour has its roots in theological/philosophical imperatives rather than socio-cultural temperament. But of course, the socio-cultural temperaments and circumstances certainly played a part in the subsequent <i>expression</i> (and ultimate <i>type</i> of corruption) of these imperatives. At the outset, let's be clear about the distinction between the genesis and the later corruption of the same injunctions.

The issue is 2-fold: (a) the why and wherefore of some common religious rhetoric w.r.t. other creeds (atheistic and "religious"), i.e., why it is <i>ecessary</i> in many cases...why so many religious leaders found it necessary to include some apparently abrasive rhetoric in their preaching, and (b) what is the psychological interplay between the proponents of different creeds, and potential converts (the public). Actually point (b) explains point (a).

Let me start with a crude analogy to describe the <i>uneven psychological playing-field</i> for preachers of differing creeds. This is at the heart of the reasons why certain postures are taken. Let's suppose that I, an allopathic pharmacist, wants to discredit Ayurveda (assume Ayurveda is a more wholistic approach to health). Let’s say my motive for doing so is that the allopathic industry is more profitable, whereas the spread of Ayurveda and its understanding of wellness would be a commercial blow to the “sickness business”. One effective way would be for all allopathic pharmacists in the domain to imitate and proliferate in the Ayurveda market by carelessly placing counterfeit Ayurveda 'products' on our shelves. Firstly, the dividing line between differing philosophies of health and wellbeing will be diffused now, because we will keep telling an uninformed public that ayurvedic medicine is just another type of allopathy, perhaps for people with certain allergies (or some other condescending reason). Secondly, the fact that a lot of Ayurvedic quackery is now flooding the market will mean that the public will become quite cynical about the label 'Ayurveda' itself, and think that its bettter to just go with the 'other' type of medicine, since it surely provides some quick relief. Now the average Joe is not going to take the time and effort to listen to a detailed philosophical case on health and well-being that the genuine Ayurvedic doctors may want to make to society. Moreover, the unwitting customer buys into the allopathic philosophy of dealing with health (apart from just the products). Ayurveda requires some inculturation, some adjustment to the way one lives. Allopathy doesn't.

Now, would it be justified if the Ayurvedic Association made it a standard part of its campaign and advertizing to educate the public about the disadvantages of allopathy and the disingenuous advertizing (and even quackery) of the allopathy pharma industry? Conversely, would it be a valid argument if the Allopathy Association came forward and protested on the grounds that they were "tolerant" and "inclusive", and were "uniting" and "harmonizing" the medical fraternity, while the stubborn Ayurvedics were being intolerant and abusive, and unnecessarily "dividing" the medical profession? It should be clear that the former is imperative for the survival of their health-philosophy and their tradition, whereas the latter is just another disingenuous part of an invidious strategy to swallow the enemy -- let's assume (for the sake of the argument) that there is practically nothing complimentary b/w Ayurveda and allopathy, and that the highest benefits of Ayurveda cannot be attained if the subject indulges even the slightest in allopathy. The basic crux is this -- is the real issue the "unity in the health/sickness industry", or is the real issue "a better system of public health"?

It so happens that this analogy describes the situation between monotheism and non-monotheism (non-monotheism includes the whole spectrum from rank atheism to Impersonal mayavad). From the Vaishnav point of view, there's a lot of "mano-dharma" out there – mental concoction, or at least various grades of it, the "best" of which is the premature theological conclusion -- "my ecstatic spiritual experience is the last word in self-realization." IOW, at one end you have the Positivist school which says, "Anything metaphysical is nonsense because my gross physical senses cannot perceive it, and I'm not interested in wasting my time undergoing any spiritual process because I don't have the slightest faith in it". A modicum of faith/respect (<i>shraddha</i>) is a desideratum for learning any subject, religious or secular. And at the other end of this non-monotheistic spectrum you have certain genuine, advanced transcendentalists who prematurely declare that their spiritual realization is the last word, and that the scriptural stuff that they cannot relate to is superfluous, wrong, etc. Its the same egoic reflex in both cases.

The idea of "faith" is contentious. The variable along this spectrum is the forgetfulness of the fundamental precept that faith (<i>shraddha</i>) in bona fide authority is the prerequisite to spiritual advancement. Philosophical enquiry means to inquire HOW something in bona fide scripture can be true, and not WHETHER it is true. This particular point has been repeatedlyy stressed in the post-Buddhist Vedic rennaissance. After Shankara brought back popular respect to Vedic literature, acharyas from Ramanuja onwards kept refining this point. Ramanuja repeatedly brought up this point when some envious Advaitists wanted to snub him. They guys didn't want to admit that this new person Ramanuja could be saying anything more than what Shankara had spoken of when establishing the mathas of which they were initiates (Shankara established the existence of a plenum and conscious Brahman, defeating the atheistic sunyavadi voidists, or the so-called Buddhists).

Ramanuja constantly pointed to scripture to back up his preaching mission. The Vedic system of checks and balances is summed up in "guru-saadhu-shastra". Yamunacharya wrote a comprehensive explanation of this, called the Agama Pramanya. So since very early times, as a dormant Vedic religion re-unfolded itself, each successive stage has established its precept successfully by sound scriptural argument (among other things). Yet we have upstarts today (including on this forum) who want to make a case that "Vaishnavism", etc is ignorant of scripture. In that case, the greatest Advaitic scholars of those bygone eras who were defeated (and gracefully became diciples of succeeding acharyas), must have been hopelessly incompetent as compared with your neighborhood "I-am-an-avatar-of-God" swami, or your favourite Hindu nationalist.

The fact is that several mayavadi schools seriously undermine the authority of Vedic scripture and various aspects of Vedic culture, because it interferes with their preaching, or undermines their "matha". Excited young spiritualists in a hurry to establish a new religion often find shastra and the community of scholars an inconvenience. Let me give you an example (at the risk of re-starting a flame war): Sri Ramakrishna claimed to be an incarnation of Lord Chaitanya (among other avataras). So he based his claim to God-hood on the established glory of a preceding avatar. Lord Chaitanya's avatar-hood was demonstrated not only in lila, but also backed by scripture. But now if I were to accept Gadadhar Chatterjee aka Ramakrishna as an incarnation of Chaitanya, then I would logically seek to find the similarity and continuity in the message and gospel of Chaitanya and Ramakrishna. I declare I will hand my head on a platter to anyone in the world who can show the <i>slightest</i> similarity in the gospels of Sri Ramakrishna and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu! In fact, Chaitanya Himself designated 13 specific run-offs as apasampradaya (deviant Vaishnav cults), and Sri Ramakrishna claims to have experimented with "Vaishnavism" precisely under one such cult, under a female Tantrik guru. But such inconveniences are glossed over. In fact, Vivekananda preached quite a different theology than his "guru" Ramakrishna did, though he used his guru's fame and his godbrothers support to found the RK Math. How that is explained, I do not know, though I have heard that guru-bhoga and guru-tyaga are very serious offences in Vedic culture. <i>The point of this example is to show that, in putting together a patchwork ideology, serious damage can be done to the glory of the bona fide religious tradition on which it bases its glory.</i>

Coming back to point (b): every kind of mayavad depends on the initial <i>unfamiliarity</i> of the curious public, and their <i>tendency to shirk independent inquiry</i> (which takes time and effort...and also a certain intense disposition). The pure monotheist has to work against these human tendencies in situations where the mayavadi is taking advantage of them. As explained earlier, this disadvantage applies at every rung down the ladder, between genuine Sufi-Islam and hypocrite ideology, etc, etc. “Are you a frustrated Pakistani hoping to find some meaning in life thru religion? Come, we have a nice militant religious ideology that can serve as a catharsis for your existential frustrations” (ditto for Hindu/Christian chauvinism). Or less dramatically: “Are you a stressed-out (or bored) middle-class Hindu looking for your religious roots? Come, I'll teach you some pranayama, dharana and dhyana which will give you unprecedented vitality…and along with that you can also swallow whole my mayavadi theory of the universe which has a lot of flowery language and esoteric sounding stuff taken from those scriptures you've heard of, which only very great scholars can decipher.” Don’t get me wrong – each of these schools of yoga serve some good purpose also, and I myself am very grateful for what I have received from them, experientially and otherwise. But I am trying to point out the other side, the cost side, when they are <i>taken in isolation</i> (the bane of mayavad). There is no disdain here, just concern.

This preaching disadvantage works like dominoes right along this spectrum of creeds. Any creed faces a disadvantage w.r.t. the lower degree creeds on that scale. And each lower degree of cognizance will argue its point based on "obvious logic" and other simplistic word-jugglery. Most casual inquirers are not clear about the fact that spiritual growth is about <i>expanding</i> one's horizons, rather than finding the right spot within one's current "circle of light". Whence the great emphasis on bona fide guru-shishya parampara and scriptural authority. Now, some thought will enable one to understand why monotheism is at the right-most end of this spectrum of spiritual sophistication and preaching disadvantage.

Given this disadvantage, it should by now be somewhat clear WHY one finds a lot of "negative propoganda" in the monotheistic traditions of religion [the Ayurvedics in our medical analogy]. It has less to do with "desert tribal cultural traits" and other nonsensical theories [the personal temperament of the Ayurvedic doctors], and more to do with the imperatives of the mission [the business imperatives of Ayurveda and wholistic health philosophies]. The proponents of this theory would much rather deny that the MOST POPULAR Hindu tradition is monotheistic rather than monist (even though it is somewhat dormant).

One interesting thing to note is that the "preaching disadvantage" that I've been belabouring works primarily on the mental plane, but monotheism has a stronger attraction at the deeper intuitive level (simply because it is the real dharma of the Soul). The atheists and impersonalists <i>recognize</i> this fact (though they may not <i>understand</i> it). Their retort is that it is "blind" faith, etc. Of course, it may express itself that way in an unsophisticated person, but the supercilious accusors do not understand the deeper springs of that inclination. Although a scholarly Vaishnav can easily argue and defeat the carping mayavadi, the average devotee does not have any extensive command of all scripture -- only according to his own intellectual capacity, which is all that is required. If one can "burn" one's own intellect, imagination, emotion and will in the fire of devotional service to Godhead, that is sadhana. But some of these semi-learned mayavadi rascals will pick on the most neophyte devotee and start mocking his "blind faith", or condescendingly "encourage" him. The mayavadis keep a good stock of counterfaith "Bhakti" (some cheap sentiment) on their shelves, and say its for “beginners”. But these guys will whine and retreat if a Vaishnav scholar should decide to educate them a little. This is a rare spectacle, but a fascinating and enjoyable one. From my understanding, its quite clear why most Vaishnav scholars don’t usually waste time indulging prejudiced argumentators: Firstly, it’s one of the 10 primary offences to preach the most essential parts of Bhagavata dharma to the faithless and contemptuous, because the ensuing blasphemy does no one any good. And secondly because most madhyam- and uttam-adhikaris (more advanced devotees) are too immersed in the bliss of their sadhana, “diving and surfacing like sharks in the deep ocean of nectar” as per Rupa Goswami. <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> It takes some motivating to go back and splash around in the shallows with a conceited ignoramus. But to one eager to listen and sincere in motivation, these same people will be prepared to endlessly narrate or explain stuff over and over again, each time with relish and enthusiasm!

Another tactic of the mayavadis is to use a straw-man argument. In their simplistic grasp of things, they claim that anything not Advaita is Dwaita (which has contradictions -- just like Advaita). This is false. Vaishnavism in its most evolved form is Achintya Bheda-abheda tattva. Islam in its most evolved form is "the mystery of ahadiyyat in wahdaniyyat".

But then why is monotheistic preaching apparently so full of “vitriol” for others? Isn’t that a lack of basic respect, uncharacteristic of spiritual people? The answer seems to be that calling a spade a spade is not a “lack of respect”. A couple of guys on this forum seem to be seriously upset about “ISKCON”, founded by one Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, probably the most prolific Vaishnav preacher ever. He ruffled a lot of feathers in his preaching mission, pointing out the hypocrisy of mayavadis and corrupt monotheist denominations alike. When asked why he didn’t show “respect”, he simply replied, “oh yes, we have respect. Respect is there. We respect every living entity, including plants and animals. But a thief must be called a thief.” He is also on record encouraging his disciples to take advantage of saintly association at the Kumbha Mela. When some hot-blooded new disciples protested that some of the sadhus there were mayavadi, he told them not to be foolishly fanatical on philosophical points, but to look at the good and saintly qualities in everyone. <i>Preaching an uncompromising philosophy was one thing. Making it an egoic intellectual position and looking for a fight is another thing.</i> This understanding of things has been repeated by various other monotheistic preachers throughout history, in any part of the world.

Also note, the philosophy is uncompromising (I don’t understand the concept of philosophical compromise anyway!), but <i>“uncompromising” is not equivalent to “exclusivist” in the narrow logical sense</i>. It is very important to understand that the Vaishnav understanding of reality is INCLUSIVE of the Brahmavadi understanding, not exclusive. On the contrary, it is the mayavadi philosophy that is exclusive, although it invidiously tries to portray itself as “inclusive”, “ruffling no feathers”, “everything is valid”, etc [like the allopathic businessmen in our analogy]. So this is an important point of understanding, before using words like “exclusivist”, “sectarian”, etc. The polytheists of Mecca wanted Muhammad and his followers to honour their demi-gods, in return for which they would accept his new religion. By now it should be obvious to the patient reader why this is the most ridiculous proposal, which was rejected by the Prophet. But anti-Muslim rhetoric wants to cite this incident to show how Muhammad was so “fanatical” even though the nice Meccans were trying so hard to be “peaceful”.

Same reason for why the Prophet Muhammad found it necessary to put an end to all idol-worship and demi-god worship, because these temples undermine the monotheistic philosophy. This is the same reason why Moses banned deity-worship, which was clearly a part of ancient Semitic religion. After being pushed around, after losing large parts of their religious teaching, the Hebrews had started to concoct rituals, innovate different “forms” of deity, etc. This innovation and cheap mimickry in religion had to be stopped in order to save monotheism itself, even though its more esoteric concepts would have to be shelved for a while by banning certain forms of ritual (which try to symbolize and drive home philosophical points). To get an idea of how monotheism can be undermined by imitative rituals devoid of all meaning, we need only look at India, especially certain parts like Tamil Nadu and to a lesser extent Bengal, where Hinduism has been made a mockery out of. Even Vivekananda and Gandhi ji said that the deep south was a “mental hospital”. My parents just moved to Madurai, and my mom recently wrote to me: “madurai has just finished with its 10day chithrai festival...this festival celebrates the wedding of meenakshi, the sister of visnu(as azhagar) and siva, and hence this is one festival that is significant, as this is when the shaivites and the vaishnavites come together in the celebrations.” <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo--> So, much worse than just sectarian designations, the gods have now become representatives of certain priestly castes, and mythologies have been invented and festivals commemorated each time the castes decide to have a go at one another or patch up. This was pretty much the case in pre-Islamic Arabia. Religion has been made such a mockery by the priestly classes in TN, that the average Hindu there is either atheistic (Dravidian “rationalist”), secular humanist, or converts to Christianity/Islam. My room-mate, an Iyer initiate of the Ramakrishna math, insists that Iyengars (Sri Vaishnavs) are “fanatical” because Iyers freely visit Vishnu temples but these Iyengars don’t return the favour by visiting Siva temples. He’s the sweetest guy, but he didn’t have the slightest understanding of Vaishnav philosophy, and simply assumed that it was a sectarian mirror-image of his own caste tradition...just a different “ishta-devata”. More importantly from the PoV of this discussion -- <i>his years in the Ramakrishna mission apparently didn’t give him the opportunity to get to know that there is a different, non-mayavadi school within “Hinduism”. </i>Therefore he was understandably upset that these Iyengars (and then ISKCON) should be so fanatical about their “ishta-devata” when “Hinduism” (as he was taught it) says that these are all just different imaginative means to relate to an Impersonal Reality. According to what he was taught, Durga, Vishnu, Shiva, you, I, this chair, this computer, and the world wide web are all Brahman, there is no <i>bheda</i>. Sorry to say, but even a sophisticated mayavadi would be embarrassed by this representation.

So to conclude (at last!), I hope I have made SOME sense, opened the door a LITTLE, in understanding the why and wherefore of religious rhetoric, its psycho-spiritual roots, and its historical manifestations. And why it would be difficult and “tricky” to manage the twin-objectives of “a united Hindu front” while giving real balanced coverage to all creeds within Hinduism. Actually the psycho-spiritual understanding of the imperatives for this tussle goes much deeper, and one appreciates it more and more as one understands Vaishnavism more and more through study and <i>actual practice</i>.

To echo to the health-industry analogy question: Is the real issue "Hindu unity", or is it the spiritual health of people in India (and outside). This is not a small issue -- there is an unprecedented trend in my generation of Indians, looking toward religion and spiritality. And let's be clear, just like this above analogy, while appealing to "Hindu unity", "tolerance", etc may hold things together for some time, in the end the house of cards will crumble. Its happened time and again in history. Look at Zoroastrianism, to take one spectacular example of collapse. They were all about "Zoro pride", etc after the Greeks ravaged them and then left, and then there was some kind of Zoro "rennnaissance" as they reconsolidated the Persian empire. But it was all about "pride". All that fell flat when Islam came later on, with large sections of Zoro society defecting and fighting WITH the invader. They felt enthused to do so, while their own hollow creed, devoid of spiritual essence, held no more attraction for them at a level deeper than Mind.

JMT.