Myth of Hindu Sameness

[Guest guest]

sanjaygarg

editorial

Myth of Hindu Sameness

Fri, 19 Nov 2004 15:29:04 +0000

Myth of Hindu Sameness

 

This latest essay by Rajiv Malhotra explores the validity of the oft-repeated

claim that "Hinduism is the same as other religions". From his earlier writings

(Problematizing God's Interventions in

History:http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/column.asp?cid=303135), Mr Malhotra

had classified religious movements as History-Centric and non History-Centric.

According to Mr Malhotra:

 

"The former are contingent on canonical beliefs of their sacred history. Non

History-Centric religious movements, on the other hand, do have beliefs about

history, but their faith is not contingent on history."

 

It is Mr Malhotra's contention that "non History-Centric faiths offer the only

viable spiritual alternative to the religious conflicts that are inherent among

History-Centric religions." Note that this thesis is being presented by Mr

Malhotra at the annual AAR (American Academy of Religion) conference on Friday,

November 19, 2004.

 

Please print out & review this thought-provoking article. Sulekha.com makes

available an an open forum for all that wish to participate in discussion,

debate, dialogue in a mutually respectful manner.

 

Myth of Hindu SamenessRajiv Malhotrahttp://www.sulekha.com/expressions/column.asp?cid=305972

Excerpt ..........

This essay examines the often repeated claim by Hindus and non-Hindus alike that

Hinduism is the same as other religions. Some common factors that cause many

Hindus to slip into sameness are as follows:

 

Hindus arrogantly assume that other religions want to be the same as Hinduism,

and hence they feel that they are doing these other religions a favor. Against

this one may point out that the traditional Hindu teachings make a clear

distinction between valid and not valid religious claims, by separating them as

dharma and adharma, sat (truth) and asat (falsity), devika and asuric, etc. Many

Hindus misapply teachings about the Unmanifest when dealing with the diversity

of the manifest, and the unity of transcendence in dealing with the diversity

and conflict found in the worldly. Furthermore, they fail to distinguish

between shruti and smriti. The unity of all shruti is assumed to mean that all

smritis must be the same. In particular, Hindus fail to understand the critical

history-dependence of the Abrahamic religions and the way their core myths and

institutions are built around these frozen smritis. Often what Hindus really

mean is that all religions are equal in the respect and rights they deserve,

but they confuse this with sameness.

 

At the same time, there are strong arguments that religious differences lead to

tensions and violence. Many Hindus have internalized these arguments, over

simplifying the Hindu thought about there being one truth and all paths leading

to it.

 

To address these and other issues, this essay presents a new theoretical

framework for looking at religions and global religious violence. It classifies

religious movements as History-Centric and non History-Centric. The former are

contingent on canonical beliefs of their sacred history. Non History-Centric

religious movements, on the other hand, do have beliefs about history, but

their faith is not contingent on

history.http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/column.asp?cid=305972

Mr Rajiv Malhotra is an American public intellectual who has appeared on BBC,

NPR, TV Asia NY etc. His columns appear regularly in rediff.com, sulekha.com

(the world's largest NRI portal)