Myth of Hindu Sameness...

[newhindu05 0]

Myth of Hindu Sameness

 

Rajiv Malhotra

 

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

 

This is a very long article, but I think it's an important read.

 

Sample...

 

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.

 

The essay advances the thesis that non History-Centric faiths offer the only viable spiritual alternative to the religious conflicts that are inherent among History-Centric religions.

 

In analyzing the predominantly non History-Centric Hinduism through this framework, the essay looks at the two main Hindu responses in its interface with the predominantly History-Centric religions of Christianity and Islam. These are: (1) how Hinduism is trying to become History-Centric, and (2) how Hinduism is self-destructing under the Myth of Sameness, by offering itself as a library of shareware for "generic" spirituality.

 

The essay cautions that Hinduism runs the risk of becoming either (1) History-Centric itself, or (2) losing its identity and becoming digested into Christianity via the Sameness Myth.

 

My analysis of the article gave me a great perspective of how different Hinduism is from other religions. Also an understanding of why that should remain the same. Hinduism isn't History-Centric like the Abrahamic religions. That is your whole belief system won't come crashing down if a certain event didn't happen in history. This is why non-Hindus and even Hindus can call Hinduism mythology and no one starts a riot. Christianity depends on Jesus Christ being god incarnate, who sacrificed his life to pay for our sins. If that wasn't true, then where does that leave Christianity. Same for Judaism and Islam, all their beliefs need to be historically true to validate there religion. So in the process, every other religion has to be incorrect. I think it's important to stop saying Hinduism is the same as other religions, because it's not. There's not the same dogma and ideology, that constitutes the biggest and most important difference. I think Hindus need to stop letting other people, who don't have any idea what there talking about, define what Sanatana Dharma means. Hindus try to shy away from explaining their religion, by saying it's the same as all religions. In truth, it's not, Hinduism has a different train of thought than any other religion. Bottom line a Christian, Muslim, and Jew, can't worship Rama, Krishna, Ganesh etc. and still be in there respective faiths. Hindus can add Jesus, Mohamed etc. to their incarnations of god and still be a Hindu. This is the important and most vital difference that seperates Sanatana Dharma from the rest. BTW read the article, it's long, but good food for thought. Tell me your thoughts after your done.

[maadhav 0]

to say hindism is same as other religion

is like saying milk is same as acid.

 

 

[newhindu05 0]

Hindus say it is, to shy away from explaining Sanatana Dharma. This myth should be debunked forever. Hinduism's whole train of thought is different from the Abrahamic religions. I also think part of the other problem is Hindus not having fully grasped an understanding of their own religion. Also there's so much that can go under the umbrella of Hinduism, that it can create contradictory ideas and became confusing.

[maadhav 0]

true.

 

we need many brahmana quality people

who undertand hinduism well,

practife it well,

and preach it well.

 

and we need them united,

and unite all hindus.

 

[newhindu05 0]

The problem is nobody knows how to do that. It does prove that sometimes diversity can make unity harder. There are Shavitees, Vaishnavas, Sikhs, Buddhist, and Jains who all go under the catergory of a Hindu. They've been divide by foreigner who've invaded their land. To promote unity you have to get everyone on the same page. Know the only question is when will it be done?

[Guest guest]

A very good article I must say. I'm glad we now have Hindu writers who can discuss such issues honestly. I think it is because Hinduism is based on principals and spirituality rather than on persons and events that has allowed it to survive the onslaught of Christians and Muslims, where other nations fell to these religions. Experience and action is more important than beliefs. Also because Hindus have always had enlightened sages throughout history and they always will be coming in the future in Hindu tradition, distinguishes us from many other religions whose teachings are based on one or two holy men who lived in the past. For this reason we are able to adapt through changing times.

 

{Sikhs, Buddhist, and Jains who all go under the catergory of a Hindu}

 

I don't think that they go under the category of Hinduism although they share many of the same beliefs, they have their own scriptures, gurus and traditions which is seperate from Hinduism.

 

I had created a thread based on an article which discussed something similar - Are all religions the same?

 

http://www.hindu-religion.net/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=hinduism&Number=81406&page=3&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1&vc=1

 

The original article can be found here.

http://www.boloji.com/hinduism/091.htm