Posted on 07/28/2009 7:37:17 PM PDT by Willie Green
Festivities in a new temple dedicated to the Indian monkey god Hanuman in Frisco, Texas, earlier this month remind us that a minority of religions exists within the shores of the United States that is relatively silent. The faith that is the subject here, of course, is Hinduism, which in that North Texas town, at least, is enjoying an "expanding population," according to the Dallas Morning News. Despite the fact that Indians have been quietly enriching the American melting pot for decades to centuries, few non-Indians know much about the colorful religion of Hinduism.
In actuality, the term "Hinduism" represents not a monolithic faith but a conglomeration of more or less varied religions, sects and cults largely originating on the Indian subcontinent and often incorporating beliefs, doctrines and traditions dating back several thousand years. What we perceive of as "Hinduism," then, encompasses and embraces a wide variety of beliefs, to the extent that even recent icons such as Elvis Presley, Princess Diana and Mother Teresa have reputedly made it into the extensive Hindu pantheon of a traditional "333 million" deities, demigods and saints, etc.
According to his hairdresser-cum-spiritual advisor Larry Geller, the "King of Rock and Roll" Presley, who was raised a Christian, was fond of reading books about Eastern spiritual traditions. The affection for Indian philosophy by members of the music group the Beatles is legendary, especially in the case of George Harrison. Many Indian gurus and yogis have found welcome on this side of the Atlantic and Pacific, and the ancient physical and spiritual exercise of yoga in a myriad of forms is practiced by up to 20 million Americans.
Yet, Hinduism remains a mystery to most Americans, both at times intriguing and bizarre with its sundry gods and goddesses. Part of the reason for this oversight is because Hinduism in its fullness seems so alien to cultures largely dominated by either the Abrahamic faiths with their aloof monotheistic God or the "New Atheism," which has a tendency to ridicule and dismiss such lively piety.
Hinduism plays nice in the U.S.
Another reason Americans as whole are largely oblivious to Hinduism is because its practitioners in general do not rabblerouse, set up terrorist camps, call for the destruction of the U.S. Constitution, bilk the American public for millions, establish bogus "charities," engage in unethical and seedy "televangelism," lobby Congress for special favors and consideration, challenge constantly the principle of separation of church and state, abuse the First Amendment and all of the fun stuff (sarcasm) we are used to seeing from fervent religionists in our country and elsewhere.
This lack of aggression by Hindus in America does not reflect that they do not take their faith very seriously, as they certainly do. Like Christians who proclaim that Jesus Christ is real because they have had visions of him, devout Hindus often feel as if their deities have made their very real presence known, as in the case of Cheeni Rao, author of In Hanuman's Hands, who while going down the destructive path of drug abuse was "saved" by the monkey-headed god. Rao's experience was every bit as life changing as that of Christians in a similar position—and this instance illustrates that the form of a profound spiritual presence purportedly experienced is largely if not entirely dependent upon one's cultural conditioning, not upon any "ultimate reality" or "absolute truth."
"Hinduism" as a monolith has its flaws—and non-Hindus both religious and secular will no doubt point them out—including taking itself too seriously to the point where, in its native land, a certain amount of strife and atrocity can be traced to Indian beliefs, such as the rare but ongoing practice of widow-burning or sati in various districts, as well as other sexism, prejudices—such as the caste system—and violence committed by its fanatical minority. Yet, while some "enlightened gurus" have been opportunists preying on a gullible American public with enticing stories of metaphysical and supernatural wonders, so far traditional Hinduism's practitioners generally have not brought unsavory and violent "traditions" along with them to their new homelands and demanded they be allowed to break the law of the land in practicing them, unlike members of other faiths.
We can only hope that other religionists in the United States and elsewhere will follow suit and behave in a similar, more spiritually mature manner as the American Hindu population, rather than bullying and elbowing their way in, exploiting the system and creating enmity. Rarely if ever do we hear complaints or derogatory news items about Hindus in America, while members of other groups such as Christianity, Judaism and Islam often make it into the news for unethical and illegal behavior. Does this frequent broadcasting of these three faiths result because they are under a bigger microscope, or could there be a problem with the Abrahamic monotheism itself, whereby it insists on its own way, to compel and force itself upon people against their will, with dire threats of eternal punishment for rejecting it?
Concerning the fanatical monotheism depicted in the Old Testament, from which the Abrahamic faiths arose, in Pagan Christs (17-18) John M. Robertson remarked:
Monotheism of this type is in any case morally lower than polytheism since those who held it lacked sympathy for their neighbors. Most of the Jewish kings were polytheists. What I am concerned to challenge is the assumption—due to the influence of Christianity—that Jewish monotheism is essentially higher than polytheism, and constitutes a great advance in religion.... If the mere affirmation of a Supreme Creator God is taken to be a mark of superiority, certain primitive tribes who hold this doctrine and yet practice human sacrifice must be considered to have a 'higher' religion than the late Greeks and Romans."Monotheism in America will simply need to become accustomed to the fact that this country is inhabited by polytheists such as the Hindus as well as atheists, humanists and secularists, and to stop being so aggressive and insistent upon its own way. That's America under the U.S. Constitution, a fact that freedom lovers everywhere will appreciate.
“Christ himself was a myth.”
Try putting this on placard and visit the citadels of higher learning from Harvard to Yale to Oxford to Sorbonne, and you run the serious risk of involuntary commitment at the nearest psychiatric ward.
Had you made this comment at the very start, I wouldn’t have wasted internet ink and a nanosecond of my time attempting to reason with someone suffering a grave mental condition.
Quite seriously, get some urgently needed treatment and be examined by a psychiatric panel, at the university level.
**Thank God for the Constitution or we’d all be Catholics.**
Where on earth did you get that idea?
Thanks for the correction. I'd be interested to know if there was any previous development in Hindu mathematics that presaged this development, because of such widespread science enquiries in ancient Hinuism. I have read, however, that the development of zero was a big philosophical deal because of it's associated "creation" of negative numbers on the "other side" of the number line. Another cause for concern was the creation of fractions, which, while extremely useful, had a lot of Hundu numerologists very upset because they violated the integrity of whole numbers (and in ancient India, when the numerologists and their associated astrologers ain't happy, ain't nobody happy).
You are welcome to post your opinions, you are welcome to disagree with someone, however you are not permitted to make it personal. If that’s asking too much, please refrain from posting on this thread.
As for "self-evident," that introduces the question of "self-evident for whom?" Traditionally, Vedic learning is taught within the context of being an external behavioral model that supports and enhances the experience of the root concept of God-as-all-and-everyone. For example, a modern Hindu teacher, Gnani Purush 'Dada Bhagwan' (with whom I am not affiliated in any way whatever) addressed the relationship of the Vedas with the realization of the divine Self (Atma or Atman) as follows:
In the Bhagavad Gita, Lord Krishna has said, “Vedas are not outside the three gunas (attributes of the non-self; the prakruti). Truly, the Vedas illuminate the three gunas.” It was after meeting Lord Neminath that Lord Krishna spoke the Gita. Prior to that He was a Vedanti; one who follows the Vedas. In the Gita, He said, “Traigunya vishayo vedo nistraiyai gunyo Bhavarjuna.” He made this great statement. He said that in order to know the Self, one will have to go beyond, the Vedanta. He said, “Hey, Arjuna! Go beyond the holder of the three gunas (trigunatmak i.e. the prakruti) to know the Self.”
What are these three gunas? They are sattva (goodness, relative awareness), rajas (passion, desires) and tamas (darkness, relative unawareness, lethargy). The Vedas support the science of the three gunas; therefore your work will be done only if you go beyond them. Besides, each of these three gunas exist as duality and therefore go beyond the three gunas and understand the Self that is beyond all dualities. Lord Krishna has said for one to go beyond the three gunas in order to realize the Atma but people do not understand this. What do all the four Vedas themselves say, in their conclusion? They say, “Ne iti…Ne iti… This is not that…this is not that…” (the "this" referred to being the Vedas, and the "that" referred to being the ultimate experience of Self realization, or Atman).
LOL - "obscure Gita tracts." FYI, the Bhagavad Gita is one of the most widespread spiritual teachings on the planet, read, studied, accepted and practiced by over a billion people. Why, for more than two millenia thereafter some of the most brilliant and searching minds on this planet have examined this revelation that has mushroomed to all corners of the globe. Countless departments of higher education, theologians, scholars and historians of every color and stripe have examined the Bhagavad Gita. Innumerable magazines, reviews, books, treatises, journals, and articles to this day continue to examine this revealed Truth. Conversions have occurred by the galore from the very learned as have miracles of faith.
And best yet, if you study the Bhagavad Gita you can still study and learn from the Gospel of St. Luke. You don't have to so fear other ways of thinking about God that you must refer to them as "toilets," or combine any reference to them with terrorist organizations, or refer to them as vile, or genocidal barbarians, in order to try to create fear and avoidance in others, rather than welcoming rational discussion and thought.
Yes, by studying the Bhagavad Gita, you too can be free of the need to slander over a billion people across thousands of years of history to try to support a vision of absolute religious despotism that your own Church discarded hundreds of years ago as aberrant to the true faith and teachings of Jesus Christ.
With all due respect, reputable universities do not expend more than 10-minutes of classroom discussion if they discuss this tract at all on the musings of the Gita either in their religious; philosophy; or even comparative religion courses. I don’t mean to be disrespectful. This is simply a fact of life.
More time is spent on the writings of Aquinas’ and Augustine that any other theologian; scholar; and philosopher. Don’t take my word on this, go ask the chair of these departments and trying asking them about Gita and test for yourself the responses you get. I asked a friend of mine who studied comparative religions at Princeton and was told that she could not recall any extended discussion of this matter. 90% of the time was spent on Catholic dogmas; Judaism; Protestantism and some discussion on Moslem, Hinduism, and Buddhism. More was discussed on Buddhism because it is not confined simply to the Indian sub-continent.
I understand you inquiry for rational discussion and thought and this is good - but as Pope Benedict XVI (whom TIME magazine called a “walking theological encyclopaedia” Others have called him an “theological Einstein” ) states in his book “On The Way To Jesus Christ” that Catholic inquiry should not be faulted if at some point we say the search has ended and we have found the God of Creation in the Christ.
This is not a fear of reading other texts and treatises. Please remember that for centuries Catholic doctrine has been analyzed and scrutinized like no other school of thought or faith on this earth. Indeed, it was Benedict XVI who has urged that faith and reason must go together and his quoted passage from a Byzantine period on Islam led to riots not dialogue.
As a former professor of theology at Regensberg University in Germany his book is brilliant and illuminating a tour-de-force, indeed a sweeping panorama of several strands of intellectual thought on this topic from pre-Christian times.
The comment I made was not to slander a “billion” people but rather to avoid being politically correct and call a belief for what it is. The reference to “genocidal barbarians” was predicated on a news column that called Hindu massacre of Christian a “crime against humanity”
If tomorrow Catholics were to be intolerant of Hindus and start sacking their temples, as a student of constitutional history, I would be among the first to brand this as criminal and terroristic. The right to belief is absolute.
You aren't treating me disrespectfully - you're treating those supposedly reputable universities with (presumably germane) courses on religion philosophy or comparative religion disrespectfully, by attributing to them a glaring lack of scholarliness and limited comprehension of their own fields.
Billions of people and thousands of years is not an exaggeration, you know. The Bhagavad Gita is literally that influential and revered. Disagree with it's teachings if you will, but to refuse to acknowledge it's global influence and acceptance is simplistic bigotry, not discussion.
And your tired repetition of the word "tract" is a sophmoric insult, meant solely to express disrespect while declaiming otherwise. How clever of you.
While you're at it, why not simply claim that India itself is inhabited by vast swaths of illiterate masses who's beliefs, practices, rituals and customs can only charitably be described as barbaric and unfit for accommodation in western societies?
Oh wait, you already did.
You write: “you’re treating those supposedly reputable universities with (presumably germane) courses on religion philosophy or comparative religion disrespectfully, by attributing to them a glaring lack of scholarliness and limited comprehension of their own fields.”
This comment suffers from twin defects. Why do you accuse “me” for reporting the historical fact of what university faculty committees sift for debate they consider worthy of rational thought in which the Gita gets a footnotes’ worth of reference? Second, you then insinuate that this omission constitutes a glaring lack of scholarship.
The problem with this line of reasoning is that first you rightly demand scholarship and debate and then complain of a lack of scholarship if scholars decide to relegate the Gita to the ether. And, then you chide me for a “sophomoric” description by calling the Gita a tract.
Of course would you not agree that “India itself is inhabited by vast swaths of illiterate masses who’s beliefs, practices, rituals and customs can only charitably be described as barbaric and unfit for accommodation in western societies” if explained in the context that Hindus of this perspective are prone to kill and torch when attempts are made to engage them in “rational” inquiry about the validity of their beliefs as a prelude to conversion?
From the "one true" faith, of course.
Read the posts.
Your comments are unresearched, unevolving and while “you” may or may not be stupid, your comments sure seem to make less sense as you progress in this thread. I am tired, so I give up, rant all you want.
Hindu saying: When the frogs’s croak, the cuckoos prefer not to sing.
And then there is that saying by Justice Louis Brandeis “Sunlight is the best disinfectant” in praise of transparency and honesty in public policy. It also applies to religious beliefs when mythology embraced by one corner of the world’s illiterate masses whose shores the waves of the Enlightenment Period never reached, is exposed as no more than entertaining myth.
"Historical fact?" I'm tired of listening your relentless bigoted slander against Hinduism. You refuse to acknowledge your glaring errors, your general ignorance of Hinduism is obviously deliberate and therefore terminal, and your continual disrespect and belligerence deserves no further response. That you can possibly believe you are appropriately representing Catholicism with your vicious slanders is absurd - your hateful mind does not in any way represent Church teachings on Hinduism, the Bhagavad Gita, Hindus, or India (nor university-level education). Yet you refuse to admit you are merely speaking for yourself, and so utterly misrepresent yourself as knowledgable of Catholic doctrine or even logical thought. In short, any further discussion with you is a waste of time. Goodbye.
“bigoted slander”? Good grief. Unlike the former Hindu gentleman in the link below, it appears that serious introspection is not your forte.
http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=10342
The arrival of the “enlightened ones” on Indian shores reformed Hinduism but it didn’t quite get people to quit their superior philosophies and world views to embrace en-masse the bloodiest, most-bigoted religion in the world. And your religion has been trying for centuries to succeed but hasn’t been able to.
Looks like you’re crying sour grapes here.
Tell this to this “former Hindu” gentleman
http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=10342
As for “superior” philosophies try talking to this “former Jewish” gentleman.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/catholic_stories/cs0063.html
“Sour grapes”? Aren’t you embarrassed by expecting people take a religion seriously that entices you into a veritable zoological tour of deities being incarnated with elephantine trunks as noses, as monkeys, with baboon faces, a dozen limbs, and of course, I forgot the lion as well (babar) all part of a toxic swimming pool you call the Ganges?
I will not debase my culture or upbringing by attacking your religion in the same manner. Mad dogs can bark all they want, I am not going to respond to this lunatic rant.
Exposing a religion like Hinduism as a fraud is not an attack, it is a moral duty unless one wants to be politically correct.
You start to sound a lot like OBL and his loony toons in AQ. Godspeed! You’ll soon be exposing your own bigotry at this pace!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.