madhuleema chaliha wrote:
ha, to resort to 'theory' is pretty alright, but before being structuralist(do we raelly end up >being so in proper when we bring in levi-strauss ,( however religiously ) ) to posit it as >some 'touchstone' method to define essential hinduism and it's 'mere embellishments'? i >smell a lot of complications there !!
As a general rule, there are two ways by which a religion can be defined: substantatively( if you believe certain types of things you have a religion while if you don't believe them, you don't have a religion ) or functionally (if your belief system plays some particular role either in your social life, in your society, or in your psychological life, then it is a religion; otherwise, it's something else ). Classical Hinduism has always been defined functionally rather than substantatively. (I said classical Hinduism because, methinks, POPULAR Hinduism is nothing better than blind idol-worship: how many of us, for example, can be bothered to go through a single reading of a single Veda?). But questions like "Who is a Hindu?" or "What is Hinduism?" are substantative questions.
Now, Hinduism is pretty nebulous in nature. Its followers are not constrained to choose/follow any one particular kind of life. You can take your pick - Ram, krishna, kali, ganesh, ganga mayia, shivlinga, the spirit that lives in the tree in your back yard, choose what you may. You can guide yourself either by the Gita, vedas, Upanishads or whatever suits you. one can be polytheistic, monotheistic, or even atheistic, and still call oneself a Hindu. Name one belief that you do not consider essential to Hinduism, and there is a sub-philosophy of Hinduism without it (sounds very convoluted, but necessary). A cursory look seems to show that Hinduism consists in the belief that each has his/her own set of beliefs and should be allowed to pursue it as long as it doesn't cause serious trouble for someone else. Followers have always followed their own path without proselytising on others.( I haven't heard worshippers of Krishna clashing with worshippers of Ram or Kali yet ,though the situation may change if Mr. Advani shows too much zest in Ram. )
"Ekam sat, vipra bahudha vadanti" (ie truth is one, sages call it differently) is an easily accepted and well regarded idea in Hinduism. The metaphysical question "What is Hinduism?" doesnot have a cut and dried answer. One answer is that this is very similar to saying that all human beings are inherently Muslims, and it is up to everyone to recognize this fact and embrace Islam (I have seen claims made to this effect repeatedly on the net). It is really quite wasteful to expect everyone to agree to such claims. More specifically, however, the reasons for such claims in Hinduism are twofold. One is historical; every facet of ancient Indian culture from science to religion to philosophy has come to be labeled as Hindu. The second is that Hinduism is culled from diverse sources, including the Vedas (a compilation of Hymns produced by ancient seers, primarily containing rituals), the Upanishads (actually the last portion of the Vedas containing philosophic revelations), Smritis (containing social injunctions), Puranas (inspiring stories and parables), the epics (Ramayana and Mahabharata; a portion of the Mahabharata known as the Gita contains the essentials of Hindu philosophy), and a host of other religious and philosophic treatises such as the Samhitas, Agamas, etc. etc. Since none of these sources may be considered paramount, and not every Hindu necessarily draws his religious inclinations and inspiration from a single source, it is nearly impossible to characterize a single definition of Hindu.
--- Due to this very nature instead of bothering ourselves with the metaphysical questions "What is Hinduism?" and "Who is a Hindu?", I believe we should take the "epistemological detour" by asking "WHAT can we really know about the essence Hinduism?" and "HOW can we know what we know?"
Only after we answer the last couple of epistemological questions can we go back to the primary concern of defining Hinduism: for as long as the very metaphysical tools that we are using are in question, we are going nowhere.
you are talking about christianity as the referent point for your test.i wonder how the > well-defined norms of christianity be used to define other religions(which are not well- >defined as yet...as we are wont to find definitions in evrything, to be 'structurally' >right!).
let me just refer to a principal adherent to hindusim, gandhi, (as in the more uncommon >'mahatma'!),who disagreed with a lot there in hinduism yet found in its basic nature more >that would quench his thirst as a hindu.there is a structure(if you want to call a flow a >strucure...)which 'defines' hinduism well enuf
I am not trying to fix Christianity as the yardstick to judge all religions. When I suggested the structuralist method of Levi-Strauss I had something else in mind. Hinduism has developed throughout history; it is not one book or one seer we have to follow. Throughout history various social customs and belief came under the same umbrella and became a part of the religion and this is not only true regarding Hinduism but regarding every religion in the world- Christianity included. The Romans, due to their prevalent beliefs, included the idea of worshipping the CROSS in a religion which decried idolatry! (What if Jesus was executed with a gun: something to think about) Hinduism, throughout the ages, absorbed customs like Sati, animal sacrifice etc. as its parts whcih in fact had no relation whatsoever to classical Hinduism.
Structuralism is not merely pitting one religion againt another; it is a study of the structure of religion in general. In the words of Levi-Strauss himself structuralism does four things: first, it shifts from the study of 'conscious' PHENOMENA to a study of the 'unconscious' INFRASTRUCTURE; second,it doesnot treat phenomena/terms as independent entities, taking instead its basis of analysis the RELATIONS between the phenomena/terms; third it introdues the concept of SYSTEM in anthropology, linguistics, or any cultural phenomena and finally, aims at discovering 'GENERAL LAWS' EITHER BY INDUCTION OR BY LOGICAL DEDUCTION, WHICH WOULD GIVE THEM AN ABSOLUTE CHARACTER. (Structural Anthropology, 1963)
The principles of structuralism has been applied successfully in linguistics, anthropolgy and other elements of civilization with remarkable success in identifying the general STRUCTURE underlying seemingly diverse phenomena.
and am sure the structuralist who try it out can only miss its nuances wholesale.and if i may say, he nuances make it all: any >structure.(no am not putting myself against the levi-strauss(!), am just compelled to put >in these words as i find certain application of theory fearsome
I am not denying that Hinduism is unique;what I am suggesting is not OVERTHROWING but simply looking under the 'nuances' to detect the unquestionable implications of being a Hindu. For example... a structuralist will say that the principle of LIFE AFTER DEATH is primary to all religions: if you are a Christian you will HAVE to believe in heaven and hell and similarly if you are a Hindu, you will HAVE to believe in rebirth and Karma. If you don't believe in them you can never be a Hindu. Structuralism might help us discover such principles.
These are simply my lame views on the massive subject. Regards!
syamanta saikia
_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee� Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
_______________________________________________ Assam mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam
Mailing list FAQ: http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/assam/assam-faq.html To unsubscribe or change options: http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/options/assam
