On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 8:56 PM, Rishab Aiyer Ghosh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 2008-07-20 at 19:25 +1000, Charles Haynes wrote: >> As long as some arbiter of Hinduness can refuse me entry to a temple >> because I'm not Hindu enough, then Hinduism is hardly the ultimate >> decentralization of religion. > > not defending hinduness here just decentralisation - which is perfectly > compatible with someone refusing you entry to the temple of which he is > the priest, with little say on whether you are refused entry to some > other temple, and no say at all over whether you can call yourself hindu > and start your own temple. as people do.
Seems to me that this particular priest represents a certain amount of centralization of authority. Not as much as the Vicar of Rome perhaps, but centralization none the less. (Unless of course there's some kind of mechanism where you can appeal to the entire temple community - whatever that might be.) It's that word "ultimate" that is the sticky bit for me. It was amusing to me to note while in India (not just India, but noticable in India) that everything seemed to have to be a superlative of some kind. The beach in Chennai was the Largest Urban Beach (yes, with capitals). Even to the point where something (I forget exactly what) was described as The <superlative> <X> (except for <Y>). Which is to say it was the second most superlative X but no one would be willing to say such a thing. You're either the winner, or you're nothing. Hinduism *is* admirably (IMO) decentralized. It's quite refreshing how different Hindus in different parts of the country can have such wildly differening beliefs and practices and yet still all consider themselves (and mostly each other) to be "Hindu." I'm just not at all sure it's "the ultimate in decentralization." There are some quite consciously and explicitly decentralized religions out there. Would it somehow diminish Hinduism if it were NOT "the ultimate?" -- Charles
