On Monday 21 Jul 2008 7:55:29 am Charles Haynes wrote: > They call themselves Hindu, and who are you or I to say otherwise?
Neither are you, nor am I saying otherwise. But I do say that they are not the ONLY Hindus, even if they were inclined to define Hinduism as being what they say it is. > I accept that they call themselves Hindu, and that they have set > themselves up as arbiters of Hinduism. Do you *not* think they are > Hindu? It seems very straightforward to me. If Hinduism is the > ultimate decentralized religion, then these people are as Hindu as any > other - and they pretty obviously do think there is some standard of > Hinduness (and that race and skin color are a component.) These people are as Hindu as anyone else. In fact I think this is where your understanding of Hinduism begins to fail. Hinduism does not punish or prevent people from being racist, color conscious or exclusivist. It merely allows that viewpoint to exist along with other viewpoints. People who take these attitudes are as Hindu as those who do not hold these attitudes. Both these opposing and contradictory attitudes are allowed for Hindus. It is your bad luck (karma) if you got caught up with a racist/exclusivist bunch of Hindus, And it is your freedom of belief and your prerogative if you choose to pin down Hinduism as being restricted to one view and not another. It is not. > Now perhaps I'm confused, but it seems to me that the "ultimate" in > decentralization would not have quite so many authoritarians. I wish > Hinduism were as decentralized as you say, but my experience of it > was different. Now you're talking. This brings us straight back to the topic of this thread (anarchy). Hinduism may have attempted to be decentralized (which it is in theory), but the fact that it is full of central attractors (Authoritarians. People who poach on Hinduism and grab parts of it) is testament to the fact that decentralization always falls victim to forces that seek to bend views one way or another. As a matter of fact the name "Hinduism" is itself one that gives a degree of centrality, a monolithic label, if you like to a diverse set of beliefs. The remote ancestors of people who are now called Hindu, never defined themselves historically as Hindus. The term "Hinduism" and "Hindu" are nowadays typically what anyone wants to believe they represent. I believe the original label was applied to the peoples living East of the Indus river. The story that started this thread - about an almost utopian decentralized society will IMO remain just that - a story. It can never (IMO. Again) achieve decentralization and peaceful anarchy any more than a 3000 plus year old experiment at decentralization that Hinduism represents. In the past, the tribal in the forest who prayed to a tree-stump idol representing a tiger was declared impure and not allowed into the huge stone temple of the self appointed authority, the Brahmin, who claimed he was the real Hindu. The Christian missionary comes along and says "The Brahmin represents Hinduism, the tribal is not one, and needs to be saved from the power of the Brahmin" Exactly who is Hindu and who isn't? And who makes the decision? And for whom? > I also think you may be unaware of other rather more explicitly > decentralized religions. Quakers and Unitarian Universalists come > immediately to mind. Aren't these people fragments of the greater whole of Christianity? Christianity is as centralized as they come, and every denomination that now exists has been AFAIK a rebellion against that centralization. Some, like Protestants - have their own centralization. Others - perhaps Quakers have less (or little) centralization. In fact the paucity of Quakers on the ground shows just how powerful the pull of society seems to be towards centralization of some sort despite attempts at decentralization. I am open to correction in this regard. shiv
