Tweet
Originally posted by CyberShy
Hinduism, ie. has very firm believes on ones hierarchical position in nature. (and that includes the position of different humans)
Hinduism, ie. has very firm believes on ones hierarchical position in nature. (and that includes the position of different humans)
Who is to define what is "Hinduism"? Can it be separated from the other Indic traditions with which it is cross-compatible? Can it include the traditions which were its predecessors, and some elements of whose continuity are still part of it, but are no longer central (such as the worship of our ancestors, whom we call the pitrus)?
Also, when there is a contradiction between the understandings of different people through different periods (the definition of "Who is a Brahmin" (or any other Varna, for that matter), for instance, has been a subject of as much, or more, controversy as the definition of "Who is a Hindu" itself), which one takes precedence? Who decides which one takes precedence? On what basis is the decision made? On what basis is the decision made as to who decides?
By the hierarchical position of humans, I take that to be a reference to caste. The intriguing aspect of the system is that the sacred scriptures of Hinduism (the Vedas) have only one oblique reference to Varna, and not a single one to caste. The later literature - specifically, those portions of the epics which were interpolated in later, and the Puranas - have many references to Varna, and a few references to caste. Now which do we take to be the authentic ones? Because the Puranas and epics derive their legitimacy from the fact that they claim to embody the principles found in the Vedas, do we go by the Vedas only? Or do we accept that each era has its own way of expressing what it considers its ideals, and that thus the Puranas and epics are completely authentic for their time - leading to the conclusion that now we need to write them again?
Also, the Shaivites and Vaishnavites take their Agamas and respective Puranas very seriously. The Agamas are, for them, the words of their deity, and thus equal to the Vedas in authenticity. Their respective Puranas, though contradicting each other, are treated as the correct one by each. Now who decides whether or not the Agamas are co-equal to the Vedas or not? On what basis is the decision made? Who decides which Purana is the correct one?
The problem is, there is no one "Hinduism", and there is no way you can say that "Hinduism believes in X", because there are usually many opinions within what Hinduism is defined to be on X, whatever it is. "Y religion believes in Z" can only be said if said religion Y has a hierarchy of religious decision-makers who decide, and the consensus among whom is taken to speak on behalf of Y. Hinduism has no such hierarchy, and no consensus, either.
Comment