Hinduism Research Paper

hinder(prenominal)ooism and Modernity The take fors on Hindooism and modernity by David Smith are an interesting lease due to the juxtaposition of two opposite (per the author) concepts filled with showcases that are tralatitious and modern with a spirit of sym channely that is the h tout ensemble toldmark of modern times. The first step congresswomans of the Ganesha idols drinking milk beingness ridiculed by a modern day press in India serves hygienic to remind us that our thought process or theorisation has ferment rigidly scientific and we become induceed a sceptical bias towards what we can non understand or explain.For me, the process of analyzeing this contri unlession and sorting the confusion of thoughts thitherafter enough to salvage just about, involved around(prenominal) attempts to reading, writing and letting it go. As I read through this section with much anticipation, I found myself struggling to capture the essence of the books of Kant, Weber, Marx, Hegel and new(prenominal)s. After numerous readings, I realised that I was reading about modernity through the perspective of western philosophic keeprs and social thinkers. My east heritage and western education had somehow missed adequate knowledge on both Hinduism and a balanced approach to modernity.As I read the writings of Smith, shortly after the first page, the expectation of deepening my reason of Hinduism was pushed to the posterior burner and I received an education on western philosophical and social thought. That was disappointing because I had hoped to learn much about Hinduism and its throw in in the modern day. My expectation was that somehow the author would reconcile so called rational theorisations (that I too am very attached to) and the in-explainable Hindu concepts that I was familiar with.Unfortunately, other than imageing shadows of faith based thinking in Hegel, the section on Hinduism and modernity abruptly ends with little or no understand ing on Hinduism and the assortment of modern day theorists do not bridge the intellectual divide between the two concepts. A couple of days after reading this section and failing to write either thoughts, I suddenly realised another obstacle in my thinking. When I lived in India, amidst the Indian floriculture, I had come to accept Hinduism as the modern godliness as debate to Christianity or Islam.The basis of this tick was that Hinduism lacked a book or structured definitions and paid no attention to conversion of others to Hinduism. As an organised religion, it was wonderfully ambiguous, largely spiritual and turn out to man-to-man expression. It was okay to discard rituals or practices that did not my approval. That essence of Hinduism that I carried from my stay in India was a sharp contrast to the authors perspective of Hinduism being the example of a traditional religion, and perhaps a far cry from modernity.My personal thought is that Hinduism, analogous philosophic al or social theory has over the last 2000 plus years been specify by male dominated patriarchal societies. Like the cream on homemade Indian yogurt, that layer call for to be peeled past to study the essence of Hinduism or modernity and understand the closeness they share. European Discovery of Hinduism from Hinduism and Modernity The European discovery of Hinduism spans a period from the fifteenth carbon when the ports of Goa rotateed up for the Portuguese traders to the 18th century when the British begin to live in India and acculturate themselves with some of the Indian traditions.In these trio hundred years, India knowmed to change from an iso posthumousd pastoral hidden from the world, to a country that could no longer hide its spices, its riches and its culture. Sadly though, the discovery of Hinduism for non Indians did not yield a clear theoretical base, and was dependant on a largely oral and abstractly written sparse Hindu ghostly/cultural history, during a tim e when the Indian union was not point-blank to sharing with the outside world.As a result, the accounts of Hinduism written by visitors depicted the Hindu religion as grotesque or insipid, by European writers who travelled to India and experienced the culture from their biblical eyes. The practice of sati, the deification of kings, the extreme lack of Brahmans and the overly sexualised art altogether presented a confusing picture that could not be corrected, because the language of India was not dumb by the Europeans. To their sensibilities, the ways of the Indians were worthless to say the least.Read alsoArya Samaj athttps//essaysamurai.co.uk/arya-samaj/The Europeans in India, who could have had the probability to experience the Hindu culture first hand, also were unploughed at the fringes by the Indians, as per the writings of Bentinck in 1807. It seemed as though their (European) needs and business were taken care for them, without them disturbing the hierarchy and the dic tates of the local culture. At this point, it seems as though the hierarchical society in India was interchangeably utilise to represent the Hindu religion. There seemed to be very little understanding of the Hindu religion a persona from the social structure, with the t individuallyings of he religion being a closely guarded secret, by the priests and the wealthy. The fact that that Indians were not open to foreigners examining their religion is evident from Berniers writings. Berniers base of atomism of Gassendi could have led to a productive exchange between the European and Indian culture, however, it seemed as if he gave up because he could not visualise a coherent Hindu cosmological theory and the pundit who was his only point of reference of information, did not have enough skills to dialogue.There were sporadic writings through this time, for example by Abraham Roger, 1649, themed on Paganism that attempted to describe the Hindu culture of India, notwithstanding at some p oint they tended to disintegrate into a judgemental expiration of the trunk of knowledge that was very different to say the least. There evermore seemed to be enough examples to create caricatures and convince the western world, that India was not good of serious enquiry.All in all, from a modern day perspective, it seems that the Indians had created multiple layers to encourage themselves from invaders, missionaries, scholars, traders all of them having an agenda to rip open the cultural centre and bilk the vulnerability to the world. So it seems that visitors were kept at bay, condition spices, gold, and sent on their way. The resistance also came from an established social structure and was maintained by those in advocate, for whom, it made sense to keep up the confusing and flabby aura, so they may profit as the privileged few who understood both sides.Marx and Webers writings in the 19th century are also historical sources of information on this time, although Marx did not write anything that helped the world understand Hinduism. Weberss writings did contain some find out concepts which were central to the Hindus, such as Samskaras or Karma but also contained some extreme views which were more true of Webers own personal struggles and growth. It was not until the late 18th century, under the colonial rule by the British, that Indians met westerners as friends, who cherished to understand or join the Indian culture, without an agenda.Around that time, Indians within India had also begun to hear beyond their borders and the environment seemed ready for cultural exchange. The exchanges thereafter where both the Indian and the British culture absorbed elements from each other created an environment where a genuine interest could sustain and studies could be d nonpareil. Dayananda Saraswati from A Source-Book of Modern Hinduism sexual love Sikander Bhaiya, I came across something interesting and wanted to share it with you. Im taking a class in Hi nduism, about 10,000 miles away from home, and rack upment about Dayananda Saraswati, who as it turns out, is the founder of our Arya Samaj sect.You may recognize the Arja Samaj nurseries near our phratry, well here is some information behind the teachings at these schools. As my prof says, Swami Dayananda was innate(p) into a Brahmin family in 19th century India. only when unitary point you should know is that his real name is Mool Shankar and he was born in Gujrat. He found the Arya Samaj, meaning cultural organization, after an impacting situation during the night of Shivratri. When mice ran all over Shiva and ate the offerings given to him, he could not understand why the idol could not defend himself from a mouse.Then, after the death of his sister from cholera, he no longer debated and riotous idol worship. That is when he created the Arya Samaj movement for people who do not believe in idol worship. Nevertheless, Swami Dayananda did not form the Arya Samaj based on thi s iodine principle, looking at Hinduism as a whole he spurned all the falsehood and created an body who believed in all the good in Hinduism. Swami Dayananda studied believed in the Vedic scriptures. one such notion he believed in was Moksha. Moksha is the escape from the reincarnation cycle and to finally become adept with God.But, I personally believe that reincarnation is not bad and have no desire to escape this cycle. Why would ane not cherish the breeding God has given us and instead escape life to be absorbed into the soul of the Divine Spirit? As Swami Dayananda proclaims Moksha is not emancipation but death or annihilation. Death and annihilation are not words that come with a good meaning. not every sensation should be influenced to reach Moksha but instead be grateful for and enthrall what God has given us. Education is the sector in which Swami Dayananda made the closely progress. For one, he wanted the Veda Bhashya to be translated into English in order to pre ad the information contained in these scriptures to the Europeans. He also believed in equal education for all. At his point of time in history women were not given the uniform rights as men and were often left to take upon simple maiden tasks. But he stated that this would cause warfare in the house. Women will also be wanted as teachers in all girls school and knowledgeable enough to be involved in administrative affairs. In addition, Swami Dayananda urged teachers and their scholars not to give into corrupt acts that could prevent teaching or learning.I think he wanted to ensure that people and their actions were not what kept them from acquiring knowledge. I crackingly support Swami Dayanandas belief that wedding party should be Swayamvara. He believes that a man and a women should suit each other before marriage so they will be happier. In addition, he condemns child marriage, which usually results in women becoming widowed at a young age. This is such a pervasive phenomenon that completely stop child marriage has quieten not occurred in India. Instead he added another custom that women can remarry as long as they were not consummated in their first marriage.This allows women to live a conventionalism married life later on. I hope this letter has given you some light on Dayananda Saraswati and his Arya Samaj principles. Read on about this great Indian persister, his principles are inspiring. Tanya Ramakrishna Paramahansa, from A Source Book of Modern Hinduism Ramakrishna Paramahansa was a famous follower of Bhakti traditions of 19th century India. He was born into a poor Brahmin Vaishnava family in a Bengal village where he utilize his life to strenuous spiritual discipline (Richards,63) to reach union with the Divine, whom for Ramakrishna was Kali.He became a priest of the Dakshineswar Kali Temple near Kolkata, the city where his portrait hangs on every corner. Ramakrishna understood that Hinduism is like a shoreless ocean but still has two main facets Bhakti and Jnana, methods to become union with the Divine. He had chosen the Bhakti path to reach full consciousness with his Divine Mother, Kali. But he does not narrow his view of religion and God to only Kali. I comply with Ramakrishna when he says that God comes in various forms and as one becomes more de choosed to God they begin to understand the wholeness of Gods existence in this universe.When one sees Kali, the idol, with a naked eye they see black. But her color can be compared to the blue sky, as one approaches the sky they realize it has no color. Yet, the sky is nowhere and everywhere, just like Kali. So, as one comes closer to Kali you will see her without color. Indians believed that there once existed Asuras , demons, who were tall, dark skinned and out to harm. Kali is a goddess who absorbed the negative physical attributes of the Asuras, hence her dark colored skin, but on the inside is a goddess who embodies Shakti, empowerment and strength.In India, Kali is considered the most strong women who kills all evil and absorbs their poison so others are vacancy of it. She is a powerful female warrior, which goes against the stereotype that men are the ones who hold the strength and power to fight. Hinduism as a religion gives great power to women, unlike the society which strips women of their influence. I strongly support Ramakrishnas perspective that each religion is only a path leading to God (Richard, 65). I extol the many rivers into one ocean analogy used to describe his thought of different religions but only one God.He was accepting of all other religions and believed it is not good to feel that ones religion totally is true and all others are false (Richard, 65). One can see that equation was important to Ramakrishna whether it was through religion, the caste system or sex rules. He illustrated that by finding love for God, ones mind, body and soul no longer belong as a part of the cast system. In addition, during Ramakrish nas time in history women were not given the same rights as men and were often demeaned.But his belief that women should be worshiped as embodiments of the Divine Mother (Richard, 73) severed this separation. I greatly adore Ramakrishna as he demonstrates his idea of duties undertaken by people for name and fame, resulting in an individuals ego. Duties that are made and carried out by ones self is not as selfless as those sinless as they are presented. Success from carrying out duties is what creates a persons ego. The ego makes people individuals and separates them into you and I. But God sees everyone as one and wishes others would see the same.The only subject matter by which all individuals can become one is by going away from the world into solitude (Richard, 69). This moves the individual away from the distractions of the Maya and allows one to concentrate on the inner self to develop the love of God. With the love of God and as part of one, they are no longer an individual ego. Mahatma Gandhi from Gandhis Key Writings In reckon of Unity Let me tell you about a man named Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, who is cognize as Mahatma, meaning great soul, Gandhi. Mahatma Gandhi was born in 1869 to a Vaishnava family.His render and father were greatly religious people and influenced his perception of the world. However, growing up, he realized he was not a man of religion but of ethics. His interest in ethics drove him to study Law in London, England. With a background in Law, Mahatma Gandhi set out to create equality and morality amongst the people. His first attempt was in southeastward Africa where he went to attain civil rights for the 62,000 Indians living there as laborers. At that time, Indians were not allowed to vote and were deprived of many other human rights.The civil rights movement lead by Mahatma Gandhi in southeast Africa is where he found Satyagraha. Satyagraha as a theoretical principle was first introduced in Mahatma Gandhis book Hind Swa raj and he shows how he used this philosophical principle in South Africa through his book Satyagraha In South Africa. Satyagraha is a theory that recognizes the universal possibility of goodness and virtue (Suhrud,78). The original Gujurati title of Mahatma Gandhis book is Dakshin Africa Na Satyagraha No Itihas (Suhrud, 77) when translated into English it would read A explanation of Satyagraha in South Africa.However, Mahatma Gandhi had a strong stance between the words Itihas and History, even though they can be considered direct translations of each other. He believed that Itihas in English means its so happened as opposed to history because for him history is associated with a past filled with wars and hatred. This is a coup doeil of how Mahatma Gandhi coined the term Satyagraha as a soul force that is completely void of violence. (Suhrud, 77) Satyagrahas meaning has many faces and the theory itself comes along with many value, but the real meaning of Satyagraha is holding on to truth.According to Mahatma Gandhi this meaning should insinuate love and firmness, bringing about non-violence. This is a separate term from nonoperational resistance, because the latter is still considered a weapon using violence. In fact, one of the principles of Satyagraha is Ahimsa meaning non-violence. Mahatma Gandhi started the Satyagraha struggle in South Africa with a series of non-violent protests. One such act was the burning of registration certificates at a association bonfire. This bonfire was an act of defiance against the Asiatic Registration Act of 1907.The means by which Gandhi took a stance against the act broke the law, hence he took the cor answering punishment i. e. multiple blows to the head. As a Satyagrahi, Gandhi did not respond to the violent punishment but instead attempted to get back on his feet and continue burning the registration certificates. Due to Gandhis persistence, he was thrown in jail for not succumbing to the police. This is one brutal example of how Mahatma Gandhi implemented Satyagraha in South Africa.Mahatma Gandhi believed that morals and ethics were essential in order to create unity amongst societies and the people within them. From moral and ethics he derived a dogma known as Satyagraha whose core values are truth and ahimsa. Mahatma Gandhi adopted this attitude and applied it in any of his rebellious acts in South Africa. This was an astute strategy he created, so regardless of his actions that stood against the power, he was still ethically correct, making it more voiceless for the authorities to bring him down. In this manner, Mahatma Gandhi attained civil rights for the Indians in South Africa.