Discussion Week 6

Drag to rearrange sections
Rich Text Content

Discuss the sacred reality of Hinduism focusing on the place and role of humanity in that reality. Compare and contrast the Hindu view with those of the other religions in this unit. Are the similarities strong enough to allow us to speak of an Indian vision of human identity? If so, what is it? If not, what do you see as the major stumbling block/blocks to such a vision? Finally, compare the Indian view/views of humanity with a vision or visions from two of the other areas of the world we have considered.

     Okay- I'm announcing at the outset that I'm jumping into this discussion without a net or life-preserver- Hinduism has befuddled me. But in all fairness, our professor has pointed out the weaknesses in Sproul's text, and further explained that "Hinduism" itself is a European construct that tries to name the "un-nameable". How to proceed from that- I can only "wing it". I apologize, therefore, in advance... hopefully some of you in this discussion have had some insights I can learn from.

     Apparently most of Hindu thought is based upon the "Vedas", which are the equivalent of Judeo-Christian texts considered as divinely written. I see some parallels in their shared primordial view of a water-based original setting. I notice some elements of sacrifice in common. But beyond that, I find little in common with the Near East, which I'm using as my comparative area. Whereas the Near East gradually evolved in a monotheistic direction, India seems to have tried to keep all the disparate gods intact, even if only for historical reasons. I appreciated the John B. Noss quote that Professor McKinnon shared in our module, where these former gods become "preserved, like bees in amber".

     Rather than further show my ignorance so far of Hinduism in this initial post, I'm going to offer a somewhat perfunctory conclusion that there is not enough unity in Hinduism to speak of a shared Indian vision, and even less when compared with Jainism and Buddhism. Hinduism, from my initial impression and from what the professor has offered, is too disparate to lump into some collective body. It's kind of like trying to come up with one definition of "birds"- way too much diversity there to be summed up in a few paragraphs.

     Here comes attempt # 2... most of you have probably noticed that you can't see other posts until you've contributed one of your own. So I just jumped into post #1, to test the waters. And gleaned some important insights from you that had already posted...

     I didn't address an important prompt- what the role of humanity was in Hinduism. Well, I think the disparity in Hinduism springs from the area's diversity itself. All sorts of foreign traders were passing through. There may or may not have been a caste-system already in place, which divided India's population into four distinct classes (some scholars propose that the castes were imposed during much later British colonization). Add that to the many infiltrating beliefs, and you have numerous ways to see everything.  A true melting-pot.

     With that in mind, Hinduism does share traits with the Near East and even Europe. Starting maybe with Egypt, division of labor and the resultant different social classes demanded more apropos myths to support those in charge.

     The way I see it, Buddhism attempts the impossible, and somehow succeeds on occasions. When we were all infants/toddlers, we didn't think in words. We really didn't even see ourselves as separate from anything else. A two-year-old is just drinking it all in, (let's say on a walk in the park with her parents). The smells, the warmth of the sun, a dog walks by (all animals are Buddhists), your mom hugs you, you're thirsty and they get you a drink... does "God" matter to such a child? Of course not- they are God! A tree isn't a "t-r-e-e"- it's this tall thing that's just as much alive as you are, and you know it, without understanding it.

     The koans of Zen Buddhism try to get us back there. Words fail- once you've named something, you've quantified it, defined it; made it separate when it both is and is-not so. So you get the prompt: "what did your face look like before you were born?" from a Zen master. There's no answer. That is the answer. (It's also not the answer). and so on...

     Here's a good experiment: choose any word- your name, or whatever else, and speak it over and over, about once a second. In a minute or less, you'll notice something...

     Nirvana or enlightenment is being able to get back to those wordless, thoughtless days. We're all separate entities, yes. We have names, we're here in a specific time and place. But simultaneously, we are also just individual cells in the "mind-ground", like ants in a colony, and our function there is timeless. The individual ant doesn't matter- and yet it does.

     Often, in the Zen stories, when a student asked a master some pretentious or ego-based question- the answer would be the master swatting them with a stick! That moment of wordless anger or humiliation the student experiences is the window back to the source.

rich_text    
Drag to rearrange sections
Rich Text Content
rich_text    

Page Comments

No Comments

Add a New Comment:

You must be logged in to make comments on this page.