From: akash@sol.berkeley.edu (Akash R. Deshpande)
Subject: Re: Hinduism and Islam in the 21st Century
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 08:44:21 GMT

In article <balaji.724196423@yorku.ca> balaji@nexus.yorku.ca (Balaji) writes:

>a very well written article [deleted]

Thank you for imputing to me perniciousness, right-wing sympathies and
a predilection to Ramayana, none of which I profess except may be the
last so far as poetry is concerned.

Essentially what you have written is that people are noble, people
are base; sometimes in some age and place, whole peoples are coloured
noble or ignoble. Which is all quite true, but only questionably germane
to my point.

Fundamentally, Judaism, Christianity and Islam proclaim that there
is one transcendent god not involved in the world. Fundamentally,
Hinduism proclaims that there is a transcendent god who is myriadly
involved in this world and evolves in it. The rest is all local
colour---whether there will be a second coming, or how many wives
you can choose, or whether society has castes, or whether creation
was a miracle with or without process. Religions emerge out of
substantial mystic and practical traditions that mould the character
of the messenger, message and the laity.  Though the messenger could
break the mould, the tone of the religion is influenced by the
other two.

The basic issue faced by religions has been the dichotomy between
this-worldliness and other-worldliness. This has resulted in various
responses---from heavens and hells to fatalism. Modern science has
posed the most potent challenge in this regard. In the Judaeic,
Christian and Islamic model you have to make or break your faith
since science is this-worldly and god is transcendent. Christianity
has in the large chosen to break the faith and evolved secular
humanism which modern Christianity adopts. This may be because
western europe consists of mainly practical people. What Christianity
has faced over the last 400 years, both Islam and Hinduism have to
face today. In this sense Islam is today at the threshold which
Christianity crossed 400 years ago. I did not imply any linear
development of ideas, societies or religion.

I don't know how Islam will respond to the challenge of science.
The path for Hinduism (such as it may be) is to shirk off fatalism,
broaden its ideology and press forward with science, thus to
prosperity. In this regard, I am opposed to the right-wing fanatics,
for they narrow the scope of Hinduism rather than broaden it.
It should be noted that this broadening has been the traditional
response of Hinduism to challenges from diversity. This broadening
of its world-view is possible since in its axiomatisation, god is
involved in this world, and evolves out in different forms. Thus, Hinduism
does not have a make or break choice before it. Another outcome
is that of Hindu secularism which results from broad understanding
and incorporation of diversity within itself. In this regard, Hindu
secularism is different from western secular humanism. In the latter,
religious profession is a personal matter. In the former, a collective
profession of different religions is possible (hopefully harmoniously).

Of course, one is free to say that Hindu philosophy is too amorphous
and can vacuously adapt to any circumstances. But I suggest that
Hinduism does make positive statements, which are beyond the scope
of this article to discuss.

-Akash

Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian