Originally posted by: srishtisingh
ashwi sorry I could not understand what author wanted to conclude? can u simplify it to me?
Hi Srishti, I think the post is easier to understand if one is familiar with the context in which it is written. The author begins by condemning the pulping of the copies of the book 'The Hindus-an alternative history' by Wendy Doniger, by making a case of free speech and liberty. He goes onto show how even informed, educated people take offense when a certain view of religion is contested. He goes onto say that being a mature and democratic society, we must have tolerance for opinions and views which do not agree with our own. People and scholars have been interpreting our scriptures for generations now, and one must take into consideration the possibility that these scriptures merely reflected the society they were set in, instead of looking at them as absolute knowledge revealed by a higher power. I must mention here that the above mentioned book has been deemed by scholars to have factual inaccuracies, so should not be taken very seriously, but the point that the author makes remains in spite of that.
He illustrates the above using Star Plus's MB example, where he says how Krishna is depicted as the forever in control figure, who directs and supervises the actions of all the others, reducing him to some sort of authoritarian dictator, which he of course is not. Vindicating a certain social hierarchy by saying it has been revealed by some higher power does not make it absolute or make it binding upon us to conform to. This is where extremists go wrong- When they go on to force their religious views on others, by giving the excuse of how they are working towards the 'greater good'. I'm by no means saying that our scriptures, or the MB do this, or Hinduism propagates such a dictatorial idea, but how the very nature of 'greater good' is subjective, dynamic and relative.
In my opinion, Hinduism is one of the few religions which is fluid, malleable and not something set in stone. Attempts to make it as such, would only result in it losing some of it's relevance, as can be seen in the case of Abrahamic religions. The concept of religion itself changes when it comes to Hinduism, as it does not have an absolute standard text which one is supposed to follow unquestioningly like some Abrahamic religions. It is extremely liberal to be a religion in the strictest sense as it incorporates a wide variety of philosophies and schools of thought. In fact, the very term Hinduism was coined by the British as a religion, when in reality it was a mere geographic marker, i.e an appellation for the people living to the east of the Indus river, or in short present day Indians, Bangladeshis, Nepalese, etc. We never had a one-size-fits- all faith system, but very few know of this today.
Edited by Ashwini_D - 11 years ago
Anupamaa
Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi 2
