[Assam] Evolving of Hinduism

[Chan Mahanta]

Hi Mohan:

I can understand your frustrations and your desire to appoint a 
Hinduism czar to  rule the flock,albeit 'democratically', to make it 
uniform. I am no Hindu, just an ordinary human being. I could be a 
Hindu, if I knew what it means. But I don't. I have asked around, but 
no one seems to know what it means to help me out. In spite of my 
humble and confused  position in life, having been raised around a 
sort of a 'cultivar', a variant if you would, of what is vaguely 
called Hinduism, I have a number of questions regarding your 
propositions:

>"HIndu way of life"

*** What is this thang --this Hindu way of Life? I hope it is not a 
copy of the post 9/11 Amrikan slogan -- Amrikan way of life, for 
example. I have heard this - this Hindu-way-of-life in the past. But 
never could figure out what it means. Can you help? Is it something 
to do with rituals that govern one's lifestyle, like performing 
pujas, fasting, going to a house of worship to pay homage to the gods 
of one's choice, bribing gods and goddesses for desirable outcomes, 
wearing particular clothes and decorative features, eating certain 
foods, avoiding or discriminating against people of certain children 
of lesser gods, so on and so forth ? Or something a tad bit more 
substantial or meaningful?

Don't be offended by my enumeration of only the not-so-flattering 
choices. You can  inform us of better choices available. It will be 
educational.

>  >We have to elect one such member and invest him the sole authority to
>speak for every Hindu.

*** That is electing a dictator. It could work. Dictators can be 
fine. I have no problem with them. Indian lore, mythology and history 
is rife with accounts of benevolent dictators. Or even malevolent 
ones that the benevolent ones overthrew. So I have no problem with 
the concept of an elected dictator. After all desi-demokrasy is 
little different from your concept here. But how can you elect, or 
even appoint a Hinduism czar , when Hinduism has sooo many different 
variants? Why should a xongkori, 
mahapuruxia-bhwr-taal-bojai-raam-naam-gowa Hindu agree to be ruled 
over by a 'Goneshok-gaakhir-khuuwa-Hindu' for example?


>Votes should be based on priests from every temple.

***  How does this reconcile with:

>A priest in a temple is a profession.

*** If it is MERELY a PROFESSION, then how come this particular 
profession gets priority voting rights over, say, the 'oldest' 
profession for one thing?


>  >and the elected Sankracharya's
>should be well versed with National and International current affairs,
>History, Should be able to speak Hindi, English, Sanskrit and should also
>have knowledge of other religious beliefs.


*** You really put a lot of burden on this poor fellow. Why should a 
RELIGIOUS figure be con versant with matters of state, national or 
international? Are you suggesting that matters of faith overlap or 
entangle with matters of state, as in a religious state? I know, I 
know--you are reflecting desi-realities here aren't you?


>  >We should have a Maha Sankracharya at a National Level and a Global
>>Sankracharya (maybe we can call him or her as the Vasudheika
>Sankracharya)


*** How do these  minor powers and major powers exercise their 
authority?  How would they ENFORCE their diktats? Don't you think 
these Hindu czars would also need an army, a 'sena' to enforce their 
authority? Perhaps Baal Saheb Thakrey would lend his 'senas' on a 
mercenary basis, for a fee, to enforce  the will of the Hindu czar?


>  >Then we can have a sole source authority with assistants who would
>interpretate the Hindu scriptures in a fair manner.

*** Hmmm! Should I read between the lines here and conclude that the 
current problems with Hinduism, including that of casteism, is a 
result of UNFAIR interpretation of them 'scriptures'? That does not 
sound right. What is so unfathomable about the 'scriptures'? Were 
they written in some incomprehensible language, that Hindu 
intellectuals are at a loss as to what they mean? That would be a 
real stretch Mohan. I think the urohi-gosor-wr is somewhere else.

>Caste simply reflects a person's professions and is not fixed.

*** Fair enough! So, should those in the profession of adulterating 
food for a quick profit,for example, be NOT banished to the caste of 
untouchables? And if they should be, how come they rule, most of the 
time? Where is the disconnect in this Hindu logic?


>  > A priest in a
>temple is a profession. If somebody else has the know how, even they can
>do that. Problem is, there is no organised schooling for this profession.
>Priests should have certifications too.

*** WHY do Hindus need priests to begin with, never mind licenses? Is 
it because the gods won't listen to mere mortals without priestly 
interpreters, licensed or inherited, perhaps?  In other words these 
Hindu gods don't necessarily live everywhere, certainly not in one's 
heart, thus requiring 'priest', lawyer-like, to translate the 
faithful's intents, so the gods could comprehend what they are prayed 
to and for?  I don't know Mohan, it seems to me that it runs afoul of 
the omnipotent and omniscient God or its oodles of manifestations 
concept. It sounds like these gods are language challenged :-). I 
hope I am wrong.


>  >In the long run, reservations should be for different
>reasons, economically backward, very repressed folks.

*** That won't at all be necessary if the tyranny of the 
upper-caste-wallas did not exist, right? Why don't the Hindu 
intellectuals go explain that the caste system is a sham anyway, that 
the Brahmins ( or Mahantas for that matter) are a fraud to begin 
with, that no-one REALLY needs Sanskrit-mantra-chanters to be 
listened to by the gods? Can YOU say that aloud? If you can, can you 
draft other like minded intellectuals to join you and educate the 
uninformed? Will you?


>Reccomendations to reservation should come from localtemples first.

*** But what if they don't have temples? In Assam they don't have 
temples. I know they are growing like mushrooms now, but didn't 
before. What about non-temple-going Kharkhowas? What would they do? 
Or for that matter my kind, who prefer to worship that mound of rocks 
at the bend of the road? Or those who chant Alla-hu-Akbar and bend 
over facing Mokka? Or sing Ave Maria? Looks like you are proposing 
big trouble Mohan. Tell me you are NOT a Hindutw-walla. That it was 
merely a slip, maybe Freudian but not fraudulent.


>  >Otherwise how do you
>>wean out affluent classes from  mis-using these certificates and denying
>the genuine ones.

*** Aw,come now Mohan! Use a little bit of your middle-class clout. 
Nothing is impossible with a small bribe. Didn't you know that? It is 
an ancient  Hindu tradition, a way-of-life! Even the gods have 
reconciled with it.

cm :-).



At 1:32 PM -0400 8/13/06, Mohan R. Palleti wrote:
>Umesh:
>Your thoughts on removing casteism is very commendable and thought
>provocking!
>One of the most difficult task to implement this is the fact that we do
>not have a single authority or focal point to discuss the religion or
>shall we say the "HIndu way of life". The Christians have a pope, The
>Buddhists have a Dalai Lama, we do not have any one single person who can
>impress upon the thousands of Hindu's across the world.
>
>We have to elect one such member and invest him the sole authority to
>speak for every Hindu. Votes should be based on priests from every temple.
>Have regional authorities and then a national authority and then a global
>authority.
>
>We already have regional authorities in place like the Sankracharya's. But
>this too should be based on a election and the elected Sankracharya's
>should be well versed with National and International current affairs,
>History, Should be able to speak Hindi, English, Sanskrit and should also
>have knowledge of other religious beliefs.
>
>We should have a Maha Sankracharya at a National Level and a Global
>Sankracharya (maybe we can call him or her as the Vasudheika
>Sankracharya).
>
>Then we can have a sole source authority with assistants who would
>interpretate the Hindu scriptures in a fair manner.
>
>Casteism is not a birth right. Neither is a priest in a temple. Caste
>simply reflects a person's professions and is not fixed. A priest in a
>temple is a profession. If somebody else has the know how, even they can
>do that. Problem is, there is no organised schooling for this profession.
>Priests should have certifications too.
>
>
>Once this polarization of castes takes place, it would also go away from
>our society. In the long run, reservations should be for different
>reasons, economically backward, very repressed folks. But with very strict
>implementations. All current reservation certificates should be held null
>and void. New reservation certificates should be isuued. Authorities
>signing these certificates should be held responsible for falsifying
>evidence. And the penalty should be very high. A couple of years of non
>bailable jail term.
>Anybody who is economically sound but has applied for reservaton should be
>denied the facility. Reccomendations to reservation should come from local
>temples first. The priests should be held responsible too for issuing such
>a reccomendation. Evidence of property holding, number of educated people
>in the family.
>
>This way we will get local Hindu's registered and misuse of the
>certificates would be stopped at the lowest level. Otherwise how do you
>wean out affluent classes from  mis-using these certificates and denying
>the genuine ones.
>
>
>Mohan R. Palleti
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>assam mailing list
>assam at assamnet.org
>http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org