We're sometimes asked to connect professors and interfaith organizations with speakers and panelists to represent Hinduism. Our relationship with what most people call "Hinduism" -- that is to say the family of faiths that are rooted in Vedic literature and culture, but may not necessarily agree on theology -- is complex. I know that there are some devotees who have rather strong views on this subject, and I hope to discuss it in more depth in future blog posts. For now, though, I'd like to focus on a related phenomenon I've observed, practically all my life.
As a second-generation American-born Hindu (yes, I really am hyphenated), I've always found the Hindu representation on panel discussions... hmmm, how can I put this delicately?... weak.
Picture it: a distinguished panel with Father Gregory, a theologian trained at Oxford who earned his PhD on comparisons between Mahayana Buddhism and the Jesuits; Rabbi Greene, who studied for years at Yeshiva and Columbia University before accepting a position as the chair of the United Jewish Rights Federation; Imam Yassir, Koranic scholar, author, and president of the Muslim American Association... and Dr. Kapoor, a cardiologist from the suburbs who likes to read the Bhagavad Gita on weekends. In other words, an uncle.
Earlier today, a professor who is organizing a panel on religion and the environmental crisis, sent me an e-mail telling me that a local (Indian) physicist volunteered to be the Hindu representative. My professor friend asked for my advice, because all the other faiths were represented by religious clerics, but the physicist (let's call him Dr. X) told him that Hindus don't really have clerics.
Here is my reply:
Hi A---,
Thanks for your prompt reply! Hinduism is exceedingly difficult to define because, in truth, it is not one unified tradition at all, but a broad umbrella of faith traditions who all have common roots in the Vedic scriptures of ancient India. In fact the terms "Hindu" or "Hinduism" are foreign words (although everyone uses them now), having been given to the people by the Mogul invaders to India in the middle ages. They are not found in any of our scriptures. Instead, the actual words used are "Vedic" (of the Vedas) or "Dharmic" (of the Dharma).
In any event, I must disagree with Dr. X that Hinduism is represented by the laity. In most traditions within the Hindu fold, there are in fact clerics (although we may not use that type of word) who minister to the congregation and speak about and for the faith. Certainly, this is the case with the Vaishnava sampradaya (most scholars agree that this is the largest "denomination" within Hinduism) which I am a part of.
Of course, since the Hindu community in the U.S. is still young and numerically small, the laity has often had to assume roles that would have been traditionally held by religious leaders, such as speaking on panels like this. This exception has now become the norm so much so that one might assume that this is the way it has always been. It is not.
I mean no disrespect to Dr. X, but as a second-gen Hindu-American and a communications professional in my religious organization, I am speaking from my past experience with such panels. Dr. X's field of study seems to be physics not religion, and -- his own personal study of the sacred texts notwithstanding -- I am curious what would qualify him as an expert on Hindu scripture? Does he have a degree in the study of the scripture (which is called, in Sanskrit, a Shastri degree)? Or does he speak on behalf of a specific Hindu organization?
Personally, I feel that having a lay person represent Hindu traditions while the others on the panel are clerics will run the risk of an unbalanced or weak presentation. Still, it may very well end up that this is your only option, and I definitely think that it is better to have a lay Hindu then no Hindu representative at all. Please let me know if I can help in any other way.
Thanks, Vineet
I know that some devotees want to tread softly around our relationship with the "H-word" (again, more posts to come on that topic -- I promise). Some devotees may even go as far as to say that Hinduism is synonymous with impersonalism, polytheism, superstition, and Indian nationalism.
I disagree.
According to most scholars, Vaisnavas make up the largest group 'within Hinduism.' That presents a wonderful opportunity to share a side of the Vedic tradition -- personalism, worship of one Supreme God, a philosophy based on devotional service -- that people may not be otherwise exposed to. We can help create a definition, and I believe that we can do it without betraying our own unique faith.
If we can be honest as Vaishnavas but broadminded and comfortable enough to represent Hinduism, we can provide the world with the articulate, committed, theologian "Hindus" that are missing from the equation right now.
Who speaks for Hinduism? Whoever is willing to do the speaking.
As a second-generation American-born Hindu (yes, I really am hyphenated), I've always found the Hindu representation on panel discussions... hmmm, how can I put this delicately?... weak.
Picture it: a distinguished panel with Father Gregory, a theologian trained at Oxford who earned his PhD on comparisons between Mahayana Buddhism and the Jesuits; Rabbi Greene, who studied for years at Yeshiva and Columbia University before accepting a position as the chair of the United Jewish Rights Federation; Imam Yassir, Koranic scholar, author, and president of the Muslim American Association... and Dr. Kapoor, a cardiologist from the suburbs who likes to read the Bhagavad Gita on weekends. In other words, an uncle.
Earlier today, a professor who is organizing a panel on religion and the environmental crisis, sent me an e-mail telling me that a local (Indian) physicist volunteered to be the Hindu representative. My professor friend asked for my advice, because all the other faiths were represented by religious clerics, but the physicist (let's call him Dr. X) told him that Hindus don't really have clerics.
Here is my reply:
Hi A---,
Thanks for your prompt reply! Hinduism is exceedingly difficult to define because, in truth, it is not one unified tradition at all, but a broad umbrella of faith traditions who all have common roots in the Vedic scriptures of ancient India. In fact the terms "Hindu" or "Hinduism" are foreign words (although everyone uses them now), having been given to the people by the Mogul invaders to India in the middle ages. They are not found in any of our scriptures. Instead, the actual words used are "Vedic" (of the Vedas) or "Dharmic" (of the Dharma).
In any event, I must disagree with Dr. X that Hinduism is represented by the laity. In most traditions within the Hindu fold, there are in fact clerics (although we may not use that type of word) who minister to the congregation and speak about and for the faith. Certainly, this is the case with the Vaishnava sampradaya (most scholars agree that this is the largest "denomination" within Hinduism) which I am a part of.
Of course, since the Hindu community in the U.S. is still young and numerically small, the laity has often had to assume roles that would have been traditionally held by religious leaders, such as speaking on panels like this. This exception has now become the norm so much so that one might assume that this is the way it has always been. It is not.
I mean no disrespect to Dr. X, but as a second-gen Hindu-American and a communications professional in my religious organization, I am speaking from my past experience with such panels. Dr. X's field of study seems to be physics not religion, and -- his own personal study of the sacred texts notwithstanding -- I am curious what would qualify him as an expert on Hindu scripture? Does he have a degree in the study of the scripture (which is called, in Sanskrit, a Shastri degree)? Or does he speak on behalf of a specific Hindu organization?
Personally, I feel that having a lay person represent Hindu traditions while the others on the panel are clerics will run the risk of an unbalanced or weak presentation. Still, it may very well end up that this is your only option, and I definitely think that it is better to have a lay Hindu then no Hindu representative at all. Please let me know if I can help in any other way.
Thanks, Vineet
I know that some devotees want to tread softly around our relationship with the "H-word" (again, more posts to come on that topic -- I promise). Some devotees may even go as far as to say that Hinduism is synonymous with impersonalism, polytheism, superstition, and Indian nationalism.
I disagree.
According to most scholars, Vaisnavas make up the largest group 'within Hinduism.' That presents a wonderful opportunity to share a side of the Vedic tradition -- personalism, worship of one Supreme God, a philosophy based on devotional service -- that people may not be otherwise exposed to. We can help create a definition, and I believe that we can do it without betraying our own unique faith.
If we can be honest as Vaishnavas but broadminded and comfortable enough to represent Hinduism, we can provide the world with the articulate, committed, theologian "Hindus" that are missing from the equation right now.
Who speaks for Hinduism? Whoever is willing to do the speaking.
No comments:
Post a Comment