We
talked last time about the basic
path we are taking for this course, our exploration of World Religions,
starting with some basic definitions.
Jay and his group pointed to the roots of the world “religion,”
noting
its connection to our word “ligament,” something that binds. This is a particularly useful way of thinking
about religion: as something that holds people together.
It’s also useful to think about religion as a
way of exploring and explaining this world and our life in it. In addition, we might see “religion” as an
attempt to find a balance of our conflicting, sometimes irrational
desires, our
will to power, order, comfort, truth, community.
I
pointed out that, for most ancient
civilizations, religion and society (or religion and civilization) were
almost
identical, religion serving as a binding and balancing force. This was
particularly true for the Romans—the most religious of all peoples,
according
to Polybius.
But,
as I pointed out last time, in
its attempt to absorb all its subject peoples into one great religious
/political/social system ended up swallowing to strains of thought that
served
to upset that religious balance: Greek philosophy and the tradition
that stems
from the Hebrew prophets. This meant
that, in addition to religion as a preserver of tradition and the
status quo,
there was within Roman society an element of religion that challenged
the
political and social status quo in a major way.
This opens up the door to “world” religions, the kind of faiths
that
might exist (to at least an extent) independently of the political and
social
status quo, religions that present paths one might choose within many
different
societies and cultures—religions that (unlike Mesopotamian polytheism)
might
survive even the collapse of a civilization!
All of these world religions are paths that a thinking man or
woman
might well choose to follow today, regardless of what particular
tradition they
have grown up with. I don’t think anyone
would be all that surprised to find an earnest American seeker of truth
to
embrace Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism
or
Taoism. We would be surprised to find anyone embracing (say)
traditional
Mesopotamian religion: I don’t think you’re likely to find neighbors
worshipping Marduk!
Why
do some religions fade out
altogether? Why can others survive? For 19th century thinkers like
Comte and Hegel, there was a natural course of religious development
here, a
move away from polytheism toward monotheism and (in Comte’s case) a
move away
from theism altogether. But it’s not
quite as simple as that: while the polytheistic systems of Mesopotamia,
Egypt,
Greece, and Rome faded into nothing, a very similar polytheistic system
remains
strong, strong enough to compete with the other major world religions
for human
allegiance: Hinduism.
Initially,
Hinduism (like the
religions systems of Egypt and Mesopotamia) was a status quo religion
virtually
identical with Indian civilization itself.
The name “Hindu” is the label outsiders gave to the people of
the
Sind/Indus region, people who developed one of the world's first great
civilizations. At roughly same time great civilizations
developing in
Egypt and Mesopotamia, an equally strong civilization was developing in
the
Indus valley (what we usually call Harappan civilization). Most
probably,
some of the beliefs of later Hindu teaching go back to the Harappan
period. Unfortunately, the Harappan
language has yet to be deciphered, so we don’t know about Indian belief
of this
period the kinds of things we know about contemporary developments in
Egypt and
Mesopotamia.
Around
1500 B.C. Harappan
civilization came to an end. We don't know for sure exactly how
and why
(since we have no written records) but many historians believe that the
arrival
of a new people into India, the Aryans, played an important role in
disrupting Harappan
civilization. These Aryans, already dominating Media and Persia, now
moved on
to India as well (c. 1500 BC). At the time, the Aryans were illiterate,
but
they were militarily strong enough to dominate much of the subcontinent.
Interestingly,
the Aryans themselves
ended up establishing one of the world's greatest civilizations. The
next 1000
years of Indian history (1500-500 BC), what we call the Vedic age is a
great
creative period (see these Aryan /Vedic Age links). During
this time,
India produced some of the world's most impressive art and
architecture.
In addition, India was for hundreds of years the greatest center of
mathematics
in the world. Only in the 17th century did Europeans catch up,
and even
today many of the world's top mathematicians are from India.
India also
was the original home of the world's greatest game, chess (invented
perhaps by
an Indian queen to distract her overly-amorous husband.)
It is
during the Vedic period that
Hindu religion takes its basic shape—and here we do have solid
information on
what the peoples of India believed.
During this period, the people of India created and passed on
some of
the greatest epics in all of human history, poems full of exciting
stories and
impressive insights into virtually every aspect of human experience. We get works like the Vedas, the Upanishads,
the Ramayana, and the Bhagavad Gita.
[Much
excellent material one each of
these works and many more important Hindu texts online:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/india/indiasbook.asp]
Now,
unfortunately for us, it’s not
easy to come up with an easy systematization of the divisions of Hindu
scriptures, a “law, prophets, writings” sort of thing. Here’s
Wikipedia’s
summary giving approximate dates of the some of the major texts:
Here’s
an oversimplification that
works for me:
1.
Vedas (knowledge): the general name for all the Hindu religion
texts. Not all the religious texts are
technically part of the Vedas, and there is dispute among Hindus about
what
technically should be considered part of the Vedas and what not.
2.
Mahabharata: perhaps the longest poem ever written: 200,000
lines! (A typical Greek play is around
2,000
lines). There’s a “story within a story”
technique here, and, there are some sections within the Mahabharata
that can
stand alone as major works, e.g., the Bhagavad Gita and a short version
of the
Ramayana. Many of the Puranas likewise belong here.
3.
The Bhagavad Gita: the story of the warrior Arjuna and the way
Krishna
guides him into truth.
4.
The Ramayana: many stories within the framework of the great
love story
of Rama and Sita.
5.
The Puranas: stories of the gods and goddesses, genealogies.
Some of the
stories are in the Mahabharata, but there are later Puranas, including
stories
reflecting Buddhist and Jain beliefs.
6.
The Upanishads: summaries of the philosophical teachings of the Vedas,
some written toward the end of the Vedic period, and some post-vedic.
Note
notice that the arrangement of
Hindu texts in complex and sometimes contradictory.
Hinduism is a complex religion and, as the
Hindus themselves admit, a contradictory religion. In the Hindu
view,
however, these contradictions are not at all a bad thing. Reality
is
contradictory, and a religion ought to reflect the contradictory nature
of
human experience. This is a very different attitude than that of
western
religion! Christians, Moslems, and Jews are all disturbed by any
apparent
contradictions in their religions, and work hard to show that their
religious
beliefs are consistent.
Not
so the Hindus. This attitude toward
contradiction is a great
strength of Hinduism. It enables Hinduism able to absorb any new
religious impulses. You've got a new religious idea?
Great!
We'll believe that...too!
Hinduism’s
ability to absorb and
include religious ideas means that, eventually, it is a religion with
something
for every taste—including a god for every taste. Your
Novak anthology gives you some the
oldest Vedic texts, hymns in honor of the various gods.
Now I
don’t see anything in these
texts a whole lot different from the hymns in honor of Baal or Tammuz,
are Ra
in the polytheistic traditions that died out—no real clues as to why
Hinduism
can become a world religion. And, for
the most part, there is much here to support Prothero’s contention that
there
is a radical difference among the major religions, and particularly a
great
contrast between Hinduism and Christianity.
This is particularly clear when one looks at the earliest Hindu
law
code, the Code
of Manu.
[Discussed
extensively in
class. See http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/india/manu-full.asp]
One
of most important contrasts with
Western religious tradition is the very different attitude toward
ritual.
Rituals, particularly religious austerities like the tapas, give
spiritual
power quite apart from good and evil. Taraka gained his
power
through his tapas. Viswamitra became a sage through
austerities--and a
sage powerful enough to create an alternative heaven! This idea
is very
different from that of Christians, Jews and Moslems: religious
ritual in
these religions is important, but not nearly as important as in
Hinduism.
What's
also a bit strange is
inconsistency in ritual. Within Hinduism, there is temple
prostitution
and often great emphasis on sex as the way to spiritual progress (e.g.,
Tantraism).
On the other hand, there is an equally high regard for abstinence (e.g.
Ghandi
and his women). Why such seemingly contradictory ideas?
Perhaps
because the ultimate virtue is to see that physical things make no
difference. Or
perhaps Huston Smith is on the right track in seeing a non-judgmental
“we must
all pass through these stages of development” idea within Hinduism.
Hinduism
dominates every area of
life in India, including the political and social system. Indian
society:
the caste system. There are four principle castes and
thousands of
sub-castes. Caste in India determines your whole life: where you
can
live, what you can eat, what profession you will follow, what you can
wear, and
who you will marry.
For
the top castes, this works out
quite well. "Brahman is by right the Lord of this whole
creation.
A Brahman is born highest on earth, the lord of all created
beings.
Whatever exists in the world is the property of Brahman," says the Code
of
Manu, the most important of the Hindu law codes.
For
the lower castes, things are not
nearly so good. They must live outside the villages.
For
clothing: the garments of dead. For eating utensils: broken
dishes.
For jewelry: iron. They can be killed for simply walking on
a
public road or entering the house of Brahman.
The
caste system is very different
from what we're use to in the West, but it has some advantages.
It
produces a very stable society. Why? It takes away a lot of
worry.
The
social status of women is also
very different from what we're used to in the west. Since
marriage is
determined by caste, marriages are arranged by parents, often when
those to be
married are very young. Perhaps this is not so bad--arranged
marriages in
India are often more successful than ours! But the marriages are
hardly
equal.
The
Code of Manu says, "A
husband must be constantly worshipped as a God by a faithful
wife. Day
and Night women must be kept in dependence by the males of their
families."
What
you have to watch out for in
particular is women's unbridled lust. "It is the nature of women
to
seduce men in this world; for that reason the wise are never
unguarded.
One should not sit in a lonely place with one's mother, sister or
daughter, for
the senses are powerful and master even a learned man."
Women
are expected to control lust
and be faithful to husbands--even after the husband is dead.
Among some
Hindus, women are expected to prove their fidelity by casting
themselves onto
their husbands’ funeral pyres, burning themselves alive. This
practice
is known as "sati" (suttee in some texts), and a woman who
sacrifices herself is said to be "sati" (pure).
Another
major difference between
Hinduism and Western societies is its acceptance of
infanticide. It
is perfectly acceptable in Hindu society to kill an unwanted
baby. You
have a girl when you wanted a boy? Kill it, and try again.
This
was once the practice in the
West as well. The Greeks and Romans considered infanticide
acceptable. But ultimately, we came to view baby-killing as one
of the
worst of crimes. Or at least we did until 1973.
Why
would women jump on
pyres? How can people kill their own babies?
A lot
of it has to do with Hindu
belief in reincarnation. Hinduism teaches that this life not all
there
is: you will later come back in another form. What form you get
depends
on your karma. If your karma is good, you will come back as
something
better, a Kshatriya or a Brahman, perhaps. If you are bad, you'll
come
back as something worse, as a member of lower caste, or as a woman
perhaps. And
if you're particularly bad, you'll come back as a rat--reincarnation is
not
limited to human forms.
Reincarnation
is an idea the West
toyed with. Plato and the Pythagorians believed in reincarnation
(probably
influenced by the Hindus). But the West basically gave
up the
idea while India held onto it. The result: a very different
attitudes to
all sorts of things, particularly suffering. In the West,
one
automatically feels obligated to help those suffering if one can.
In
India, one is not so quick--because you know why they are suffering,
and there
is not much you can do if someone's karma is bad.
Hindu
emphasis on reincarnation is tied closely to their idea of
human history. Hindus believe in a cycle
of eras (yugas) each with a different mixture of good and evil. In Kritayuga, there is universal
righteousness. In Tetrayuga,
righteousness is reduced by ¼. Next
is
Dwaparayuga, where righteousness if reduced by ½.
And it Kaliyuga, righteousness is gone. The
cycles turn slowly: more than 10,000,000
years for each. Unfortunately for us, we are caught in Kaliyuga—not
much hope
of earthly escape—in our next many incarnations, we will still be in
the midst
of Kaliyuga. Obtain Nirvana if you can!
Well,
here ends our first session on Hinduism: and you get a temporary break
from Kaliyuga. But you will find will probably find yourself back
right here tomorrow.