Dealing with Sectarianism, and ethnocentricity

[Vinayaka]

Hinduism is vast. Most people see that, and are quite willing to tolerate differing views. (Thank goodness)

But sometimes we encounter that same attitude that we sometimes find on religious forms in general. You know, the 'I'm right and you're wrong' attitude, or answering questions about Hinduism, as if your answers were factual, and the official stance on Hinduism.

In reality, from my view, there is no official stance. There are many stances, many views, expressing a variety of opinions.

My sect and sampradaya started the magazine Hinduism Today to counter this extreme sectarianism. So, for example, when they do a controversial story of Hindus and abortion, they'll interview a dozen swamis, and publish a dozen views. Although they're Saiva, the stories in Hinduism Today are about Vaishnava groups, modern swamis, modern movements, and more. It explores the diversity, philosophically, and geographically, by doing stories like a recent one on Bali, or on Ramanuja. The overall goal is to promote Hindu Solidarity, not one particular sect.

So my question is ... what do you do when you encounter this intolerance within Hinduism itself? The guy who goes on and on about how his Guru is the smartest Guru on the planet, all the while demeaning the rest.

Thoughts?

 

[Shantanu]

Hinduism is vast. Most people see that, and are quite willing to tolerate differing views. (Thank goodness)

But sometimes we encounter that same attitude that we sometimes find on religious forms in general. You know, the 'I'm right and you're wrong' attitude, or answering questions about Hinduism, as if your answers were factual, and the official stance on Hinduism.

In reality, from my view, there is no official stance. There are many stances, many views, expressing a variety of opinions.

My sect and sampradaya started the magazine Hinduism Today to counter this extreme sectarianism. So, for example, when they do a controversial story of Hindus and abortion, they'll interview a dozen swamis, and publish a dozen views. Although they're Saiva, the stories in Hinduism Today are about Vaishnava groups, modern swamis, modern movements, and more. It explores the diversity, philosophically, and geographically, by doing stories like a recent one on Bali, or on Ramanuja. The overall goal is to promote Hindu Solidarity, not one particular sect.

So my question is ... what do you do when you encounter this intolerance within Hinduism itself? The guy who goes on and on about how his Guru is the smartest Guru on the planet, all the while demeaning the rest.

Thoughts?

Do you get the feeling that besides all the established religions, there is a category called the 'rest'; which is what Hinduism consists of?. Interesting theories all of which need to be aired and the only way of doing so is to feel free to be 'the absolute right', the smartest guru on the planet, the most appropriate sect and sampradaya. etc. I do not see anything wrong in a person claiming to be the best Hindu.

For me dharma is what is important, dealing with injustices and being on the truth path that is done by getting on with ones duties to one's family and society. I do not claim to be any kind of guru. I just live to one day die. However, I do know the absolute truth concerning how to live with one's dignity intact because I practice this daily and am aware that is governed by the Consciousness that I am and what everything is. I am not intolerant towards anyone else ideas because I fully know what happens in vyvahrika that generates the diversity of human beliefs and living conditions. I have no idea whether they are true of not, except to say that I have found no evidence for karma and reincarnation for example that you believe in. So what it is your belief and nothing to do with me is my attitude to these diverse views and stances.

In think on the whole Hindus are a tolerant lot of people and there is solidarity to contain the diversity. That is the only way Hinduism is going to remain vibrant and strong. Is it needed? I believe it is.

 

[Vinayaka]

In think on the whole Hindus are a tolerant lot of people and there is solidarity to contain the diversity. That is the only way Hinduism is going to remain vibrant and strong. Is it needed? I believe it is.

Thanks for your comments.

On the whole, most certainly. I'm asking about the exception. My wife and I were discussing it just now, and she brought up the point of, 'just how much?' In other words, if it's half an hour out of an entire lifetime, then you can really just ignore it, and move on. But if it's a daily thing, then you do have to deal with it somehow.

Once we were travelling, and at a temple canteen this fellow came over and started explaining Hinduism to us. I disagreed with nearly everything he said, but kept my mouth shut, just to not create a scene. Another more aware fellow came over and told the guy to leave us alone. That's an example of half an hour out of my life.

Very few Hindus really want to sit and argue. But it does happen, and for me it is annoying. If there are three people in a conversation, and one person keeps interrupting to say his sectarian POV, it may well destroy an otherwise fruitful and cordial conversation between the other two. (I suppose they could tell him to take a hike, and have a private conversation.)

 

[Shantanu]

Thanks for your comments.

On the whole, most certainly. I'm asking about the exception. My wife and I were discussing it just now, and she brought up the point of, 'just how much?' In other words, if it's half an hour out of an entire lifetime, then you can really just ignore it, and move on. But if it's a daily thing, then you do have to deal with it somehow.

Once we were travelling, and at a temple canteen this fellow came over and started explaining Hinduism to us. I disagreed with nearly everything he said, but kept my mouth shut, just to not create a scene. Another more aware fellow came over and told the guy to leave us alone. That's an example of half an hour out of my life.

Very few Hindus really want to sit and argue. But it does happen, and for me it is annoying. If there are three people in a conversation, and one person keeps interrupting to say his sectarian POV, it may well destroy an otherwise fruitful and cordial conversation between the other two. (I suppose they could tell him to take a hike, and have a private conversation.)

I certainly think it is right to fight back with defence of ones views against an opponent who is determined to cast slurs and aspersions on your faith: that is dharma. Dharma is dealing with injustices upon oneself as the lessons of Mahabharrata and Ramayana teach me.

 

[ajay0]

Hinduism is vast. Most people see that, and are quite willing to tolerate differing views. (Thank goodness)

But sometimes we encounter that same attitude that we sometimes find on religious forms in general. You know, the 'I'm right and you're wrong' attitude, or answering questions about Hinduism, as if your answers were factual, and the official stance on Hinduism.

In reality, from my view, there is no official stance. There are many stances, many views, expressing a variety of opinions.

My sect and sampradaya started the magazine Hinduism Today to counter this extreme sectarianism. So, for example, when they do a controversial story of Hindus and abortion, they'll interview a dozen swamis, and publish a dozen views. Although they're Saiva, the stories in Hinduism Today are about Vaishnava groups, modern swamis, modern movements, and more. It explores the diversity, philosophically, and geographically, by doing stories like a recent one on Bali, or on Ramanuja. The overall goal is to promote Hindu Solidarity, not one particular sect.

So my question is ... what do you do when you encounter this intolerance within Hinduism itself? The guy who goes on and on about how his Guru is the smartest Guru on the planet, all the while demeaning the rest.

Thoughts?

I would say, just exercise your logic and reasoning, study all the facts, and determine for yourself. If possible, explain your stance to others. If they seem incorrigible and stuck on their stance, no matter how illogical and distorted, it may be a case of mental or physical health issues. Or it may be due to deep conditioning, which the said person is unable to get out of. I would just smile and leave but just characters create an unhealthy culture and atmosphere around.

Fraudsters and pseudo-scholars aggravate this situation further.

Like Kabir, I would say critical examination of such dogmatic or fraudulent matters may help in unraveling the matter and providing a solution to the issue.

Kabir on the need for critical examination to weed out the false and fraudulent...

 

[Vinayaka]

I would say, just exercise your logic and reasoning, study all the facts, and determine for yourself. If possible, explain your stance to others. If they seem incorrigible and stuck on their stance, no matter how illogical and distorted, it may be a case of mental or physical health issues. Or it may be due to deep conditioning, which the said person is unable to get out of. I would just smile and leave but just characters create an unhealthy culture and atmosphere around.

Fraudsters and pseudo-scholars aggravate this situation further.

Like Kabir, I would say critical examination of such dogmatic or fraudulent matters may help in unraveling the matter and providing a solution to the issue.

Kabir on the need for critical examination to weed out the false and fraudulent...

Generally speaking I'll just walk away. It's not 'fraudulent' stuff that I find annoying, it's condescending attitudes of "I know more than you do," or using 'We' as if it applied to all Hindus. I don't think some people really understand the diversity. One person's 'fraudulent' is another person's belief. When a person listens, and then says, "Let me tell you what Hindus really believe," it's annoying mostly. If you were an outsider, and didn't have this (wide diversity) aspect explained to you, you'd think that Hindus can never agree on anything. But if everyone were to freely admit or preface statements about the diversity, there would be less confusion.

 

[ajay0]

Generally speaking I'll just walk away. It's not 'fraudulent' stuff that I find annoying, it's condescending attitudes of "I know more than you do," or using 'We' as if it applied to all Hindus. I don't think some people really understand the diversity. One person's 'fraudulent' is another person's belief.

Beliefs may vary, but fraud is fraud. There is a vital difference between the two in this regard.

When a person listens, and then says, "Let me tell you what Hindus really believe," it's annoying mostly. If you were an outsider, and didn't have this (wide diversity) aspect explained to you, you'd think that Hindus can never agree on anything. But if everyone were to freely admit or preface statements about the diversity, there would be less confusion.

It is just that people are not able to appreciate the bigger picture and focusses just on the details, which may seem on first sight to conflict with each other.

Quality leadership of the likes of Krishna, Vivekananda or Satguru Sivayasubramaniyaswami is needed to evolve consensus on differing viewpoints.

Krishna was able to cover many hitherto differing philosophies like Sankhya,Vedanta, Yoga, Bhakti in the Gita on a single theme of Self-realisation. He was able to perceive the bigger picture correctly and place the details in order accordingly, serving the theme harmoniously.

 

[Vinayaka]

Quality leadership of the likes of Krishna, Vivekananda or Satguru Sivayasubramaniyaswami is needed to evolve consensus on differing viewpoints.

We differ. (and that's fine) I see no need for consensus. I do see a need for mutual respect. Differing viewpoints are differing viewpoints. Neither side needs to change in order to appease the other. That is the wonderful diversity of Hinduism, as I view it.

 

[ajay0]

We differ. (and that's fine) I see no need for consensus. I do see a need for mutual respect. Differing viewpoints are differing viewpoints. Neither side needs to change in order to appease the other. That is the wonderful diversity of Hinduism, as I view it.

Even tolerance for that matter between differing sectarian viewpoints, progressive leadership is the key.

 

[Vinayaka]

Even tolerance for that matter between differing sectarian viewpoints, progressive leadership is the key.

At the leadership levels, I think they all get along. (At that level of consciousness, I would hope so.) My Gurus have had friendly discourses and meetings with all kinds of sects. They've hosted BAPS swamis, Sri Sri paid a visit one day, and Vedanta Society swamis have been known to take personal retreats in Kauai. Similarly, when they travel, if invited by another, they make cordial visits. Parmath Niketan, for example has hosted them more than once. But I'm guessing nobody discusses philosophy much.

The magazine kind of forces a lot of interaction just to do the stories.

It's more at lower levels of consciousness (perhaps that is obvious) we get intolerance. Some 'average devotees' are often just unaware of anything outside their cultural or philosophical school.

For example, on more that one occasion when I've stated that i believe the Gods are real, and not mere symbols, I've gotten this unusual stare of disbelief. It's only because the person had only ever heard of them being symbolic. if you've never heard of any differing viewpoints, what else to expect? But I've seen the opposite as well ... people staring in disbelief at those who thought the Gods were only symbols. Bottom line is I think we all need to get out more.

 

[Jainarayan]

But sometimes we encounter that same attitude that we sometimes find on religious forms in general. You know, the 'I'm right and you're wrong' attitude, or answering questions about Hinduism, as if your answers were factual, and the official stance on Hinduism.

...

So my question is ... what do you do when you encounter this intolerance within Hinduism itself? The guy who goes on and on about how his Guru is the smartest Guru on the planet, all the while demeaning the rest.

This is a good subject, one I think we're shy (afraid is too strong a word) about broaching.

Once upon a time, listening to people like that because I didn't know any better, I questioned whether I really was Hindu. I questioned if that is what Hinduism is, and "is it for me?" and walked away from it Hinduism. I learned over time (and actually I'm still learning, I'm not quite there yet) I am just as Hindu as the next Hindu. Whatever it is to be Hindu... 1 question, 1 billion Hindus, 2 billion answers.

I've gotten into wars of words on forums, getting myself mired deeper and deeper in my self-doubt. After all, these are born-Hindus, they must know what they're talking about, right?. But on the internet everyone is an expert. If I have what is possibly a good counter-argument, I'll engage. If I don't, I won't anymore.

 

[Vinayaka]

This is a good subject, one I think we're shy (afraid is too strong a word) about broaching.

Once upon a time, listening to people like that because I didn't know any better, I questioned whether I really was Hindu. I questioned if that is what Hinduism is, and "is it for me?" and walked away from it. I learned over time (and actually I'm still learning, I'm not quite there yet) I am just as Hindu as the next Hindu. Whatever it is to be Hindu... 1 question, 1 billion Hindus, 2 billion answers.

I've gotten into wars of words on forums, getting myself mired deeper and deeper in my self-doubt. After all, these are born-Hindus, they must know what they're talking about, right?. But on the internet everyone is an expert. If I have what is possibly a good counter-argument, I'll engage. If I don't, I won't anymore.

I concur.
Bottom line is nobody likes to be 'corrected'. If someone tells me I don't understand Hinduism, that pretty much ends the discussion. I understand why, especially given skin colour and all that. That first impression, related to skin colour, doesn't actually say much. When new Caucasian people come to the temple I go to, I watch them closely. It's obvious to me that some of them need no help whatsoever in understanding what's going on. I only offer my explanation services if they appear totally lost.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Hinduism is vast. Most people see that, and are quite willing to tolerate differing views. (Thank goodness)

But sometimes we encounter that same attitude that we sometimes find on religious forms in general. You know, the 'I'm right and you're wrong' attitude, or answering questions about Hinduism, as if your answers were factual, and the official stance on Hinduism.

In reality, from my view, there is no official stance. There are many stances, many views, expressing a variety of opinions.

My sect and sampradaya started the magazine Hinduism Today to counter this extreme sectarianism. So, for example, when they do a controversial story of Hindus and abortion, they'll interview a dozen swamis, and publish a dozen views. Although they're Saiva, the stories in Hinduism Today are about Vaishnava groups, modern swamis, modern movements, and more. It explores the diversity, philosophically, and geographically, by doing stories like a recent one on Bali, or on Ramanuja. The overall goal is to promote Hindu Solidarity, not one particular sect.

So my question is ... what do you do when you encounter this intolerance within Hinduism itself? The guy who goes on and on about how his Guru is the smartest Guru on the planet, all the while demeaning the rest.

Thoughts?

One of the reasons I accepted and identify with the label 'Hindu' is because of the general acceptance of the diversity of personal views, so long as they are in line with dharma. It would appear the majority of those, at least here, feel the need to qualify their Hinduism with an adjective identifying what school of philosophy or tradition they identify with.

I think "right" and "wrong" comes into play when people hijack the label for a Hindu tradition or school of philosophy and inject their own truths that contradict the generally accepted views within that philosophy or tradition.

 

[Viraja]

As for the OP, I can say that if I think someone is irritating, may be that's a lesson to me how not to do that to others. Sometimes, it can also indicate that I need to become more tolerant. Btw, I am merely growing in both aspects.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I would also go as far as to say that sectarianism and ethnocentricity are a product of ego, which pretty much is contrary to dharma (at least my dharma) anyway.

 

[Vinayaka]

I would also go as far as to say that sectarianism and ethnocentricity are a product of ego, which pretty much is contrary to dharma (at least my dharma) anyway.

I would agree to ethnocentricity being partly ego, but not sectarianism. One can be very sectarian and tolerant. I've met a lot of such people. One can be really strong within their own sampradaya in private, and hold a unity in diversity simultaneously.

Certainly saying my sect is better than yours is ego. But both can also just be a product of one's environment, what you're familiar with.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I would agree to ethnocentricity being partly ego, but not sectarianism. One can be very sectarian and tolerant. I've met a lot of such people. One can be really strong within their own sampradaya in private, and hold a unity in diversity simultaneously.

Certainly saying my sect is better than yours is ego. But both can also just be a product of one's environment, what you're familiar with.

As a whole, I still see such differences, even as the tolerant sectarian, a product of ego, which is, in Absolute truth, an illusion of maya. I personally can see the truths in all sects (the blind men and elephant anecdote comes to mind). But sects are a product of maya; perceived variants of an Absolute truth. Hindus, above all others, I would think could arrive at this realization.

 

[Viraja]

But both can also just be a product of one's environment, what you're familiar with.

I watched a video yesterday.... about Van Gogh's painting the Starry Night portraying the concept of Turbulence via the paint medium so precisely that has implications on the mathematical representation and computation of energy involved in actual Turbulence. How could that possibly be? Everything has a certain type of stimulating effect on the brain, newer and abstract representations must indeed have such a profound effect.

 

[Vinayaka]

As a whole, I still see such differences, even as the tolerant sectarian, a product of ego, which is, in Absolute truth, an illusion of maya. I personally can see the truths in all sects (the blind men and elephant anecdote comes to mind). But sects are a product of maya; perceived variants of an Absolute truth. Hindus, above all others, I would think could arrive at this realization.

At the deepest level sure. But for me, most of life isn't at the deepest level. That's why sectarian beliefs are there. One can still keep in mind that we're all agreeing on the deeper level. It helps for concentration purposes to have focus on one divinity. That real focus makes it strong. I only get a bit annoyed when folks go all out in criticising other sects.

 

[SalixIncendium]

At the deepest level sure. But for me, most of life isn't at the deepest level. That's why sectarian beliefs are there. One can still keep in mind that we're all agreeing on the deeper level. It helps for concentration purposes to have focus on one divinity. That real focus makes it strong. I only get a bit annoyed when folks go all out in criticising other sects.

I can relate to your annoyance, but even in a grander scale when folks criticize another's religion without a comprehensive understanding of the structure of said religion.

But I certainly can appreciate the frustration when people that are supposedly of the same worldview criticize one another.

On either scale, I struggle to wrap my head around why people, being of one commonality, are so quick to choose to be critical rather than understanding.