Rebottle and the response [for Orange versus Apple]:
When I shared my brain storm to the person who sent the link and my messages, this was his rebottle:
Abuses the very meaning of the word fanatic, using words even in condescension and using a bullet to take a life are never on the same plan.
DB: We all have our own interpretation when it comes to words which need to be understood in the given context.
Comments: That is a slippery slope, leads to non-communication. Particularly this becomes more complex across languages.
DB: Yes. What fanaticism means in Tamil. I searched Google. It says ‘Mada Veri’ [Mada(m) = religion; ‘Veri’ = frenzy, zealotry etc., again Google definition]. If it is ‘Religious zealotry’ then it is also used in non-religious context also. Certain topics can’t have a clear-cut answer as each side will take one word to understand the whole point. But if we managed to catch the overall theme, some tentative conclusion can be reached.
My main theme is this:
The so-called superstitions, which Supra Rationalists found and criticise in Hinduism is in every other religion. The followers of every faith never seek the ‘Critic’ about their faith expression from these Supra Rationalists, as they know well the symbolic nature of them learning from their respective tradition. In some faiths even if they are not mere symbols, but very fundamental to their faith, [like Archavatara in Sri Vaishnava tradition, where God dwells in the very Image; elements of communion in Catholic who strongly believe in transubstantiation etc. viz., the wafer and wine actually transformed as the ‘body and blood’ of Jesus Christ after the Catholic Priest consecrated them.] What looks superstition to others is faith expression which meets their felt need of the followers of that particular faith. And when uninvited if some others in the name of rationalism confront such faith expression, then a few times end up with physical violence. For me this is not ‘courage’ or ‘fearlessness’ but another kind of intellectual fanaticism. That’s why I quoted Valluvar@ who correctly said that one ought to fear for certain things and should not confront with zeal for one’s conviction or orthodoxy, particularly uninvited or when their opinion was not sought. What these Supra Rationalists do with these so-called Hindu Superstitions won’t do to other superstitions that we found equally in some other faiths as they know well about the consequence. I didn’t watch that video where that rationalist who took on the flight-flying Bageshwar Dham priest’. I know my limitations when it comes to English both in understanding and expressing my views.
My overall theme is this: vamba velakoduttu vangade [வம்ப விலை கொடுத்து வாங்காதே]. Don’t buy trouble at your cost. Again, I searched Google for ‘Vambu’ and these are some meanings I found: ribaldry and taunting; to speak or act insolently, to quarrel. [These are some other synonymous words: impudently; impertinently, rudely, audaciously, disrespectfully.]
This is also expressed through another Tamil proverb: sonda kaasila suuniyam vachchikiradu [சொந்த காசில சூனியம் வச்சுகிறது], Doing block magic against oneself by personally paying for it.
So let us not deviate from the central theme of my response by analysing it with one particular word with a hair-splitting analysis. If calling any Supra Rationalist as Fanatic is wrong, I am willing to apologize for that, but the spirit of fanaticism will be there in their approach and like them, uninvited I have to confront as another fanatic as their rationalism looks different kind of superstition to me.
@ Folly meets fearful ills with fearless heart;
To fear where cause of fear exists is wisdom’s part.—, Kural, 428, From Google
அஞ்சுவ தஞ்சாமை பேதைமை அஞ்சுவது
அஞ்சல் அறிவார் தொழில்.—குறள், 428
Db, 19-2-2023, Gurukulam.
Orange versus Apple
The context of this brainstorm is this: One person sent a line link with message: Meet the rationalist who took on the high-flying Bageshwar Dham.. [https://scroll.in/article/10439660/meet-therationalist-who-challenged-the-controversial-preist-of-bageshwar-dham.
In response I sent the following messages: For me Rationalism is another kind of superstition. Indian tradition is not new to this. From the time of Charavaks [materialist] so many people confronted the spiritual tradition of India but were never able to overcome it.
For this he sent this message: Manav like Dhabolkar are courageous people.
Db: Valluvar says: Not fearing about certain things is foolishness and fearing for which one ought to fear is the nature of a wise person. Courage and fear is relative. [அஞ்சுவது அஞ்சாமை பேதைமை அஞ்சுவது; அஞ்சுவது அறிவார் தொழில்]
Response: Dhabolkar paid with his life gunned by a fanatic.
DB: K know that. But one fanatic killed another, but very sad.
Response: Swamiji how blind can we get?!!! To call Dabholkar a fanatic worthy of being killed is like justifying Gandhi assassination as well.
Then I wrote this long response for his sharp and short criticism of comparing Orange with Apple.
Orange versus Apple
For me a fanatic is one who, having a hegemonic spirit approaches others’ worldview with a condescending attitude not to reform them but only to confront as knows well that they won’t accept his view and even a healthy critic about their worldview. We cannot compare Gandhiji with these Super Rationalists. Gandhi was a reformer. Of course, like the Sura Rationalists, he too held some dogmatic views about certain ideals [like celibacy, economy, medicine etc.,]. But he never approached others with any hegemonic spirit with a condescending attitude to confront them but tried to change them with much humility even at the cost of his own sufferings. Non-violence was his eternal mantra. Whereas these Supra Rationalists use their learning [I don’t want to call it knowledge] though not using physical violence, to attack on others faith expression is nothing but intellectual violence. So, when they confront certain fanatics, provoked by such intellectual violence which hurt their sentiment, they use physical violence. However, two wrongs cannot make another thing right.
Do you think that most of the Hindus do not know that their religious faiths, rituals, festivals etc., can be understood or approached with this so called ‘Rationalism’. They know it well as per the present-day normative standard of this so-called Rationalism, their faith expression definitely looks superstitious. For me, even this ‘Rationalism’ is another kind of intellectual superstition, as what looks reasonable to one person or community or society looks irrational to another. In India arranged marriage is considered ‘rational’ whereas for most Westerners it is nothing but an irrational tradition. Even in most love marriages, at least most of the girls are careful try to get permission of her family members, particularly her parents. They know well the risk of love marriage estranging family members. As time and space won’t allow the luxury for me to expand this more, I give only one example as we all know its strength and weakness.
Similarly, for most of the Hindus their faith expressions are mere tools in their ongoing journey to reach the ultimate reality. And when they want to give physical expression to it for others to know, learn and practice, they use various symbols which they won’t mind discarding once they serve the purpose—like immersion of Images after Durga and Ganesh festivals. I am sure even these Supra Rationalists also knew about it, provided if they were ready to learn and understand not only from the books or superficially observing the out-word expression of religious faiths but genuinely engage in a dialogue with Hindus to learn from them. As they go only to confront to show that the Hindus are ‘fools’ by following so many superstitious rituals, most of the Hindus ignore them knowing well that such fanatics cannot be educated or reformed.
Regarding the assassination of Mahatmaji, we all know very well that some Hindu fanatics thought that he bent too much to accommodate the needs of the minorities that too in a country though majorities were Hindu but still not a Hindu nation. Rather they thought that he already crossed the Lakshman Rekha even going to the extent of appeasing the minorities in order to keep the Hindu-Muslim unity [the word ‘Secular Country’ was introduced in Constitution very late by Indra Gandhi]. For example, several times Gandhiji wrote and told in public meetings, that even if the Muslims slaughter cows during their [ID] festival or for food, the Hindus should tolerate as the minorities have their legitimate right to get protection from the majority. However, he also earnestly appealed to the Muslim to respect the religious sentiment of Hindus. But, still favouring only the minorities. We all know well about the partition story which Gandhi tried his best to stop even offering the PM post to Jinnah. In that scenario, few Hindu fanatics thought that if they allow Gandhiji to live further, he will use his weapon of fasting to bend the will of the Congress Leaders to show more and more concessions to the religious minorities at the cost of Hindus fundamental rights. [Regarding Gandhi using fasting as a tool in a non-violent spirit paying the personal cost, several of his critics considered it as a weapon on his hand to bend the will of his well-wishers].
This being the historical reality [though others need not accept my assessment] comparing Gandhi’s assassination with the murder of a Supra Rationalist by some a fanatic is like comparing Orange with Apple, though both of them are fruits.
Db
Gurukulam
Appendix. We can create a separate volume running several pages about Mahatmaji’s view on Cow-protection. But here I give a few extracts only from Vol. 24. But to understand his view, one has to read at least these few extracts, however they never represent his complete view on this subject.
Appendix for Orange versus Apple
10. HINDU-MUSLIM UNITY
…. There will never be real equality so long as one feels inferior or superior to the other. There is no room for patronage among equals. Mussulmans must not feel the lack of education or numbers where they are in a minority. Deficiency in education must be corrected by taking education. To be in a minority is often a blessing. Superiority in numbers has frequently proved a hindrance. It is character that counts in the end. But I have not commenced this article to lay down counsels of perfection or to state the course of conduct in the distant future.
(p.18)
…Protection of the cow is the nearest to the Hindu heart. We are therefore apt to lose our heads over it, and thus be unconsciously instrumental in doing an injury to the very cause we seek to espouse. Let us recognize that our Mussulman brethren have made great efforts to save the cow for the sake of their Hindu brethren. It would be a grave mistake to underrate them. But immediately we become assertive, we make all effort on their part nugatory. We have throughout all these many years put up with cow-slaughter either without a murmur or under ineffective and violent protest. We have never tried to deserve self-imposed restraint on the part of our Mussulman countrymen by going out of our way to cultivate friendly relations with them. We have more or less gratuitously assumed the impossibility of the task.
But we are now making a deliberate and conscious attempt in standing by their side in the hour of their need. Let us not spoil the good effect by making our free offering a matter of bargain. Friendship can never be a contract. It is a status carrying no consideration with it. Service is a duty, and duty is a debt which it is a sin not to discharge. If we would prove our friendship, we must help our brethren whether they save the cow or not. We throw the responsibility for their conduct towards us on their own shoulders. We dare not dictate it to them as consideration for our help. Such help will be hired service, which the Mussulmans cannot be blamed if they summarily reject. I hope, therefore, that the Hindus of Bihar and indeed all the parts of India will realize the importance of observing the strictest forbearance, no matter what the Mussulmans do on Bakr-i-Id. We must leave them to take what course they choose. What Hakim Ajmal Khan did in one hour at Amritsar, Hindus could not have done by years of effort. The cows that Messrs Chhotani and Khatri saved last Bakr-i-Id day, the Hindu millionaires of Bombay could not have saved if they had given the whole of their fortunes. The greater the pressure put upon the Mussulmans the greater must be the slaughter of the cow. We must leave them to their own sense of honour and duty. and we shall have done the greatest service to the cow.
(p.19)
I make bold to assert without fear of contradiction that it is not Hinduism to kill a fellow-man even to save the cow. Hinduism requires its votaries to immolate themselves for the sake of their religion, i.e., for the sake of saving the cow. The question is how many Hindus are ready without bargaining with the Mussulmans to die for them and for their religion? If the Hindus can answer it in the religious spirit, they will not only have secured Mussulman friendship for eternity, but they will have saved the cow for all time from the Mussulmans….
They cannot undertake to change the hearts of millions of men who have hitherto given no thought to the feelings of their Hindu neighbours when they slaughter the cow. But God Almighty can in a moment change them and move them to pity. Prayer accompanied by adequate suffering is a prayer of the heart. That alone counts with God. To my Mussulman friends I would but say one word. They must not be irritated by the acts of irresponsible or ignorant but fanatical Hindus. He who exercises restraint under provocation wins the battle. Let them know and feel sure that responsible Hindus are not on their side in their trial in any bargaining spirit….
Young India, 28-7-1921
38. SPEECH AT PUBLIC MEETING, KANPUR1
August 9, 1921
…Cow-protection also depends on Khilafat. Hindus must be prepared to make sacrifices for Khilafat without desiring anything in return. Every morning I pray for the cows. Cow-slaughter is the result of the sins committed by Hindus; it is owing to these sins that we are deprived of the sympathy of our brethren. We must repent for those sins….
| (p.63 |
)
Aaj, 11-8-1921
Cows have always been slaughtered for English soldiers. What have we done about it? Taking all this into account, why should we be angry with our Muslim brethren who slaughter cows considering it a matter of religion? Then least we can do is to clean our soiled hands.
It was a great mercy that on the day of Bakr-i-Id our Muslim brethren maintained complete calm, were very considerate to us and, so far as they could, refrained from slaughtering cows. We are grateful to them for this.
Your servant,
MOHANDAS KARAMCHAND GANDHI
[From Hindi]
Hindi Navajivan, 2-9-1921
Does Hinduism sanction killing of Muslims for saving cows? No. Do we not know, even then, that Hindus lose their heads and fight with Muslims on this issue? If Islam recognizes the use of forces it is not religion but irreligion. I am positive that Islam does not sanction the use of force if it did, would not all Muslims openly avow so?@
But that which distinguishes Hinduism from every other religion is its cow-protection, more than its varnashrama.
The present-day cow-protection has degenerated into a perpetual feud with the Mussulmans, whereas cow-protection means conquering Mussulmans by our love. A Mussulman friend sent me some time ago a book detailing the inhumanities practised by us on the cow and her progeny. How we bleed her to take the last drop of milk from her, how we starve her to emaciation, how we ill-treat the calves, how we deprive them of their portion of milk, how cruelly we treat the oxen, how we castrate them, how we beat them, how we overload them. If they had speech, they would bear witness to our
| (p.373) |
crimes against them which would stagger the world.
Hindus will be judged not by their tilaks, not by the correct chanting of mantras , not by their pilgrimages, not by their most punctilious observance of caste rules but by their ability to protect the cow. Whilst professing the religion of cow-protection, we have enslaved the cow and her progeny, and have become slaves ourselves.
It will now be understood why I consider myself a sanatani Hindu. I yield to none in my regard for the cow. I have made the Khilafat cause my own, because I see that through its preservation full protection can be secured for the cow. I do not ask my Mussulman friends to save the cow in consideration of my service. My prayer ascends daily to God Almighty, that my service of a cause I hold to be just may appear so pleasing to Him, that He may change the hearts of the Mussulmans, and fill them with pity for their Hindu neighbours and make them save the animal the latter hold dear as life itself…. (p.374)
@ … ‘I believe in retaliation’ was the final word to me in an argument, which I had with one of the noblest Mussalmans I have ever known; and another said to me, with an emphasis which I can never forget, ‘My religion commands me to take up the sword on certain occasions.’— Daniel O’Connor, The Testimony of C F Andrews, CLS, Madras, 1974, p. 197
Leave a Reply