Indian Hinduism versus Other Hinduisms

Indian Hinduism versus Other Hinduisms

Yet another modern interpretation of an ancient thought. Although it is difficult to challenge such a scholar as Prof. Arvind Sharma, I cannot resist the temptation to ask a few questions as a student of Hinduism and encourage us to ‘ponder’.

To begin with, I am not sure if the Balinese Hindu Father actually quoted ‘tat tvam asi’ while giving a moral teaching about the oneness of everyone after the 2002 Bali Bombing. Finding the unity of not only atman (soul) in every living being (human or nonhuman) but also finding the same unity in spite of one’s narrow sectarian/caste affiliation is the mark of Hindu idealism, which one can trace to many Sanskrit and regional scriptures.

For example, Tirumular says, “Only a fool will say love and Siva are two; they don’t know that both love and Siva are one and the same; once you realize that ‘love and Siva’ are one and the same, all will know that ‘love and Siva are one’.”

“Yaadu uure yaavarum kelir,” (Every place is our own [home] and everyone is our relative) said Kaniyan Punkundranar in the Puranaanuru (192) Sangam Tamil song. One can quote several such examples from various regional and mainline Sanskrit literatures.

Reading a current moral understanding of one’s religious view is to be understood and appreciated as it is expressed by a contemporary person (Hindu) in her social context. But reading one’s own ideology into it by linking it with an ancient thought, which is completely diverse in its (metaphysical) context, needs to be questioned — even if it comes from a scholar like Prof. Arvind Sharma.

Chips from an Indic Workshop: Balinese Hinduism. MLBD Newsletter,  13022014. P. 31

Balinese Hinduism

One automatically thinks of India when one thinks of Hinduism, but it might also be useful to extend our vision to include another geographical area where Hinduism has perception of Hinduism and include the Balinese experience, a few interesting points emerge which the student of Hinduism must ponder.

(2) Untouchability is not a part of Balinese Hinduism.  This raises a question: can it then be considered an inalienable element in Hinduism, if it is absent in Balinese Hinduism?  One need hardly remark on the theoretical and practical implications of this line of thinking.

(3) The statement i, or that thou art, appears repeatedly in the Chandogya Upanisad (.6:13; etc.) and is usually understood metaphysically in Indian Hinduism¹ as indicating the identity of atmian and Brahmian.  It is however understood currently in Balinese Hinduism morally: ‘A father instructed his son after the 2002 Bali Bombing as follows: “In the teachings of our religion, there is no “I am me” way of thinking, but (rather), :I am you”, “You are me”, “I am her/him”, “I am all”, “all are me”.  This is what is meant by tat tvam asi.  An adherent of tat tvam asi is not going to want to offend and hurt the feelings of another person, because that also means offending and hurting one’s own feelings.’²

1. K. Satchidananda Murty, Revelation and Reason in Advaita Vedanta (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1974 (199) Chapter ; M. Hiriyanna, Essentials of Indian Philosophy (London: Allen & Unwin, 1949) p. 184; etc.
2. Richard Fox, “Why Media Matter: Critical Reflections on Religion and the Recent History of the Balinese”, History of Religions (May 2010), p. 373

Db. Gurukulam.

20 2 2014.