>In 1901, Sir Herbert Risley observed that, " Hinduism itself was Animism more or less >transformed by philosophy and no sharp line of demarcation could be drawn between them >as the one melted away into the other. " (People of India, Second edition). In 1931, the >Census commissioner J.H.Hutton admitted that, " the line between Hinduism and tribal >religion was difficult to draw and the inclusion of the tribal into the Hindu fold was easy >(Census of India, 1931 India Report, Vol 1, Part 1).
You are right. That was the initial position of the British about Hinduism. From outside and from observing what is being practised, it is a mixture Animism, Idol Worship, Human sacrifice and what not. And the Brirish were right when they stated that this practise of everything in the name of Hinduism is somehow being 'transformed' by 'philosophy' to a higher goal whenever the need be to defend Hinduism.
Against this onslaught of attack from the West, there came Ram Mohan Roy (mind it he is called the Father of Modern India) and others who redifined Hinduism stating that Animism, Idol Worship etc are not parts of proper Hindusim. He actually fought his whole life for it and founded 'Brahmo Samaj' on the principles of Upanishads etc. Also new redifining started with Arya Samaj on the west India on similiar line.
However, Hinduism is a case where it wants the cake and wants to eat it too.
If you follow Ram Mohon Roy, Dayanad Saraswati and other reformers (as well as previous many reformers including Xongkordeva, Nanaka and others), you can have your cake Hinduism, and most of what is being practised in India in the name of Hinduism will have too be excluded from Hindusim.
But Hinduism wants to eat the cake also. So the it wants to claim that everything that is being practised in the name of Hinduism is in fact Hinduism, including Tribal Animism, Kamakhya, Kesaikhati etc. Hinduism tries to have it bothways by some complex interpretation of philosophy stating that "You are right and he is also right."
Or in other words, "Ram Mohan Roy, Xongkordeva, Nanaka are right when they preached against Idol worship. But then idol worship is also right because etc etc.."
This is something to much to the West to understand. And this where the problem comes to define Hinduism to the West. This is where all the philopshy written about Hinduism is lost.
In my opinion, Hinduism is like a big Banyan tree, which cannot be defined, where nobody knows where is the actual root is. Thus one can even try to justify Human sacrifice in Kamakhya.
I say Hobo Diok.
Rajen Barua
Get 10MB of e-mail storage! Sign up for Hotmail Extra Storage. _______________________________________________ Assam mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam
