[It's been a while since I posted. Hence, it took me some time to type this one out. It isn't a random reactionary ranting. I hope.]
Sometimes I wonder if I have any
right at all to feel anger and rage at a comment by someone.
What kind of comment you ask?
I’m asked why I’m against Hinduism.
[Before, I used to deal with ‘why are you sooo pro-Hinduism’ questions.] No
matter what your stand, you’re always questioned. Which is a good thing I guess…
Actually, my stance hasn’t changed one bit. But the way I react to things, have.
I sometimes surprise myself with all
those religious ideals I have in mind. I wonder why they are required. Are they
just some utopic worlds? The spiritual-unattainable world? What makes me
give into this patriarchal system which evidently acts as an ‘Ideological State
Apparatus’ like Althusser reckons.
When I listen to stories of the
daasa poets or for that matter Kabir or Meera, and Rumi of course, I fall in love. I fall in love
with them, I fall in love with the world, with God, with myself, with the
little details of life. I used to call that Zen, bliss. I also call it devotion
sometimes.
Why do I feel so liberated in what is merely a
master-slave relationship? Why would I even take that to be liberation?!
Actually, at that moment, the
society doesn’t matter. Neither does the individual. There’s only merging of
entities. Of energies. There’s no hierarchy at that moment. Or so I feel. Because in the very
articulation of it, there’s a problem. A glitch in the system. Let’s blame it
all on language which empowers and disempowers us. All the same.
All that beauty-bliss apart, what about
the philosophy itself? So my professor at college was pointing out a “flaw” in
it. He was of the opinion that the problem with most of Indian philosophy is that it
bases all its arguments on theology.
So is “our” philosophy a constant
denial of the real? Is the spiritual in opposition to the material? Well...
Going back to the question, am I
against Hinduism? Hell no. I’m against the appropriation of all communities
into “Hinduism”. I’m against those fundamental-extreme views. I’m against using the
name of religion to control women. I’m against making her stick to roles
already pronounced. For that matter, I’m against force of any kind. Because
that, for me, defeats the whole purpose of faith. Am I going too far equating religion and faith?
Anything that you do should be a choice – something that flows into your being. That way, it stays – your faith becomes your own. Not some abstract notion passed down by your forefathers (foremothers?).
Anything that you do should be a choice – something that flows into your being. That way, it stays – your faith becomes your own. Not some abstract notion passed down by your forefathers (foremothers?).
No comments:
Post a Comment