Fighting Fair

I’ve noticed something in comment debates on Facebook and here that has me concerned. Sometimes someone makes a statement that sounds really…different…from what you usually hear and accusations start that this person is not a “real” Hindu. They must be a Muslim trying to stir up trouble.

I’m sure that can happen. That someone creates a fake account and claims to be a Hindu when he is not. But I don’t think it’s a good idea to assume that that’s what’s going on. When someone is trying to debate a point of Hinduism with you, it’s very frustrating to have the debate degrade into “If you think that, you are secretly a Muslim who hates Hindus.”  I would find it pretty rage-inducing to have someone say that to me in a debate! I don’t think we can get anywhere productive if we accuse others of not really being Hindu.

Same thing with this idea about “neo Hinduism.” Who decides if someone is a “true” Hindu or a “pure” Hindu? If even an Indian guru (Miss Gurumayi) can be accused of being “neo Hindu” (which apparently means having been somewhat influenced by the west), then where do we draw a line? Personally I think that similarities one finds between the west and east are probably things that started in the east and were co-opted by the west. No harm in taking them back!

As I’ve said before, I know Hinduism (Sanatana Dharma) is the Eternal Truth. It’s not going to get ruined. Its principles will always be there in one form or another. Our scriptures are rich and bountiful and one can easily go straight to the source.

When someone identifies as Hindu, we have to take them at their word, and try to understand from what scripture or guru or teaching they are getting their beliefs. If they seem off, then discuss it and ask where their information comes from. Please give them the benefit of the doubt before accusing them of being anti-Hindu agitators (which is to say, wait for a little more proof before going there).

The saddest thing I see coming from the west and influencing the east is narrow definitions, the need to lock everyone in to ONE interpretation, one way of being. Hinduism is a riot of paradoxes and beautiful contradictions. It is more vast and varied than our limited minds can comprehend. It’s a real shame to try to close it down.

Christians do this. Their congregation interprets things a particular way and so they declare that the people at the church down the street are not Christians because they interpret it differently. Hinduism’s great beauty is that it is expansive rather than tight and narrow.

I understand how tempting it is to decide that anyone who we disagree with, who seems entirely ridiculous in their beliefs, must not be a “real” Hindu, but I don’t think that’s the right way to look at it. Using this argument of “you’re not really a Hindu” is a quick way to shut someone down, but it’s really not fair. It’s ignoring the point up for debate entirely and it’s taking away someone’s identity.

Let’s strive to discuss the point of the debate rather than the credentials of the people talking.