Word As Weapon: The Misuse of Terminology in the Study of Hinduism

Namaste,

Thank you, everyone, for your thoughtful and intelligent comments on my paper. I’m glad it’s providing some food for discussion. Zafar has asked two especially poignant questions below that I wanted to address.

First, on the question of the word “idol”: You’re quite correct that in the present day Hindu mind, the word “idol” has now come to mean a sacred image, though this was clearly not the word’s original intent. In a very direct way, however, this fact in itself starkly points out the full extent of repressive indoctrination that has occurred, as well as precisely how successful a psychology of repression can be.

When a people have had their beliefs, their practices and their very spiritual identity attacked and mislabeled for a long enough period of time, the victims themselves will then begin to use the terminology of their oppressors in a self-referential way. We’ve seen this strange phenomenon happen repeatedly throughout history among many groups of people who have suffered persecution.

The fact that a people will then begin to use these very same derogatory words themselves, even if used with a different understanding, not only doesn’t remove the negative effects of such words, but in fact shows just how effectively devastating words of oppression can be.

Let me give an unfortunate example from the United States. The term “Nigger” is a derogatory and insulting term that has been used against African-Americans for hundreds of years. To call someone by this term is a horrible and inexcusable insult. What is tragic is that in the last decade or so, African-American kids have begun to refer to themselves now as “Niggers”. When they use the term, they certainly have a different idea in mind than did their former White oppressors. This doesn’t take any power away, however, from the word’s overwhelmingly negative connotations or impact on the mind of these youth.

Despite the fact that the verbal content might be different in these youths’ eyes, however, a) the word’s origin in oppression, b) the denotative and connotative meaning of the word as signaling someone who is “inferior”, c) the fact that the majority of times that the word is used today, it is still being done by the oppressors (thus signaling a direct continuity of malicious intent), d) the traditional vicious stereotypes that are attendant upon the word in the minds of neutral third parties, e) the underlying negative emotive and psychological power of such a word, all of this remains intact in the very use of a derogatory word – and they remain intact even if the victims are now using the word with a supposedly new meaning attached.

Further, the very nature of a word’s origin is also of much more importance than we might know. And this comes down to a truly important issue: Who gets to decide what the important words of a certain group of people, as well as the words’ meanings, proper contexts, and usage, will be? Do the people in question have any say in the use of terms that refer to them at all, or must the terms be imposed upon them by oppressive outsiders? Why must it be the case that we followers of Sanatana Dharma are forced to use words to describe our sacred images, our religion, our beliefs and practices that were forced upon us by people who wanted to see our religion perish? Why must our vocabulary – including its origin - be in the hands of others. At what point do we reclaim our own language?

Ultimately, the issue comes down to one of identity. Who gets to chose the elements (and the name of those elements) that give a distinct religion or people their unique identity? Christians have been allowed freedom to construct and claim their own identity. As have Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Jains, and the followers of many other religions. Why must the followers of Sanatana Dharma be the only people on earth today who are coerced into using inaccurate and derogatory terms to refer to their own religion?

When a religion is not allowed to control its own terminology, then it loses its uniqueness as a religious tradition. And when a religion loses its uniqueness, it then looses its reason for being.

To sum up this section, imagine if today, in 2005, all non-Hindus were to begin referring to Sanatana Dharma as “The Ignoramus Religion”. 100 years go by with people always referring to our religion as “The Ignoramus Religion”. Then, to top things off, the followers of Sanatana Dharma themselves, forgetting the oppressive origin of this term, then begin to refer to themselves as “The Ignoramus Religion”! The overall affront to our basic human dignity that would occur at such a tragic spectacle would be sad indeed. Let us no longer allow our human dignity as Hindus to be trampled upon. Please let us reclaim our language, and reclaim our identity.

Now on to your second question on ethnicity versus religion: There is a universally recognized difference between ethnicity and religion. Sanatana Dharma itself is very clearly the latter – a religion, and NOT an ethnicity.

An ethnicity is a genetically determined factor that every human being has, and that no human being can alter. One is born into a certain ethnicity. One is born ethnically Indian, or Chinese, or Irish, or Russian, or African, etc. There is no choice in the matter. (One can even change one’s citizenship from one country to another, but one’s ethnicity does not change; thus we have “African-Americans”, “Indian-Americans”, “Spanish-Americans”, etc.)

Unlike ethnicity, on the other hand, when we speak of religion per se, we are now talking very specifically about the realm of belief, philosophical outlook, world-view, faith, and practice. Religion is something that one adopts, either consciously or unconsciously, at some point in time. A person can have parents who practice a certain religion, but no one is actually “born” Hindu, Christian, Muslim, etc. One simply has to ask a three month old baby what their belief is concerning the nature of God in order to prove this. It is only later in life that a child will begin to identify with one religion or another (indeed, a child can be “born” a Hindu, but then raised as a Muslim, as has often happened). And even after adopting a certain religion, one’s belief can change. Person X might be a Hindu early in life, then decide as a teenager to convert to Islam, only to then become an atheist in old age.

During the pre-Buddhist era (roughly 2600 years ago) Vedic civilization was inarguably the dominant cultural phenomenon in Asia – somewhat as European culture is today. Three thousand years ago, when we spoke of the Vedic sphere of religious-cultural influence, we would be referring to two-thirds of the Asian continent, ranging from the ancient Hittite empire (what today is Turkey), extending into Persia, Afghanistan, today’s “South Asia” (“Pakistan”, India, Nepal, Tibet, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka), then into all of South East Asia, South China, Indonesia, all the way to the Philippines. This entire and vast range of geographical territory was the dominated by “Hindu” culture at one time!

Thus, we saw dozens of ethnicities, people with hundreds of languages, hundreds of micro-cultures, most of whom were practicing one form or another of Sanatana Dharma. Most of these people were not Indian…but you better believe they were Hindu!

Today, we have people from almost every nation, ethnicity, and language group following Sanatana Dharma. There are Russian Hindus, African Hindus, British Hindus, American Hindus, Arab Hindus (I’ve met Arab former-Muslims who have adopted Sanatana Dharma as their religion – believe me, they exist!), and even Italian/Spanish Hindus. I cannot change the fact, for example, that I’m of Italian/Spanish ethnicity. I can, however, proclaim with pride and dignity that my religion is Sanatana Dharma. Religion can change, ethnicity cannot.

On the other hand, I think we all know people who are ethnically Indian, but whose religion is Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, or who are simply Marxist atheists. Being Indian does not automatically make one Hindu. Being Hindu does not automatically make one Indian.

If Sanatana Dharma (“Hinduism”) is ever going to be taken seriously again as a formidable world-view and religion, and take its rightful place on the world stage side by side with the other powerful world religions, then we need to be able to make this clear distinction between being Indian and being a follower of Sanatana Dharma. They are not the same.

Hopefully this answers your questions on these two topics. I’ll only be making very limited comments after this, since I believe all of you have at least as much to offer on the subject of my paper as I do. Thank you all, again, for engaging in a great discussion. Keep it up!

Jaya Sanatana Dharma,

Dr. Frank Gaetano Morales
www.dharmacentral.com

Block this user | Report AbuseReply

Does Hinduism Teach That All Religions Are The Same?

My Sanskrit name is Dharma Pravartaka.

I am not Christian.

My religion is Sanatana Dharma.

Best Regards.

Block this user | Report AbuseReply

Does Hinduism Teach That All Religions Are The Same?

Namaste.

Just a quick comment on my ethnicity. Unfortunately, I've received quite a few hostile questions and comments about my race off list via e-mail. First, my ethnicity is truly irrelevant to the discussion at hand. It's the ideas presented in the paper that are of sole importance.

If someone does not like my paper, I truly welcome your comments, suggestions and insights. But please don't attack me for my race.

But for the more race conscious among us, here goes: I'm of purely Italian and Spanish heritage. I'm definitely not "Romani"; my middle name is Italian. I was born, raised, and currently live in the United States. Nor am I Christian. I abandoned that faith long ago, and have been humbly attempting to practice Hinduism for the last 30 years.

My religion is Sanatana Dharma.

Again, I don't feel that my own personal race or ethnicity is of any importance to the ideas presented in my paper. The paper is not about ethnicity (or again, caste, sati, furniture design or creative chai recipes for the single male). It's simply a philosophical paper. And it can only be understood as such. Thanks again, and take care.

Jaya Sanatana Dharma,

Dr. Frank Gaetano Morales

Block this user | Report AbuseReply