Peacebang asks if we Unitarians have become “vague Buddhists.” A People So Bold! isn’t buying, and Lo-Fi Tribe renews the case for a vibrant religious humanism. I wonder if UUism more closely resembles Hinduism.
We Unitarians try to practice an open, practical, religious pluralism, and the gold standard of religous pluralism is Hinduism. It makes room for a wide variety of theological stances: monotheism, panentheism, monism, polytheism, and even atheism. (Hindu theology is even more diverse than the textbook Hindu diverity usually found in intros.) If you throw in that “Hindu heresy” known as Buddhism, you’ve got nontheism too.
The four spiritual paths of Hinduism also reflect our practical pluralism:1
- A spirituality of selfless action. Our social justice folks fit here. We could also thrown in ethical humanism and the simplicity movement. Perhaps our ethically directed Christian humanists could fit here too?
- A spirituality of seeking wisdom and knowledge. My own vague Taoism fits here, to venture outside the Indian subcontinent. (Remember, this is a vague Hinduism.) Our more philosophical Coffee Hour conversations could find a home here too.
- A spirituality of meditation. Obviously, meditation and yoga go here. And as Clyde Grubbs points out, our own meditation practices don’t focus so much on the Buddhist notion of suffering. (UU Buddhists excepted, of course.)
- A spirituality of devotion, the loving worship of a specific god or goddess. If we allow for devotion to multiple gods here, we’ve got a place for UU pagans.
As with all typologies and frameworks, this one frays at the edges. But it’s a start. Adopting this framework could provide our diverse spiritual practices with an easily understandable direction that we currently lack.
We are, I should point out, not specifically Hindu. Our body of ritual and mythology is minimalistic in comparison, not to mention our history.
As we’d obviously be “dumbing down” Hinduism for our own sake, we’d need to make that clear from the get go. As Hafidha Sofia points out, appropriating other religious traditions is not without its difficulties. If we were to embrace my little notion here, we’d at least need to do it mindfully and intentionally, not as the spirituality of the month club.
- A fellow UU blogger has made this point a couple or three times, but I can’t seem to google it up. [↩]
It is no secret that Emerson was a student of Hinduism, at least he read about it and was influenced by it. But what he did was adopt the inspiration of the Atman is Brahmin to Soul is Oversoul, and maintain a Yankee cultural form.
I would note that we have diversity but not Hindu diversity. The major form of Hindusim the way to God by devotion (bhakti yoga?) is not developed among us, and while we have devotees of the way to God by knowledge, the way to God by body harmony, the way to God by self less action etc. as you have mentioned they are manifested in a way that no Hindu would recognize.
I suspect Hinduism is a culturally specific religion, and has not yet been abstracted and repackaged for the West (yes Vendata yoga is one effort and Hatha yoga is popular for those who want to stretch and be spiritual at the same time.)
I would argue that Unitarian Universalism is a culturally specific religion with its own traditions as well, we aren’t about to go wade in the Mississippi. If some Unitarian Universalists find us vague, they need to ask is it the message or is it my perception of the message. I would argue we do have a central message, but most of us are on message.
We may have variety in delivery and voice, but we have a message. For those who wonder what it is I suggest reading Rebecca Parker, Bill Shultz, Sharon Park, and Paul Rasor in a row and then randomly selected 50 UU preachers and listening to what they are saying.
Less ambitous, read the World and the UU blogs and discriminate the personal from the corporate.
Interesting thoughts, Chutney, cool.
According to the Commission on Appraisal’s fairly recent report on our theological diversity, 370 of our congregations report that they hear almost no Hindu or Muslim readings in worship services. Part of what I was wondering is how many Buddhist readings and Buddhist-themed sermons we’re getting in our services.
One man’s belief is another man’s black magic !!
I generally refrain from writing on religion. One, there is generally NO end to religious debate. Two, on an impersonal medium like the net, religious discussion, raises all sorts of passions and leads to fights and is counter productive. Last but not the least, I believe that men, especially Indian men have to concentrate on lot of other issues and so religious debate has no place here. At least here.
However I am concerned at the insensitive legislative process in India.
So as an exception, I am bringing up one discussion on insensitive legislation – which is bound to affect upon MOST RELIGIONS in India today. It affects the Babas as much as it affects the kisthis and it affects Buddhists as much as it affect Jains.
Looks like our law makers are trying to legislate every piece and parcel of our daily lives.
– Marriage which was a smaskra, a sacred religious duty has been legislated. The moment you marry, you fall within the ambit of the Hindu Marriage Act or the Sharia or the Parsi Marriage act …. one of the many marriage laws in this secular land !
– Vidhya – education, was (a) legislated and now (b) commercialised as well…
– The Hindu Religious and endowment Act has helped Govt. nationalise a lot of temples !!
– The Christians had to fight for making divorce simpler …
The list of legislations that affect or personal freedom goes on and on …
Also, law makers in India seem to be borrowing more and more from the west, where religion and state have an un canny agreement. In the west there is a state religion and most things within the religion are defined. It started from the times of Henry the VIII.
India has had a long and chequered history of religious plurality. Three of four major religions were born here. There is NO state religion, and even with the majority Hindu religion, NOT much is uniform, for practices vary state to state.
Look at Hindu’s core practices and you will see all sorts of variations.
– Brahmins traditionally do NOT eat fish .. well.. eh… unless you are a Bengali Brahmin, and then Fish is auspicious.
– Sapthapathi is an essential part of Hindu marriage ..eh… EXCEPT in Tamil Nadu and Kerala ?
– Women are allowed inside temples ?? really … NO, NOT IN sabarimala !!
and so on ….
Now, the Maharashtra govt. is trying to pass a Maharashtra Eradication of Black Magic & Evil & Aghori Practices Act (Anti-Superstition Act)!! and is planning to give GREAT powers to OFFICERS who have a great discretion and decide what is Black Magic !!!
To begin with, the language of this ACT is said to be vague & imprecise. What is suppersition ? What is BLACKmagic and what is logic ? Could black magic and superstition include all that is NOT scientifically proven ? What about the karam kAnda of the Vedas ?, what about Chandamama and the children stories ? and what about Muhharram ? …. other religious practices ?
Worse, the bill also empowers the vigilance officer to enter & search any premise, where, he thinks, black magic has occurred.
This is where I see further in sensitivity.
This is just like the ANTI DOWRY legislation (sec 498A of IPC) empowering the police to arrest without trial, empowering arrest of HUSBANDS and their RELATIVES, including AGED PARENTS !!
So, is this bill a terrible mistake that needs to be stopped before it is enacted ??
more below
Discussion on the Maharashtra Eradication of Black Magic & Evil & Aghori Practices Act (Anti-Superstition Act)
or at : http://tinyurl.com/qofr7
AT THIS PAGE PLEASE SCROLL DOWN BELOW TO SEE THE DISCUSSIONS
An interesting thought, that we might be vague Hindus….
I know Hinduism essentially throught Huston Smith’s writing, so it’s the idealized version rather than the practical. It does seem to me that Hinduism encompassed it all and there was really no need for any others….
imagine a hindu devotee who has only seen her/his chosen image of god. this person passes down generation after generation a reverence for this one “god.” as a christian, my culture was dictated to me by my family and society. i heard about other “gods”, but those were not the gods of my tradition.
i think that we are all (every religious/spiritual person)are all part of the same vague religion. look at how much is shared. in the essentials, very little isn’t.
As I see it, Hinduism says there are different ways to be religious/spiritual depending on what speaks to you and your personality. Different “gods” if you want to say it that way.
Then other religions come along that insist their particular way of doing it is THE ONLY way, and they insist only one of the possibilities works, when really it’s that only one works for them. So the only new thing in each new religion is how it’s pruned down to one part of what Hinduism suggested, its limitations and intolerance. And the individual expressions of that, the wall paper and window dressing. The problem is that so many people only see the wall paper and window dressing; they think that’s what religion is.
In Small Gods, Terry Pratchett writes about religions getting so encrusted with this stuff that the god in the middle suffocates and dies. I think that’s pretty accurate — the surface stuff gets so thick that you lose the spirit. Then power get substituted for spirit, and power games for spiritual feeling. It almost makes me want to say that all religions die with their founders. Only the wall paper remains.
UUism is trying to avoid this trap by having as little wall paper and window dressing as we can humanly get away with. It’s no wonder so many look at UUism and see nothing — the window is invisible to them without the dressings. Some of us still see the light….