Can you open your heart without changing your mind?
It seems like many progressive Hindus who question cultural practices are being labeled Hindu-haters, while many with conservative concerns are accused of being Right-Wing Nut Jobs. Such de-legitimizing personal attacks are not limited to one community: the current political and social climate in the United States seems to exemplify partisan tension; name-calling abounds. What’s going on here? What are we really fighting about?
As a Hindu-American woman there are things about my culture (both the Hindu and the American parts) that I find empowering, and other things that I struggle with: class inequities, the status of women, a disturbing tendency to anti-Muslim sentiment, to name a few. Of course not all Hindus or Americans hold these views but I strongly dislike that they are part of my heritage. And they are part of my heritage (be it national, religious or cultural). Acknowledging that is not hateful. They are also not the only part of my heritage: acknowledging that does not make me a RWNJ.
There are vast viewpoints within a religion or nation. We each live in a belief culture influenced by a rich combination of religious, cultural, national, ethnic, local and family traditions; philosophical, intellectual or scientific theories; our own experiences based on gender, sexual orientation, and so on. The diversity of belief and practice are staggering.
My friend and colleague Erik Schwarz, the Managing Partner at Interfaith Works and Co-Director of the Institute for Faith and Service, once said that the “conversation within,” that is, the dialogue within a faith, can be far more challenging than dialogue between faiths. I agree.
The conversation within a faith is painful and challenging because it can feel like a battle for the identity of the faith itself, and by extension, our own identity. It’s easy to think that different views are a dilution or distortion of one’s own views. Defining what is or isn’t religion and who is or isn’t an acceptable commentator on a religion is uncertain. Within Hinduism, this uncertainty has resulted in two ongoing debates: the relationship between Yoga and Hinduism, and the appropriateness of the controversial film Sita Sings the Blues. I love these debates; I just wish we could have them without labeling those with opposing views.
Having our views critiqued is uncomfortable, and can feel threatening. When another Hindu says something I vehemently disagree with, I yearn to say: that’s not Hinduism! (which implies: you’re not Hindu! You must be a Hindu-hater or a RWNJ). Then I take a breath and realize what I mean is: that’s not Hinduism as I practice and understand it. There is a big difference. There are issues I care passionately about, that make this truth hard to accept: not everyone who disagrees with me is stupid or malevolent.
We can disagree without questioning each other’s legitimacy. Debate without defamation: is it possible?
What initially feels like an attack on one’s belief culture can be viewed as an argument, a debate or simply a conversation. In reality, we all have at times attacked, argued, debated and conversed. Thinking of it as a conversation forces us to acknowledge people we disagree with as rational equals, fellow Hindus, fellow Americans, fellow humans. It is a challenge to our own ego, and it makes us vulnerable.
The conversation takes place not only between individuals in a faith, but within our own hearts.
Everyone strives to find their place, their voice and their identity. To discover, and through that process of discovery, continually create, what it means to be Hindu or American or just me. When I talk about “being Hindu,” what I am really talking about is “being me.” You may find some things in common; you may not. Part of my identity may be a deep (and very Hindu) commitment to critical thinking and debate. Part of yours may be a deep (and very Hindu) commitment to acceptance and faith. There is no way to be right or wrong about who we are.
We are all, as individuals and traditions, made up of sometimes contradictory values, beliefs and actions. There are external triggers for internal hurts. Not all tension is a sign that something is wrong. We don’t have to bring everything into agreement: tension is healthy and fuels our passion and curiosity for life. We all struggle and search within. It is possible to debate without investing identity in the outcome: your heart is safe. Use your mind. We can free ourselves of the need to label but more importantly, we can free ourselves of the need to agree, of the need for a perfect, harmonious definition of nation, religion or self.
Great article! I appreciate the idea that we don’t need to be searching for perfect harmony in all conversations; tension in conversations occurs when we’re willing to explore the grey areas (in ourselves as well as in conversation with others) between polarised points of view. Taking this even further, it’s really not a straight line with two extremes but like many aspects of our lives and of ourselves, there are multiple ‘spheres’ of who we are that overlap in a multitude of ways, within each of us and in every conversation we have. Looking forward to hearing more from you, Saumya!
What I find interesting is how this dialogue can change our own views — even just expressing ourselves to someone else. As people become more educated, more of a subject matter expert, including religion, it becomes harder to listen and hear others. We are experts, are we not? We know what we’re saying, we’ve refined it, we’ve studied it. Our ears close.
Listening and hearing another is enriching, and the first part in dialogue. It’s difficult to get your point across without listening to someone else first. It’s hard to know one’s self without listening to one’s self.
The religion I practice is hotly debated and constantly attempted to be co-opted as someone else’s definition, where I am nothing but an interloper, a poser so to speak. But who can really own a religion? The conversation within is indeed, very difficult. But if we all attempt to legitimize the one’s we talk to, perhaps they will learn by example.
THE ONLY THING I WANT TO TELL IS . HINDUISM IS NOT RELIGION HINDUISM TEACH THE WAY OF LIFE(FAMILY) ,WAY OF LIVING AND APART FROM THAT ITS GIVES ENORMOUS POWER TO OUR SOUL AND BODY..ITS NEVER HATE THE UNBELIEVERS .. DUE TO CHANGE OF MODERN L SOME BODY CHANGED THE RULES BUT IT NEVER CHANGED
VEDAS AND PURANA ARE THERE PEOPLE TRAVEL LING 5KM IN 20 MINUTES AND 5 MINUTES ARE THERE ITS DEPEND UPON THEIR EXPERIENCE THE ONE AND ONLY HINDUISM TOLD THIS–AGAIN ITS NOT RELIGION
IF U WANT TO JUSTIFY OUR SIDE WE WILL NEVER SUCCESS.THE ONLY FAMILY WITHOUT ADVERTISING AND BANNERS IN HINDUSM, HINDUSM STARTED BEFORE ALL (SO IT ILL BE MOTHER OF ALL) OUR MOTHER NEVER NEEDS IDENTIFICATION .PEOPLE NEED IDENTIFICATION IN FORMS OF THEIR LIVING.FOR THAT THEY TAKEN RELIGION……PLEASE PLEASE DONT THINK HINDUISM IS NOT RELIGION. ITS WAY OF LIFE TO DEATH AND DEATH TO LIFE.
WE CAN REFER HINDUSM BY FEELINGS NOT BY PAPERS
THIS IS ONLY MY OPINION