Ancestral Pride?
I don't think any of us can say that all our ancestors were good and decent. White people have to deal with the fact that their ancestors launched the Crusades as well as the transatlantic slave trade. Arabs' ancestors subjugated entire peoples in the name of their God. Asian cultures divided people into classes or castes. Even the Native Americans fought one another and committed atrocities. So the question is, should we be proud of our ancestors? I think most people will easily say yes. Now how about if as recent as three generations ago, your family was subjugating and oppressing other human beings and consolidating their power base through religion? Would you still be proud of them? Of course not, right? Now you understand how I feel with respect to my own ancestors.
I got thinking on this topic when my father showed me clippings of newspaper articles written by my great grandfather (I guess writing runs in the family, even if ideologies differ). In this article published in 1926, my great grandfather was responding to a British man's column on Christianity and Hinduism. The British man, a Christian, made the allegation that Christianity was afforded man a chance to establish a relationship with a personal God in light of how men are sinners, blah blah blah, and thus was more "people friendly." In his response, my great grandfather said that Hinduism indeed purported that there was one, single personal God and how men were sinners and we had to offer our blessings in temples for grace. Everything he said is true, but that is just one school of thought of Hinduism and even that leads ultimately to Brahman. However, my great grandfather didn't explain any of that. As I'm reading this, I am wondering, am I reading the Bible? This isn't Hinduism! Hinduism's base is that God is omnipresent, within each and every thing, and ultimately, there is no God, just the ultimate Truth or Brahman. Sin and Virtue are opposite sides of the same coin and to become part of Brahman, one needs to detach themselves from both. I know this sounds a lot like Buddhism, but when you get deep down into it, that's pretty much what Hinduism is. Sure, we can make for ourselves a personal God if that would help us, but that's a far cry from insisting that there was a personal God and we are sinners looking for his grace.
My initial disagreement of my great grandfather turned to outright aversion when my father remarked how he did not like Mahatma Gandhi because of the Mahatma's "pro-Muslim" attitudes. Then it struck me. I am a Brahmin, the highest caste in the Hindu social order. Therefore, my great grandfather and his family was part of the ruling elite in India under the British. Mahatma Gandhi's ideas of social equality and egalitarianism threatened their grip on power (I'm not talking material wealth here, but rather social standing, which in India is often separate from and superior to material possessions). This is also the same reason why my ancestors would have promoted so fiercely the school of thought within Hinduism that stressed rituals and formal temple practices, because for these services, they held a monopoly by virtue of their birth, a monopoly which they did not want to give up.
It could also be argued that the masses are unable to pick up a philosophical religion and need a personal connection with God. This was all the more important under the onslaught of Christianity brought by colonial rule. So it could be argued that my ancestors by promoting a ritualized form of Hinduism were working to preserve the religion for the future. This may also be true. I do not know the reasons they had for believing what they did or writing what they wrote. However, I would be lying if I said I did not wish that my ancestors were true visionaries that worked for making religion more inclusive and empowering those groups that were marginalized. Unfortunately, my ancestors seemed to be quite ordinary in that they went along with the status quo and indeed tried to strengthen it. They were accomplished people, but this was expected of them and they didn't really change the world.
Following this contemplation, my respect for the likes of Swami Vivekananda, Ramakrishna Paramahamsa and Mahatma Gandhi, which was already great, has increased a hundred fold. They are a world apart from ordinary men because they truly realized what religion was and worked to bring it back from what it has descended to.
I will say though that, to a large extent, you can't blame my great grandfather and others for how they were. They were born and raised in that school of thought. Their ignorance is all the more pardonable when you consider that in today's day and age, with information all around us, some people still believe and insist should be taught in schools that the Earth is 6,000 years old and was made in seven days and evolution is not true. The purpose of my post therefore isn't to deride my ancestors. Rather, this post should be used to contemplate and realize just how great certain people are, such as the ones mentioned in the previous paragraph. When in spite of overwhelming social tradition and orthodoxy, those that reformed Hinduism for the better and to make it more inclusive and take power away from those trying to hoard it, those are the people to be truly respected and admired. They're the ones who were truly divinely inspired. The regular coming of such souls has kept the Sanatana Dharma ("eternal religion") strong and vigorous through all these millennia.
In answer to my initial question, I finally conclude that while I am not proud of my ancestors, I am not ashamed of them either. They lived their lives as how they were expected to, very ordinarily without doing anything spectacular. Therefore, with regard to my ancestors, I am ambivalent.
I got thinking on this topic when my father showed me clippings of newspaper articles written by my great grandfather (I guess writing runs in the family, even if ideologies differ). In this article published in 1926, my great grandfather was responding to a British man's column on Christianity and Hinduism. The British man, a Christian, made the allegation that Christianity was afforded man a chance to establish a relationship with a personal God in light of how men are sinners, blah blah blah, and thus was more "people friendly." In his response, my great grandfather said that Hinduism indeed purported that there was one, single personal God and how men were sinners and we had to offer our blessings in temples for grace. Everything he said is true, but that is just one school of thought of Hinduism and even that leads ultimately to Brahman. However, my great grandfather didn't explain any of that. As I'm reading this, I am wondering, am I reading the Bible? This isn't Hinduism! Hinduism's base is that God is omnipresent, within each and every thing, and ultimately, there is no God, just the ultimate Truth or Brahman. Sin and Virtue are opposite sides of the same coin and to become part of Brahman, one needs to detach themselves from both. I know this sounds a lot like Buddhism, but when you get deep down into it, that's pretty much what Hinduism is. Sure, we can make for ourselves a personal God if that would help us, but that's a far cry from insisting that there was a personal God and we are sinners looking for his grace.
My initial disagreement of my great grandfather turned to outright aversion when my father remarked how he did not like Mahatma Gandhi because of the Mahatma's "pro-Muslim" attitudes. Then it struck me. I am a Brahmin, the highest caste in the Hindu social order. Therefore, my great grandfather and his family was part of the ruling elite in India under the British. Mahatma Gandhi's ideas of social equality and egalitarianism threatened their grip on power (I'm not talking material wealth here, but rather social standing, which in India is often separate from and superior to material possessions). This is also the same reason why my ancestors would have promoted so fiercely the school of thought within Hinduism that stressed rituals and formal temple practices, because for these services, they held a monopoly by virtue of their birth, a monopoly which they did not want to give up.
It could also be argued that the masses are unable to pick up a philosophical religion and need a personal connection with God. This was all the more important under the onslaught of Christianity brought by colonial rule. So it could be argued that my ancestors by promoting a ritualized form of Hinduism were working to preserve the religion for the future. This may also be true. I do not know the reasons they had for believing what they did or writing what they wrote. However, I would be lying if I said I did not wish that my ancestors were true visionaries that worked for making religion more inclusive and empowering those groups that were marginalized. Unfortunately, my ancestors seemed to be quite ordinary in that they went along with the status quo and indeed tried to strengthen it. They were accomplished people, but this was expected of them and they didn't really change the world.
Following this contemplation, my respect for the likes of Swami Vivekananda, Ramakrishna Paramahamsa and Mahatma Gandhi, which was already great, has increased a hundred fold. They are a world apart from ordinary men because they truly realized what religion was and worked to bring it back from what it has descended to.
I will say though that, to a large extent, you can't blame my great grandfather and others for how they were. They were born and raised in that school of thought. Their ignorance is all the more pardonable when you consider that in today's day and age, with information all around us, some people still believe and insist should be taught in schools that the Earth is 6,000 years old and was made in seven days and evolution is not true. The purpose of my post therefore isn't to deride my ancestors. Rather, this post should be used to contemplate and realize just how great certain people are, such as the ones mentioned in the previous paragraph. When in spite of overwhelming social tradition and orthodoxy, those that reformed Hinduism for the better and to make it more inclusive and take power away from those trying to hoard it, those are the people to be truly respected and admired. They're the ones who were truly divinely inspired. The regular coming of such souls has kept the Sanatana Dharma ("eternal religion") strong and vigorous through all these millennia.
In answer to my initial question, I finally conclude that while I am not proud of my ancestors, I am not ashamed of them either. They lived their lives as how they were expected to, very ordinarily without doing anything spectacular. Therefore, with regard to my ancestors, I am ambivalent.
posted by Vivek at 8:55 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home