Post by km on Oct 10, 2009 12:58:23 GMT -5
"It was a preaching device. The Holy Name was intended for everybody. Perhaps other "Hindu" faiths see things differently, but the Gaudiya Vaishnavas had no restrictions on who could or should practice their beliefs."
Right, I know. It's true that many other Hindus see things differently, though. The Hindu temple near my home was explicitly for people born into the religion, and my Hindu friends have always said that their religion did not proselytize (I think what I'm realizing from reading your story, though, is how many variations of Hinduism are actually being practiced in the world.). My friends told me that the discouragement of preaching was generally a historical response to the zealotry of Christian missionaries in India.
And the white people who take up Native American traditions have always been a personal pet peeve of mine. I saw a lot of that happening in liberal Christian denominations with no acknowledgement of the appropriation that was happening--and all of it completely dumbed down and stripped of meaning. That's one reason I couldn't handle sticking around even in a liberal Christian tradition. I found it offensive in ways different from the fundamentalist crap I'd been exposed to, but offensive nevertheless. And white folks taking up other traditions without even a trace of reflexivity seems to transcend general liberal/conservative dichotomies.
As a result of some of my experiences, I have a real aversion to faith conversions--it's one of the reasons I call myself an "agnostic Christian" and am not really seeking out any alternative spirituality. I don't much care for the white celebrities who become superficial Buddhists either... Sorry, not trying to derail.
So, anyway, I think you're right that there's a distinction to be made between people taking up the religious practices preached by missionaries and white people taking up traditional religious practices as a shallow sort of "ritual of the week." I think they're related, but I can see the distinction you're making.
Right, I know. It's true that many other Hindus see things differently, though. The Hindu temple near my home was explicitly for people born into the religion, and my Hindu friends have always said that their religion did not proselytize (I think what I'm realizing from reading your story, though, is how many variations of Hinduism are actually being practiced in the world.). My friends told me that the discouragement of preaching was generally a historical response to the zealotry of Christian missionaries in India.
And the white people who take up Native American traditions have always been a personal pet peeve of mine. I saw a lot of that happening in liberal Christian denominations with no acknowledgement of the appropriation that was happening--and all of it completely dumbed down and stripped of meaning. That's one reason I couldn't handle sticking around even in a liberal Christian tradition. I found it offensive in ways different from the fundamentalist crap I'd been exposed to, but offensive nevertheless. And white folks taking up other traditions without even a trace of reflexivity seems to transcend general liberal/conservative dichotomies.
As a result of some of my experiences, I have a real aversion to faith conversions--it's one of the reasons I call myself an "agnostic Christian" and am not really seeking out any alternative spirituality. I don't much care for the white celebrities who become superficial Buddhists either... Sorry, not trying to derail.
So, anyway, I think you're right that there's a distinction to be made between people taking up the religious practices preached by missionaries and white people taking up traditional religious practices as a shallow sort of "ritual of the week." I think they're related, but I can see the distinction you're making.