Recent events show that there remain many misunderstandings of Hindu practices. What follows was published over thirty years ago in a local newspaper in an attempt to clarify some of them. “Every Sunday morning across Guyana, thousands of Hindus stream into their village mandirs to participate in congregational worship. Not many realise this practice is an acceptance of the Christian method of worship, foisted on us during the plantation period when Sunday was the only “day off”. Sanaatan Dharma, the ‘ancient way of life” which accepts the infinite variety of the human condition, would never specify the same ten minutes of chanting, two minutes of meditation, etc., for everyone. While adaptations are inevitable, one must be aware of the sources.
We can look at the words Hindus now use to conceptualise their practices. Having been stripped of their language in Guyana, most Hindus are forced to use English to both study and promulgate their practices. Two problems arise out of this. Firstly, and sadly, most of the translations of Hindu sacred texts [Shastras] and compilations of dictionaries were done by Christian missionaries or others imbued by the ethos of Christianity. Consciously or unconsciously, their biases infuse their works. Secondly, all languages, including English, have their own history, and their words reflect and project that history.
Take the word “religion”, which is substituted for “Sanaatan Dharma” in the West. The Abrahamic religion Christianity, with its “one book, one god and one way”, totally defines man and his existence. They promote, for example, the “separation of Church and State”, as if man’s activities can be so neatly compartmentalised. They ignore contingencies like England’s Henry VIII and his tussle with the Pope, which helped create that dichotomy. Sanaatan Dharma, which never had the problem of a theocracy since Brahmins could not be kings, had a holistic view of society and its governance.
In fact, every Hindu ruler had a religious preceptor and the Niti Shastras [texts elaborating the duties of rulers], religion, economics, and much more. “Dharma” is a very exhaustive concept and covers the gamut of man’s activities and possibilities … Duties, laws, rights, morality, and truth are only some of the words suggested. Dharma is both a way of life and a view of life; there is no facet of man’s existence that is untouched. Thus, there is no separation between dharma and, say, cosmology or philosophy. Dharma does not end with attending Sunday’s “service” in the mandir.
“Idol” rather than the Hindu word “murti” is another problem word. Christians and Jews use it in the sense of a “false god” because in their history, their people actually worshipped specific images as gods. Their conception of a “one God” came out of a long and tortuous road, as, among other things, one tribe arose victorious over the other tribes, and their god was made supreme. Hinduism never had this problem since, in its earliest conceptions of God, images were never used.
In their earliest text, the Rig Veda, there is no mention of images used in worship. It is only used much later, when, in an effort to explain the lofty Vedic conception, those stylised icons were utilised for the masses. These icons were always seen as representations of a deeper reality, never as the reality. The map was never confused with the territory. For example, to convey the concept that God was infinite, Vishnu, whose name means “All-pervasive”, is always painted blue to symbolise infinity because the common man could analogise the blue sky which he saw every day and knew was infinite. In their minds many modern Hindus, accepting the word “idols”, are a bit sheepish about their faith’s “murtis”.
There are so many other words which dominate Hindu thought, but instead of conveying Hindu concepts, distort and subvert them – ‘evil’, ‘heaven’, ‘hell’, ‘demon’, ‘sin’, etc. I’ll conclude by briefly looking at the word “God”, which is at the centre of “religious” thought. Because of the hegemony of Christianity in Guyana, most Hindus “see” God as some old bearded man floating somewhere “up there”. The notion of a Nirgun Brahman, of a God beyond human categories of space, time, qualities, etc., is rare. The notion that it is only our need to conceptualise that creates an Ishvar or personalised God is little appreciated. The notion that they are simply attempts to suggest the infinite capacities of God, which give us the different manifestations portrayed, is frequently overlooked.”
