Dhurga recently mentioned Isha-Devata in the comments. Simply put, this would be one's personal God.
There are many, many, many Gods in Hinduism. Each has different qualities and different personalities. The idea is that out of all those, there will be one that will speak to you and seem well suited to your spiritual growth. Often that is also based somewhat on family or regional traditions and maybe your birth chart.
For my branch, it is traditional to pick from the "five forms" that Shankara picked as the principle forms, uniting all branches. One of these forms is selected for main worship, but the other four are still worshiped also and all are seen as manifestations of the same Ultimate Reality, Brahman. The five are Ganesha, Vishnu, Shiva, Devī, and Sūrya.
A murti (statue, idol) is used for worship. It is believed that the mind needs a physical form to focus on. Sometimes in Smartism, the five forms are represented by five stones. For more dualistic branches, the worship of the murti is more like the Catholic communion. The God has actually come and inhabited the statue.
Sometimes if a great sage is thought to be an avatar of God, he or she might also be worshiped as one's Ishta-Devata. I mentioned before that some believe Jesus to be an avatar of Vishnu and I came across an interesting article articulating some about why and how Jesus is chosen as an Ishta-Devata at times. I know we had one person comment to say that this is impossible, but I am not in the habit of dismissing the beliefs of others and I am unwilling to say that it wouldn't be possible for Jesus to have been an avatar.
I've heard about this phenomenon of Indians adding Jesus to their alters from both perspectives. I knew of a girl in college who loved India and was also an evangelical Christian. She frequently went to India to work on converting people (which completely horrified me, but I didn't know her personally). I was told that a problem she often had was that Indians seemed to have a hard time understanding that they couldn't just add Jesus in. Jesus had to replace ALL Gods and only he could be worshiped. The article above sees this as possibly just a survival technique, to keep Hinduism alive while compromising with Christianity. I'm much closer to the perspective of seeing Christianity trying to destroy Hinduism.
Some believe that it doesn't matter which God you choose, all lead to moksha. However, some branches believe that only particular Gods will. For Vaishnavites, only a form of Vishnu will work (Rama, Krishna...).
To find one's Ishta-Devata some believe that you must go by astrology. Others just find that one in particular speaks to him. It can be something chosen oneself or chosen for you by a guru. This form of God will stay with you all your life.
So, what is my Ishta-Devata?
Shiva, in the form of the nata raja.
It wasn't always clear to me. When I was a kid I was fascinated by Krishna. I loved how different he was at different points in his life. I liked the teenage Krishna best, with the gopis worshiping him.
I was initiated into mantra-based meditation when I was 13. Ideally, one's mantra would be connected to one's Ishta-Devata, it would be a way of calling on that God. The organization I grew up in does not believe in Ishta-Devatas. A mantra was chosen for the entire organization to use and given to us through a Chankaracharya in India. It is a sound connected to Rama.
Despite these moments with other forms, the little bronze nata raja statue that I bought at the new age shop in my town clicked with me in a way that the others hadn't. I spent long periods of time just staring into his tiny face, and entranced by the grace of his arms.
I started dance five years later.
Nata raja still sits in the central place on my alter. A couple years ago my mother gave me a Krishna statue, remembering how much I loved Krishna as a child. That image just never had the same effect on me.
As soon as I look at my nata raja, I feel calmed and centered and I feel as though there is fire in his eyes.
No one gave me that form to worship, I chose it (or it chose me).
Friday, July 2, 2010
Thursday, July 1, 2010
I'm going to learn Spanish!
I know you're thinking, where did that come from?
:)
I can't talk much about the details, but I've been offered a chance to test out a new product from Rosetta Stone, whose products I adore. It will be for Latin American Spanish and last 1-3 months.
I'm excited to test out how much I have learned about learning language from my Hindi adventure. Hindi will take a back burner for these few months while I see just how much Spanish I can pick up in that time. Spanish would certainly be a useful language to know and though I haven't had any interest in it since I was eight years old, I may as well see how far I can get since it's being offered to me for free.
Lack of vocabulary is the main thing holding me back in Hindi right now. I'm picking up bits of grammar as I read and reread Teach Yourself Hindi, so what I need is just a lot more words to work with.
My vocabulary right now is about 500 words and I'm working intensively on vocabulary growth. Each new word has expanded my understanding of the movies and tv shows and books so much.
I've read that a native speaker usually has a vocabulary of 10,000 words, using about 3,000 of them on a daily basis (we all have our favorite words and phrases that we turn to again and again, though we understand other people's favorite words and phrases). So, I have a long way to go before I'm going to be able to fully understand and communicate.
I'm trying to learn 10 new words each day, which feels a little overwhelming to me, but seems to be on the low end for the impressive people on How-To-Learn-Any-Language.com
I think this little break will help me get a clearer perspective on just how much Hindi I have learned and I can return to it refreshed. I have not yet decided whether I will keep up with a little bit of reading and watching in Hindi while I'm doing the Spanish. I don't know if that will confuse me but I also don't want to lose the progress that I've made in Hindi.
I've reached that point in language learning where each new thing learned feels like such a tiny drop that it will never help! I read somewhere the idea that the first ten words you learn in a language are so exciting and you feel like you're making great progress, but then when you're going from 520 words to 530 words it feels like no progress at all, just a drop of water in the ocean. It's hard to stay focused and motivated when you feel like you're at a standstill.
For fun, for anyone who knows Hindi (or is learning) I found this free Hindi Scrabble Game to download. It's very challenging for me, since I know so few words. It's really a cool program and I wrote to the man who created it to thank him. I hope that he'll have success with this and make other games in Hindi.
Hindi Scrabble Game
:)
I can't talk much about the details, but I've been offered a chance to test out a new product from Rosetta Stone, whose products I adore. It will be for Latin American Spanish and last 1-3 months.
I'm excited to test out how much I have learned about learning language from my Hindi adventure. Hindi will take a back burner for these few months while I see just how much Spanish I can pick up in that time. Spanish would certainly be a useful language to know and though I haven't had any interest in it since I was eight years old, I may as well see how far I can get since it's being offered to me for free.
Lack of vocabulary is the main thing holding me back in Hindi right now. I'm picking up bits of grammar as I read and reread Teach Yourself Hindi, so what I need is just a lot more words to work with.
My vocabulary right now is about 500 words and I'm working intensively on vocabulary growth. Each new word has expanded my understanding of the movies and tv shows and books so much.
I've read that a native speaker usually has a vocabulary of 10,000 words, using about 3,000 of them on a daily basis (we all have our favorite words and phrases that we turn to again and again, though we understand other people's favorite words and phrases). So, I have a long way to go before I'm going to be able to fully understand and communicate.
I'm trying to learn 10 new words each day, which feels a little overwhelming to me, but seems to be on the low end for the impressive people on How-To-Learn-Any-Language.com
I think this little break will help me get a clearer perspective on just how much Hindi I have learned and I can return to it refreshed. I have not yet decided whether I will keep up with a little bit of reading and watching in Hindi while I'm doing the Spanish. I don't know if that will confuse me but I also don't want to lose the progress that I've made in Hindi.
I've reached that point in language learning where each new thing learned feels like such a tiny drop that it will never help! I read somewhere the idea that the first ten words you learn in a language are so exciting and you feel like you're making great progress, but then when you're going from 520 words to 530 words it feels like no progress at all, just a drop of water in the ocean. It's hard to stay focused and motivated when you feel like you're at a standstill.
For fun, for anyone who knows Hindi (or is learning) I found this free Hindi Scrabble Game to download. It's very challenging for me, since I know so few words. It's really a cool program and I wrote to the man who created it to thank him. I hope that he'll have success with this and make other games in Hindi.
Hindi Scrabble Game
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Veg and Non-Veg
I haven't heard these terms much in America, but it is the way that Indians refer to being vegetarian or not vegetarian. I thought I'd talk a bit about the history of vegetarianism in India and Hinduism today.
Personally I been feeling very drawn to being Veg, my body seems to want it. For the last week or so I have stopped eating meat except for fish. For the time being I am still eating fish and animal products like eggs and milk. So I can't really call myself Veg yet, but I'm closer anyway.
According to Wikipedia, India is 31% vegetarian (this being something called lacto-vegetarian, which includes eating diary products except for eggs). Another 9% eat eggs. That number seemed low to me. I was surprised. Although Wikipedia seems to say that only 4% of Americans identify as vegetarian, so that puts the number in perspective. Then again, the article says some estimates put the number of Indian vegetarians at 20-42%. I wonder if the variation has to do with the definitions being used for vegetarian. In America, I know, there is a lot of variety of which things can be eaten.
I think in America we are often less cautious about animal products that wander into unexpected places. Gelatin in a variety of foods, chicken broth used for vegetable soups, or MacDonald's fries that have been fried in animal lard. It depends on the individual how strict she is going to be. According to the article, Indians are much, much more cautious about what is in food and packages of food and medicine are marked according to whether they have any animal product in them.
Two main reasons given for vegetarianism in India are 1) Ahimsa and 2) the belief that what we eat effects our personalities, minds, souls ("You are what you eat").
Ahimsa is a Sanskirt word meaning non-violence. It is listed by Krishna as one of the qualities of a great man. I've heard several people say that ahmisa is much more stressed in Buddhism than in Hinduism, but Hinduism has started to be affected by it through Buddhism. A history of ahimsa can be found here.
The wikipedia article on vegetarianism in India says: "Also, Hindus believe that one's personality is affected by the kind of food one consumes and eating flesh is considered bad for once's spiritual/mental well-being. It takes many more vegetables or plants to produce an equal amount of meat [10] many more lives are destroyed and more suffering is caused when meat is used as food [11]."
The analysis of the statistics say that the percentages of vegetarianism are much higher for Jains and Brahmans (55%).
Jainism is an off-shoot of Hinduism. Sometimes it is considered a separate religion and sometimes it is considered a branch. The standards of ahimsa are extremely strict. Ideally only fruits and vegetables that have naturally fallen to the ground can be eaten so as not to harm the plants by pulling things off.
Some commenters have mentioned before that different degrees of Veg or non-Veg are expected for different castes. This seems to relate to the idea that what we eat is related to who we are and what we do.
Hinduism is a religion that is beautifully grounded in consequences. A good reason for Veg diet and ahimsa is the law of karma (law of action). It is better for our sanskara to limit the amount of killing or suffering we are causing.
Also, getting a bit off topic, the belief in reincarnation makes the consequences of everything more important. The long-term sustainability of a meat-less diet and the help to the environment is really important because Hindus cannot just shrug and figure that the long-term consequences won't effect them. Because we live over and over again, the damages that happen to the environment now are things we will have to deal with ourselves when we are reborn, not just something our children or grandchildren will have to deal with.
Now, in Vedic times animal sacrifices were part of the larger worships. The way that animals were killed is called jhaṭkā . The article doesn't say, but presumably this is a method of killing an animal which is more humane. One of the concerns with eating meat is that the fear that the animal felt in its last moments of life would be transferred into those who ate it. Meat that is sometimes eaten is often lamb meat. Never beef for any Hindus, as far as I know.
I'm sure that you've heard that the cow is sacred. Well, all animals and all people and all everything is sacred! The cow is special because the cow is so generous and provides us with the gift of milk, ghee, cheese, yoghurt, etc.
The transition from the culture of animal sacrifices to valuing ahimsa seems to give support to the idea that Hinduism was influenced by its off-shoot, Buddhism. Now, none of these articles has said what is common for those of the Kshatriya(warrior) caste to eat and I would suspect they were the ones doing most of the animal sacrifices in ancient times. And certainly there is plenty of hunting going on by this caste in the great epics.
Some Vaishnavas (one of the major branches of Hinduism) also stay away from garlic, onions, and other overly-stimulating foods. Someone mentioned here earlier that ISKON avoids those things and they are a Vaishnava organization. This has to do with the guna of food. I'll have to do a post on the gunas soon!
So, there is my overview of Veg and non-Veg. Please, feel free to comment and correct or clarify what I have found.
Personally I been feeling very drawn to being Veg, my body seems to want it. For the last week or so I have stopped eating meat except for fish. For the time being I am still eating fish and animal products like eggs and milk. So I can't really call myself Veg yet, but I'm closer anyway.
According to Wikipedia, India is 31% vegetarian (this being something called lacto-vegetarian, which includes eating diary products except for eggs). Another 9% eat eggs. That number seemed low to me. I was surprised. Although Wikipedia seems to say that only 4% of Americans identify as vegetarian, so that puts the number in perspective. Then again, the article says some estimates put the number of Indian vegetarians at 20-42%. I wonder if the variation has to do with the definitions being used for vegetarian. In America, I know, there is a lot of variety of which things can be eaten.
I think in America we are often less cautious about animal products that wander into unexpected places. Gelatin in a variety of foods, chicken broth used for vegetable soups, or MacDonald's fries that have been fried in animal lard. It depends on the individual how strict she is going to be. According to the article, Indians are much, much more cautious about what is in food and packages of food and medicine are marked according to whether they have any animal product in them.
Two main reasons given for vegetarianism in India are 1) Ahimsa and 2) the belief that what we eat effects our personalities, minds, souls ("You are what you eat").
Ahimsa is a Sanskirt word meaning non-violence. It is listed by Krishna as one of the qualities of a great man. I've heard several people say that ahmisa is much more stressed in Buddhism than in Hinduism, but Hinduism has started to be affected by it through Buddhism. A history of ahimsa can be found here.
The wikipedia article on vegetarianism in India says: "Also, Hindus believe that one's personality is affected by the kind of food one consumes and eating flesh is considered bad for once's spiritual/mental well-being. It takes many more vegetables or plants to produce an equal amount of meat [10] many more lives are destroyed and more suffering is caused when meat is used as food [11]."
The analysis of the statistics say that the percentages of vegetarianism are much higher for Jains and Brahmans (55%).
Jainism is an off-shoot of Hinduism. Sometimes it is considered a separate religion and sometimes it is considered a branch. The standards of ahimsa are extremely strict. Ideally only fruits and vegetables that have naturally fallen to the ground can be eaten so as not to harm the plants by pulling things off.
Some commenters have mentioned before that different degrees of Veg or non-Veg are expected for different castes. This seems to relate to the idea that what we eat is related to who we are and what we do.
Hinduism is a religion that is beautifully grounded in consequences. A good reason for Veg diet and ahimsa is the law of karma (law of action). It is better for our sanskara to limit the amount of killing or suffering we are causing.
Also, getting a bit off topic, the belief in reincarnation makes the consequences of everything more important. The long-term sustainability of a meat-less diet and the help to the environment is really important because Hindus cannot just shrug and figure that the long-term consequences won't effect them. Because we live over and over again, the damages that happen to the environment now are things we will have to deal with ourselves when we are reborn, not just something our children or grandchildren will have to deal with.
Now, in Vedic times animal sacrifices were part of the larger worships. The way that animals were killed is called jhaṭkā . The article doesn't say, but presumably this is a method of killing an animal which is more humane. One of the concerns with eating meat is that the fear that the animal felt in its last moments of life would be transferred into those who ate it. Meat that is sometimes eaten is often lamb meat. Never beef for any Hindus, as far as I know.
I'm sure that you've heard that the cow is sacred. Well, all animals and all people and all everything is sacred! The cow is special because the cow is so generous and provides us with the gift of milk, ghee, cheese, yoghurt, etc.
The transition from the culture of animal sacrifices to valuing ahimsa seems to give support to the idea that Hinduism was influenced by its off-shoot, Buddhism. Now, none of these articles has said what is common for those of the Kshatriya(warrior) caste to eat and I would suspect they were the ones doing most of the animal sacrifices in ancient times. And certainly there is plenty of hunting going on by this caste in the great epics.
Some Vaishnavas (one of the major branches of Hinduism) also stay away from garlic, onions, and other overly-stimulating foods. Someone mentioned here earlier that ISKON avoids those things and they are a Vaishnava organization. This has to do with the guna of food. I'll have to do a post on the gunas soon!
So, there is my overview of Veg and non-Veg. Please, feel free to comment and correct or clarify what I have found.
Monday, June 28, 2010
In the Future and in my Imagination
Inspired by going to see SM and having such a grand time, I wish it were more possible for us all to meet up!
Perhaps some day I can take a trip to England and visit you, Tandava.
I would so love to sit down and chat with CS and Art.
I think Basu would be so bright and friendly face to face.
Mouse would be awesome to go shopping with!
Sita, and Dhurga, and Kat and so many others who have commented here.
I can imagine us all together having amazing discussions and enjoying a dinner together.
Ah, the Internet can be such a beautiful thing. I am so glad to have virtually met you all!
I am coming near to having 100 posts already. I never knew I had that much to say. I know I will continue to be inspired as I push boundaries in my life. I think there will be some very interesting posts in the future about marriage and children and I'm sure there will be posts inspired by my class on Civil Rights and Liberties this summer!
I'm thinking also that I will post the first few pages of the novel that I talked about a while back. I'm a very slow writer so it will be ages before the book is finished, but I would like to share the little bit that I have.
Perhaps some day I can take a trip to England and visit you, Tandava.
I would so love to sit down and chat with CS and Art.
I think Basu would be so bright and friendly face to face.
Mouse would be awesome to go shopping with!
Sita, and Dhurga, and Kat and so many others who have commented here.
I can imagine us all together having amazing discussions and enjoying a dinner together.
Ah, the Internet can be such a beautiful thing. I am so glad to have virtually met you all!
I am coming near to having 100 posts already. I never knew I had that much to say. I know I will continue to be inspired as I push boundaries in my life. I think there will be some very interesting posts in the future about marriage and children and I'm sure there will be posts inspired by my class on Civil Rights and Liberties this summer!
I'm thinking also that I will post the first few pages of the novel that I talked about a while back. I'm a very slow writer so it will be ages before the book is finished, but I would like to share the little bit that I have.
Native-American or Indian?
This weekend the boyfriend and I had dinner with commenter SM and her family. We had a wonderful time. She mentioned that she might want to start a blog and I hope that she does. If you do, SM, come and share the link with us!
Also, another of our commenters has just started a blog. Art is writing about creating a Hindu American Identity: http://bamboothoughtlemons.blogspot.com/
I know a lot of people seem to be interested in forming a new identity as non-Indian Hindus. I am cautious because it is hard for me to separate out what is the religion and what is the culture and what will you lose when you let go of some of the things. But there should be a way to separate them. I was not satisfied with how it was done by the community I grew up in, but that does not mean that it's not possible.
As I was reading up on this other Churchill fellow from the last post, it brought to mind an issue that came up for me in college. I haven't faced it that much since only because I am not involved in Native American things. Although when I tell someone that I'm involved in Indian things, sometimes they think I mean turquoise jewelry and totem poles and someone once told me that she had heard that the swastika was actually an ancient symbol of Native-Americans. Sigh. No, it's an ancient symbol of India.
In America there are many different terms for different ethnic groups. In our society we put a premium on what has been labeled "Political Correctness." This means being polite when referring to ethnicities or cultures (or sexualities, religions, abilities/disabilities) different from our own. Some people say it goes too far, as many of us are very afraid to accidently offend someone by calling him the wrong thing. The "correct" term for a group can go in and out of fashion. I recently saw a debate on a message board between saying "black" people or "African-American" people. I think most people default to African-American these days. The possible trouble with that is that it qualifies someone's "Americanness" and makes it sound like they are less American than I am because no one ever calls me Irish-American.
But that example is not the point. The point is that there is a huge amount of confusion with the word "Indian."
When I was a kid I was taught that the people native to America, the ones Columbus mistakenly thought must be Indians because he thought when he got to America that he had reached India, were properly called Native-Americans. That was the PC term then.
In college I had a professor who was involved in these things and he told us that now the people preferred to be called "Indian." They were "taking back" the term. We read a wonderful book called The Lone Rancher and Tonto Fistfight in Heaven, about Native-Americans living on reservations. You can see, I stubbornly continue to say "Native-American."
I asked this professor, what then would we call actual Indians? People in India? He said "East Indians." I thought that was ridiculous. I'm sorry to Native-Americans, but you can't have the term. It's been taken. The people from India or who live in India get to call themselves Indian before you do.
Not that the word "India" is native at all, but it's been around for a lot longer than America has been.
Native words for India include Bharat and Hindustan. I welcome commenters in India to add to that list.
But still, to me the word "Indian" is always going to refer to people in India and the Native-Americans are going to have to find another term if they don't like that one.
Also, another of our commenters has just started a blog. Art is writing about creating a Hindu American Identity: http://bamboothoughtlemons.blogspot.com/
I know a lot of people seem to be interested in forming a new identity as non-Indian Hindus. I am cautious because it is hard for me to separate out what is the religion and what is the culture and what will you lose when you let go of some of the things. But there should be a way to separate them. I was not satisfied with how it was done by the community I grew up in, but that does not mean that it's not possible.
As I was reading up on this other Churchill fellow from the last post, it brought to mind an issue that came up for me in college. I haven't faced it that much since only because I am not involved in Native American things. Although when I tell someone that I'm involved in Indian things, sometimes they think I mean turquoise jewelry and totem poles and someone once told me that she had heard that the swastika was actually an ancient symbol of Native-Americans. Sigh. No, it's an ancient symbol of India.
In America there are many different terms for different ethnic groups. In our society we put a premium on what has been labeled "Political Correctness." This means being polite when referring to ethnicities or cultures (or sexualities, religions, abilities/disabilities) different from our own. Some people say it goes too far, as many of us are very afraid to accidently offend someone by calling him the wrong thing. The "correct" term for a group can go in and out of fashion. I recently saw a debate on a message board between saying "black" people or "African-American" people. I think most people default to African-American these days. The possible trouble with that is that it qualifies someone's "Americanness" and makes it sound like they are less American than I am because no one ever calls me Irish-American.
But that example is not the point. The point is that there is a huge amount of confusion with the word "Indian."
When I was a kid I was taught that the people native to America, the ones Columbus mistakenly thought must be Indians because he thought when he got to America that he had reached India, were properly called Native-Americans. That was the PC term then.
In college I had a professor who was involved in these things and he told us that now the people preferred to be called "Indian." They were "taking back" the term. We read a wonderful book called The Lone Rancher and Tonto Fistfight in Heaven, about Native-Americans living on reservations. You can see, I stubbornly continue to say "Native-American."
I asked this professor, what then would we call actual Indians? People in India? He said "East Indians." I thought that was ridiculous. I'm sorry to Native-Americans, but you can't have the term. It's been taken. The people from India or who live in India get to call themselves Indian before you do.
Not that the word "India" is native at all, but it's been around for a lot longer than America has been.
Native words for India include Bharat and Hindustan. I welcome commenters in India to add to that list.
But still, to me the word "Indian" is always going to refer to people in India and the Native-Americans are going to have to find another term if they don't like that one.
Friday, June 25, 2010
Other White Americans Looking for Culture
I happened to stumble upon some blogs about other ways in which people of European ancestry find culture in their lives. I know we have a few Pagan readers here and I think this is the same or similar. It seems that some people are going back to Nordic traditions of their ancestors as well. This suggests to me that my sense of lack of culture is a common problem here in America.
One person put it really interestingly:
""I know the feeling of having been exiled from your ancestors’ traditions. I know what it feels like to see other cultures reveling in traditions, and medicines, and lifestyles passed down to them for thousands of years, while I am given only Advil with which to soothe my pains."
The post is about how sometimes people trying to reclaim their European heritage fall into problems with racism (wanting to have White pride, since Black pride is okay).
It seems that a lot of people feel very connected to their own family and ancestry. I don't really feel that. I don't have a sense of my lineage reaching back through time in one particular family. Believing in reincarnation, this body is little indication of what other lives I've had and those lives are equally valid as this one. It's not like a previous life is less real because it is over. I may have been Indian in my last life. I may have been something else.
With that in mind it is also hard for me to understand how people get held accountable for the actions of their race in the past. It seems like such a strange idea to me because I didn't personally do any of those things that white people did to subjugate other races. But is that just a "white" way to think?
The same person above quotes Churchill [Edited to correct: not The Churchill, apparently, just A Churchill] as saying: “[People who appropriate the affects [sic] of other spiritual cultures] are attempting to avoid responsibility, to sidestep the heritage they’re a part of. Rather than rectify it, putting it right, putting it back in balance, they want to step out of it and appropriate something else from somebody else so they can pretend to be other than who and what they are.” (From what I read of the link Tandava shared, this Churchill guy is out of his mind. With alleged claims of a little bit of Native American blood, he criticizes all other white people for being imperialists and apparently published an essay basically saying that victims of 9/11 had it coming).
I don't understand this perspective at all. For wrongs of the past, I think we should all be working to rectify those. I think we should do our best to avoid those wrongs in the present. It seems to me that the responsibility belongs to everyone, not just those whose ancestors two hundred years ago did something wrong.
So here we are, back at the subject of cultural appropriation. I went looking for a definition and I was pleased with what I found. A detailed article on Pagans using Hindu deities gave this definition:
" Cultural appropriation happens when someone from one culture borrows symbols, rituals, and practices from another culture without fully understanding the context, meaning, and complexity of those things, and then passes them off as one’s own, or uses their own interpretations and then passes them off as 'authentic.' "
By this definition, one would need to be using items from another culture without understanding their full meaning and claiming one's own interpretation as more valid. I don't believe that I am doing either of these things. I come to Hindu practices with much respect. I have a great deal of study, knowledge, and practical experience participating in Hindu ritual. I value my own understanding of my worship, but I'm always open to deepening that understanding with the many, many people who know more than I.
This person goes on to say, "I’ve seen plenty of neo-Pagans doing a great job at respectfully approaching Hindu deities and incorporating Hindu worship into their own with some amount of care and respect. At the same time, I’ve also seen a few neo-Pagans worship Hindu deities with some bravado, and have seen and heard about some rituals that are at best ignorant and at worst blatantly disrespectful of Hindu traditions and culture."
Another blog post defining cultural appropriation says this: "Cultural Appropriation: The unhealthy aspect of multiculti, where a more powerful culture raids a less powerful neighboring culture ... and appropriates aspects of that culture without proper acknowledgment of the 'home culture' or understanding the cultural context from which these aspects spring. Examples: yoga, Buddhism, hip hop and ebonics-derived slang, graffiti art, etc."
Pretty similar, the key idea being that the source of the cultural tradition is not acknowledged and the understanding is incomplete.
The first article is more positive in tone than the second, but both give me the impression that there are ways to do what we do well and there are ways to do it badly and we need to be aware of that. It doesn't mean that neo-Pagans can't worship Hindu deities or that non-Indians can't worship Hindu deities, it just means that we have to do it with care and respect.
The same blog above has more to say on this subject and also references someone else's thoughts as well:
And We Shall March
A post referencing the above post and adding some things
One person put it really interestingly:
""I know the feeling of having been exiled from your ancestors’ traditions. I know what it feels like to see other cultures reveling in traditions, and medicines, and lifestyles passed down to them for thousands of years, while I am given only Advil with which to soothe my pains."
The post is about how sometimes people trying to reclaim their European heritage fall into problems with racism (wanting to have White pride, since Black pride is okay).
It seems that a lot of people feel very connected to their own family and ancestry. I don't really feel that. I don't have a sense of my lineage reaching back through time in one particular family. Believing in reincarnation, this body is little indication of what other lives I've had and those lives are equally valid as this one. It's not like a previous life is less real because it is over. I may have been Indian in my last life. I may have been something else.
With that in mind it is also hard for me to understand how people get held accountable for the actions of their race in the past. It seems like such a strange idea to me because I didn't personally do any of those things that white people did to subjugate other races. But is that just a "white" way to think?
The same person above quotes Churchill [Edited to correct: not The Churchill, apparently, just A Churchill] as saying: “[People who appropriate the affects [sic] of other spiritual cultures] are attempting to avoid responsibility, to sidestep the heritage they’re a part of. Rather than rectify it, putting it right, putting it back in balance, they want to step out of it and appropriate something else from somebody else so they can pretend to be other than who and what they are.” (From what I read of the link Tandava shared, this Churchill guy is out of his mind. With alleged claims of a little bit of Native American blood, he criticizes all other white people for being imperialists and apparently published an essay basically saying that victims of 9/11 had it coming).
I don't understand this perspective at all. For wrongs of the past, I think we should all be working to rectify those. I think we should do our best to avoid those wrongs in the present. It seems to me that the responsibility belongs to everyone, not just those whose ancestors two hundred years ago did something wrong.
So here we are, back at the subject of cultural appropriation. I went looking for a definition and I was pleased with what I found. A detailed article on Pagans using Hindu deities gave this definition:
" Cultural appropriation happens when someone from one culture borrows symbols, rituals, and practices from another culture without fully understanding the context, meaning, and complexity of those things, and then passes them off as one’s own, or uses their own interpretations and then passes them off as 'authentic.' "
By this definition, one would need to be using items from another culture without understanding their full meaning and claiming one's own interpretation as more valid. I don't believe that I am doing either of these things. I come to Hindu practices with much respect. I have a great deal of study, knowledge, and practical experience participating in Hindu ritual. I value my own understanding of my worship, but I'm always open to deepening that understanding with the many, many people who know more than I.
This person goes on to say, "I’ve seen plenty of neo-Pagans doing a great job at respectfully approaching Hindu deities and incorporating Hindu worship into their own with some amount of care and respect. At the same time, I’ve also seen a few neo-Pagans worship Hindu deities with some bravado, and have seen and heard about some rituals that are at best ignorant and at worst blatantly disrespectful of Hindu traditions and culture."
Another blog post defining cultural appropriation says this: "Cultural Appropriation: The unhealthy aspect of multiculti, where a more powerful culture raids a less powerful neighboring culture ... and appropriates aspects of that culture without proper acknowledgment of the 'home culture' or understanding the cultural context from which these aspects spring. Examples: yoga, Buddhism, hip hop and ebonics-derived slang, graffiti art, etc."
Pretty similar, the key idea being that the source of the cultural tradition is not acknowledged and the understanding is incomplete.
The first article is more positive in tone than the second, but both give me the impression that there are ways to do what we do well and there are ways to do it badly and we need to be aware of that. It doesn't mean that neo-Pagans can't worship Hindu deities or that non-Indians can't worship Hindu deities, it just means that we have to do it with care and respect.
The same blog above has more to say on this subject and also references someone else's thoughts as well:
And We Shall March
A post referencing the above post and adding some things
Thursday, June 24, 2010
A new book to read
Someone on Ravelry just mentioned this book that I had never heard of.
It's called How to Be a Perfect Stranger and it is a guide book to most of the religious services one might encounter in the U.S.
Absolutely brilliant idea for this very diverse country. It looks like they cover a lot and answer questions about how to dress, how services work, how to address the clergy, etc.
I ordered it from Amazon, and I look forward to seeing what it has to say about Hinduism.
It's called How to Be a Perfect Stranger and it is a guide book to most of the religious services one might encounter in the U.S.
Absolutely brilliant idea for this very diverse country. It looks like they cover a lot and answer questions about how to dress, how services work, how to address the clergy, etc.
I ordered it from Amazon, and I look forward to seeing what it has to say about Hinduism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)