RLG205 INTRODUCTION TO SOUTH ASIAN RELIGIONS FINAL EXAM STUDY QUESTIONS 1. What role did colonialism and Orientalist scholarship play in shaping the modern understanding of Hinduism as a unified religion? Prior to the advent of the British, how did Islamic conceptions of India contribute to transformations of Hindu identity? Orientalism is the concept of how westerners viewed the eastern part of the world. Essentially orientalism is a misunderstanding of the east by the west. Colonialism is acquiring the control of another country, occupying it with settlers. The British colonized India. These two factors played a huge role in unifying Hinduism as a religion. Colonialists from British helped make the identity of the Hindu’s as a religion. When the British came to colonize India they encountered the Muslims and the non­Muslims. This where the term Hindu arrived from as it was means of dividing the two ethnic groups for the British. The roles colonialism and Orientalists scholarship played in shaping the modern understanding of Hinduism was they put laws which forced people to choose if they are Hindu or not so basically it forced Hinduism to define itself. It stopped the tradition of widows throwing themselves into fire after their husbands died, it weakened the caste system to some degree and translated Hindu texts that were only in Sanskrit, into local languages giving access to Hindus who didn’t know Sanskrit. Warren Hastings back in 1772 enforced a judicial plan, which divided the Muslims and Hindus. The British coming over had to make a distinction between the different groups in India. Cast Disabilities Act in 1850 enforced personal law, which meant different laws for different religions. Thus the Hindus who were Vaishnavas and Saivanas who read similar texts like the Vedas were lumped together despite the fact they had different beliefs. That is how orientalism and colonialism shaped India and the unification of Hinduism. Before this outlined in the David Lorenz article he talks about how Muslims are the main reason for Hinduism being a unified religion. Both of these Muslims and non­Muslim groups had conflicts. David Lorenz talks about Muslims and Hindus ridiculed the other’s religion. For example Muslims said how their God Krishna was imprisoned. Also they said how thieves stole God’s wife (Sita from Rama) and how he needed the help of the monkeys. The Hindu’s also attacked Muslims saying how could one creature kill another creature and go to heaven. They also said how can God only be at Mecca? He is everywhere. They also said you want to convert Hindus into Muslims does that mean God made a mistake in making Hindus? Clearly from these arguments it is clear Hinduism existed and fought back against the Muslims. Showing evidence that the Muslims encounter enforced the unification of Hinduism as a religion. When looking at Muslim sources Abd Al Malik Isami in his work clearly outlines that Hindi means geographical sense and Hindu is related to religion. His text was written in 1350 showing that Hinduism was constructed long before the British got there in the 19th century. 2. What are the two theories of karma? What does the relationship between these two theories tell us about the nature of ritual analysis and philosophy in the Upanisads? One theory of karma includes the practice of sacrifice. The theory of karma in relation to sacrifice was about how one would sacrifice an animal for something in return by the Gods. Although this reward for sacrifice was not received instantly. Most of the time it took time, like entry into heaven. It was not instantaneous, but the results would eventually come. The other theory of Karma that is a more common belief is the cosmic principle­governing rebirth. The cosmic principle is about your good and bad actions. Karma is metaphorically like a bank account, where your good actions helps your account grow, while bad actions take away from it and can result in you being in debt. When you perform something good, you might not receive the results instantly, but you might later on in life. Same with performing a bad action, you might get a payoff in a sense for the bad action you did. Everything has a way of coming back to you. Ultimately the way you act is the way God treats you. If you do well you will go to heaven. It might not affect in your current life and can affect you in your next life. Both of these theories are related to reincarnation. If you behave poorly and perform bad actions you will most likely reincarnate to an unwanted species. Good actions will allow you to reincarnate into something positive. In both situations you might get the results in later lives. The Upanishads encompasses the last part of the Vedas, which is a Vedic text. The Upanishads is very philosophical and often incorporates themes like rebirth, liberation and asceticism. The theme of rebirth often comes back to karma. Reincarnation, which is rebirth, has ultimate dependence on your karma. If you have good karma, most likely you will be re­born into something positive instead of negative. In the Upanishads karma is expressed as a principle of cause and effect. The Upanishads outline the importance of Karma for Hindus. The purpose of life in Hinduism is thus to minimize bad karma in order to enjoy better fortune in this life and achieve a better rebirth in the next. What the analysis of these two theories tells about the philosophy of the Upanishads is that it shows Hindus how to reach ultimate liberation or as they would call it Moksha. The theories tell us that the Upanishads were philosophical and helped Hindus toward the right path in showing them the goals in life. The Upanishads encouraged good karma, as bad karma would be put you in a never­ending cycle. Good karma would allow you to separate from this cycle and be liberated. Which is one of the four main goals in life for Hindus. In the Upanisads the philosophy of karma as a sacrifice/ritual evolved to more abstract functions with the ultimate questions. At first the rituals were to appease the Gods to give you what you want: a son, heaven or rain etc. it may even seem short­termed and materialistic. There is an offering to the Gods – hymns etc. they would sacrifice a goat or a cow in a very specific alter. There is a reciprocal relationship between their sacrifice and the God. They would memorize the vedas and recite the appropriate hymns to appease to a certain God. The two types of karma are the same process because they both have that unseen aspect and both offer rewards eventually. The Upanisads made it all more ethical because it redesigned karma as not just an instant procedure but instilled it in everything one does. The texts talk more about the absolute, ultimate questions like the metaphysical relationship between the universal spirit and me. It appointed karma as the law of nature, which would decide a person’s rebirth. Ritual analysis: rituals brought good karma, if done properly at the appropriate alter. Philosophical: Karma became more than a reward of a sacrifice, it became a daily practice that brings you closer to God. 3. How does the relationship between the householder ideal and the renouncer ideal (as developed in traditions such as Buddhism and Jainism) represent a basic tension in South Asian religions? In what ways does the ashrama (life­stages) system and classification of four goals of life domesticate renunciation within Vedic society? The relationship between the householder ideal and the renouncer ideal is complicated. The relationship represents a basic tension in South Asian religions. In Buddhism and Jainism, renunciation is the ultimate goal in life when it comes to being liberated. Renunciation is key if wanting ultimate liberation. A renouncer is someone who gives up all attachments and has nothing to their name. They live on the streets and beg. In contrast in Vedic society the householder like the name indicates has possessions. The householder often has a house, a family, a fire and participates in sacrifice. These conflicts with the renouncer as renouncers don’t participate in sacrifice, have no house, must remain celibate and just meditate. In Vedic society marriage is encouraged and in Buddhism and Jainism celibacy is. Ultimately Buddhism and Jainism reject Vedic ideals. The concept of having a home and having attachments is the total opposite of what a renouncer is. The ashrama system accepts renunciation in Vedic society. The four stages of life include the student, the householder, forest dwellers, and the renouncer. In Vedic society the renouncer is the final stage of life. The student’s main goal is memorize the Vedas. Next the householder is married and owns a house. Next the forest dweller stage involves meditation in the forest and a watered down version of a renouncer. The forest dweller still owns a house and still lives with his wife. The final stage is the renouncer where it is like retirement. You live separate of your family and perform no rituals. This accommodates renunciation as you live with non attachment. The difference is it is not the goal in life like in Buddhism and Jainism. When looking at the four goals in life: wealth, sexual desire, moral duty and liberation, this is direct conflict of what renunciation is depicted as in Buddhism and Jainism. Renouncers do not have anything to their name so wealth is irrelevant. Renouncers are celibate to sexual desire is also irrelevant.