Mahatma Gandhi is irrefutably one of the key figures who has been credited by people of all walks of life as the ultimate embodiment of Hinduism. Nonetheless, there was a controversial encounter involving him and a fellow Hindu, Godse way back in the year 1948 30th January. Mahatma Gandhi was murdered during this encounter on the basis of land partitioning that demarked the country into two territories. However, it was reported that the incident was an illustration of Hinduism principles whereby Mahatma Gandhi portrayed a gesture of forgiveness whereas the assassin adored the creator before embarking on the dreadful act.
Clearly, it is quite a daunting task to definitely fix a definition of Hinduism given the contradicting tolerance of wrongful persons and righteous ones. Although, Hinduism has a vast historical account it has not yet given answer to paradoxical concerns that have persisted over time. The death Mahatma Gandhi and the 1992 December 6th demolition of a n ancient mosque by a sect of Hindu militant activists generate a confusion rather than a guide to understanding or defining Hinduism. In fact, the mosque had been demolished by bare hand s and replaced with a temple which was dedicated to God. The death of Mahatma Gandhi and the demolition of the archaic mosque generated varied reactions amongst Hindu faifthfuls witch lead to a deeper confusion in interpreting Hinduism as a religion. The demolition incident was welcome with cries of joy and applause which were inclusive of chants of the name of the Lord God, Rama. Mahatma’s incident elicited a period of fasting in respect to his bereavement.
Buy Mahatma Gandhi and Hinduism essay paper online
Truly, Hindu followers too do not have a definite definition for their religion and the fact that they too have different perceptions on various issues is another factor that tone down the possibility of having a definite definition of the religion. In essence, Hinduism is complex in its form as a religion and there has not been a best moment or scenario to apply in defining it. For instance, the twist of events amongst is faithful is somewhat a journey from Hindu devoutness to what is referred to as militancy under the sign of the same God, Rama. This is out right a delicate, extreme stretch of religion. No conclusive definite angle that is available for critique or synthesis. Mahatma Gandhi’s sole livelihood was dedicated to righteous path of life that was quite uplifting and exemplary to the society.
However, one empirical characteristic of the Hindu faithful is that they are relatively comparable to their gods. In reality, the Hindus are had to pin down just as their gods and this particular aspect of the Hindu religion is in quintessence illustrated by the profound experience that Alberuni, a prominent Muslim faithful of the eleventh century. This Muslim fellow, went on board to investigate and diligently write a master piece exposition on the diverse Indian society from Hindu perspective and ended up with a publication of the work under the title “Alberuni’s India.” In various instances, the author, Alberuni observes that “ The Hindu hold different position amongst themselves on various issues” or rather “ some Hindu believe in different approaches pertaining divergent issues.” Through the discourse, Alberuni wrote on India he ascertains there is no definite or well know n fact about Hindu that all Hindu faithful agree to in unison. Thus, there is a thing or several things agreed on by particular Hindu faithful but absolutely denied by other Hindus.
The complexity of such contrary positions accrues the paradoxical concerns in Hindu religion. From a positive position the complexity of defining religion could lead to a breakthrough in this endeavor. The problematic undertaking to understand and define Hinduism can arguably result into identification of learning about Hindu in comprehensive way. The problem itself implies that the contradictions reveal the distinctive nature of the religion in a various ways. First, the problem is exceptionally informative that the religion has unique relationship with India hence a revelation of its nature. Secondly, it is indicative that Hindu faifthfuls share a remarkable relationship with the inhabitants of India. This inclusive of the entire Indian ethnicity and particularly the minorities. Thus, Hindus are remarkably hospitable and welcoming. The Hindu fraternity has freely and overtly expressed acceptance of Indians who confess other faiths such as Jainas, Sihks and Buddhists as well. This gesture is an indication of the tolerance Hindus have and habitually extend to other s who are followers of faiths that are not Indian or founded in India even though these religion are quite dissimilar to their religion. The al inclusive gesture portrayed by Hindu faithful is contextualized to an extreme of establishing the boundaries of such embracing arrangements. Some put it that one is most a Hindu when he is least a Hindu in that the act of embracing others in an all inclusive context is Hinduism in its self. However, this s does not imply dissolving Hinduism into other faiths but formulation of an extremely divergent Hindu faith. As such, Hinduism is not negated at all but embraces the sense of humanity pertaining to tolerance. Thus, a Hindu is just like any other person and have the will to go an extra mile to evade faith restrictions but this has only been felt to a significant degree only in India. Thirdly, the difficulties in explicitly defining Hinduism are informative not only about how ethical Hindu faithful are but also the ethic roots of the Hindu religion which is quintessentially inclusive in such an enthusiastic manner that upholds tolerance in all angles. This paradoxical diversity is much apt in taking initiative to overlook all contradictions associated with Hinduism to promote tolerance and might generate more contradictions in this process.
Thus, such diversity in Hinduism appears to be a constant factor in the pool of it massive, divergent beliefs and practices that are carried out within the Hinduism sphere. The practices, which Hinduism encompasses generate a storm such that which is the core from which the religion grows. Literally texts, on growth of religions suggest that Hinduism grew in classical Indiana as a result of this process. Nonetheless, Alberuni proposes that the conviction in reincarnation played the role of religion growth in medieval Hinduism since the adherence and acceptance of certain degree of sanity has a definitive angle. In fact, the priestly rank of other religions such as Brahmins have been identified to constitute such features. Although such features are an indication of Hinduism in their unique way. Thus, the analogy of a doughnut may be applied to the case of Hinduism in that the lack of a single explicit definition of this religion serve a means of identify its inimitability in a similar manner that the doughnut does define the doughnut-hole and not vice versa. Thus, the characteristic features of Hinduism are its definitive qualities. Given the role of diversity in Hinduism religion, the essence of Hinduism is its distinctiveness, which can only be comprehensible by analysis of its history.
In fact, Hinduism is defined by its intuitive appreciation of diversity that is beyond simplistic definitions which renders the Hindu faithful appealing and perceived as tolerant people. Thus, its altitude towards religious and cultural diversity marks an accommodating characteristic, which seems to contribute to its multiplicity of gods under one religion. Perhaps, Hindu is the only religion that has such a traditional diverse theology with practical expressions which seems a combination of different religions that people associate with. Consequently, the Hide religion cannot be categorized in a particular belief system such as pantheism, monotheism, polytheism or monism since it has feature that reflect all these system sin a distinct manner. The Hindu theology is beyond the scope of a particular religious system thus distantly unique from other religions. Its foundation was not in any way relatable to Abrahimic religions. Hinduism holds the absolute goal to be “Brahman” which implies growth. It is understood that Braham is a formation of the absolute. This concept is unique to Hinduism and has never been practiced or embraced by any other religion. Thus, it incorrect to associate this conception with god. Brahma is actually the nature of truth, infinity and knowledge. Thus, Hinduism infers that infinitive auspicious qualities are secured entirely into existence by Braham’s reality. Braham is an essential reality that is beyond the scope of temporarily absolutely independent and a source of ground objects. Thus, it is penetrates all material things and sustains the essence of material nature and gives it the structural form of existence. In addition, Brahman is a transcendent source of all things. Precisely, it he cause of the existence of material reality that manifest as result of Brahman’s sumptuousness, bliss, beauty and love. Given that Brahman is perceived as the source this implies it is the fundamental constructing material of the entire reality, which precede all material creation. Brahman does not create in the way Abrahimic realm does. It does not create in a manner comparable to other religions it creates from reality of its own existence. In reality, Brahman is collectively cause material and an efficient cause of formation. All reality has its source in Brahman its sustenance depends on Brahman and Hinduism has an objective and conscious aim towards this reality.
In the order of metaphysical principles, which are intrinsic in the design of the universe Brahman is regarded as the formal cause. It is the substantial reality that exist from which other categories are drawn such as, contingent transformations that are dependent on Brahman which can be illusive. All these views are about the general theological teachings of Brahman, which forms the basis of Hinduism. Hinduism advocates for no particular hierarchy which is stipulated in the Vishishta-Advaita and Advaita schools of thought. Thus, it is existence is solely in a synthesis framework that has lead to the controversial diversity in this religion. Some hind monasteries took upon themselves to venerated gurus in contemporary Hinduism but this does not draw the line to limit any Hindu from practicing what they deem right. Any Hindu may opt to differ from the monasteries and carry on to preach as much as they please and receive warm acceptance and respect as a priestly man. Such exceptional tolerance is among the guiding principles to the Hindu’s diversity, which began long ago when priestly religions such Islam and Christianity sought to convert people of other faiths. In ancient, India tolerance from Hindu was not entirely attributed to diversity, but contempt. In the vent that other religious groups put effort to convert Hindus to their way of worship, tolerance was observed without occurrence of any form of persecution whatsoever. Nonetheless, ancient Hindus did not succumb to inversion by Muslims since they deemed it a loss to intruders and invaders that is, Christians sand Muslims. Given that no violent action ever came from the Hindus, suffering in the hands of the invaders was not allowed since Hindus considered people from other faiths as untouchable or rather unspeakable. Therefore, modern Hindu psyche has caught with this ancient struggles in contemptuous tolerance since these religions are still in contact.
Overall, the beliefs and the process through which Hinduism came to be is arguably the reincarnation and samsara the real self referred to as atma. This is considered an unchangeable form throughout life and similarly progresses in life after death. In the Hindu perspective, the form and well being of the new body referred to as astral is predetermined by the status of the mind at the time of demise. This is habitually influenced by the person’s desires as well as his karma. The process of passing from one body to another is known as samsara in the Hindu perspective in all species. The teachings of Hinduism infer that consciousness is there in all forms of life regardless of the species. Nonetheless, the soul is arguably present in all species but illustrated in varying degrees. As such, some species have minimal illustration of the soul hence it is almost covered in totality. In fact, most Hindus consider samsara a very painful process of four recurring predicaments, which are old age, illnesses, birth and death.
Perhaps, Hinduism is one of the most renowned religion that has a very distinctive perception of God and immortal beings. In this respect the nature and personality of the Supreme being is a in a broader means perceived as being inclusive of some rather primitive forms which render Hinduism to be associated with polytheism. The Hinduism school of thought bring forth two doctrines, Vedata and Dvaita which expound on the existence of one God who is illustrated in dissimilar forms. Thus, there are several actual or imaginary gods which represent the sense of formless that God has. Thus, God is rendered impersonal, but represented in form of image for the purpose of illustration. Although, the illustration imply a sense of personhood the attributes are intended only for there purpose of demonstration.