By Mathew Thanakchen O.Praem. –
At the very outset, let me state that this is not a comparative study or scholarly research; rather a few stray thoughts that went through my mind as I watch from far the catastrophic effect of the contemporary “aggressive cultural/religious identity” that in turn paves the bedrock of social network for another generation which we call, ‘Culture’ (Cultura, Latin).
Seeking identity is in the very nature of man. However, the identity should grow along the biological and psychical growth. Equally, an undeniable fact is that identity creates walls, the other in opposition. The first identity of a newborn babe is the impression created in its mind by mother, father and the immediate family members. If a neighbour takes the child, it begins to cry. It has already created a wall, the other as outsider. However, as the baby grows up, what he / she presumed in opposition becomes friend and the rung of relationship widens in the life span from family to peer groups, society, state, nation, inter-nation etc. This is yet another undeniable nature of man that he / she wants to belong and reach out. Thus, ego and altruism co-exist in human nature and the dominating factor will decide the type of culture, the collective conscience will constitute.
A culture and ideology (dogma) indoctrinated by the family and surroundings including religions and politics keeps man in his infantile state of primitive culture of barbarianism or mature benign and civilized in which the neighbour is conceived as friend or foe, depending upon the growth and promotion of ego or selflessness.
If one’s mind is fed with aggressive identity, anyone who does not belong to his/her group becomes a threat to be eliminated and thus creating an exclusive aggressive culture. We see such domination of cultural aggression in the history of Nazi-Germany. Here, hate reigns in place of love and disunity in place of unity. Often, the projected goal of unity and integrity, national or ecclesial, the end product is thwarted by the very means adopted. This tendency of political, economic, strategic and cultural domination and exclusivism props her nasty heads, leading the so-called civilized man into primitive, polarized society and states. Such tribal communes of conflict/ war were given way for the modern social contract theory of state where every group’s identity is respected without the interference from the state, known as secularism.
In the classical Hinduism, “man “was conceived as the “image and likeness of God (Aham Brahmasmi), no matter the religion one belongs to and hence, Hinduism is seen more of a ‘way of life’ than a religion. Such an inclusive dimension is reflected all through the life span, both in the sub-structure and super structure of the society as conceived by Hinduism. There is a transition and evolution in the life of man, by demolishing the walls to embrace the wider reality, the inclusive culture.
In the classical Hinduism, there is a smooth transition from Childhood (Brahmacharya), (moving with God), the source of wisdom and knowledge to attain education and skills in life. From Brahmacharya, one embraces the Family life (Grehesta) a wider commitment and relationship. Further, one moves to solitary life (Vanavasa) to strengthen his divine experience he gained in education and family. In addition, the last stage is the fulfilment of diving from pool to ocean, embracing renunciation, Sanyasa (monk), in fact, a process culminating from the other three stages of exclusivism to inclusivism in which a true Hindu could proclaim, “the whole world is my family”.
Even, in the super structure, the thinking pattern is “Nethi… Nethi.”, Not this…. not this”. Hinduism does not build a wall to limit their seeking for God in any created things visibly or tangibly revealed. It consciously demolishes walls as sung by Robert Frost, the American poet in his ‘Mending Walls’, there is something that doesn’t’ love a wall. Even the concept of God extends to the cosmic force including earth, sun, moon, stars, trees, animals and beyond.
The visible expression of inclusive culture lies in tolerance, non-violence and peace / co-existence, the very traits of inclusivism. The slogan of ‘Live and Let Live ‘and the culture of ‘Unity in Diversity’ are distinctly linked with the ‘inclusive culture and philosophy of Hinduism’. Although some contribution like yoga with a global content of peace and integrity, created some positive waves in our recent times in the international arena, the contradictions of polarized society and the various forms of discriminations created a negative impact on Indian culture.
Christianity and Catholic Church in particular is in compatible with the ‘classical Hindu culture of inclusivism’. The very growth of the Church was a radical departure from the Jewish/ Semitic concept of God and nation with a ‘monolithic culture. For them, “Yahweh was only God of Israel and the nation of Israel was only His “chosen people”. Jesus in his historical time radically changed this concept of God as the Father and everyone as His Children and the concept of Kingdom of God embracing all people. And, no wonder, Jesus was accused for associating with public sinners and gentiles.
This mission of Jesus was continued by apostles in welcoming the gentiles into church, which created frictions from the Jews in the early Church. Even the very word ‘Catholic’ begins to be understood as inclusive, global, and universal. Jesus was proclaimed as the one who takes away the sins of the world. However, in the history of the church, we find, like the failure of ‘orthopraxis’ in Hinduism, despite of inclusive culture, friction between Jews and gentiles, Greek and Jews, western and Orientals, black and white, Syrian rite and Latin rite still prevails in the church. Despite the monolithic culture of hierarchy in the Church propounded by Emperor Constantine in line with the Jewish pattern, the church gradually integrated multilateralism after the Second Vatican Council, integrating unity in Diversity.
The very definition of unity and nationalism whether in the church or nation is the conglomeration of differences. Any effort to annihilate differences and thereby create unity will be of a futile attempt, throwing away the baby with the bathe water for uniformity is not a necessary condition for unity. Besides, differences and uniqueness is the law of nature. Even born of the same parents, each child will be different mentally and physically. In the history of the world, we find the extinction of such aggressive and dominant culture like Mesopotamian, Assyrians, Egyptians, Greek, Romans, etc. As a matter of fact, any lopsided emphasize on aggressive identity personally or culturally, collectively or religiously, economically or strategically would ultimately result in the short or long run, producing the opposite result of digging its own grave.