[Buddha-l] Rice & Dragons

[Dan Lusthaus]

>The boundaries between religions in India seem awfully porous. A pretty 
>substantial chunk of Buddhism and "Hinduism" (whatever that is supposed to 
>be) managed to become part of the fabric of Indian Islˆgm, especially the 
>Islˆgm of the Ismailis and Ahmadˆpyas. Trying to draw stark delineations 
>between one religion and another, or between one philosophical school and 
>another, or between religion and philosophy, tends not to hold up very well 
>in India. In fact, it doesn't hold up very well anywhere in the human race, 
>as far as I can tell. Thankfully, religion is never as two-dimensional and 
>boringly predictable in reality as it tends to be portrayed in Religious 
>Studies 101 classes.
> Richard Hayes

Is this the fairy tale you tell your Rel St 101 students? It's a lovely 
vision, but unfortunately bears no relation to actual Indian religions on 
the ground, in the past, present, or future. That is not to say that such 
ideas have never been floated there. Certain groups did try to bring such 
spiritual gumbo to reality, like the Sants. But the most famous exponent of 
this vision, Guru Nanak, and his successors had a rude awakening. He could 
say and believe that in the eyes of God there are no Hindus and no Muslims, 
but he quickly discovered that in the eyes of Hindus and Muslims, there 
certainly were such things, and the boundaries were clear and fixed, and 
could be hostile. While meeting with disapproval from Hindus, the negative 
reaction from Muslims was more severe and violent, leading after some 
generations to the requirement that all Sikhs carry weapons at all times in 
self-defense (from the time of the fifth Sikh guru on).
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2550477/posts

To claim there are no Hindus or Muslims turns out not to be a transcendence 
of both, but simply a third option alongside the others, a distinct group 
unto itself.

Dan