You may react to the title in many ways. Why to argue? what is there anything positive? If you consider everything is already positive, where is the need for argument? If you are arguing then how can you call yourself a Hindu? Like this, the reactions may be varied. But if you are a person who is not thinking that being a Hindu is possible in only one way and that way is already fixed in books and mandated by tradition, promoted by personages with very little variations, then you are one who believes in arguments and arguing positively for betterment. But really speaking, if we understand our social history, Hindu itself signifies such a person who argues positively for betterment and updating oneself over time. As against this, the fixed type of person who abhors any change in tradition and discourages any argument on Sastras, that type is usually called Vaidik or Sastric or Sampradayik person. The Hindu is one who is worried about the society as such, the social development and the social progress and the social unity. The Hindu wants to adopt and adapt ideas of the heritage towards betterment of the society. The Hindu wants to make the life more meaningful in the present reality of the world. Naturally the Hindu is one who believes in interpreting the books of wisdom dynamically towards social progress and unity. When the traditionalist worries about the literal meaning of Sastras, the Hindu is careful about the purport and the ultimate practical significance of Sastraic ideas. The Hindu is one who has learnt the lesson of time and has realised the necessity of being relevant in society and the world. And active interpretation is essential for one who realises the value of time, society and reality.
Srirangam Mohanarangan
***
Very progressive, and much needed for current corrections and changes including transition from 'Hindus' to 'Sanatanis'
ReplyDelete