Men excluded from Montreal neonatal clinic to accommodate religious sensibilities

From CBC news:

A Montreal community health clinic has come under fire for excluding men from their neonatal classes to accommodate the sensibilities of Muslim, Sihk and Hindu women.

ADQ Leader Mario Dumont said the prohibition exceeds the limits of common sense. He said it's unreasonable that a Quebec taxpayer is barred from joining his pregnant girlfriend at a health clinic because his presence would offend others.

The article doesn't make it clear how the "sensibilities of Muslim, Sikh and Hindu women" are accommodated by the exclusion of men. Is it because they're non-relatives?

I also find it interesting that the paraphrase of Dumont uses the word "girlfriend" rather than "wife" (or, more inclusively, "wife or girlfriend"). Does no one in Montreal (presumably outside of the Muslim, Sikh, and Hindu communities) get married any more? And is it the presence of unmarried couples (who have obviously had sexual intercourse) that is offensive to religious sensibilities?

And I wonder if it's really the sensibilities of the Muslim, Sikh, and Hindu women that are being accommodated, rather than those of their husbands. (Or should I have written "husbands or boyfriends"?)

Religious and cultural accommodations in light of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms no longer makes sense, Dumont said ahead of a weekend convention of l'Action democratique du Quebec.

He pointed as well to a suggestion by Montreal police that female officers call male colleagues to avoid offending male Hasidic Jews.

And will police completely leave anarchists alone in order to avoid offending their sensibilities?

"We are completely moving to misusing the Charter and that is starting to worry me."

Dumont said it's not racist for a majority of citizens to defend their own values. [...]

That a "it's not racist" defense is needed at all shows just how confused Western societies and politicians are about the distinction between race on the one hand and beliefs and culture (in particular, religion) on the other.

The article has mentioned nothing about race. Now it may very well happen that the majority of the "Muslim, Sikh and Hindu women" at the clinic are of East Indian/South Asian descent, but that's completely beside the point. If the complainants had been white, the response should have been just the same. It's unfair to the other women in the clinic to exclude their husbands or boyfriends on the basis of not offending the religious sensibilities of some of the participants.

People should not be afraid to criticize culture or religion in a free society. Racism is wrong because a person neither chooses his genetics nor is he able to change it. (Some belief systems, such as Tibetan Buddhism, hold that certain people can influence the circumstances of their births, but even then such people are rare exceptions.) However, culture and religion are matters of choice (assuming that one does not believe in strong predestinarianism). A person can always in principle choose to hold values and beliefs contrary to those with which he was raised, even if his society or other circumstances might make it difficult in practice.

Because religion involves choice, it doesn't belong to the same category of things as race, but should rather be classed with other systems of belief such as Capitalism, Communism, Nazism, geocentrism, etc. And in a free society, all systems of belief must be open to critical scrutiny. Irrational or outdated beliefs and practises should not get a free pass merely because they are part of a culture or religion.

南無阿彌陀佛

Not quite a hundred thousand

From the Ambedkar 2006 blog:

The much hyped Hyderabad conversions have proved a damp squib. The ceremony I attended today where the organisers had claimed 100,000 would convert attracted perhaps one percent of that number.

The BBC reports that:

Udit Raj, a Dalit leader, told the BBC that around 2,500 people converted to Christianity and Buddhism.

According to The Hindu:

Hundreds of Dalits on Saturday embraced Buddhism and Christianity at a programme here, where copies of the Gujarat Government's anti-conversion Bill were burnt.

The Ambedkar 2006 blog has a round-up of the media coverage in this post.

南無阿彌陀佛

Indians turn to Buddhism on the 50th anniversary of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar's conversion

From the Ambedkar 2006 blog:

A hundred thousand people will become Buddhists in Hydrabad on 14th October in a huge meeting in the East Indian state of Andhra Pradesh [ఆంధ్ర ప్రదేశ, आंध्र प्रदेश], that will include up to 400,000 people. The chief organizer is KSR Murthy, a former member of India’s parliament, the Lok Sabha.

The event will take place at Dr. Ambedkar Statue on the Tank Bund: the spiritual center for Hydrabad’s Ambedkarites. Every year a very large gathering marks the anniversary of Dr Ambedkar’s conversion on 14 October; this year Murthi expects 3-400,000 to attend with 100,000 converting for the first time. Many similar ceremonies will take place around India on the same date, but this will probably be the largest conversion ceremony. The wave of conversions will culminate in a much larger ceremony in Bombay on 16 December.

Presiding over the ceremony will be Ven. Hsing Yun [星雲大師], President of the Buddha's Light organization, which is based in Taiwan and has 120 centers around the world. The presence of a senior figure in Chinese Buddhism is a significant development for the conversion movement, which has mainly made connections with the Theravadin Buddhism of South East Asia and Sri Lanka. Ven. Hsing Yun will administer the Buddhist refuges in Chinese (the ceremony through which one becomes a Buddhist) and the Ven. Vinayarakkhitha will translate them into Telugu, the local language. [...]

Similar events are also taking place in other states. The following article from The Hindu describes a similar event taking place in Karnataka [ಕನಾ೯ಟಕ, कर्नाटक]:

Nearly three lakh people are likely to embrace Buddhism at the "Dhamma Diksha" programme to be held in Gulbarga on October 14, International Buddhist Youth Organisation founder and president Bhante Bodhidhamma has said.

He told presspersons here on Monday that people from all faiths and from districts of north Karnataka would participate in the programme, where "diksha" would be provided to them. The "Dhamma Diksha" programme was being held at the MSK Mill Grounds in the city. [...]

He said he had taken up awareness programme on Buddhism in the State and south India since the last five years. "So far, nearly 30,000 people have embraced Buddhism in the State, and the one being held on October 14, would be the biggest," he claimed.

He said in these last five years, Hindus, Dalits and Christians had embraced Buddhism, but it was mostly the Dalits as they were the "most harassed". Moreover, some members of the Muslim community in Tamil Nadu had also expressed their desire to embrace Buddhism, he added.

He said, at present, there were nearly two crore Buddhists in the country, and of them nearly six lakh were in the State.

Note that a lâkh [लाख] is one hundred thousand, while a crore [करोड़] is ten million.

See also: "An Overview of India’s Buddhist Movement" from the Ambedkar 2006 blog.

南無阿彌陀佛

In Uttar Pradesh, Dalits turn from Brahmin priests to DIY Buddhism

In the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh [उत्तर प्रदेश], Dalits are turning away from Brahmin priests to a do-it-yourself form of Buddhism inspired by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar. From Hindustan Times:

Deep in the heartland of Uttar Pradesh, the underclass is doing away with centuries of dependence on Brahmins. And priests are getting sacked.

In dozens of villages across the state, Dalits have stopped depending on Brahmin priests for weddings, funerals and other ceremonies. Instead, they have turned to a Buddhism-inspired book which has rituals that can be performed by any literate person. The wide use of the Bhim Patra, named after Bhimrao Ambedkar, is part of a quiet rebellion against upper-caste domination.

"We have nothing to do with the Brahmin pandits," said Chhabi Lal of Ghunghter village, 45 km from Lucknow. "They tell us, 'Your parents died; so to make their souls happy, give us a bed and a cow as gifts.' As if it is all going to reach them." [...]

I like Chhabi Lal's attitude.

Buddhism also teaches that one can obtain merit for one's departed ancestors by making offerings to the Sangha. The rationale, however, is quite different. The Sangha does not receive these gifts on behalf of the deceased. Instead, the act of giving accrues merit to the giver, which he or she then dedicates to his or her deceased relatives.

However, in many nominally Buddhist countries, popular religious belief and practice is probably not all that different from what Chhabi Lal described above.

So, weddings are now being performed before a statue of Ambedkar. The ceremony is inexpensive and takes only a couple of hours. The bride and the groom light candles, take wedding vows and garland each other.

The Bhim Patra also has instructions on funerals and other ceremonies.

Aside from any religious justifications, inexpensive weddings and funerals are always a good idea.

The following quote is quite interesting, consider the row stirred up in Gujarat when the government declared Buddhism to be a sect of Hinduism, which I wrote about in this post.

"We are all Hindus; we have not converted," said Mohan Lal Gautam, who sells books at a traffic intersection at Hazratgunj in Lucknow. "But we have stopped following the old rituals. We follow the Bhim Patra. There is no pandit, no worship of gods and goddesses, no dowry and no auspicious time for any wedding."

Amar Pal Bharti of Jyotiba Phule Nagar district said: "This is the result of our anger against the system. What do we have to do with the gods? Why worship someone we have not seen?"

Priests are feeling the heat. "Dalits have mostly stopped coming to us. They conduct their own ceremonies," said Jagdamba Prasad Bajpai, a priest at Deora village, Lucknow.

Anger at one religion is definitely not a good reason to convert to another. On the other hand, it's a classic case of capitalism at work — if you don't like one product, switch to another.

南無阿彌陀佛

Nepalese Hindus and Buddhists protest animal sacrifice

From Asia News:

A reform-minded group of Hindus and Buddhists has called on the Nepali government and their respective religious leaders to ban the annual animal sacrifice in honour of the goddess Durga, which can entail the butchering of up to two million animals in three days.

Dasai celebrations to honour the goddess, one of the most loved divinities in the Hindu pantheon, takes place every year for ten days. In the last three days, about two million animals — chickens, pigeons, geese and even buffaloes — are sacrificed. Both Hindus and followers of Tantric Buddhism practice this age-old ritual.

Until last April’s popular revolts against King Gyanendra, which turned the hitherto ‘Hindu’ kingdom into a secular state, the ritual was untouchable. Now the presence of a democratic government has encouraged many reform-oriented Hindu and even Buddhist groups to call for a ban on the ritual, which they see as “diabolic”. [...]

“Some Nepalese Buddhist practice this sacrifice,” added Bhante Satyabrata, a Buddhist monk from Lumbini (Buddha’s birthplace). “This is horrible. Lord Buddha would never have allowed such a monstrous act.”

Anyone with the slightest knowledge of the Buddha's teachings would know that animal sacrifice is completely contrary to the Dharma. (For example, see this essay by Professor Mahinda Palihawadana, President of the Sri Lanka Vegetarian Society.) Ritual slaughter on this grand scale is quite simply a massive violation of the first precept given by the Buddha.

Whenever I read or hear about a large-scale ceremonial animal sacrifice, I am reminded of the following passage from Sir Edwin Arnold's poem The Light of Asia:

     The King stood in his hall of offering.
On either hand, the white-robed Brahmans ranged
Muttered their mantras, feeding still the fire
Which roared upon the midmost altar.  There
From scented woods flickered bright tongues of flame,
Hissing and curling as they licked the gifts
Of ghee and spices and the soma juice,
The joy of Iudra.  Round about the pile
A slow, thick, scarlet streamlet smoked and ran,
Sucked by the sand, but ever rolling down,
The blood of bleating victims.  One such lay,
A spotted goat, long-horned, its head bound back
With munja grass; at its stretched throat the knife
Pressed by a priest, who murmured: "This, dread gods,
Of many yajnas cometh as the crown
From Bimbasara: take ye joy to see
The spirted blood, and pleasure in the scent
Of rich flesh roasting 'mid the fragrant flames;
Let the King's sins be laid upon this goat,
And let the fire consume them burning it,
For now I strike."

                      But Buddha softly said,
"Let him not strike, great King!" and therewith loosed
The victim's bonds, none staying him, so great
His presence was.  [...]

The Nepalese Buddhists who practise animal sacrifice need to be educated about their religious heritage, which rejects precisely this kind of ritual.

南無阿彌陀佛

The Buddha in Hinduism and Hindu gods in Buddhism

In a previous post, I wrote about how lawmakers in Gujarat have defined Buddhism into a sect of Hinduism. This is not an unusual view among Hindus, many of whom see the Buddha as a Hindu reformer rather than as the founder of a distinct creed. The religions and philosophies indigenous to India have traditionally been classified into two categories: those that accept the authority of the Vedas (called âstik [आस्तिक]), and those that reject it (called nâstik [नास्तिक]). According to this scheme, Buddhism is a nâstik — but nevertheless Hindu — philosophy.

Naturally, many Buddhists disagree with the classification of Buddhism as a sect of Hinduism and consider Buddhism to be a separate religion. A part of the problem stems from the rather ambiguous definition of the word "Hindu". The religious beliefs and practices that were prevalent in India in the Buddha's time are not quite the same as those of Hindus today. There are certainly many continuities, but Hinduism has also been shaped since the Buddha's time by interactions with, and responses to challenges posed by, first Buddhism itself, and later, Islam, Christianity, Communism, and many other religions and philosophies. To draw an analogy, Jesus Christ was a Jew, but no modern form of Judaism resembles the Hellenized Judaism practised in the Roman Empire during Jesus' time. Both Judaism and Christianity have evolved since then, and though Christianity had its beginnings as a Jewish sect, it would be strange today to call Christianity a branch of Judaism or to say that Christians are Jews. Similarly, it is jarring to Buddhists to hear Buddhism being referred to as "a part of Hinduism".

However, the analogy cannot be taken too far. Whereas Judaism has ignored Jesus (or rejected him, if one takes the Christian point of view), Hinduism has assimilated the Buddha into its pantheon by identifying him an avatar of the god Vishnu. This identification was probably done at a relatively late date, since some lists of Vishnu's avatars have Balarama instead of the Buddha. It seems that the Buddha was added to the list of Vishnu's avatars in northern India, where Buddhism was popular, but this did not take place in the south. (I have met Hindus from south India who did not include the Buddha in the list of Vishnu avatars.)

The inclusion of the Buddha as one of Vishnu's avatars is something of a backhanded compliment. According to certain Hindu texts, Vishnu incarnated himself as the Buddha in order to mislead demons and miscreants into rejecting the Vedas, thereby damning themselves. Furthermore, Kalki [कल्कि], the future avatar of Vishnu, is supposed to vanquish the Buddhists when he appears. These stories were probably composed at a time when the Hindu clerics felt threatened by the popularity of Buddhism and sought to undermine it. Needless to say, Buddhists do not accept their authenticity. (I had alluded to the Hindu belief that the Buddha is an avatar of Vishnu in this previous post about plans to make a movie based on the life of the Buddha.)

Buddhism, like Hinduism, is assimilative when it comes to other religions. Whenever Buddhism was introduced into a region, it typically did not eliminate the local gods but rather absorbed them into its pantheon. Thus, Buddhist temples in India and in South East Asian countries heavily influenced by Indian culture typically have shrines dedicated to the Hindu gods. However, these gods have been subjugated to Buddhism. In Buddhist mythology, it is Vishnu who is subservient to the Buddha, rather than the other way around. In the Himalayas and in East Asia, the staggering complexity of the Mahayana pantheon is due to Buddhism's absorption of the mythologies of the cultures it encountered as it traversed the Silk Road from India to China (and on to Korean and Japan). Many of these cultures no longer exist, and the only testament that they once existed is the inclusion of their names or those of their deities in the long lists of beings who paid homage to the Buddha in some sutra or the other.

An example of a Buddhist story about a Hindu god which Hindus would probably find insulting is this tale, from "The Iconography of Nepalese Buddhism" by Min Bahadur Shakya, explaining the origin of the "Hariharihariharivahan Lokeshvara" image:

One day while [Takshaka] was leisurely sun basking in a nearby river, a hungry Garuda saw him there. He alighted down and tried to devour Takshaka. Since Takshaka was the king of Nagas, he had great strength. They began to engage in a ferocious battle. He soon began to drag Garuda into river and intended to kill him. Garuda, finding himself about to be killed, invoked his protector Vishnu who came there immediately to save him. As Vishnu was about to cut off the head of Takshaka with his Sudarsanacakra, i.e., whirling disc, Takshaka, realizing his upcoming defeat, prayed for Avalokiteshvara for his protection. Avalokiteshvara arrived there instantly flying over his lion vehicle. Vishnu was ashamed to find Avalokiteshvara, Lord of compassion in front of him and instantly bowed before him throwing away his Sudrashan Chakra and paid homage.

Thereafter Takshaka and Garuda too retreated from the battle and joined to the worship of Avalokiteshvara. After that Vishnu offered himself to Avalokiteshvara to be his vehicle. In the mean time, the lion also offered himself to be the vehicle of Garuda, in turn. Nagaraja Takshaka also offered to be the vehicle of the lion. Thus this composite image of Avalokiteshvara on Vishnu, and on Garuda, then on the lion, all then on Takshaka. The original image of this unique Lokeshvara is at Changu Narayan, a hill above Sodhani Tirtha, near Bhaktapur.

Religious competition must have been especially fierce in Nepal!

In all fairness, Hindus and Buddhists typically respect each others' deities and religious figures. When religions interact, a certain amount of syncretism naturally occurs, as each side tries to interpret the other's beliefs within its own framework. Over time, this may result in the assimilation and absorption of some aspects of one religion by the other. Occasionally, however, people try to play games of religious one-upsmanship, resulting in the Buddha becoming an avatar of Vishnu and Vishnu becoming the mount of Avalokiteśvara Bodhisattva.

南無阿彌陀佛

In Gujarat, Buddhism is now officially a sect of Hinduism

An amendment to the (Orwellianly named) "Freedom of Religion Act" in the Indian state of Gujarat has upset some Buddhists:

The Narendra Modi government has amended Gujarat's Freedom of Religion Act, which made forced religious conversions illegal in 2003.

The bill, a copy of which is with NDTV, now says there's nothing illegal about converting from one denomination to another within a religion. It also claims that Buddhism and Jainism are part of Hinduism.

The bill seems to be primarily aimed at dissuading Hindus (especially poor Dalits) from converting to "foreign" religions, mainly Christianity, but is also targeted at Buddhism. Ever since Dr. B. R. Ambedkar took refuge in the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha in 1956, Buddhism has been a popular choice of identity for low-caste Hindus, such as Dalits, seeking to assert their independence from Hinduism and its caste system. In fact, when Dr. Ambedkar converted to Buddhism, he specifically took 22 vows many of which repudiate the beliefs of Hinduism.

The purpose of the amendment seems to be to ensure that the number of people counted as "Hindus" for governmental purposes do not drop even if some of them convert to Buddhism. Naturally, many Buddhists are not pleased with being co-opted for political purposes.

To my knowledge, there have been no actual documented incidents of forced conversion, which is what the bill claims to be against. Many Christian organizations, however, provide access to education and health care, which some critics feel is a way of bribing the recipients of these services into conversion. But if Hindu leaders feel that Christians are luring away their followers with schools and hospitals, the proper response is not to outlaw conversions, but to compete against them by building better schools and hospitals. But alas, the politicians have chosen to take the easier path.

The conclusions that one may draw from the bill along with its amendment are also rather odd. Forced religious conversions are illegal -- except within a religion, and Buddhism is a part of Hinduism. This seems to mean that Buddhists are now legally entitled to convert (other) Hindus to Buddhism by force! (I'm not suggesting that any Buddhist would or should do this, I'm just pointing out the silliness of outlawing forced conversions while allowing for exceptions.)

Since 1992, the BJP has been actively wooing the Dalits, who in many areas now make up their new vote bank.

And this amendment ensures that Dalits will now be placated. If, for instance, they convert to Buddhism and thousands have done so over the years, they will now not be breaking the law.

[...]

The Buddhists of course aren't pleased with the government's cavalier attitude.

"The Hindu religion centres around Gods and Goddesses and the human beings are not given an important position. In Buddhism the religion centres around the human being," said Ramesh Banker, Bouddh citizen.

("Bouddh" is the Hindi word for "Buddhist".)

Constitutional experts say that it’s debatable whether Jainism is part of Hinduism or not. But there's no way Buddhism can be clubbed with Hinduism. They suspect a political agenda behind the move.

According to "the letter of the law" in Gujarat, a Japanese Zen monk, for example, would be classified as a Hindu. This is of course very silly.

"The basic purpose of the bill is to prohibit conversion, but the amendment results in Buddhism being converted into Hinduism. This is not right," said Girish Patel, activist and lawyer.

The opposition of course is only too happy to expound on this theory.

"The BJP and RSS always tried to exploit religion for political benefits. The bill in its original form was aimed at that and now with the amendments and subsequent definitions of religion provided in the bill, the attempt is again to extract political benefit," said Arjun Modhwadia, leader of opposition.

Over the past few years the BJP has improved its tally both in terms of number of seats and vote percentage in Dalit and tribal dominated areas like Panchmahals and the Dangs.

The amended act will now ensure that these political gains are consolidated.

Unfortunately, all sorts of bad things have a tendency to happen whenever religion is mixed together with politics. This has been true throughout the world and throughout history. One would think that humans would have learned better by now.

南無阿彌陀佛