Even Stephen
Hindu Temple Society president Uma Mysorekar bravely went on the Colbert Report last night to defend Hinduism. The shtick was that since Barack Obama left Jeremiah Wright’s church, Colbert will help him shop for another.
Mysorekar claimed that neither is Diwali over-commercialized, not does being Hindu involve guilt or sin. Methinks auntieji is fudging a bit 
The clip:
Bonus cremation joke:
(thanks, kal and CP)
on Thursday, June 19th, 2008, 2:02 pm in Barack Obama, Colbert Report, Humor, Religion, TV, Video clips › 
Email this
› 
Facebook this
› 
Reddit this
› Link
› Reader links
I think she has not visited India during Diwali in a long time :-))
Diwali cant be more commercialized than it already is :-)
This was a great segment. Colbert was great as usual. Dr.Mysorekar managed Colbert superbly and stayed on message.
She indeed did fudge a bit, she is trying take away my answer to a favorite question from aunties all over!
Beta…Why dont you go to temple or pray?
Auntyji…becuz i dont commit sin!
Colbert should have asked why do Hindus priests chant for hours in
a drone-like trance when no one is listening?
The monotone recitals and prayers of unintelligible words have no
equivalent in any Christian /Jewish liturgical function esp. weddings.
The ecclesiastical services proceed in orderly way, whereas in most
Hindu temples the sermons are consigned to prayer book chanting.
Hindu ceremonies rarely ever have a trained cantor despite the wealth
of Hindu religious music.
I’ve always felt there is a great opportunity for a Hindu priest who can
integrate the philosophy, prayer, music and rituals.
Latin Mass?
VV Varaiyya: “The monotone recitals and prayers of unintelligible words have no
equivalent in any Christian /Jewish liturgical function esp. weddings.
The ecclesiastical services proceed in orderly way, whereas in most
Hindu temples the sermons are consigned to prayer book chanting.”
I wonder if you have ever attended an Orthodox Jewish service; these are almost entirely chanting of a fixed sequence of prayers, usually each individual chanting more or less at his own pace. There may or may not be a chazzan (leader) in the front of the room, who may or may not be chanting a little louder than everyone else. Many Conservative Jewish services are this way as well. Your image of Jewish services proceeding in an orderly way, led by a leader who tells everyone what page to look at and what Psalm to read, does not apply to all varieties of Judaism or all congregations.
Question from an ignorant gori: Is Colbert correct that all Hindus are vegetarians?
Certainly not. Though strictly observant ones often are.
Most hindus are not vegetarians Manish..it is not just about strictly observant ones either..to me it has to do with castes..brahmins and vaishyas( merchants) are vegetarians rest are non vegetarians..I think Iam a vegetarian bec. I was brought up in a brahmin family.
Also I dont think Diwali in India is that commercialised..Diwali since my childhood was always about bursting fireworks,eating sweets and family get togethers..what do u mean by Commercialization..
Amitabh and Cadbury.
thank u Manish, never saw this adv. before ..too bad…
But it is not only diwali festival, Iam sure all festivals like christmas are also commercialized, look at kay and other jewellars and all kinds of adv. in US for christmas gifts..compared to christmas I think diwali in India or here is not commercialized at all..dont u agree..
but that dadi in the first shot is my fav. dadi in movie screen, she is such a cutie..
IMHO Hindu priests fail to incorporate music and song into their sermons/religious ceremonies comparable to the
aesthetic integration found in Christian/Jewish places of worship. There are wonderful devotional gazals, ragas, dances, etc.
but these are routinely separated from the religious ceremony a Hindu priest conducts. The cantor-equivalent role
doesn’t really exist in any Hindu temple I’ve ever attended. Consequently, the devotional arts are viewed/treated as separate
branches from the prayer. Obviously there are some inherent rhythms in the prayer services, but these don’t rise to
the level of music/song IMHO.
Is Colbert doing this interview and segment because he feels bad for taking a role in the Love Guru? He may have been approached by Hindu groups in the US asking him to help get some accurate knowledge out there to counterract the misconceptions in the Love Guru. Colbert seems to be a responsible journalist.
Prakruti - All Brahmins are not vegetarian. Kashmiri and Bengali Brahmins for example consume meat, excluding beef of course.
Bengali Hindus are not vegetarian - you can’t ask them to give up fish.
Manish, I am just coming after emotionally investing myself on a PETA-related thread that (as usual) meandered into the merits and demerits of eating meat (on SM). So excuse me if I am a little touchy here.
Are you suggesting that (usually lower caste) Hindus who (are allowed to) eat meat are not observant ones? Or that they may not even qualify to be Hindus?
The subcontinent has always heavily depended on cow’s milk and milk products. The natural course of action, in almost all parts of the world, is to enter a domestic animal that is past its prime productivity into the human food chain. I find it hard to believe that things would have been any different in the land we now refer to as India. I have never before thought about this but I am now hypothesizing that at least some socioeconomic groups (castes, if you like) may have been allowed to eat meat, and quite specifically, beef. Of course, my knowledge of Hinduism is nothing to be proud of and my knowledge of animal husbandry comes completely from texts written by Europeans and Americans, so I may just get nowhere past the stage of hypothesizing. But it is hard for me to believe that there are enough Christians and Muslims in the subcontinent to eat up all those retired cattle (milking cows and field oxen). My search for facts yesterday led to the find that India exports beef to Bhutan, but hey, really how big can that market be? I doubt people bury cows and young bulls (not valued in the dairy industry for obvious reasons) in huge numbers. Plus, there is the annual shame of reading about more anthrax-related deaths among rural Indians consuming a sick cow/bull (shame for the veterinary profession and the accepted status quo in India, I mean, because anthrax deaths are preventable and indicate a broken link in the public health priorities of the country).
So, anyway…long comment and perhaps a little emotional, but you are an intelligent guy so you will understand and, hopefully will never forget to be all-inclusive in the future.
Not that I can speak for Manish , but I read that statement by Manish to reference people who have more orthodox practises in Hinduism, without regard to caste. For sure, this does not exclude non-Brahmin Hindus - my (non-Brahmin) family is extremely observant of Hinduism, and many do not eat meat. Even those who do eat meat have strict practises re when (day of the week, lunar occurrence etc), and I can tell you - Hinduism rules many aspects of their daily lives - to a great extent (and this might be a regional thing), even my non-veg relatives are strictly observant. Certainly, my family’s view of Hinduism is that given our caste, we are allowed to eat meat, but many in my family just choose not to for religious reasons. On the other hand, those who do eat meat still see themselves as strict observers because 1. their caste is allowed to eat meat and 2. they are sticklers for almost everything else that is required of Hindus. Though, I have noticed that as some of my relatives get along in age, they give up meet as their observance of Hindu rituals and customs increases. In any case, I think most Hindus realize that their caste/brand of Hinduism does allow meat eating, and it doesn’t deter from their perception of strict observance.
Malathi, I dont think Manish meant what u are saying “Are you suggesting that (usually lower caste) Hindus who (are allowed to) eat meat are not observant ones? Or that they may not even qualify to be Hindus?”
Malathi you used the word lower caste Manish didnot..and to correct you there is no lower caste or upper caste..there are different castes nothing upper or lower, just different unique castes with their unique customs and traditions..some hindus eat meat and some dont based on caste they belong to..but then the castes of hindus who are not supposed to eat meat based on their caste these days eat meat because as Manish put it those who are not strictly observant ones in nonmeat eating caste eat meat..like I saw a lot of brahmins who are expected not to eat meat eating meat.. that is where strictly observant and not so strictly observant ones come..that does not mean again those not strictly observant ones are not hindus or bad or lower..everyone is entitled to be what they want to be..noone is blaming anyone here..
Manish of all people is the most broadminded person would never mean that..
thank u kautilya u are right, bengalis and kashmiri brahmins eat..
Prakruti, I don’t doubt that Manish is broadminded. That is why I took the ‘chiding’ tone with him. Perhaps I should have attempted my hand at humor. Like this:
When Dr. Mysorekar says there is no guilt or sin in Hinduism, she probably alludes to the fact that Hindus/upper castes (sorry, I don’t share your positive outlook on the absence of hierarchy) outsource their ’sin’ without any guilt…to the untouchables.
I find the ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’ situation we have boxed our lowest of lower castes into, totally distressing (to put it mildly). Our untouchables have no choice but to do the jobs they were born to do–such as the effective and efficient disposal of dead animal carcasses (an act considered too ‘impure’ for others to do). But they are shunned for doing precisely that kind of work–for helplessly, involuntarily occupying that social, economic, ecological, enviromental niche in the society. For doing this, they not only not get respect but they don’t get paid apparently. So there is no doubt in my mind that their nutrition/protein comes from sources that others will not care for (and here is the reference I found on the internet today to back my assertion).
So here is my philosophical question: are they inside or outside of Hinduism? Are they better than most Hindus or not because they are carrying out their duty AND giving in to the instinct of surviving (i.e., eating whatever scraps they can find, even if it is meat that others will shun) in order to carry out their duty? In the given context, are they pure or not? As far as I am concerned, they are the most observant Hindus in the whole world.
And according to this link, because of religious politics and religious ethics, they cannot even do their jobs under the most ideal and hygienic conditions available to the rest of the scientifically & technologically advanced world. If that is not irony, I don’t know what is.
Ok, I have gone too serious. Smile moment: My 2-year old is eating animal crackers and he wants only the cows.
whateva snitches. i is brahmin and ish, and i just strait took a cheeseburger TO THE FACE. side of ribs with that mofo. step off me.
Ghoshface, nice work @ 18 — but ghosh is not a brahmin name as far as I know :)
Carla:
At a guess, about 30-40% of Indian Hindus are vegetarians. Vegetarianism is related to caste. As Prakruti pointed out Brahmins are vegetarians — usually. Bengali Brahmins eat fish. Among the “Hindu-type religions”, followers of Jainism are universally vegetarian. In the state of Gujarat, almost the entire population is vegetarian. This includes non-Brahmins, mostly the trader castes. Trader castes in other parts of India are not vegetarian. Of course, there are some Brahmins nowadays who eat meat out of personal choice; the orthodox ones do not.
Malathi:
On sin in Hinduism, I think Dr. Mysorekar is referring to the concept of “original sin”, not saying that Hindus cannot commit sins. In (most of) Hinduism everybody is responsible for their own actions; your karma is your own. I have never heard of passing on (”outsourcing”) sin to someone else.
I think the answer to the philosophical question you ask depends on its interpretation. Hinduism doesn’t refer to a particular belief system. It includes many overlapping belief systems originating in India. By this definition Dalits can be Hindus. But it doesn’t mean anything. Two people might be Hindus but still have completely different culture, beliefs, lifestyles. The similarities may be a vague commonality in outlook, a sense of shared history, and a few common gods and demons. By such vague measures, Dalits would of course be Hindus.
Oh Mr. Armchair Guy, you just killed whatever second-rate humor I managed to dish up in that sinful sentence :)
But it seems to me you are endorsing my own thoughts–in all fairness to you, I can see that I did not make it easy for people to follow my thoughts. In short, I was asking: What is Hinduism? Who is an observant Hindu? Who gets to decide and represent what are the ‘right’ Hindu rituals and practices?
As in every society, the interpretation of the social code of the elites in that society gets not only the audience but also the audience’s headnod and approval without further questions. Normally I walk away — wise men and women before me have attempted to bring up the issues of class, power and representation and have failed to make a dent — but this issue of eating meat (closely, if not directly tied with the reality of what societies do with their livestock after production ceases) is close to my
heart,stomach, educational background and professional interests.Malathi:
Apologies, sometimes humour is needed in discussions such as this.
So if I understand you correctly this time around, you’re raising the problem of whether the traditions and customs of the Dalits would be considered Hindu. I guess the problem is with the word Hindu. The mischievous Brits saddled us with a term that we never asked for, and we’re left with the job of explaining it to everybody including ourselves. There are quite a few patterns of religion in India - but I think it’s futile to try to capture ALL of them in a single description.
Vegetarianism is something I’ve always wondered about. An expert in South Asian studies once told me that gender conservativeness (rigid rules for women’s conduct) arose paradoxically from women’s importance to society: in ancient tribal culture, the tribe with the most women would have the most children and be the most powerful, so tribes put in place rules that prevented their women from mingling with men of other tribes. I’ve wondered whether there is a similarly satisfying explanation for vegetarianism.
It’s interesting to note that vegetarianism is on the rise in the West as well. It makes me wonder whether it is a phenomenon that arises once a civilization is old.
I would hypothesize that vegetarianism is a phenomenon that arises once a society is affluent because only affluent (or subsidized) farmers can afford to feed and care for farm animals and put them up in retirement sanctuaries even when returns range from diminishing to none. Analogies (one of the criteria for establishing causality) can be seen in the way countries utilize their wildlife resources.
(Veganism is another story that I cannot honestly say I comprehend completely.)
Of course, India is a messy datapoint for my arguement but then again India messes up your arguement too–it is an ancient civilization but non-vegetarianism is supposedly on the rise there (people who couldn’t formerly afford animal (mainly egg and chicken) protein are rising up to a new level of relative affluence?) The confusion can probably be dissipated if we decide to see India not as one nation but a loose union of different nations–rich and poor; northern and southern; Sanskrit-learning scholar communities and English-worshipping peasants, etc.
Check this out, there is this a man who calls himself SWAMIJI SIDDHAR SELVAM Dr. COMMANDER. He allows beerbashs and BBQs in his temple as long as you are willing to pay for it. It is comical.
Sorry I guess that did not work.
Here are the video links to Fox 5 news and some very interesting discussions!!!
Swami the Fraud
Meat and alcohol in a Hindu Temple?
Blog 1
Blog 2