I just noticed the difference between the selection processes of religious clergies in between Hindues, Muslims and christians.
In Hindus, priesthood is decided by blood only. Son of a priest becomes a priest. Though, times have changed a bit as brahmins, the so called priest class have moved in other professions too. But still, only a brahmin can become a priest, for which you have to be born in brahmin family. Other classes, don't have this option at all. Previously, it can be said that kids of priests had only this option, he wished ot be priest or not was irrelevant.
In Muslims, clergies (maulavi) are selected from the young students passing out of 'madrasas' (muslim's religious teaching centers). These madrasas are run by religious organisations and are funded by religious donations. Most of these are located in poor areas and young students who don't have any better access to education lend up here. Regions with poor access to modern education like western Pakistan, Afganistan, many parts of rural areas where muslim population is high (Bihar, Uttar Pradesh) and Bangladesh are hot breeding grounds for these madrasas. Parentage of a pupil is not regarded as important in clergy selection. There is no class difference, so this option is available for all. People, out of no better choice, lends up in this. People though may not like this work but it is only option for many suffering in poverty.
Christians, have more liberal selection process. People have choice and mostly people who adopt to priesthood, do this by their own personal choice. Their is no class difference and parentage is also irrelevant, so, this option is available for all followers. They don't have religious teaching centers like 'madrasas' for young ones. Religious teachings start only for those who opt for becoming priesthood. It is hard to say that they didn't have the religious teaching system but their teaching system has developed and assimilated in modern education system. So, you have many missionary funded school teaching modern education only, though they retain few part of religious way but not so strict. Also, students coming out of these schools have equal footing as of other students under modern school system and can opt for any other profession they wish for. People become religious clergy, mostly out of their own willingness.
Now, these different method result in different level of religious learning and adherence to their religious beliefs.
In Hindus, as teaching start from birth in the priest family, passing of the values and religious beliefs is most stringent. These beliefs become just part of life, reason explaination are foregone. Many people lend up in this profession out of no choice, so their are hard feelings and high frustration which result in rebellion against religion. Priests due to the frustration and lack of reasoning, loose their beliefs completely and end up without any benefit of religion. Most of the time, people add their fancies in the religious customs to just entertain themselves. Rigidity of social culture gives in completely to the priest class people. They try to compensate their frustration by utilising their authority for different personal means. Through the time, religious teachings which are passed on by father to son become contaminated by personal fanaticism and loss of reasoning.
Muslim system, give a little choice as per parentage is concerned, so, lesser rigidity. Teachings start from young age, which is mostly rot learning. Students, though can get some relief and acquire some reasoning in their family which is separated from their religious teaching system. Clergies though being trained in religion for a long time, still have access to real life, so, frustration is less, though many become relatively close to the outside world, as they don't have access to the vast knowledge arose in recent times due to scientific development. Most of them, who don't have strong family bonding due to any reason, become rigid in their adherence to religious beliefs. Clergies, with their lack of knowledge and reasoning skills, end up as religious fanatics and fundamentalist.
Christians have made themselves little bit more flexible and kept themselves updated with latest scientific developments. Their priests ahve lesser frustrations compared to other religions, I mentioned above, as its their personal choice. Also, they join priesthood in later stage of their lives, so, they are already updated with the real world and new innovations happening around. Their thinking thus have more flexibility in terms of accepting new changes. They also go through the same modern school system, thus they understand the importance of reasoning. Still, there are fanatics in this fold also but their number or percentage is very less with compare to Muslims or Hindus.
In Hindus, priesthood is decided by blood only. Son of a priest becomes a priest. Though, times have changed a bit as brahmins, the so called priest class have moved in other professions too. But still, only a brahmin can become a priest, for which you have to be born in brahmin family. Other classes, don't have this option at all. Previously, it can be said that kids of priests had only this option, he wished ot be priest or not was irrelevant.
In Muslims, clergies (maulavi) are selected from the young students passing out of 'madrasas' (muslim's religious teaching centers). These madrasas are run by religious organisations and are funded by religious donations. Most of these are located in poor areas and young students who don't have any better access to education lend up here. Regions with poor access to modern education like western Pakistan, Afganistan, many parts of rural areas where muslim population is high (Bihar, Uttar Pradesh) and Bangladesh are hot breeding grounds for these madrasas. Parentage of a pupil is not regarded as important in clergy selection. There is no class difference, so this option is available for all. People, out of no better choice, lends up in this. People though may not like this work but it is only option for many suffering in poverty.
Christians, have more liberal selection process. People have choice and mostly people who adopt to priesthood, do this by their own personal choice. Their is no class difference and parentage is also irrelevant, so, this option is available for all followers. They don't have religious teaching centers like 'madrasas' for young ones. Religious teachings start only for those who opt for becoming priesthood. It is hard to say that they didn't have the religious teaching system but their teaching system has developed and assimilated in modern education system. So, you have many missionary funded school teaching modern education only, though they retain few part of religious way but not so strict. Also, students coming out of these schools have equal footing as of other students under modern school system and can opt for any other profession they wish for. People become religious clergy, mostly out of their own willingness.
Now, these different method result in different level of religious learning and adherence to their religious beliefs.
In Hindus, as teaching start from birth in the priest family, passing of the values and religious beliefs is most stringent. These beliefs become just part of life, reason explaination are foregone. Many people lend up in this profession out of no choice, so their are hard feelings and high frustration which result in rebellion against religion. Priests due to the frustration and lack of reasoning, loose their beliefs completely and end up without any benefit of religion. Most of the time, people add their fancies in the religious customs to just entertain themselves. Rigidity of social culture gives in completely to the priest class people. They try to compensate their frustration by utilising their authority for different personal means. Through the time, religious teachings which are passed on by father to son become contaminated by personal fanaticism and loss of reasoning.
Muslim system, give a little choice as per parentage is concerned, so, lesser rigidity. Teachings start from young age, which is mostly rot learning. Students, though can get some relief and acquire some reasoning in their family which is separated from their religious teaching system. Clergies though being trained in religion for a long time, still have access to real life, so, frustration is less, though many become relatively close to the outside world, as they don't have access to the vast knowledge arose in recent times due to scientific development. Most of them, who don't have strong family bonding due to any reason, become rigid in their adherence to religious beliefs. Clergies, with their lack of knowledge and reasoning skills, end up as religious fanatics and fundamentalist.
Christians have made themselves little bit more flexible and kept themselves updated with latest scientific developments. Their priests ahve lesser frustrations compared to other religions, I mentioned above, as its their personal choice. Also, they join priesthood in later stage of their lives, so, they are already updated with the real world and new innovations happening around. Their thinking thus have more flexibility in terms of accepting new changes. They also go through the same modern school system, thus they understand the importance of reasoning. Still, there are fanatics in this fold also but their number or percentage is very less with compare to Muslims or Hindus.
No comments:
Post a Comment