[Prev][Next][Index]
Re: Learning about Hinduism
-
To: alt-hindu@cis.ohio-state.edu
-
Subject: Re: Learning about Hinduism
-
From: vivek@cs.rice.edu (Vivek Sadananda Pai)
-
Date: 9 Feb 1995 23:29:51 GMT
-
Distribution: world
-
From news@larry.rice.edu Thu Feb 9 18: 17:07 1995
-
Newsgroups: alt.hindu
-
Organization: Rice University, Houston, Texas
Forewarning: This post is mostly vague and touchy-feely since I don't
know if numbers exist to make any quantitative claims to answer
what's been asked. If anyone can provide any numbers to counter
or support anything I've said, please do so.
In a previous article (from the archives), griffin@gate.net (Shapeshft) wrote:
>Vivek Sadananda Pai (vivek@cs.rice.edu) wrote:
>Thanks for your reply. you've given me some of the answers i was looking
>for. What other kinds of groups (besides Vaishnavas) are there under the
>blanket term "Hinduism"? That might be a good place for me to start.
The number of groups listed under Hinduism would be far too long
for me to go into. Most of the demigods have their own followings,
and so do a lot of people who claim to be god, etc. I would argue
that most Hindus are of the mindset "oh, another god - what can it
hurt". So, the pantheon of people/places/things being worshipped in
Hinduism is always on the rise.
>: So if you are trying to learn of the plurality of Hinduism, you are
>: indeed going to have a hard time. For example, many Hindus believe
>Ok, i see what you mean. How do the differing groups in Hinduism view
>each other's differences? (i.e. do they consider the differences "evil"
It depends - most Hindus don't care one way or another what gets
lumped into the term "Hinduism", until, of course, it gets embarassing.
So, for example, most Hindus will quickly say that Ramakrishna or
Vivekananda are Hindus, but they will say that "Bhagwan Sri Rajneesh"
(also known as "Osho") wasn't a Hindu. So, it seems to me that
basically any group in Hinduism is OK as long as it doesn't cause
too much embarassment. If it does cause embarassment, then a lot
of squirming and gyration takes place over where to draw a line.
For example, ask anybody about the "rat-worshipping" controversy
that took place after the plague broke out in India and the AP
reported a story about some temple that supposedly worships rats.
>and label the other belief systems as "not *really* Hindu"? or is there
>some mutual respect, even if they disagree strongly on some issues?) I've
It ranges from peaceful coexistence to outright nastiness. Most of
the hate-filled Vaishnav-bashing that I've heard or read has come from
Indians (presumably Hindu), and it's almost always from a non-scriptural
angle. Scriptural disagreements (interpretations) have a long tradition
in Hinduism, and usually when two people are debating scripture, the
argument is generally level-headed. However, most people don't debate
scripture, because other than having heard stories from the scriptures
as children, I'd be surprised if most Hindus had finished reading even
a small set of the scriptures.
However, I should also point out that the loud minority gets a
disproportionate amount of attention. Most Hindus do peacefully
coexist with other Hindus, and this is the case almost everywhere
you go. I've been to many temples, and I still go to other temples
besides the ISKCON temples. I would guess that most of the Hare
Krishnas have also been to non-ISKCON temples. Likewise, many of the
people who come to the ISKCON temples are not strict Vaishnavs.
>meant by this was that Hindus had similar ways of approaching God(s),
>similar practices, rather than one set "orthodox" belief system. Is this
>accurate?
It's hard to define "Orthodoxy" in a system that doesn't have a
strict grounding. By this, I mean that it's hard to define exactly
what is meant by Hinduism - what makes a group Hindu? there's no
central authority regarding Hinduism, and people claiming to be
god are always popping up, so it's hard to give you a short answer
to your question.
I would say that most religious practices lumped into Hinduism
resemble each other - fire sacrifices, mantras, prayers, etc.
>: handy. I hope you'll forgive me for being vague. Swami Prabhupada was
>: always accomodating regarding the nature of other prophets. For example,
>OK, here's a question: How do we know who the "major prophets" were? Is
>it just because they are famous? What if the teachings contradict each other?
I believe that either Vijay or Krishna has posted something about
this that should answer your questions. As for deciding what prophets
are valid, I guess a quick answer would be those that encouraged the
people to worship God and not the material entanglements. Those that
claimed to be god and just wanted fame, fortune, etc. are probably
not genuine - further proof would be required.
>: I believe he made
>: a statement to the effect of "we want people of other religions to follow
>: what their prophets have preached". All of these prophets were sent by
[...]
>they may have made some mistakes? If it's possible that they could have,
>then a blind obedience to their message IMO is not warranted. The way i
I believe that Arjuna asks Krishna about blind obedience to
a guru and that Krishna says that the student should ask questions
in a sincere desire to learn. I'll have to check up on this for
the exact quote. So, blind obedience is not a good thing, however,
neither is self-styled religion.
>some pieces may be found to be true, and some false. (I can give you
>examples of this with Jesus' teachings, since i'm familiar with them.)
You should always strive for philosophical consistency and this
should be a good guiding principle. So, when you hear something
that does not sound true, you should question it. Consider also
the possibility that the message has been transformed to suit
purposes of people other than the original speaker. This is always
the case in Hinduism, where everyone and their mom has been writing
their own Gitas to justify their own desires. I was personally
reading one the other day where the "interpretation" offered by
the author completely contradicted what was said by Krishna. The
moral of the story is that you need to find the "right" teacher,
and not just any teacher.
[...]
>upon honest reflection, i'm sure you'd have to admit to some truths that
>you really don't like that much... "hard truths" as it were.
>Do you understand what i'm getting at? What are your thoughts on this?
I'm not quite sure that what you're getting at, but let me give you
an example. Let's say that I have come to the conclusion that I am
not God, but I meet a man who tells me that I can become God, or
that I am already God but just don't realize it. The hard truth of
the matter is that neither he nor I are God - that position is filled.
I may not like it, and he definitely won't like it, but what he or
I like or dislike doesn't change the reality of the situation.
[...]
>I'm aware of those things, but i've heard it speculated that somehow the
>Hindu traditions changed subtly when brought to the U.S. (maybe when they
Hindu traditions have undoubtedly changed when Hindus came to the
US. For example, I was at a dinner party not too long ago hosted
by a "brahmin" family. They offered me chicken and were quite
surprised (and apologetic) when I told them that I didn't eat meat.
I went to the kitchen, and was surprised that right in front
of their family altar was a plate full of chicken. This probably
doesn't happen too much in India.
However, the complaint I've heard about ISKCON that I'm quite fond
of repeating is that it's "too rigid". In other words, the philosophy
and practices just aren't forgiving enough for people who want to
"become Western".
>meshed with the different culture?) and so while it may be very similar,
>it's not quite the same thing as in India. Has anyone else heard this? I
>don't know enough about Chaitanya or Indian Vaishnavaism to know if this
Many of the older temples in India have a strict "no foreigners" policy.
However, many of these same temples make an exception for ISKCON
devotees, so that should give you some assurance that the practices
haven't changed in any appreciable way once Prabhupada brought them
outside of India.
>is true or not. (BTW, i'm not at all fearful of "newness." :) All
>religious doctrines had to be "new" at some point. :) I'm more concerned
>about whether or not [message garbled past this point]
Well, I wouldn't be too sure about "newness". After all, it's not
called "Sanatana Dharma" (eternal duty, loosely translated) for nothing!
-Vivek
