[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: What is Hinduisum
-
Subject: Re: What is Hinduisum
-
From: vijaypai@rice.edu (Vijay Sadananda Pai)
-
Date: 10 Dec 1995 18:45:19 GMT
-
Approved: srh <srh@rbhatnagar>
-
Article: 692 of soc.religion.hindu
-
Newsgroups: soc.religion.hindu
-
Organization: none
For the purposes of this article, I'll assume the broadest part of
the definition of Hindu given by the Indian Supreme Court. Of course,
the definition they give as a whole is inconsistent (as Shrisha Rao
pointed out on SRV; one part excludes Maadhvas and another part
implies only Maadhvas, so therefore there are no Hindus, according to
the SC), but we'll let that slide. I'm still looking for a good
definition of Hindu as a religious term; until then, I'll be
satisfied with what the Maharastra CM reportedly said -- Anyone living
in
Hindustan and willing to die for the country is a Hindu. All the rest
are traitors. -- which of course makes all us Indians abroad
traitors. Anyway....
In soc.religion.hindu, Ram Chandran
<CHANDRA2%ERS.BITNET@VTBIT.CC.VT.EDU> wrote:
>Namaskar:
>Individual freedom
>to everyone in what they believe and practice without interference >from any
>organization and/or institution!
Indeed, individual freedom cannot be bound by any time or
circumstance in those regards.
> Organization is not in the Hindu tradition.
Strictly false. The tradition of maTha and maTha-sansthaana has been
around at least since the time of Shankara (whom the SC defines as
Hindu). And what is a maTha if not an organization? What you can
say instead is, "Being forced to be in an organization is not in
the Hindu tradition," but that's just an obvious corollary of the
above. If one wants to be in an organization (and indeed, why
wouldn't one), there are plenty of organizations out there, some
over a thousand years old.
>Now in the INTERNET DAYS, we
>don't any organization to preach what we should and what we
>shouldn't!
I don't know if you mean we don't have or we don't want (you left
out the key auxiliary verb, and these seem like the 2 most obvious
possibilities). In the have case, the answer is of course, and that's
just a corollary of an earlier rule. In the want case, the answer
is "define we." We cannot possibly mean all Hindus, since some
don't mind organization, as evidenced by the fact thay they belong
to them.
>Organizations have the tendency to curtail individual freedom of
>thought,
>beliefs and behavior.
Not really, unless a person is forced against his will to stay
in said organization. Otherwise, if a person feels his individual
freedom encroached, he can just leave and go to another organization
(or be org-less).
>significance of the Nataraja's dance posture. In the PBS show,
>COSMOS, Professor Carl Sagan asserts that the dance of Nataraja
>signifies the cycle of evolution and destruction of the cosmic
>universe (Big-Bang Theory).
I wish people wouldn't go running to physics profs any time they
needed to interpret something religious.
>unifies with Brahman. Advaita implies the ultimate identity of
>Brahman (Universal soul) and Jivatman (human soul).
This is a misrepresentation; there is no such thing as "human soul"
since human is a bodily characterization (even animals, plants,
bacteria, etc have souls) -- you could say "individual soul" instead
> The Hindu philosophy and logic provide unassailable strength
>to the concept of the fundamental unity in the worship of a
>multitude of gods.
If this is how you define Hindu philosophy and logic, then you
must exclude Dvaita (which you had included above), since Dvaita
begins with "Hari paratarah." You would probably have to
exclude Visistadvaita also, since the mainline form of that
philosophy (as opposed to derivatives like the Shaiva version
thereof) rejects worship of personalities other than Vishnu and
His personal servants.
>* The penalty for sin is the guilt feeling for violating values!
>* Message from Bhagavad Geeta
Please don't associate such an idea with the 'Gita.
aneka-citta-vibhraantaa
moha-jaala-samaavRtaaH
prasaktaaH kaama-bhogeShu
patanti narake 'shucau (BG 16.16)
Thus perplexed by various anxieties and bound by a network of
illusions, they become too strongly attached to sense enjoyment and
fall down into hell.
taan ahaM dviShataH kruuraan
saMsareShu naraadhamaan
kShipaamy ajasram ashubhaan
aasuriiShv eva yoniShu (BG 16.19)
Those who are envious and mischievous, who are the lowest among men,
I perpetually cast into the ocean of material existence, into
various demoniac species of life.
(translations by Srila Prabhupada; (c) BBT int'l, used w/ perm)
>| Ram V. Chandran || email: chandra2%ers.bitnet@vtbit.cc.vt.edu |
Yours,
Vijay
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Moderator: Ajay Shah Submissions: srh@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu
Administrivia: srh-request@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu
Archives: http://rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu:8080/soc_hindu_home.html
Follow-Ups:
