[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Religious unity and the word Hindu
On Wed, 10 Jan 1996 12:52:18 +0800 (MYT), SV Singam
(vijia@pop.jaring.my) wrote:
>>>In the first instance, those who proposed SRV, by choosing to exclude
>>>the word 'Hindu', sought to divide. Surely we do not need that.
>>
>>This is simply false.
>Instead of having a plurality of religions, I am suggesting that all
>religious traditions that originated on the Indian Sub-continent be happy
>about associating with each other, be happy to share a common label. The
>label can be as clumsy as 'Religious traditions of Hindustan' or as simple
>as Hindu.
This is already too late as there is already:
soc.religion.sikhism
talk.religion.buddhism
alt.religion.buddhism
Furthermore, as an ex-Buddhist, I specifically read soc.religion.hindu
BECAUSE there are no buddhists here.
I can read soc.religion.eastern if I want mixed Hindu/Buddhist talk.
>>However, BECAUSE no Indic texts identify a religion called Hinduism,
>>and because all Vaishnava texts call it "Vaishnava", the newsgroup is
>>called "soc.religion.vaishnava" because it was desired to have the
>>name be precise in denoting what the newsgroup was about.
>
>By so doing, they are isolating themselves from the other religions of
>India. Such desire for isolation is the culmination of centuries of 'enmity'
>(for want of a better word). I am suggesting that all of us should encourage
>a closing of that gap.
>
>>And, as the s.r.v have stated over and over again, there ARE some
>>people who are Vaishnavas who do not consider themselves Hindus.
>
>The word Hindu has become a pigeonhole with a narrow meaning. Who IS a
>Hindu? Going by what these Vaishnavas impute, we may as well drop the word
>Hindu from common usage and each group simply call themselves by whatever
>specific name they choose. But that will not lead us to unity.
No, what you and many others don't seem to understand is that they do
NOT view "Hindu" as a term that describes religion very well.
For example, does the word "Hindu" mean all religions of India?
No, all religions are practiced within India.
Okay, is it all religions indigenous to India?
No, clearly it doesn't include Buddhism, Sikhism or Jainism.
Okay, how about the earliest religion of India?
No, I don't think many people think that Shaivism equals Hindu. :-)
Okay, how about, well, uh ......
The word Hindu is a term that is basically used by people who are NOT
Hindus to describe a group of people that they want to lump together.
Thus, there needs to be a soc.religion.hindu so that people know where
to post their questions about turtles or conversion or for term
papers. If we changed it to soc.religion.vedic then none of these
people who know where to post their questions - for example, there was
a post in s.r.h about the rock group "Hindu Gods". :-)
The people who started soc.religion.vaishnava wanted that name because
Vaishnava is a fairly precise term, and Hindu is a vague pop term with
no definable meaning, thus they didn't want a vague pop term in the
title of their newsgroup.
SRV is a group designed for internal discussion by Vaishnavas. Thus,
I never post messages there that question assumptions that are made by
all Vaishnavas.
SRH is a group designed for internal discussion by Hindus AND external
outreach to non-Hindus. Thus expressions by Vaishnavas of unity with
other Hindus are appropriate to SRH and are NOT appropriate to SRV.
I'm not a Vaishnava per se and I have no trouble understanding this.
Here's one for you. My spiritual teacher is a Hindu. I consider
myself a Hindu. Yet, the organization headed by my spiritual teacher
is NOT a Hindu organization.
And, I'm pretty sure the same thing is true, for example, for Satya
Sai Baba [who is not my teacher, by the way], who, to me, fits what we
call a Hindu, but the ensignia of his organization has the symbols of
many of the world's religions and so, is not a "Hindu" organization.
Thus the Vaishnavas can consider themselves Hindus and can participate
in Hindu unity by participating in SRH, which is exactly what they are
doing.
Cheers,
Ken
kstuart@snowcrest.net
"The ego arises from the mistaken notion that the light of consciousness
reflected in the intellect and coloured by objectively perceived phenomena
is the true nature of the Self. Thus, the personal ego falsely identifies
the Self with that which is not the Self and vice versa." - Mark Dyczkowski
References:
