[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Religious unity and the word Hindu
On Wed, 10 Jan 1996 21:39:48 GMT kstuart@snowcrest.net responded to my mail
thus...
>>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.
Yes I can see that my hope is futile. For whatever reason, people will
desire exclusive congregation.
>>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.
I was thinking along the lines of all religions that evolved in India...
>Okay, is it all religions indigenous to India?
>
>No, clearly it doesn't include Buddhism, Sikhism or Jainism.
... but that would certainly not sit well with those who wish to
differentiate themselves from what they pulled thamselves out of. I'm quite
sure Gautama Buddha, Guru Nanak and Mahavira did not identify themselves as
'not Hindu'. However their followers who are really the 'creators' of these
religions have certainly considered themselves as 'not Hindu'. I don't
suppose they are ready today to acknowledge brotherhood with the others who
chose to retain the label.
While Ramakrishna never thought of himself as other than Hindu, his
followers tried to create another new religion. The courts stopped them but
will it end there?
>Okay, how about the earliest religion of India?
>
>No, I don't think many people think that Shaivism equals Hindu. :-)
There is even doubt that Shaivism is the earliest religion of India. :-)
>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.
Right, they use Hindu for their convenience. A pity that we cannot use that
as a vehicle for achieving some degree of common understanding among ourselves.
>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.
As I said before, there is no such religion as Hinduism. It is simply a
convenient label. If the various schools adopt the same approach as the
proponents of SRV (which they justifiably can) we will have a tremendous
splintering.
The Buddhists, Sikhs and Jains did not want to be associated with Hindus.
The Vaishnavas do not want to use an imprecise pop term.
The Ramakrishnaites want to keep their funds for themselves.
Such remarkable spirituality :-(
>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.
Which could just as easily be accomplished on SRHV.
>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.
Which can still be done on SRH.
>I'm not a Vaishnava per se and I have no trouble understanding this.
I can understand it too. I can also see alternative paths. I only wish the
path of unity was easier to tread.
>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.
I presume you are refering to the spiritual organisation your guru is
heading. And I think what you mean is that it is not identified currently as
a Hindu organisation. But it could very well be. Whether that is necessary
or not is for your guru to decide.
>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.
Baba has accomplished in a beautiful way what I had thought about but did
not speak of except privately for fear of causing hurt. Sanathana Dharma can
encompass ALL religions of the world. The label one chooses to wear is
completely irrelevant. It does not matter whether you are Pagan or Shia or
Vaishnava or Adventist or Zen Buddhist. We are all seeking The Truth in
whatever form we imagine.
>Thus the Vaishnavas can consider themselves Hindus and can participate
>in Hindu unity by participating in SRH, which is exactly what they are
>doing.
Of course Vaishnavas and anyone else should be welcome on SRH. If some feel
more comfortable in SRV or anywhere else, so be it. I only hope SRB and SRS
do not sprout. And eventually, I hope that SRV will choose to become become
SRHV.
Peace and blessings.
--
Singam
Minden, Penang
Malaysia
Truth, viewed from any angle, remains Truth.
Is the One Truth, Love?
Where does it hide?
Why?
Follow-Ups:
