[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: The definition of HINDU (Was about VK Rao's def) .. very long
In article <4di8c9$fos@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
Dhruba Chakravarti <dchakrav@netserv.unmc.edu> wrote:
>Singam (vijia@pop.jaring.my) wrote:
[...]
>: What can I say? IMHO those 'priests' or other persons who prohibit
>: admission to non Indians have forfeited the right to call themselves
>: Hindu.
Well, I definitely think that they are acting in a rather unfortunate
manner, but as far as the majority of the people in India would be
concerned, they'd still be Hindus. I know that you and I would see
them in a less-than-positive light, but this practice still goes on.
>: They have become mere tools in the hands of opportunistic
>: politicians. Let us not waste our anger on them. Let us instead pity
>: them and 'pray' (in whatever manner each of us chooses) that they are
>: able to find the path that they have lost.
I don't have anger for them, and I don't think my friend does either,
but it is definitely an unfortunate situation. After all, there are
all sorts of people permitted there who are much less "religious" than
my friend, yet they are allowed, while he is barred entry.
>I do not know why the action of these Pandas should be considered the
>standard of Hinduism. That is, in my view a bad example, and it proves
>nothing, that is, other their small-mindedness.
I would have hoped that it proved nothing, but take a look at a recent
post on soc.religion.hindu:
In article <4df2vq$6a8@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
Santhosh Kumar <santhosh@iss.nus.sg> wrote:
[...]
>I would like to clarify Caitanya that you cannot be a Hindu
>because you are born in Canada, a Hindu is the one who is
>born in Hindustan ( INDIA ) and follows Sanatana Dharma.
>However, the Hinduism is based on Sanatana Dharma and anybody
>could practise that and benefit from it.[...]
In other words, there are definitely Hindus who feel that you _must_
be born in India in order to be a Hindu. This definition would
probably make most of the members of the HSC, for example, non-Hindu,
since they were likely born in the US.
Using Santhosh's definition, then, there could most definitely be
Saivites, or Vaishnavites, or whatever else, and they would still not
be Hindu. Puts a rather interesting spin on the whole discussion on
the name of SRV, doesn't it?
-Vivek
Wed Jan 17 12:09:33 CST 1996
