[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: The definition of HINDU (Was about VK Rao's def) .. very long
In article <4dpegp$mib@babbage.ece.uc.edu>, Singam <vijia@pop.jaring.my> wrote:
[...]
>>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.[...]
[...]
>Oh dear, I was born in Malaysia and not in Hindustan. I suppose that
>means I too am not a Hindu :-(
Oops.
>Just out of curiosity, I wonder what percentage of those subscribing
>to SRH are 'non-Hindu'.
Probably a fair portion, because I'd venture that many readers are
college-age Indians who were born in the US.
>BTW, Bali, one of the islands of Indonesia, has been recognised as
>being Hindu for a long time. I suppose we will have to re-catagorise
>that now. I wonder how we are going to tell that to the people of
>Bali.
Even worse, someone's got to break the news to Nepal. If I remember my
trivia correctly, they are the _only_ country in the world which
declares itself Hindu. I can see it now: "dear sirs - please desist
from calling your kingdom Hindu, because very few, if any, of you were
born in India. Therefore, may we suggest that you call your kingdom
Hindu-favorable, or Hindu-sympathizing, but not really Hindu?"
>I wonder whether Sri Lanka is considered a part of Hindustan. All
>those Saivites there will be quite upset to learn that they too are
>not Hindu.
Uh-oh - your innocent query could set a bad precedent. This might be
the start of a new naming convention where anywhere there are Hindus
is considered part of Hindustan. I, for example, would then be writing
this article from Houston, Texas, USA subsection of Hindustan
;-)
-Vivek
