[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Definition of Hindu (Was defn by VKRao) very long
In article <DKBuD9.968@ecf.toronto.edu>
gopal@ecf.toronto.edu (name_is_nothing_but_fame) wrote:
>This is reg the definition of the term Hindu given by VK Rao:
>[Paragraphs with * before them are excerpts from V.Rao's post]
>
>* A Hindu has two tenets (apart from others which differ from sect to sect):
> (1) Belief in the doctrines of karma and rebirth
> (2) Belief in Vedas as infallible and their acceptance as
Note that the quotation here ends in midsentence. Clearly, something is
missing. [In the original post, the continuation was `part of their
scriptures'.
>[Since this post essentially deals with the term Hindu, and not the RFD
>on s.r.h.reorganisation, i am not posting it to news.groups]
>
>* A certain nettor (name withheld to protect the guilty) argued that the
> definition proposed in this thread excluded some vaishnavas from hindus.
>
>It is an amusement to read about some kind of "guilt" associated with
>not agreeing with your honour 's definition of the term hindu.
And latter:
>* My definition says `accept Veda as part of their Scripture'.
>
>No your definition does not say so. it requires accepting veda not
>merely as an authritative text, but accept as Infallible "truth".
As I was responding to S. Rao's article, I did not feel the need to
fill in the missing part of (2): it is obvious that the sentence must
say what Hindus are supposed to accept Vedas as. The continuation
was `part of their scriptures'. The `guilt' I was referring to is the fact
that Gopal, who admitted not having read the original article, continues to
base his argument on the mutilated quotation. To ignore this and to get
`amused' by saying that I was referring to disagreeing with me, and only
in newsgroups shows the kind of tactics which Gopal uses.
>* Incidentally, this definition is just a slightly modified form of the
> definition proposed by Brian K Smith. I don't have the exact reference,
> but I believe that it appeared in the History of Regligions sometime
> in the eighties.
>
>So we have to accept?
Hardly. I was simply acknowledging others' efforts.
>[...] Webster defines belief:
>be-lief n. 1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or
> confidence in a person or thing. 2. Mental acceptance of or conviction in
> the truth or actuality of something. 3. Something believed or accepted as
> true, esp. a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of
> persons.[ME bileve, alteration of OE geleafa]
>
>Catch phrases: "placing trust or confidence", "accepted as true" and
>"convition in the truth or actuality"
Whose Webster? [The name ``Webster's Dictionary'' is used by several
different publishers.]
The `Websters New World Dictionary' published by William Collins, which
gives some indication of the differences in connotations between near
synonyms, says ``belief is the term of broadest application among the words
in this comparison. It indicates mental acceptance as true >even though
absolute certainity might be absent.<'' (emphasis added)
This invalidates rest of Gopal's argument.
[deleted material that goes on about lack of certainity in belief]
Certain amount of doubt exists in the followers of all religions. But that
does not alter the fact that certain basic beliefs form the foundation of
each religion.
The lack of absolute certainity afflicts all fields. Scientists `believe'
in `induction'; but when pinned down, express certain uneasiness.
Mathematicians `believe' in Aristotelean logic. But that does not stop them
from discussing potential problems with the law of excluded middle.
This objection is just a red herring. If we accept it, we must assume
that nobody believes anything. We can all just give up everything.
>Even Karma doctrine is not uniquely understood. if one wants to claim
>the above as a 'definition' of the term hindu, one needs to give at least
>some definition or axiomatic expressions to karma theory. for example
>there are some who believe that karma and result are not related the way
>they are popularly understood to be related (as "cycle of life-and-death
>until attaining moksha by appropriate action").
Axiomatic expression? We are not talking mathematics. Just because
a biologist might have diffuclty giving a mathematical definition of
a dog does not mean the idea of `dog' is invalid.
>(a) [karmamo` phalamichchu kartraagna valana,
> karmamu daivamaa? karmamoo jadame`]
> Action gives result on the orders [at the instance] of performer.
> is action God ?
> Action too is inert.
> [Ramana Maharshi]
This seems to be aimed more at the philosophies of Ajivakas, Buddhists
etc., who consider law of karma to be beyond God. Why does this
contradict my (1)?
>(b) Yoga vasistha raamaayanam describes rebirth itself as an illusion
>on the lines of dreams.
>
>(c) Sankara himself says (paraphrasing from memory) ' i have been saying
>that you and i have same characteristics. but how can i arrogate my
>self to say i am you? Oh god, You are like an ocean wherein i am a drop'
>
>Are the three concepts identical in relation to karma doctrine?
>How can an inert action lead to moksha? When rebirth is itself
>a dream where is the question or need for breaking a life-death
>rebirth cycle? If one is part of God like a drop in ocean, what
>difference will it make in breaking or not breaking the karma
>cycle ? is mere knowledge not adequate?
Action is said, by advaitins, to mire people in samsara, not lead to
moksha.
These are theological problems within Advaita. All three deal with
reconciling Karma doctrine with Advaita. This simply proves that
they accept Karma doctrine: If Advaitins rejected Karma doctrine,
there would be no need for these discussions. I suggest that you
read Manduukopanishad with Gaudapaada's Kaarikas and Sankara's
commentary.
BTW, Sankara is supposed to have written Bhaja Govindam, with its
`punar api jananam; punar api maraNam; punar api jananiijaThare
shayanam.' If Sankara had rejected Karma doctrine, why would he say
this?
>[ofcourse i am not interested in degressing into philosophy. I am
>not even curious as to how one can reconcile the three views. my point
>is that the definition assumes that hindus are conscious of "the" karma
>doctrine and that they have belief in its "truth". How can this be
>accurate in the face of lack of even understanding of what karma
>doctrine is about by a common man.... like me?]
The common man in India understands the basics, that action in one life
beget rewards/punishments in the next, quite well. It is sophistry that
clouds understanding.
>[following one para is by S Rao]
>>I would say both tenets do not apply to Tattvavaadis; there is no "belief"
>>in anything, only acceptance of what can be proved thru hard logic and
>>scripture (the latter itself to be vetted by logic!); there is no belief
>>in the theory of karma as distinct from its status as the product of
>>knowledge deriving from the Vedas -- given the Vedas, one can derive the
>>doctrine of karma, which means that your two tenets are not independent.
>
>* The last sentence would not be accepted by most Western Indologists.
> The definition is meant to forestall objection from all quarters.
> .............. [A] (just for referencing later in the article)
Later:
>[following one para is by S Rao]
>>Consider -- the Sri-Vaishnavas accept the writings of the Alvars as being
>>authoritative independently of the Vedas, not founded upon the latter;
>
>* P. Dileepan argued in SRV that Azhwaars are supposed to have distilled
> the Vedas into the naalaayira divya prabandham. The similes quoted in
> `The Vernacular Veda' (reference suggested by Mani Varadaraajan) support
> this. [The similes I remember are Veda = head waters of rivers,
> NDV = clear waters at the lower courses; Veda = salty waters of
> ocean, NDV = rain water from clouds arising over the ocean.]
>
>But the definiton requires one to accept "Vedas" as infallible truth--
>not "the derived texts" or "the texts that have some resemblance to vedas".
>Refer to your own arguement at [A] above. Is it not necessary to mention
>NDV as another alternative sub-clause of your definition etc...?
As I pointed out, my original article read `as >part< of their scriptures'.
First, S. Rao edits this out, and adds an old post that predates my
article to which S. Rao was responding. Then, Gopal, conveniently omitting
to read the original article, and changing to newsgroups where the original
article did not appear, argues against the mutilated definition. To top
it all off, he claims that my criticism is because he disagrees with me.
Critizing a mutilated definition, especially when it is clear that the
quotation is incomplete, is sheer sophistry and shows how low Gopal
stoops.
>>In addition, Jains, naiyaayikaas, etc., are not Hindu by the above
>>notions, because they have no use for the Vedas.
>
>* Firstly, I am not sure that Jains consider themselves to be a sect of
> Hinduism. People like Padmanabha Jain, writing in academic publications,
> implictely assume that Jainism is a religion seperate from Hinduism.
>
>This itself is taking a side of an argument. There are hindus who
>consider Jainism and Buddism as part of hinduism. Constituent
>assembly debates on indian constitution reflect this. ofcourse one
>can argue that constituent assembly discussion and the (restricted)
>use of the term hindu to encompass jainism and buddism as mere
>'political' arguments, just like one can argue the SC decision on
>RKM case as being mere 'legal' statement.
This misunderstands my position: To decide whether Jainism is part of
Hinduism, one must also ask Jains. If Jains refuse to call their religion
a sect of Hinduism, then what Hindus think does not matter.
>[following one para is by S Rao]
>>and the Advaitis do not accept all Vedas as authoritative, since their
>>doctrine teaches that some portions of the Vedas, the karma-kaanDa, is
>>of no value,
>
>* Of no value for moksha. That karma-kaaNDa produces the intended
> results is not denied; It is only said that such results based on
> desires mires one in samsara.
>
>* Same goes for atatvavaada. They are said to be simplifications
> meant for leading to full truth. Sankara explains his stand with
> `arundhatigraahanyaaya'. [If a bit of self-advertisement is allowed:
> Watch for this in the Sanskrit mailing list, in my series on nyaayas.]
>
>Have you considered this self-advertisement, before pronouncing "guilt"
>when i clearly stated in my prv posts that my indulgence is merely based
>on news.groups postings?
[This is a new meaning of `self-advertisement'. I guess one learns
something new everyday.]
At leat, Gopal could have read >all< the postings in news.groups.
but, of course, that would be inconvenient to S. Rao-Gopal combine.
>[following one para is from S Rao]
>>Lastly, there are Hindus who [also] worship Jesus, Santoshi Mata,
>>Ayyappa, Sai Baba, etc., and such worship cannot be described as being
>>founded upon the Vedas. As such, they cannot be Hindus by the quoted
>>paragraph.
>
>* Read my (2) again. A Hindu uses Veda as an icon for scripture.
> It does not mean that he is a Vedic literalist. Worship of Vinaayaka
> is not in the Rgveda. But that does not mean that a Rgvedin worshipping
> Vinaayaka with `gaNaanaaM tvaa gaNapatiM havaamahe ...' is disregarding
> RgVeda.
>
>The question is not about a rigvedin worshipping a non rigvedic god.
>The question is about non-vedin worshipping ONLY non-vedic god [note:
>"only" --and NOT "also"]
>Accepting is an explicit positive action. 'Not rejecting' is passive
>inaction. they can not be equated.
So, show me somebody who worships only Jesus, or only Ayyappa and
refuses to accept Vishnu, Shiva, Vinayaka (yes!), ... as divine, and
then ask me.
>Your (2) above does not say veda is an icon for scripture; it does not even
>say Veda is a scripture. it says hindus believe vedas as Infallible truth.
>If the definition says 'hindus may not explicitly reject or disregard
>vedas' then it is another matter.
Once again: Gopal deliberately omits reading the original post with
the full sentence and then insists on foisting his error upon me.
>some more counter examples to keep yourself busy...
>
>(a) My understanding of Sai Baba philosophy is to take good from all
>scriptures. (like in bahai faith?). Vedas are also considered
>scriptures. Yet, there is no need for "belief" in vedas, nor a
>belief in them as "infallible" for a Saibaba devotee.
I thought that Sai Baba does not demand rejection of his followers'
original religion. Then, how can one assign all Sai Baba followers
to one religion.
>(b) You are assuming that the people who worship Ayyappa will have to
>accept Vedas as infallible. Not rejecting Vedas, is not same as,
>accepting them as infallible truths.
I know of Muslims who have gone on pilgrimage to Ayyappa Temple.
I don't see why I should count them as adherents of Hinduism.
>(c) I know of many hindus who say that if their 'guru' tells them
>to follow a certain philosophy, it is ultimate for them, they dont
>care where it came from ... vedas, bible or guru.
>
>(e) How do you fit the devotees of Batakamma and other village goddesses
>into the definition? in most cases they do not even know, or care about,
>vedas. They believe "if you dont make certain 'sacrifices' your village
>will be ruined" kind of notions.
>
>(f) I know of a particular community that believes in self-inflicted
>pain as a way to reach god. i noticed them in Guntur; the people of
>this community, beating themselves with Koradaa, seek alms. What is
>their relationship with Vedas? will you argue: that they do not know
>consciously but they do believe that Vedas are infallible truths
>subconsciously?
>
>(i) I know of a lady who did, throughout her adult life until death, only
>one thing: reciting snake and dristi mantras. thousands go to her for
>her to perform such mantra on the affected member of their beloeved ones.
>i doubt she ever cared about vedas or karma theory. is she to be thrown
>out of hindu fold? how many of us have not come across such individuals
>especially those of us from village background?
One should compare contemporary India with Europe of 12-13th centuries
in terms of availability of the texts. Due to unavailability of texts
and language barrier, people have to rely on intermediaries. That
does not alter the status of Vedas for Hindus or Bible for medival
European peasants.
To complicate matters, traditional Hindus consider learning spiritual
material from a book to be unacceptable. A guru who teaches personally is
considered neccessary in all religious matters. So that fact that someone
has not read the Vedas does not matter. It is not I who is influenced by
Bible etc, but those who insist that `scripture' is something that is
treated the same way Protestant Christians treat the Bible.
In the last twenty years, Westerners have been moving away from this.
But suddently, here is Gopal foisting this limited view of `scriptures'
on us.
>(d) Some swamyji (Omjee?) does only Satyanaraayana vratam and preaches
>only satyanaarayana vratam. He does not care about vedas, upanishads or
>anything. Arguing that he/ his followers accept Vedas as infallible
>truth is twisting reality to suit to the definition. Their rejection
>of vedas is not needed to prove counter example to the definition.
>Their explicit acceptance of Vedas, on the other hand, is needed to
>prove the definition right.
Interesting: Gopal, who quoted dictionaries and talked about `axiomatic
treatment' earlier, suddenly parts ways with mathematicians. To claim
that you have a counterexample, you must show that the properties
do fail. Otherwise, you just have a specific case to be checked and
it has no probative value.
The crucial check is to ask this swamiji, whoever it is, whether he
considers vedas to be `infallible' and `part of his scriptures' or not.
It is those who propose counterexamples who must do this. It is absurd to
expect one to ask every `swamiji' and then tabulate the answers.
>(g) What is the status of children not yet initiated into vedic
>indoctrination? Do they cease to be hindus until such indoctrination?
No. But then, this argument will apply to any religion. One can
argue that a child cannot be Christian, Muslim ..., because he/she
cannot think the issues through. This is another red herring.
>(h) My understanding of vira shiva (lingaayat) -- based on discussion
>with a lingaayat -- is that they do not accept the authority of vedas.
Some Lingaayats consider their religion to be separate, not an `offshoot
of Hinduism' (see, Ishwaran, `Speaking of Basava'). Whom do I trust?
>* Another argument that S. Rao offers is `X is a Hindu, but he does not
> follow my interpretation of Vedas. So he is not Vedic.'. This is
> non-sense because, Hindus have always had the freedom to interpret
> Veda. They cannot be said to disregard the Veda just because they
> they differ from you. [Such arguments are common in sectarian
> polemics. But Eastern Orthodox do not cease to be Christians because
> some evangelist says so.]
[Note that S. Rao was not responding to my post in the next line.
Gopal's editing, which cleverly omitted the usual `>'s for my post,
is likely to mislead those who count `>'s to follow the sequence.]
>[following one line from S Rao]
>> 3> [this definition implies that] Jains and Buddhists are not Hindus.
>* So now Buddhists are Hindus too?
>
>Are you saying that Buddists do not cease to be hindus because some
>buddists say so? (before arguing 'all' buddists say so --or 'all' eastern
>orthodox's say so-- please define what you mean by a buddist. if you say
>buddists are those who consider buddha as god, heena yanis dont count but
>most hindus count. if you say one who will believe in buddist philosophy,
>many hindus count. if you say buddist is one who clamis he is one and not
>the one who does not claim so, then all those vaishnavas that claim
>themselves to be vaishnavas but not as hindus, cease to be hindus).
This is the kind of deliberate misconstruction that Gopal uses instead
of real arguments. The thread of posts and the question mark at the
end of the quote from my post clearly imply that I do not consider
Buddhists to be Hindus. The reason, given by various people for the
last 2000 years, is that they reject the authority of Vedas.
This thread is about defining Hindus. I am not interested in Buddhists
here. If S. Rao wants to say that Buddhists are Hindus, it is upto him
to explain who Buddhists are.
>I am not concerned at all with the semantics of religious terminology. I
>was only saying that despite S Rao et al arguing against the said
>definition of the term hindu, they are entitle to be heard on the RFD,
>and must be commended for their efforts in putting together a decent
>proposal.
Now, why is this not in news.groups?
--
Vidhyanath Rao It is the man, not the method, that solves
nathrao+@osu.edu the problem. - Henri Poincare
(614)-366-9341 [as paraphrased by E. T. Bell]
