[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Definition of Hindu (Was defn by VKRao)
On 4 Jan 1996 11:19:14 GMT, vidynath@math.ohio-state.edu (Vidhyanath
K. Rao) wrote in soc.religion.hindu:
>>* 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'.
This definition is inadmissible, because then Realized Beings can not
be Hindus !
Ramakrishna, Ramana Maharshi, Sri Chaitanya, Tukaram Maharaj, etc.
None of these believed anything (after realization).
They only taught what they had direct knowledge of.
Furthermore, on the other end of the scale, many here have implied
that complete Atheists can be HIndus, if they like the Hindu culture
they grew up in, go to the Temple and throw a coin in the box without
believing one iota.
So, one way or another, belief doesn't seem to be involved.
I've read enough good arguments now to be convinced that "Hindu" is a
common usage term that has no set meaning.
However, if we changed "soc.religion.hindu" to "soc.religion.vedic"
then the newsgroup would lose all those people who post:
"I'm doing a term paper on comparative religions, what does Hinduism
believe?"
since they wouldn't know to look in soc.religion.vedic :-) .
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
