[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Definition of Hindu (Was defn by VKRao)
Ken Stuart (kstuart@snowcrest.net) wrote:
* 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.
[much deleted]
If the above definition by Vidyanath K. Rao is to be accepted,
the followers of the thamizh siththarkaL (the 18 sidhdhaas of
Tamil Nadu) will not be classified as Hindus.
The siththarkaL emphatically reject the doctrines of karma and
rebirth and make so much fun of vedas. I could quote pages of
thamizh verses to support this if Vidyanath K. Rao really wants
me to. On the other hand, he can refer to the works of the
siththar sivavaakkiyar specifically.
Yet, as far as the siththarkaL are concerned, their God is Siva.
At times, sivavaakkiyar calls upon Rama too.
Now, are we to classify his followers as Hindus or not?
--badri
--
--------------------------------------------------
S.Badrinarayanan
Graduate Student
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
Cornell University
--------------------------------------------------
