[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : Becoming Hindu
: My problem is when they or their followers try to present
: themselves as spokesmen for traditional culture, (They are not)
: interpreters of Vedanta and shastras (they are not) or possesors of any
: kind of coherent and logical philosophy. (They simply haven't got one.)
: As for my original contention that their influence on Dharmik people at
: large is minimal, I stand by it. It is actually their lack of any kind of
: systematic thought that makes them valuable to secular India.
Jaldhar is largely correct on this. The 1996 _World_Almanac_ gives
Hinduism as 70% Vaishnava and 25% Shaivite. I have no idea how accurate
this is, but if its even remotely accurate, the "others" (Shakti,
reformed, tribals) certainly are a very small portion.
As far as the "coherent and logical philosophy", I'd have to hear it first
before judging it. It seems there more divisions in Hinduism than a
ten-thousand piece puzzle. There seems to be swamis coming out of every
rock (that is, there's a lot of them).
Jaldhar also accepts Ramakrishna and Vivekananda as mystics; I say
Ramakrishna is an incarnate of god. The Ramakrishna Order says, instead,
that Ramakrishna is an incarnation of Vishnu and Vivekananda is "divine"
also, but more on the level of Hanuman and Arjuna.
Which is why I recommend to people wanting to convert to one of the
segments of Hinduism approach a swami affiliated with a temple.
Bests,
Jay
