[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: NEWS : Sri Lankan president accepts her anti-Hindu stance.
-
Subject: Re: NEWS : Sri Lankan president accepts her anti-Hindu stance.
-
From: "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <jaldhar@braincells.com>
-
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 05:24:41 GMT
-
Apparently-To: soc-religion-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Newsgroups: soc.religion.hindu
-
Organization: Consolidated Braincells Inc.
-
References: <ghenE081G9.M9H@netcom.com> <ghenE0qtqv.1An@netcom.com> <ghenE0spJr.8p7@netcom.com> <ghenE0unwx.GsF@netcom.com>
Sankara Narayanan <sankara@vnet.ibm.com> wrote in article
<ghenE0unwx.GsF@netcom.com>...
> Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
>
> For that matter, only in the last 2 centuries, our religion is being
> referred as "sanatana Dharma". Otherwise it was just a collection
> of many religions with common principles.
>
It still is a collection of many religions, the efforts of the VHP-types to
press-gang us all into one Hinduism notwithstanding. The term Sanatana
Dharma is older than two centuries though. Vijay Pai says there is a
reference to it in the Pali sutras. It occurs in the Mahabharata too. I
agree the term has become more prominent in modern times though. For
instance the Orthodox Punjabi opponents of the Arya Samaj popularized the
term to distinguish their philosophy.
> Not really. The philosophies like "Sankhya", which are almost same
> as the Buddhist philosophy come under the "Shad-darshanas" (6 Systems of
> Philosophies) of Hindu Dharma. It's true that Buddha and his doctrines
> were not respected as much as the Vedas by Classical Hindus.
>
The litmus test for an Astika (a more useful term than Hindu in this case)
is whether they accept the authority of the Vedas, the existance of the
atma, and the existance of Brahman. Samkhya accepts all three. Buddhism
rejects all three. So that "almost" of yours covers a lot of territory.
Plus there is long history of polemics between Samkhya and Buddhism.
> You'll be surprised to know that some of the Budhdhist texts accept
> some parts of Shruti (vedas) as authority and brand some other parts
> (ie. the ones dealing with sacrifices etc.) as "himsaka-shruthis". So
> conceptually Budhdhism becomes a branch of Hinduism.
>
If this is true (and you're right I'd be very surprised) then it brings
that particular Buddhist school somewhat nearer but there is still the
matter of atma and Brahman.
> The later Vaishnava acharyas included Buddha as one of the avatars of
> Vishnu, after pulling out "Krishna" from the list and declaring him
> as the Supreme Lord. So thru' that tradition also Budhdhism becomes
> a part of Hinduism.
It's not just the Vaishnavas. All who accept the Puranas and Mahabharata
must accept that Buddha was an avatar of Vishnu Bhagawan. Accepting the
Buddha doesn't mean accepting Buddhism. As I explained in my previous
post, Vishnu Bhagawan became the Buddha to trick the Asuras into giving up
Dharma. By mistake some humans accidently got converted.
>
> And the most recent Acharyas of Hinduism, like Vivekananda, Aurobindo
> etc. proclaimed Budhdhism as a branch of Hinduism. Vishwas Hindu
> Parishad, while defining the word "Hindu", mentioned that all faiths
> which originated in India are "Hindu" and by that Budhdhism, Jainism
> and Sikhism come under Hindu Dharma.
The people you mention are no acharyas at all in my book so their views
don't count for anything.
--
Jaldhar H. Vyas [jaldhar@braincells.com] I will choose.-_|\ free will
Consolidated Braincells Inc. / \
http://www.braincells.com/jaldhar/ -)==Perth=Amboy=>*.--._/ o-
"Witty quote" - Dead Guy v McQ!
