 |
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|
It seems to me you are going overboard with this statement. Many people
can find more fault with your contentions than with the official
statement you are reacting to. For example, Sri Vaishnavas have a much
better claim to represent the core traditions of the Vaishnava system of
Vedanta than ISKCON. Secondly, it is quite fallacious to say that
today's Hinduism is loosely based on the Vaishnava system of Vedanta.
Let me try a little dualistic logic with respect to your statements.
Either "Hinduism" exists or it does not. If it does not exist, the
question of its being "loosely based" upon something else does not
arise. So, you have to assume that Hinduism exists, to even say that it
is loosely based upon something. Which directly contradicts your
following statement:
> After all, there is no "Hindu faith" to speak of, and it
There might well be. You don't have to conform to one set of strictly
defined rules to be a Hindu, but don't let that fool you into thinking
that it doesn't exist. Also, do not underestimate the importance of
non-Vaishnava groups and non-Vaishnava Vedanta for Hinduism. For that
matter, for most Hindus, Vedanta barely touches their lives. When you
call upon Agni, Vayu, Indra, Varuna and Mitra in your naming ceremony
for a child, initiation ceremonies, weddings, pregnancies and funerals,
you can hardly classify that as monotheistic Vaishnavism or as Vedanta
or both. Hinduism, such as it exists, is firmly based upon ritualistic
practice on the one hand, which has little to do with Vedanta, and upon
mythology on the other hand, which has even less to do with Vedanta.
> seems to me that the devotee who wrote this statement was being unusually
> generous in attributing the regulative principles of 1) no meat eating, 2)
> no illicit sex, 3) no intoxication, and 4) no gambling to any sort of
> "Hindu faith." As the facts of the matter will plainly show, there are all
> too many Hindu spiritual leaders who engage in the above activities (some
> in the name of religion, like slaughtering goats for a Kali puja) and still
> fanatically assert that they are Hindus. Furthermore, there is no mention
> in the Vedas of any "Hindu faith."
Nor is there any specific mention in the Vedas of ISKCON or of Gaudiya
Vaishnavism or of Sri Vaishnavism or of Saivism or any of the other isms
you might want to replace the word "Hinduism" with. Nor will you find
the word "Christian faith" in the original Aramaic and Hebrew Bibles.
That does not mean that the "Christian faith" does not exist. And see
how many sub-groups there are among the Christians, mutually disagreeing
with one another - Catholics, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Baptists,
Christian Scientists, Mormons, ....
It is fine if you are uncomfortable with the blanket term Hindu to
designate widely disparate groups. But think carefully before you deny
that any such thing as Hinduism even exists.
S. Vidyasankar
|
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|