[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re : Erwin Scroedinger and hinduism
Vivek wrote:
> In article <4ebl2l$sir@babbage.ece.uc.edu>, Sankar Jayanarayanan <kartik@Eng.Auburn.EDU> writes:
> [...]
> |> > The Hare Krishnas handsomely satisfy both 1) and 2) above (substitute
> |> > Dvaita for Advaita), yet many of them will tell you that they aren't
> |> > Hindu.
> |>
> |> "hindu" in the sense of "tradition" and not of religion...
> |> btw, you still haven't given me the(your) definition of "hindu", and yet
> |> you have refuted so many of my claims. I'll tell you what I(personally) mean by
> |> the term "hindu"-
> |>
> |> 1) Culturally- People who are born and/or brought up in India.
> |> 2) Religiously- People who believe in the Vedas.
> |>
> |> Primarily, since this is a religious news-group, I think we ought to
> |> take the second(religious) matter much more seriously than the cultural one.
> |> After all, this news-group does have the term "religion" in it, and I do
> |> see several postings by the Hare-Krishnas, who by your words,
> |> " handsomely satisfy both 1) and 2) above (substitute
> |> Dvaita for Advaita), yet many of them will tell you that they aren't
> |> Hindu."
> |> Can you tell me what these people are doing in this news-group?
>
> There are a few thing I'd like to point out in the above reasoning:
>
> a) the original poster (Rajan Parrikar, I believe), correctly used
> the term "many", where he says "yet many of them..." There are
> Hare Krishnas who will most definitely tell you that they are
> Hindus. I don't see any contradiction there. Your statement
> seems to make the assumption that all Hare Krishnas are not
> Hindus, and this is, of course, false.
>
Can you tell me how some may be and others may not be hindu? Again, you've said
that there are others who consider themselves hindu. By what definition? Why?
> b) the question of "what are these people doing in this news group"
> should have an obvious explanation. Anyone, regardless of whether
> they are Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Atheist, or a Barfing-Yakker,
> should be permitted to post to the Hindu newsgroup so long as the
> post is on-topic.
>
agreed...:-) I just wanted to point out the fact that the number of
Hare-Krishnas in the ah are quite high, and yet when you say that
"many" don't consider themselves hindu, I'm really tempted to ask,
"by what definition" ? I'm NOT trying to overdo the "definition" stuff,
but note that I still have not got a reply as to why the Hare-Krishas
are NOT hindu.
> [...]
> |> and had a look at the alt.hindu archives . I went to the
> |> March section of the archives and discovered several articles by a guy
> |> called Nathan Parker. I suppose he's a Hare-Krishna, who, by your definition,
> |> should not be considered a hindu. What was he doing in the alt.hindu???
>
> a) it's not clear to me by what definition said person is not a Hindu
you haven't given me the definition by which he is a hindu.
I think I must say what I meant by "definition" there. I'll quote this
-------------------------
>
> Do you consider Adi Sankara to be a Hindu? If so, why?
Yes, since he was born and grew up in the land that was considered to
be that of the Hindus, since he identified with the prevailing Hindu
cultural and religious ethos.
-------------------------------------
I must point out that if the idea of "hindu" is "he was brought
up in the land that was considered that of hindus", this idea
is thoroughly flawed because in order to establish Adi Sankara as a hindu,
Rajan uses word "hindu" (the land of the "hindus").Which is circular: because he
still hasn't told me what the "hindu" land is and WHY it is a "hindu" land.
Is it because it is derived from the river "Sindhu"? Then Adi Sankara was
born & brought up thousands of miles away from that land...;-)
Moreover, he says "religious and cultural ethos" of the hindus.
What is the "religious" and "cultural" ethos that he is talking about?
That of the "hindus".
Who are the "hindus"?
The people who identify themselves with that "religious and cultural ethos".
Who identifies with that "religious and cultural ethos" ?
The hindus.
Who are the "hindus"?....
I was just trying to get a definition which would not use the word "hindu"
in itself and hence be recursive.
> b) the "what was he doing" question is answered above.
>
ok...:-)
-Kartik
