[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
ARTICLE : Just say no to "Hinduism" (was Re: ARTICLE : On attempting to define Hinduism)
-
Subject: ARTICLE : Just say no to "Hinduism" (was Re: ARTICLE : On attempting to define Hinduism)
-
From: "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <jaldhar@braincells.com>
-
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 01:51:50 GMT
-
Apparently-To: soc-religion-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Newsgroups: soc.religion.hindu
-
Organization: Consolidated Braincells Inc.
Well actually we needn't get rid of the term completely. Hinduism is a
little useful as a general term for the various religions that claim to be
based on Vedic thought. But the "Hinduism" expressed in a recent article
by Ashok Chowgule
> ...one who knows very little of the Hindu scriptures.
should be implacably opposed by all Dharmik people. This is my first
criticism of "Hinduism" that its proponents are ignorant.
My second is that when they do somehow manage to quote a shastra, they
wilfully get it wrong.
> 2 The Hindu philosophy can be best explained in the
> following manner:
>
> EKAM SAT VIPRAH BAHUDDA VADANTI
>
> Swami Vivekanand translated this to his American audience
> as "God is one, sages call him variously".
Vivekanand was no scholar either in the Western or the traditional sense.
This translation is wrong.
Vipra while literally meaning wise man is used throughout thousands of
years of Sanskrt literature as a synonym for Brahman. Any dictionary will
tell you Brahman is the primary meaning of the word but "God is one, the
Brahmans call him variously" doesn't sound sufficiently progressive so the
meaning is twisted to something more suitable.
> However, SAT
> is translated by some to mean the Truth.
> Essentially,
> SAT refers to an ideal concept and not to an animate ob-
> ject.
Do none of these "intellectuals" own a dictionary? The word Sat means
Being or if you like God. Truth as a noun is satya not sat. This is my
third criticism of Modern Hindus. For people who claim to be
intellectuals they show a stunning lack of intellect.
> Thus, Hinduism says that man has made God in
> his own image, and not God has mad man in his image.
QED. This is a leap of logic which should embarrass anyone who claims to
be an intellectual.
> Shiva, Vishnu and Brahma are never referred to as sons of
> God, or even prophets. They never claim that they are
> passing on the message of God to the people.
Here is another vacuous statement. For the Ishvarvadi (theistic) schools
which account for the vast mass of practising Hindus today, Shiva Bhagavan
or Vishnu Bhagavan _are_ God. So whether they claim to be prophets or
sons or whatever is completely irrelevant. Even for non-theistic schools
the idea that the Veda is not "the message of God" doesn't in any way
allow permissiveness. The orthodox Mimamsaka view (also accepted by all
Vedantins) is that the Shruti and Smrti is stringently binding on
everyone.
> 12 The second question is: "Since there is no central
> scripture in Hinduism (for example Islam has the Koran)
> how does one determine the basic philosophy of Hinduism?
> And what if two scriptures say different things, how
> does not determine which scripture takes precedence?"
Any answer to this question is bogus because the question itself makes the
incorrect a priori assuption that Hinduism is one thing. It is a
collection of religions which most certainly do have central scriptures
and methods of interpreting them.
> 15 The fourth question is, "What is the general Hindu
> position on meat eating?" Here again, it is for the in-
> dividual to decide what is good for oneself. The Kashmiri Pandits,
who are Brahmins, eat meat. The > Saraswat Brahmins, who live mainly
on the west coast, eat fish.
And the Gujarati Brahmans such as my self are staunch vegetarians. Am I
going to be tolerant and allow a Kashmiri Pandit to eat fish in my house?
Hell no! Chowgules commitment to his a priori view on Hinduism blinds him
to what should be obvious to everyone. The Kashmiri and I practice two
seperate religions. Eating some kinds of meat is permissable in his but
forbidden in mine. Our religions may overlap elsewhere, but here there is
an unbridgeable gulf.
One could go on but the entire article is riddled with errors. Which is a
crying shame because there _is_ a need for Hindu intellectuals.
Unfortunately Chowgule falls far short of the mark. To repeat my
criticisms, people of his ilk are ignorant, duplicitous, and incoherent.
Just say no to their misbegotten ideologies.
--
Jaldhar H. Vyas [jaldhar@braincells.com] o- beable .-_|\
Consolidated Braincells Inc. / \
http://www.braincells.com/jaldhar/ Perth Amboy-> *.--._/
"Witty quote" - Dead Guy finger me for PGP key v McQ!
