[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : Just say no to "Hinduism" (was Re: ARTICLE : On
Dhruba Chakravarti <dchakrav@netserv.unmc.edu> wrote in article
<ghenDwqLwr.Bo2@netcom.com>...
> H. Krishna Susarla (susarla.krishna@tumora.swmed.edu) wrote:
>
> Dear Hari Krishnaji:
>
> I was saddened to read your thoughts about our society. You seem to think
> that we are a society that is bereft of the honesty to call ourselves
what
> truly you think we are. I strongly disagree to your these views. It is
Dear Dhrubagaaru,
I frankly do not understand the above statement, and I will not do you the
disservice of interpreting your words for you. Who, praytell, is "we" in
this case? Even more important, what do I truly think "we are?"
I don't recall mentioning lack of honesty in my reply in this article. I
believe it was Jaladhar who used the term "duplicitous" to describe the
author of the original article. I only pointed out that the author was
ignorant of shaastra, and he himself admitted that. I also pointed out
repeatedly in my original reply that the author's article raised a lot of
uncomfortable questions which are not so easily answered.
I have no idea how anything I wrote could sadden you or give you cause for
disagreement. Perhaps you would be so kind as to be more specific?
> entirely possible, even perhaps appropriate to debate your observation,
> but I would for now, refer you to what Sri KR^ishhNa Himself said in the
> SBG (12.2-9).
Having read those verses before, and having done so again just now, I am
afraid I do not see their relevance to this discussion. Nowhere in those
verses is the term Hindu mentioned, what to speak of defined.
> If I may say so, I choose to go by His opinion.
Then that is to your credit. A true devotee of the Lord follows Lord
Krishna's opinions, and not the opinions of some mere mortal. However, if
there is indeed a relationship between following Lord Krishna's opinions
and Hinduism, I would like to know where that is described. There are many
Hindus who don't care for Krishna or His opinions, and even more who only
think they do. Consequently, if you want to say that they are not Hindu,
you will likely exclude a good majority of the readership of this very
newsgroup.
I want to address your initial remarks again. You said, "I was saddened to
read your thoughts about our society." If the thoughts are accurate, then
the only cause for sadness you would have is to not do anything about the
problem. We can't run away from our problems by hiding them. It is a fact
that most Hindus don't know a whole lot about scripture, and they have very
little discrimination in distinguishing a genuine sadhu from a false one.
Furthermore, they rally around imaginary concepts of what Hinduism is and
is not, all the while thinking that this is religion. And this concept of
Hinduism is used to shout down any and all who do not agree (witness some
of the fighting regarding the SRH reorg, for example).
I continue to hold that Hinduism is not a religion, but an umbrella term
encompassing various religions, many of which have some basis in the Vedas.
Therefore, there are no unifying principles that bind these religions
together other than perhaps the fact that they all flourished in the Indian
subcontinent at one time or another. Does this sadden you?
I also hold that there has been a trend in the last few hundred years for
Hindu intellectuals (mostly Neo-advaitic swamis who were educated in the
Western tradition) to redefine Hinduism as an amorphous, permissive
religion rather than a cultural, umbrella term which is what it really is.
These swamis may have the best of intentions, but that does not make them
any more correct. In my opinion, it is not hard to see some of the
different kinds of motivations that affect their thinking. Some scholars
even think that this class of intellectuals are trying to "Semitize" the
religion. While I think that remark is not entirely correct, there is
nevertheless some truth to it.
I am looking forward to an interesting discussion on this topic.
regards,
-- Krishna Susarla
