[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : About Hinduism
In article <ghenDwECFI.63D@netcom.com>,
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar@braincells.com> wrote:
>At the level of ideology, there are three fundamental differences
>traditionally expressed as three questions. Those philosophies who answer
>asti ("it is so") to all three are generally grouped together as
>"Hinduism." Those who say nasti ("it is not so") to one or more are
>considered outside the pale.
While I agree with you in principle, I should point out what might be
termed as "conventional vidhya," or, perhaps closer to reality,
"conventional avidhya". I assume what I'm about to say is nothing new
to you, but it might be for some, and it should be mentioned for the
sake of completeness.
The view of the Nastikas and their relation to Hinduism has changed
quite a bit over time, so much so that yesterday's atheists are
today's "Nastika Hindus". Seems strange, to be sure, but then again,
Hinduism has changed so much over the past few centuries that it's
hard to say what is strange and what's not.
I know you mentioned Buddha here, and this is a prime example. Is
Buddha a Hindu? Many Buddhist would argue definitely not, since Buddha
stood against everything in traditional Hinduism. Some state that
Buddha was sent specifically to cause confusion and should be
respected, but not followed. Others, however, believe that Buddhism is
an integral part of Hinduism and that Buddha was a Hindu.
>The sustained attacks of astika thinkers like Shankaracharya
>and Udayanacharya from the sixth century onwards plus the withdrawal of
>Royal patronage had already put Budhism on the decline and the Muslim
>invasions finally finished it off.
Of course, some argue that there were other (social) reasons for the
ultimate decline of Buddhism, and this isn't too amazing. After all,
the Puritans did once have power in the US.
-Vivek
