[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: ARTICLE : Just say no to "Hinduism" (was Re: ARTICLE : On

I am replying to all followups to my postings in one message. I hope this
does not inconvenience anyone. I just find it better to look at one thread
rather than 2 - 3 separate ones.

Also, I am starting to get quite busy in school. I will try to continue
with this discussion, but let me first apologize if my replies are tardy
(by say, weeks at a time).

Dhruba Chakravarti <dchakrav@netserv.unmc.edu> wrote in article
<ghenDwuynJ.oL@netcom.com>...
> H. Krishna Susarla (susarla.krishna@tumora.swmed.edu) wrote:
> 
> : 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?"
>  
> Dear Hari Krishnaji:
> 
> Thank you for your response.  You are quite correct in judging what it
> was that saddened me.  I respect your freedom to hold the view that
> Hinduism is an umbrella (I do not think so myself), but I was
> interpreting your comments that you have reiterated again that whoever
> disagreed with your views, are either do not have the benefit of the
> intellectual faculty, or are not honest enough to accept the obvious.
> This is what saddened me.

I never said that "whoever disagreed with my views... do not have the
benefit of intellectual faculty..." What I *did* say was that there are
many who happen to disagree with my views (on this topic of defining
Hinduism) who are ignorant of shaastra. Do you understand the difference?
It is subtle, but important nonethless.

There are some who disagree with me who do so in an intelligent way. I am
not trying to say that all persons who disagree with me are fools.

Furthermore, I must repeat again that I never said anything about persons
disagreeing with me do so because they lack honesty. That was Jaladhar's
accusation. Please do not confuse his comments for mine.

> : 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. 
> 
> You are right about that too.  However, for most of us I presume,
Hinduism
> is the modern name of sanAtana dharma.  If this is acceptable to you,
then

This is not acceptable to me for two reasons:

1) People will still continue to talk about how Hinduism is this or that,
even though they end up saying things which are contradicted by the Gita.
Hindus seem to think that they have freedom to design their own religion,
and as long as they do this in the name of Hinduism, I cannot accept that
Hinduism = sanaatana dharma.

2)  The literal meaning of Hinduism does not allow it to be equated with
sanaatana-dharma. Although one can be a Hindu who practices sanaatana
dharma, it does not follow that all sanaatana dharmists are Hindus or even
vice-versa. The literal meaning of the term Hinduism indicates a religion
which is localized to a particular geography. That fact, combined with the
undisputed historical origins of the term, make it a large leap of faith
for anyone to equate the two.

> I will venture to say that whatever apears to be diverse in Hinduism has
> been included by Sri kR^ishhNa as the one sanAtana dharma in the SBG,
more
> verses that convey this point are SBG 13.24-26.  

Those verses have nothing to do with what you are trying to prove. 13.25
states that some perceive the aatma through meditation (dhyaana), while
others do so by saankhya or karma-yoga. Then the next verse states that
others perceive the aatma through worship (upaasate) and hearing. 

In other words, while several methods are mentioned for self-realization,
this is hardly a ringing endorsement for all paths and faiths. Considering
the fact that each of the methods listed here are strictly defined
elsewhere in the Gita, as well as the fact that a finite number of specific
paths are mentioned, one cannot say that the Gita accepts all religions and
paths. Rather, if one wants to follow the Gita, one has to adopt one of the
processes mentioned in these verses, and do so according to the regulations
mentioned in the Gita itself. 

Actually, it is clear from the Gita itself that all paths are meant to lead
to bhakti-yoga, and that it is bhakti-yoga which actually allows one to get
liberation. More on this later if you are interested. 

> : 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. 
> 
> Sri kR^ishhNa Himself answered this question. In SBG 9.23-24, He
described
> how He accepts them.

No He does not. In 9.23 the Lord states that those who worship other
deities (anya-devataa) worship Him but in a *wrong way* (avidhi-puurvakam).
In fact, in the next verse the Lord confirms that He is the master and
enjoyer of all sacrifices (aham hi sarva-yajnaanaam), not the other devas.
There is nothing here about accepting other forms of worship, other than to
acknowledge that they exist.

Just to drive home the point, let's see what else the Gita has to say about
worship of the devas.

In 10.2, He states that He is the origin of the devas (aham aadir hi
devaanaam). Consequently, the devas are subordinate to Him.

In 7.20 He states that those who worship the devas (anya-devataah.) do so
because their intelligence is stolen by material desires (kaamais tais tair
hr.ta-jn~aanaah.).

In 7.22 He states that even those who worship the demigods get their
benefits from Him alone.

In 7.23 He states that devotees of the demigods are of small intelligence
(alpa-medhasaam). 

Now, Dhruba, these are not very nice things to say about other paths which
are allegedly acceptable. Some would say that Krishna is talking in very
exclusive, and perhaps even insulting terms. Whatever the case, you can
check these translations against Monier-Williams if you wish, but you will
find that they are straightforward translations and not sentimental,
sectarian interpretations.

Therefore, if you want to define Hinduism by what is stated in the
Bhagavad-Gita, you will end up with a religion that is way too exclusive
for the sentiments of the readership of soc.religion.hindu. There is no
evidence that Krishna accepts other paths; quite the contrary is stated.


Pradip Gangopadhyay <pradip@lism.usc.edu> wrote in article
<ghenDwuynt.r4@netcom.com>...
> 
> H. Krishna Susarla <susarla.krishna@tumora.swmed.edu> wrote:
> 
> >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 am a little puzzled by your statement that "Therefore, there are no 
> unifying principles.....". I do not think that such a conclusion is
warranted
> after you yourself mention in the previous line that many of these have
some 
> basis in the Vedas. Surely we can use that as an unifying principle (at
least 
> for those sampradayas which do have some basis in the Vedas).

In my original statement, I stated that many of the religions (many, as in,
not ALL) have *some* basis in the Vedas. So no, this does not contradict
what I have said later about unifying principles. Besides, most groups take
only some portion of the Vedic literatures and ignore the rest, often with
no good reason as to why they do that. Even more insidious, many groups
will take a single scripture (such as the Gita) and ascribe more importance
to specific verses rather than trying to understand the Gita's message by
accepting and commenting on the whole text.

So, once again, there is little in the way of unifying principles for the
various religions which can be grouped under the umbrella term "Hinduism."
There are many nonVedic religions which fall under this classification. I
happen to know that there are Hindus who try to insist that Buddhism and
Sikhism are also part of Hinduism. Vivekananda himself argued for the
former.

> >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 also puzzled by your statement that you find some truth in the 
> statement that Neo-advaitic swamis are trying to "Semitize" the religion.

Right. Let me explain that. Like I said, there are other people who made
that remark, and I both agree and disagree with it. I disagree with it
because I don't see a trend towards forging Hinduism into a religion
revolving around a single deity and a single scripture or set of
scriptures. Rather, what is happening is that the modern-day swamis are
trying to forge a Hindu religion *in the face* of more challenging faiths
like Christianity and Islam which can survive their conversion campaigns.
It is in that sense that I see some truth to the accusation that Hindu
intellectuals are trying to semitize their religion. What is true is that
Hindu swamis are trying are carrying out a program of historical and
religious revisionism in order to claim that Hinduism has always been one,
diverse religion.

> A characteristic of the Semetic religions is the concept of exclusivity.
> An orthodox Christian ,for example, believes that only by following the 
> Christian path can one be saved. The Neo-advaitic Swamis like Vivekananda
> are saying exactly the opposite. They are saying that all the different
> sampradayas like Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Kali worshippers are all equally
> valid paths to God. This is an inclusive approach that is exactly
opposite

Of course, this idea is contradicted by many shaastras such as the
Bhagavad-Gita, which many of these neo-advaitins claim to venerate...

Giri <gmadras@pinto.engr.ucdavis.edu> wrote in article
<504jvn$b0m@news.ececs.uc.edu>...
> "H. Krishna Susarla" <susarla.krishna@tumora.swmed.edu> writes:
> 
> >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
> 
> >-- Krishna Susarla
> 
> Do you mean statements like this ?

Yes.

> Krsna or Christ, The Name Is the Same
>    Christ comes from the Greek word Christos, and Christos is the Greek
>    version of the word Krsna. When an Indian person calls on Krsna, he
>    often says "Krsta." Krsna is a Sanskrit word mean ing the object of
>    attraction."
>    When Jesus said, "Our father, who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy
>    name," that name of God was Krsta or Krsna. "Christ" is simply another
>    way of saying "Krsta," and "Krsta" is another way of pronouncing
>    Krsna.
> 
> Would you say that the above statement was made by a neo-advaitic swami 
> with the best of intentions ? [I am not sure who made the above
statements]
> 
> Giri

No I would not, because I happen to know that the speaker is NOT an
advaitin, nor is he making whimsical changes to shaastra just to put
forward some kind of "new and improved" religion that will appeal to
Western-educated minds.

First of all, the linguistic association of the word Christ with Krishna
has been around for a long time. It was noted by early Indological scholars
who initally thought that Krishna worship came from Christ worship. Later
evidence of course indicated that it was most likely the other way around
(the Megasthanese journal, the Heliodorus Column, etc.). 

Secondly, I do know that the speaker of this article is of the opinion that
Christianity, like Buddhism and Advaita, was a religion taught to uplift
people who were not ready to hear the full understanding of
sanaatana-dharma. He does not claim that Christianity is on the same level
as Krishna-worship, and in fact he explicitly states the opposite in some
cases. Nevertheless, he does indicate that those who properly follow
Christianity would see the logic in, and eventually become, Vaishnavas. Of
course, very few people properly follow that religion (or any religion
these days). 

Third, this is not unheard of in terms of shaastra. There exists a
controversial verse in the Bhavishya Puraana stating that a person (who
sounds very much like Jesus) would appear and teach "mleccha dharma" to
certain groups (as it turns out, they are certain Jewish sects). Now, this
is NOT a ringing endorsement of Christianity per se. It does not say that
Christianity is equal to Vaishnavism. All it does is to give an historical
account of how that religion came into being. Implicit in those statements
is that this "prophet" would instruct fallen persons in the matters of
religion, and thus he would teach them only as much as they were prepared
to understand.

So no, this is not some kind of new interpretation. Nor does it contradict
scripture. It may be that no other school of Vedanta has made the
association or cares for it, but it is there in the Puraana. 

Incidentally, no one really commented on some of the sociopolitical factors
I mentioned as being causative for this formation of a concept of a
Hinduism religion. I take it that I must have struck a nerve when I brought
them up, and that proponents of the "Hinduism is a religion" idea are
unwilling to talk about them. I think it would make for an interesting
discussion.


regards,

-- H. Krishna Susarla
Advertise with us!
This site is part of Dharma Universe LLC websites.
Copyrighted 2009-2015, Dharma Universe.