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

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

Krishna,

: Mere belief in someone as an avatar does not make him an avatar. As Srila
: Prabhupada once put it, you can say you have faith in something, but you
: can also have faith in something that is wrong.
Your very statement of this proves that we have more in common than any of
us thought.

re: the appearance of avatars being associated with auspicious signs
Not being a devoutee of Ramakrishna, I have no information.  In any case,
the Ramakrishna Order would have much more information than I could ever
hope to accumulate.

: > It was also mentioned in an earlier post that not all division of 
: > Hinduism respect the vedas, puranas, upanishads, or epics or the gods
: > enclosed therein.  The writer wanted a "definition" of Hinduism that
: > would include these people also.
: Well, then you should try telling that to the HSC/VHP/BJP types who insist
: that Buddhists and Sikhs are also Hindus. Just look at the Hindu Electronic
: Universe and you will find links to such sources of information.
I do not deny that all these religions came from Hindu ancentry, saying
that would be equal to saying the world is flat.  Perhaps I am incorrect;
all of the Buddhists I have known were of East Asian descent, and I have
met fewer than half-a-dozen Jains and Sikhs.  But all of the Buddhists,
Jains, and Sikhs I have known wanted to be known as their group, not
Hindu.
If there are Buddhists or Jains or Sikhs who call themselves Hindu, then I
stand corrected.  OTOH, if the Buddhist, Jain, or other people don't call
themselves Hindu, it is equal to calling Christianity and Islam
denominations of Judaism.

: > to be considered Hindu, you must first call yourself Hindu
: So, you agree that no one should be forced to call themselves Hindu? If I
: disagree with being described by the term, then that is my right, is it
: not?
OH MY GOODNESS, by all means no!  I distinctly recognize both a Vaishnav
denomination of Hinduism and a separate Vishnav religion - and there are
differences between the two.  OTOH, describing the differences to a person
not familiar with Indian religions would be difficult.  (I'm recalling a
conversation I had with a Jehovah's Witness.  Naturally, he asked my
religion.  When I told him I was a yogi, he asked how many gods I had.
<chuckle>  Someone in their group had written a description of all of the 
religions in the world which was somehow adequate, yet fit in fifteen
pages.  Needless to say, the writer had included yoga as a religion.)

: > hence, the definition still stands: Hinduism is the faith based upon
: > the vedas, puranas, upanishads, and epics, and their gods enclosed
: > therin.
: The definition is still unacceptable. If the Vedas have a singular purpose,
: as Krishna indicates by the statement vedais ca sarvair aham eva vedyaha,
: then is a person still a Hindu who follows the Vedas but comes to another
: conclusion? What about tribals? Are they Hindu? What about people who
: worship a "Hindu" deity but neither read nor care about what the Vedas say?

: I noticed that in contrast to your earlier statement, you now describe
: Hinduism as a singular faith. To call it a single faith while conceding
: that different groups worship different deities is self-contradictory. It
: is a collection of faiths, perhaps. Therefore, how can you call a
: collection of faiths a religion? (I disagree with the word "faith" here,
: but I will leave that aside for now) 

Faith is the wrong word.  Unfortunately, the best that English has is
religion and collection of faiths.  I don't like defining a religion using
the word religion.  And collection of faiths, although more accurate,
still seems vague.

Although there have been vehement protests to the above definition, I've
yet to hear another.  Perhaps this portion of the conversation could be
continued under a new thread, "What is Hinduism?"

Bests,

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