[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : Just say no to "Hinduism" (was Re: ARTICLE : On
GERALD J. LA CORTE wrote:
> 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.
I remain curious as ever, to see if any such information on his
alleged divinity exists...
> : 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.
Right. That's my point. They don't care to be called Hindu, but still
many Hindus want to rubber-stamp them as such.
> : > 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.
First of all this argument is flawed because it assumes that Hinduism
is a religion that has denominations. It most certainly is not. On the
other hand, I don't know who you would consider to be a Vaishnava
denomination of Hinduism and who to be different from Hindu. The fact
that you can make such a distinction suggests that you must know what
"Hindu" means in order say who is and is not Hindu. You defined Hindu
as those who follow the Vedic literatures. Accepting that for the
moment, who are those Vaishnavas who do not follow the Vedas and are
thus not to be considered Hindu?
Also, I must point out that you have contradicted yourself. You said
that to call someone a Hindu, he has to first claim to be Hindu. But
you also said that a Hindu is one who follows the Vedas, Upanishads,
etc. So, what about people who follow the Vedic literatures but don't
care to be described by the term Hindu? Should they be forced to
identify themselves as such? If you say yes, then you contradict
yourself regarding the freedom to identify as Hindu. But if you say
no, then you are still left with a contradictory definition of the
term Hindu.
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.)
Well, I never had any difficulty. But then, that might also be because
the philosophy I try to practice makes a lot of sense from a
philosophical and practical standpoint, and is not given to
unreasonable assumptions or flights of fancy (like claiming that we
are all God). So, I don't agree that one should use the term Hinduism
to avoid a more detailed explanation. Far better to educate others.
>
> : 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.
Religion is certainly a better word than faith, because the etymology
of the word suggests reuniting with the Supreme. Faith, on the other
hand, can be anything. Faith does not necessarily mean religion, in
the literal sense of the word religion.
> 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?"
regards,
-- Krishna
