[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : Just say no to "Hinduism" (was Re: ARTICLE : On
On Wed, 11 Sep 1996 21:26:06 GMT, l23@hopi.dtcc.edu (GERALD J. LA CORTE)
wrote:
>if the Buddhist, Jain, or other people don't call
>themselves Hindu, it is equal to calling Christianity and Islam
>denominations of Judaism.
There is a different between them. Buddhism was a reaction to the Hindu
Brahmin classification, which made Hinduism a very discriminative religion.
Brahmans had all the powers and the untouchables were dirts. Buddhism
denied the existence of any God. That meant no Brahma, and so no Brahmans.
That appealed to the majority of Hindus and many other oppressed people.
That is why Buddhism become distinct from Hinduism. It, however, was a
reaction to Hinduism.
Janis and other religions in India (even Sikhs, and other related branches
to Islam) are evolved because there was new philosophies that it could not
be explained with Hinduism alone. They incorporated it into Hinduism.
However, by doing that they themselves became unique.
Christianity and Islam are different as they are a completely new
Revelations and are separated from Judaism. They each stand alone without
acknowledging Judaism. These other religions in india can not do that.
They all have their roots grounded in Hinduism. Hinduism is a Mystical
Religion (the Goal is to become One with God). These other religions have
similar Goals. They may call Goal different thing, but the process is
similar.
>: > 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?
This still does not change the fact that these other religions have their
roots in Hinduism.
>: 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.
Hinduism is not a collection of faiths. It is a religion with different
paths which strive to reach the same Goal, Oneness with God. This is also
true for Kabala in Jewish religion, Saints in Christianity and sufism in
Islam. These all striving to be One with God. To get in touch with Him
directly. Different paths, leading to the same place. I call them
Mystical paths instead of a single religion. The Mystical paths
(individual quest to reach God Directly) is the Spirit of all Religions.
Religions are founded by people who have had a Mystical (direct) Experience
with God. Therefor Mystical paths are the beginning of Spiritual journey.
They are the Spirit of all Religions.
That is also the reason that after you become familiar with these paths,
such as Hinduism, then you understand your religion in deeper level. They
are the deeper meaning of the base the main religions.
>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
Maybe definition above bring a new direction to this discussion!!???
-Joseph (maitreya@worldnet.att.net)
One God, One World, One Humanity
Unity Of All Under One God
For more information send me an email
