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

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


re: the Hinduism of Buddhism, Sikhism, and Jainism
Susarla said,
: Right. That's my point. They don't care to be called Hindu, but still 
: many Hindus want to rubber-stamp them as such.

	I believe I've encountered this point already.  Calling them
Hindu against their will is wrong.  OTOH, I could scream until I'm blue in
the face that I'm Chinese and that wouldn't make me Chinese.
	I've acknowledged a difference between Vaishnavism and Hinduism,
yet most Americans don't realize there is a difference, don't recognize
the difference, and even remain ignorant of any aspects or even the
*existance* of Vaishnav beyond the Hari Krishna organization.

: > : > 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 Vaishnav 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?

Susarla, denomination is a word that I've adopted from English; perhaps
its an incorrect word.  Hinduism should be well known to be a collection
of faiths; perhaps a group of religions.  FBFW, most or all are based on
the Vedas, Puranas, and associated texts.
	In the Vaishnav religion, many have said they worship Vishnu and
all the incarnations of Vishnu.  Hanuman, Sita, and Radha are saints.  In
the Vaishnav denomination of Hinduism, and the rest of Hinduism, Hanuman
is a god while Sita and Radha are aspects of Lakshmi.  In Shaivism,
Krishna becomes a me-too.  Perhaps a better way of saying this is that the
Vaishnav religion worships Vishnu to exclusion of everything else while
the Vaishnav denomination worships Vishnu before everything else.  Would
you consider this accurate?
	I've yet to read a detailed translation of any of the Vedas yet;
I hope to purchase the Rig Veda around Christmas.  Of what I have read of
the Rig Veda, it honors other gods.  In an earlier post, Hindus were
accused of selectively reading the Bhagvad-Gita.  Are Vaishnavs 
selectively reading the Vedas?

: 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?
They're mostly confused as to what Hinduism is and what Hinduism is not.
Then again, by some definitions, a person cannot be Hindu unless they are
born in India.

: 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.

The definition requires that the person in question is honest with
themselves. If the respect the Vedas and associated texts as holy
scripture, then yes, they are Hindu.  Whether or not they choose to call
themselves that, is another matter.
	Perhaps is a double exclusive definition?  One must believe the
Vedas are scripture and they must also call themselves Hindu.  Without
both, I would have difficulty assigning a title to a person.  (Recall,
there was no definition of Hinduism and literally any person born in
greater India could call themselves Hindu.  Then someone complained about
Hinduism being a race or a religion.)
	Then again, some people have a hard time being honest with
themselves.  There are people in the United States who call themselves
Christian, yet, they have never been to a church serive _in_their_entire_
_lives_.
	In the three translation of the Rig Veda I have read, they talked
about Agni, Vayu, Indra, and other gods.  Additionally, most Hindus would
reguard Hanuman as a god.  My question to you is, are they gods or spirits
and saints.  If they are not gods, then does the person in question
respect the Vedas, Puranas, and associated texts as scripture?  Answering
that question honestly should clear up who respects and doesn't respect
the Vedas as scripture and will also clear up who is and is not Hindu.

Bests,

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