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

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



GERALD J. LA CORTE <l23@hopi.dtcc.edu> wrote in article
<ghenDy1H3n.2ws@netcom.com>...

> 	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.

Therefore, it is in the best interest of all "Hindus" to educate them.
Simply being smug with the label Hindu is doing us all no good. Hindus
should know better.

> 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.

So you admit then that Hinduism is not a *religion,* but an umbrella term
encompassing several religions. Very good. We are making progress here.

> 	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

Denomination is not a good word. Vaishnavism is not a denomination of
Hinduism in the sense that Baptists are a denomination of Christianity. If
you keep using these words, you are going to be (perhaps unintentionally)
misleading.

Also, I don't think it is correct to label Hanuman, Sita, and Radha as
"saints." They were certainly not mere "saints." They are (note present
tense) exalted devotees of Lord Rama and Lord Krishna. 

> 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?

It is about as accurate as any understanding of Vaishnavism which is sought
from a Hindu who is not a Vaishnava. In other words, it is totally
inaccurate.

> 	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?

This is a bold claim to be making. First of all, you need to get a few
things straight. I know you are not going to like to hear this, but you
have to hear it. The Vedic samhitas are not texts that are meant to be read
by just any spiritual seeker. They can only be properly understood by one
who is austere, disciplined, and trained by a qualified guru (who himself
embodies these qualities). If I may be so bold, I will assert that neither
of us (or indeed, most anyone who reads this group) is qualified to study
these texts.

Therefore, for this age, Vyaasa has compiled the Puraanas and the itihaasa
literatures, which explain the meaning of the Vedas. Thus, if you claim
that the Vedas say one thing, and it is contradicted by the saatvik
puraanas and the itihaasas, then your claim is incorrect.

Now, as for "Vaishnavs selectively reading the Vedas," the answer is no.
Those who understand the Vedas know that there is a portion that is
karma-kanda which deals with fruitive activites. This portion does
prescribe methods of worshiping the demigods for fruitive results, and this
is what Lord Krishna refers to in the Bhagavad-Giitaa Chapter 2 when He
says "trai-gunya-vishaya-veda..." The Vedas contain all knowledge, so
naturally they also contain knowledge for those who are simply interested
in material elevation, hence the worship of other deities.

On the other hand, merely because the Vedas "honor other gods," that does
not in any way contradict the Vaishnava understanding. Vaishnavas do pay
homage to other gods, but they only worship Vishnu for liberation, because
liberation can only be had by unalloyed devotion to Vishnu.

> : 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.

You didn't really answer the question. I am talking about the Vaishnavas,
especially that branch of Vaishnavism of which A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami
Prabhupada is the major exponent. He would always say, quite correctly,
that Hinduism was nothing more than another type of bodily identification.
And if birth in India is a requirement to be a Hindu, then that just
confirms it. If everyone is ultimately a Hindu (once they are liberated
from illusion), then it can be said that Hindu is a spiritual designation.
But if it only applies to some people, then it is a material one. 

I respectfully submit that it is you who are confused about what Hinduism
is and is not. The term Hindu does not occur in the Vedic literatures,
which you use to define the term. Hindu is simply a word that was used to
describe the people living on the other side of the Indus river. It has
sociopolitical connotations, but no clear spiritual ones. 

> : 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.

But the Vedas never speak of Hinduism or Hindus. Thus, you are forging a
definition with no real historical or scriptural basis.

Let me put it to you this way. Can you prove to me that I am a Hindu? I do
consider the Vedic literatures to be the topmost scriptural authority. On
the authority of the Vedas, I understand that humans under illusion are
subject to several defects, and therefore I do not accept any definition or
philosophy as factual unless it is confirmed in the Vedas. Can you prove
that I am a Hindu? 

This is obviously a loaded question, since it requires you to understand
the significance of the statement "I am." What are we? Are ultimately are
bodies or minds? I say this: that I am a spirit soul, and that I have a
body which can be described as Hindu. In my previous lives, I had nonHindu
bodies, and the future I will have non Hindu bodies. Therefore, the term
Hindu does not describe who I am, but rather the body that I am in.
Consequently, it is not the case that any of us are truly Hindus, in the
sense that none of us are our bodies. Do you disagree? 

> 	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.

I suspect that such people may *respect* the scripture but may be ignorant
of it. Respect does not automatically guarantee knowledge. Agni, Indra, and
the other devas are certainly jiivas. They are spirit souls who occupy the
bodies of great demigods, who are in charge of various departments in the
material universe. The demigods themselves worship Vishnu, and if you do
not believe me, just look at the saattvik Puraanas and see for yourself.
Before Vishnu came to Earth as Raama or Krishna, the demigods approached
Him and asked Him to perform this task. Do you think one form of God would
ask another to incarnate on the Earth? The demigods are clearly subordinate
to Vishnu.

It is not enough to respect the scripture (or to claim to respect it). One
has to know the scripture. And one can best know the message of the Vedas
by reading scriptures like Bhagavad-Giitaa.

regards,

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