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

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

H. Krishna Susarla (susarla.krishna@tumora.swmed.edu) wrote:

: > However, for most of us I presume, Hinduism is the modern name of
: > sanAtana dharma.  

: This is not acceptable to me for two reasons:

: 1) People will still continue to talk about how Hinduism is this or that,
: even though they end up saying things which are contradicted by the Gita.
: Hindus seem to think that they have freedom to design their own religion,
: and as long as they do this in the name of Hinduism, I cannot accept that
: Hinduism = sanaatana dharma.

: 2)  The literal meaning of Hinduism does not allow it to be equated with
: sanaatana-dharma. Although one can be a Hindu who practices sanaatana
: dharma, it does not follow that all sanaatana dharmists are Hindus or even
: vice-versa. The literal meaning of the term Hinduism indicates a religion
: which is localized to a particular geography. That fact, combined with the
: undisputed historical origins of the term, make it a large leap of faith
: for anyone to equate the two.

: > I will venture to say that whatever apears to be diverse in Hinduism has
: > been included by Sri kR^ishhNa as the one sanAtana dharma in the SBG,
: > more verses that convey this point are SBG 13.24-26.  

: Those verses have nothing to do with what you are trying to prove. 13.25
: states that some perceive the aatma through meditation (dhyaana), while
: others do so by saankhya or karma-yoga. Then the next verse states that
: others perceive the aatma through worship (upaasate) and hearing. 

: In other words, while several methods are mentioned for self-realization,
: this is hardly a ringing endorsement for all paths and faiths. Considering
: the fact that each of the methods listed here are strictly defined
: elsewhere in the Gita, as well as the fact that a finite number of specific
: paths are mentioned, one cannot say that the Gita accepts all religions and
: paths. Rather, if one wants to follow the Gita, one has to adopt one of the
: processes mentioned in these verses, and do so according to the regulations
: mentioned in the Gita itself. 

: Actually, it is clear from the Gita itself that all paths are meant to lead
: to bhakti-yoga, and that it is bhakti-yoga which actually allows one to get
: liberation. More on this later if you are interested. 

: > : There are many Hindus who don't care for Krishna or His opinions, and
: > : even more who only think they do. Consequently, if you want to say that
: > : they are not Hindu, you will likely exclude a good majority of the
: > : readership of this very newsgroup. 
: > 
: > Sri kR^ishhNa Himself answered this question. In SBG 9.23-24, He
: > described how He accepts them.

: No He does not. In 9.23 the Lord states that those who worship other
: deities (anya-devataa) worship Him but in a *wrong way* (avidhi-puurvakam).
: In fact, in the next verse the Lord confirms that He is the master and
: enjoyer of all sacrifices (aham hi sarva-yajnaanaam), not the other devas.
: There is nothing here about accepting other forms of worship, other than to
: acknowledge that they exist.

: Just to drive home the point, let's see what else the Gita has to say about
: worship of the devas.

: In 10.2, He states that He is the origin of the devas (aham aadir hi
: devaanaam). Consequently, the devas are subordinate to Him.

: In 7.20 He states that those who worship the devas (anya-devataah.) do so
: because their intelligence is stolen by material desires (kaamais tais tair
: hr.ta-jn~aanaah.).

: In 7.22 He states that even those who worship the demigods get their
: benefits from Him alone.

: In 7.23 He states that devotees of the demigods are of small intelligence
: (alpa-medhasaam). 

: Now, Dhruba, these are not very nice things to say about other paths which
: are allegedly acceptable. Some would say that Krishna is talking in very
: exclusive, and perhaps even insulting terms. Whatever the case, you can
: check these translations against Monier-Williams if you wish, but you will
: find that they are straightforward translations and not sentimental,
: sectarian interpretations.

: Therefore, if you want to define Hinduism by what is stated in the
: Bhagavad-Gita, you will end up with a religion that is way too exclusive
: for the sentiments of the readership of soc.religion.hindu. There is no
: evidence that Krishna accepts other paths; quite the contrary is stated.

Dear Hari Krishnaji:

Thank you for sharing your views (although I should say that I am not
surprised by them).  I know why you say that and I do not accept
that Sri KR^ishhNa taught an exclusive religion, but out of regard to
Srila prabhupAda, I will not get into a pointless agrument over
translation.

However, I would like to ask you about your views about 'what constitues
avidhi-purvakaM', who were 'the anya-devatA' the He mentioned here.

With best regards,

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