[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : Just say no ...
GERALD J. LA CORTE <l23@hopi.dtcc.edu> wrote in article
<ghenDx64EF.138@netcom.com>...
> Greetings all,
>
> As an American, again I feel awkward replying to this commentary.
Why? Being American has nothing to do with real religion, which is
transcendental to all bodily designations. Speak without fear, but speak on
the basis of authority.
> While we know Santana Dharma is a collection of faiths, most Americans
and
Sanaatana Dharma is not a "collection of faiths." Its very name implies
otherwise. While there are many faiths whose practitioners would claim to
be sanaatana dharma, what actually is and is not sanaatana dharma is a
different matter.
> I think most non-Indians do not. For that purpose, and that purpose
only,
> Hinduism is a convenient title. To the American mind, Vaishnavism,
> Shaivism, Vedanta, and all the other "faiths" are merely denonminations
of
> Hinduism.
And that is a misconception. It is like saying that Islam, Judaism, and
Christianity are denominations of Jordanism. After all, these Semitic
faiths developed around the river Jordan, so why not lump them together
under one religion called Jordanism?
> I am a yogi. If I tell that to an American, they think I practice
various
> asanas and have no idea what yoga has to do with religion; their
> confusion remains even if I say I practice one of the meditative yogas.
> This is why if I'm asked what religion I have, I reply mostly Hindu.
In my opinion, you are on extremely thin ice by doing that. After all, if I
tell people I am a Hindu, they often think I am into monism, or that I
believe in a particular cult guru who does magic tricks, etc. Furthermore,
as I have already pointed out, there seems to be a prevailing attitude
among Hindus who have little or no knowledge of shaastra to define what
Hinduism is and is not. Do you really want people with different beliefs
than your own speaking on your behalf?
> In reality, there are only two Frequently Asked Questions FAQs here: what
> is the significance of a bindi / talik and what is Hinduism. In a short
> answer, Hinduism is any of the collection of faiths which are based upon
> the vedas, puranas, upanishads, and epics, and include any of the
deities,
> avatars, "versions of God" included therein.
Unacceptable definition. This clearly excludes Buddhists, Sikhs, and Jains,
who do not accept the Vedic literatures (many HSC types would desire to
include them as Hindus). Then again, the Buddhists have their own versions
of some of the Puraanic stories, and that brings to mind just what is and
is not considered a bona fide Veda.
What about people who do not accept the Vedas like village or tribal
Hindus? What about people who claim to accept the Vedas but speak that
which is in contradiction to the shaastra? What about those who think the
Vedas are just compilations of mundane, human authors, but who nevertheless
can be seen at "Hindu" temples? What about those who claim to follow the
Vedas, but eat meat, drink alcohol, or smoke cigarettes? What about those
who claim to follow the Veda but try to create a syncretic faith between
its philosophy and that of say, Islam or Christianity?
What about Vedic atheists?
Even more importantly, what about those who insist that there is a
hierarchy of dieties, and that different results are obtained from
different types of worship? What about those who don't accept all
religions?
> All that I'm really saying is that non-Dharmists do not understand that
> the Way of Dharma is actually a collection of faiths.
I should point out that this is a contradiction.
It is convenient
> using the term Hindu only with non-Hindus. The two times I have been
That is true, but I would argue that that is only due to historical usage.
If everyone were to simply be more specific about their belief systems,
then the "non-Hindus" would benefit greatly from the education. As it is,
for them to think of Hinduism as a single religion is a misconception.
regards,
-- Krishna
