[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
<ghenDxBv32.47F@netcom.com>...
 
> Sorry, just because that person was famous doesn't make it correct.  It
> sounds like the game played in the song, "... when you rich they think
you
> know it all."  Dhriharastra and Karna were famous - were they right.

Before you unintentionally commit an offense by comparison to famous
villains, you should know that the likely source for the statement is His
Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami. And no one is suggesting that you
believe him because he is famous. I have already pointed out the
etymological association. In any case, it's really not such a big issue, so
I don't care if you do or do not believe it.

> Now that's an entirely different matter.  While I don't know Prabhupada,
I
> believe Sri Ramakrishna was an incarnation of God.  While I don't worship

Mere belief in someone as an avatar does not make him an avatar. As Srila
Prabhupada once put it, you can say you have faith in something, but you
can also have faith in something that is wrong. In the scriptures, each
avatar is described and auspicious signs are associated with each. For
example, it is stated in the Bhaagavatam that when Krishna appeared on the
Earth, all the stars and heavenly bodies immediately rearranged themselves
into the most auspicious configuration. Nowhere to my knowledge is a
ramakrishna avatar described.

[snip]

> It was also mentioned in an earlier post that not all division of
Hinduism
> respect the vedas, puranas, upanishads, or epics or the gods enclosed
> therein.  The writer wanted a "definition" of Hinduism that would include
> these people also.  They specified Buddhist, Jains, and one other group.
> I have never known a Buddhist to call themselves Hindu.  The few Jains I


Well, then you should try telling that to the HSC/VHP/BJP types who insist
that Buddhists and Sikhs are also Hindus. Just look at the Hindu Electronic
Universe and you will find links to such sources of information.

> have known have called themselves Jain and not Hindu also.  IMO, in order
> to be considered Hindu, you must first call yourself Hindu, on the census

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?

> form if nothing else.  Hence, the definition still stands: Hinduism is
the
> faith based upon the vedas, puranas, upanishads, and epic, and their gods
> enclosed therin.  In all reality, how much respect does a Buddhist have

The definition is still unacceptable. If the Vedas have a singular purpose,
as Krishna indicates by the statement vedais ca sarvair aham eva vedyaha,
then is a person still a Hindu who follows the Vedas but comes to another
conclusion? What about tribals? Are they Hindu? What about people who
worship a "Hindu" deity but neither read nor care about what the Vedas say?


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) 

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