 |
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|
: I would like to make an observation, and see what others have to say
: regarding that observation.
: Previous to the British colonization, and other factors, there was no
: such thing as a religion refered to as "Hindu-ism", in fact, looking
: at the word "Hindu-ism", is like saying "Negro-ism" or "Anglo-ism" or
: "Italian-ism".
Yes. You are right. However, the term "Hindu" was indeed
in vogue. The "ism" got added later on.
: Correct me if I am wrong, however it seems to me that the common
: thread of the Vedas flows through all Indian Religion and Religious
: Practice, yet like Truth Her/His/It-Self manifests in many forms.
Almost all of Indian traditions. Some traditions, although
reject the Vedic source, still allude to a lot of principles,
that can be found in Vedas. Some of these being:
The idea of Karma
The idea of rebirth
The idea as to who Karma influences your rebirth.
: I know that I may be stepping on some toes, and I certainly don't wish
: to offend anyone at all, however, there are certain groups and
: individuals that have fostered these "isms" within Dharma.
: I happen to be a "white-skinned" American, and I find it amusing that
: many Indians have the notion that only those born into "Hindu-'ism'"
: are "truly 'Hindu's'" (whatever that is supposed to mean".
That is true. A lot of Indians think that you have to
take birth as a Hindu. There is an element of truth in
it. But then, imo, it is not 100% true. I will try to
explain that.
a) A lot of Hindu traditions, are wedded to culture. The
way you act, the way you react when an elder talks to you,
the way you chose a life partner. In these aspects, the
birth factor is indeed influential.
b) But then, there are some other issues. The "shreyas" part.
By "shreyas" I imply whatever is desirable, not not what
we actually desire. When you read Indian scriptures, with
a view to explore as to what is desirable, then you realize
that the message is indeed and truly universal. So, anyone
who aims to achieve and acquire the "shreyas" by definition
becomes a Hindu, irrespective of his/her cultural mores.
c) But then, there is another side to it too. It is argued,.
that their are certain cultural mores, that aid one in
reaching the goals, as prescribed in the Indian scriptures.
And to acquire these cultural mores, you need to have
been raised in a certain way. For instance, if you worship
a river **sincerely** the chances that you will conciously
pollute it is very less. And the habit of worshipping a
river, can be either acquired thru tradition, or has to
be re_invented.
d) So, the arguments indeed follow a cyclic pattern. But
nevertheless, one must realize, that the core of Hindu_ism
is essentially universal. In that sense, no one has monopoly
on anything. The Vedas, themselves say that they are
eternal. That they are lost and rediscovered, again and
again. And no one gets the credit for "writing" them for
the first time.
: When I read Upanisads, Vedas , I see none of the ludicrous and
: obnoxious behavior.
True.
: The One Reality, if She/He not only pervades everything, but IS
: everyThing and everyMoment, than how could a person possibly accept
: Caste, Race, etc. as some sort of ruler to measure individuals by?
100% true.
But then, practicing and preaching have rarely gone together.
: Even being very familiar with proper behavior and customs, when I have
: gone into a "Hindu" temple, I am generally treated as strange, even
: "untouchable", like because of my skin I don't belong there. I find
: this very sad.
I am not sure about the untouchable part, but yes, it
does appear to be strange. One reason for that being
that very few nonIndians actually profess Hindu principles.
People have still not gotten used to seeing a white
man, worshipping in a Hindu way.
-- Nachiketa Tiwari
|
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|