Sarva gattah Posted December 28, 2007 Report Share Posted December 28, 2007 I really do not like that word Hinduism. Devotees of Krishna are NOT 'Hindu' Historically the word Hindu comes from the invaders who invaded India, most recently the Muslims in the 7th Century. They could not pronounce the word Indus, referring to the river and it eventually became Hindus the Hindu. This word is not found in Sanskrit. The religious name for the followers of Krishna consciousness is Sanatan Dharm “Sanatan” means original, universal, eternal and is used as “Sanatan Dharm”, the ancient name for those who follow the eternal Vedas and worship Krishna and Vishnu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted December 28, 2007 Report Share Posted December 28, 2007 Agreed. It is a term so laden with a confusing mish mash of beliefs and traditions as to be meaningless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suchandra Posted December 28, 2007 Report Share Posted December 28, 2007 I really do not like that word Hinduism. Devotees of Krishna are NOT 'Hindu' Historically the word Hindu comes from the invaders who invaded India, most recently the Muslims in the 7th Century. They could not pronounce the word Indus, referring to the river and it eventually became Hindus the Hindu. This word is not found in Sanskrit. The religious name for the followers of Krishna consciousness is Sanatan Dharm “Sanatan” means original, universal, eternal and is used as “Sanatan Dharm”, the ancient name for those who follow the eternal Vedas and worship Krishna and Vishnu Looks like some people consider Hindu as a spiritual term as it comes along in the Sindhi translation of “Song of the Sindhu Hindu”. Assal mein yeh geet Karkarta Shri Bharat Ji, Sindhyon ke barre abe ne san 5000 B.C, mein Sindhu Nadi ke kinaree par utpan kiya thaa. SONG "Our desires have grown immeasurable. But they should be desires to give, not merely to receive, to accept and not to reject; to honour and respect, not to deny or belittle... Hamari tamnaaein hada ke bahar barh gaee hain. Parantu weh dene kee honee chaahiye, na sirf lene kee, sweekar karne kee, na thukraane kee, maan ijjaz dene kee, na kee manaa karne kee ya kisko neecha dikhaane kee. "God’s gracious purpose includes all human beings and all creation_ Parmaatma kee kirpa sab praaniyon aur saaree jagat par hai. "For God is the Creator; and God is the Creation... Kiyoon ki Parmaatma hee jagat pitaa aur Parmaatma hee swayam jagat hai. "Each man has his own stepping stones to reach the One-Supreme... Har vyakti ko apne apne dhang ki seeree charh kar Uss ek hee Parmaatma ko paana hai. "God’s grace is withdrawn from no one; not even from those who have chosen to withdraw from God’s grace... Parmaatma ki mahar kissee se bhee dooor nahin hai, unhon sse bhee nahin jo Parmaatma ki mahar se door bhagte hain. "How does it matter what idols they worship, or what images they bow to, so long as the conduct remains pure… Kiya farq parta hai ki wo kiss moorti ko pooje, ya kis putlon ke aage jhuke, sirf bhavana shudh hoone chaahiye. "It is conduct then - theirs and ours - that needs to be purified... To chaal chalan hee unhon kee aur hamaaree shudh honee chaahiye…. "There can be no compulsion; each man must be free to worship his gods as he chooses... Jor jabardasti kiss ke upar bhee nahin honee chaahiye, har ek praanee ko apne apne ishtdev choon-nay aur poojne kee azaadi honee chaahiye…. "Does every Hindu worship all the gods of all the Hindus? No, he has a free will; a free choice_ Kiya har ek Hindu, Hinduon ke Sabhee dev devtaon ko poojta hai? Nahin, unko apnee apnee ichhaa se choon-nay kee azaadi hai… "A Hindu may worship Agni (fire), and ignore other deities. Do we deny that he is a Hindu? ... Koi Hindu Agni poojta hai, auron sabhee Dev Devtaon ko naheen manta hai. To kiya unko ham Hindu naheen kahenge? "Another may worship God, through an idol of his choosing. Do we deny that he is a Hindu?... Aur koee apnee pasand ke moorti kee pooja karta hai. To kiya unhe ham Hindu naheen maanenge? "Yet another will find God everywhere and not in any image or idol. Is he not a Hindu?... Phir aur koee Parmaatma ko har jagah mein dekhta hai, naa ki kissee moorti ya putle mein. Wo Hindu nahin hai? "He who was Karkarta before me was a Sun-worshiper. Did the worshipers of Siva ever say that he was not a good Hindu? ... Jo bhee Karkarta mujh se pahle Soorj Bhagwn kaa poojari thaa. Jo bhee Shiv kaa poojaree thaa, wo achhaa Hindu naheen thaa? "Do the worshipers of Vishnu feel that he who worships before the image of Brahma is not a Hindu?... Vishnu Bhagwan ke poojaree yeh samajhte hain kiya to jo Bhahma ji kee moorty ko pooje woh Hindu naheen hain? "How can a scheme of salvation be limited to a single view of God’s nature and worship?_ Yeh kaise ho saktaa hai ki Mukti Prabhu ke ek hee roop aur poojan se prapat ho? "Is then God, not an all-loving Universal God?... To Prabhu, prem saagar, jagat pita naheen hai? "Clearly then, he who seeks to deny protection to another on the basis of his faith, offends against the Hindu way of life, and denies an all-loving God... Jaahir hai kee, jo bhee apne dharam se jure hue, kiss aur kee rikshaa karna thukraata hai, wo Hindu dharam kee param para ke virodh aur swayam prem saagar Parmaatma ko asweekaar kartaa hai. "Those who love their own sects, idols and images more than Truth, will end up by loving themselves more than their gods... Jo bhee praanee apnee jaat, putle ya moortyon ko Sach se adhik chhahita hai, ant mein wo apne aap ko hee Prabhu se barhkar pyaar karenga. "He who seeks to convert another to his own faith, offends against his own soul and the will of God and the law of humanity... Koi bhee pranee agar kisee aur ko unke dharam se kheenchkar apne dharm mein laanaa chaahtaa hai, wo apni hee Aatma, aur Parmaatma kee ichha aur insaaniyat kaa virodh karta hai. "In the Kingdom of God, there is no higher nor lower. The passion for perfection burns equally in all, for there is only one class even as there is only one God... Prabhu ke darbaar mein koi bhee barraa yaa chhotaa naheen hai. Apne aapko pooran karne kee chaahna har ek praanee ke ander ek hee hai, kiyon ki sabh pranee ek hee baraabaree rakhte hain, jaise Prabhu Parmaatma ek hee hai. "The Hindu way of life?... Always it has been and always it shall be...that God wills a rich harmony - not a colourless uniformity... Hinduon ke rahne ke parampara?…..Hemashaa rahee, hameshaa rahengee….Parmaatmaa kee ichhaa yeh hee hai kee sabh pranee mil jhul ke sangathan mein rahein, naa ki virodh mein rahein. "A Hindu must enlarge the heritage of mankind_ Har Hindoo ko chaahiye ki insaan zaat kee Sanskriti barhaaen. "For a Hindu is not a mere preserver of custom ... Kiyon ki Hindu sift paramparaa kaa rakhwalaa naheen hai… "For a Hindu is not a mere protector of present knowledge... Kiyon ki Hindu sirf aaj ke gyaan ka rikshyak naheen hai…. "Hinduism is a movement, not a position; a growing tradition and not a fixed revelation... Hindupan ek yatan hai, nahin ki koi darja; ek barhte jaane kee reet, aur nahin ki koi ruhani hada….. "A Hindu must grow and evolve, with all that was good in the past, with all that is good in the present, and with all goodness that future ages shall bring ... Har Hindu ko gayee huee kal, aaj aur kal kee aane walee sabh achhaiyon ke saath rahnaa aur barhnaa chaahiye. "Yet he remains a Hindu_ Tab bhee woh Hindu hee rahenga. "Hinduism is the law of life, not a dogma; its aim is not to create a creed but character, and its goal is to achieve perfection through most varied spiritual knowledge which rejects nothing, and yet refines everything, through continuous testing and experience... Hindupan ek jindagi kaa dastoor hai, naa kee sidhaant; un kaa laksh koee bhee nayaa dharam isthapan karne ka nahin hai, parantu charitra ooncha karane kaa aur uski manzil hai gyaan dwaaraan aatmic poorantaa hasul karna, jo kuchh bhee bhed bhaw na rakhe, phir bhee har vastu ko ekaagrata ke saath koshash aur se shudh saaf kartaa rahe… "Yet he must remain strong and united, for a Hindu must know that not an external, outside force can ever crush him, except when he is divided and betrays his own... Phir bhee wo ek dam balwaan aur ek-kathaa rahengaa, kiyon kee har ek Hindu ko ye jaan-na jaroori hai ki baahar kee koee bhee taaqat un ko kabhee bhee khatam nahin kar paaengee, jab tak wo swayam bigar naa gayaa ho aur apne aap seh dokhaa naa kar baithen. "What then is the final goal of the Hindu? Through strength, unity, discipline, selfless work, to reach the ultimate in being, ultimate in awareness and ultimate in bliss, not for himself alone, but for all... To Hindupan ki aakhree manzil kiya hai? Apne bal, sangathan, nyam aur nishkaam seva se, uss ek Parmaatma tak pahunchna, jo gyaan swaroop hai, aur Prabhu ki Ishwari aanand mein leen ho jaana, naa sift apne liye, parantu sabh ke liye…. "This was the silent pledge that our ancient ancestors had taken, when they called themselves the Hindu… yeh hee maun pritigyaa hamaare buzrogon ne kee thee, jab unhon ne apne aap ko Hindu kahaa….. "If I cannot abide by that pledge, how can I retain the right to call myself a Hindu?" Agar main uss pritigya ka paalan na kar sakaa, to mujhe apne aap ko Hindu kahlaane kaa kiya adhikaar bantaa hai? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kulapavana Posted December 28, 2007 Report Share Posted December 28, 2007 I really do not like that word Hinduism. Devotees of Krishna are NOT 'Hindu' get over it. pretty much all 'Hindus' use it now. language is a living thing. we are part of Hinduism, like it or not. it is not in any way a derogatory term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matarisvan Posted December 28, 2007 Report Share Posted December 28, 2007 I really do not like that word Hinduism. Devotees of Krishna are NOT 'Hindu' Historically the word Hindu comes from the invaders who invaded India, most recently the Muslims in the 7th Century. They could not pronounce the word Indus, referring to the river and it eventually became Hindus the Hindu. This word is not found in Sanskrit. The religious name for the followers of Krishna consciousness is Sanatan Dharm “Sanatan” means original, universal, eternal and is used as “Sanatan Dharm”, the ancient name for those who follow the eternal Vedas and worship Krishna and Vishnu Liking and disliking words is entirely personal. The problem however is "Sanatana Dharma" is not found in sanskrit either. Ironically this allegedly ancient name is not even a couple of hundred years old. Many prefer to use Hindu which is much older than Sanatana Dharma. And what about those who worship Shiva, Ganesha, Durga and the countless Gods in India? These people far outnumber Vaishnavas. What name do you want to give them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matarisvan Posted December 28, 2007 Report Share Posted December 28, 2007 Agreed. It is a term so laden with a confusing mish mash of beliefs and traditions as to be meaningless. Agreed...if you will in turn agree to the follwing. Vaishnava - It is a term so laden with a confusing mish mash of beliefs and traditions as to be meaningless. (Sri, Shuddha, Gaudiya, ..............no one agrees with the other) Christian - It is a term so laden with a confusing mish mash of beliefs and traditions as to be meaningless (Catholic, protestant, Jehovah, .....countless) Muslim - It is a term so laden with a confusing mish mash of beliefs and traditions as to be meaningless (Shiya, Sunni....they kill each other) Hare Krishna - It is a term so laden with a confusing mish mash of beliefs and traditions as to be meaningless (iskcon camp, babaji camp, ....everyone disgarees with everyone else) If we can accept all of the above, then in the same spirit we can also accept Hindu is an inadequate term. If not, then Hindu is perfectly valid... no matter what some idiots from India may have blabbered about it in America and allowed this nonsense to propogate among some dense westerners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krishnaleela Posted December 28, 2007 Report Share Posted December 28, 2007 I really do not like that word Hinduism. Devotees of Krishna are NOT 'Hindu' Historically the word Hindu comes from the invaders who invaded India, most recently the Muslims in the 7th Century. They could not pronounce the word Indus, referring to the river and it eventually became Hindus the Hindu. This word is not found in Sanskrit. The religious name for the followers of Krishna consciousness is Sanatan Dharm “Sanatan” means original, universal, eternal and is used as “Sanatan Dharm”, the ancient name for those who follow the eternal Vedas and worship Krishna and Vishnu Ok. This is a different point and a different discussion. By Hinduism, I mean "sanatana dharma". But we use Hinduism word in general, when we want to identify ourselves among other religions. It is a label; if you prefer the more Vedic one, that is fine. But the spirit must not be lost for the word; similarly the "devotees of krishna" should allow for other words like kali, in order to fall within the sanatana dharma. I would prefer "Sanatana Dharma" before "devotees of krsna" especially when dealing with other religions: the first by definition is universal. The second is more descriptive of what exactly is "sanatana dharma" and expressed in accordance to a particular sampradaya. "Hinduism" includes a great many traditions that are rooted in that "Krsna Consciousness", so those who seek to identify with "Krsna Consciousness" bear the responsibility of not limiting from withdrawal into sectarianism. As one's path, it is ok; not as goal: that is the spirit of the religion. Now to add: what is common among our tradtions? It is the essential scriptures. The Vedas are universally accepted. Besides that, others like the Bhagavad Gita, Bhagavatham, the puranas, ithihasas, agamas, etc are accepted by various subtraditions. While our interpretations vary, the source is same and within the Indian context, there will be much similarities in practices as well. The traditions are sisters to each other, not same and yet with same Source(s) and corresponding closely with each other in their developments. Thus that family that adheres to the Vedas is the "religion without a name", the sanatana dharma. Later upon the advent of other foreign faiths, we had to identify ourselves and took upon the name given by them, as you said. You can drop the name, but don't kick away at the family, please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarva gattah Posted December 28, 2007 Author Report Share Posted December 28, 2007 Ok. By Hinduism, I mean "sanatana dharma". But we use Hinduism word in general, when we want to identify ourselves among other religions. It is a label; if you prefer the more Vedic one, that is fine. "Hinduism" includes a great many traditions that are rooted in that "Krsna Consciousness", so those who seek to identify with "Krsna Consciousness" bear the responsibility of not limiting from withdrawal into sectarianism. As one's path, it is ok; not as goal: that is the spirit of the religion. Fair point but still, why use an invaders name or Muslim name like Hinduism to describe the Vedas that teaches us about Krishna, Vishnu, Shiva, Ganesa, Durga and the countless demigods etc?? Each should be called by their proper name, like devotees of Krishna are Vaishnava’s, or Krishnaites, devotees of Shiva are shivites etc etc. Why lump them all together and call them by the outside invaders name ‘Hindu’s’ Its just a big Hodge podge of sects lumped together under the same name – it’s ridicules! That’s like saying leave the name the invaders gave like Ceylon (Sari Lanka), Peking (Beijing) or Bombay (Mumbai) Hinduism is the 'invaders' name for those who follow the Vedas. Is ISKCON a Hindu religious movement? AS far as ISKCON is concerned, this very question has caused a great deal of discussion both between members of the ISKCON and those commenting on the Society from outside. Since ISKCON is a unique product of the vision of one individual, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami, its founder, we must examine his position on this issue. Central to the difficulties that commentators have had in coming to any sort of decision are the seemingly ambiguous comments and decisions that the founder made with regards to Hinduism and his Society. There are times he clearly stated that ISKCON was not Hindu and that his followers should endeavour to keep themselves apart from Hindu influences, and there were other times, for preaching purposes only, when be clearly linked ISKCON to Hinduism. Jan K. Br explores the references that Srila Prabhupada made to Hinduism, and more importantly he discusses these comments within the context in which they were made, thus enabling us to gain a clearer understanding of Srila Prabhupada's position on Hinduism for preaching purposes only. One afternoon in October 1970, Srila Prabhupada visited the Golden Temple in Amritsar. After touring the temple and seeing the way in which food was distributed, he signed the temple's guestbook. Under religion he wrote, 'Krsnaite' and under comments he wrote, 'Very spiritual' He did not write 'Hindu' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarva gattah Posted December 28, 2007 Author Report Share Posted December 28, 2007 Actually, it is not only ISKCON that tries to dissociate itself from the label of "Hinduism" in the West. If you see other institutions rooted in the Vedic scriptures but attempting to propogate in foreign countries, the same tendency is there. Examples include the Ramakrishna Mission and Sri Sri Ravi Shankar's Art of Living Foundation. Don't forget they are trying to preach a universal philosophy of "Vedanta" to audiences primarily Christian. And a "universal" philosophy can stand without emphasis of time, place and origin, for only God is the center. But whether said or not, the roots are the same Vedas to which adhere the other traditions of India and united among themselves as "Hindus" or the followers of Sanatana dharma. As I said in the other thread, this unity-in-name is in regard to a world of non-Vedic religions. Such a name was not considered necessary to those who established the various sampradayas, for their affinities in the scriptural sources and social cultures was itself the uniting factor. We did not have to further label ourselves "Hindus"; today's story is different with religions like Islam and Christianity and a world of non-Vedic traditions. Choose your name but know the family. For nearly 40 years of being a devotee of Krishna, never onece did I see myself as Hindu. How can you dissociate yourself with something you never identified in the first place. I only made the comment I do not like the word Hindu because to me it is a pandorers box of every sadu, swami, guru woshiping the demigods for material gain or for a better next life, for a wife, for riches, for followers. Vaishnavas just want to leave this material world of birth and death and go back to serving Krishna in Goloka, and on the way tell everyone about Krishna, the original and only cause of all causes. Why worship the demigods like Ganesa for wealth or even Luxmi, Maha-Vishnu and Shiva - Why not worship beautiful Krishna? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted December 29, 2007 Report Share Posted December 29, 2007 Agreed...if you will in turn agree to the follwing. Vaishnava - It is a term so laden with a confusing mish mash of beliefs and traditions as to be meaningless. (Sri, Shuddha, Gaudiya, ..............no one agrees with the other) Christian - It is a term so laden with a confusing mish mash of beliefs and traditions as to be meaningless (Catholic, protestant, Jehovah, .....countless) Muslim - It is a term so laden with a confusing mish mash of beliefs and traditions as to be meaningless (Shiya, Sunni....they kill each other) Hare Krishna - It is a term so laden with a confusing mish mash of beliefs and traditions as to be meaningless (iskcon camp, babaji camp, ....everyone disgarees with everyone else) If we can accept all of the above, then in the same spirit we can also accept Hindu is an inadequate term. If not, then Hindu is perfectly valid... no matter what some idiots from India may have blabbered about it in America and allowed this nonsense to propogate among some dense westerners. Your argument, while not wrong is based on a false premise. Each one of those statements is correct (except your statement on Vaisnavism)but the correctness of the statements is quite independent from the truth or falsehood of the others. To try and lump Vaisnavism in with the Advaitins is highly offensive to the Vaisnavas for example. They are not in the same camp "hindu". I see only two camps. The personalist or theistic camps and the impersonalist and voidist camps along with the out and out materialistist's camp which can be lumped together under the no-self camps. There are higher and more developed camps of theistism just as there are various schools of no-self philosophers all with their twists on the common theme. But the dividing line of accepting one personal God is there. For example "hindus" would say Vaisnavas and Adavaitins are all hindu whereas Taoism is some Chinese philosohy. But the fact is Taoism and Advaita are quite compatable whereas neither fits with the Vaisnava viewpoint. To lump all these ways of thought together simply because of the land of their origin is very lazy thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted December 29, 2007 Report Share Posted December 29, 2007 get over it. pretty much all 'Hindus' use it now. language is a living thing. we are part of Hinduism, like it or not. it is not in any way a derogatory term. Who is the "we" you refer to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vikram Ramsundar Posted December 29, 2007 Report Share Posted December 29, 2007 get over it. pretty much all 'Hindus' use it now. language is a living thing. we are part of Hinduism, like it or not. it is not in any way a derogatory term. One more sensible and educated piece from you, Kulapavanaji. The problem however is "Sanatana Dharma" is not found in sanskrit either. Ironically this allegedly ancient name is not even a couple of hundred years old. Many prefer to use Hindu which is much older than Sanatana Dharma. Indeed. Those who ignore this fact should first do their homework, then pretend to be in a position to teach others. Sanatana-dharma as an appellation dates to the nineteenth century, and is many centuries younger than Hinduism. Neither of these terms are found in the classical Sanskrit literature. As for the other branches of Hindusim such as Saivism and Advaita Vedanta, which some here have the guts to refer to as hodge-podge or mishmash of beliefs, they date, like Vaishnavism, to remote antiquity, and are as "Vedic" as one can get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krishnaleela Posted December 29, 2007 Report Share Posted December 29, 2007 For nearly 40 years of being a devotee of Krishna, never onece did I see myself as Hindu. How can you dissociate yourself with something you never identified in the first place. I only made the comment I do not like the word Hindu because to me it is a pandorers box of every sadu, swami, guru woshiping the demigods for material gain or for a better next life, for a wife, for riches, for followers. Vaishnavas just want to leave this material world of birth and death and go back to serving Krishna in Goloka, and on the way tell everyone about Krishna, the original and only cause of all causes. Why worship the demigods like Ganesa for wealth or even Luxmi, Maha-Vishnu and Shiva - Why not worship beautiful Krishna? You may have your subjective affiliations and decision whether to call yourself Hindu or not. But your title makes an objective statement "Devotees of Krishna are NOT 'Hindu'". It requires a proper definition for being "Hindu", something more definite than "that group with all sorts of deities, crazy worshippers, etc". I suggested one common: a person who accepts the authority of the Vedas as Scripture is a Hindu. Different sampradayas interpret the Vedas differently from the ultimate philosophical standpoint and may supplement with other scriptures, according to their approach to God. So far as the Hindu is concerned, if the devotee of Krishna or Shiva accepts the Vedas, then that devotee is a Hindu as well. If they reject outright the authority of the Vedas, then that devotee is not a Hindu in this formal sense. Of course there may also be room for broader interpretations. Your sentence on those who worship for the sake of material wealth is short-sighted. Hinduism gives room for such desires but the idea is that from lower one moves to higher. The ultimate End is stressed in all sampradayas. For a farmer needing to feed his family, the desire for good crops is inevitable; so may that desire also become the vehicle for worship. "As rivers to the ocean, so do your worships to deities reach Kesava ultimately." Your last sentence gives the ultimate goal from Vaishnava standpoint; well within Hinduism. Anyway, I have lost interest in arguing on this topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shvu Posted December 29, 2007 Report Share Posted December 29, 2007 From what I have seen, people who pooh-pooh the label Hindu and endorse the name Sanatana Dharma are under the false idea that it is an ancient name originating from scriptures. Now that it is known to be false, are they willing to give up on the new name and fall back on Hindu? Specifically for Hare Krishnas, this is an issue only because Prabhupada passed some caustic comments on the concept of a Hindu when he was not happy with their support for his cause. Otherwise Hare Krishnas would have little or no interest in the topic. Prabhupada was entitled to his opinions, mistaken as they may be. But why are people (adults too) copying his opinions without knowing the context and without thinking for themselves? If you were to set his opinions aside and think for yourselves, your opinions may well be different. This is not a religious topic where one has to parrot the Guru. In case you did not know, you are allowed to have your own opinions on non-religious topics without incurring Aparadha. During the last century, Punjab wanted to break away from India and be a country by itself. So did Tamilnadu. Reason? They felt they had their own distinct identity and did not want to be lumped into a country which was diverse - much like the argument of someone above on why the label Hindu should be removed. Of course, none of that lunacy came to pass, thankfully. There is no shortage of idiots in this world is all I can say. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigraha Posted December 29, 2007 Report Share Posted December 29, 2007 Who cares about wordly nonsense, one thing is a fact, ISKCON and the GAUDIYA MATH are NOT Hindu organizations. <table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(102, 102, 102); padding-left: 3ex; padding-right: 3ex;" bgcolor="#e0e0e0"> Originally Posted by Sarva gattah Vaishnava's just want to leave this material world of birth and death and go back to serving Krishna in Goloka, and on the way tell everyone about Krishna, the original and only cause of all causes. Why worship the demigods like Ganesa for wealth or even Luxmi, Maha-Vishnu and Shiva - Why not worship beautiful Krishna? </td> </tr> </tbody></table> <!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vikram Ramsundar Posted December 29, 2007 Report Share Posted December 29, 2007 Who cares about wordly nonsense, one thing is a fact, ISKCON and the GAUDIYA MATH are NOT Hindu organizations. Speak for yourself and yourself only. The roots of ISKCON are deeply entrenched in an entity which has come to be known as Hinduism, whatever the origin of the word may be. And as I and others have stressed repeatedly above, your pet term Sanatana-dharma is way, way more recent even. Regarding the Matha, you're quite ill-placed to put forward any argument on its behalf, having spent half your existence abusing and running it down. When even Vrindavana dasa Thakura, the manifest Vedavyasa of Gaura-lila, employed "Hindu" in his description of Indian metaphysical thought, who in the world is Vigraha or for that matter Sarva-gattah to say otherwise? It is revoltingly asinine. Furthermore, the orthodox Gaudiya Parivaras have no qualms referring to themselves as Hindu. In the end, this discussion in a practical way is tantamount to a couple of deranged Jehovah's Witness converts deriding traditional Christians for adhering to mainstream beliefs and utilising mainstream nomenclature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tackleberry Posted December 29, 2007 Report Share Posted December 29, 2007 Some people seem to have a rather strange idea that we, the vaishnavas, must stop using the word 'hindu' to describe ourselves, just because hinduism contains a wide range of schools, conflicting with each other. But that's true of Christians too, many sects are in conflict with the other. But you don't find Catholics or Lutherans or whoever wanting to separate themselves from the 'christian' label. They're practical and understand it's better NOT to separate themselves from Christianity, despite the conflict between each of their schools. Why can't Vaishnvas learn to be like that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted December 29, 2007 Report Share Posted December 29, 2007 Some people seem to have a rather strange idea that we, the vaishnavas, must stop using the word 'hindu' to describe ourselves, just because hinduism contains a wide range of schools, conflicting with each other. But that's true of Christians too, many sects are in conflict with the other. But you don't find Catholics or Lutherans or whoever wanting to separate themselves from the 'christian' label. They're practical and understand it's better NOT to separate themselves from Christianity, despite the conflict between each of their schools. Why can't Vaishnvas learn to be like that? Why? Because Vaisnavism is not a designation for any religon that is mixed with material desires. Vaisnavism denotes the nature of the liberated soul that is active in it's natural rasa with Krsna. I judge any and all religions like todays Christianity based on the level of awakened Bhakti. For example Jesus never called Himself a Christian. That label was placed on the disciples who were preaching because those disciples reminded the people of Antioch of the person of Christ. Christianity means Christ like. You don't want to separate yourself from the likes of Sankara and his line or all the people who are captivated by the flowery words of the vedas and are worshiping demigods to get to heaven but you are willing to separate yourself from a Shaktya-vesa avatar like Christ. That is sectarian thought pure and simple. Bhaktivinode says sectarianism and the party spirt are enemies to Vaisnavism. Please reconsider. This merging of Mahaprabhu's ideals into the hodge podege of hinduism is most disheartening. Iskcon play's this game to gain support for their temple structure and it looks like tyrade off is mundane religious contamination. Most regretable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted December 29, 2007 Report Share Posted December 29, 2007 From what I have seen, people who pooh-pooh the label Hindu and endorse the name Sanatana Dharma are under the false idea that it is an ancient name originating from scriptures. Now that it is known to be false, are they willing to give up on the new name and fall back on Hindu? And who cares how old the term sanatan-dharma is? I certainly don't. I am however concerned with what it means. The eternal religon of the self as opposed to some material designation. Sanatan-dharma's meaning is clear and succinct. Advaitins can have no sanatan-dharma because they don't even accept the individual self as being sanatan So if you want to break it down it is a term that only proper denotes the Vaisnava. Krsna tells Arjuna to abandon all these religions so why should a student of the Bhagavad-gita want to keep identifying with them? Everyone goes through the kanistha level but no one should remain there and in no way should the kanistha viewpoint hold sway in Vaisnava philosophical discourse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted December 29, 2007 Report Share Posted December 29, 2007 Indeed. Those who ignore this fact should first do their homework, then pretend to be in a position to teach others. Sanatana-dharma as an appellation dates to the nineteenth century, and is many centuries younger than Hinduism. Neither of these terms are found in the classical Sanskrit literature. As for the other branches of Hindusim such as Saivism and Advaita Vedanta, which some here have the guts to refer to as hodge-podge or mishmash of beliefs, they date, like Vaishnavism, to remote antiquity, and are as "Vedic" as one can get. Vaisnavism does not have a beginning date in history because it denotes the natural & eternal function of the soul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted December 29, 2007 Report Share Posted December 29, 2007 Vaisnavism Real and Apparent http://www.bvml.org/SBSST/vraa.htm a snippet from the introduction. <center>INTRODUCTION </center> Tridandi-Bhikshu Bhaktivedanta Vamana on the advent anniversary of Shrila Bhaktivinoda Thakura 26th August 1985 The word 'Vaishnavism' indicates the normal, eternal, natural condition and devotional characteristics of all individual souls in relation to Vishnu, the All-pervading Soul. The word 'Vaishnava', which literally and naturally means one who worships Vishnu out of pure love expecting nothing from Him in return. The jiva is the part who is identical with the whole when taken qualitatively and different when taken quantitatively. This is the true and eternal relation between jiva and Vishnu. The service of the Master is the fundamental function of the servant, so every jiva is a Vaishnava. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vikram Ramsundar Posted December 29, 2007 Report Share Posted December 29, 2007 Some people seem to have a rather strange idea that we, the vaishnavas, must stop using the word 'hindu' to describe ourselves, just because hinduism contains a wide range of schools, conflicting with each other. But that's true of Christians too, many sects are in conflict with the other. But you don't find Catholics or Lutherans or whoever wanting to separate themselves from the 'christian' label. They're practical and understand it's better NOT to separate themselves from Christianity, despite the conflict between each of their schools. Why can't Vaishnvas learn to be like that? Some much-needed commonsensical words on this crazy thread! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hari Bhakta dasa Posted December 29, 2007 Report Share Posted December 29, 2007 The problem however is "Sanatana Dharma" is not found in sanskrit either. Ironically this allegedly ancient name is not even a couple of hundred years old. Many prefer to use Hindu which is much older than Sanatana Dharma. Srila Prabhupada used the term Sanatana Dharma. He would not go against shastra. So what are you saying? And what about those who worship Shiva, Ganesha, Durga and the countless Gods in India? These people far outnumber Vaishnavas. What name do you want to give them? Demigod worshipers seeking material gain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hari Bhakta dasa Posted December 29, 2007 Report Share Posted December 29, 2007 Agreed. It is a term so laden with a confusing mish mash of beliefs and traditions as to be meaningless. Yes, exactly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hari Bhakta dasa Posted December 29, 2007 Report Share Posted December 29, 2007 get over it. pretty much all 'Hindus' use it now. language is a living thing. we are part of Hinduism, like it or not. it is not in any way a derogatory term. We are not hindus. Srila Prabhupada tells us this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts