I am Hindu vs I am not Hindu

[krishnaleela]

A small point on "I am Hindu". (or "I am not Hindu")

 

We say "I am Hindu" subjectively. But do we think why?

 

For a neutral person to decide whether a person is Hindu, some objective definition must be there.

 

A typical objective definition comes from allegiance to a Scripture (Vedas) and (intended) adherence to a sampradya or path that guides the individual to fulfillment of the purpose (with regard to the individual) of the Vedas (i.e. our God-realization, etc).

 

Each specific sampradaya has a particular way of interpreting the Vedas, usually with the help of other scriptures (Bhagavatham, Gita, Brahma Sutras, etc) that accept the Vedas. For instance, take the Vedic statement:

 

Ekam Sat Viprah Bahudha Vadanthi [One Truth/Reality Sages in many ways speak of]

 

Now the Ramakrishna mission interprets this in a broad sense and says all established religions [the many ways] show that sages from them have attained highest realization. ISKCON (if asked for) may have its own interpretation. But neither will reject the Vedic statement as false.

 

So if the question of Hindu comes up, we will have to say objectively that both satisfy the basic criterions but belong to different sampradayas.

 

 

Now if a person adheres to the Vedic life and ideals, to the scriptures that stand by the Vedas, follows a sampradaya with parampara, and still says:

 

"I am not Hindu. I am a Vedantin" or "I am not Hindu. I am following Krishna-Consciousness",

 

then that person wants another objective definition for being Hindu, and from there they choose to alienate themselves from the religion. For instance, I read a Ramakrishna Western (Vedanta) devotee write that the Hindu is the 'Indian Vedantin' and therefore she does not consider herself Hindu. Such a definition seems very contrived (although she quoted from Vivekananda) to suit the end-purpose, but if it works..... But by another definition, she may be very much a Hindu.

 

So even the objective becomes subjective. Well, atleast know one before you proclaim yourself either way, and the neutral person can decide on the basis of such available definitions.

[krishnaleela]

The concept of "I am Hindu" is relevant (and important) in the world-context and in urban contexts. The typical "objective definition" given above is relevant for those who are seeking religion in a methodical manner. It is also important in having that sense of religious-identity when confronted with organized religions from outside India. Sampradayas also serve to preserve the Vedic culture under assaults from those alien to it.

 

However this approach of giving definitions, establishing sampradayas, etc. is quite contrary to the "essence of the religion/culture" as has been imbibed in the indigenous societies of India, as may be evidenced in its villages. Religion truly is intangible "way of life" there and represents the ideal, in many an uncorrupted and undiluted sense. [Remember: The concept of "Hindu" originated as a label from Moghuls and was further imprinted among urban Indians through the British.]

 

So these literate attempts to define "Hindu" etc must be understood in the right context. Otherwise they become much too narrow and irrelevant to the majority who live that culture and ideal, without formal claims to a world-religion.

[madanbhakta]

Forgive my naivetes, but although I am not even initiated under a guru, I still call myself a Hindu because of my practices. I practice Hare Krishna mantra-yoga via japa, puja time to time, darshana, read the Scriptures of Srimad-Bhagavatam, Bhagavad-Gita and guru-shastras, and of course, believe ultimately in the Supremacy and authority of the Vedas.

 

I believe in Gaudiya Vedanta, and thus part of the Gaudiya Sampradaya of Vaishnavism. I am a Vaishnavite Hindu. I dislike the name 'Hare Krishna' because it is too ISKCON-specific; the Gaudiya tradition is by far large and each organisation, matha and temple seem to even have a different bhava.

 

Actually, I loathe the name 'Hare Krishna' as a name of what I follow. It is too specific to ISKCON, and I prefer to be called Gaudiya, (Chaitanya/Gaudiya) Vaishnavite, or Hindu, or a mixture of the three. But I refuse to be called or be known by the name 'Hare Krishna'. That is our mantra, not our philosophy (Acintya-bheda-abheda, Gaudiya Vedanta).

 

As Hinduism is becoming a world religion and is being more and more open to Westerners, it has ceased to be associated with Indian peoples (the 'Hindoos') and describes those who follow the Vedas and Sanaatana Dharma. The belief in their authoritativeness is more important than their interpretations. Many Hindus themselves claim that Hinduism is the Mother Religion and the origin of all religions.

 

And of course, the Shaiva Siddhanta Church uses 'Hinduism' frequently to mask their strong Shaivite orientation (and indeed, I was sorely disappointed that their magazine, under the assumption that it would have allowed Shaktas, Vaishnavites, and 'liberal Hindus,' was totally Shaiva Dharma). Why can't Gaudiya Vaishnavites do similarily?

 

As much as the Shaiva, Vaishnava, Smarta and Shakta paramparas (and 'liberal Hindus, if you want to count them) are constantly changing social contexts yet adhering to traditional beliefs, the word 'Hinduism' constantly changes along. As par BG 18:66, labels are still inevitable due to being an intrinsic part of maya-shakti in this short lifespan. I just try not to be so attached to them, for with attachment comes the ceasing of pure servitude, surrender and loving devotion without arguing over proper apellations.

 

Therefore, I am a Filipino Hindu, and I am proud to be so. However, I am a Gaudiya Vedantin, rejecting the Adwaita philosophy that is so seemingly popular nowadays with the liberal, almagation-of-Shaivite-and-Vaishnavite-pantheons temples.

[sreeram]

Hindu word was come from the word sindu. It is used for addressing the people who lived in sindu valleys. This people spared across <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:country-region><st1:place>India</st1:place></st1:country-region> and to some other nations. You can be a hindu by birth only. I mean the real hindu.

[madanbhakta]

 

Hindu word was come from the word sindu. It is used for addressing the people who lived in sindu valleys. This people spared across ffice:smarttags" /><st1:country-region><st1:place>India</st1:place></st1:country-region> and to some other nations. You can be a hindu by birth only. I mean the real hindu.

 

Yes, it was used to refer to the people who lived in the Sindhu valley. But hey, if they spread out, then how can they be Hindu (Sindhu) if they don't live there anymore? Many words of the 'sexual revolution' had words that indefinitely changed meaning ('gay' for one). Language changes.

 

But Hinduism (yes, with it's -ism) has grown to become the equivalent of "Vedic Dharma" (Vaidika Dharma) and encompasses anyone who believes in the Vedas as authoritative.

 

By this new and growing definition, I am a Hindu. And when I mention to other people that I am a Hindu, I use it as an opportunity to teach that most of Sanaatana Dharma is not polytheistic as some people think, but has monotheistic and panentheistic leanings (monistic and pantheistic if one goes with the Adwaitic schools), especially in regards to Shaktism, Vaishnavism and Shaivism.

 

Shaiva Siddhanta Church, as well as Gaudiya Vaishnavites and I don't look too lovingly on what Satguru Shivaya Subramuniyamiswami labelled 'liberal Hinduism' where Vaishnavite and Shaivite pantheons meet into one temple.

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

 

Hindu dharma despite some peoples misconception of it being Hodge podge (due to their own lack of appreciation for its vastness) is the only non sectarian dharma. emphasis is on an individual to execute its dharma and be responsible for ones own karma. It gives the freedom to an individual to follow his or hers natural inclination towards Karma, Bhakti or Gayan.

 

Institutions or sects comes and goes but dharma based on satya is eternal, the very fact the Hindu way of life has survived against all odds is a testimony of its greatness.

 

Hinduism (sanatan dharma) is all inclusive, encompasses all Vedic Darsan.

For me it is more important to practice Dharma then to get stuck in labels,

Hinduism serve the purpose since it can mean nothing yet every thing is included.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

[sreeram]

Question. Can any other relegion converted to hindu?. If yes how?

[madanbhakta]

 

Question. Can any other relegion converted to hindu?. If yes how?

Well, it depends on where you go. The Arya Samaj, who reject 'idol worship' and only follow the Vedas, have a 'purification ceremony' that one can go into. But otherwise, there is no conversion in Hinduism, because Hinduism is Sanaatana Dharma; it is the Eternal Duty for every individual soul.

 

Now, for the sampradayic denominations...

 

If you are a Shaivite, if you wish to 'become a Hindu,' one must let go of any organisation except Shaiva Dharma. They also take a Naamakarana Sanskara and change both first and last names. Those who have only one Sanskrit devotional name are usually called 'Ardha-Hindu' or half-Hindu. One can also follow the sampradayas by submitting themselves into a guru-sisya relationship and become initiated.

 

For Vaishnavites, at least from the Gaudiya standpoint, there is no real conversion; one can just adopt Vaishnava Dharma and begin. However, unless one submits emself to a guru, then there is no true learning. Thus, initiation can also make the Vaishnavite (although it is not limited to that).

 

For Shaktas, I believe that they also have sampradayas, but I do not know how they allow non-Shaktas into their fold.

 

These are all ethical conversions. But in Hinduism, there is no 'conversion' really, only affirmations of identity. Although I personally believe in Gaudiya Vedanta and practice the Gaudiya tradition, I can not call myself a true Vaishnava until I have become initiated and receive a guru to teach me of Krishna.

 

If Sanaatana Dharma means the Eternal Duty, and every soul (jiva) is part of this eternal servitude to Krishna, God, then every soul is a Vaishnava. The only thing necessary for them to become Vaishnava (a servant of Lord Vishnu/Krishna/God) in the sense of recovering one's true identity as an eternal slave to Krishna, is to practice bhakti (devotional service), shraddha (faith) and sharanagati (self-surrender).

[sreeram]

Thanks for the information provided. Now I am realising the value of a guru in once life.

 

For the sake of knowlege, can you tell the defernce between dvaiti and advaiti.

[bhaktajan]

 

Originally Posted by madanbhakta . . . I loathe the name 'Hare Krishna' as a name of what I follow. It is too specific to ISKCON, and I prefer to be called Gaudiya, (Chaitanya/Gaudiya) Vaishnavite, or Hindu, or a mixture of the three. But I refuse to be called or be known by the name 'Hare Krishna'. That is our mantra, not our philosophy . . .

 

When I must identify myself to someone from India I say:

 

"I am harekrsna-harerama people"

 

So indoubtably you too are a: "harekrsna-harerama people"

 

Try it, see how you like it. We could always do some adjustments. A tuck here, a tuck there. You'll look marvelous.

 

Why don't they call Christians, "Our Fathers"?

 

Also, in the western world the phrase "Hare Krishna" has a superlative sonic quality that can't be surpassed.

 

Remember: The first thing to instill in a neophyte or especially a non-believer is Krishna's name, form etc. How long do you resist saying the maha-mantra to a stranger's face?

 

ys,

Bhaktajan

[madanbhakta]

 

When I must identify myself to someone from India I say:

 

"I am harekrsna-harerama people"

 

So indoubtably you too are a: "harekrsna-harerama people"

 

Try it, see how you like it. We could always do some adjustments. A tuck here, a tuck there. You'll look marvelous.

 

Why don't they call Christians, "Our Fathers"?

 

Also, in the western world the phrase "Hare Krishna" has a superlative sonic quality that can't be surpassed.

 

Remember: The first thing to instill in a neophyte or especially a non-believer is Krishna's name, form etc. How long do you resist saying the maha-mantra to a stranger's face?

 

ys,

Bhaktajan

Bhaktajan,

 

From what I am taught, we should not be teaching the Holy Name to just anyone, especially those who may make an offense to the Holy Name of Lord Krishna. There are the 10 offenses to the Name, for one, and secondly, we must be careful and even avoid naamabhasa, that is, saying the Name in the attitude of neutrality.

 

If they are willing to learn and respect Krishna, and even grow to love Him, we may reveal His Name. But the Mahamantra should be passed to those who are willing to develop love for Krishna or God. For it is not in the chanting of the Holy Name, but rather of the service rendered beneath the sacred syllables that Krishna looks after.

 

Plus, 'Hare Krishna' as a religious designation always evokes ISKCON, and I am presently associating with Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Math with present-day guru-acharya Srila Govinda Maharaj. The Gaudiya parampara also includes Tripurari Swami's group and Narayana Maharaj and his Sri Gaudiya Vedanta Society.

 

It is a nice idea, and I will definitely ponder upon it. Thank you!

 

LOL, if people were called by what they chanted, Baha'is would be "Allah-u-Abhas," Muslims would be "Bismillahis" or "Allah-u-Akbars," Jews could be "Shmas" and Buddhists would be "Namo-Amitabhas." Just a fun thought...

 

madanbhakta

[madanbhakta]

 

Thanks for the information provided. Now I am realising the value of a guru in once life.

 

For the sake of knowlege, can you tell the defernce between dvaiti and advaiti.

From my limited knowledge, and adwaitin, or impersonalist, believes that the purpose in life is to merge into oneness with God, saying that everyone and everything is also God, but we have forgotten our eternal identity as God. It is monism, pantheism. This is Shankaracharya's teaching, but Vallabhi Vaishnavas also are adwaitic.

 

A dwaitin is one who believes that the individual soul (jivatma) and God are eternally separate. In the Gaudiya tradition, the soul is an eternal servant of Krishna who dwelled in Krishnaloka, but somehow came into the material world. Maya is this forgetfulness of one's relationship with the Lord. Ramanujacharya pretty much taught a dwaitic form of philosophy. It is monotheistic and/or panentheistic.

 

Whoever has better knowledge can correct me.

[sreeram]

Thank you madanbhakta. I got the basic idea from you..

 

Thanks again

[krishnaleela]

 

Forgive my naivetes, but although I am not even initiated under a guru, I still call myself a Hindu because of my practices. I practice Hare Krishna mantra-yoga via japa, puja time to time, darshana, read the Scriptures of Srimad-Bhagavatam, Bhagavad-Gita and guru-shastras, and of course, believe ultimately in the Supremacy and authority of the Vedas.

 

I believe in Gaudiya Vedanta, and thus part of the Gaudiya Sampradaya of Vaishnavism. I am a Vaishnavite Hindu. I dislike the name 'Hare Krishna' because it is too ISKCON-specific; the Gaudiya tradition is by far large and each organisation, matha and temple seem to even have a different bhava.

 

Actually, I loathe the name 'Hare Krishna' as a name of what I follow. It is too specific to ISKCON, and I prefer to be called Gaudiya, (Chaitanya/Gaudiya) Vaishnavite, or Hindu, or a mixture of the three. But I refuse to be called or be known by the name 'Hare Krishna'. That is our mantra, not our philosophy (Acintya-bheda-abheda, Gaudiya Vedanta).

 

As Hinduism is becoming a world religion and is being more and more open to Westerners, it has ceased to be associated with Indian peoples (the 'Hindoos') and describes those who follow the Vedas and Sanaatana Dharma. The belief in their authoritativeness is more important than their interpretations. Many Hindus themselves claim that Hinduism is the Mother Religion and the origin of all religions.

 

And of course, the Shaiva Siddhanta Church uses 'Hinduism' frequently to mask their strong Shaivite orientation (and indeed, I was sorely disappointed that their magazine, under the assumption that it would have allowed Shaktas, Vaishnavites, and 'liberal Hindus,' was totally Shaiva Dharma). Why can't Gaudiya Vaishnavites do similarily?

 

As much as the Shaiva, Vaishnava, Smarta and Shakta paramparas (and 'liberal Hindus, if you want to count them) are constantly changing social contexts yet adhering to traditional beliefs, the word 'Hinduism' constantly changes along. As par BG 18:66, labels are still inevitable due to being an intrinsic part of maya-shakti in this short lifespan. I just try not to be so attached to them, for with attachment comes the ceasing of pure servitude, surrender and loving devotion without arguing over proper apellations.

 

Therefore, I am a Filipino Hindu, and I am proud to be so. However, I am a Gaudiya Vedantin, rejecting the Adwaita philosophy that is so seemingly popular nowadays with the liberal, almagation-of-Shaivite-and-Vaishnavite-pantheons temples.

 

Hi madanbhaktha, as I said the context of the definition is important. I was afraid my proposed "objective" definition was too academic to include the majority who are also to be included as Hindus, so sought to clarify. Yes, Hinduism can be taken as a world religion and approached in the sense that you and most others in urban settings (including myself) do. I am also happy on your position of being Vaishnava-Hindu.

 

But the nature of the development of "Hinduism" is not entirely top-down. The sampradaya for most is local-tradition of worship, passed down the generations in family or village setting. And each person has a unique way of connecting to that Divine-behind-Existence. We have to see the tree in each such flower. It is different with linearly-organized religions where every member attests to a common formula, a scripture, a founder, a personality, a God. When I said "world religion", I meant it in the context of such organization (not the particular Indian nationality), which is not an inherent feature of Hinduism. Yes, we have sampradayas and scriptures, but that is but one aspect of Hinduism and its continuing evolution. The Hindu may not know the Vedas but may not be deprived or ignorant: that person's life may be in consonance with the Vedic message "All existence is Divine. Learn to see that Divinity everywhere"; that is how the message has permeated the people.

 

(We have to resist the temptation of grading our religion with the gradesheet of other religions).

[madanbhakta]

Haribol, krishnaleela!

 

Although I take both siksha learning from Bhaktivedanta Swami Srila Prabhupada, and slowly and most elegantly from Srila Sridhar Maharaj, I try to make myself aware that Srila Prabhupada essentially wanted all peoples from different religions to take up some form of bhakti practice, and in my limited and biased perspective, although he did use 'Hindu' at times to people when preaching, he proclaimed that his teachings were not Hindu because God has no religion.

 

I believe that he wanted this distinction because, in my limited understanding, a) Hindoo referred to those who were born in India or have Indian ethnicity, and thus a term latent of geographical and regional bias, and b) he could also have been referring to the so-called 'liberal Hinduism' as well as their worship of the 'demigods' save Vishnu/Krishna. Most other Gaudiya Vaishnavites outside ISKCON have no real problem of using 'Hindu' as long as the term is defined objectively, as according to belief in the Vedas.

 

At times, with certain people, I usually just say that Gaudiya philosophy is on the 'fringe' of Hindu Dharma, simply because Lord Chaitanya Himself, unlike most of the 'Hindu' sampradayas, called for active preaching. But then again, although people say that Hinduism doesn't preach, I believe it does in a subtle way. Travelling swamis do not travel for nothing!

 

And I do agree that the term 'Hindu' can largely ignore the more cultural and regional subtleties of religious practice. But at the same time, Wicca, a Neo-Pagan religion, proclaims itself as a religion with no constructed creed or central cult creed, object, formula, etc.

 

Even with Gaudiya Vaishnavism, ISKCON's version of it seems to have crystallised the philosophy through their 'four regulative principles' and the goals of the Society. In other Gaudiya organisations, there is a somewhat lack of a centralised creed that would even define a Vaishnava.

 

I do like how Hinduism is a living tradition, or at least Chaitanya Vaishnavism, for the beliefs are carried on through the guru and their writings. The Guru-shastras are almost as good as the Vedas themselves!

 

I have often wondered whether one should even separate the supposed 'denominations' of Shaivism, Shaktism, Vaishnavism, and liberal Hinduism or not. I am aware that the Shaiva Siddhanta Church, although their material is largely Shaivite, likes to include the 'denominations' whilst ISKCON, a large and preaching Gaudiya organisation, rejects bunching them together.

 

I have no idea where I stand myself, but it can be very difficult when it comes to describing myself outside of the 'Hindu' fold as a Hindu myself.

 

Anyways, as Gaudiya preachers always say, "We are spiritually individualised souls, not these material bodies." Any designation, from Gaudiya, Hindu, Vaishnava, and even 'Hare Krishna' (a designation which I strongly dislike) are all self-imposed by the false ego. So it is all irrelevant in the spiritual planes.

 

Jaya Radhe,

madanbhakta

 

 

Hi madanbhaktha, as I said the context of the definition is important. I was afraid my proposed "objective" definition was too academic to include the majority who are also to be included as Hindus, so sought to clarify. Yes, Hinduism can be taken as a world religion and approached in the sense that you and most others in urban settings (including myself) do. I am also happy on your position of being Vaishnava-Hindu.

 

But the nature of the development of "Hinduism" is not entirely top-down. The sampradaya for most is local-tradition of worship, passed down the generations in family or village setting. And each person has a unique way of connecting to that Divine-behind-Existence. We have to see the tree in each such flower. It is different with linearly-organized religions where every member attests to a common formula, a scripture, a founder, a personality, a God. When I said "world religion", I meant it in the context of such organization (not the particular Indian nationality), which is not an inherent feature of Hinduism. Yes, we have sampradayas and scriptures, but that is but one aspect of Hinduism and its continuing evolution. The Hindu may not know the Vedas but may not be deprived or ignorant: that person's life may be in consonance with the Vedic message "All existence is Divine. Learn to see that Divinity everywhere"; that is how the message has permeated the people.

 

(We have to resist the temptation of grading our religion with the gradesheet of other religions).

[krishnaleela]

 

Haribol, krishnaleela!

 

Although I take both siksha learning from Bhaktivedanta Swami Srila Prabhupada, and slowly and most elegantly from Srila Sridhar Maharaj, I try to make myself aware that Srila Prabhupada essentially wanted all peoples from different religions to take up some form of bhakti practice, and in my limited and biased perspective, although he did use 'Hindu' at times to people when preaching, he proclaimed that his teachings were not Hindu because God has no religion.

 

 

It may be true God has no religion, nationality or sex. It may also be true for the individual soul. In practice however, the person comes with such baggage, so the equation and its parameters must be relevant at that level, so that we can get out of that level.

 

Theoretically speaking, when we say "Hindu", it is not to demean another religion but to identify our religious position, family and community. When Sri Prabhupada says "Hindu while preaching", it is not simply to pander to people's ignorance but to validate the word at its proper level of discussion; we cannot belittle the usage. When he rejects "Hindu", the connotation is different: there it is a rejection of the "superiority" mentality that can come with such identification.

 

If I am asked "Who are you?", I might say "I am krishnaleela [my name]", not "I have no name, I am only the atma, etc,".

 

 

 

I believe that he wanted this distinction because, in my limited understanding, a) Hindoo referred to those who were born in India or have Indian ethnicity, and thus a term latent of geographical and regional bias, and b) he could also have been referring to the so-called 'liberal Hinduism' as well as their worship of the 'demigods' save Vishnu/Krishna. Most other Gaudiya Vaishnavites outside ISKCON have no real problem of using 'Hindu' as long as the term is defined objectively, as according to belief in the Vedas.

 

 

Yes, practically speaking, I would guess your reasons are correct, and more precise. But then, I don't have to agree with Sri Prabhupada on everything. That is why the thread was started in the first place, because if we take up a standard objective definition like you have hinted, then the word Hindu can be dealt with without the ego-level connotations.

 

As for Hinduism and 'India', they are inseparable. India is the birthplace of the religion, and is similar to Hindus as Jerusalem for the Jews and Mecca for the Muslims. But one does not have to be Indian (as per today's criterions) to identify oneself as Hindu; the reference is to the principles followed rather than to the birth-land or residence.

 

 

 

At times, with certain people, I usually just say that Gaudiya philosophy is on the 'fringe' of Hindu Dharma, simply because Lord Chaitanya Himself, unlike most of the 'Hindu' sampradayas, called for active preaching. But then again, although people say that Hinduism doesn't preach, I believe it does in a subtle way. Travelling swamis do not travel for nothing!

 

 

Yes, of course it preaches, especially today. The world is much smaller. You are right also that the Hindu in general is not actively seeking converts from other religions, but there is the internal tradition of vada between schools of thought. But such an aspect is not a definition of "Hindu": Lord Chaitanya is a great Bhaktha and for the majority of Hindus, Bhakthi is understood as central. He was calling for all to sing the name of the Lord, more than to profess a certain dvaitha faith and beat down on mayavadis. Hindus identify with him directly and of course to Sri Krishna. There is no "fringe" with Sri Chaitanya; only sampradaya differences.

 

 

 

And I do agree that the term 'Hindu' can largely ignore the more cultural and regional subtleties of religious practice. But at the same time, Wicca, a Neo-Pagan religion, proclaims itself as a religion with no constructed creed or central cult creed, object, formula, etc.

 

 

Yes, this is something subtle. That is why I said the definition is relevant only in the right context. In the world-religion setting, it is important to present the fundamentals, give that top-down picture, so that others can relate to it. But if the Hindus just pander to such idea, they might be selling themselves out, creating an image that does not fit the grander nature of their religion. Recall the ideal comes from "God has no religion or nationality", God also sees your heart more than your construction creed and formula. Wicca is perhaps idealizing such a position; I don't care to beat them down.

 

BUT the Hinduism is a living example of that ideal brought forth in religious lives of the millions. We cannot comprehend how all it works, for if we try, we start writing formulas and messing up. Just observe and know the grandeur. The urbaner is lost to the meaning and running for easy definitions; the person outside wants to belittle it and call the Whole as a sum of basically-independent parts. And in our ignorance, we want to preach, correct and make all fit the box-mentality we have entered.

 

We have to consider this aspect carefully.

 

 

I do like how Hinduism is a living tradition, or at least Chaitanya Vaishnavism, for the beliefs are carried on through the guru and their writings. The Guru-shastras are almost as good as the Vedas themselves!

 

 

This is true for most Hindus who adhere to a fixed sampradaya. But we tend not to find such Hindus who adhere!! That is a different matter.

 

 

I have often wondered whether one should even separate the supposed 'denominations' of Shaivism, Shaktism, Vaishnavism, and liberal Hinduism or not. I am aware that the Shaiva Siddhanta Church, although their material is largely Shaivite, likes to include the 'denominations' whilst ISKCON, a large and preaching Gaudiya organisation, rejects bunching them together.

 

 

I suppose you are referring to the one in Hawaii. I have great respect for them and their position with regard to Hindu unity. See, the position of Hinduism as a world religion requires this sort of boxing, and in that context, we have to join hands even as we present our different final viewpoints and ways of worship. Our main traditions began in one land, are co-related, have primary scripture as Vedas, and so on. Krishna is God-incarnate for dvaitins and advaitins alike. And there are all the subtleties of Hinduism that relate us and cannot be brushed aside.

 

The Shaiva Siddhanta Church (at least its founder) in Hawaii is not particularly admiring of the Bhagavad Gita, and as the connotation "liberal Hindus" show, not of that group as well. Let that be: I fall in that group (!!) and don't agree with all they say, but my focus like theirs is the Whole. It does not matter that they differ from me, so long as in the context of world-religions, there is that Hindu solidarity.

 

I used to argue in these forums against people of other sampradayas; all fun, but now it has become a pain to do any such for the central Hindu-unity is lacking across the forums. So that is the only thing I care about.

[madanbhakta]

 

It may be true God has no religion, nationality or sex. It may also be true for the individual soul. In practice however, the person comes with such baggage, so the equation and its parameters must be relevant at that level, so that we can get out of that level.

 

You say it, Lilaji!

 

I understand though that such designations are necessary because we are necessarily part of this material shakti of God, differentiated due to the results of past karma. From this perspective, it does remind me of the accounts of ISKCON with its earlier adherents saying "I am not this body; I am spirit soul."

 

Also, from this supposed 'reality' of an undesignated God and soul and the reality of our material existence dependent upon labels to distinguish paths and philosophies, this understanding would make many of the religions quite universal.

 

 

Theoretically speaking, when we say "Hindu", it is not to demean another religion but to identify our religious position, family and community. When Sri Prabhupada says "Hindu while preaching", it is not simply to pander to people's ignorance but to validate the word at its proper level of discussion; we cannot belittle the usage. When he rejects "Hindu", the connotation is different: there it is a rejection of the "superiority" mentality that can come with such identification.

 

If I am asked "Who are you?", I might say "I am krishnaleela [my name]", not "I have no name, I am only the atma, etc,".

 

I have never thought that Srila Prabhupada would use his constant examples of "I may be a Hindu, and you may be a Christian..." would refer to people using labels and names as an exercise in superiority before!

 

But when I hear statements from Hindus of 'all paths lead to God' 'Hinduism is the oldest religion on Earth' (for the assertion that old = original or best), or that 'all religions came from Sanaatana Dharma, Hinduism', it makes me think of how many Hindu souls' egos would float from such statements.

 

I often feel that too many Western Advaitins and Hare Krishnas unnecessarily cringe at the label 'Hindu' without even establishing a solid definition first. Why not embrace another label? It won't hurt your soul!

 

 

As for Hinduism and 'India', they are inseparable. India is the birthplace of the religion, and is similar to Hindus as Jerusalem for the Jews and Mecca for the Muslims. But one does not have to be Indian (as per today's criterions) to identify oneself as Hindu; the reference is to the principles followed rather than to the birth-land or residence.

 

 

I guess. But Even with Judaism (there used to be an active preaching edge with Hinduism before the World Wars, and conversion is definitely allowed within the religion) or Islam, there is not much of a focus on a centralised people. But then again, I think of the inherent Arabic influences of Islam, the subtleties of Iranian culture in the Baha'i Faith, the European ways and music in Christianity, and the Semitic influence in Judaism.

 

Nevertheless, Hinduism, seemingly being the oldest form of religion in the world, has grown so intertwined with India that it is so difficult to separate them. Indian culture and Hindu culture are almost one and the same. From gender roles, to respect of elders and family, and the arts that are Hindu-influenced are also inevitably Indian-influenced.

 

 

Yes, of course it preaches, especially today. The world is much smaller. You are right also that the Hindu in general is not actively seeking converts from other religions, but there is the internal tradition of vada between schools of thought. But such an aspect is not a definition of "Hindu": Lord Chaitanya is a great Bhaktha and for the majority of Hindus, Bhakthi is understood as central. He was calling for all to sing the name of the Lord, more than to profess a certain dvaitha faith and beat down on mayavadis. Hindus identify with him directly and of course to Sri Krishna. There is no "fringe" with Sri Chaitanya; only sampradaya differences.

 

I have heard some people (rather with pettiness) say that Hare Krishnas are not Hindu because they are active preachers. Such a statement veritably reeks of superiority-vs-inferiority.

 

Lord Chaitanya was very interesting. At one point of view, His movement of Krishna-bhakti and sankirtana was a successful movement in breaking down sectarian barriers and uniting peoples of differing varnas and outside perspectives with a unifying practice. Yet the 'brahma-madhva-gaudiya sampradaya' seems to differentiate from other sampradayas or congregations. One ISKCON devotee told me that although all Vaishnavites are Vaishnava, eventually there will be only one sampradaya (Gaudiya) and that ISKCON will lead them.

 

But hey, Lord Chaitanya's movement prophesied that the Holy Name will be spread all over the world, into every town and village. Perhaps in time, we may be able to tell...

 

 

 

Yes, this is something subtle. That is why I said the definition is relevant only in the right context. In the world-religion setting, it is important to present the fundamentals, give that top-down picture, so that others can relate to it. But if the Hindus just pander to such idea, they might be selling themselves out, creating an image that does not fit the grander nature of their religion. Recall the ideal comes from "God has no religion or nationality", God also sees your heart more than your construction creed and formula. Wicca is perhaps idealizing such a position; I don't care to beat them down.

 

BUT the Hinduism is a living example of that ideal brought forth in religious lives of the millions. We cannot comprehend how all it works, for if we try, we start writing formulas and messing up. Just observe and know the grandeur. The urbaner is lost to the meaning and running for easy definitions; the person outside wants to belittle it and call the Whole as a sum of basically-independent parts. And in our ignorance, we want to preach, correct and make all fit the box-mentality we have entered.

 

We have to consider this aspect carefully.

 

One could say that by this very definition, God is Hindu, because there is no straight definition of the religion, yet the many philosophical traditions seem to have very similar practices, beliefs and terminology. Only the theology and God-focus differs.

 

 

 

This is true for most Hindus who adhere to a fixed sampradaya. But we tend not to find such Hindus who adhere!! That is a different matter.

 

Hey, I pretty much follow the bandwagon as one of those non-Indians who chose the Gaudiya sampradaya, thanks to the efforts of ISKCON and Srila Prabhupada in presenting the tradition. And it is a very beautiful tradition of which speaks of raso vai sah.

 

Although I wish I could hang out with other Vaishnavas who are part of Nimbarkacharya's (Nimbarki), Ramanujacharya's (Sri) and Vallabhacharya's (Pushtimargiya) congregations. The only association I have had is one who is a Nimbarki and another who was part of ISKCON and is now coming into Pushtimarg, both on Facebook. XD

 

 

 

I suppose you are referring to the one in Hawaii. I have great respect for them and their position with regard to Hindu unity. See, the position of Hinduism as a world religion requires this sort of boxing, and in that context, we have to join hands even as we present our different final viewpoints and ways of worship. Our main traditions began in one land, are co-related, have primary scripture as Vedas, and so on. Krishna is God-incarnate for dvaitins and advaitins alike. And there are all the subtleties of Hinduism that relate us and cannot be brushed aside.

 

The Shaiva Siddhanta Church (at least its founder) in Hawaii is not particularly admiring of the Bhagavad Gita, and as the connotation "liberal Hindus" show, not of that group as well. Let that be: I fall in that group (!!) and don't agree with all they say, but my focus like theirs is the Whole. It does not matter that they differ from me, so long as in the context of world-religions, there is that Hindu solidarity.

 

Well, Shaivites, from what I know from Satguru Shivaya Subramuniyaswami's books, is that Mahabharata and Bhagavad Gita are Vaishnava Scriptures, and that the Tirumantiram should be read instead.

 

I assumed the Shaiva Siddhanta Church had many branches, but I guess they only have one in Hawai'i. In any case, their literature and books and the distribution of them is amazing. I have great respect for their attempt to crystallise the essence of Shaiva Siddhanta sampradaya and to continue its existence. Just as ISKCON seems to be the main representative of Vaishnavism in the West, the Shaiva Siddhanta Church represents Shaivite Hinduism in the West as well.

 

I guess it is better to have distant family than no family at all, lol. It is important that we are recognised as legitimate forms of spiritual and religious practice, for I know that some countries do not even recognise Hinduism as a religion, but a cultural construct limited to its 'founding peoples'.

 

 

I used to argue in these forums against people of other sampradayas; all fun, but now it has become a pain to do any such for the central Hindu-unity is lacking across the forums. So that is the only thing I care about.

 

Aww, but uniting Hindus are fun! Although there are slight nuances that can not be ignored (for example, the Chaitanya follower should not listen to commentaries of the Bhagavad Gita or of Krishna unless they are some form of Vaishnavite and come from a personalist perspective).

 

Besides, I find it much fun to tell people that I am a Filipino-Canadian Hindu. It certainly becomes a teaching tool for me to show how diverse Hinduism can be.

 

Jaya Radhe, Radhe Shyam!

madanbhakta

[krishnaleela]

 

Also, from this supposed 'reality' of an undesignated God and soul and the reality of our material existence dependent upon labels to distinguish paths and philosophies, this understanding would make many of the religions quite universal.

 

 

Yes the central messages of many religions may be universal; the problem begins when they fancy that their labels and boxes are also universal, and all must enter their box.

 

 

But when I hear statements from Hindus of 'all paths lead to God' 'Hinduism is the oldest religion on Earth' (for the assertion that old = original or best), or that 'all religions came from Sanaatana Dharma, Hinduism', it makes me think of how many Hindu souls' egos would float from such statements.

 

 

True, but there are lots of factors behind this mentality. It has quite a bit of self-defense in the face of other world-religions proclaiming superiority in corresponding ways. Several theories regarding the Aryan-invasion, Christian influence on Hinduism, the backward nature of Hinduism, etc. were played decisively during the British rule to undermine Hinduism: we still suffer from such inferiority-complexes and blame ourselves and our religion with half-baked understanding. Those who want out of such try and cling their egos to these special features of the religion.

 

To quote the Lord Macauley's address to the British Parliament Feb 2 1835:

 

I have traveled across length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief, such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of high caliber, that I do not [think] we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage. Therefore I propose we replace the ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is Good and greater than their own, they will loose their self esteem, their native culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation.

 

By no small means has this fellow's statement proven prophetic !! But one wonders what he saw; somehow he saw the living Message behind the outer infrastructures (like varna, etc): he was able to sense that the religion worked and also how to damage its working.

<!-- END MAIN APPLICATION CONTENT -->

 

 

 

One could say that by this very definition, God is Hindu, because there is no straight definition of the religion, yet the many philosophical traditions seem to have very similar practices, beliefs and terminology. Only the theology and God-focus differs.

 

 

Perhaps. As I said, the point is subtle and may not be amenable to a short or easy discussion; each Hindu can contemplate on it and come to their own conclusion, based on their experience.

 

 

Although I wish I could hang out with other Vaishnavas who are part of Nimbarkacharya's (Nimbarki), Ramanujacharya's (Sri) and Vallabhacharya's (Pushtimargiya) congregations. The only association I have had is one who is a Nimbarki and another who was part of ISKCON and is now coming into Pushtimarg, both on Facebook. XD

 

 

Yes definitely I would recommend. Perhaps you can try other forums. I am familiar with Sri Vaishnavas of Sri Ramanujacharya. If you are in Canada, there should be Vaishnava organizations and temples.

 

 

Well, Shaivites, from what I know from Satguru Shivaya Subramuniyaswami's books, is that Mahabharata and Bhagavad Gita are Vaishnava Scriptures, and that the Tirumantiram should be read instead.

 

I assumed the Shaiva Siddhanta Church had many branches, but I guess they only have one in Hawai'i. In any case, their literature and books and the distribution of them is amazing. I have great respect for their attempt to crystallise the essence of Shaiva Siddhanta sampradaya and to continue its existence. Just as ISKCON seems to be the main representative of Vaishnavism in the West, the Shaiva Siddhanta Church represents Shaivite Hinduism in the West as well.

 

 

Yes, of course the Shaiva Siddhanta has strong holdings in South India and Sri Lanka. Satguru Shivaya Subramuniyaswami established a center at Hawaii, philosophically with a greater leaning toward Advaita (although he rejects the total position) than the center in South India. But they trace their lineage back to times gone by and are part of the "Kailasa parampara". I guessed you meant this group since you said "Church"; they specifically want to bring in such an organization-principle to establish the "organized world-religion" position for Hinduism. That's fine, all relevant in the right context.

 

It is interesting that the Guru was initially associated with the Smarthas (liberal Hindus), in particular with the Vedanta group from Ramakrishna mission. Later he rejected them, as well as the projection of the Bhagavad Gita as the Bible of Hinduism, which he saw as a preaching of violence. He went to Sri Lanka and became a staunch Shaivite. His take on the Gita also shows how Hinduism can defy the intellectual grasp, especially for those coming from other cultures. One must look to the history of the people to see how the Message permeated the lives.

[bhaktajan]

 

Originally Posted by madanbhakta (Post 11). . . we should not be teaching the Holy Name to just anyone . . .

 

We must quote sastra when expressing a scriptural maxim:

 

Sri Caitanya Caramrita lila Madhya 15.109 —“By chanting the holy name of the Lord, one dissolves his entanglement in material activities. After this, one becomes very much attracted to Krsna, and thus dormant love for Krsna is awakened.

 

CC Madhya 15.110 —“‘The holy name of Lord Krsna is an attractive feature for many saintly, liberal people. It is the annihilator of all sinful reactions and is so powerful that, save for the dumb who cannot chant it, it is readily available to everyone, including the lowest type of man, the candala. The holy name of Krsna is the controller of the opulence of liberation, and it is identical with Krsna. When a person simply chants the holy name with his tongue, immediate effects are produced. Chanting the holy name does not depend on initiation, pious activities or the purascarya regulative principles generally observed before initiation. The holy name does not wait for any of these activities. It is self-sufficient.’”

[madanbhakta]

bhaktajan,

 

After contemplation and talking about the issue with other devotees, I was thinking of this verse when I was making my mention, by Srila Pabhupada:

 

"The chanting should be hears, however, from the lips of a pure devotee of the Lord, so that immediate effect can be achieved. As far as possible, chanting from the lips of a nondevotee should be avoided, as much as milk touched by the lips of a serpent causes poisonous effect."

As well as some of the Ten Offenses to the Holy Name:

5 - To give some interpretation on the holy name of the Lord.

6 - To consider the glories of the holy name of the Lord as imagination.

9 - It is an offense to preach the glories of the holy name of the Lord to the faithless.

10 - If one has heard the glories of the transcendental holy name of the Lord but nevertheless continues in a materialistic concept of life, thinking “I am this body and everything belonging to this body is mine [aham mameti],” and does not show respect and love for the chanting of the Hare Krsna maha-mantra, that is an offense.

 

My own fear is that when spreading the Mahamantra, people may hold on to these mayavadi and impersonalist views, yet still chant the Holy Name of Krishna. I now understand that we must spread the Holy Name, but only intimate the details if they choose to become devotees.

 

Jaya Radhe,

madanbhakta

 

 

 

We must quote sastra when expressing a scriptural maxim:

 

Sri Caitanya Caramrita lila Madhya 15.109 —“By chanting the holy name of the Lord, one dissolves his entanglement in material activities. After this, one becomes very much attracted to Krsna, and thus dormant love for Krsna is awakened.

 

CC Madhya 15.110 —“‘The holy name of Lord Krsna is an attractive feature for many saintly, liberal people. It is the annihilator of all sinful reactions and is so powerful that, save for the dumb who cannot chant it, it is readily available to everyone, including the lowest type of man, the candala. The holy name of Krsna is the controller of the opulence of liberation, and it is identical with Krsna. When a person simply chants the holy name with his tongue, immediate effects are produced. Chanting the holy name does not depend on initiation, pious activities or the purascarya regulative principles generally observed before initiation. The holy name does not wait for any of these activities. It is self-sufficient.’”

[raghu]

As others have already observed, the name "Hindu" is derived from a word used by foreigners to describe people living in ancient India. Over time it has come to refer to the many and sundry traditions that at least theoretically accept the authority of the Veda. There is nothing wrong with such a usage provided that people don't read too much into it.

 

The problems start when some people (usually Hindu) start speaking of "Hinduism" as if it is single religion, usually by attributing many ideas to the "Hindu religion" that are in fact beliefs of Advaita or neo-Advaita.

 

Unfortunately, iskcon usage also perpetuates this when iskcon people blindly criticize the term "Hindu" without understanding context. It's all very nice and good to speak of "Vaishnava" as a spiritual designation, but the fact of the matter is that most Hindus are not Vaishnavas, and for the purposes of discussion it is convenient to have one term to describe all of the Veda-derived religions rather than saying, "Vaishnavas, Shaktas, Shaivites, Smarthas, nyayis, yogis, etc" every time one would otherwise have just said "Hindu."

[madanbhakta]

 

Yes the central messages of many religions may be universal; the problem begins when they fancy that their labels and boxes are also universal, and all must enter their box.

 

It is indeed strange how labels work. ISKCON presents itself, as per Srila Prabhupada, as a non-sectarian movement, but they are dubbed the 'Hare Krishnas' and given such a label, that many people unfamiliar with Vaishnavism call it the 'Hare Krishna religion.'

 

 

True, but there are lots of factors behind this mentality. It has quite a bit of self-defense in the face of other world-religions proclaiming superiority in corresponding ways. Several theories regarding the Aryan-invasion, Christian influence on Hinduism, the backward nature of Hinduism, etc. were played decisively during the British rule to undermine Hinduism: we still suffer from such inferiority-complexes and blame ourselves and our religion with half-baked understanding. Those who want out of such try and cling their egos to these special features of the religion.

 

To quote the Lord Macauley's address to the British Parliament Feb 2 1835:

 

I have traveled across length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief, such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of high caliber, that I do not [think] we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage. Therefore I propose we replace the ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is Good and greater than their own, they will loose their self esteem, their native culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation.

 

By no small means has this fellow's statement proven prophetic !! But one wonders what he saw; somehow he saw the living Message behind the outer infrastructures (like varna, etc): he was able to sense that the religion worked and also how to damage its working.

<!-- END MAIN APPLICATION CONTENT -->

What a terrible ideal... but it seems that the strength of India has been its spiritual wealth... but yes, in times of such statements, I know that Vaishnavism is a wonderful, although with the tendencies of orthodoxy and orthopraxy, religion, and Shaivism too.

 

 

 

Yes definitely I would recommend. Perhaps you can try other forums. I am familiar with Sri Vaishnavas of Sri Ramanujacharya. If you are in Canada, there should be Vaishnava organizations and temples.

 

As far as I know (living in Western Canada) only ISKCON and other Gaudiya Vaishnava devotees are apparent. There is a Pushtimargiya presence in Ontario, but that is about it.

 

 

Yes, of course the Shaiva Siddhanta has strong holdings in South India and Sri Lanka. Satguru Shivaya Subramuniyaswami established a center at Hawaii, philosophically with a greater leaning toward Advaita (although he rejects the total position) than the center in South India. But they trace their lineage back to times gone by and are part of the "Kailasa parampara". I guessed you meant this group since you said "Church"; they specifically want to bring in such an organization-principle to establish the "organized world-religion" position for Hinduism. That's fine, all relevant in the right context.

 

It is interesting that the Guru was initially associated with the Smarthas (liberal Hindus), in particular with the Vedanta group from Ramakrishna mission. Later he rejected them, as well as the projection of the Bhagavad Gita as the Bible of Hinduism, which he saw as a preaching of violence. He went to Sri Lanka and became a staunch Shaivite. His take on the Gita also shows how Hinduism can defy the intellectual grasp, especially for those coming from other cultures. One must look to the history of the people to see how the Message permeated the lives.

 

Well, I know that Satguru Shivaya Subramuniyaswami wanted to establish an organisation to protect Shaiva Dharma and called it the 'Shaiva Siddhanta Church' and such is its proper name (I believe he began preaching in the mid-1950's so the label may have been appropriate back then).

 

But I appreciate their Church's work because of how they represent the openness of Shaiva Dharma to non-Indian peoples. Although I reject Shaiva Siddhanta, since it is mainly impersonalist, I do not ignore their sincerity in their devotion to Lord Shiva. Actually, my online friend is a closeted Shaivite who is Caucasian.

 

Anyways, as a Vaishnava, it is very difficult. I say this because to a Vaishnava, Shiva has always been a servant of God, not God Himself. Many Vaishnavas would be uncomfortable being lumped with Shaivas, Shaktas, and 'liberal Hindus.' I do not have too much of a problem, but the due to the call for disassociation with impersonalists and impersonalism, we can not but only hang with Vaishnava Hindus...

[madanbhakta]

 

As others have already observed, the name "Hindu" is derived from a word used by foreigners to describe people living in ancient India. Over time it has come to refer to the many and sundry traditions that at least theoretically accept the authority of the Veda. There is nothing wrong with such a usage provided that people don't read too much into it.

 

The problems start when some people (usually Hindu) start speaking of "Hinduism" as if it is single religion, usually by attributing many ideas to the "Hindu religion" that are in fact beliefs of Advaita or neo-Advaita.

 

Unfortunately, iskcon usage also perpetuates this when iskcon people blindly criticize the term "Hindu" without understanding context. It's all very nice and good to speak of "Vaishnava" as a spiritual designation, but the fact of the matter is that most Hindus are not Vaishnavas, and for the purposes of discussion it is convenient to have one term to describe all of the Veda-derived religions rather than saying, "Vaishnavas, Shaktas, Shaivites, Smarthas, nyayis, yogis, etc" every time one would otherwise have just said "Hindu."

 

It's crazy, but I do believe that in order to keep the definition of Hinduism objective, it is imperative to teach that not all 'Hindus' (those who accept the Vedas as supreme; the definition doesn't imply whether a certain interpretation is orthodox or not) adhere to Adwaitic concepts or those of the Neo-Vedantic movement.

 

ISKCON does have this continual problem with using Hindu, but at the same time, although Srila Prabhupada said to his followers that his society was for Krishna Consciousness, and not 'Hinduism,' the ISKCON website has the Heart of Hinduism webpage at the same time! But non-ISKCON Gaudiya Vaishnavites have no problem with using the term 'Hindu'. It is quite annoying, especially even in the objective sense of the term, Hinduism has so many philosophies, and Adwaita Vedanta is only one of the many.

 

http://www.wva-vvrs.org/nectar/letter4.htm

 

Too bad it can not be clear cut and one can say "I believe in Shaivism" or "Vaishnavism is my own religion" or "I am a Shakta, and I worship Shakti" kind of thing. To correspond on how some people may use 'Vaishnava' as a blanketing term, when I am with people who may be sensitive to the word 'Hindu' I just use the 'Vedic religions - religions that derived themselves from the Veda'.

[krishnaleela]