Nomenclature

[Guest guest]

Dear List:

 

May I respectfully interject an important, but controversial concept? If we wish non-Indians to have an interest in learning about the teachings of Ramakrishna and Vivekananda we must not refer to them as "Hinduism." As a Caucasian American devotee of Sri Ramakrishna, I do not consider myself a "Hindu," but rather a "Vedantist." Using the terms "Hindu" and "Hinduism," I believe, are counterproductive to the Ramakrishna Movement outside India. This is due to the ethnic and religious connotations and associations of these terms. I understand that Vivekananda, himself, also recommended the use of the term Vedanta, rather than Hinduism.

 

I look forward to feedback from List members.

 

Jai Ramakrishna,

Brad

[Guest guest]

Brad,as a "Hindu" and an  "Indian" i tend to agree with your point..."Vedantist" or Spiritual Human"  works better for me...  I can understand why the term Hindu can not seem inclusive... ..indeed many in the West follow and Yoga and its teachings but dont call themselves Hindu... I am all for it !- As for Swami Vivekananda, well his teachings were also about reviving Indian nationalism and pride in their religion, therefore he was also very vocal about Hinduism.Suresh

[Guest guest]

Dear Brad, I understand what you mean. What is there in name? It is

our perception towards anything that counts. Names are invented by

humans for identification. Even names, all names and forms of His

(Brahman, meaning any god, Jesus, Krishna or whatever)

We have to raise above all this.

With Love & Light,

Pakirareddy

[Guest guest]

Dear Brad,

The message that Swamiji had for the west was undoubtedly of Vedanta

but he proclaimed it as the highest truth of Hinduism, not a

replacement of all other aspects of it. The idea of narrowing down

Swamiji's and Thakur's teachings from that of Hinduism to exclusively

of Vedanta just because one group feels uncomfortbale with the

terminology comes dangerously close to that of sects, which we know

Swamiji wanted to avoid at all costs. Even if that means having lesser

number of followers of Sri Ramakrishna. Swamiji himself said that if

it was numbers he wanted he could have brought a third (or half?) of

the world under Sri Ramakrishna's banner. The message Swamiji had for

us was not in need of people but people were need of that message so

if for some Americans it is more important to think what connotation

the term Hinduism brings with it before adopting its teachings then it

is their loss because either they worry too much about what other

people think of them or they have immaturely accepted an inaccurate

interpretation of Hinduism. A true Hindu would never ask a person to

declare him/herself as a Hindu before following any one of its

numerous ways of reaching God so why concern ourselves with nomenclature.

Love,

Siddharth

---

[Guest guest]

From a non-Indian or a non-hindu perspective, I agree that being a 'Vedantist' would imply an assent to the philosophical part of Hinduism, whereas a 'Hindu' would bring in lot more connotations with it that you may not be comfortable with. People might be more willing to listen if talked to, about a philosophy rather than a religion as the latter might scare them as being a conflict to their faith. But I am not really sure if we could separate out Hinduism like that or 'Vedantism' would be the right term for such a separation. 'Vedanta' is a term too dear for us Hindus to part with it. Probably this is what Buddha attempted too, to separate out the pristine truths from the mass of intricacies.

 

 

As Siddharth pointed out, it might even end up creating a sect where the 'Vedantists' would look down upon the 'Hindus' as 'yet to be spiritually evolved' ritualists. Already we have a lot of 'well-read' hindus, who unable to comprehend the other aspects of hinduism, are calling themselves 'spiritual but not religious' and want to distance themselves as far as possible with the 'mundanely ritualistic' hindus. Having cursorily gone through 'Secret of the Veda' by Sri Aurobindo, I understand that 'karma-kanda' also contains the highest truths but in a more mystic and freer sense than the concretised statements made in the 'Vedanta' part of the vedas.

 

 

 

Anyways, these are my 2 cents worth of confusing thoughts.

 

Glory be to the holy trio,

Rajkumar

[Guest guest]

Chicago Monday November 13, 2006

Om RamaKrishna

Dear Brad:

 

IF WE NEED A TRUE NAME, IT MUST BE " SANATANA (ETERNAL) RELIGION " .

 

I love the response of Siddharth also.

 

Although Swami Vivekananda represented Hinduism at the world's

Parliament of Religions held in Chicago in 1893, he has made clear

in one of his addresses that by Hinduism he meant the religion of

the Vedas. And as we know the true name of that religion

is " Sanatana (Eternal) Religion. " If we want to change the

nomenclature, we got to change the name Hinduism to Sanatana Dharma.

 

But from centuries the name Hinduism has been used, and let me know

how can it be changed to the true name Sanatana Dharma?

 

--Girish (of SRKP & WHSW)

(SRKP is an acronym for Sri RamaKrishna Parivar. WHSW is an acronym

for WIDER HORIZONS Weekly).

 

P.S. Yes, if Swami Vivekananda had preached the Personal God in the

form of Sri RamaKrishna in the West, he would have converted half

the world to Sri RamaKrishna. (I think Christopher Isherwood

revealed this in his classic " Sri Ramakrishna and His Disciples. " )

And Bharat (that is, India -- we got to change this name too!) was,

is, and will be of Sri RamaKrishna.

[Guest guest]

In my view there is no need to argue on this issue.

Neither in Vedas nor in Srimat Bhagwad Gita, the word Hindu has been used.

Hindu that was used to describe inhabitants of land east of river Sindhu. Some mispronounced to Indu (india)- it is like using a word American/yankee or Red Indian etc. Hinduism is a philosophy followed by majority of those living in Indian sub continent more than 2,500 years ago. In common usage it includes Bhuddhism, Jainism, Sikhism etc. Both Sri Ramakrishna and Swami Vivekananda have used the word Hinduism that includes Vedanta. Let us focus on their teachings and help unify mankind on principles of Vedanta rather than waste our time and enery on terms that we prefer to describe the philosophy.

[Guest guest]

Hello Brad,

 

I came across a similar situation when I was in the

Vedanta temple, San Francisco. A volunteer in the

bookshop recieved a phone call to enquire what kind of

temple it was from a Hindu. She informed to the

surprised caller that we worship Buddha, Thakur, Holy

Mother, Swamiji Maharaj and Jesus. After the call we

discussed about this and I agreed with her that she

was a practising christian using the teachings of

Vedanta and Vedanta centers/temples are not cultural

centers but spiritual centers.

 

Even my collegue in the office was surprised to find

that that we worshipped Jesus and Buddha on the same

platform because one was bhakti yoga and the other

jnana yoga.

 

regards,

--Sunil

[Guest guest]

There has been a discussion about Hinduism and Vedanta.

They are together as Varanasi and Ganges.

 

Can Varanasi be moved away from Ganges ? And will that be yet Varanasi ?

 

Hinduism is not a bad word that it should frighten people of other religions.

 

The problem is that other religions emphasise that their path alone is truth and

others are all false religions.

 

Thus people think that accepting some things from Hinduism means discarding their religion.

 

As Mahatma Gandhi said Hinduism has enough place for Mohammed,Christ, Tao, Confusious

and other prophets.

It is this misbelief of other religions is that to be addressed rather than dropping Hindu word.

 

Hinduism is relentless pursuit after Truth. It is a way of life and not a Sectarian faith.

 

Regards,S.KarthikVandemataram