Controversy over Krishna Avanti Primary school’s defining who is a Hindu
The opening of Britain’s first state funded Hindu school has once again been embroiled in controversy after the I-Foundation announced its definition of who they would consider to be a Hindu for their school’s selection procedure. Although the I-Foundation later retracted its position due to negative publicity amongst British Hindus, the disctinct impression has been given that the school represents a rigid viewpoint of a particular sect and is not truly representative of the Hindu community.
December 27th, 2007 at 8:42 am
I suppose most Hindus in Britain do not know what is Hinduism. They do not know what are the main texts of Hindu religion. They never read those either. As a result they are surprised by the definition which may rule them out. It is their fault, but not the fault of the ISKON
Vegetarian food is essential for a practicing Hindu. Have you seen any Hindu priest who is not a vegetarian? Can you eat meat inside any Hindu temple?
Festivals vary from one region to another in India, but that does not mean we have to rule out any or include everyone.
December 27th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
WHAT RUBBISH! (excuse that) Who do these people think they are to determine who a Hindu is by a few rules like that?
I DONT do a daily prayer, but i worship on daily basis, like i do WATCH the prayer, and learn what each thing we do means.
I DO accept the saying from the bhagvad gita and other religeous scriptures.
I DONT have a local temple (that i know of) so regular volentary works is out of the question.
I DONT attend regular worships or programmes at ANY mandir.
I DONT act out to be a veggie, i eat meat, but i restrict myself strictly to chicken and lamb. I eat no other. I also eat fish and eggs.
I DO celebrate all 3 festivals stated
BUT even though some of my answers are negative I AM HINDU. Who are you people to say that if im not pure veggie that i aint a Hindu, and that if i dont do volentary work at a mandir i aint Hindu. You know what, the people who determined this aren’t Hindu, because they know NOTHING on how to detemine who a Hindu is.
My definition of a Hindu is, Someone who prays to God, and follows the religeous rules. Who looks to our Gods in time of need. Someone who understands and shows intrest in Hinduism. Someone who has eternal and true love of our religeon. Someone who wants to help preserve the religeon, and understands how sacred and truthful Hinduism is. Someone who WANTS to learn about Hinduism, and does their best to do so.
AND most of all, someone who if were held on gunpoint and was asked are you a Hindu? and knew if they said yes they would be killed, then they would say yes even then BECAUSE THEY STAND FOR HINDUISM.
Someone has to tell these people they are prejudical and radically stupid to think they are Hindu’s if thats their definition of a Hindu. Would u agree with my definition or theirs?
You tell me!
December 27th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
Glad to see that the school has enough guts to say what it feels, like these guidelines for exmaple, obviously they are not to eveybodys standards but who are the people really complaining, meateater?? non practicing Hindus??
December 28th, 2007 at 2:59 am
A.Moron lives upto his self designated name.
“Vegetarian food is essential for a practicing Hindu. Have you seen any Hindu priest who is not a vegetarian? Can you eat meat inside any Hindu temple?”
Ya sure mate, please get out of your little hole and go to Bengal or to the Konkan where the Brahmins do eat fish.
Go to some of those Devi mandirs in Nepal where they do animal sacrifices.
The fact is fanatics like you and CON are trying to push your beliefs onto the rest of the Hindus, well sorry to say no one is going to accept self proclaimed know it all’s like you and you need to get out of your little vegetarian cocoon into the wider world and learn that “Hindu” doesn’t only mean what your so called sect/caste/community practices.
December 28th, 2007 at 3:12 am
According to these clowns, some of the greatest Hindus are NOT actually Hindu, I am talking about people like Baji Rao, also according to them most of the Hindus are NOT really Hindu, that must be great to the eyes and ears of our enemies, it seems that Hindus are masters at scoring self goals
Thankfully most of the Hindus are not vegetarian (yep not even in Gujarat) and as a result these veggie fascists (note that i am not talking about the many sensible vegetarians who make a concious choice and do not behave self righteously towards other Hindus) can’t drag down the entire community using their numbers.
December 28th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
Dharmesh -
The people complaining are not necessarily non-practicing Hindus and meat eaters - they include Hindu Council & Hindu Human Rights.
People who don’t want a definition of Hinduism that excludes 80% of decent committed Hindus. E.g. if I’m a Shaivite (devotee of Shiva), or I’m a person who has studied + teaches Hindu scriptures to others - then why should I be classed as a “non-practicing Hindu” because I don’t go to the temple or don’t celebrate Ramnavmi and Janmashtami most of the time.
Definition of Hindu that exclude many portions of Hindus are something we have to reject.
December 28th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
A definition of a Hindu has to be fair. They cannot say that I (for example) am not a Hindu because i eat meat, but they are because they are veggies. I find it very disturbing and annoying that they published those as their definition of a Hindu. It’s actually extreamly annoying, because what some of us do is infact more than what a lot of others do. In this country, there are very few people who are like that, and they are the people who are ABLE to do these things. They have the perfect location, time, people to take them to the places, they have skills of organisation and so on.
Can someone tell me their definition of a Hindu (I told mines in my previous comment)
December 29th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
Some School run by some cult is trying to tell us what is and what is not a Hindu!
Well good luck with them? When the chips are down and they get attack by the feeble minded factions of the local population and the other minority groups they will - through their political arm- the HIndu Forum - raise a big stink and send a petition out to all Hindus to help…
It has that time we can all say to self-righteous tree hugging carrot munching cultists - Sorry mate I can’t help u as I - under your defination - am not a hindu… ta ta”….
January 1st, 2008 at 5:06 pm
I consider myself a practising Hindu,I read the vedic literature,celebrate navratri(not a criteria) and follow a vegetarian diet.Might occasionally have a cake or two on celebrations,but guess what 99 percent of Hindus in this country do.
I do three sandhyas a day would I gain entry to such school?
Probably not.
come on be serious,you cant define a Hindu in such criterias.
But isnt it central to hinduism to be compassionate to all gods creatures and to follow ahimsa(non violence). if so is this not contradicting being a hindu and eating meat?
January 1st, 2008 at 10:58 pm
yeah asmiha… your are right.. it is central to hinduism to be compassionate to all gods creatures and to folow ahimsa… and being a Hindu and eating meat is a bit rebellious to our religeon. I’m not going to lie, I eat meat.. chicken and lamb only though, and that too only in parties and other rare occasions. I tried to drop meat several times, but ended up going back to it in the end, because it is kind of hard to drop it. But you cannot say that I’m not Hindu because i eat meat, because on all religeous occasions, navratri, diwali ect, i dont THINK about meat let alone eat it. To be honest, i don’t think you can define a Hindu on a few basic criterias. You have to give them an overall look at.. Look at every aspect of their live and their do’s and don’t to define them.
January 3rd, 2008 at 6:41 am
Saying you have to be a veggie to be Hindu is pathetic. The Pandavs used to eat meat. The Mahabharat says Bheem used to get a basketful of meat from hunters everyday during the war. So was Bheem not Hindu?
January 3rd, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Agree with all of the above.
But what is also nice is that there is a clear passion for more such schools and thus the market may be able to support multiple Hindu schools in UK. This would only be good for the community and such competition would drive the quality of the education.
hariaum
January 4th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Navin, your right, there is a passion… i know for definate that if i was living near one of these schools, i wouldl definately attend. Its a way for me to socialise with other Hindu’s, and for me to learn more about religeon and culture, and teaches me the things i dont know. Prahalad, your right aswel, that is true, bheem ate meat, yet he is in our scriptures, what makes people think therefore we MUST be a veggie to be Hindu??
January 4th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
I think we need to ask ourselves this question? Do we have purely Christian schools in the country?? The answer is no! You’ll see Church of england schools, or catholic schools, but never do you see a ‘Christian school’. Hinduism is a far more diverse faith system that Christianity so to have a school serving the needs and ideas of all ‘Hindus’ is a illogical idea, as Hinduism is made up of so many sects, such as Vaishnavam, Shaivam, Shakta and Smarta. In summary there is no concept of mainstreme Hinduism
The Krishna Avanti school, has a large grounding in the ISKCON organisation which is vaishnava, so naturally is influenced by Vaishnava practice, such as strict veg food, deity worship and celebrating the appearance of Krishna and Rama. I think the Krishna avanti school, should stop trying to please everyone and go back to their roots and function as a Vaishnava school. By calling themselves as ‘Hindu’ school there is too much debate as to what consitutues Hinduism and often there are some practices which have differing opinions. For example, all Vaishnava sects strictly forbit meat eating but many Shaktas, from Nepal and bengal ritualy eat meat. For Vaishnavas it would be a great offence to their faith if they supported meat eating. So if they called themselves as Vaishnav school, we would not have this silly debate. If all else fails, i personally beleive that we scrap the idea all together, (as i personally prefer secular education, and having religion taught at home and places of worship)
Hinduism is a great faith. All Hindus need to work together for our common goals and aims, but one of the greatest threats to our great religion is the ‘uniformity myth’, that we all the same and believe in the same things.
January 6th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
I am all for the idea that, to paraphrase Swami Vivekananda, ‘there should be as many religions as there are people to follow them, for each individual’s relationship with the Almighty is unique and peculiar to them alone’. I agree that we are all born different and one man’s meat is another man’s poison (no pun intended - I really don’t want to cause this to descend into yet another drawn out, utterly unproductive slanging match between vegetarians and omnivores!) However, at the same time, I would urge a sense of caution.
Allowing for the fact that values, morals, ethics and standards are all subject to the vagaries of desha, kaala and parasthiti, nevertheless, I personally believe that there are such things as absolute rights and wrongs. For example, rape is wrong - it has always been wrong and will always be wrong, regardless of the sociocultural values of the specific society. This, I believe, can be extended to other things also.
As such then, at some point, one must draw the line between what is right and wrong; this applies even more so to an ‘organised religion’ - any, not just Hinduism. If this means that certain people become excluded for their practises, well wrong does not suddenly become right just because I want it to. If I want to go around killing anyone who annoys me and then claim that I am a good Hindu, the very same people who are now complaining would be up in arms against me.
Note the other aspect of this whole issue that seems to have been missed. This school is, I believe, an ISKCon project. Had ISKCon called it a ‘Vaishnava’ school or a ‘Hare Krishna’ school, the mainstream Hindu community would have (yet again) lambasted them for being ashamed of the term ‘Hindu’. And yet when they use the word ‘Hindu’ but still want to continue with their own beliefs, they are blamed for appropriating the word ‘Hindu’ for their own purposes. Is this not a somewhat hypocritical position for us (i.e. non-ISKCon Hindus) to take?
January 7th, 2008 at 10:10 am
hinduism is too wide a spectrum to put criteria on it.
I believe in worship and rituals but do not feel it important to visit temple everyday. the temple can be in your home or heart.
i offer alcohol to kali and use as prasad- is this non hindu - i don’t know but my tradition allows it and i will continue this worship.
I am veggie but if hindus eat meat then they will reap their actions - they are still hindus !
dieity worship isd personal choice and you cannot say which diety should or should not be worshipped.
hinduism is animism and paganism , its tribal and ancester worship, it is also a scientific and structured way of worshipping.
ravi
January 8th, 2008 at 6:55 am
For Ravi Sharma Sudan:
You wrote, ” hinduism is animism and paganism , its tribal and ancester worship, it is also a scientific and structured way of worshipping.”
It shows that you do not know what is Hinduism. It is not animism or paganism at all. Hinduism is very well defined in the Vedas, Upanishads and Bhagwat Gita. You should read these, as these are now avialable easily. Hinduism is not what you think it is. You are not a practicing Hindu just because you are born in a Hindu family. You must learn from the Holy Books what is Hinduism or Sanatan Dharma.
January 19th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
To use English terms, Ravi Sudan’s description of Hinduism is accurate. Animsim is seeing the Spirit flowing through all things. Paganism is that which is not Monotheistic. Of course there is a tribal aspect to all religions. Ancester worship, like many other forms of worship is (per definintion) “to respect and revere.”
January 20th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
“This school is, I believe, an ISKCon project. Had ISKCon called it a ‘Vaishnava’ school or a ‘Hare Krishna’ school, the mainstream Hindu community would have (yet again) lambasted them for being ashamed of the term ‘Hindu’”
Satya it looks like you have misinterpreted the facts… the Advanti school was sold to everyone inc the Govt Ministers, he Dept of the Education as a mainstream “Hindu” school - it was championed by the corrupt Hindu Forum of GB as “mainstream” but then once the final go-ahead was given it turns out that the cult of Iskcon showed its true colors…
You have to realise that it is a mainstream hindu school then it should include other mainstream Hindu ideal not just the Vaishnava one.
What has happened, is that the ISKcon cult has again taken the majority of Hindu’s for a ride, ably abieted by the wonderful Hindu Council of GB and you know what, when Hindu’s raise a complaint there will always be people like you accusing us of being hyporitical.
Never mind what is done is done. The school will go ahead and the cult will indoctrinate its pupils with one sided constructs of Hinduism.
But maybe Satya you should ask the Iskcon people whether they are the hypocrites…
When ever they need help from the Hindus of the Uk they label themselves Hindu - but when ever any other Hindu tradition needs help they distance themselves as non-hindus…
they have done this so many times… it is a wonder that their mouth piece the HFB is not remamed the Iskcon Council of Great Britain…
They think they have the “monopoly on hinduism” and it is a crying shame that all the major vasihnava celebrations - hindus go and pray to their white masters just because they can recite a few sanstrict verses ….
looks like Independence never happened…
January 21st, 2008 at 10:37 am
Swami Paran and Ravi Sudan:
Animism is the doctrine that things, even inanimate things, have souls. (Animus is the Latin word for soul.)The term was coined by Edward Burnett Tylor in Primitive Culture (1871). Child psychologist Jean Piaget held that animism is one of the tendencies in the thought of the pre-rational child (Zusne and Jones 1989: 27). Thus, if you think Hinduism is Animism, you are insulting Hindu religion.
Paganism (from Latin paganus, meaning “country dweller, rustic”) is a term which, has come to connote a broad set of spiritual or cultic practices or beliefs of any folk religion, and of historical and contemporary polytheistic religions in particular.
Hinduism is Monotheistic, because according to Rig Veda, Upanishad and Bhagwat Gita there is only one sole creator, there is one source of all called Brahman.
Hinduism is not Pagan. Once again you are insulting Hindu religion due to the fact that you do not care to read the Holy Books at all.
January 21st, 2008 at 7:43 pm
With all due respect, I’d like, if I may, to make a few comments reference A.Moron’s statements above:
1. The fact that a particular individual, or even the entirety of mainstream Western academia, may be of a certain opinion (in this case, that the notion of all things possessing a ’soul’ is ‘primitive’ or ‘pre-rational’) does not make it so. The fact is that there is a substantial school of Hindu philosophical thought and spiritual faith that holds it to be true that God resides in, permeates or even constitutes, all things. That being the case, it cannot possibly be argued that Hinduism is not animist. Further, that a child may perfectly understand something that adults find it difficult to grasp is far from a rarity - a child has no preconceived notions and interprets all things on their own merits, which is clearly not the case for adults; this is the problem for Westerners trying to understand Hinduism. Besides, out of the mouths of babes, and all that..
2. Again, I see no problem with Hinduism being described as a religion of the country-dwellers, given that 70-80% of India’s population is even today rural. In addition, the earliest forms of Hinduism may be traced back to what are called in modern parlance ‘Adivasis’ (or ‘Vanvasis’, depending on your personal political inclinations). Further, it is probably fair to say that it is in the countryside that Hinduism truly lives even today, rather than in the ever more Westernised, materialistic urban centres. The wealthy, upper classes in the city have always, in all civilisations, looked down upon the country-dweller, but in spiritual terms, who is truly the wealthier?
3. Whilst etymology is a fascinating area of study and often can be quite useful for understanding the meaning of words (for example, knowledge of classical Latin and Greek are useful for the medical student trying to understand unfamiliar medical terms), it is well accepted and generally fairly clear that derivations of words do not necessarily equate with their modern-day meaning. For example, the general usage of the word ’sinister’ today certainly has nothing to do with left-handedness. Thus, judging a description purely on the basis of its etymology is at best risky, particularly since meanings of words are so fluid.
4. Incidentally, since discussion of etymology has been raised, and following on from the idea that words may change their usage and even their actual meaning, the derivation of pagan is debated. The Latin term ‘paganus’ itself held different meanings at different periods - whilst in classical Latin it certainly was derived from pagus (’country’) and thus meant ‘country-dweller’, it later came to be used to mean ‘civilian’ (as opposed to a member of the ‘miles Christi’ - ’soldiers of Christ’). Further, the sense in which it was used - either as merely a statement of fact description or as a mocking insult is also the subject of debate, and most likely did itself change over time, even in ancient times.
January 21st, 2008 at 7:50 pm
A moron. You are using words as is convenient for the christo-islamic sects. We should understand that animism, paganism, and infidel are words used by these monothinking groups to define “the other” belief systems and thus to undermine their credibility in religous dialogue. We could reject their definition as you are suggesting. I suspect the others above are arguing we embrace the christo-islamists construct of otherness and say people who are trying to find Brahman in all things and in all places are in the “other group” to which Hinduism belongs while those trying to limit the human search for god to their own creations (the bible and koran) belong to the “not-other group” of mono-thinkers.
It is semantics but I’ld prefer to be among those called pagans and animists much more than to be among the mono-thinkers.
hariaum
January 22nd, 2008 at 10:32 am
NRI Bar Steward:
What kind of Hinduism do you like if you do not like Vaishnava Hinduism?
Vainava Hinduism is the main stream Hinduism as promoted by recent Hindu saints like Ramanuj, Sri Chaitanya, Madav and many others later.
There is nothing wrong for ISKON or the Hindu Council to promote that, as it is the most refined version of Hinduism.
January 22nd, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Swami Vivekananda boldly declared, both theists (believers in Bhagavan) and athesists (non-believers in Bhagavan) have place in Hindu dharma. I feel the definition of ‘Hindu’ given by the Sri Bal Gangadhar Tilak is a comprehensive and beautiful one, as accepted by the Supreme Court of India.
Who Is a Hindu?
“Acceptance of the Vedas with reverence; recognition of the fact that the means or ways to salvation are diverse; and the realization of the truth that the number of deva-devis (gods) to be worshiped is large, that indeed is the distinguishing feature of the Hindu religion.” B.G. Tilak’s definition of what makes one a basic Hindu, as quoted by India’s Supreme Court. On July 2, 1995 the Court referred to it as an “adequate and satisfactory formula.”
A definition of Hindu must include all Hindus (followers of Sanatan Dharma), practicing or non-practicing, theists or atheists, by-birth or by-adoption, vaisnavite or shaivite, vegetarian or non-vegetarian, and so on.
Bharat
====
January 24th, 2008 at 6:09 am
Complete Rubbish:
Supreme Court cannot define a religion. It is given in the books of Hinduism. If we accept the definition of the Supreme Court then the enemies of Hinduism are correct, who says there are millions of Gods and Godesses, no definition , no principles, diverse ways, no prescribed books in Hinduism: i.e a complete anarchy, not a religion to be considered.
Tilak was wrong in many ways, he believed that Aryans came from outside India etc. He was a politician.
No where Swami Vivekananda said what you wrote, can you give exact reference.
If someone accept this definition of the Supreme Court then Rig Veda is wrong along with Bhagwat Gita and Upanishad.
January 24th, 2008 at 7:03 am
Hinduism ( or Sanatan Dharma) is described clearly in the three set of books Vedas, Upanishad and Bhagwat Gita. Other practices are deviations, however old or widespread those may be.
There are other sets of books but those are not Hinduism as such. Purana are chronicles of ancient time until about 12 the century written in poetic or or symbolic or mythological terms. Manu Smriti is the law book of ancient India. There are six systems of Philosophy, one or more than one of these are materialistic or atheists. These are very important, but these are not religion as such but some time they explains what are already there in the Three most important set of books. There are many different regional practices but these are not the core of Hinduism.
Thus, in short, In Sanatan Dharma:
There is just one sole creator, source of all called Brahman
Krishna was the reincarnation of Brahman.
There is one source of all.
There are two ways of purification of the soul: (a) Way of knowledge; (b) way of action.
There are three types of way of life: Sattik, Rajasic, Tamasic. Sattik is the one that is prescribed.
The main priciples what a Hindu should follow is all written down in Bhagwat Gita, in Chapter 16, Verses 1-4.
There are people who would cry out hell no, there are diverse ways etc etc. However, without discipline there cannot be any religion. What I wrote above gives you a clear definition of Hinduism.
It is essential for you to read at least Bhagwat Gita, which is the essence of Hindu religion or Sanatan Dharma.
January 24th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
With all due respect, A.Moron, regarding Vivekananda’s statement on atheism, theism, etc., might I offer an “exact reference” as you request. The following quote is taken from The Complete Works Of Swami Vivekananda, Volume 1: Addresses At The Parliament Of Religions, in a paper entitled “Paper On Hinduism”, dated 19th September 1893. The final sentence of Paragraph 1 reads:
“From the high spiritual flights of the Vedanta philosophy, of which the latest discoveries of science seem like echoes, to the low ideas of idolatry with its multifarious mythology, the agnosticism of the Buddhists and the atheism of the Jains, each and all have a place in the Hindu’s religion.”
My personal opinion is that this is all inconsequential pedantry - apart from anything else, religion is a personal matter so who are any of us to try to dictate to others what they should or shouldn’t believe? However, since the question was raised, I felt it appropriate to provide this answer.
January 25th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
The definition of Hindu was given by Sri Bal Gangadhar Tilak and not by SC(SC merely quoted it and found it is “adequate and satisfactory formula”). Sri Tilak was also a great Hindu scholar, besides other things. Let we respect their contributions (one’s opinion may differ).
About atheism/theism of Vivekananda, answer is given in Satya’s posting.
If everything is rubbish, then please come-out with a comprehensive definition of the word Hindu. Note, Sanatan dharma is inclusive, and not like exclusive dogmatic relgions. We can’t put someone out, just because it does not fit to our way of thinking. There are hundreds of sampradayas in Sanatan dharma, definition must cover every segments of Hindu society.
As Sri Ramakrishna said, Yata mat tato path (as many sampradayas or religions so many paths to Ishwara). We may have differences in opinion, but we all are Hindu (followers of Vedic Sanatan dharma).
Bharat
January 26th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
To further underscore the point, the following, again from The Complete Works Of Swami Vivekananda, Volume 4, Writings (Prose), in a letter entitled “What We Believe In”, dated 3rd March, 1894:
“We reject none, neither theist, nor pantheist, monist, polytheist, agnostic, nor atheist; the only condition of being a disciple is modelling a character at once the broadest and the most intense.”
I hope that this settles the question - Swami Vivekananda certainly did believe that both aethism and theism had their place within Hinduism, and quite clearly stated this to be the case.
As I said before, all this is not necessarily actually relevant; however, for the sake of intellectual honesty, it is worth considering remarks made in ignorance such as “No where Swami Vivekananda said what you wrote […]” None of us can be expected to know everything, and we will all make mistakes; however, we should at least try not to state so emphatically, definitively and authoritatively that which we do not ourselves know, especially when the purpose of the statement is to discredit the views of another, however much those views may clash with our own.
January 29th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Along the lines of Satya’s caution:
knowledge of things that exist or don’t exist is not the same type of knowledge.
To see something is to have reasonable certainty of examples of certain things. To not see something is not a reasonable certainty of no such thing existing. A counter example can be found to a hypothesis but an example can not be found to prove the non-existence of something.
This is the philosophical root of the scientific method that places at the forefront the null hypothesis for which a counter example is sought in the world of things seen.
This same is the root of the problem of the prophetic religions that ask for superstitious faith in the word of a person or book that things you can not see exist. Now you must believe in what is said rather than what is seen and there is no way to question it. Thus it becomes a dogma rather than a route.
Other religions focus on you learning how to see what is unseen and use questions/inquiry to achieve this. These become yogas/tao’s etc. These then become more scientific (and logically sound) religious experiences.
In sum, be humble with knowledge.
hariaum
January 30th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Unfortunately you are all proving that the Western critics of the Hinduism are correct. Hinduism is not a religion, but a diverse ways of life, a jungle of ideas with millions of Gods and Goddesses. If that is correct, then all Hindus should hang their heads in shame as they have no religion as such.
However, that is not true, according to the Holy books( Rig Veda, Upanishads and Bhagwat Gita). I am very surprised that you people read all kinds of things but fail to read your own religion. It is not important who said what, but what is written down in the Holy books of Hinduism.
One should accept those.
January 30th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Which book did Krishna advise Arjuna to read?
Which book did Rama say we should read?
Which book is the authority on reason?
Is Patanjali an authority on Hinduism?
Is Radhakrishnan an authority?
How about Ramakrishna?
Vivekananda?
Amma Ji?
.
.
.
Hariuam
January 30th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Namaste,
We are the followers of Sanatan Dharma or Vaidika dharma or Arya (means noble) Dharma or Hindu Dharma, and we identify us as Hindu. We need to use the word “Dharma” and not religion. Dharma is righteousness, non-secterian, it is inclusive, it is eternal; whereas religion is dogmatic, sectarian, it is exclusive.
We Hindus worship one God, that is Para Brahman, Absolute Truth and His innumerable aspects/attributes (deva-devis, gods and goddessses). Thirty three million (33 crore devata) deva-devis are His innumerable aspects/gunas. Rig Veda boldly declares, “Ekam sat vipra bahuda vadanti” (Truth/God is One, wisemen call it by different/diverse names).
In Bhagavad Gita, Sri Krishna said all diverse worships lead to Me (i.e Parabrahman, Supreme Reality).
Vaidika Sanatan dharma is the mother of all monotheism. Other religions got the idea of monotheism from Vedic dharma, culture and philosophy.
Bharat
====
January 31st, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Namaste,
Correction: Three hundred thirty three million (330 million, i.e 33 crore), and not thirty three million deva-devis.
Bharat
====
February 1st, 2008 at 10:23 am
Bharat:
Congratulation brother. You are a rare Hindu who has read the Holy books and as a result you have the correct knowledge about our religion. I only pray to Sri Krishna that others who are endlessly debating should read our Holy books.
February 4th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Hindus are not disciplined. They do not read their Holy books, instead they follow what they want and try to prove that is Hinduism. That is the reason we have Bhagwan Rajnish or Various Saibabas who take out Rolex from their hair, or Guru Maharaj who advocate Tantric Sex in California.
It is no surprise Hinduism has such a bad publicity.
February 29th, 2008 at 2:37 am
The problem with definition, “even for a concept like non-violence, let alone a religion”, is that it is either too narrow or too wide. When it is too narrow, it leaves out many important aspects; when it is too wide it becomes meaningless. But definition is useful to distinguish one thing from another; in terms of religious belief, Hinduism is different from Chritianity or Islam. The Hindu belief if based on the teachings of its scriptures, like the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Gita, etc. Now we may interpret these scriptures in our different ways. It may also be that we don’t agree with everything in them. Given all this, I believe that someone is a Hindu if they adhere to the general ethos of the cluture, that is, if they accept its scriptures as their heritage even though they may question aspects of it. In my younger days I use to eat meat and drink alcohol, yet I considered myself a Hindu not just because my parents were Hindus but because Hinduism made more sense to me when I compared it with other religions. In the kind of Hinduism, I was exposed to, the eating of meat and drinking of alcohol did not feature in any of its ceremonies and I think I would feel rather uncomfortable in a form of Hinduism that engages in animal sacrifice or the drinking of alcohol as part of its ritual. The point, I am making here is that I would not want to exclude anyone from being a Hindu simply because they eat meat and drink alcohol for there are teetotallers and vegetarians who are not Hindus, so the criterion of being a Hindu should go beyond these two elements, it should be to embrace the culture in a general way. I know that I don’t live the culture fully and yet I would not want to immitate some of the so-call pundits. Hinduism has a long history and because of its tolerance may practices were accommodated, some of which does not appeal to the modern age, so reformers came and made their contributions but let us not through out the baby with the bath water: improvement should be welcome but the essence should continuity and we should always strive for perfection. On this last point, I am prepared to argue with anyone for the benefits of vegetarianism in a compassionate society - animals do feel pain when you kill them to a greater degree than plant life.
March 3rd, 2008 at 6:59 pm
well atleast they are taking a step towards opening hindu school with strict regulations. Stop mopping around!!! we all need to do what is mentioned there.. it wouldn’t kill us if we participated in a temple organised festivites, do pooja every day and stop eating meat!! all those who think hinduisum is what ever they want it to be …. SHUT UP!!!
May 11th, 2008 at 7:52 am
Moran you are right . Hindus do not show discipline in the conduct of worship or practice of Hinduism. One reason I can see is the absolute freedom of mind and expression that non-doctrinal and non-dogmatic Hinduism gives. But once Hindus understand that conduct in life does contribute towards enlightenment of our soul within, they will am sure will show disciplin in their life.
Because of this absolute freedom, India over thousands of years has become land of thinkers and Saints. Unfortunately some Saints have used their Sainthood given by the people to their advantage and some have made money out of it. I think Hindus should go back to Hindu scriptures (Vedas, Upanishads, Geeta), believe and worship only the incarnations of our creaor. This will develop discipline in them.