"we are not hindu!!"

[Gaura Priya]

"We're Vaishnavas..."


So, with the vagary of what actually constitutes a Hindu, I consider Hindu, although a historically innacurate term, to be a cultural term, regarding any belief system or religion that adheres to the Vedic Scriptures. While Hinduism and being Hindu is a culture, I appropriate Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Shaktism, Smartism, etc. to be separate, distinct religions with the same cultural substance.

Yet, sometimes I feel with certain organisations like ISKCON (which is Gaudiya Vaishnava by definition) or SCS Math (my organisation!) will remove the Hindu claim for either fear of unacceptance, or for popularisation. What is really so bad about being 'Hindu?" Even though I am a Gaudiya Vaishnava, I use the word 'Hindu' as a term of convenience so as to get people's idea of 'Hare Krishna cult' out of their heads, lol.

Sometimes I feel that Srila Prabhupad disliked the term Hindu because also he did not consider non-Vaishnavism to be truly 'Vedic' as much as Vaishnavism itself. He even said that it did not matter what sampradaya one belongs to, as long as it is a Vaishnava one, lol.

I am sure that ISKCON's not the only 'non-Hindu' obviously Hindu organisation out there; I have heard that the Ramakrishna mission also does the same, as well as other personality cults such as Baba Hari Dass, Mata Amritanandamayi, etc.

 

[Madhuri]

I think that the term Hinduism has a number of definitions and meanings. I generally tell people I am Hindu because specifying the sampradaya would cause too much confusion and elaboration.

I think that if we look at Vedic religions by imagining India as a world on its own then we can certainly perceive these different branches to be separate religions. However, looking at it from a global perspective, I think it is valid to group them all into the umbrella term of Hinduism.

PS: What does SCS stand for?

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

I have heard that the Ramakrishna mission also does the same, as well as other personality cults such as Baba Hari Dass, Mata Amritanandamayi, etc.

I don't see the Ramakrishna order as a personality cult. You find all types in their temples. But, in the west they tend to call themselves Vedantins,and not Hindu's.

 

[Gaura Priya]

I think that the term Hinduism has a number of definitions and meanings. I generally tell people I am Hindu because specifying the sampradaya would cause too much confusion and elaboration.

I think that if we look at Vedic religions by imagining India as a world on its own then we can certainly perceive these different branches to be separate religions. However, looking at it from a global perspective, I think it is valid to group them all into the umbrella term of Hinduism.

PS: What does SCS stand for?

SCS Math - Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Math... lineage: Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur, Srila Sridhar Maharaj, Srila Govinda Maharaj, and now Srila Acharya Maharaj...

I guess I find it interesting that some groups that are inherently Hindu... don't call themselves Hindu or look upon it with disgust or inferiority as to feel lumped up with everyone else in the Sanatana Dharma boat, lol.

 

[Gaura Priya]

I don't see the Ramakrishna order as a personality cult. You find all types in their temples. But, in the west they tend to call themselves Vedantins,and not Hindu's.

Sorry, I did not mean to put that 'other' in that phrase. The Ramakrishna Mission is a very reputable one, and can not compare to such personality centred groups like Satya Sai Baba, Sri Chinmoy, Osho, Amma, or the like.

But that is curious that they would rather call themselves Vedantin's... what's wrong with being 'Hindu' for them?

 

[Madhuri]

I guess I find it interesting that some groups that are inherently Hindu... don't call themselves Hindu or look upon it with disgust or inferiority as to feel lumped up with everyone else in the Sanatana Dharma boat, lol.

Yeh, I've noticed that too. It's kind of silly to worry about being labelled that if you understand the definition or perspective.

 

[kaisersose]

Sorry, I did not mean to put that 'other' in that phrase. The Ramakrishna Mission is a very reputable one, and can not compare to such personality centred groups like Satya Sai Baba, Sri Chinmoy, Osho, Amma, or the like.

But that is curious that they would rather call themselves Vedantin's... what's wrong with being 'Hindu' for them?

Calling themselves Vedantins is just being specific. But do they actually say they are not Hindus? I doubt it.

On the other hand, Iskcon has expressly claimed to be not Hindu. I don't think it is upto Iskcon to make that determination, given that Hindu is broad enough to cover a number of different belief systems and Iskcon has nothing about it that would disallow its classification under the Label. Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism are not counted as Hindu only because they reject the Veda (Naastika beliefs). In Indian traditions, Naastika (non-believer) does not mean one who does not believe in God; but someone who does not believe in the authority of the Veda.

And how do you rank one over the other? You said RK math is "better" than Sathya Sai Baba. What is the basis of this ranking considering Sathya Sai has millions of active devotees? I know Iskcon pooh-poohs Sathya Sai, but then they have the same derogatory views on Vivekananda too. As for personality centered groups - we have Jesus, Buddha, Rama, etc. The only difference I see, is they are thousand of years older than Sathya Sai. It is certainly possible that a personality Guru of today may be an absolute power and avatar 1000 years from now.

(I am not a Sathya Sai devotee)

 

[nameless]

Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism are not counted as Hindu only because they reject the Veda (Naastika beliefs). In Indian traditions, Naastika (non-believer) does not mean one who does not believe in God; but someone who does not believe in the authority of the Veda.

The Buddha rejected relying on Vedas(scriptures) for salvation, that does mean vedas are wrong. The vedas itself says the same, scriptures alone wont benefit for spirituality. The teachings of buddha were oral, as same like as hindu tradition. And to chose ones own path is also a Hindu path. Having all the basic teachings the same, buddhism is another school of hinduism.

 

[Arav]

The vedas itself says the same, scriptures alone wont benefit for spirituality,

Adi Shankara said that after awakening the scriptures cease to be authoritive. That is why Avadhuts run around with no clothing on and do the things they do, they are not bound by scripture or right and wrong.

 

[kaisersose]

Adi Shankara said that after awakening the scriptures cease to be authoritive. That is why Avadhuts run around with no clothing on and do the things they do, they are not bound by scripture or right and wrong.

Do you know where he said that? A lot of stuff is attributed to Shankara, which are not really his.

Advaita's liberation has no duality and therefore no scriptures can exist.

 

[kaisersose]

The Buddha rejected relying on Vedas(scriptures) for salvation, that does mean vedas are wrong. The vedas itself says the same, scriptures alone wont benefit for spirituality. The teachings of buddha were verbal, as same like as hindu tradition. And to chose ones own path is also a Hindu path. Having all the basic teachings the same, buddhism is another school of hinduism.

The Darshanas of old were classified as Aastika and Naastika. Only Aastika (as defined above) schools are considered under Hinduism. This is why the Lokaya school, though really old, is counted out in favor of the popular Aastika six (Mimaamsa, Vedaanta, Vaiseshika, Nyaya, Saankhya & Yoga).

I have Jain and Sikh friends in India and they do not consider themselves Hindus. When they fill the religion section in application forms, they do not write Hindu.

 

[Arav]

Do you know where he said that? A lot of stuff is attributed to Shankara, which are not really his.

Advaita's liberation has no duality and therefore no scriptures can exist.

He said it in his commentary on the Brahma Sutra 4:1.3. And I disagree that no scripture can exist in Advaita. They are simply revealed in the one Consciousness.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Adi Shankara said that after awakening the scriptures cease to be authoritive. That is why Avadhuts run around with no clothing on and do the things they do, they are not bound by scripture or right and wrong.

I would put it this way. The scriptures are like a shopping list. Once you got to the store and buy what you need you no longer need the shopping list.

Avadhuts the do seem to be rule breakers but not dysfunctional human-beings. If someone comes up to me and says my Guru has Syphilis do to taking on the sins of his followers. I would tend to stay away from that group.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

The Darshanas of old were classified as Aastika and Naastika. Only Aastika (as defined above) schools are considered under Hinduism. This is why the Lokaya school, though really old, is counted out in favor of the popular Aastika six (Mimaamsa, Vedaanta, Vaiseshika, Nyaya, Saankhya & Yoga).

I have Jain and Sikh friends in India and they do not consider themselves Hindus. When they fill the religion section in application forms, they do not write Hindu.

But we modern Hindu's like to invite every one to the party and force them to sit at the Hindu table. History be dammed.

 

[nameless]

The Darshanas of old were classified as Aastika and Naastika. Only Aastika (as defined above) schools are considered under Hinduism.

under which school you would classify the saints like Ramana Maharshi who did not relied on vedas for his salvation? aastika or naastika?
if he is naastika, he is not a hindu saint?

Buddha or Ramana Maharshi, they are not at all bothered about Aastika or Naastikam, they just followed their personal path, the ignorant people brings classification.

I have Jain and Sikh friends in India and they do not consider themselves Hindus. When they fill the religion section in application forms, they do not write Hindu.

the historians thought them like that. If a close study is made on that, it would appear they are all wrong.

 

[Arav]

under which school you would classify the saints like Ramana Maharshi who did not relied on vedas for his salvation? aastika or naastika?
if he is naastika, he is not a hindu saint?

Ramana Maharshi did agree with the vedas and would cite the upanishads and things like that. He saw that many of the things talked about in the Upanishads went with his personal experiances. He even called God Shiva, Brahman, and spoke about Shakti. Saying all of this, he didnt rely on the scriptures and was above them. Saying Ramana Maharshi is Naastika would be like saying all Avadhuts and Jnani's are Naastika. This is just my opinion.

 

[kaisersose]

He said it in his commentary on the Brahma Sutra 4:1.3. And I disagree that no scripture can exist in Advaita. They are simply revealed in the one Consciousness.

Thanks for the reference.

When there is no duality, there is neither a seer nor the seen. No Scriptures, and no one to see them. It is my opinion that Liberation as defined by Advaita is not properly grasped by many people, but this is a topic for another thread.

 

[Arav]

Thanks for the reference.

When there is no duality, there is neither a seer nor the seen. No Scriptures, and no one to see them. It is my opinion that Liberation as defined by Advaita is not properly grasped by many people, but this is a topic for another thread.

I agree. But until Brahman is realized I will enjoy looking at the scriptures.

 

[kaisersose]

under which school you would classify the saints like Ramana Maharshi who did not relied on vedas for his salvation? aastika or naastika?
if he is naastika, he is not a hindu saint?

I don't see Ramana's followers forming a new religion. If he rejected the Veda ( he did not) and the four-fold classification (he did, in some ways), then if his followers want a separate religion for themselves, they have a case.

The word Hindu appears to cover everyone on the Eastside on the Sindhu river. But by the time of Al Beruni (10th century), the meaning was more specific to the religion. He see Buddhists as separate from Hindus and observes that in all his travels and stay inside India, he never met a single Buddhist nor came across a Buddhist book, from which he could learn about them - Al Beruni's India translated by Dr. Edward Sachau.

 

[Riverwolf]

The word Hindu appears to cover everyone on the Eastside on the Sindhu river. But by the time of Al Beruni (10th century), the meaning was more specific to the religion. He see Buddhists as separate from Hindus and observes that in all his travels and stay inside India, he never met a single Buddhist nor came across a Buddhist book, from which he could learn about them - Al Beruni's India translated by Dr. Edward Sachau.

Uh... the term "Hindu" is only a few hundred years old.