whats hinduism all about

[SomaSekhar]

please any try to find nd post what hinduism is all about
which does posses its long roots dated back to 5000y

[Viti]

I am moving this to the appropriate forum where you might get better responses.

[Occams_Razor]

Well whatever this means here it is. According to the website I heisted, these are the five most basic precepts of Hinduism.

<snip><paste>
1. Good Conduct--Dharmachara
Loving fathers and mothers, knowing they are the greatest influence in a child's life, behave the way their dear children should when adults. They never anger or argue before young ones. Father in a dhoti, mother in a sari at home, all sing to God, Gods and guru.

2. Home Worship--Dharma Svagriha
Loving fathers and mothers establish a separate shrine room in the home for God, Gods and guardian devas of the family. Ideally it should be large enough for all the dear children. It is a sacred place for scriptural study, a refuge from the karmic storms of life.

3. Talking about Religion--Dharma Sambhashana
Loving fathers and mothers speak Vedic precepts while driving, eating and playing. This helps dear children understand experiences in right perspective. Parents know many worldly voices are blaring, and their dharmic voice must be stronger.

4. Continuing Self-Study--Dharma Svadhyaya
Loving fathers and mothers keep informed by studying the Vedas, Agamas and sacred literature, listening to swamis and panditas. Youth face a world they will one day own, thus parents prepare their dear children to guide their own future progeny.

5. Joining a Fellowship--Dharma Sanga
Loving fathers and mothers choose a preceptor, a traditional satguru, and lineage to follow. They support their lineage with all their heart, energy and service. He in turn provides them clear guidance for a successful life, material and religious.

[hinduwoman]

Somashekhar, Hinduism is simply very vast and has changed over the centuries a lot. So what exactly do you want to discuss?

[Mageth]

I understand that, to be Hindu, one has to be born Hindu. IOW, one can't convert to Hinduism.

hinduwoman, I think you might be able to tell me if that assessment is correct.

[never been there]

Hinduism is so vast, so varied in different ways of considering reality, you need to be reincarnated many times just to understand a piece of it.

I'm sure I've heard a dozen "simple summaries". Occam's Razor gave a good one, there's "Youth, Householder, Teacher, Renunciant" as four stages of life. There's the gods-within-gods-within-gods concept (Hindus are monotheists - they don't have 600 million gods so much as they have 600 million of one god). And that's just a start.

It's easier reading to ease in through the legends, particularly the Mahabharata and the Ramayana. You need the flavour of it first, as even intellectual Hinduism puts a lot of weight on contemplation as a path to truth.

[hinduwoman]

Mageth, that is a common misconception.
You can convert to Hinduism. Only the smarta community does not accept conversions. Otherwise nearly all other major sects do.
That is how many Europeans became Hindus.

[Mageth]

Originally posted by hinduwoman
Mageth, that is a common misconception.
You can convert to Hinduism. Only the smarta community does not accept conversions. Otherwise nearly all other major sects do.
That is how many Europeans became Hindus.

Thanks for clearing that up. I wasn't sure if that was a correct assessment or not. I've heard it stated by some I would otherwise consider quite knowledgable on the subject.

[Brahmastra]

It's hard to define. It's a collection of tribal and philosophical beliefs that are widely varied, found throughout the Indian sub-continent. There is no book or central church-like entity that defines what a hindu is.

[atechnie]

Originally posted by Mageth
Thanks for clearing that up. I wasn't sure if that was a correct assessment or not. I've heard it stated by some I would otherwise consider quite knowledgable on the subject.

I believe you can convert into a Hindu but not into a Bramhin. :)

atechnie

[hinduwoman]

Whether you can be a brahmin depends on the community.
In many places birth decides it. In some places non-Brahmins act as priests and so can be considered brahmins.

[Tyler Durden]

I posted this on my board recently.

" a brief rundown of hinduism: Diversity is key to comprehension, because there is no essence or unity to Hinduism. There is no founder of Hinduism. There is no single universally accepted scripture. There is no single moral code. There is no single theological system. There is no single concept of god central to it.Hinduism is a tradition that embraces a concotion of religious positions that includes both small local cults known only to a few villages, and major sects like Vaishnavism, Shaivism, and Shaktism which has millions of followers complete with beautiful mythologies, lush temples, bedazzling iconographies and incommensurable theologies. Furthermore, each could be considered a religion in itself."

http://www.hyperboreans.com/forums/html/emoticons/eek.gif

[Al Kafirun]

Damn, maybe I'm a Hindu and never realized it.

[hinduwoman]

Obviously there is a beast called Hinduism but no one knows how to define it and the Hindus are as confused as everyone else. That is because 'Dharma' and 'religion' do not the same thing. It means "what binds together". Therefore it can refer to anything --- duty, the properties of an inanimate object, the inherent qualities of living creatures, nature/character of man, , ritual ceremonies, 'religion', righteousness, laws of nature, even God as the creative and sustaining principle of the universe. It all depends on the context. However it is a holistic vision; all aspects of dharma are connected together. The man who keeps his promise is upholding the integrity of the universe.

As a religion Hinduism has no founder or Book or definitive commandments. It does not have any central organization or a homogenous body of trained priests. It simply evolved. Vedas are the oldest texts but I suspect that it is only because they are written. There were a lot of other gods belonging to non-Vedic tribes which eventually got absorbed (including Shiva and Mother Goddesses) which are not mentioned there. I came to a tentative conclusion that as a religious system Hinduism can be distinguished from other religions like Buddhism which deny any uniqueness to Vedas. Unfortunately the situation is complicated by the fact that a lot of sects within Hinduism give only a nod to Vedas: according to them their own scriptures are far more sacred and important. But they agree that Vedas are sacred nevertheless.

As for gods, lots of them as everyone knows, each performing differing functions or overlapping. Our ancestors just picked up deities as they went along and even today we manufacture new gods to satisfy some particular aspect of our personality. As a result many gods have been promoted or demoted throughout the centuries. The difference between these gods and humans is more a matter of degree than kind. Human beings can and do become gods and gods often are born as human beings. That is why relationships between the gods and devotees are very intimate. The deities can be worshipped as a mother, as a tyrant, as a friend, as a child, or even as an important member of the village council. Sometimes if their performance is poor they are thrown out.

The system is given coherence by the theory that there is only one Supreme Spirit, Brahman who is genderless, formsless and attributeless. It willed to be many and so the universe was created. However, it doesnot personally interact with individual humans. This is because, by its very nature, Brahman is everything. The entire universe, from rocks to rivers to the worms to every human being is a manifestation of It. It is both the lion and the lamb. That is why also Hinduism never developed any systems of theodicies: Brahman is the source of both good and evil, because it is beyond the conventional definitions.
The various gods are manifestations of its various aspects. The three most important aspects are Creation (Brahma), Preservation (Vishnu), Destruction (Shiva). btw, contrary to what many Americans think, Shiva is not a Satan or evil power. His is a necessary task: when the world has grown old and worn-out due to sin, it must be destroyed. Brahman shall absorb all until the next cycle of creation begins. However the purest will survive as individual consciousnesses, to establish dharma in the new creation. (However, discussions on this aspect are relatively few). Again, the energy aspect of Brahman that moves and sustains the universe is pictured as feminine, as Shakti.
There are sects within Hinduism that insist on worshipping this god or another as supreme and often get nasty about it, but they acknowldege that the other gods are real. A common theme that runs through Hinduism is that way to salvstion are diverse and there is no one Truth.

Another important noption is Karma. Karma doesnot mean fate, it means action. Hindus believe that whatever happens to one is the result of one's actions. There is no Satan, only what one does. That is why Reincarnation is believed in. When a good man suffers, this is because of the evil actions of his former life; similarly if the wicked flourish like the green bay tree he is enjoying the fruits of good actions of his previous life. If people make it an excuse to ignore suffering of others, they will be punished. Reincarnation gives men a second chance. An individual soul is born again and again until it has finally become pure enough to attain moksha/salvation, which in Hinduism is merging with Brahman. There is no one-shot salvation: you try and try again until you get it right. Obviously, there can be no eternal punishment. The same soul is sent to hell for a certain number of years for the bad deeds he did, and to heaven for the good he did, before he is sent back to earth. In the strictest version, there is no mercy or grace in the Christian sense --- you reap what you sow. However, in the middle ages, a number of cults came up which offered pardon for all sins merely by chanting the name of God, or performing sacrifices which not-so-coincidentally, involved giving gifts to the priests.

The main difficulty in giving a definite shape to Hinduism is that it is more a 'way of life' or a culture than a definite system. You follow certain rituals, learn about certain traditions, grow up on Ramayana and Mahabharata --- you feel you are a Hindu. That is why I say I am a Hindu: most Hindus will accept my claim; but some will not. (of course the traditions are not the same everywhere which is equally confusing. ) Also Hinduism kind of 'leaks' into other religions or absorbs some parts of other religions. For example, the Jagganath of Chariot fame is originally a tribal god but he is now a form of Vishnu. So is he a tribal god or a Hindu god? 25% of his priests are tribals --- are they Hindus or tribals? In 18th century a sect arose in Bengal which decided Adam and Eve were Kali's children. Again tribals in Tripura worship Uma, Parvati, Narayana --- all Hindu gods; but they differ in other respect from plainsmen. Myths abound tying this deity to that and that, so there is a hotchpotch. The advantage is that it allows differing creeds to co-exist. When the British tried taking census they found it impossible to distinguish between 'Hindus', animists, tribals. There were even Muslims who called themselves Muhammadan Hindus. Some Muslim community even had Brahmin priests or worshipped Hindu gods along with Allah. The Momim Shias believe that the preacher who converted them to Islam was an avatar of Bramha --- go figure. There are also Christian Hindus. Hell, when the first ordained native priest travelled to England his family asked him to do penance for crossing the black waters, he dutifully did it which included asking Hindu gods to absolve him --- as I said go figure.
It is a mishmash you see. Personally speaking I find the chaos exhilarating.

The real problem as I see it is that Hinduism as a religion in the sense of Abrahamic ones did not exist. It first gained consciousness of this kind during Islamic invasions, and then after Christian missionaries came during British empire. But it never gained coherence of the kind you find in these two religions because it is pluralistic and almost protoplasmic by nature. Consequently the legal definition of a Hindu ended up being as someone who is not Christian, Muslim, Parsee, Jew.

All in all I would say that Hinduism as a religious system has these common themes ---
dharma, karma, all ways of seeking God are valid.

[Darth Dane]

As a religion Hinduism has no founder or Book or definitive commandments.

What about the yamas and niyamas?

[Amit Misra]

hi hinduwoman!
guess its time for our annual skirmish...
Mageth wanted to know whether you can become a Hindu. Hinduwoman says you can, by converting. Thats the hindu fundamentalist view. Only the Hinduttvaites need to convert people to hinduism. The sneaky sanatanist view is that you're a hindu by default, till you happen to get initiated into any of the other religions. Of course, you're not a hindu sensu strictu. The sanatan dharma would shrink from using such a definitive term. Hinduwoman mentions the smarta "sect." What's that? The smarta tradition of philosophy upholds smritis (memoirs) of sages like Manu et al in high esteem. I didn't know they'd gone and banded together into a sect.
As usual, hinduwoman is burying the issue under verbiage. My simple position about hinduism is that there ain't no such animal. Hinduwoman, of course, differs:"Obviously there is a beast called Hinduism but no one knows how to define it."
I'm a simple man and say if you can't define it, don't talk about it.

[hinduwoman]

What about the yamas and niyamas?

Do you mean yagnas, because Yama is the god of death.
Yagnas are sacrificial rituals to the gods in order to gain something.

Niyama simply means rules and regulations.

[hinduwoman]

hi hinduwoman!
guess its time for our annual skirmish...
Mageth wanted to know whether you can become a Hindu. Hinduwoman says you can, by converting. Thats the hindu fundamentalist view. Only the Hinduttvaites need to convert people to hinduism. The sneaky sanatanist view is that you're a hindu by default, till you happen to get initiated into any of the other religions. Of course, you're not a hindu sensu strictu. The sanatan dharma would shrink from using such a definitive term. Hinduwoman mentions the smarta "sect." What's that? The smarta tradition of philosophy upholds smritis (memoirs) of sages like Manu et al in high esteem. I didn't know they'd gone and banded together into a sect.
As usual, hinduwoman is burying the issue under verbiage. My simple position about hinduism is that there ain't no such animal. Hinduwoman, of course, differs:"Obviously there is a beast called Hinduism but no one knows how to define it."
I'm a simple man and say if you can't define it, don't talk about it.

The bratya ceremony in Vedas is the way of inducting non-Vedic people into Vedic tribe is the first instance of such conversion. Of course conversion as a full-fledge rite in the semitic way came into being during the British period.

Of course some people do argue that there is nothing like Hinduism, only a whole host of minority religions which are not recognized as such. And there is a group who insist on speaking about 'dharmik' religions.

Samrtas refer to orthodox Brahmins who rely on smritis who will not accept conversions. They had been a sect since 9th century. They worship five forms of God Shiva, Vishnu, Ganapathi, Surya and Shakti and this system is called Panchayatana. They believe salvation is through mainly Jnana yoga. That is why they are thought to be more liberal, but they don't accept any converts.

Amit try not to be too simple. The beast we are speaking about is not real but only imaginary. It is what people think and feel. The whole cultural religious complex exists not objectively but in the head. So if we have a lot of people thinking they are Hindus Hinduism exists.

[Amit Misra]

Smarta: Yes, the smarta tradition is old, but where can one find the smarta 'sect' today? A sect, you know, like the Hare Krishnas or the Shakta's. My impression is that 'smarta' is a name for a scholar who uses arguments from authority (the smritis rather than shruti) in discourse.
Simplicity: If its all in the mind, then it has no material existence.

[Darth Dane]

Do you mean yagnas, because Yama is the god of death.
Yagnas are sacrificial rituals to the gods in order to gain something.

Niyama simply means rules and regulations.

What about these:

The Five Yamas (Abstinences)

These five moral disciplines are essential to the spiritual development of the student of yoga. In many ways they are universal, appearing in most of the ancient religions of the world.

AHIMSA (Non-violence). This often misunderstood precept was the favorite of Mahatma Gandhi who once said "Ahimsa is not merely a negative state of harmlessness but it is a positive state of love, of doing good even to the evil-doer. But it does not mean meek submission to the will of the evil-doer: it means the putting of one's whole soul against his will."

SATYA (Truthfulness). The serious student of Yoga should always seek the truth in any situation and MUST ALWAYS speak it.

ASTEYA (Non-stealing). Asteya is not limited to the legal definition of stealing. Asteya means non-stealing in it's broadest possible sense, including non-covetousness.

BRAHMACHARYA (Chastity). By living a chaste life the Yogi is able to transmute his sexual energy into spiritual energy. In it's most severe application Brahmacharya includes not only refraining from sexual intercourse, but not thinking sex, not looking with desire, or even conversing in private. Many Yogis do not adopt such a strict interpretation. In fact, most Yogis and Sages in India's past were married men with families. What is necessary is to free oneself from sexual desire and lust. In fact there is an entire school of Yoga called TANTRIC YOGA devoted to the practice and refinement of Sex as an act of love and worship eventually leading to Samadhi.

APARIGRAPHA (Non-receiving). Receiving gifts is prone to destroy the independence of the mind and make one slavish. This Yama also means that nothing should be hoarded or collected beyond that which is required immediately. It bears much resemblance to Jesus Christ's parable about the lilies of the field. Hoarding demonstrates a lack of faith.

Most traditional schools of Yoga require a student to master these five abstinence, along with that of the Niyamas before they are allowed to proceed along the "Eight-Fold Path". In the West however, this is not practical, as most Westerners would never advance past the first two steps to experience the real benefits of Hatha Yoga. This is why we often start students out with the powerful practice of Asanas (poses) initially, to give them a glimpse of the potential hidden within the practices of Yoga.

For most Westerners this introduction to the physical exercises is sufficient and the benefits of a healthy body are reward enough. For those who sense the deeper beauty and power to be found in the devotion of their life to Yoga, rather than just practicing the physical exercises, the Yamas and Niyamas hold the key to opening the doors to the inner mysteries of their own Soul.

The Five Niyamas (Observances)

SAUCHA (PURITY). Purity of body externally is promoted by good habits like bathing, brushing teeth, etc. Physical-Internal purity is realized through the practice of Asans (Postures that tone the body and remove toxins and impurities as well and eliminating tension and stress), Pranayama (Breathing exercises that cleanse and aerate the lungs, oxygenate the blood and purify the nerves), and good eating habits. More important is Mental-Internal purity. This is achieved by ridding the body of disturbing emotions like hatred, passion, delusion, anger, lust, pride and greed through the practice of Bhakti (adoration). Still more important is the cleansing of the intellect of impure thoughts which can be burned off in the fire of Svadhyaya (the study of the Self).

SANTOSA (CONTENTMENT). This Niyama must be cultivated. There will always be differences among Men. This is fine in and of itself. But when it becomes a distraction to you the mind cannot concentrate or become one-pointed and thus it is robbed of it's peace. There is contentment and peace when the flame of the spirit does not waver in the wind of desire.

TAPAS (AUSTERITY). A conscious effort to achieve ultimate union with the Divine and to burn up all desires which stand in the way of this goal. Burning effort under all circumstances to achieve a specific goal. There are three types of tapas relating to body, speech and mind. Non-violence is one example of the first category. Speaking truth and using words that do not offend are two of the tapas of speech. Developing a mental attitude whereby one remains tranquil and balanced in joy and sorrow and retains self control are tapas of the mind. Through tapas the yogi gains courage and wisdom, integrity, straightforwardness and simplicity.

SVADHYAYA (STUDY). "Ignorance has no beginning, but it has an end. There is a beginning, but no end to knowledge." Svadhyaya is the study of the great religious books of the world, of all faiths, that the student may come to understand his own faith better.

ISHVARA PRANIDHANA (WORSHIP OF GOD). During the course of seeking enlightenment one must encounter the "dark night of the soul". This is a period when you come to question all that you thought you knew and you find yourself powerless and lost amid your desires and fears. Only now, at the darkest hour can true worship be discovered. In bhakti the mind, the intellect, and the will are surrendered to the Lord and the seeker prays: "I do not know what is good for me. Thy will be done." When the feeling of 'I' and 'mine' disappears, the individual soul has reached full growth.

[hinduwoman]

Smarta: Yes, the smarta tradition is old, but where can one find the smarta 'sect' today? A sect, you know, like the Hare Krishnas or the Shakta's. My impression is that 'smarta' is a name for a scholar who uses arguments from authority (the smritis rather than shruti) in discourse.
Simplicity: If its all in the mind, then it has no material existence.

I am told that the smartas as a sect still exist in Western India.


Simplicity: Mental constructs have enough material existence for people to live by it and kill for it.

[hinduwoman]

Darth Dane, I don't know much about the the things you said. Are you a practitioner?

[lpetrich]

First, I think that whether Hinduism is polytheist, monotheist, or atheist depends on which Hindu you ask, because one can find polytheist Hindus, monotheist Hindus, and atheist Hindus.

And bit off-topic, but...

Father in a dhoti, mother in a sari...
I wonder how many Indian men nowadays wear dhotis. And how common is it for Indian women to wear a shirt and pants? I've seen some pictures of present-day Indian cities, and the men are all wearing Western clothing, but the women often wear saris.

[hinduwoman]

Dhoti is now not worn by men regularly except in villages. It is now now a ceremonial robe.
Women still do wear sarees and shalwar Kameez for the most part. But in the cities one can see many younger women wearing shirts and pants; but again when going to a marriageceremony etc., it is the traditional wear for them as well.

[premjan]

as far as I know, the smartas do exist, and not only in Maharastra. I am one (Tamil Iyer, follower of Shankaracharya). Since it is a gnostic sect, it involves philosophical insight or knowledge, hence there is no point of simple conversion. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, not in the rituals.

[Lambda]

Hinduism differs from Christianity and other Western religions in that it does not have a single founder, a specific theological system, a single system of morality, or a central religious organization. It consists of "thousands of different religious groups that have evolved in India since 1500 BCE." 1

Hinduism has grown to become the world's third largest religion, after Christianity and Islam. It claims about 762 million followers - 13% of the world's population. It is the dominant religion in India, Nepal, and among the Tamils in Sri Lanka. According to the "Yearbook of American & Canadian Churches," there are about 1.1 million Hindus in the U.S. 2 The "American Religious Identification Survey" is believed to be more accurate. 3 They estimated smaller number: 766,000 Hindus in 2001. Still, this is a very significant increase from 227,000 in 1990. Statistics Canada estimates that there are about 157,015 Hindus in Canada. 4

Hinduism is generally regarded as the world's oldest organized religion.

Religions which recognize the existence of multiple deities have traditionally been among the world's most religiously tolerant. Hinduism remains arguably one of the most tolerant of such religions. However, during the past few years, a Hindu nationalistic political party has controlled the government of India. The linkage of religion, the federal government and nationalism has led to a recent degeneration in the separation of church and state in India. This, in turn, has decreased the level of religious tolerance in that country. The escalation of anti-Christian violence is one manifestation of this linkage.

-----------------------------------------
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hinduism.htm

[hinduwoman]

as far as I know, the smartas do exist, and not only in Maharastra. I am one (Tamil Iyer, follower of Shankaracharya). Since it is a gnostic sect, it involves philosophical insight or knowledge, hence there is no point of simple conversion. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, not in the rituals.

so a real smarta! But do you have material existence? ;)

[premjan]

I am a smarta and you are a smartass. if you take the average we are both smartas.

[Amit Misra]

:) good for premjan and hw.
but, premjan, isn't your label "Iyer" and your crowd's traditional intellectual persuasion "smarta" rather than shrotriya? i'd like to be educated on the semantics. how do you put it--
"i am a smarta iyer" or,
"i am an iyer and therefore a smarta" ?

similarly, when talking of sects, do you say
"my sect is a smarta sect" or
"my sect is vaishnava, but our clan is smarta" ?

i'd say there's a great deal of anthropology and sociology to get clear before we can address the issue of 'conversion' to hinduism sects. for instance, my clan belongs to no identifiable 'sect' apart from being vaishnava. however, there are several complex methods of classifying me. my veda is the samveda, my upveda is the yajurveda, my sutra is the gobhil sutra, my shakha is the kouthumi shakha, my shikha (non-existant!) is supposed to swing to the left, and i am supposed to put my left foot forward when i get up to walk....

[premjan]

I think smarta is more of a persuasion than a sect. not a commonly used category, hence I prefaced "I think" to my earlier statement "they exist". Definitely not a part of the gotra / veda categorization.

[hinduwoman]

I think smarta is more of a persuasion than a sect. not a commonly used category, hence I prefaced "I think" to my earlier statement "they exist". Definitely not a part of the gotra / veda categorization.

on the other hand, the impression of other sects like Vaishnavas and Saivas is that smartas are a sect like themselves.

[premjan]

from my personal background, I would venture that smartas are basically shaivites who ascribe to the reconciliation of jnana/bhakti (shiva/vishnu/other deities) brought about by Adi Shankara. i.e. people who worship vishnu through the shavite lens. Since it is smriti-based, that means we need the intervention of the saints for our salvation (i.e. gurus are essential, to follow in the example of another saved person). If it were shruti-based, presumably, merely studying the vedas would be sufficient. This may be due to the derivative, non-original nature of modern vaishnavism and Shaivism, as hinduwoman has suggested in past posts.

[premjan]

smartas appear to be maligned for upholding the institution of birth caste. I would venture that if you are capable of being a shrotriya, you should be one, but that nowadays, the number of individuals capable of following revelation as the sole guide to truth, are much fewer in number. This is sort of like the Protestant Christians, or pure Quranic Muslims, who are generally pure scripturalists (I suppose if you are a Sunni Muslim, on the other hand, you are following the Sunnah which consists mainly of the example of Muhammad, this is again a Smarta concept). On the other hand, the Catholics and Shias (or Smartas), recognize some human spiritual hierarchy, wherein the head priest is understood to have a better understanding of God on earth than others. In the case of Hinduism, some of the Smartas are also gnostic in persuasion (e.g. Tamil Iyer Smartas who are followers of Adi Shankaracharya). The dangers of scripturalism or shrotriyahood are well-known, leading mainly to doctrinal inflexibility whenever the concerned individuals lack sufficient insight or purity of heart and mind. On the other hand, if you are a Shankarite or a Buddhist, then I say you are basically a Smarta, since you are following in the footsteps of some earlier master. Smarta sects tend to be more catholic and accepting of all beliefs. Whereas strict Vaishnavas are more doctrinally inflexible (Krishna is supreme, Vishnu is supreme), Smartas are doctrinally flexible (84,000 Dharma doors) while perhaps the conditions for membership are made a little stiffer as compensation. Smartaism is just another sadhana. Regardless of my birth, I am definitely a Smarta, since I do not believe I could find the truth unassisted, without following in the footsteps of some spiritual master or other. To me, the Vaishnava assertion that Krishna is all, makes my heart sink, since it distances the truth from me. Then again, Vaishnavism is more about the embrace of life, than the embrace of truth, isn't it? The Tree of Knowledge and the Tree of Life are two different trees in God's garden.

[Amit Misra]

hinduwoman magisterially stated:
the impression of other sects like Vaishnavas and Saivas is that smartas are a sect like themselves.
when premjan (and I) are offering the opinion that
smarta is more of a persuasion than a sect. not a commonly used category,
the insousiance with which hw appropriates space, claiming, for instance, to speak for 'sects like the Vaishnavas and Saivas' (comprising probably a million-odd people), prevents my being friends with her.
would it be asking too much if i requested that hw climbs down for once and agrees that "smarta sects" was a slip? or, alternatively, educate me (and premjan?) about what this particular beastie is?
cheers

[hinduwoman]

hinduwoman magisterially stated:

when premjan (and I) are offering the opinion that

the insousiance with which hw appropriates space, claiming, for instance, to speak for 'sects like the Vaishnavas and Saivas' (comprising probably a million-odd people), prevents my being friends with her.
would it be asking too much if i requested that hw climbs down for once and agrees that "smarta sects" was a slip? or, alternatively, educate me (and premjan?) about what this particular beastie is?
cheers

I am not 'speaking' for other sects. This is what I heard many of them say. If they are ignorant that is another matter.

However Misra, your demand is interesting. When I argued there is a beast called Hinduism you appropriated spacce and equally magesterially informed me that there is no such thing, claiming to 'speak' for millions who call themslves Hindus.

[Amit Misra]

hw, your logic is slipping: when i say there aint no such animal as hinduism, i speak for myself. had i been claiming to speak for those who call themselves hindus (in my experience, members or fellow-travellers of the sangh parivar), i would have said something to the effect that hinduism is a glorious reliogion etc, etc.
When i speak about so-called hinduism existing only in socio-political discourse, i claim a very private space: that of a secular indian citizen dismayed by the ease with which the hindu right (yes, it exists!) has poisoned our polity.
hastening to add that the rise of the RSS is directly in proportion to the activities of their soulmates and doppelgangers, the muslim fundamentalists of the subcontinent.