Subject:[world-vedic] About Hinduism Date:9.9.2004 0:10 From:"Vrn Parker" To:vediculture@yahoogroups.com Předmět (Subject):About Hinduism Datum (Date):8.9.2004 12:02 Od (From):"Parama Karuna" Komu (To):VFA-members@yahoogroups.com Kopie (Cc):vrnparker@yahoo.com Dear Vrin, Hari Om! I appreciated your postings, and I agree with your point that we need some legal definition on which to stand to defend dharma -- a common standpoint. Unfortunately the names of "Sanatana dharma" or "Vedic dharma" have not been recognized yet by International law (although I strongly think they should, and by initiative of the Hindu authorities and leaders themselves, considering the inauspicious origin and meaning of the word so nicely illustrated by Sri Nandanandana) so for the time being "Hinduism" is a term behind which we can and should all rally, by giving up all sectarian considerations. Devotees of Krishna, devotees of Vishnu, devotees of Shiva, devotees of Shakti, devotees of Ganesh etc as well as advaitin philosophers, they should all be considered Hindus and treated as such, provided they do not offend other forms of God (who has unlimited names and forms) and their genuine worshipers, out of a misguided idea of "superiority" or "exclusive devotion" that is actually just ignorant fanaticism. In fact the most outstanding characteristic of Hinduism is the readiness to respect and accept all the genuine and compatible religious and spiritual paths within its fold: sarva dharma samabhava. As I had mentioned some time ago, the problem is rather to ascertain if a particular religious path is genuine or not, if it can be called "dharma" or not. Dharma must absolutely be characterized by: 1. truthfulness, 2. compassion, 3. cleanliness, 4. austerity. Otherwise it cannot be defined as dharma. Those groups who are led by, and pledge allegiance to leaders and traditions that do not follow or value the four universal principles of religion listed above, cannot be considered genuine religions, even in their ranks there can be sincere people who individually follow the true principles of religion out of common sense and decency. Regarding the genuine Vaishnava affiliation of Christians and Muslims, I just want to say that they may be accepted as Vaishnavas only if they actually follow the Vaishnava conclusions and practices, and especially if they don't destroy or desacrate temples and deities of Vishnu Himself or His dear servants and associates (like Shiva, Hanuman etc), offend them by calling them "false gods", "devils" or "pagan idols", and hate, blaspheme and persecute their worshipers. Unfortunately, Christians and Muslims in India have regularly been behaving in ways that are completely opposite to the genuine Vaishnava ideals. And not in India alone, to my knowledge. Persecution and vilification of "other faiths" and even of sects of their same Abrahamic faith i.e. Jews, Muslims (and within the Muslims various sects, Shiaites, Sunnites etc), Christian protestants, orthodox, catholic and "heretics", have always been the rule, and still is, as we can see from the news. Recently in Italy a Catholic magazine published an article "re-evaluating" the good old Inquisition (officially stopped in Europe only by Napoleon Bonaparte when he defeated the Pope) and vilifying its victims, especially the most articulate and self realized philosophers and spiritualists like Giordano Bruno. The separatist militant terrorism in Tripura is also very explicit in its "Christian" ideology: God has assigned the "promised land" of north east India to Christians and like in the Bible's stories, everyone else living there should be eliminated by all means. In Muslim countries it is a crime to speak of Vishnu or to worship Him: it is considered "proselytizing against Islam" and "blasphemy" (and so is speaking of any other religion that is not considered Islam). Religious books other than Koran are severely banned. Vaishnavas who present themselves as Christians or Muslims, or Christians or Muslims who present themselves as Vaishnavas, without specifying their actual beliefs and practices, are actually increasing the confusion and aggravating the problem. Friedrich von Schlegel, German philosopher and poet, wrote: "When one considers the sublime disposition underlying the truly universal education (of Vedic India) ... then what is or has been called religion in Europe seems to us to be scarcely deserving of that name. And one feels compelled to advise those who wish to witness religion to travel to India for that purpose..." However, I am convinced that the subject is more complex than what it seems, and we should not be too simplistic. There are pressing problems that we need to solve. Let us therefore remain on the legal platform. Legally speaking, who is actually considered a Hindu? In some places like England and the United States and even in Russia as you properly mentioned, people who were not born in India and even not of Indian descent have come to be legally considered Hindus and as such they cooperate together and often greatly contribute to the upholding of Vedic dharma. This is certainly to the credit of intelligent and sensible Hindus (of original Hindu descent) living in those countries, who understand the dangers of the pressure of adharma and are therefore ready to cooperate with all good and sincere people, opening their fold to qualified people and strengthening their ranks instead of weakening them, thus abandoning racist considerations. Probably it is because outside India the Hindu leaders themselves and the great majority of their supporters have not been born in India, and are of "mixed" families (many Indian immigrants married local women), so their idea of Hindu has become somewhat "wider". Probably because they may have been object of vilification and persecution as minorities: sometimes one has to experience wrongs and injustice personally before he properly understands what is wrong and unjust. The historical pattern in Kali yuga is to vociferously ask for freedom of religion, justice or tolerance only when one is on the bad end of the wrong deal. In most areas of India this open minded cooperation is not happening yet, although this is where it is most urgent and needed. For Indian laws, only those who were born in a relatively small number of families belonging to some specific castes can be considered Hindus, although there is a much greater number of people who worship God according to the Vedic conclusions. Public temples, that are supposed to be the authority in establishing who is Hindu and who is not, are giving a very clear message every day, and I am sorry to say that it is not the right message. Such negative message is generally coming from most high caste and caste-conscious Hindus, and reinforcing wrong opinions in the common people, in government officers and in the media. Even people born in India in families of tribal descent, or in the "untouchable" castes such as Dahlits are not considered "Hindus", what to speak of foreigners. At the same time, since being "Hindu" is considered a question of birth and not of qualification (i.e. guna and karma), it is commonly understood that people born in Hindu families do not need to qualify themselves by studying or practicing Vedic knowledge, a serious blind spot that makes them more vulnerable and impotent when it is the time to defend dharma against attacks. We should remember that (alas) almost all public Hindu temples in India are controlled by the Indian Government, which, being carefully and rigidly "secular", considers the question of Hinduism from the atheistic and materialistic point of view: as an ethnic and social issue. This spells the rules on who is allowed to enter the temples, and who is not. It is true that a lot of good work has been done, and is still being done by RSS, who is "converting" tribals or "re-converting" Christians to Hinduism. One of the things I like most of RSS is their open mindedness, intelligence and common sense demonstrated by these activities. Hinduism cannot grow or even be maintained by simply pushing high caste Indians to beget more children, by not recognizing those who have already and genuinely embraced the Hindu faith and practices, and by ousting good (but needy) Hindus who have been somehow forced by circumstances to associate with or be blackmailed by other groups, like Muslims and especially Christians (schooling, hospital assistance, etc). Another problem that I see is the great amount of misinformation and ignorance about Hinduism, often among those who profess themselves as Hindus, and of course among followers of Sanatana dharma. In fact the influence of Semitic/Abrahamic culture and mentality has been pounding on India for centuries (at least from 700 CE) and on Europe (and peoples of European descent who now live around the world, including Americans etc) at least from 3000 BCE. We cannot underestimate it. In my personal experience, the only way to solve the impasse is to propagate Vedic knowledge, information about historical facts and encourage an open debate on philosophy, by keeping an open mind. Today I read on the Times of India about the results of a census released on Monday by census commissioner of India, J.K. Banthia. The figures are amazing: Percentage on total population: Hindus 80.5% Muslims 13.4% Christians 2.33% Sikhs 1.84% Buddhists 0.76% Jains 0.40% Growth rates (from the years 1981-91 to the years 1991-2001): Hindus from 25.1% to 20.3% Muslims from 34.5% to 36% Jains from 4.6% to 26% Sikhs from 24.3% to 18.2% Christians from 21.5% to 22.6% Literacy rates: Jains 94.1% Christians 80.3% Buddhists 72.7% Sikhs 69.4% Hindus 65.1% Muslims 59.1% Female literacy rates: Jains 90.6% Christians 76.2% Sikhs 63.1% Buddhists 61.7% Hindus 53.2% Muslims 50.1% Since these figures have been calculated up to 2001, we must either think that in these last 3 years of BJP government the number of Christian conversions has gone up considerably, or that the number of people who have reportedly been "converted" to Christianity has been inflated by propaganda, or that such conversions are so artificial that the "converted" people actually declare to be Hindus when interviewed by census officers. I tend to agree with your opinion, expressed some time back in the VFA Forum, that the so-called majority of Christians in the north-eastern states of India is just propaganda, but I also tend to think that the actual growth in conversions to Christianity must be addressed in a sensible manner by studying its root problems. PKD