[Reader-list] Fwd: (no subject)

[anupam chakravartty]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: anupam chakravartty <c.anupam at gmail.com>
Date: Jul 5, 2009 8:07 PM
Subject: Re: [Reader-list] (no subject)
To: Rakesh Iyer <rakesh.rnbdj at gmail.com>

Dear Rakesh,

Hinduism comprises of many schools with divergent views. The word Hindu in
itself is a very late creation after it came in touch with the
european cultures. before this it was called arya dharma or depending upon
which school you belonged to. there were mimansikas, advaita and even the
materialists, such as Charvakas. You cannot by any means, after reading
their arguments say that they are from one whole -- that is Hindu. however,
these are my ideas. there can other interpretations as well. i dont really
care political hinduism or political islam or political christianity
or whatever that may be. believing in something requires prajna, which is
beyond reason, as many buddhists believe.

-anupam


On 7/5/09, Rakesh Iyer <rakesh.rnbdj at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Anupam jee
>
> First of all, I don't think in terms of a 'big brother' when I talk of
> Hinduism. Hinduism is not a big brother. The problem lies with the meaning
> of the word 'Hindu' itself.
>
> If one looks at say Islam or Christianity, there are definitions of who is
> a Muslim/Christian or what is a Muslim/Christian. Yes, indeed, they are ways
> of life. The Muslims by and large, are supposed to follow the Koran (which
> is their holy book), as per my perception. Even the Christians are supposed
> to follow the teachings of the Bible, I feel. The problem comes when one
> tries to define what/who is a Hindu.
>
> There are so many definitions of the word Hindu itself, that one doesn't
> know which definition to accept and which to not accept. Some say the word
> 'Hindu' comes from the word 'Sindhu' , which was used by the Arabs to
> indicate those who lived on the east of the river 'Indus'. For some like
> Vivekananda, anybody is a Hindu. For someone like Savarkar, the word 'Hindu'
> had political connotations. And for someone like Gandhi, 'any good man is a
> Hindu'. And then again, there is no one single common text to be followed by
> Hindus, unlike say Islam or Christianity.
>
> In other words, a person can be Hindu by one definition, and yet not a
> Hindu by another definition. And any definition can be acceptable or
> unacceptable, depending on personal choice. Therefore, everyone is a Hindu
> and again, no one is Hindu. Or in other words, everything is Hindu, and yet
> nothing is Hindu. Depends on the choice you wish to make.
> And so, the way a Hindu lives can be Hinduism. But then again, since all
> people can be Hindus by those definitions, and all people can't lead the
> same way of life, Hinduism to me is a combination of different ways of life.
>
>
> Of course, if no one is a Hindu, then Hinduism is nothing, because Hinduism
> is an ism which is supposedly followed by Hindus, right? (If capitalism is a
> phenomenon dependent upon capital and socialism is dependent upon 'social',
> then Hinduism is dependent on 'Hindu' and if no one is a Hindu, Hinduism
> doesn't exist)
>
> And when something is a way of life, it doesn't mean that it's a religion.
> It becomes a religion when it is stated that anyone who is not a
> Muslim/Sikh/Jain/Buddhist/Parsi/Jew/Christian/etc. is a Hindu. That's when
> one gives it the status of religion.
>
> So why worry if you worship any God?
>
> PS: The article I like to put up on social polarization, I may not be able
> to put up today. I will try to do so by tomorrow. I apologize for the delay.
>
>