Hinduism: once was: RAJARAM EPISODE

[nanda chandran]

Valerie J Roebuck writes :

>The trouble with this is that it means that you are seeking to define
>others according to your own ideas, rather than respecting the way in which
>they see themselves.

And how would you know that? If you're neither a Hindu or Bauddha or JainA -
in short if you aren't one of us - how would you know how we view ourselves?
I don't mean to offend, but am just stating a fact. Isn't the attitude that
you ascribe to Ven Tantra, the very attitude taken by European historians?
How well do you know us to conclude what we are?

Take this commonly used term "Hindu" as distinguished from JainA and
Bauddha. Can you cite a single instance from any pre-colonial JainA or
Bauddha literature where the followers of SanAtana Dharma are referred to as
Hindus? Does the Buddha or MahAveera refer to us that way? It is always
brAhmana or shrAmana or the follower of this or that school - like Bauddha
or JainA, it would be NaiyAyika or VedAnti or Shaiva or Vaishnava - but
never Hindu.

Yet you unhesitatingly brand us : "Hindu"!

The term "Hindu" is basically a term used to denote those who like east of
the river Sindhu or Indu or Hindu and so includes JainAs, Bauddhas as well
as those who follow SanAtana Dharma.

Stephen Hodge writes :

>As a former Buddhist monk myself, I am not at all willing to call
>myself "Hindu" as the term is both confusing and misleading

There is a fundamental difference between Western Buddhism and Asian
Buddhism - one being spread in the modern day and the other with a history
of ancient traditions. Asian Buddhism was basically spread by Indian monks
and so there's still a traditional connection with the home of the religion.
While Western Buddhism was imported into the West by Westerners themselves
upon discovering the "rational"
religion of the Buddha as opposed to the dogmatism of the Semitic religions
- here rationality itself is a double edge sword since that might well
exclude the trappings of tradition which is so important in forming the
identity of the practitioner. So an American Buddhist could well be a
Buddhist with no links to the country which gave birth to the religion - for
him it is the dharma and Buddhist metaphysics that matters more than
tradition - it is the modern attitude. But this is not the case with
traditional proslytization where much of East Asia
adopted the Buddhist way of life - there the tradition as taught by Indian
monks formed an essential part of the conversion - hence the dream of many
East Asians to be born in India during the life of the next Buddha.

Yes, DT Suzuki and the Dalai Lama too have contributed to the spread of the
religion in the West, but still that's not the same as getting it from
India. Also notice the importance given to Tibetean culture amongst the
Western practitioners of MahAyAna - likewise if you'd got it from India in
the days of old, you would have identified yourself differently.
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.