Is Gaudiya-vaisnavism as taught by Prabhupada a Hindu sect?

[Guest guest]

Some quotes from His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada :

 

"There is a misconception that the Krishna consciousness movement represents the Hindu religion. Sometimes Indians both inside and outside of India think that we are preaching the Hindu religion, but actually we are not."

(Science of Self Realization, 1977)

 

"The Krishna consciousness movement has nothing to do with the Hindu religion or any system of religion.... One should clearly understand that the Krishna consciousness movement is not preaching the so-called Hindu religion."

(Science of Self Realization, 1977)

 

"Although posing as great scholars, ascetics, householders and swamis, the so-called followers of the Hindu religion are all useless, dried-up branches of the Vedic religion." (April, 1967, New York lectures)

 

"India, they have given up the real religious system, Sanatana Dharma. Fictitiously, they have accepted a hodgepodge thing which is called Hinduism. Therefore there is trouble." (Bhavan's Journal on June 28, 1976)

 

"We are not preaching Hindu religion. While registering the association, I purposely kept this name, 'Krishna

Consciousness,' neither Hindu religion nor Christian nor Buddhist religion." (1974 Mumbai lecture)

 

"The Hindu community in the West has got some good feeling for me because superficially they are seeing that I am spreading Hindu religion, but factually this Krishna Consciousness movement is neither Hindu religion nor any other religion." (1970 letter to a temple administrator in Los Angeles)

 

 

[jijaji 0]

quote:

"Although posing as great scholars, ascetics, householders and swamis, the so-called followers of the Hindu religion are all useless, dried-up branches of the Vedic religion." (April, 1967, New York lectures)

 

jijaji:

This is a pretty heavy across the board statement..

What about the Followers of Madhva?

This cannot apply to them as many Iskcon people have tried to win support from the tattvavadins over recent years.

What about the Ramanuja sect in South India..(they are certainly not dried up) very much alive in their tradition as is the school of Advaita.

If they were all dried up and useless..why bother for support.

What about the other branches of Gaudiya Vaishnavism that were alive and well at the time this statement was made?

 

Statements like these to discredit other schools of thought are not thought out very well. In the longrun it becomes evident the party who says such things is wanting to exalt his own philosophy above other schools by distorting the facts i.e (useless, dried-up) and thus creates more misunderstanding by spreading untruths.

 

¸..· ´¨¨)) -:¦:-

¸.·´ .·´¨¨))

((¸¸.·´ ..·´ -:¦:- jijaji

-:¦:- ((¸¸.·´*

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by jijaji (edited 10-27-2001).]

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

This is a pretty heavy across the board statement. What about the Followers of Madhva?

Madhva's don't follow Hinduism, they follow Vaishnavism.

 

[shvu 1]

 

Madhva's don't follow Hinduism, they follow Vaishnavism

Who then, follows "hinduism"?

 

Considering hinduism = vaishnavism + shaivism + all the other isms, I fail to see how one can say Madhva's people are not hindus.

 

Cheers

 

 

[jijaji 0]

Originally posted by jndas:

Madhva's don't follow Hinduism, they follow Vaishnavism.

So who are the followers of Hinduism that Prabupad referred to?

Hinduism is generally a term referring to followers of Sanatan Dharma including many branches and schools of thought.

 

[shvu 1]

 

Although posing as great scholars, ascetics, householders and swamis, the so-called followers of the Hindu religion are all useless, dried-up branches of the Vedic religion." (April, 1967, New York lectures)

How cute. I wonder if iskcon has a unique meaning for the term hindu? Perhaps only "dried-up" branches of Indian religion, fall under hinduism.

 

Considering iskcon is based on Gaudiya teachings which are brand new [Prema, Rasa, Radha, devotional service, etc], I wonder how it can be called Sanathana Dharma, which is the name for the original Indian religion existant for 1000s of years?

 

Unless, iskcon has redifined the meaning of Sanathana dharma too.

 

Cheers

 

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

Considering hinduism = vaishnavism + shaivism + all the other isms, I fail to see how one can say Madhva's people are not hindus.

Your definition of Hinduism is different than that used by Prabhupada. If our two definitions and usages are different, then the conversation will just be confusing. If you really care what Prabhupada was saying, I would suggest you study his definition of Hinduism and religion in general. Worship of the Lord is our natural constitutional function, it is not an external material designation such as Hinduism, Christianity, etc.

 

[shvu 1]

Your definition of Hinduism is different than that used by Prabhupada.

Perhaps it is. I accept the common meaning of the term that covers all branches of Indian religions worshipping Indian Gods. For instance, I would be very surprised if some of the Indians here like Animesh, Sushil, Karthik, etc do not call themselves as Hindus, although some or all of them are Vaishnavas.

 

If our two definitions and usages are different, then the conversation will just be confusing.If you really care what Prabhupada was saying, I would suggest you study his definition of Hinduism and religion in general.

That is right. Since many people who read these forums do not know what Hinduism is, a statement such as,

 

Although posing as great scholars, ascetics, householders and swamis, the so-called followers of the Hindu religion are all useless, dried-up branches of the Vedic religion.

 

can be misleading. They will arrive at the conclusion, Hinduism is dried out and no-good, which is why someone has to point out Hinduism is still very much alive, Vaishnavism is a branch of Hinduism, etc, etc. It is not be mistaken as an anti-campaign.

 

Worship of the Lord is our natural constitutional function, it is not an external material designation such as Hinduism, Christianity, etc.

It is not. But here we are discussing the correct meanings of certain words and if Hinduism, as it is commonly known, has dried out or not.

 

Cheers

 

 

[jijaji 0]

quote:

Although posing as great scholars, ascetics, householders and swamis, the so-called followers of the Hindu religion are all useless, dried-up branches of the Vedic religion.

 

jijaji:

I need some clarification here...

Who are the scholars, ascetics, householders and swamis being referred to here?

 

How do you pose as a householder?

 

What dried up branches of Vedic religion is being referred to here?

 

When did they dry up?

 

Are they useless because they have a different siddhanta from Gaudiya Vaishnavism?

 

 

¸..· ´¨¨)) -:¦:-

¸.·´ .·´¨¨))

((¸¸.·´ ..·´ -:¦:- jijaji

-:¦:- ((¸¸.·´*

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by jijaji (edited 10-27-2001).]

[valaya 0]

Dear Shvu and Jijaji prabhus, When Srila Prabhupada used the words `so-called` and `posing`, I doubt that he was referring to genuine adherents/seekers such as your humble selves...

 

Although he gave us more than enough to entangle ourselves in endless arguments over, the essence is there for anyone with a sincere desire to know the Absolute Truth in a personal way. I believe it was religious people he was criticizing, especially those who came here from India for materialistic reasons while imagining themselves `holier than thou` solely due to their `Hinduism`.

 

When he first arrived in America the Hindu community offered little support for his mission and he most likely took that as a rejection of the teachings he had brought, as well. The topic presented here by Satyaraja das demands much more than simply dumping once again on Srila Prabhupada, the Gaudiya Math, etc. Can we not try to resolve something without intentionally provoking one another?

 

valaya RR

 

[This message has been edited by valaya (edited 10-28-2001).]

[gHari 0]

Thakur Bhaktivinode has predicted the consummation of religious unity

of the world by the appearance of the only universal church which

bears the eternal designation of the Brahma Sampradaya. He has given

mankind the blessed assurance that all Theistic churches will shortly

merge in the one eternal spiritual community by the grace of the

Supreme Lord Sri Krsna Caitanya. The spiritual community is not

circumscribed by the conditions of time and space, race and

nationality. Mankind had been looking forward to this far-off divine

event through the long ages. Thakur Bhaktivinode has made the

conception available in its practicable spiritual form to the open

minded empiricist who is prepared to undergo the process of

enlightenment. The key stone of the Arch has been laid which will

afford the needed shelter to all awakened animation under its ample

encircling arms. Those who would thoughtlessly allow their hollow

pride of race, pseudo-knowledge or pseudo-virtue to stand in the way

of this long hoped for consummation, would have to thank only

themselves for not being incorporated in the spiritual society of all

pure souls.

 

 

These plain words need not be misrepresented, by arrogant persons who

are full of the vanity of empiric ignorance, as the pronouncements of

aggressive sectarianism. The aggressive pronouncement of the concrete

Truth is the crying necessity of the moment for silencing the

aggressive propaganda of specific untruths that is being carried on

all over the world by the preachers of empiric contrivances for the

amelioration of the hard lot of conditioned souls. The empiric

propaganda clothes itself in the language of negative abstraction for

deluding those who are engrossed in the selfish pursuit of worldly

enjoyment.

 

 

But there is a positive and concrete function of the pure soul which

should not be perversely confounded with any utilitarian form of

worldly activity. Mankind stands in need of that positive spiritual

function of which the hypocritical impersonalists are in absolute

ignorance. The positive function of the soul harmonises the claims of

extreme selfishness with those of extreme self-abnegation in the

society of pure souls even in this mundane world. In its concrete

realisable form the function is perfectly inaccessible to the empiric

understanding. Its imperfect and misleading conception alone is

available by the study of the Scriptures to the conditioned soul that

is not helped by the causeless grace of the pure devotees of Godhead.

 

------------------

Gary Stevason

Seeking the Kingdom of God

[Gauracandra 1]

Although it has been some time since Jijaji asked those questions, notice no one has answered them, although some of Prabhupada's people have been posting on the forums since then. That says it all.

Lets see, he posted his questions on the 27th and now it is the 28th. Big deal. Perhaps the reason no one has responded is because we've known Jijaji and Shvu for quite some time and we know that nothing will be accomplished with discussing with them. Pretty simple.

 

As for "Hinduism", it is pretty much a grab bag, meaningless word. I have known "Hindus" who eat hamburgers. Is the cow sacred to "Hindus"? Apparently not.

 

A few years back they had what was billed as a "Hindu Festival" in my area. All the local Indians came by. What did we get treated to? Was it "Hindu" culture? Nope. We basically had a bunch of young Indian kids trying to be black rappers. They were "spinnin" the records, wearing baggy pants, and "rapping". On the itinerary there was a note of a dance program that would be coming up. My Indian friends (who invited me to it) wanted to stay because they figured it would be Indian cultural dances. Nope. It was some women dancing to cinema and rock music. And this was the "Hindu" festival.

 

The word Hindu really is meaningless. This is why some people will read the Kama Sutra (which is "Hindu", don't you know) and of course Vaisnavism is "Hindu" (don't you know) and then conclude that Vaisnavism supports homosexual relations.

 

Here is another example of "Hinduism" in my areas. There is a public access channel in my area that has a weekly "Hindu" program. The program has a middle aged Indian man who teaches "Hinduism". What does he do? Well last week I flipped by and he was standing in shorts, with a pot belly shaking it all over the place. He would every so often say "Om om om" and continue jiggling his fat belly. And then, he did his usual teaching of "Hinduism". He starts making these "Star Wars" laser beam sounds "Bdew, Bdew, Bbbbbdewwww....." over and over again, and tells us this is an Indian yoga technique.

 

So "Hinduism" becomes this hodge podge amorphous, indistinct thing. What are the principles of "Hinduism"? There are none, since anything from India is "Hindu".

 

Srila Prabhupada very specifically says he is not teaching "Hinduism". You will not find a single word for "Hindu" in the Bhagavad Gita, Srimad Bhagavatam, Sri Isopanishad etc.... You will find the name "Krsna" in these books, and that is what he is teaching.

 

Gauracandra

[shvu 1]

As for "Hinduism", it is pretty much a grab bag, meaningless word. I have known "Hindus" who eat hamburgers. Is the cow sacred to "Hindus"? Apparently not.

What if some Hindus eats burgers? How does that make the word meaningless? Plenty of iskcon Gurus were charged for corruption in the past. Did that make the word Vaishnava meaningless? I am not sure, what the point is, here.

 

What are the principles of "Hinduism"? There are none, since anything from India is "Hindu".

Not really. Buddhism and Jainism came out of India too, and they do not come under the umbrella of hinduism. Hinduism is a collective term for all the Indian religious branches worshipping Indian Gods, specifically Puranic Gods. There are plenty of Shaivas, Vaishnavas, etc who live in India today and are strict adherents of whatever system they follow. And they all call themselves as Hindus and I fail to see what about them is "dried up".

 

Here is another example of "Hinduism" in my areas. There is a public access channel in my area that has a weekly "Hindu" program. The program has a middle aged Indian man who teaches "Hinduism". What does he do? Well last week I flipped by and he was standing in shorts, with a pot belly shaking it all over the place. He would every so often say "Om om om" and continue jiggling his fat belly. And then, he did his usual teaching of "Hinduism". He starts making these "Star Wars" laser beam sounds "Bdew, Bdew, Bbbbbdewwww....." over and over again, and tells us this is an Indian yoga technique.

That is exactly my point. Ambitious people comeing over to the US and giving their own concoctions of Hinduism, means nothing. Just like SP's description of present day Hinduism is a tall-tale, the fat guy's story can be shown the way to the trash can too. People like this fat guy are thriving on the gullibility of the westerners, who have been led to believe, anything that comes out of India is spiritual.

 

Srila Prabhupada very specifically says he is not teaching "Hinduism".

Srila Prabhupada very specifically says, Hinduism has dried out and the adherents are useless and pretentious people. I am saying this is a false statement, a sales pitch.

 

That aside, not a single one of Jijaji's questions have been answered yet. As people who follow Prabhupada's teachings, your sentiments prevent you from seeing him as an ordinary guy who criticized everything else to make way for his own teaching. I am not saying it is wrong, for that is how it is with anyone who wants to promote a new product among existng productsa and this is exactly what people have been doing for centuries. There is no other way.

 

Cheers

 

[shvu 1]

 

The topic presented here by Satyaraja das demands much more than simply dumping once again on Srila Prabhupada, the Gaudiya Math, etc. Can we not try to resolve something without intentionally provoking one another?

I follow the meaning of the term Hindu as understood by millions of Indians and no other alternate meaning has been provided on this thread, so far.

 

And hinduism as I know it, is not "dried out" and the followers are not useless. That is my point. People of course, do not have to believe what I post here. They can check a dictionary, talk to Indians, read history books and find out for themselves, what the present day status of hinduism is.

 

I am quite sure, Jndas, having lived in India for some years now, knows how the Indians understand the meaning of the term Hindu. Having travelled across India and being familiar with the Indian ways, he will also know, that people are not "posing" as householders, etc. If he thought, Hinduism was useless and dried out, he would not have made the caption of the home page, as Hinduism.

 

There, I think I have said all I wanted to, on this topic.

 

Cheers

 

[shvu 1]

 

Lets see, he posted his questions on the 27th and now it is the 28th. Big deal. Perhaps the reason no one has responded is because we've known Jijaji and Shvu for quite some time and we know that nothing will be accomplished with discussing with them. Pretty simple.

If this were from soneone else, I would have been very tempted to come up with a retort. But I have known you for sometime now, and I have found you to be pretty reasonable. So I won't comment on this.

 

Cheers

 

 

[jijaji 0]

quote:

Thakur Bhaktivinode has predicted the consummation of religious unity

of the world by the appearance of the only universal church which

bears the eternal designation of the Brahma Sampradaya.

 

jijaji:

I am doubtful about Srila Bhaktivinode ever mentioning the 'Brahma Sampraday' at all in any of his writings.

 

¸..· ´¨¨)) -:¦:-

¸.·´ .·´¨¨))

((¸¸.·´ ..·´ -:¦:- jijaji

-:¦:- ((¸¸.·´*

 

[This message has been edited by jijaji (edited 10-28-2001).]

[jijaji 0]

quote:

He has given mankind the blessed assurance that all Theistic churches will shortly

merge in the one eternal spiritual community by the grace of the Supreme Lord Sri Krsna Caitanya.

 

jijaji:

All theistic churches will shortly merge..?

So ALL Christians and ALL the different branches of Christianity are gonna merge into the universal church of Sri Chaitanya as well as all the other Theistic religions?

 

I hardly think so...Gaudiyas cannot even agree within their own sect and are constantly fighting with each other as to who is the highest Guru etc..within their own camp.

 

The Madhvas certainly will not as they do not consider Sri Chaitanya as Krishna like the Gaudiyas do...and for that matter there are hundreds of differing theistic religions in India alone who are NOT gonna give up their traditions that go back futher than the Gaudiya religion.

 

This is a fantasy created by fanatics who think there should be only one religion and one way of seeing reality..THEIRS!

Very similar to how MUSLIM FUNDAMENTALISTS THINK..

 

¸..· ´¨¨)) -:¦:-

¸.·´ .·´¨¨))

((¸¸.·´ ..·´ -:¦:- jijaji

-:¦:- ((¸¸.·´*

 

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by jijaji (edited 10-28-2001).]

[valaya 0]

Well, ISKCON marched in the Hindu Divali parade today here in Toronto, Canada. Does that make them Hindu? The temple certainly is not what is was when Srila Prabhupada was personally present. It is financed and mainly run by East-Indians, but of course they're devotees. Still, their background is Hinduism...

 

Do I think Prabhupada would approve of much that is going on in his name by ISKCON today, including the `Hindufication`? No! Then again, the chanting of the Holy Names goes on, though usually within the temple by regular `congregation` members. So easy to criticize, but could we do any better? Not me, anyway...

 

valaya RR

 

[This message has been edited by valaya (edited 10-28-2001).]

[majic 0]

forum members,

 

I would like to know as well when the different branches of the Vedic Religion dried up? Have any others survived?

 

majic

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

I accept the common meaning of the term that covers all branches of Indian religions worshipping Indian Gods. For instance, I would be very surprised if some of the Indians here like Animesh, Sushil, Karthik, etc do not call themselves as Hindus, although some or all of them are Vaishnavas.

The point is we are discussing a statement made by someone else (Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada). Thus when discussing his statement, we should try to see what meaning he gives to the words he uses. 30 years later Shvu, sitting in America, is saying I disagree with this because the word 'Hindu' means something different to me. If that's the case, then we should be discussing Shvu's statements, not Prabhupada's. He has a particular meaning to the word he uses, and it is clear from his writings. The fact that he glorifies Ramanuja, Madhva, etc., shows that he does not consider them Hindus. If this is too much for you to understand, then there is nothing much that can be discussed with you.

 

I am quite sure, Jndas, having lived in India for some years now, knows how the Indians understand the meaning of the term Hindu.

Most Indians accept the British definition for Hindu, which includes everything. Prabhupada did not accept this definition.

 

But it interesting to note that very few 'Hindus' in India have ever read the Gita. I have spoken to over 20,000 high school and college students in India, and out of them hardly 1 percent have read Gita. I make it a point to ask them all, because it immediately makes them understand their 'hinduism' is pretty meaningless and blind. Those who have read Gita have mostly just memorized a few sanskrit verses for competitions without knowing the meaning. It is quite pathetic. Their Hinduism is certainly just dried up branches of the Vedic tree.

 

If he thought, Hinduism was useless and dried out, he would not have made the caption of the home page, as Hinduism.

I use the modern definition for Hinduism in a general sense as common people will understand it. Thus to me the word Hinduism means something different than the definition Prabhupada had before. It does not mean his definition is incorrect. Actually his definition is more correct, as 'Hindu' itself is a foreign word. But to explain that to people who don't even know or care what hinduism is is a waste of time. To most people in the world, anyone with a turban is a hindu. To give such people a detailed description of what the origins of the word Hindu are, and what it really refers to is not very effective.

 

 

[This message has been edited by jndas (edited 10-29-2001).]

[shvu 1]

Originally posted by majic:

forum members,

 

I would like to know as well when the different branches of the Vedic Religion dried up? Have any others survived?

 

majic

Vedic religion in the form of present day hinduism is very much alive and vibrant. A statement such as,

 

Although posing as great scholars, ascetics, householders and swamis, the so-called followers of the Hindu religion are all useless, dried-up branches of the Vedic religion.

 

is nothing more than a sales pitch. As a word of caution to the readers, I recommend people who do not have knowledge of hinduism to treat info, given by Indian gurus who come to foreign countries, with care. More often than not, they twist meanings and stories to suit their agenda and end up misleading people. If people are interested in the history of Indian religion, stick to reading history books.

 

Some foreigners who wish to become vaishnavas will like to hear such things. Knowing this, the Gurus are ready to give the disciples, what they want to hear. "Hinduism is over and out, Vaishnavism is in, it is THE way to go, etc, etc", is just a lot of nonsense. Whoever makes such a statement either doesn't know the meaning of the term Hinduism or is lying.

 

Although it has been some time since Jijaji asked those questions, notice no one has answered them, although some of Prabhupada's people have been posting on the forums since then. That says it all.

 

Cheers

 

 

[Guest guest]

Some posts from another forum by Hindus on that topic:

 

Posted messages on beliefnet.com forums:

seetha

8/24/01 7:17 PM 2 out of 8

 

Depends on who you ask. The Hare Krishnas don't like to be labeled as a sect of Hinduism. And I don't think they are, because they preach that Krishna is better than all the other gods. (I think Rama is better than all the other gods) Besides

that, they've abused the guru system, promoted discrimination against women, annoyed people at airports, made religion into a bureaucracy, forcefully converted people to Hinduism, abused women and children, done drugs, and dealt with the Mafia. By doing all of this, they have permanently damaged the image of Hindus in America. Most Hindus I know stay as far away as they can from the Hare Krishnas. --------------

seetha

9/21/01 8:49 PM 7 out of 8

 

Dear Nista, Your experience may be different. However, Hindus are not "afraid " of preaching the Gita to people. They don't

want to push their religion on other people, like some Christian missionaries do. And use some common sense: are haggled, stressed out people (who are going to miss their plane) at the airport appreciate Hinduism if you pester them? Even if the the Hare Krishnas consider themselves Hindus, I am a Hindu and I don't, because the core value of Hinduism is that you never convert anyone. As for Hare Krishnas believing that women are the equal of men, look at the statements of Sri

prabhupada. Hint: Look for the word "smaller brains". I have been to the Hare Krishna temple in TN,and I have seen this firsthand. I have read both the ISCKON and the regular versions of the Bhagavad Gita. The ISCKON version has pages and pages of commentary for every verse, as if the person writing it thought he was superior to Krishna and so had to say more. I found this to be extremely annoying, especially since some verses of the Bhagavad Gita were twisted around to fit the Hare Krishnas' beliefs. As for Hindus avoiding the Hare Krishnas, well...they do. I am a Hindu, and all of my family and family friends refuse to go to Hare Krishna meetings because the Hare Krishna person sits on a chair and talks for three hours while the rest of us sit cramped on the floor. Many people have complained b/c he acts superior and as if he, a convert, knows more about Hinduism then we do. Humility is another Hindu value that he doesn't have. Doubtless there are good Hare Krishnas out there, and I am sure that you are one of them. But no matter how good they are now, I am furious at the Hare Krishnas for destroying the image of Hindus. When Americans hear the word Hare Krishnas, they think--drugs, child abuse, and crime. It is true that this is a stereotype. But all stereotypes are based on some degree of truth. They didn't just come out of thin air.

 

---------------

 

zev

9/22/01 9:04 AM 8 out of 8

 

namaste

seetha, i agree with most of the stuff u've said. i think the groups of hare krshnas who sing and jump around at airports and

other public places following ppl around and trying to get them to buy incense and their literature are pretty annoying. its really cheapened hindu culture in the eyes of american society, and its even become something ridiculed in the media etc.

 

another thing is that hare krshnas claim to be hindus when it suits them and they need hindu assistance or funding, but at other times they disassociate themselves from it.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Jndas: Madhva's don't follow Hinduism, they follow Vaishnavism.

 

Satyaraj: Is Vaisnavism to be considered apart from Hinduism? And why?

 

No one could give this answer ‘till now.

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

I am a Hindu, and all of my family and family friends refuse to go to Hare Krishna meetings because the Hare Krishna person sits on a chair and talks for three hours while the rest of us sit cramped on the floor. Many people have complained b/c he acts superior and as if he, a convert, knows more about Hinduism then we do. Humility is another Hindu value that he doesn't have.

Humility includes the humbleness to offer an elevated seat to one who speaks the Bhagavatam. This is an honor offered to glorify the Bhagavatam, not just the speaker. Anyone who speaks on this glorious scriptures should be respected for their connection to the Bhagavatam. Every hari-katha or pravachan in India includes an elevated seat for the speaker. This is an offering to the book being recited. This is something all Hindus understand, except our friend who posted this message. While speaking of humility, they lack the humility to respect others, especially sadhus who recite the narrations of the Lords pastimes, such as Ramayana and Mahabharata.

[Guest guest]

 

Many people have complained b/c he acts superior and as if he, a convert, knows more about Hinduism then we do.

 

Jndas is correct in his premise. Who is speaking the meaning of a holy scripture should have a high seat. Even Christians and Moors do observe this rule.

 

But another point may be raised here. Perhaps this Hindu's main complain is on conversion and the role of covert people as Hindu authority.