Defy me, if you dare!

[Guest guest]

Dear Humans and others,

 

I am sick of hearing HKs declare that they are NOT Hindus, just because the word 'hindu' wasn't found in the Vedic scriptures. This is the silliest argument anyone can come up with. Suppose the word 'love' wasn't found in any literature thousands of years ago, does that mean love, the feeling, didn't exist back then? In like manner, the word 'hindu' wasn't found in scriptures, true. But the idea (represented by the word hindu) was in the scriptures. That's what matters.

 

Let me simplify this for the dumbheads who can't comprehend.

 

Example: Thousand years ago, man experienced a remarkable feeling which he called 'XYZ'. Later, he called it 'ABC' and so on, UNTIL an adequate term, LOVE, was coined to describe that feeling. Therefore love and xyz and abc, although different in wording, represent the same feeling.

 

Relate that example to the word hindu and all that: Many thousand years ago, man experienced higher truths of consciousness, which he simply called "dharma" or "veda" and so on. Later, as time rolled on, the word hindu was coined to represent those truths. Therefore, hindu, dharma, veda, although different in wording, represent the same truth.

 

Surely, this isn't too complicated to understand, is it? So drop this rotten argument that Vedic scriptures are not hindu, just because there is no word "hindu" in them. It is not the word itself that matters, but the concept it represents.

 

All in all, the word Hindu refers to anything that is Vedic in origin. And since HKs claim to follow Vedas (excuse me while I chuckle), they are Hindus.

 

Regards,

Superman

 

p.s.

 

I can crush every other argument that HKs put up in defense of their claim that they aren't hindu. Just bring them up and you'll see!

 

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

Who cares if you can or not.

 

We are Vaishnava's.

 

 

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

 

If it's not in the Vedas then we don't want to know. I know so-called Hindus that don't practice refrain from killing animals. I know Hindus who go to McDonalds to eat delighful dear Big Macs and Burger King Hot ones'? So tell me to define these Hindus. Call them non-hindus? But then wait that means they are not Hindus then, mmm so what must they be? What's that verse in the Vedas aham bramasmi? What's does that mean again? Get a grip man. Your're just envious that white bodied Western Americans {hell even Russians} and others are practising what you can't even do in your sleep.

 

HARIBOL! /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Guest guest]

Hindu was originally a word that was cognate with Indian. It was not used in relation to a religion until the British started to call the religion of the Hindu's Hinduism.

 

Hindu is the persian way of saying Sindhu. I the ancient persian language the sanskrit S sound was changed into H. Soma in sanskrit is Hoama in persian, Asura in sanskrit is Ahura in persian, Sindu in sanskrit is Hindu in persian.

 

Sindhu is the sanskrit word for river.

 

Thousands of years ago the Vedic peoples lived mostly around great rivers. The Saraswati, The Indus, The Ganges, The Yamuna, The Brahmaputra, etc.

 

The persians called the people in India the Hindus, which was their way of saying Sindhus, the river peoples.

 

Inida became called Sind which was short for Sindhu and also called Hindustan which was land of the hindus i.e river people.

 

The religions of the Hindus were never refered to as Hinduism until the British coined the word.

 

The suffix "ism" was not used in the Indian or persian languages. "Hinduism" as a religious term did not exist until the British invented it because it was convenient to them.

 

The word Hindu was never a religious designation until the word Hinduism was created and then made an official government designation and then taught in the schools and media by the British Raj [colonial government].

 

Capisce ?

 

So Hindu had existed as a term used by persians for thousands of years, and it is found in various scriptures. But it never had any religious connotation, it was just the word used by persians and then other non-Indians after that, instead of Indian or Gujarati, or Bengali, or Panjabi, or Kashmiri etc.

 

So get over it already.

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Prabhus , My dear masters

 

I am an indian hare krishna and i feel in my small humble opinion that it is so silly how we fight hindu- non hindu ....

 

Krishna appears in mathura and lord gaura in mayapur.But the knowledge they have given is being speard by westerners.

http://www.traveling-preacher.com/

So why fight ??

 

Dear hindu ,

Just be humble and accept that these westerners know more about veda's than most hindus do. It is not easy, these people are converting so many people from so many countries as loves of our culture and the Gita(even in Arabic!) , it is a big feat indeed, and we need them to spead our knowledge and culture in such a huge way.

 

Dear non indian Vaishnavas,

Just agree that a person born in india has more chance of being freed from samsara and get love of Godhead ,than most westerners. Let us not forget most of our fights against oppression like the Manor in london was helped by these very Hindus, and we will neeed them in the future too.

 

If both of us agree to this in humility then we can go on with the real mission , and that is to spread the glories of Lord Hari all over the world by congregationally chanting the holy names "HARE KRISHNA HARE KRISHNA KRISHNA KRISHNA HARE HARE HARE RAMA HARE RAMA RAMA RAMA HARE HARE" and spread vedic knowledge all over the world by massive book distribution, especially "The Bhagavad Gita".

 

Actually does Srimati Radha Rani and Krishna care who is right and who is wrong ? All they care is how many people are accepting to come back to them in love, if in that we can assist the mission of Nitai Gaurasunder we will make our life and our every moment sucessfull and get supreme pleasure.

 

I am very sorry if i do offend anyone by this post. I am a sinner myself but i am hoping this post will have some impact as i am just repeating the words of Sri Guru and Gauranga.

 

Aspiring Servent of the Servent.

[Priitaa 0]

Hare Krishna devotees are followers of the founder acaraya Srila Prabhupada, therefore we are not interested in your opinions but rather the knowledge and instructions of this fully realized pure devotee (Prabhupada). I am sorry some Hindus take offense that we are not them, tho I also tend to think of the old days when many of us were meat eaters, pot smokers, some worse - none of you would want us at that time. But Prabhuapda did, and so here we are. Now that he has purified us, suddenly everyone wants us. But in truth no one would've taken the time or trouble back then to have given us mleccas help, inspiration, & practical facility for change. Therefore no offense is intended (tho you sure do sound angry that you can not claim us as part of your birthed religion), but we are not Hindus and nothing you say will change our mind. If you have some need to view us as Hindus, go ahead. Good luck to ya.

 

By the way, have you distributed any books lately to the nondevotees to reveal Krishna to them or do some form of daily service and preaching as Prabhupada instructed, and do you follow all four of those regulative principles, and do you chant on japa beads every day, and try to think of Krishna every moment, lived in an ashrama and/or live your entire life for Krishna? If not, you are practicing something different then we are. The argument will arise we that we don't *always* do these things and are fallen. Yes, we are, but we admit it and take it on our head - we dont try to change our teachings when we can't meet up to the standards ourselves. Well most don't, but now we get into another topic. ha Anyway...... wishing you well.

[Guest guest]

Pritaa you misunderstood the person. And Hare Krishna devotees are not necessarily followers of A.C Bhaktivedanta. There are many Gaudiya Vaisnava sects with their own Acaryas. Sectarianism in the name of preaching is eaily misunderstood as arrogance.

 

The person was relating what many Hindus mistakenly believe because the Indian education system has only recently been revised after many long years of British influence.

 

Prabhupada was not the only Acarya or Guru who wanted to get rid of the word Hinduism, there are many Guru's and Pandits from assorted Vedic religions who want to get rid of the British imposed designation of Hinduism.

 

Prabhupada wanted to get rid of the idea of Iskcon as being "Hindu" because outside of India "Hinduism" was seen almost exclusively as Mayavadi Advaitin philosophy. And in India many people who were not religiously educated also think Hinduism is a religion because of British influence on their education and media.

 

Hinduism is really a misnomer. Thats all. A Hindu is a person raised in Indian culture and not a muslim orother non Vedic religion. Hindu is really an ethnic designation today.

 

So Prabhupada wanted to distance himself from the false perception that westerners had of "Hinduism".

 

That was the main reason he distanced himself from the word Hinduism. He would say we He was not teaching Hinduism, rather he was teaching Sanatana Dharma.

 

So no need to get all huffy over a simple misunderstanding.

[Priitaa 0]

Shiva,

 

I always enjoy your posts, tho I dont always agree with them. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

I am fully aware there are other Vaisnava's on this planet, and that there are followers of other Gaudiya Vaisnava guru's on this forum. Sectarianism was not an issue, and one I get tired of proving my innocense over. Anyway, my understanding, according to what the original poster wrote or accused us of, was that he was speaking in reference to those of us who joined *the movement,* therefore my understanding includes that regardless of guru, all Hare Krishna devotees who joined are simultaneously followers of Prabhupada. (The movement is not sectarian, but I digress.) Otherwise they would be against him, and they don't post against Prabhupada or his teachings. My reference to him was because as founder acaraya it was Prabhupada who started this movement with inclusion of the point we are not Hindus and not practicing Hinduism from day one. That is all.

 

Regarding the reasons you give Prabhupada did so, I am not so quick to go along with that, or as the only or main reason anyhow. After all, his view and consciousness were 100% transcendental and not on the bodily platform from any perspective. Prabhuapda always believed he, and later we, do not practice Hinduism. But you and I can go at it for many posts ha, as we have done in the past, so let us just agree to disagree. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

Tho Siva, you shouldn't get all huffy over small misunderstandings. /images/graemlins/smile.gif /images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

I'm sure you will respond with a debate, so I'm going to take rest now. hehe Goodnight.

 

[theist 1]

The point was referenced aboved but missed by most. We are spiritsoul. The soul is not any religious designation. The soul predates all religion. The religion/nature of the awakened soul is called vaisnavism, one of pure love and devotion to the Lord. It is completely free from puny sectarian considerations.

 

Anyone know of an on-line place where guest could read Vaishnavism Real and Apparent?

[Priitaa 0]

Yes, I WAS going to take rest, but ya know how it is that you think "I will read my post one last time and see if anyone replied?" Well, I fell for it, ha, but saw your wonderful post which inspired me to add this.

 

First, exactly. Thank you for what you have said. Here are just a few quotes by Prabhuapda. To clarify, tho they can be for anyone, it is those of us that 'joined' the Hare Krishna 'movement' who accept him as a pure authority on spiriutal topics.

 

"God is neither Christian nor Hindu nor Muslim. God is God. There may be angles of vision to approach God, but God is one. Therefore our attempt is that you become God conscious. Don't be limited by Christianism or Hinduism or Muhammadanism. So our formula is explained in the Srimad Bhagavatam. We have got the copies there. Sa vai pumsam paro dharmo yato bhaktir adhoksaje: "That is first-class religious system by which the followers become a lover of God." This is the, our formula." ~ Srila Prabhupada speaks to La Trobe University, Melbourne , July 1, 74

 

---

 

"So Krsna said that dharma-samsthapanarthaya sambhavami yuge yuge. Then what is that dharma? He did not come here to reestablish Hinduism or Muslimism or Christianism. No. He came to give you real dharma. What is that? Sarva-dharman parityajya mam ekam saranam vraja. That is dharma, to surrender unto Krsna: "Krsna, I am eternally Your servant. I forgot You. Now I come to my senses. I surrender unto You." This is dharma. Bahunam janmanam ante jnanavan mam prapadyate. This sense, real sense, comes when after struggling, struggling for many, many births, one becomes wise. Bahunam janmanam ante jnanavan. Jnanavan means wise.Srila Prabhupada lecture, Bhagavad Gita 13.13, Bombay India, Oct 6, 73

 

---

 

"Therefore Sanatana dharma does not refer to any sectarian process or religion. It is the eternal function of the eternal living entities in relationship with the Supreme Lord. Sanatana dharma refers, as stated previously, to the eternal occupation of the living entity. Sripada Ramanujacarya has explained the word sanatana as "that which has neither beginning nor end' so when we speak of sanatana dharma we must take it for granted, on the authority of Sripada Ramanujacarya that it has neither beginning nor end." BG Intro

 

---

 

"Bhakti, devotional service, is paro dharma, transcendental dharma, it is not material dharma." SB 6. 2. 26

 

---

 

"And what is dharma? What is religion? Perhaps you'll remember that the translation in the English language, dharma is a description of certain kind of faith, but according to Vedic literature, dharma is not a kind of faith. Faith can be changed but dharma cannot be changed." SP, BG, 1966

---

 

"Yet man professes to belong to a particular type of faith with reference to particular time and circumstance and thus claims to be a Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist or any other sect. Such designations are non-sanatana-dharma. A Hindu may change his faith to become a Muslim, or a Muslim may change his faith to become a Hindu, or a Christian may change his faith and so on. But in all circumstances the change of religious faith does not affect the eternal occupation of rendering service to others. The Hindu, Muslim or Christian in all circumstances is servant of someone. Thus, to profess a particular type of sect is not to profess one's sanatana-dharma. The rendering of service is sanatana-dharma.

 

 

Factually we are related to the Supreme Lord in service. The Supreme Lord is the supreme enjoyer, and we living entities are His servitors. We are created for His enjoyment, and if we participate in that eternal enjoyment with the Supreme Personality of Godhead, we become happy. We cannot become happy otherwise. It is not possible to be happy independently, just as no one part of the body can be happy without cooperating with the stomach. It is not possible for the living entity to be happy without rendering transcendental loving service unto the Supreme Lord." Introduction to Bhagavad-gita.

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

 

Just like to say Hindus are acting like Muslims kinda, saying and thinking just because your Hindu you have a pass go ticket to Vaikuthaloka or is you prefer Heavenloka?

 

Plus the Messed up Varna system can't be helping matters. Messed up? Anyway this is what you asked for...

 

Ps. AGTSP

 

 

 

 

http://www.srilapurimaharaja.org/books/vaisnavism_real_and_apparent.html

 

 

{copyied from PDF download}

The word 'Vaishnavism' indicates the normal, eternal and natural condition, functions and

devotional characteristics of all individual souls in relation to Vishnu, the Supreme, the

All-pervading Soul. But such an unnatural, unpleasant and regrettable sense has been

attributed to the word as to naturally make one understand by the word, Vaishnava

(literally a pure and selfless worshipper of Vishnu), a human form with twelve peculiar

signs (Tilak) and dress on, worshipping many gods under the garb of a particular God and

hating another human form who marks himself with different signs, puts on a different

dress and worships a different God in a different way as is the case with the words

'Shaiva', 'Shakta', 'Ganapatya', 'Jaina', 'Buddhist', 'Mohammedan', 'Christian' etc.

 

Could goto my sig link 'downloads'.

[Guest guest]

I guess I've made a terrible mistake by assuming that you folks might be a little balanced and intelligent.

 

Let me simplify...yet again.

 

I don't care if 'Hindu' is a word referring to people living on the other side of river sindhu. I don't care if the suffix was planted by the Brits. I am not trying to trace the origin of that word at all.

 

All I am saying is that, for most people, the word (and the concept) hindu represents a certain line of thought which includes shaivism, skatism, Vaishnavism and so on. What you call Vaishnavism is just another sect within hinduism, nothing more. It ain't a separate religion, by itself.

 

Bottom line: yes, shiva may be right about the origin of the word 'hindu.' But I am referring neither to the origin of the word nor the word itself. I am only referring to the set of ideas it represents. And vaishnavism happens to be one such idea in the vast ocean of hinduism. Therefore, vaishnavas/hks are hindus. Period.

 

Regards,

Superman

 

 

[Guest guest]

Get a life!

 

Warm Regards,

Superman

[Guest guest]

I can understand your desperation. You are trying sooo hard NOT to be hindu. But unfortunately, with every stern denial, you are only affirming your hinduness. Keep it up!

 

Regards,

Superman

[Guest guest]

I wonder why you and Pankaja dasa keep talking about western devotees and how good they are, compared to the degraded Indian lot.

 

Did I ever say that western devotees aren't sincere? Did I ever say that Indian devotees are superior? Simply put, did I attack westerners at all?? I simply attacked certain Hks (indians included) who seem to think they aren't hindu, that is all. You (and pankaj) are the one turning this into a west vs indian duel. How silly! Nationality is irrelevant here.

 

Regards,

Superman

 

 

[Guest guest]

After reading all of your posts, I am totally convinced that HKs are NOT hindus........................except when they approach Hindus for financial/legal help. lol.

 

Superman

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

 

And this is coming from somebody who says we are ALL Hindus!

 

By the way you are in a Vaishnava forum. I know you think you've beaten somebody, not quite sure what your purpose is.

 

Maybe you want everybody to have brown skin and dance around in circles on garba hey I have no idea. All I know is I may have a human body which is classed as Hindu, but I know for a fact in your pass life you were an ass!

[theist 1]

Thanks Pritaa. Nice to see you hear again. And Pankaja had a link great.

 

We have to keep this in point in mind. It is essential. Lord Caitanya's movement is transcendental it takes place on the liberated level that is free from all false designations.

 

Those of us who are operating in the shadow of that movement while growing and becoming purified need to be very careful we don't over identify with the external culture and religious language that the real movement first manifested in.

 

What did Krsna tell Arjuna? "Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me."

 

Superman made one intelligent comment.

 

 

Nationality is irrelevant here.

 

 

Now he has to see that religious designation is likewise irrelevant.

 

[Guest guest]

Pankaja I remember somewhere in this forum you mentioned that you were born Hindu in an Indian body and now have converted to Gaudiya Vaisnava being inititated by a Gaudiya Math guru.

 

Perhaps you can explain to Hindu Superman Guest the difference between hindu and Vaisnava since you have lived both.

 

Give it a try.

[Guest guest]

Excellent quotes. I went through your link that you posted on the other thread about Hinduism and Vaisnavas. Great website overfilled with nectar and much info. I suggest all visit that site.

 

[Guest guest]

Superman: You are using the word "Hindu" in the way it has been used for only a few hundred years. Before the British took over India the word Hindu ONLY refered to the culture and people, but not the religion. If you want to call anybody who follows some kind of Vedic philosophy "Hindu", I really don't think anyone cares, why would we ?

 

There was a very good reason that Prabhupada insisted that he was not teaching "Hinduism" and that we are not "Hindus".

 

This had everything to do with the perception of what the words Hindu and Hinduism represented in the minds of non Hindus.

 

To the Hindu, the word Hindu or Hinduism has an ethnic meaning. A Hindu is a Hindu because he is Indian and lives the Indian culture. He is not just a Hindu. He may be an Advaitin Yogi, or he may be a Tantric Shakta, or he may have any number of various beliefs. An Advaitin does not believe that God is a real person, A Bhakta does, other Hindu philosophies teach pure atheism, the religious diversification runs the gamut. Every philosophy imaginable can be found amound the Hindu beliefs.

 

In the west before Bhaktivedanta came to the west, the only Hindu teachers that had been teaching, quite successfully, were neo-vedantists. These were a group of quasi Advaitins. Vivekananda, Yogananda, Theosophy, etc. They had a tremendous infuence within western esoteric circles. But they all presented the same monist school of thought.

 

To westerners, Monism, the teachings of the neo-Vedantists and Theosophy, WAS Hinduism.

 

So Bhaktivedanta came and taught "WE, are not Hindus, We do not teach Hinduism". "WE, teach Sanatana Dharma, the message of the Bhagavata, Bhagavata Dharma, Vaisnavism, Krishna Bhakti Yoga, etc.

 

This was a preaching strategy.

 

In India most everyone understood that Hindu's and Hinduism were not and is not a monist belief system. If you said you were teaching Hinduism in India, the people would want to know what type of Hinduism. There are polar opposites of beliefs within the Hindu world. In the west at the time Bhaktivedanta came over, everyone who was involved with Hindu thought, was being taught by neo-vedantists and thought Hinduism was that.

 

And then in the 60's when the immigration restrictions were lifted and a flood of Indians came to America, including Srila Prabhupada, also many other Neo-Vedantists/Yogis came to America as well.

 

Bhaktivedanta was the only one teaching the religion of the mass of Hindus. The mass of Hindus are Vishnu Bhaktas. 80% according to the last census. But in the west Bhakti was only being taught by Bhaktivedanta. This is why the Indian expatriate community gravitated around Iskcon instead of around the mass of other Yogis and Gurus and their Ashramas. Most Indians are Bhaktas of some type. In India the only Guru who went to the West and established a large following of westerners, and then was given respect back in India, was Bhaktivedanta. Not Muktananda, Not Rajneesh, Not any one of them gained the respect in India that they had in the west, except Bhaktivedanta.

 

This was because He was the only one teaching the traditional religion that was practiced on a mass scale in India. Even though his particular sect was not overly large, it was still a branch of one of the 4 Vaisnava Sampradayas. He was teaching the traditional religion, whereas the rest of the Gurus who went to the west, were teaching either neo-vedanta, which was created in the 19th century, or they were teaching a concoction of their own making, or they were teaching an obscure dogma not practiced by large amounts of people in India [Advaitavada].

 

So Bhaktivedanta succeeded among the Indian expatriate community the way he did because there was no alternative, his temples were the only traditional Hindu temples, with arati, prasad, bhajan, kirtan, puja, festivals, etc that the Indian community could take part in.

 

This lasted for 20 years or more. For a long time there were pretty much no other Hindu temples in the west except Iskcon. This translated into a warm reception among the wealthy in India.

 

The Indian expatriate community in America is the wealthiest ethnic group in the wealthiest country in the world, America. They have the largest percentage of millionaires as well. A huge percentage. Many doctors and other professionals. This is because there is and was a "brain drain" from India to America. The professional class in India could only make middle class money by western standards, but in America they can become millionaires. So a huge percentage of professionals came to America. In India these people are mega rich, because of the exchange rate their American money is worth 10-20 times more in India, they and their families have a lot of influence. A large percentage of them have been part of Iskcon for many years.

 

They don't have a problem understanding what Prabhupada was doing by saying "I am not teaching Hinduism, I am not a Hindu". So, whattsamatta you ?

 

 

 

[Kulapavana 0]

lol@"Superman"... just lol!

 

you have good arguments and show a lot of intelligence but do us (and yourself) a favor:

 

break your piggy-bank and buy yourself some manners /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

 

Perhaps you can explain to Hindu Superman Guest the difference between hindu and Vaisnava since you have lived both

 

 

 

Before I was blind. Now I am not. Before I was a dog, its about 'who you are' which body you are in. Krishna is never impartial. In Caitanya Caritamrta by the association of a pure Vaishnava a dog {thats right a dog} attained liberation. Did this dog attain a position we all hope for? By thinking its a Hindu dog. You really need to ask yourself this.

[harekrishnadas 0]

If the media decide to term the religion of people of Jordan (Christians, Muslim and Jews clubbed together) as ‘Jordanism’ since all the practitioners of Jordanism – believe in Adam , Eve, Noah, Moses and Eternal Hell and what not.

 

And suppose it catches on. And goes on like that for 2000 yrs. Maybe the term Jordanism becomes extremely popular – since its all inclusive of the 3 major faiths. If a Jewish person then argues that he does not practise Jordanism - a person like Superman would argue no since Jordanism believes in Adam, Eve, Noah..Moses.. etc and Jews too believe in them – therefore both Jewism and Jordanism is the same.

 

You cannot try to equate a corrupted derivative to the Original !!!

 

Similarly, the only thing common between various belief systems you lump together as one under Hinduism is the belief in the reincarnation, existence of the soul and karma. Even though all of them are supposedly based on the Vedas – the conclusions are sometimes diametrically opposite. For example: Gita is considered as the essence of all the Vedas and though all Hindus take a oath on the Gita in a Indian court – they hardly accept the teachings of the Gita – that Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, rather some Hindus consider Krishna as a myth, other hindus consider Krishna same as any other GODs or even babas etc.. Yet many so-called Hindus today reject even the Vedas, consider Vedas/Puranas as a figment of somebody’s imagination, do not believe in the soul or reincarnation.

 

So what then is common in the various groups you said are Hindus ?

<font color="blue">

Superman said “All in all, the word Hindu refers to anything that is Vedic in origin. And since HKs claim to follow Vedas (excuse me while I chuckle), they are Hindus.” </font color>

<font color="red">

So superman – Do all hindus believe in the essence of the Vedas – the BhagavadGita ? Do all Hindus follow the Bhagavadgita ? Do all Hindus accept Krishna as the Source of all creation and as the Supreme Personality of Godhead as said in the Vedas and the Puranas ? Do all Hindus realize that they are eternal servants of the Supreme Lord Krishna – as said in the Gita ? Until all Hindus accept the above conclusions of the Vedas – YOUR CLAIM THAT HINDUS FOLLOW THE VEDAS IS FALSE !!!! The modern term Hinduism today represent a corrupted form of Vedic techings – with little semblance to the true Vedic conclusions .

 

In short – Hinduism as a religion is as real as the made up religion – Jordanism. Just because the term Hinduism has become popular, has been there for 1000yrs or is generally misunderstood is irrelevant.

</font color>

 

<font color="brown"> As far as Hare Krishnas/Gaudiya Vaishnava are concerned they do not even consider modern Hinduism, Islam or Christinity as religions but just faiths. They generally consider religion as something so inherent that it cannot be changed whereas faith can be changed. And they mostly consider themselves as following Sanatana Dharma (Eternal Religion). Hare Krishnas are not against any religion and they do use the common beliefs most hindus have in Sri Krishna, reincarnation, soul etc as a starting point when preaching to Hindus. And yes they do take help from anybody (Hindus, Christians, Muslim…) whoever is ready to help them in their preaching activity. </font color>

 

Hare Krishna !!!

 

 

PS : This example of Jordanism is not mine but it has been used before to clear the misunderstanding of the term Hinduism.

[harishkumar09 0]

There are many reasons for HKs rejecting their hindu identity.

 

1) Firstly most hindus follow mayavada philosophy and the lifestyle due to it , including belief in sannyasa.They revere and respect Adi Shankara.

 

But since we are different and we believe in the true vedic philosophy (dualism & realism)we wish to avoid the term "hindu".

 

2)If you call yourself a hindu , your temples and institutions will be taken over by the government of India and money collected goes to fill pockets of corrupt politicians.You are not given freedom to manage your temples.So HKs don't call themselves hindus to avoid harrassment at the hands of GOI and have freedom in chalking out temple activities.For example we cannot have the "Akshaya Patra" program to feed poor children if GOI takes over our temples.

 

For the same reason , Ramakrishna Mission and Arya Samaj refuse to call themselves hindus.They have registered themselves as non-hindus.

 

But all this does not mean HKs are not bothered about the fate of the hindu population in India , wholeheartedly supports organisations which defend hindu dharma.