05-21-2005, 08:34 PM
Sunder, one other basic question related to what Ashok Kumar said.
If Hinduism is a universal religion (and I assume that no one here disagrees with that?) why should it be always cast as only INDIAN? To me, Hinduism will become truly successful as a religion again, when it is followed by people all over the world (and in Space colonies when they start up) as THEIR religion, adapted to the way THEY look and think.
Religions would do well to evolve and accept the more recent past, rather than be tied completely to an ever-receding and ever-less-relevant ("way things were done right"). And Hinduism is by far the best-equipped to make that leap, because there is a built-in timelessness and cyclical model that incorporates the whole universe. The basic precepts are as relevant to a kid in a colony in Andromeda, as long as one is willing to disregard the parochial stuff about precise birthplaces and Holy Places.
So, in this regard, I would say ISKCON is far ahead of the rest of Hinduism.
If Hinduism is a universal religion (and I assume that no one here disagrees with that?) why should it be always cast as only INDIAN? To me, Hinduism will become truly successful as a religion again, when it is followed by people all over the world (and in Space colonies when they start up) as THEIR religion, adapted to the way THEY look and think.
Religions would do well to evolve and accept the more recent past, rather than be tied completely to an ever-receding and ever-less-relevant ("way things were done right"). And Hinduism is by far the best-equipped to make that leap, because there is a built-in timelessness and cyclical model that incorporates the whole universe. The basic precepts are as relevant to a kid in a colony in Andromeda, as long as one is willing to disregard the parochial stuff about precise birthplaces and Holy Places.
So, in this regard, I would say ISKCON is far ahead of the rest of Hinduism.