08-27-2004, 08:10 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-acharya+Aug 27 2004, 01:56 AM-->QUOTE(acharya @ Aug 27 2004, 01:56 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->
Thus, although I do not feel that âHinduâ is a proper term to
represent the Vedic Aryan culture or spiritual path, I do use the word from time
to time in this book to mean the same thing since it is already so much a part
of everyoneâs vocabulary. Otherwise, since I follow the Vedic path of
sanatana-dharma, I call myself a sanatana-dharmist. That reduces the need to use
the label of âHinduâ and also helps focus on the universal nature of the Vedic
path. Therefore, I propose that all Hindus begin to use this term
sanatana-dharmist, which not only refers to the correct Sanskrit terminology,
but also more accurately depicts the true character and spiritual intention of
the Vedic path. Others have also used the terms sanatanis or even dharmists,
both of which are closer to the real meaning within Vedic culture. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The argument is just fine, but I have a bone to pick here.
How many Hindus themselves know this, let alone non-hindus?
Further such things have further weakened "hindu" unity. For example: ISKCON folks are <b>vaishnavas and not hindus</b>, some are <b>dharmists and not hindus</b>, there are <b>Kashmiri Pandits and they too are not hindus</b>, some Iyers still think they are <b>Aryans and not hindus</b>, some westerners go as <b>hip new agers and not hindus</b>, BAPS followers take similar lines, but you get the drift.
Now getting to "political, civil and religios" rights of all these people, whose voice will anyone listen to, should this framented society to speak? In other words, the description of the Knapp problem is fine, but the prescription is not well timed nor advised at this point, IMHO. What do others think?
Thus, although I do not feel that âHinduâ is a proper term to
represent the Vedic Aryan culture or spiritual path, I do use the word from time
to time in this book to mean the same thing since it is already so much a part
of everyoneâs vocabulary. Otherwise, since I follow the Vedic path of
sanatana-dharma, I call myself a sanatana-dharmist. That reduces the need to use
the label of âHinduâ and also helps focus on the universal nature of the Vedic
path. Therefore, I propose that all Hindus begin to use this term
sanatana-dharmist, which not only refers to the correct Sanskrit terminology,
but also more accurately depicts the true character and spiritual intention of
the Vedic path. Others have also used the terms sanatanis or even dharmists,
both of which are closer to the real meaning within Vedic culture. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The argument is just fine, but I have a bone to pick here.
How many Hindus themselves know this, let alone non-hindus?
Further such things have further weakened "hindu" unity. For example: ISKCON folks are <b>vaishnavas and not hindus</b>, some are <b>dharmists and not hindus</b>, there are <b>Kashmiri Pandits and they too are not hindus</b>, some Iyers still think they are <b>Aryans and not hindus</b>, some westerners go as <b>hip new agers and not hindus</b>, BAPS followers take similar lines, but you get the drift.
Now getting to "political, civil and religios" rights of all these people, whose voice will anyone listen to, should this framented society to speak? In other words, the description of the Knapp problem is fine, but the prescription is not well timed nor advised at this point, IMHO. What do others think?