07-29-2005, 01:09 AM
<b>k.ram</b>,
I agree with you, completely. If some of my posts seemed a little rhetorical, it was in response to similar stuff from others.
Your suggestion of compartmentalizing the discussion into the social/cultural, political and philosophical is sensible. From the beginning, I was saying that a broad definition of the term "Hindu" is attractive for the social capital it creates, based on a common culture, and common threats. But that should not blur the philosophical distinctions between various schools of thought. Why is this so difficult for some people to accept? My point is that "Hinduism" should be defined in <i>purely</i> cultural terms, rather than to stitch together some "new" doctrine that artificially attempts to patch together all kinds of irreconcilable viewpoints (including non-Vedic ones). The result is a hodgepodge, that does not bode well for the health of Vedic civilization in the medium or long run. Whatever the external socio-political arrangement, it is the inner spiritual purity that holds everything together. "Purity is the force; utility is the principle."
So as a utilitarian expedient, the different traditional and new schools should certainly agree to call themselves Hindu, but each should be required to properly represent themselves -- and others. Each sampradaya should be allowed to maintain its doctrinal purity. Time will decide which ones survive unchanged as spiritually potent forces in the long run.
I agree with you, completely. If some of my posts seemed a little rhetorical, it was in response to similar stuff from others.
Your suggestion of compartmentalizing the discussion into the social/cultural, political and philosophical is sensible. From the beginning, I was saying that a broad definition of the term "Hindu" is attractive for the social capital it creates, based on a common culture, and common threats. But that should not blur the philosophical distinctions between various schools of thought. Why is this so difficult for some people to accept? My point is that "Hinduism" should be defined in <i>purely</i> cultural terms, rather than to stitch together some "new" doctrine that artificially attempts to patch together all kinds of irreconcilable viewpoints (including non-Vedic ones). The result is a hodgepodge, that does not bode well for the health of Vedic civilization in the medium or long run. Whatever the external socio-political arrangement, it is the inner spiritual purity that holds everything together. "Purity is the force; utility is the principle."
So as a utilitarian expedient, the different traditional and new schools should certainly agree to call themselves Hindu, but each should be required to properly represent themselves -- and others. Each sampradaya should be allowed to maintain its doctrinal purity. Time will decide which ones survive unchanged as spiritually potent forces in the long run.