05-11-2005, 02:37 AM
Statistically, according to the Encyclopaedia Brittanica, 70% of 'Hindus' nominally refer to themselves as Vaishnava, 20% as Advaitist/Mayavadi/'Saiva', 2% as "reform", and 3% under "other".
As an extended family of creeds that 'speak the same language' (karma, dharma, etc.), it may be useful to continue the usage of a catch-all cultural term like "Hindu". However, from a theological point of view, it continues to cause serious damage to several creeds that have found themselves suffocated and misrepresented by this term, simply because only one statistically marginal creed had usurped the pulpit (opportunistically riding a wave of nationalism) to define 'Hinduism' academically according to its own notions.
The relevant question some of us ask is:
For whom does Hinduism speak?
As an extended family of creeds that 'speak the same language' (karma, dharma, etc.), it may be useful to continue the usage of a catch-all cultural term like "Hindu". However, from a theological point of view, it continues to cause serious damage to several creeds that have found themselves suffocated and misrepresented by this term, simply because only one statistically marginal creed had usurped the pulpit (opportunistically riding a wave of nationalism) to define 'Hinduism' academically according to its own notions.
The relevant question some of us ask is:
For whom does Hinduism speak?