Pagans and Competitive Conversions

Re: Murad

One technical pointer...

Jains , Buddhists (Indian) and Sikhs are also considered Hindus in India. Only Muslims and Chritians are not . Amazingly in parts where i used to live , even Christians are considered Hindus because of no significant difference in culture.

Rishi

Re: Murad

Hinduism as you correctly point out is not a prophet centered religion. However Brahminism is only one facet of Hinduism. Viewed through your glasses, south indians who worship karthikeya need not be hindus since brahmins do not worship karthikeya in most parts of India. Viewed through the same perspective, most south indians (tamils in particular ) have nothing to do with Ram. The malayalis worship Ayyappa who is unheard off in Gujarat or Madhyapradesh. The Kannadigas worship yellamma who is not known anywhere else.

Most of the villages in India have their own local Hindu dieties who are worshipped along with the mainstream hindu dieties. These local dieties are not worshipped by the Brahmins. Then by your words all the villagers who have a local god need not be hindus.

However, it should be noted that hinduism does not denounce all these village and tribal gods as non hindus. Instead it acknowledges and embraces these gods into its fold whenever and wherever required. Which is why hinduism had gods which keep increasing in number. Hindus do not denounce the tribal worship practices as heathen or pagan as the muslims or the christians do. Instead they accept it as a part of Hinduism.

There in lies the difference my friend

Rishi

p.s: most tribals worship hanuman who is very popular even among the kshatriya and the brahminical folds of the Hinduism. And it is this hanuman (monkey faced god) worship which the christian missionaries call pagan and denounce it and pooh pooh the claim that hanuman flew to lanka as a stupid myth.

Well If Moses can part the red sea and Muhammed can move a mountain why can`t hanuman fly goes the hindu logic...........nothing makes sense, does it ?

A very good analysis indeed. I specially like the

phrase ``There is usually rivalry when people love

together but unity when there is a common bond of

hatred.`` Very well put!

The article also made me think about how Hinduism

can actually be defined. I think Mr Baig makes a

very good point when he says people are not Hindus if ``they do not worship Shiv or Vishnu but their own deities, know nothing of the Vedas and have no Brahmins to direct their ceremonies or worship.`` I feel that the first point is not that important becoz hinduism shows a remarkable adaptability in incorporating local gods into their own pantheon and mythology. Hey, even Buddha became an avatar of Vishnu! The clincher is the aspect about Brahmanism: there can be no organized(?) religion till there are priests. Amazing observation!!

-narain