Traditional Hindu

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam all

Its only recenty last century or so that neo-hindus have tried to create this umbrella banner telling people what hindus believe and dont who are hindus and who are not, prior 15th centuary people were okay to refer to each other as vaishnavas, shaivais followers of santan dhrama, bhagvata dharma, vedic dharma etc.
Srila prabhupada was happy to refer to the process as sanatan dharma, vedic dharma, bhagvat dharma, varnashrama dharma as these are concreate and refer to specific vedic concepts.
However with hinduism sometime's he was scathing in his remarks when describing a hodge podge philosophy not based on scripture and sometimes refered to it favourably when refering to it in the vedic context.
Neo hindus on this forum will only quote one side. The term hindu is relative and changes and different people hold different meanings to what it means.
If you want to read about the issue more thouroughly then you can read
　
If this is just more neo-hindu regurgitation of one sided quotes then keep it.
I'm surprised that when members of ISKCON call them selves followers of sanatan dharma, varnashrama dharma and followers of the vedas, people get hung up on the Hindu word.
　
　
Why not call this forum sanatan dharma? vedic dharma etc? At least its faithful to the vedic scriptures and has a specific concept attached to it?
Neo hindus need to get a reality check as someone who calls themselves a follower of sanatan dharma or varnashrama dharma is more of a traditional hindu than modern neo hindus who insit upon this label.

I thought I had done debating the term Hindu, it was a painful exercise on Audaryaforum, mainly with western Hks. When I joined HDF I thought I left all that behind, well I was wrong.

How, is Hinduism any different from Sanatan Dharma(this itself is a new word used in 19th century), Vedic or VarnaAshram Dharma?

Every school of thought derives their doctrine from vast literature that we are privileged to study.

Every doctrine has its share of interpretations. Baseline is drawn according to ones predisposition and proceeds to interpret accordingly.

Bhakti Karma or Gyan is not a monopoly of any one group, weather you call yourself a Hindu or SD or Vedic, they are mutually inclusive. When you deny one you deny the lot.

No one can tell for sure how the term Hindu came by, but it is a fact now, so why the problem, at the core off all this is Dharma and Karma upon which the whole of Hindu life style is based. The emphasis is on dharma which is what impacts the society, Varnashram was functioning perfectly, whom and how a person worship is a personal choice and local tradition, it does not impact the society but the Dharma and Karma which is common regardless of ones path, that is what synthesize us.

You have contended that this umbrella is a recent creation by neo Hindu (what ever that may be), but the fact is this term Hindu goes back a lot longer in history, in fact no one can tell for sure as to when it come by, I certainly don’t buy in to this malaki of deriving from sindhu although that is a common (mis) conception.

Chetanya mahaPrabhu did not have any problem using the term Hindu.

As for going on about neo Hindu , you will have to look in the mirror as to how traditional Iskcon is?

You make Hindus part with their money in many ways and one off that is by earning punya by donating Shastras. Lets consider this point. Vidhya or knowledge in Hindu tradition is to acquire, how can anyone give that in charity? Making huge amount of money selling shastra so gurus can jet set and stay in a plus hotels or have Zakusi built for personal use, easy meal tickets,
What to speak of Brahmin initiation via tape recording how traditional is this?

Jai Shree Krishna

[Jivattatva]

Pranam


When someone asks what my religion is, I tell them I'm Hindu.

Up to now I still can't understand why ISKCON would have issues with the term.

[keshava]

Pranam all




I thought I had done debating the term Hindu, it was a painful exercise on Audaryaforum, mainly with western Hks. When I joined HDF I thought I left all that behind, well I was wrong.

How, is Hinduism any different from Sanatan Dharma(this itself is a new word used in 19th century), Vedic or VarnaAshram Dharma?

Bhakti Karma or Gyan is not a monopoly of any one group, weather you call yourself a Hindu or SD or Vedic, they are mutually inclusive. When you deny one you deny the lot.


Jai Shree Krishna

Pranams,
They are not mutually exclusive to everyone. To you maybe but not to others.

Some people count their local traditions as Hindu this may be either throwing babies off a roof to satisfy a devta or something else, its not in the scriptures but categorized as a hindu practice. Other things like untouchability or brahmin by birth may be seen as Hinduism by some but not by others.


Therefore there are different perceptions depending on who you ask as what hindu means.

However Vedic dharma etc you have narrowed down your definition to what the scriptures of traditional bharat say.

Why do some nationalists say bharat rather than india? As the term to them is foriegn based on other people's conception of you rather than self or traditionaly defined.
If they are used in a mutually exclusive way like you say then its not a problem , however they are not allways used in that way.

In 1995, Chief Justice P. B. Gajendragadkar was quoted in an Indian Supreme Court ruling:[15]
When we think of the Hindu religion, unlike other religions in the world, the Hindu religion does not claim any one prophet; it does not worship any one god; it does not subscribe to any one dogma; it does not believe in any one philosophic concept; it does not follow any one set of religious rites or performances; in fact, it does not appear to satisfy the narrow traditional features of any religion or creed. It may broadly be described as a way of life and nothing more.

Below it is based on race: which many hindus subscribe to hindu by birth. (E.g many temples dont let non-indians enter their premise)

Veer Savarkar in his influential pamphlet "Hindutva: Who is a Hindu?" considered geographical unity, common culture and common race to be the defining qualities of Hindus; thus a Hindu was a person who saw India "as his Fatherland as well as his Holy land, that is, the cradle land of his religion".

I have also heard this definition from the leader of the RSS however can't find you a quote at the momment.

So yes if you're definition of hinduism is similar to say

Bal Gangadhar Tilak's formulation of Hinduism's defining features:[15]
Acceptance of the Vedas with reverence; recognition of the fact that the means or ways to salvation are diverse; and the realization of the truth that the number of gods to be worshipped is large, that indeed is the distinguishing feature of Hindu religion.

Then I will say I'm hindu but if its some of the others I will say I'm not. If Hinduism includes sacrifices, local traditions not in the scriptures or a definition that includes race then thats not me.

The trouble is that you say to me Hindu = Vedic dharma, varnashram dharma etc which then I agree to it, then someone else has another meaning of it which I wont agree to. I believe what I believe. So I personally describe my self as a follower of dharma, particlualrly vedic dharma, bhagvat dharma and varnashrama dharma to the best of my abilities.
Scholars have spent ages explaining the definitions of hinduims is fuzzy.

Its more complex than you make out. Not everything will fit in to the nice clean box that you want to fit everyone in to.

Pranams.

[keshava]

Pranam all

You make Hindus part with their money in many ways and one off that is by earning punya by donating Shastras. Lets consider this point. Vidhya or knowledge in Hindu tradition is to acquire, how can anyone give that in charity? Making huge amount of money selling shastra so gurus can jet set and stay in a plus hotels or have Zakusi built for personal use, easy meal tickets,
What to speak of Brahmin initiation via tape recording how traditional is this?

Jai Shree Krishna

Its not just Hindus that part with their precious money the books are sold to eveyone. Sastra Dhan is charity. If someone has sciptures they have the opportunity to aquire the knowledge by their sincerity. If gurus or anyone else in positions of authority abuse their postions they will be dealt with either in this life or in the next. If you know anything that is actually happening then do something about it, but if you make generalised accusations against innocents then the accuser should also be careful.

Brahmin initiation by tape may not be traditional but philsophically there is nothing wrong with it (The debate is there and people will argure based on scripture)

Its not traditional for any holy sadhus to fly by airoplane but it doesnt go against scripture but facilitates the principle of scripture. Traditionally study of scripture siksa was done from palm leaves (well actually alot of it done through directly the guru speaking to you not even through books) now it can be done on the internet? Non traditional but facilitates principle of scripture.

The principle of Diksa is a debate you can read on other forums.

Pranams

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

Pranams,
Some people count their local traditions as Hindu this may be either throwing babies off a roof to satisfy a devta or something else, its not in the scriptures but categorized as a hindu practice. Other things like untouchability or brahmin by birth may be seen as Hinduism by some but not by others.

Now you are letting your imagination running wild, lets not throw the baby with dirty bath water.
Untouchablity and Brahmin by birth basing, is well known Christian tactics, no wonder you find common ground with them, this in no way changes Hindu perspective, sure there are differences but the core belief in Dharma Karma and reincarnation is what makes a Hindu unique, if anyone thought Karma has no impact on birth, need a reality check.

Therefore there are different perceptions depending on who you ask as what hindu means.
However Vedic dharma etc you have narrowed down your definition to what the scriptures of traditional bharat say. [

And you will have the same different perception regardless of what defination you use
　
　

Quote:
In 1995, Chief Justice P. B. Gajendragadkar was quoted in an Indian Supreme Court ruling:[15]
When we think of the Hindu religion, unlike other religions in the world, the Hindu religion does not claim any one prophet; it does not worship any one god; it does not subscribe to any one dogma; it does not believe in any one philosophic concept; it does not follow any one set of religious rites or performances; in fact, it does not appear to satisfy the narrow traditional features of any religion or creed. It may broadly be described as a way of life and nothing more.

I think most Hindu will agree to that defination, here the way of life is very important, the parampara that has been followed since time in memorial although dented by two brutal invasion still remain intact. At the core of this is, Dharma, karma and varna. karmany evadhikaras te. Krishna gives us one right is to do our duty.
　

Below it is based on race: which many hindus subscribe to hindu by birth. (E.g many temples dont let non-indians enter their premise)

And one of them is Jagannath in Puri where Chetanya Mahaprabhu spent most his time yet he did not chalange this practice, I don’t see you denouncing him?

　

So yes if you're definition of hinduism is similar to say
　
Quote:

Quote:
Bal Gangadhar Tilak's formulation of Hinduism's defining features:[15]
Acceptance of the Vedas with reverence; recognition of the fact that the means or ways to salvation are diverse; and the realization of the truth that the number of gods to be worshipped is large, that indeed is the distinguishing feature of Hindu religion.

　
　
Then I will say I'm hindu but if its some of the others I will say I'm not. If Hinduism includes sacrifices, local traditions not in the scriptures or a definition that includes race then thats not me.

Yes everyone perception oh Hindu is different reading vast arrays of literature therefore its no surprise opinion differs, I abhor animal scarifies yet it is there in the Shastra, it would be foolish of me to deny someone to be a hindu simply because I don’t like it.

The trouble is that you say to me Hindu = Vedic dharma, varnashram dharma etc which then I agree to it, then someone else has another meaning of it which I wont agree to. I believe what I believe. So I personally describe my self as a follower of dharma, particlualrly vedic dharma, bhagvat dharma and varnashrama dharma to the best of my abilities.

And within that defination you will find a lot of differences so will you then reject that?
　
There really is no trouble except the one that you are creating for yourself. At the heart of the problem is that Prabhupada clearly says Iskcon is not Hindu. Otherwise Vedic or SD or Varnashram dharma they all mean different to different people. So your point is mute.

Scholars have spent ages explaining the definitions of hinduims is fuzzy.

Yet the vast populace of hindu followers has no such problems because he merrily goes on with his karma and follows his kula dharma. Hindu Dharma and culture is not necessarily homogenous or static

Its more complex than you make out. Not everything will fit in to the nice clean box that you want to fit everyone in to.

You better believe it, it is more complex then either of can fully understand, what makes you think I am trying to fit everyone in one box, that is your job, that is why you go out and convert everyone to your way of thinking. That is different between you and me, while I may differ from you I will not insist mine is the only way.


　

Its not just Hindus that part with their precious money the books are sold to eveyone. Sastra Dhan is charity. If someone has sciptures they have the opportunity to aquire the knowledge by their sincerity.

Hindus are pious people and they can easily be misled and they do give a lot to this so call Shastra dan first you get them to donate and then you go out on street to distribute yes allegedly free with every recipient with a plea for donation so there is a win win situation. This is nothing but a big business Iskcon is a big corporate house run like a corporate.

Here is what Tulsidas had to say and I quote
Selected texts from Sri Ramacharitamanasa
Uttar-kanda, verses 96-103

Kakbhushundi said: In the Kali-Yuga, the hot-bed of sin, men and women are all steeped in unrighteousness and act contrary to the Vedas. ----The people had all fallen prey to delusion and all pious acts had been swallowed by greed. Now listen, while I describe a few peculiarities of Kali-Yuga.
No one follows the duties of one's own caste, and the four Ashrams or stages of life also disappear. Every man and woman takes delight in revolting against the Vedas. The Brahmans sell the Vedas; the kings bleed their subjects; no one respects the injunctions of the Vedas. The right course for every individual is that which one takes a fancy to; a man of erudition is he who plays the braggart. Whoever launches spurious undertakings and is given over to hypocrisy, him does everyone call a saint. He alone is clever who robs another of his wealth; he who puts up false appearances is an ardent follower of established usage. He who is given to lying and is clever at joking is spoken of as a man of parts in the Kali age. Un quote.

One can consider giving books in charity to schools, or facilitate ahsram to further studies for their pupils, specially if there is no motive of making money. these can be construed as a charitable act of facilitating Vidya or knowledge but I know of no instance where vidya to have been given in dan.
But whole of your charitable act is a means to making money and run a big institute, even goes against what Lord Krishna says because you are giving scriptures to any tom dick and harry, on a of chance that they may acquire knowledge.

idam te natapaskaya
nabhaktaya kadacana
na casusrusave vacyam
na ca mam yo 'bhyasuyati
This (knowledge) should never be spoken by you to one who is devoid of austerity, who is without devotion, who does not desire to listen, or who speaks ill of Me. (18.67)


　

If gurus or anyone else in positions of authority abuse their postions they will be dealt with either in this life or in the next. If you know anything that is actually happening then do something about it, but if you make generalised accusations against innocents then the accuser should also be careful.

It’s a shame this fall down is much so frequent I wonder why?
What should I be careful about and why? This fatwa don’t work on me mate, this offence is an alien concept to me.
　

Brahmin initiation by tape may not be traditional but philsophically there is nothing wrong with it (The debate is there and people will argure based on scripture)

What would you know about tradition when any transgression of Vedic law can be explained away philosophically! Do you know that a Brahmin initiation, is given at a young age of five, high degree of expectation and responsibility placed on him. There you are proposing a bramin initiation whom someone has never met and confirm such high position because he might be good at book distribution, who probably was a drug user and cow eater before he joined up.

Its not traditional for any holy sadhus to fly by airoplane but it doesnt go against scripture but facilitates the principle of scripture. Traditionally study of scripture siksa was done from palm leaves (well actually alot of it done through directly the guru speaking to you not even through books) now it can be done on the internet? Non traditional but facilitates principle of scripture.

Who care about the dilution! or the tradition that the guru imparts the knowledge and personally take care of the sadhak? Wow!

Internet can be a good sourse of information but at the same time one can easily be fooled by the power of someones ability to write and debate and yet he could an impostor, a perfect forum for this wannabe guru because he can do whatever materialistic activity he wants and then, when he is feeling religious, come to forums like this to "preach." Never mind he may be quite degraded in his habits. Gurus galore.

The principle of Diksa is a debate you can read on other forums.

I don’t need to learn from a debate what Diksa entails.


Now coming back to my question how traditional are you? I have yet to receive a straight answer. Not that it matters to me but since you are the one who pointed finger at Neo Hindu (not that I know who that is )

You guys claim to follow in disciplic succession From Sri Madhvacharya line yet you differ from him in commentaries of Bhagvat Gita or his Devaita principles or his traditional view of Varnashram by birth
Within the system of Varnashram there is, the marriage ashrama, and this has always been between men and women. We have no evidence of gay and lesbian marriages being performed in Vedic society. So who is neo?

Jai Shree Krishna

[bhaktajan]

Quote:
If gurus or anyone else in positions of authority abuse their postions they will be dealt with either in this life or in the next. If you know anything that is actually happening then do something about it, but if you make generalised accusations against innocents then the accuser should also be careful.
Ganeshprasada wrote: It’s a shame this fall down is much so frequent I wonder why?
What should I be careful about and why? This fatwa don’t work on me mate, this offence is an alien concept to me.
　
But it is not alien to you. You do know What Pitama Bhishma said, no?


http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/s...arrogance.html

Mahabharata, Shanti-parva - Chapter 300

Importance of self-control:


Yudhisthira inquired, “How should one react to people who insult you by their rudeness and arrogance?”

Bhisma replied, “If one does not become angry when insulted by another, then he takes away all the pious merit that person may have accumulated by good deeds. In addition he transfers to the abuser his own sinful reactions. After all what is the value of praise or blame when uttered by a vulgar fool? A person who praises some one in his presence but criticizes him behind his back is no better that a dog.”


Yudhisthira, “How should one debate with an unscrupulous person?”

Bhisma replied, “In a debate the tactics of a truthful person are limited, but a deceitful person can utilize any abominable method. However if the truthful person were to use the same tactics as his opponent, he will find himself at a greater disadvantage, for he is acting contrary to his nature. Therefore a truthful and honest person should always avoid an argument with an unscrupulous person.”

Yudhisthira then inquired, “How should one behave towards a more powerful enemy?”

Bhisma replied, “Even though the swift current of the river can uproot and carry huge trees, the canes survive since they bend with the current. Similarly in order to survive an enemy more powerful, one must yield while staying firmly anchored to the roots.”

Yudhisthira inquired, “What should a weak person do if out of foolishness and pride he provokes a powerful enemy?”

Bhisma replied, “O King, the weaker person must repent and thus appease the stronger enemy.”

Yudhisthira inquired, “What is the origin of all sin?”

Bhisma replied, “Greed, the hankering to posses more than one’s naturally ordained quota is the origin of all sin. The desire to posses that which belongs to another is insatiable and gives rise to anger, lust, loss of judgment, arrogance, miserliness, lack of compassion, enviousness, mistrust and many other evils. Ignorance is made up of the same material as greed, though if analyzed it can be seen that ignorance also comes from greed. As one’s greed increases, his ignorance also becomes more dense.”

Yudhisthira inquired, “What produces the highest merit?”

Bhisma replied, “Self-restraint surpasses all other activities in this regard and is therefore considered to be the highest virtue. Because self-restraint purifies and controls every aspect of one’s life it is more important than giving in charity and the study of the Vedas. By self-restraint alone one can achieve liberation from the material world. Self-restraint comprises sense-control, freedom from anger, non-enviousness, impartiality, truthfulness, steadiness and contentment. However, the essential quality of self-restraint is austerity. Thus no good can be achieved without austerity.”

Yudhisthira then inquired, “O Bhisma, is there any rule that should never be violated under any condition?”

Bhisma replied, “The worship of true brahmans and giving them all kinds of respect must never be given up under any circumstance”

[ScottMalaysia]

Up to now I still can't understand why ISKCON would have issues with the term.

I was thinking about this recently.

The reason that an ISKCON devotee told me that they don't use the term 'Hindu' is that the term ins not derived from the Vedas but was given to the Indians by the Persians. The Persians called the Sindhu River the Hindu River and referred to anyone who lived beyond the river as the Hindu people.

However, having a foreign origin isn't necessary a bad thing. The first Christians did not call themselves Christians either - the name was given to them by others, and often used in a disparaging way. However, the Christians embraced the name, and now they will say with pride that they are a Christian. Imagine a Protestant telling you that he was a "Praise Jesus" or a Catholic telling you that she was a "Hail Mary".

It's the same with Hinduism. Yes, the name has a foreign origin, bu we have adopted it ourselves. We should use it with pride. "Garve se kaho hum Hindu hai" - 'Say with pride that we are Hindus'.

The second reason that ISKCON doesn't like the term Hinduism is that there are many different sects and most of them don't agree with ISKCON's teachings. They don't want to be lumped with all these sects that they disagree with, that say that Shiva or Shakti is the Supreme and Krishna is but a form of Him or Her. They are distinguishing themselves from other Hindus, in the same way that a Catholic Christian might say to someone that they are a Catholic instead of saying they are a Christian, so people know what specific sect they belong to and don't lump them together with the "Praise the Lord" Protestants.

Some Hindus who have joined ISKCON have been taught to reject their family's religion. "Previously we were Hindus. Now we are Hare Krishnas," some said. I'd be certain that those people were Saivas, Saktas or non-sectarian Hindus who were told not to believe that all gods are different forms of God.

[bhaktajan]

When someone asks what my religion is, I tell them I'm Hindu.

Up to now I still can't understand why ISKCON would have issues with the term.

I am an ISKCON member for several decades now.

When someone asks what my religion is, I too tell them I'm Hindu.

But,

I have always qualified it by saying, "I am an orthodox Hindu".

There is "NO Issues" with Iskcon-ites to claim themselves Hindu ---there is no restriction in Iskcon against using the term Hindu to describe themselves.

This is what A.C. Bhaktivedanta said [here he is establishing what is authenrically orthordox and why.]:
[Delivered as a lecture by His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupäda on October 6, 1969, at Conway Hall, London, England]

You may call the Vedas Hindu, but “Hindu” is a foreign name. We are not Hindus. Our real identification is varëäçrama.

Varëäçrama denotes the followers of the Vedas, those who accept the human society in eight divisions of varëa and äçrama. There are four divisions of society and four divisions of spiritual life.

This is called varëäçrama. It is stated in the Bhagavad-gétä (4.13), “These divisions are everywhere because they are created by God.”

The divisions of society are brähmaëa, kñatriya, vaiçya, çüdra. Brähmaëa refers to the very intelligent class of men, those who know what is Brahman.

Similarly, the kñatriyas, the administrator group, are the next intelligent class of men.

Then the vaiçyas, the mercantile group. These natural classifications are found everywhere.

This is the Vedic principle, and we accept it. Vedic principles are accepted as axiomatic truth, for there cannot be any mistake.

[keshava]

Pranam

Untouchablity and Brahmin by birth basing, is well known Christian tactics, no wonder you find common ground with them, this in no way changes Hindu perspective, sure there are differences but the core belief in Dharma Karma and reincarnation is what makes a Hindu unique, if anyone thought Karma has no impact on birth, need a reality check.

Jai Shree Krishna

Pranams Ganeshprashadji

Chilout and read again I'm not bashing anyone just saying Hindu means different things to people. For some Hindu is following their family taraditions and culture for others its following only vedic scriptures.
No one said karma didnt have any effect on ones birth. I'm not trying to attack anyone just saying there are differing opinions on whats defied a Hinduism.

And you will have the same different perception regardless of what defination you use

Yes but the perceptions are more specific with certain definitions. Eg follower of vedic dharma is more specific than hindu as it defines what your authority is clearly and is self defined rather than an evolved term.

And one of them is Jagannath in Puri where Chetanya Mahaprabhu spent most his time yet he did not chalange this practice, I don’t see you denouncing him?

Chill out I wasn't denonuncing anyone just pointing out that some feel Hindu is by birth whereas others dont.

Yes everyone perception oh Hindu is different reading vast arrays of literature therefore its no surprise opinion differs, I abhor animal scarifies yet it is there in the Shastra, it would be foolish of me to deny someone to be a hindu simply because I don’t like it.

My point is that if its based on scripture then its fine but if its local traditions customs etc I dont accept that to be Vedic dharma and therefore not hinduism, but other may differ on this and say it includes culture (not in scripture).

And within that defination you will find a lot of differences so will you then reject that?
　
There really is no trouble except the one that you are creating for yourself. At the heart of the problem is that Prabhupada clearly says Iskcon is not Hindu. Otherwise Vedic or SD or Varnashram dharma they all mean different to different people. So your point is mute.

No these terms are much more well difned than the term Hindu. Varnashrama dharm,a is a concept based on sastra, so is Vedic dharma it refers to sastra. Sure all words are subject to some perception, but some are more fuzzy than others.

Hindu - can encompass racial definitions, non vedic concepts, vedic concepts, culture and traditions that are not based on scripture

Vedic dharma - Accepts vedic scripture as a basis for everything

As per your repeated claims that prabhupada claims ISKCON is not hindu that is not the case again your trying to see black and white and fit everyone in boxes. Neo hindu i mean to be someone who is eager to stick people in to the hindu box or not hindu - its a black and white thing for them.

When he used accepted or rejected the word in different contexts. When he defines it as varnashrama dharma or followers of veda he is happy to use it but if it includes concocted practices which are not in any scriptures like local traditions, superstitions etc then he rejects it.

721108SB.VRN Lectures
Anyway, now we are known as Hindus. The "Hindu" is a vague term. Real term is varnasrama, varnasrama, four varnas and four asramas. This is dharma and this is given by God Himself. Just like Krsna says, catur-varnyam maya srstam guna-karma-vibhagasah. It is given by God. You cannot manufacture dharma, religion. No. Dharmam tu saksad bhagavat-pranitam: "Dharma means the codes, the regulations given by God." That is dharma. That is dharma. Otherwise, it is not dharma.

Yet the vast populace of hindu followers has no such problems because he merrily goes on with his karma and follows his kula dharma. Hindu Dharma and culture is not necessarily homogenous or static

If thats the definition then some people will not like to be difned by it - agreed culture is not static but the words of scripture for me a aparushaya and dont evolve (hindu dharma). Here is a case were I fundemantally disagree being a hindu if thats the definition, but will agree if Hindu means accepting vedic scripture as primary even if the culture may be different.

You better believe it, it is more complex then either of can fully understand, what makes you think I am trying to fit everyone in one box, that is your job, that is why you go out and convert everyone to your way of thinking. That is different between you and me, while I may differ from you I will not insist mine is the only way.

Its nice that you know me so well and you know what I do in my spare time. Its not me trying to make everything black or white, Hindu or not hindu. I dont have a problem with people using Hindu if they feel it means the appropriate thing. I'll use the term if its defined in a synonmous term as accepting vedic Dharma if not then im not one. No need for boxes and circles here.

It's good for you that you dont insist you're way isnt the only way and you may thing thats a great thing. If someone believes there's is the best way I guess that means they are abrahamic brainwashed narrow, huh? Madhavacarya and ramunjacraya shouldnt have debated sankara's philosophy they must have thought their way was better or (god forbid) the right way? Thats not very Hindu of them. Sri vaishnavas believe all the names in the vedas refer to narayan, these guy's better admit that their way isn't the only way else they are not very dharmic. lol

One can consider giving books in charity to schools, or facilitate ahsram to further studies for their pupils, specially if there is no motive of making money. these can be construed as a charitable act of facilitating Vidya or knowledge but I know of no instance where vidya to have been given in dan.
But whole of your charitable act is a means to making money and run a big institute, even goes against what Lord Krishna says because you are giving scriptures to any tom dick and harry, on a of chance that they may acquire knowledge.

idam te natapaskaya
nabhaktaya kadacana
na casusrusave vacyam
na ca mam yo 'bhyasuyati
This (knowledge) should never be spoken by you to one who is devoid of austerity, who is without devotion, who does not desire to listen, or who speaks ill of Me. (18.67)

Well maybe everyone should stop shops througout the world including temple shops from selling copies of scripitures.

The devotee is more merciful than the Lord.

You may be more concerned about all those that dont take to Bhakti but devotees are more concerned about "the off chance" that someone takes to worshipping the Lord and attains that supreme blissfull state in which there is no return. Its like the story of the child who found millions of starfishes washed up on the sea shore and his father saw him thorwing each one back, his father said what difference does it make you throwing a few starfishes back in to the sea, the child said throwing a star fish back in to the sea "it made a difference to that one".

Chaitany mahaprabhu has said whoever you meet tell them about krishna.
Ramunjacraya gave the mantra out to everyone when his guru said keep it a secret as he didnt want to keep something so benificial a secret.

Many acrayas for this reason preached throughout bharat.

It’s a shame this fall down is much so frequent I wonder why?
What should I be careful about and why? This fatwa don’t work on me mate, this offence is an alien concept to me.

I apologise you are free to criticise whoever you please. It's ashame my fatwa trick didnt work.
The reason why people fall more frequently than india is that many people in the west come from having more deeper negative samskaras than those in india. From our perspective its easy to see a snapshot of a persons life and find many faults, but from the eternal perspective the Lord sees that some one has taken a step towards him and thats to his eternal credit.

We may see it as very bad especially if we see ourselves as very sattvik its easy to point fingers at others who are not so. But Krishna see's any little devotional activity done to their eternal credit. There are many example of devotees falling in the vedic srcipture's, Arjuna asks what happens to such a person. in bg 6.37 and Lord krishna describes what happens to someone who practiced for a long time and short time.


2.40 gita society

No effort is ever lost in selfless service, and there is no adverse effect. Even a little practice of the discipline of selfless service protects one from the great fear of repeated birth and death. (2.40)

2.40 as it is
In this endeavor there is no loss or diminution, and a little advancement on this path can protect one from the most dangerous type of fear.

bg.9.30
Even if one commits the most abominable action, if he is engaged in devotional service he is to be considered saintly because he is properly situated in his determination.

From the ultimate perspective any one who engages in practice of self realisation benifits to some degree or another to the level the absorb them sleves, even if its for a while and the return to normal karma and their Karmic reactions according to their nature it is still benificial for them according to Lord Krishnas words any thing spiritual they have done. However in our little snapshot view we may conclude xyz but not see the whole bumby road map.

What would you know about tradition when any transgression of Vedic law can be explained away philosophically! Do you know that a Brahmin initiation, is given at a young age of five, high degree of expectation and responsibility placed on him. There you are proposing a bramin initiation whom someone has never met and confirm such high position because he might be good at book distribution, who probably was a drug user and cow eater before he joined up.

Previous life is no disqualification for devotional service
9.32
"O son of Pṛthā, those who take shelter in Me, though they be of lower birth — women, vaiśyas [merchants] and śūdras [workers] — can attain the supreme destination."

kirata-hunandhra-pulinda-pulkasa
abhira-sumbha yavanah khasadayah
ye 'nye ca papa yad-apasrayasrayah
sudhyanti tasmai prabhavisnave namah

Kirata, Huna, Andhra, Pulinda, Pulkasa, Abhira, Sumbha, Yavana, members of the Khasa races and even others addicted to sinful acts can be purified by taking shelter of the devotees of the Lord, due to His being the supreme power. I beg to offer my respectful obeisances unto Him. (Srimad Bhagavatam 2.4.18)

yan-namadheya-sravananukirtanad
yat-prahvanad yat-smaranad api kvacit
svado 'pi sadyah savanaya kalpate
kutah punas te bhagavan nu darsanat

To say nothing of the spiritual advancement of persons who see the Supreme Person face to face, even a person born in a family of dog-eaters immediately becomes eligible to perform Vedic sacrifices if he once utters the holy name of the Supreme Personality of Godhead or chants about Him, hears about His pastimes, offers Him obeisances or even remembers Him. (Srimad Bhagavatam 3.33.6)

Now coming back to my question how traditional are you? I have yet to receive a straight answer. Not that it matters to me but since you are the one who pointed finger at Neo Hindu (not that I know who that is )

You seem to know what I do in my spare time and what my ill intentions are so I'm surprised you haven't told me what my out look on 'traditional' is. Hang on you have you have told me im in to gay marriages. The paramapara I follow is messed up. So whats the point asking the question there already seems to be a conclusion?

Here is a start on what some attributes of a neo hindu is some of which I see regularly on threads. The term has many thing associated with it some I dont agree with but otehrs I do.

http://hinduism.about.com/od/history/a/neohinduism.htm.

d) The importation of Radical Universalism from liberal, Unitarian / Universalist Christianity as a device designed to severely water down traditional Hindu philosophy.

Other things a neo Hindu does is just like christians and muslims he feels a need to box people in to an 'ism' i.e Hinduism which is a trend that happened in the last 200 years, especially during freedom struggle and onslaughts by christians no doubt had its uses but also has it's side effects.


Hare krishna.

[devotee]

Some people count their local traditions as Hindu this may be either throwing babies off a roof to satisfy a devta or something else, its not in the scriptures but categorized as a hindu practice.

I don't know which Hindu tradition advises to do this ! You are a great non-Hindu !!

Shall we identify ISKCON with child molestation and other similar scandals which are connected with ISKCON ??

OM