Posted: Nov 05, 2010 2:25 pm
by Zwaarddijk
Sylvie wrote:
Err, wrong. Converting other people to Hinduism is nit part of Hindu dogma. In fact, officially you are born a Hindu or you ain't. This is nonsense.

Hare krishnas aren't really Hindus, it's new age devotional jebus-freaks, but Jesus us replaced with Krishna.


Yeah; in a sense, Hare Krishna is to Hinduism what Christianity is to Judaism: a radical departure from tradition, reinterpretation (and even possibly misrepresentation) developed mostly by people that never even were Jews/Hindus in the first place.

Hare krishna also is to Hinduism what Jehovah's witnesses are to Christianity - obnoxious heterodox group that are a bit too eager at the evangelizing bit. (Not that Christianity isn't that already...)

Also, there's no one dogma/ text/group of clergy that speak for Hindus,

Is this really accurate? Aren't groups that don't consider the vedas canonical/~authoritative "nastika", heterodox, and therefore considered outside the scope of proper Hinduism? (Although, to be sure, Hindus in some contexts seem to include Buddhists and Jains in the number of Hindus, but still do consider them non-orthodox.)