Who Is A Hindu

[Sunder]

...may pick up the first book on "Hinduism" that he finds, which -- more often than not -- is a wishy-washy, <b>mayavadi</b>, "anything goes", "all paths are valid" <b>kind of nonsense</b>.

This is just one of the many contradictions in this mayavad.

You mention "mayavaada" as nonsense. What is Mayavaada? Are you refering to Advaita Vedanta?

The "vipraha bahudha vadanti" quote has been plucked and quoted endlessly, completely out of context by the pseudo-secularist types, who have no real interest in spirituality anyway.

Agree. The key word here is "vipraah". Not every viper who calls himself a prophet is a vipra. Secondly, the psecs do not quote "na anyah panthaa vidyathe ayanaaya", there is <b>no other way</b> to know this - and mean 'no other way but Sanathana Dharma'.

Vivekananda-inspired nationalist Hindus keeps repeating this mantra of "equal-equal tolerance"

Carl, you may want to re-read Swami Vivekananda. Specially his criticism of Missionaries.

Now there is nothing "intolerant" about arguing this way, as long as the arguments are dispassionate, and based on "pratyaksha, anumana and agama", as per the Vedic tarka-shastra.

Minor correction: Tharkam (Gautama Nyaya) considers Prathyaksha, Anumana, Upamana, Shabdham as pramanam. Yoga (of Patanjali) says Pratyaksha, Anumana, Agamah Pramaanani. (but I get your point.)

"proud Hindus" should be upset over so-called Tantra and Kali-worship cults focussed on in english-language text-books simply because this is a heavily biased misrepresentation of Vedic dharma as a whole, and also because these practices are arguably deviant practices (apasampradayas).

Ask most english-educated Hindus, and they will tell you that Hinduism is "NOT monotheistic", that "we are all God", and that Advaita is the last word on Vedanta! -- even though Ramanuja, Madhva, Nimbarka, Vishnuswami and Lord Chaitanya came after Shankara.

Last word does not literally mean the word that comes later in time. Advaita Philosophy is far more convincing, and experientially superior to the other interpretations of Vedas as it echoes what is already given in the Mandukya Upanishad and such. (Shaantham Shivam ADVAITHAM chathurtham manyahthe - sa Aathma Sa vigneya: - Mandukya 7.)

But for the sake of political and theological unity, he preached advaita, being as manipulative as the adversary.

Or so you say. Krishna Himself in the Bhagavad Geetha taught Advaitha (7.7) how can Vivekananda be any different? Krishna HIMSELF declared that "These fools do not recognize me - the Brahman - who is manifested in human form." True enough, fools think of Krishna as mere mortal who lives in Goloka. How can the Sarva-vyapi be bound by space and time except within the confines of Maya?

But such mayavad is seriously offensive to any serious Vaishnav (70% of Hindus are descendents of those who accepted Vaishnavism)/

You will have to give up this 70% number theory. Headcount is immaterial when battling out ideology. If 80% of the world is suffering from poverty, then poverty does not become superior overnight. (WE can discuss Vaishnava beliefs without having to repeat the "70% headcount" ad nauseam.)

This sort of utter nonsense was severely condemned by Chaitanya mahaprabhu himself, though several such cults exist in Bengal and even Vrindavan. But it is precisely such kind of humbug that is discussed under the rubric of "Vaishnavism" in certain books.

Okay, are you dissing Hinduism or praising it? You seem to be dissing every other view except your keyhole view. Have you asked what Krishna has to say about these type of views? ("ANUDVEGA karam vaakyam sathyam PRIYA Hitham cha yath" said the Lord.)

More importantly, try to appreciate the REAL DAMAGE being done by mayavad representations of 'Hinduism'. It is THESE pseudo-philosophies that actually discredit the vast majority of Vedic agamas (including 80% of the Upanishads, most of the 4 Vedas, and ALL the Puranas).

Says who? Advaita is the only true interpretation of the Vedas. ISKCON is heavily confused, and is confusing others or is refusing to understand the Vedas. Either way, it is stagnat. (Lord in the Gita says : Utthareth Athman aathmaanam, na athmanam avasaadhayet.)

They only like to cherry-pick sentences (or sometimes even half-verses!) to support their philosophy. so understand this -- that the mayavadis trash most of Hindu literature (often appealing to modern pseudo-historical theories).

You owe an explanation on what your definition of "Mayavada" is. I am sure it is not Advaita Vedanta you are talking of. Calling Iskcon Moorkhavaadam is more appropriate than calling Advaita as Mayavaadham. (the term Maya is used by Lord himself in the Gita and is not a concoction of Advaita..)