On 8/1/07, shiv sastry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tuesday 31 Jul 2007 9:58 am, Charles Haynes wrote: > > Animism is a religion so that syllogism is obvious. > > But even if Hinduism is not animism it's clearly a religion. > > > > Is anyone seriously suggesting that Hinduism is not a religion? > > My interest in the question relates to the idea that if Hinduism is animism > and animism is religion, what differentiates "non Hindu animism" from "Hindu > animism"?
It would be as reasonable to say "if Hinduism is religion" what differentiates "non Hindu religion" form "Hindu religion." It's the specific set of beliefs and practices that make up Hinduism as distinct from those that make up other religions. Who decides "what is Hinduism" and what is not? If I say I don't believe in dharma, reincarnation, karma or in any gods can I be a Hindu? At what point does "Hindu" become so watered down as to be useless as a description? At what point does it become a distinction without a difference? -- Charles
