Hindu: According To Me

[eriko]

Namaste All,

I have been thinking about Hindu. Basically how you would define it. I won't go into the geographical and historical aspect but what it means to as in its present and if I can say a bit globalized form. Right so here it goes.

A Hindu is the one who realizes that It is the greatest receptor (conscious being) in the universe, treats the Law Of Karma as the driving force behind all universal occuring and constantly works towards moksha in all Its births.

How does this defination serve me:

1. It gets rid of the historical and georgraphical aspects that is political complications.

2. Since I believe that once a hindu always a hindu that is why I used the term realizes. So that when people from other faiths or no faith convert to Hindu Dharma, I am able to accept it. Personally without this defination I have no idea how this can be done. And I feel that quite a few Hindus agree with me on this. So this term realizes is very important.

3. This defination focuses only on the spiritual aspect of Hindu Dharma and not the religious one. And this is how I like to keep it.

4. Next it sidelines all people born as Hindus who convert to other faiths. Since they never realized it, they were never Hindu. I mean sometimes you feel bad when it happens, and this way you don't feel bad.

5. Then It because Hindu is without gender. And capitalized because the soul is the most important thing in the Universe.

6. And now this one gets a bit personal. Hindus are always concerned about the quality and not the quanity, so people who are born as Hindus, but remain as Hindus but don't realize this cannot be considered as Hindus. Of course since their is no way of actually knowing this, this point only has a theoretical aspect without any practical implementation. But this fact encourages me to open up to the Universe which is very friendly.

Major Drawback (if you think it to be one):

I think it fails to differentiate between Hundu, Jain, Buddhist and Sikh. But this really doesn't matter to me.

What can be debated?

The meaning of the term realizes. No two souls are alike and hence the term itself has different meanings for every individual. But there can some things that can be said to generalize it. But I have no idea what to include and what not to.

--------------------------------
But anyways there are major faults in it as many of you will point out. So what do you think?

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté

eriko writes,


I think it fails to differentiate between Hundu, Jain, Buddhist and Sikh. But this really doesn't matter to me.

Regarding this Hindu word - I think think of it as a broad brush stoke. Hence when saying 'Hindu' many people (at least in the West) get one impression form this word as it fails to communicate the richness underneath it.

We know 'Hindu' tends to capture the 3 to 4 ~main~ denominations i.e Śaivite, Viṣṇavite, Śāktaṃ and Smārtism views of devotion and worship. Underneath these are multiple views and approaches for each.
Many times śaḍ darśana ( 6 views/insights on dharma) are also co-mingled into these denominations. This adds to the complexity and differences (viśeṣa - distinction and particular merits) overall of a simpler discussion.


For me I continue to say sanātana dharma , ārṣa dharma ( dharma of the ṛṣi-s) in lieu of Hinduism. For me it is more descriptive and suites the knowledge, adoration, etc. I wish to study and engage in.

FYI -Christians say the same… 'Christianity' is the umbrella, yet have various denominations and views e.g. Lutheran, Catholic, Protestant, Baptist, etc. That is neither here or there in this conversation but worthy of note.

It allows us to view their religion as a one word-impression, but know there is diversity and multiple POV's below it.
Now any time even the word 'Christian' is offered here on HDF it tends to incite ( to my chagrin) some verbal abuse on these people. This is not my intent - I am not equating in any way (shape or form) that there is some similarity between sanātana dharma and Christianity ( my required disclaimer to not incite unsavory behavior :) )

praṇām

[Onkara]

1. It gets rid of the historical and geographical aspects that is political complications.

3. This definition focuses only on the spiritual aspect of Hindu Dharma and not the religious one. And this is how I like to keep it.

5. the soul is the most important thing in the Universe.

this fact encourages me to open up to the Universe which is very friendly.

So what do you think?

Namasté Eriko
J
I have a few thoughts stimulated by your post which I would enjoy sharing with you.

I agree that keeping the focus on the spiritual is a good approach. When our self identification depends on the body, the location of our birth or even that of our parents origins we start to base our lives on history and materialism. We risk missing a more subtle but profound truth. This I feel you touch on.

In my individual experience I have no choice on my religion. What I have come to understand is that although many different religions exist (in and out of Hinduism) all exist in Brahman. My failure to understand the Truth in any religion is due to the veil of ignorance and my misidentification with the material or conceptual play of Maya.

Alas I cannot even call ‘myself’ a Hindu, for I am only conscious of being bliss.

Thank you for your post, all of which I enjoyed. I quoted a few key thoughts above which remain with me right now.

[saidevo]

namaste eriko.



A Hindu is the one who realizes that It is the greatest receptor (conscious being) in the universe, treats the Law Of Karma as the driving force behind all universal occuring and constantly works towards moksha in all Its births.

Hindus are always concerned about the quality and not the quanity, so people who are born as Hindus, but remain as Hindus but don't realize this cannot be considered as Hindus.


I can have umpteen definitions about who is a Hindu and who is not, feel elated about their supposed spirituality, brevity and objectivity, and then go gaga about them pronouncing 'Hey, this one is a Hindu, this one is not by this definition', but all my attempts would be pathetic, unless even my personal-and-to-me-only definitions

• acknowledge the authority of the Vedas

• recognize and revere the ancient land and culture that gave me the true knowledge and the means to attain it.

As Yajvan has pointed out subtly and Snip more openly, I need to acknowledge and revere the origin, which is always materialistic in manifest creation, because it is akin to the reverence I show towards my mother.

The defintion you have given, although intended to focus on the spiritual aspect rather than the dharmic rituals and practices that are worldy, suffers from deficiencies that include:

• First of all, how do I know about the 'It'? By hearsay? From the textbooks? From the Internet? Or from my own Self-Realization? Even for my own Self-Realization, I need to know about 'It' first, so how do I know it?

The answer to all these questions, is the Vedas. Only the Vedas have taught me that I am not what I am or what I seem to be, and that I am the divine Tat. Just as a Christian or Muslim or a person of any other religion cannot talk about his religion without remembering its 'Bible' and its 'Prophet', as a Hindu, I cannot talk about my religion in any other sense except as the Vedic religion.

• The knowledge of the Vedas was 'heard', and 'seen' and then disseminated to us by the great Rishis who are the forefathers of all Hindus. I cannot talk about the laws of motion or force of gravity in science without remembering the name of Newton; about the Bible without remembering the names of the Apostles; of the Quran, ignoring the name of Mohammad. But then I talk about my own Vedas day in and day out until the side edges of my mouth are sour or my typewriting fingers develop cramps and yet do not know the name of a single Rishi who gave me the knowledge! This is a strength--not a weakness--of a Hindu because a Hindu only needs to remember, not the names of the Rishis but the fact that the Vedas were given to mankind by the Rishis.

• It is alright to say that I am a Hindu although I am not born in India, but who am I to say that a Hindu born in India and in Hinduism is not a Hindu because he/she has not realized It or have such and such other qualifications?

Where is Hinduism and the concept of Hindus without the ancient India, her citicizens and her global culture--the Sanatana Dharma that she gave the world and proved its efficacy by her citizens remaining as living examples of the Dharma for centuries--if not thousands--of years until the apple cart was upset by the Islamic and European invasions?

Thus, any definition and conviction about Hinduism and Hindus, even a personal one, that ignores the source and seeks to be exclusive rather than inclusive, can only help to fan our ego rather than advance us towards Self-Realization.

[Gotam]

• acknowledge the authority of the Vedas

• recognize and revere the ancient land and culture that gave me the true knowledge and the means to attain it.

(...), any definition and conviction about Hinduism and Hindus, even a personal one, that ignores the source and seeks to be exclusive rather than inclusive, can only help to fan our ego rather than advance us towards Self-Realization.

Namaste saidevo,

I have seen definitions given by Indian sages that would make a Hindu out of me - you have a nice collection of definitions in your very interesting library (thank you for your work), but I feel I am really not familiar enough with Indian culture to accept being called a Hindu. I am a yogi and a cultural Christian. That is also why here, I will rather say something about the religions and cultures I know (but trying to adapt to HDF-readers) than participating in the most typically "Indian" discussions, in which I could only make myself ridiculous. Your definition based on the vedas has often been used humourously by satay, when someone turns up here to reveal that Joseph Smith, or whatever his sect-leader may be, was already mentioned in the Vedas. Satays irony did not suggest to me he was not serious about his definition.

Nevertheless, for me it is difficult to link something universal, Sanatana Dharma, to a certain place, the name itself forbidding its association with a specific time. Unlike Christians, Hindus do not have to invent the most complicated explanations to escape condemning all human beings who have never heard of Jesus. For example: being born before their "saviour", Socrates had to be considered as burning in everlasting hellfire (but they even managed to make a Christian saint out of him - when I think of it, I shed tears laughing, although one could also cry). Hindus do not teach, like the Muslims, that before the coming of their "prophet", the whole world was steeped in jamahiliyya (ignorance - a concept quite different from Sanskrit avidya). But of course, the historical, cultural, chronological aspects exist and one can choose to use them in definitions.

Now I have a question about Sanatana Dharma's geographical home. One of my two yoga teachers told me there is an old Hindu world map on which Europe is considered as belonging to Bharata and its religion, even as far as Ireland! This does make some sense to me, as my European ancesters had traditions that were similar to, and akin to, Hinduism (though probably much more primitive). The riches of these ancient cults can only be vaguely guessed because Christians destroyed, among other things, most books. I can imagine that Hindus regarded our ancesters as "kinfolk" (genetically and linguistically this is true; even Tamil is a far relative of European languages: Hungarian, Finnish). Unfortunately, I cannot find that map. Does anyone here know of it?

With regard to fanning the ego and a (different) question of origin, my other yoga teacher, who is my guru, had me admit my vanity about an achievement I was proud of one day. She asked: how can you be vain about that when it all comes from God? After hearing this, I could no longer be proud of anything. She noticed this too, and the next time I saw her, she pointed out to me that pride is not vanity.

Perhaps this makes it possible to define Hinduism by its Indian origin without fanning a national ego.

[satay]

namaskar,

Which posts of mine are you referring to?


Namaste saidevo,

Your definition based on the vedas has often been used humourously by satay, when someone turns up here to reveal that Joseph Smith, or whatever his sect-leader may be, was already mentioned in the Vedas. Satays irony did not suggest to me he was not serious about his definition.

[Eastern Mind]

Eriko: I think the title of the thread says a lot. There are 1 billion or so 'me...s' and perhaps that many definitions. I've been told I can't be one, I'm a genuine one, I'm a baby in it, I'm an enthusiastic one, a fake one, a pseudo one. The list goes on.

So you are reflecting on this word. That is a good thing, especially the 'reflecting' part.
I am no longer 'reflecting' on this word. That is also a good thing. My resolution is as follows. I am a Hindu. As simple as that. No need for a definition.

Aum Namasivaya

[Gotam]

namaskar,

Which posts of mine are you referring to?

Namaste satay,

posts like this one:


As this articles "proves", muhamad was a Hindu and so in light of this new scholary research, all muslims should accept dharma and worship shiva as their only Lord.

I welcome all mullahs to the Dharmic Fold.

I hope I wasn't too inaccurate.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté

Gotam offers the following,



Now I have a question about Sanatana Dharma's geographical home. One of my two yoga teachers told me there is an old Hindu world map on which Europe is considered as belonging to Bharata and its religion, even as far as Ireland!

This post is not to convince , but to inspire…

The geographical home is that of dirt, longitude and latitude. Interesting indeed, but not as insightful of offering the real home of sanātana dharma. I think of one place, albeit it is not on the earth's surface. If I may let me explain.

As mentioned sanātana dharma is predicated on ārṣa dharma ( dharma of the ṛṣi-s). And where is this knowledge then located for them to access this wisdom? akṣara ( the Imperishable).

A key sūkta in the veda (ṛg ved 1.164.39) says the following:
ṛco akṣare parame vyoman yasmin devā adhi viśve niṣeduḥ |
yastan na veda kiṃ ṛcā kariṣyati ya it tad vidusta ime samāsate ||

some may prefer to read it like this:
richo akshare parame vyoman yasmin deva adhi vishve nisheduh,
yastanna veda kim richa karishyatiya it tad vidus ta ime samasate.

What does this say?

The veda or ṛks, reside in the transcendental field or akṣara ( the Imperishable) , of the highest (parame) Being (vyoman) in which reside all the adhi viśve devā-s (or impulses of creative intelligence, the laws of Nature, the home of all knowledge), responsible for the whole manifest universe.
He whose awareness is not open (na veda) to this field, what can the verses accomplish for him? Those who know this level of reality ( that is, the Realized ones, the ṛṣi-s - this is implied in the sūkta) established in evenness (samāsate or rest contented, balanced) , in That ( tad or Brahman, fullness-wholeness of life).

It is the ṛṣi-s that bring us the wisdom, insights, the Operating Manual if you will, of this known universe. They have cognized, seen and heard this wisdom. It was not their job to ponder ~ think-up~ and write down ideas like philosophers we read about from Ancient Greece - albeit wonderful knowledge and worthy of merit.

This knowledge was viewed/heard in their own level of Being ( akṣara the Imperishable). For this many residing pon this good earth we are grateful.

praṇām

[saidevo]

This post may or may not inspire, but it is certainly an attempt to convince...

I can't understand why the overseas Hindus who embrace Hinduism as their religion in life cannot come around to acknowledge India as the motherland of the religion and culture or the Rishis as the forefathers of the knowledge of the Vedas. I am a bit surprised that people like Yajvan should dismiss geography as "dirt, longitude and latitude" with a seeming undertone of comtempt for geography and the related history.

After all, we live in a geographical land. We have a motherland. And for all Hindus, India is the fatherland, if you prefer. I am not talking about the India of the present times, but of India that was bhArat (it is still bhArat, of course, but only in the Indian Constitution).

The same Rig Veda that speaks of the Arsha dharma of the Rishis, which is akShara, also speaks of an array of the kings of bhAratavarsha, which includes shrI rAma. akShara is imperishable, of course, but when it dawns as a dharma of the populace, it takes a physical, historical, geographical, cultural and human shape. And that was the Arsha dharma of the Rishs who gave it to the world as SanAtana Dharma, as the ancient Indian civilization migrated from India to the farthest parts of the world in all directions.

Here are some Rig Veda sUktas (which are also key sUktas) that speak of famous ancient Indian Kings:

1. On King bharata, son of dushyanta and shakuntala--the name bhArata for India is from his name:

tvAmILe adha dvitA bharato vAjibhiH shunam |
Ije yaj~neShu yaj~niyam || 6.016.04

6.016.4 Thee, too, hath Bharata of old, with mighty men, implored for bliss.
And worshipped thee the worshipful.

2. On King santanu, king of pratIpa of the lunar dynasty, and father of the famous bhIShma of the mahAbhArata:

bR^ihaspate pratime devatAmihi mitro vA yad varuNo vAsi pUShA |
AdityairvA yad vasubhirmarutvAn sa parjanyaM shaMtanave vR^iShAya || 10.098.01

10.098.1. COME, be thou Mitra, Varuna, or Pusan, come, O Brhaspati, to mine oblation:
With Maruts, Vasus, or Adityas, make thou Parjanya pour for Santanu his rain-drops.

3. On King ajAmIdha, a famous king of the puru vaMsha:

nU no rayiM puruvIraM bR^ihantaM dasrA mimAthAm ubhayeShvasme |
naro yad vAm ashvinA stomam Avansadhastutim AjamILhAso agman || 4.044.06

4.044.6 Now for us both, mete out, O WonderWorkers, riches exceeding great with store of heroes,
Because the men have sent you praise, O Asvins, and Ajamilhas come to the laudation.

4. On King mAndhAtR, a king of pre-eminence in the IkshvAku dynasty:

yAbhiH sUryaM pariyAthaH parAvati mandhAtAraM kShaitrapatyeShvAvatam |
yAbhirvipraM pra bharadvAjamAvataM tAbhirUShu UtibhirashvinA gatam || 1.112.13

1.112.13 Wherewith ye, compass round the Sun when far away, strengthened Mandhatar in his tasks as lord of lands,
And to sage Bharadvaja gave protecting help,--Come hither unto us, O Asvins, with those aids.

yo agniH saptamAnuShaH shrito vishveShu sindhuShu |
tamAganma tripastyaM mandhAturdasyuhantamamagniM yaj~neShu pUrvyaM nabhantAmanyake same || 8.039.08

8.039.8 Agni who liveth in all streams, Lord of the Sevenfold Race of men,
Him dweller in three homes we seek, best slayer of the Dasytis for Mandhatar, first in sacrifice. Let all the others die away.

5. On shrI rAma (yes, the same rAma of the rAmAyaNa):

pra tadduHshIme pR^ithavAne vene pra rAme vochamasure maghavatsu |
ye yuktvAya pa.ncha shatAsmayu pathA vishrAvyeshhAm.h || 10\.093\.14

10.093.14 This to Duhsima Prthavana have I sung, to Vena, Rama, to the nobles, and the King.
They yoked five hundred, and their love of us was famed upon their way.

nIlakaNTha compiled a collection of mantras from the Rig Veda that correspond to the story of rAma. This collection is called the "mantra-rAmAyaNa". Check this link for further details: http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/articles/rig_vedic_ramayana/rig_vedic_ramayana-1.htm

6. In addition, Rig veda 10.34 is attributed to king mAndhAtR; 10.179.1 is attributed to king shivi, and 10.179.2 is attributed to king pratardana.

The Vedic Rishis may be residing in the janaH, tapaH and satya lokas today, but in the days of the hoary past they all lived as human beings in the land of bhArata, the land of Sapta Sindhu (seven rivers) that included sarasvatI and flanked on the sides of east and west by samudra--oceans, which is the geography of the Rig Veda, the oldest extant book of mankind.

Sources:
1. 'On the chronological framework of Indian Culture' by subhASh kAk
http://gaurang.org/indian_phil/indian-chronology-subhash-kak.pdf

2. samudra and sarasvatI in the Rig Veda by N.Kazanas
http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/pdf/en/indology/SSR.pdf

3. purANic Encyclopaedia by vettam maNi
http://www.archive.org/download/puranicencyclopa00maniuoft/puranicencyclopa00maniuoft.pdf

[Eastern Mind]

This post may or may not inspire, but it is certainly an attempt to convince...

I can't understand why the overseas Hindus who embrace Hinduism as their religion in life cannot come around to acknowledge India as the motherland of the religion and culture or the Rishis as the forefathers of the knowledge of the Vedas.

I think I am outside your argument. When landing in the Motherland, one of the first things I did was put my head to the ground in respect. India is 'the old country' for me, (even though neither myself or my ancestors were born there) just as England was for my dear departed biological Mother. I think in terms of many lives, not just the current one.

But 'westerners' is a very broad sweep of generalisation. Some would consider TTA a westerner now that he lives here. Try arguing that with him. http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Let's toss history and debate aside for the moment. Suppose we ask the question, "When you think of Hinduism, which country comes to mind?" I think 99% of respondents with any global intelligence at all would say India without hesitation.

Aum Namasivaya

[saidevo]

namaste EM.

The objective of my posts in this thread is to try to help people correct any wrong perceptions (to the extent my reading goes) about the Hindu (read Vedic) religion and its followers and not find fault with anyone.

In the OP, eriko completely ignored the Vedas and India; of course, I very much understand she is very young and there was nothing wrong in attempting a definition of the Hindus; however, in her definition she tried to exclude Hindus "born as Hindus" giving some silly reason, and hence I had to explain.

And then, I was surprised when Yajvan, who has great veneration for the Vedic Rishis, tried to ignore their 'geography' calling it "dirt, longitude and latitude". Although I am in no way qualified, since I have great respect for Yajvan and regard him as among the most learned and realized souls in HDF, I just tried to suggest to him that Rig Veda is a scripture that is as much terrestrial as celestial.

And my point is that Hindus, wherever they are born or located, should never try to ignore the Vedas and the ancient India, in their perceptions about the Hindu religion, which is everything rolled into one--dharma, spiritual, ritual, cultural, civilizational, historical, geographical, scientific, tantric, and--you name anything else.

In fact, we as Hindus should try to improve our knowledge of ancient India and speak about it, as this would help us spread the knowledge among the misguided Indian Hindus going astray in large numbers today, due to the lure of foreign money, influence of western civilization and the spate of disinformation in India by asuric vested interests, who have scant regard for the Nation or her culture.

You are a great and rare soul, EM, who always have a right and holistic perception on tricky issues and don't hesitate to put it down. Kindly note that I have NOT used the term 'westerners', only 'overseas Hindus' in my last post. As you have rightly pointed out, India does--and should--come to mind when one thinks of Hinduism, or else we will only be resurrecting the collonial ghost of AIT, which is desperately trying to secure a body of expression in academic, media and political circles that deal with the country and the religion.

I wish to state that I have nothing personal against any member, however harsh I might feel about some points in some posts. I am only a humble and earnest learner who wants to have an overall view of the Hindu world as well as the big picture (or rather canvas) that is immanent in us all.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté saidevo,


This post may or may not inspire, but it is certainly an attempt to convince...

I can't understand why the overseas Hindus who embrace Hinduism as their religion in life cannot come around to acknowledge India as the motherland of the religion and culture or the Rishis as the forefathers of the knowledge of the Vedas. I am a bit surprised that people like Yajvan should dismiss geography as "dirt, longitude and latitude" with a seeming undertone of comtempt for geography and the related history.


If I have caused you even an once of ire in your demeanor, I ask your pardon. I think by now you know of my intent is to always uplift.

By your post you may have suggested some contempt in my language used. This in fact was/is not the case. My point was and remains so, that truth goes further then a location. It is not a localized point in space.

The ṛṣi-s space in consciousness is not of any longitude or latitude. I have found they take no ownership, and this I respect , it makes their wisdom universal.

If ownership, predicated upon location, IS in fact taken , then does that suggest that all the laws uncovered by Sir Issac Newton belong to England? That the physics of energy (E=Mc²) belong to Germany due to Einstein's revelation? Surely not - this would be small-small thinking.

We on this good earth 'discover and uncover' we do not create the laws of nature, or truth, or how this cosmos works. For me it is not the ownership of any one society , man or woman . They were gifted with insight. And who is the owner then of this insight ? For me it is straight forward and goes without saying.

I am happy that India is at the forefront of Truth and knowledge - only in the years ahead will this appreciation bloom world wide. For this the Indian/Hindu can possess great contentment in this leadership , but not ownership IMHO.

The truth cannot be held down for long. When I read the motto¹ of India, satyam eva jayate nānṛtaṁ - Truth alone conquers (triumphs) , not untruth:

satyam eva jayate nānṛtaṁ
satyena panthā vitato devayānaḥ |
yenā kramantyṛṣayo hyāptakāmā
yatra tat satyasya paramaṁ nidhānam ||

I see this applying universally not to India alone or to any specific longitute or latitude. To this ideal my post was intented , not otherwise.


praṇām

references
motto/principle of India taken from muṇdaka upaniṣad 3.1.6

[Gotam]

I am happy that India is at the forefront of Truth and knowledge - only in the years ahead will this appreciation bloom world wide.

Namaste,

this makes everyone happy: the Indian and the foreigner alike. The former may be glad to share with his countrymen the feeling of living near the source (I hope so), and the latter is glad to know of a distant land whence many a good thing is yet to arrive. How beautiful that what is universal can at the same time be very particular! Without the geographical particularity in Hinduism, we would all have something less to rejoice in.

Not everything you write is easy to read. Am I right to conclude from what I understand that you all stress different aspects of the same view?

What I feel very grateful for now is that with a mouseclick, I am more in India than the average tourist is after a week's sightseeing. Now is this off-topic? I'm not sure. There is a famous sufi, not easy to find on the internet if you are as good at forgetting names as I am, who said it was not important to make a pilgrimage to Mecca, but to walk round the Kaaba of one's heart. To me, he should have said something with India in it, rather than Mecca, and I am going on a little pilgrimage tonight.

[saidevo]

namaste yajvan.

I am an ordinary person capable of ire and emotion and venting them out, and I do feel them with some points in some posts here in HDF and even let these negative emotions spill out in my words, but in your case I was only surprised because I knew you would always know fully well what you are writing about.

I am glad both of us have made our points as well as come around to see eath other's view. As everyone is aware, ancient India never claimed ownership about the Vedic religion it gave the world, or else the system won't be Sanatana Dharma. On the other hand, as you have rightly put it, India has always been a leader--then and now--in the spiritual knowledge about Truth, which she has shared with the world by spreading it wide and far, just like mother earth shares her prANA--oxygen and ApaH--water, with all the world by constantly doing an Atma-pradakShiNam--self-circumambulation every day, besides doing a pradakShiNam of her husband and god, the sun, once every year.

[saidevo]

namaste Gotam.



How beautiful that what is universal can at the same time be very particular! Without the geographical particularity in Hinduism, we would all have something less to rejoice in.


You have a knack of brevity in telling words, a rare gift! Yes, Sanatana Dharma is the timeless Sun located in the space of India and shining all over the world, distillating the scum of crass materialism wherever its rays are let in to shine.



What I feel very grateful for now is that with a mouseclick, I am more in India than the average tourist is after a week's sightseeing.


You have put it beautifully again. Earlier you said in another thread, "But bringing Christian spirituality to India is like carrying water to the ocean", which was excellent.

In an earlier post you wrote



Now I have a question about Sanatana Dharma's geographical home. One of my two yoga teachers told me there is an old Hindu world map on which Europe is considered as belonging to Bharata and its religion, even as far as Ireland!


I think Swami Shyamendra would have lots of information about the spread of ancient Hindu civilization throughout the world here: http://shyamendra.om-yoga.info/. (I used to collect his earlier writings but haven't gone through his Website recently--it has changed a lot).

I believe the AMT (Aryan Migration Theory) which says that the Aryans migrated from India to all parts of the world accounts for this state.

[TatTvamAsi]

Namaste,

This has been one of the points of discussion that is perhaps the most irksome and condescending to any Indian/Hindu.

The answer is extremely pithy: The APPLICATION of Sanatana Dharma (Hinduism) is UNIVERSAL however the ORIGIN is NOT!

The Rishis of India were like spigots of this universal consciousness that they brought forth upon this planet. It is NOT coincidence, it is not random! It was possible ONLY in Bharat Varsha (India) and nowhere else!

The land, its people, and its collective conciousness has always been synonymous with spirituality from time immemorial. To try and dissociate Hinduism from India is like trying to dissociate Yoga from Hinduism!! And there are many so-called scholars who do the latter, especially in the West!

I understand the common response will be "It is due to conditioning that you call this "land" India and Bharat when it actually has no name etc.". I, like Saidevo, do not take it so simply! Bharat Varsha, the land between the Himalayas and the Indian Ocean is the spiritual epicenter of this planet; this is where man from bygone times have pondered about the nature of reality and have actually experienced it!

It deeply grieves me, among scores of other Hindus/Indians, to say that although Hinduism is important, India is separate and consequently unimportant. The two are like a covalent bond my friends; to try and break them is to try and shatter the balance of nature itself!

As stated before, India's motto is SATYAMEVA JAYATE(TRUTH WILL TRIUMPH), as only TRUTH is put on a pedestal. We Hindus also say "SARVE JANAHA SUKINO BHAVANTU (May all on this earth be blessed and live in happiness) the greatness of which can be contrasted with the typical American slogan of "GOD BLESS AMERICA (and no place else)"!

Namaskar.

[Gotam]

namaste yajvan.

(...) just like mother earth shares her prANA--oxygen and ApaH--water, with all the world by constantly doing an Atma-pradakShiNam--self-circumambulation every day, besides doing a pradakShiNam of her husband and god, the sun, once every year.

Namaste saidevo,

a beautiful extension of the sufi's metaphor! Besides, you seem to have guessed that I wondered if there was not a more abstract word in English for "walking round". I do not know whether Atma-pradakShiNam sounds as abstract in Sanskrit as circumambulation does in English, but then, "circumambulare" in Latin is not abstract either, and I shall try to keep the Sanskrit word in mind. In my mother tongue, it will sound abstract enough. But only "Atma" is easy to memorise for me:

in Dutch, "adem" means breath, in German: "Atem" . In Latin, "anima" means soul, French âme, Spanish alma. Of course, the meaning of words changes slightly over time.

And this detail, the fact that without having learnt Sanskrit, a more or less educated European can recognise plenty of its words (e.g. when learning yoga) illustrates an aspect of what we have been discussing. If, say, China had developed spirituality to the same extent as India has (only a few very learned people will be able to start comparing), India would still be more "circumambulated" by the rest of the world because its culture is both more accessible to the West and home to the great guru (and many other gurus) of the buddhist East.

[saidevo]

namaste Gotam.

I recently came across this book you might be interested in, and have added to our Library. I am yet to browse it:

Sanskrit Derivations of English Words: T.Bello
http://ia311004.us.archive.org/0/items/sanskritderivat00bellgoog/sanskritderivat00bellgoog.pdf

[devotee]

If ownership, predicated upon location, IS in fact taken , then does that suggest that all the laws uncovered by Sir Issac Newton belong to England? That the physics of energy (E=Mc²) belong to Germany due to Einstein's revelation? Surely not - this would be small-small thinking.

Exactly ! :)

OM

[eriko]

Eriko: I think the title of the thread says a lot. There are 1 billion or so 'me...s' and perhaps that many definitions. I've been told I can't be one, I'm a genuine one, I'm a baby in it, I'm an enthusiastic one, a fake one, a pseudo one. The list goes on.

So you are reflecting on this word. That is a good thing, especially the 'reflecting' part.
I am no longer 'reflecting' on this word. That is also a good thing. My resolution is as follows. I am a Hindu. As simple as that. No need for a definition.

Aum Namasivaya
Namaste Uncle,

I completely understand what you mean. And I will take care to keep you words in mind.


namaste EM.

In the OP, eriko completely ignored the Vedas and India; of course, I very much understand she is very young and there was nothing wrong in attempting a definition of the Hindus; however, in her definition she tried to exclude Hindus "born as Hindus" giving some silly reason, and hence I had to explain.


Namaste Uncle,

I am extremely sorry for my post. But let me explain a bit. The only reason I why I thought about this defination was to accept converted Hindus. I am sorry that I completley neglected the authority of the Vedas. I really am too ignorant.

This defination was not meant for practical application because any defination not just mine would restrict the thought process of an individual and hence go against itself. It is just a thought in my mind how I treat Hindus and wanted to see how correct I was at it. I really thank you explaining me my faults and limitation of my individual thought process.

This wasn't supposed to bind other people but to free my own self. As for not accepting people born as Hindus as Hindus because there is no way to know that woud have followed Hindu Dharma if they weren't born into it. But then this is a very theortical thing and you cannot really expect divide people on this basis. Because this is not fundamentally correct but also because there is no way of doing it. I am not really concerned about it. And it not the question of acceptance or rejection of people. I really have no right or any means for doing it. Nor was it my intention.

As for the authority of India. I am really not sure about that. There many temples, splendid places but present India is not Bharat. It is just India like any other country. And this is what I feel.

As for the realization thing. Well yes of course that depends on the individual how he does it. Like Uncle Yajvan said:


We know 'Hindu' tends to capture the 3 to 4 ~main~ denominations i.e Śaivite, Viṣṇavite, Śāktaṃ and Smārtism views of devotion and worship. Underneath these are multiple views and approaches for each.
Many times śaḍ darśana ( 6 views/insights on dharma) are also co-mingled into these denominations. This adds to the complexity and differences (viśeṣa - distinction and particular merits) overall of a simpler discussion.


I don't think that I have much to say on this. But please I completely understand from that start that no defination or anything as a matter of fact can truly define Hindu or bind people to that defination. But you do have some basic postulates regarding this. So please treat this just as a personal postulate or a means of self expression.

And yes of course simply when a person says, "I am a Hindu." This explains everything.

I again apologise for ignoring Vedas. It was extremely stupid to do so. But I have learnt something from this and I won't do the same mistake again.

Sincerely,
Eriko