PDA

View Full Version : Definition of a Hindu



wundermonk
09 May 2012, 10:54 PM
Hello everyone:

I think many people come to HDF because they want to learn more about Hinduism, etc. We usually end up arguing whether their beliefs are part of Hinduism or not. Then to justify each of our positions, some of us post some verses from the Vedas/BG/Puranas. Then some others of us contest that translation, etc.

So, let us try to evolve a consensus whether we here on HDF can answer the question - Who is a Hindu?

In the tradition of Hindu philosophy, a definition should neither be too strict nor too under extensive. But I think it is a good idea if we are able begin with under extension, rather than strictness. It is easier to add than to subtract when working with definitions.

So, with that in mind, here is my definition of a Hindu.

You are a Hindu if you believe:

(1)The universe has been eternally existing. Thus, there is no creatio ex nihilo.
(2)Souls/Selves have also been eternally existing.
(3)Souls have beginningless [i.e. uncreated] Karma.
(4)You believe in multiple reincarnation - i.e. the self, with past/present tendencies, obtains a new body in the next life on this planet or elsewhere until all Karma is exhausted.

Thoughts on the definition?

Aakriti
10 May 2012, 12:21 AM
(3)Souls have beginningless [i.e. uncreated] Karma.


I don't understand this.

It has always been my understanding that karma is the result of "action" (whether that "action" be thought, emotion, physical action, etc.).

Am I wrong in my understanding?

And if I am wrong in what I have thought up to now, what would beginningless karma actually [I]be?

I would greatly appreciate feedback.

Thank you. :)

wundermonk
10 May 2012, 12:24 AM
@Aakriti:

What I mean by beginningless is that at no point in time did our Karma NOT exist. [usage of double negative there but hope you can understand it.]

You are right. We are the makers of our Karma but it is more like a flow rather than creatio ex nihilo.

More importantly, it is also tied in with the fact that there is no first creation a Hindu believes in. It is only when a first creation is posited that one has to explain the "beginning" of Karma. Absent a first creation, Karma, universe, souls, God, etc. are beginningless.

Seeker
10 May 2012, 12:27 AM
I operate by a simple definition.

If one believes in karma, reincarnation and moksha , then that person is a Hindu.

The effect & interplay among these three and the way to attain moksha can vary depending on the path you have chosen.

devotee
10 May 2012, 12:36 AM
I operate by a simple definition.

If one believes in karma, reincarnation and moksha , then that person is a Hindu.

The effect & interplay among these three and the way to attain moksha can vary depending on the path you have chosen.

Why not a Buddhist, a Jain or a Sikh ?

OM

wundermonk
10 May 2012, 12:44 AM
If one believes in karma, reincarnation and moksha , then that person is a Hindu.

It may require some additional clarification.

Firstly, you need to define the exact meanings of karma, reincarnation and moksha. Those terms are used within Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism also, I guess. Hindus are probably ok accepting Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism as a part of Hinduism, but Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs may protest.

Secondly, what is your definition of reincarnation and how does that exclude resurrection as thought of by Abrahamics?

Note to Abrahamics...Please leave this thread alone. This is a discussion amongst those who call themselves Hindus. Just because I mentioned resurrection, dont feel the urge to try some proselytization here. Take that stuff to the uneducated. Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

Aakriti
10 May 2012, 12:56 AM
@Aakriti:

What I mean by beginningless is that at no point in time did our Karma NOT exist. [usage of double negative there but hope you can understand it.]

You are right. We are the makers of our Karma but it is more like a flow rather than creatio ex nihilo.

More importantly, it is also tied in with the fact that there is no first creation a Hindu believes in. It is only when a first creation is posited that one has to explain the "beginning" of Karma. Absent a first creation, Karma, universe, souls, God, etc. are beginningless.

Thank you for the thoughtful answer.

I'm going to have to think about this, because we're obviously in territory I've never considered before.

Your response is muchly appreciated. :)

Seeker
10 May 2012, 01:20 AM
It may require some additional clarification.

Firstly, you need to define the exact meanings of karma, reincarnation and moksha. Those terms are used within Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism also, I guess. Hindus are probably ok accepting Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism as a part of Hinduism, but Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs may protest.

Secondly, what is your definition of reincarnation and how does that exclude resurrection as thought of by Abrahamics?

Note to Abrahamics...Please leave this thread alone. This is a discussion amongst those who call themselves Hindus. Just because I mentioned resurrection, dont feel the urge to try some proselytization here. Take that stuff to the uneducated. Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

I am trying to answer Devotee Ji also.

Frankly I dont know mush about Sikhism , though I have family members married to sikhs:)

My understanding of Buddhism is that they believe in nirvana as the end state , which roughly equates as 'nothingness'. Moksha is merging into the Infinite.there is considerable difference between these two.

Abrahamic resurrection is not the same deal as reincarnation. It is a one time deal , not a potential cyclical birth and death.

Again , if any of you can enlighten me by pointing my errors, I am willing to learn.

wundermonk
10 May 2012, 01:40 AM
Abrahamic resurrection is not the same deal as reincarnation. It is a one time deal , not a potential cyclical birth and death.

Indeed! I agree.

devotee
10 May 2012, 02:01 AM
Namaste Seeker,



My understanding of Buddhism is that they believe in nirvana as the end state , which roughly equates as 'nothingness'. Moksha is merging into the Infinite.there is considerable difference between these two.

Actually, "nothingness" is not really "nothingness" if you read the entire doctrine of MahAyAn Buddhism. But it is ok if you like to see it that way. What I want to say, that many Hindus, including me, don't find much difference except the difference in words used.

It is difficult to define Hinduism. Whatever WM has suggested applies only to the Astika part and not the Nastika part of Hinduism. NAstikas like ChArvAks don't believe in the authority of the VedAs and they don't believe in after-death reality.

Again, if we believe in MAdhava's eternal hell theory or the theory that some Jeevas won't ever be liberated, then Moksha theory and Karma theory also fails. Hindus have many contradicting paths and yet they are Hindus :

a) Some believe Vishnu is supreme, some say it is Shiva who is Supreme
b) Astika Hindus believe in the authority of the VedAs but NAstikas don't
c) Vaishnavas and Shaivas are vegetarians but the ShAktas are non-vegetarians except some sub-sects within ShAktas
d) Some worship God in form and name whereas some believe in formless indescribable Brahman
e) Some consider Jesus Christ an incarnation of God or at least an enlightened being but some deny it
f) Some Hindus have no issues with going to MazArs of Muslims and praying, offering ChAdars etc. but some won't do it
g) Many Hindus believe that all religions lead to the same destination and respect all religions but some deny it
h) Many sects believe that Sex and indulgence to other sensual acts should be avoided for higher spiritual aspirations but some sects like VAmMArga believe the Ultimate may be attained through a path which allows Sex, eating meat and drinking alcohol
i) Most Hindus avoid cremation ground and anything related with a dead body as impure for worship ... some do their sAdhanA only in cremation ground with a dead body in front of them

etc. etc. etc.

So, what is the definition of a Hindu ?

OM

wundermonk
10 May 2012, 04:03 AM
It is difficult to define Hinduism. Whatever WM has suggested applies only to the Astika part and not the Nastika part of Hinduism. NAstikas like ChArvAks don't believe in the authority of the VedAs and they don't believe in after-death reality.

You are right. That is why Charvakas cannot really be called Hindus, IMO. In fact, Charvakas constitute an extreme form of atheism. They do not even admit the validity of induction/inference. Also, I would rather that we allow Charvakas to define themselves, instead of us Hindus saying that they are Hindus!


Again, if we believe in MAdhava's eternal hell theory or the theory that some Jeevas won't ever be liberated, then Moksha theory and Karma theory also fails.

It was my hope in this thread that we precisely did NOT do this. I was hoping we could build up the definition ground-up. In any case, the eternal hell conception of Madhva stems from Gita 16:19. Even there, the "hell" is not eternal to make reincarnation invalid. For the commentary says - "I hurl forever into the cycles of births and deaths". Plus I feel here the translation "forever" only means a very very long time.



Hindus have many contradicting paths and yet they are Hindus :

a) Some believe Vishnu is supreme, some say it is Shiva who is Supreme
b) Astika Hindus believe in the authority of the VedAs but NAstikas don't
c) Vaishnavas and Shaivas are vegetarians but the ShAktas are non-vegetarians except some sub-sects within ShAktas
d) Some worship God in form and name whereas some believe in formless indescribable Brahman
e) Some consider Jesus Christ an incarnation of God or at least an enlightened being but some deny it
f) Some Hindus have no issues with going to MazArs of Muslims and praying, offering ChAdars etc. but some won't do it
g) Many Hindus believe that all religions lead to the same destination and respect all religions but some deny it
h) Many sects believe that Sex and indulgence to other sensual acts should be avoided for higher spiritual aspirations but some sects like VAmMArga believe the Ultimate may be attained through a path which allows Sex, eating meat and drinking alcohol
i) Most Hindus avoid cremation ground and anything related with a dead body as impure for worship ... some do their sAdhanA only in cremation ground with a dead body in front of them

etc. etc. etc.


All of these are side issues IMO. If these issues were so important in defining one's Hinduness, I would have expected Hindus to have engaged in fratricidal warfare already. The fact that that has NOT happened seems to suggest the idea of "Hindu"ness transcends these petty differences and is more subtle.

devotee
10 May 2012, 04:33 AM
Namaste WM,


You are right. That is why Charvakas cannot really be called Hindus, IMO. In fact, Charvakas constitute an extreme form of atheism. They do not even admit the validity of induction/inference. Also, I would rather that we allow Charvakas to define themselves, instead of us Hindus saying that they are Hindus!

In a way, we can leave the ChArvAks as they are not relevant in today's Hindu society. However, theoretically, they too are Hindus.


It was my hope in this thread that we precisely did NOT do this. I was hoping we could build up the definition ground-up. In any case, the eternal hell conception of Madhva stems from Gita 16:19. Even there, the "hell" is not eternal to make reincarnation invalid. For the commentary says - "I hurl forever into the cycles of births and deaths". Plus I feel here the translation "forever" only means a very very long time.

I am sorry, I raked up this issue which you wanted to avoid. However, if this has come from BG 16.19 then it has come for a wrong cause. This is because "Ajasra" doesn't mean "forever". It means "unbroken flow", "incessantly", "Continuously" etc.


All of these are side issues IMO. If these issues were so important in defining one's Hinduness, I would have expected Hindus to have engaged in fratricidal warfare already. The fact that that has NOT happened seems to suggest the idea of "Hindu"ness transcends these petty differences and is more subtle.

The biggest thing is that in spite of being the doctrines diametrically opposite to each other we Hindus alone can say, "These are petty issues".

Having said so, what is my idea of a Hindu ? It is just my idea and may not be accepted by everyone as Hindu Dharma is extremely difficult to define. Some essential ingredients in a Hindu :

a) Respects widely varying beliefs even if he/she may not subscribe to it i.e. believes that the Truth is One and the paths to reach the Truth are many
b) If an Astika (which is relevant in today's context) :

i) Believes in Karma Theory, cycles of births and death and Moksha
ii) Believes in the authority of the VedAs
iii) Believes that God can be worshipped in any form and by any name and yet may be inclined to a particular name and form
iv) No hesitation to accept that everything and every being is divine

OM

Eastern Mind
10 May 2012, 07:23 AM
Vannakkam: Nice discussion, and as with any other discussion, has a ton of variance within Hindus themselves, which often go in circles.
Still I think it's important to agree on a few very basic things, if for no other reason than to clarify ideas for newcomers, or people claiming to be Hindus by coming on some forum and saying they're a Hindu.
I don't believe any standard definition everyone will agree to is at all possible, because of the range within Hindus themselves.
The most extreme view (rigid, staunchly orthodox,) claims you have to be born in India, have certain samskaras, etc.
The most liberal view is "if you say you're a Hindu, then you're a Hindu". So you can do all other things that are contrary to it, by almost any standard imaginable, but still you're a Hindu.
Both ends of the spectrum are valid for the people who believe in them. But for most of us here, we are somewhere in between.
For me personally, there's only a few basic things
- belief in God (although there are atheistic Hindus, I would prefer to call them atheists, and Hindus by cultural definition only)
- belief in the authority of the Vedas
- belief in karma (Again, there;s a big difference between saying, "I believe" and actually believing
- belief in reincarnation
- some sort of practice (meditation, temples, japa) that falls within widely recognised Hindu practice

With regard to universalism, I personally would like to see Universalism stated as a separate religion, but that's just me. At least then when you have a conversation, you're not surprised or shocked when someone mentions a scripture, a belief, or a practice not generally associated with SD.

Aum Namasivaya

Believer
10 May 2012, 10:36 AM
Namaste WM,

I too have agonized over the proposal that you have just brought to the table. And I understand your suggestion at building the definition ground up, starting at the minimum and then adding on with things agree-able to all. The problem is that the add-ons are not, and will never be agree-able to all as we all have different orientations/programming/sampradayes/mindsets and so forth; not to speak of our personal egos in having "my way". No one is willing to give up or compromise, specially on this disease called Universalism, as it relates to Hinduism - and I am already showing my strong bias :). So, I don't want to discourage you in bringing some sanity and a sense of cohesion in the forum about this vast ocean called Hinduism; I wish you luck in bringing a consensus for a basic definition, and I think EM's basics come closest to the first cut. Members will just have to learn to bite their tongues and not say negative things about any of the sampradayes/gurus/sects, or the scriptural translations pushed by them. But then how do you control the Western half-Hindus who want to amalgamate their previous (and still held) Abrahamic traditions and 'open minded liberal views' with Hinduism? How do you deal with them when they blow up in every conversation and derail it?

Pranam.

Eastern Mind
10 May 2012, 11:27 AM
But then how do you control the Western half-Hindus who want to amalgamate their previous (and still held) Abrahamic traditions and 'open minded liberal views' with Hinduism? How do you deal with them when they blow up in every conversation and derail it?

Pranam.

Vannakkam: I believe most of us deal with this on a personal level. At least I do. For me personally, I make a distinction between 'interested in Hinduism' and being a Hindu. But that's just me.

Aum Namasivaya

Jainarayan
10 May 2012, 11:34 AM
But then how do you control the Western half-Hindus who want to amalgamate their previous (and still held) Abrahamic traditions and 'open minded liberal views' with Hinduism? How do you deal with them when they blow up in every conversation and derail it?

Pranam.

Heavens to murgatroyd! who would want the job of controlling anyone, except an admin, who usually has his hands full with real life? :dunno: One thing one can do is to put those people that one deems to be thread derailers (kind of like the paragraph I quoted) on ignore or not read their posts.

If one can't define a "full Hindu", as this thread asks, how can one define a "half Hindu"? Except perhaps by one's own socio-religio-political prejudices and misinformation.

I wonder how one should view a Sri Swami Sivananda, Swami Vivekananda, Paramhansa Yogananda, Sri Ramakrishna, or Swami Krishnananda with their "open minded liberal views". Have I forgotten any of the swamis with "open minded liberal views"? :headscratch: (yes, been reading... a lot).

Showers of blessings from Sri Krishna, from the "Western half-Hindu" no doubtedly referred to. http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/images/smilies/namaste.gif

Believer
10 May 2012, 11:40 AM
Namaste,

I make a distinction between 'interested in Hinduism' and being a Hindu. But that's just me.
Fair enough, and I will remember that too. But then the 'interested in Hinduism'/'rationalist'/'Universalist' crowd steers everything away from Hinduism and towards free for all idealogy; something like 'I think' or 'I believe', not what the scripture says or is culturally acceptable. That drives a wedge between members and creates deep discord. Anyway, sorry WM, if the conversation is getting too far off your OP.

Pranam.

Jainarayan
10 May 2012, 12:51 PM
You are a Hindu if you believe:



(1)The universe has been eternally existing. Thus, there is no creatio ex nihilo.


Agreed, with one difference in my thinking: I believe that universes come and go eternally and ad infinitum, like soap bubbles. They are a subset of existence, i.e. Brahman.



(2)Souls/Selves have also been eternally existing.


Agreed. I don't believe souls are not eternal, especially from an Advaita pov.



(3)Souls have beginningless [i.e. uncreated] Karma.


Agreed, though hard for the human mind to comprehend (this one anyway).



(4)You believe in multiple reincarnation - i.e. the self, with past/present tendencies, obtains a new body in the next life on this planet or elsewhere until all Karma is exhausted.


I believed that as far back as I can remember.

Jainarayan
10 May 2012, 01:09 PM
Here are some questions from a survey I responded to elsewhere.

Do you attend temple once a week?
Have not been at all (yet).

Do you have a Hindu name?
No; though I am considering making my middle name a Hindu name, but it has to be the same letter as I have now, 'J'.

Have you been had the equivalent of a baptism, or formal entrance?
No; I have Krishna's love which is far more important than rituals.

Do you meditate daily?
Yes in my own way.

Do you pilgrimage near of far at least once a year?
No, there are no pilgrimage areas in the NY/NJ metro area or anywhere in the US afaik.

Are most of your friends Hindu?
Yes, I just haven't met them yet.

Do you listen to Hindu music primarily or exclusively?
Primarily.

Have you been initiated or taken diksha from a bonafide Hindu teacher?
No; I would like to.

Are you a vegetarian, or at least realise you should be one?
No. Yes.

Do you dream about Hindu stuff?
I don't know, I don't usually remember my dreams. But I often wake up with a chant or bhajan in my head.

Will you call yourself Hindu in public?
Yes. I have an OM tattoo, and I wear pendants of Krishna and OM. These are all often visible.

Will you consult an ayurvedic doctor?
If necessary and possible.

Will you consult a Hindu astrologer?
If necessary and possible.

Do you know your nakshatra?
No.

Do you believe fully in reincarnation?
Yes.

Do you believe in karma?
Yes.

Do you believe in a divinity within all things?
Yes.

Do you avoid wearing leather?
No, though I would prefer not to.

Do you know at least a few bhajans?
Quite a few. I can even play a couple on guitar.

How many of the above do you have to answer 'yes' to before by all measures, an onlooker would consider you a Hindu?
None. It's no one's business. It affects them not one bit what my beliefs are, only how I treat them.

charitra
10 May 2012, 02:32 PM
Supreme court of India, back in 1950s or 60s, whilst dealing with a litigation, had to decide on a litigant’s claim to be a hindu. The trial couldn’t proceed without first determining the religion of the litigant. As aresult in this connection the judges sought the opinions of some hindu acharyas as to ‘who can claim oneself to be a hindu’. The consensus evolved was that, a hindu is one who BELIEVES and Follows vedas and Upanishads. No mention of sampradaya, ishta devata or any other characterization had accompanied the above definition. If we look at it from the other side, one is not a hindu if one doesn’t believe in the above scriptures. Parental religion and geography thereforebecome irrelevant in the eyes of the highest court of the land. To me it makessense, it is these scripture that exhaustively dealt with the concept of Brahman, the hindu God. They also dealt with the creation and cosmos as well as the atman. Nastiks therefore are not hindus in the eyes of law, so are the adherents other dharmic faiths like Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism as they do not recite Vedopanishads. Experts opined that Gita is nothing but Vedanta saaramsam, meaning ‘essence of vedanta’. Though apparently it may appear so by legal definition, in reality Gita wasn’t excluded as a scripture.

Later in recent years, in similar situations, the courts are demanding legal conversion certificates of those whose parents are not hindus or those who have converted out of Hinduism (reconversion certificates). Hindus of Bali, Fiji, Nepal and Trinidad may have different opinions since the above said law applies only to one nation. Namaste.

wundermonk
10 May 2012, 11:12 PM
For me personally, there's only a few basic things
- belief in God (although there are atheistic Hindus, I would prefer to call them atheists, and Hindus by cultural definition only)
- belief in the authority of the Vedas
- belief in karma (Again, there;s a big difference between saying, "I believe" and actually believing
- belief in reincarnation
- some sort of practice (meditation, temples, japa) that falls within widely recognised Hindu practice


The consensus evolved was that, a hindu is one who BELIEVES and Follows vedas and Upanishads.

Good points.

Regarding belief in authority of Vedas...in my experience, average Hindus have no clues about what is in the Vedas. In addition, the Vedas seem open to multiple interpretations.

That is why I tried to distill the essence of it and render it in secular terms [the universe is eternal, beginningless, etc.]

devotee
11 May 2012, 06:30 AM
Namaste WM,



Regarding belief in authority of Vedas...in my experience, average Hindus have no clues about what is in the Vedas. In addition, the Vedas seem open to multiple interpretations.


How many of us are aware of the whole of the Constitution ? Hardly any ! ... but we all accept the authority of the Constitution.

So, it is not necessary all Hindus will be experts of the Vedas (it is neither possible nor required) but whenever dispute arises a Hindu should be ready to accept the Vedas as the final authority.

OM

Eastern Mind
11 May 2012, 07:28 AM
Vannakkam: I was reflecting on the difficulty of reaching a consensus on this definition. My conclusion was it's impossible. Although Charitra did find a historical example of a consensus in courts, I don't see how somebody couldn't just lie and say 'Yes' to the question. Judges aren't mind readers.

So it boils down to opinion. I've met a few people who don't consider me a Hindu. (It didn't bother me....Each is entitled to an opinion.) I also know a few people who consider themselves Hindus but I don't. (Nor should that bother them. It's just one old man's opinion.) And then we get into the various categories with adjectives like real Hindu or good Hindu, Hindu by birth, non-practising Hindu, and a wide assortment of qualifiers, including all the sects, regions, etc.

So what does it really matter? On a forum like this we get the wide array, which is a good thing, in my opinion.

Aum Namasivaya

Jainarayan
11 May 2012, 07:43 AM
Namaste devotee and all.


How many of us are aware of the whole of the Constitution ? Hardly any ! ... but we all accept the authority of the Constitution.

So, it is not necessary all Hindus will be experts of the Vedas ...OM


That's what we have Supreme Courts for. ;)

In all seriousness, there are summaries of Supreme Court rulings on Constitutional cases (I capitalize Constitution for the US Constitution); there are summaries of interpretations. These are passed down through the legal system and eventually reach the common person.

The same can be said for the Vedas. There are plenty of interpretations and summaries of them that have been made over the milennia so that they can be passed down from Sri Vyasa to Shankara to X to X to X to the pandit of the local temple teaching the essence and spirit of the Vedas.

yajvan
12 May 2012, 06:26 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

I have read the posts above and come to the observation that one is mixing where one is born (Hindustān) to what one believes. Devotee succinctly separates the details nicely in post 10 above.

My post is suggesting this - it is like saying what is an American ? An American believes x,y,z. We will never get it exactly right because American's are an amalgamation of diverse beliefs , thoughts and religions but we may get it directionally correct; same for hindu. Co-mingling origin of birth with a platform of general beliefs is a daunting task.

Over time it seems people have equated hinduism to sanātana dharma. This is not a ~bad~ thing, it is just not an accurate view. What then am I offering ? If you are talking of sanātana dharma ( vs. ~hindu~) you may find some common ground, a common thread, but this too is daunting. Why so ? Let me offer the following.

Within sanātana dharma there are various schools of thought... this has been reviewed many times here on HDF:

The 6 (traditional) systems of Indian philosophy - this is called saḍ darśana or the 6 schools of vision, seeing, sight. We know them as :

śāṁkhya
yoga
vedānta
mīmāṃsā
nyāya
vaiśeṣikaThe 6 darśana-s दर्शन (seeing, looking, knowledge, traditional doctrine or precept , collection of such doctrines) are so complete in themselves, that many people took the 6 to be different views. This is not the case, it is the 6, when taken as whole give a 360º view of Reality.

What could all these schools looking at and discussing ( if I had to put it in a nut shell ) ? - the nature of Reality. From where does it come?
What part ( or whole ) are we as the human-Being, in all this? and where does it go? What are some views? (In general):

there is a dualistic view ( some call dvaita)
a dual-non-dual or mono-dualistic ( some call bhedābheda)
a non-dual view some call monistic (or advaita) and abheda-śruti appliesYet are these 6 schools the answer to 'common ground' that may be found in sanātana dharma (hinduism) ? To this I say , we have not called out the full view of all the schools. It is suggested and discussed that there are 16 darśana-s of Indian philosophy.

Mādhava-ji, we know as madhvācārya ( 14th century) calls out 16 in his sarvadarśanasaṅgraha¹. And before him there was a work called
sarvadarśanasiddhāntasaṅgraha¹ from the school of śaṃkara ( 10th century) called out about 13.

It is in our nature to try and boil down mutiple ideas into some common factors so we can comprehend, compare and contrast views. Yet there are many moving parts.

praṇām


words

sarvadarśanasaṅgraha = sarva+darśana+saṅ +graha ; sarva = all + darśana = view or ~ philosophy~ san = bestow , distribute, gain + graha = understanding or taking up
this is taking up and offering the understanding of all the various schools or philosophies
sarvadarśanasiddhāntasaṅgraha¹ = same as above yet siddha is used to suggest the perfections, what is gained, or the objective of the various schools.



6 schools of Indian thought/philosophy i.e. yoga, sāṁkhya, vedānta, mimāṁsā, nyāya and vaiśeṣika , considered primary darśana-s ;
For the ṣaḍ-darśana one could in general group the 6 into 3 pairs :
yoga & sāṁkhya
mimāṁsā & vedānta as vedānta is also known as uttara mimāṁsā a.k.a. the brahma-sūtra-s Also some distingush mimāṁsā as pūrva ( former , prior ) to that of uttara ( later , following , subsequent ) mimāṁsā
nyāya & vaiśeṣika - logic and cosmology - Here we find the 'atom eater' or kaṇāda-muni the author of the vaiśeṣika branch. And we have akṣapāda-muni (akṣapāda = having his eyes fixed on his feet ) of the nyāya philosophy.

Eastern Mind
12 May 2012, 07:07 AM
Vannakkam: I think the wiki article highlights many of the issues of trying to arrive at a consensus. Apparently, the Supreme court (of India) has been involved more than just in the time talked of above, as recently as 2005.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu

Aum Namasivaya

wundermonk
12 May 2012, 09:13 AM
Mādhava-ji, we know as madhvācārya ( 14th century) calls out 16 in his sarvadarśanasaṅgraha¹. And before him there was a work called sarvadarśanasiddhāntasaṅgraha¹

Actually, it appears that Madhavacharya of Dvaita school is NOT the author of sarvadharmasamgraha. I used to think so as well until Sahasranama corrected me.

See here (http://hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=8887&page=2).

yajvan
12 May 2012, 10:51 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté



Mādhava-ji, we know as madhvācārya ( 14th century) calls out 16 in his sarvadarśanasaṅgraha.

This may assist : http://books.google.com/books?id=hqji6RjMITMC&pg=PA60&lpg=PA60&dq=sarvadar%C5%9Banasa%E1%B9%85graha&source=bl&ots=kzIViUNYGH&sig=-IzBrP1EMUzMMc1IjAEhx7d7rvA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=L4auT_-6BeiViALz0dGZBA&ved=0CFwQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=sarvadar%C5%9Banasa%E1%B9%85graha&f=false


praṇām

orlando
13 May 2012, 03:03 PM
In my understand tha definition of a Sanatana Dharma's follower(hindu person) is:
-to believe in God
-to believe in the hindu scriptures(Veda,Upanishad,Purana,Itihasa and Bhagavad-Gita)
-to believe in reincarnation
-to believe that the goal of live is to be free from the cycle of reincarnation
-to believe in the law of karma
-to believe that accepting and take direct instructions from a living true guru(spiritual master) is essential for obtain spiritual realization
-to believe that the cows are sacred animals and have not be eaten even from not-vegetarian hindus

sdevante
15 May 2012, 07:53 PM
(1)The universe has been eternally existing. Thus, there is no creatio ex nihilo.

Is this actually a central belief? I for some reason have understood that before anything was, Brahman alone was, and then through let's say a cosmic vibration (aum of sorts), a universe came into existence and since then has been a cycle of creation (Brahma) and destruction (Shiva) of the universes.

Am I way off base on this?

wundermonk
16 May 2012, 08:43 AM
I for some reason have understood that before anything was, Brahman alone was, and then through let's say a cosmic vibration (aum of sorts), a universe came into existence and since then has been a cycle of creation (Brahma) and destruction (Shiva) of the universes.


There is no "first" creation so to speak in Hinduism. The universe/souls have been going through cycles of manifestation-sustenance-unmanifestation with Brahman being the efficient cause from time immemorial forever.

Different schools differ on what is the relationship between the universe/souls and Brahman but all of them agree on the beginninglessness/eternality of the three ontological entities.

The problem with positing a "first" creation a finite point in time in the past is the inability to answer "Why did God create if God is all-blissful with no unmet need?"

References from the Brahmasutras - here (http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_2/bs_2-1-11.html) and here (http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_2/bs_2-1-12.html).

sdevante
16 May 2012, 07:00 PM
Thank you for the links. I hadnt read anything from the Brahmasutras before, but I think I was looking at it from the wrong perspective.

Please allow me to ask two followup questions. 1) Does each individual jivatman have a beginning, from its own perspective, where it starts with no prior karma? 2) Once a person is liberated, do they ever get reborn, as that same jivatman?

wundermonk
16 May 2012, 09:18 PM
1) Does each individual jivatman have a beginning, from its own perspective, where it starts with no prior karma?

No. Karma is beginningless. So, there cannot be a point in time prior to which there was no Karma. This is just like saying that time is beginningless - for, if time has to begin, there ought to have been a time when there was no time - a logical contradiction.

Anyone who claims that there was no prior Karma should explain what he means by that. Was it absolutely non-existent like a barren woman's son? If yes, then he should explain how Karma came to be.

Or, is it the case that Karma was non-existent like a pot before it was made from clay? This is acceptable under satkaryavada [effect pre-exists in the cause]. In fact, in pralaya [dissolution], the universe and jivas exist in this unmanifest form.

If it is neither of these two options, in what other way was Karma non-existent?


2) Once a person is liberated, do they ever get reborn, as that same jivatman?

Different schools have different views on the nature of soteriology. I think all schools, however, believe that once final liberation happens, there will be no more rebirth for the jiva.

devotee
16 May 2012, 09:57 PM
Namaste SD,


1) Does each individual jivatman have a beginning, from its own perspective, where it starts with no prior karma?

Yes. Refer Mahopanishad.


2) Once a person is liberated, do they ever get reborn, as that same jivatman?

Once JivAtman gets liberated it remains as a memory in God (Infinite undifferentiated Consciousness). This memory can give rise to birth of some great MahAtmA again but that is for a very exceptional purpose for the benefit of the mankind alone. Jeeva so born again remains only apparently bound by the Laws of Nature in this state but actually It is not. On a new birth, by the grace of God (Laws of the Nature), this great Jeeva doesn't fully remember his past births but has exceptional samskArs and regains spiritual heights very easily.

OM

wundermonk
17 May 2012, 01:06 AM
1) Does each individual jivatman have a beginning, from its own perspective, where it starts with no prior karma?
Yes. Refer Mahopanishad.

@devotee:

Could you provide reference of the Mahopanishad?

What do you understand by:


You must understand that both Prakriti and Purusha are without beginning.

devotee
17 May 2012, 06:13 AM
Namaste WM,


@devotee:
Could you provide reference of the Mahopanishad?

This is the quote from Maha Upanishad or Mahopanishad :


V-135(b)-136. 'Thus are the Jivas (living beings) phases of the Spirit and established through bringing the empirical sphere into being. Their forms, in lakhs and Crores, have been assigned by Brahma. Numberless (Jivas) were born in the past and even now are being brought forth on all sides.

V-137. 'Others also will be born like multitudes of water-drops from a water-fall. Some of them are in their first birth; others have (already) had more than a hundred births.

V-138. 'Yet others have (already) had countless births. Some will have two or more births, besides. Some are born as sub-human and super-human beings, gifted with music and Knowledge; some as mighty reptiles.

V-139. 'Some of (these living beings) are (to be identified with) the sun, the moon and the lord of waters; others with Shiva, Vishnu and Brahma. Some divided themselves as Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, Sudras.

V-140. 'Others with grass, herbs, trees, with their fruits, roots and winged insects. Jivas are (also to be identified with) trees like the Kadamba, the Jambira, the Sama, Tala and Tamala.

V-141. 'And with mounts like Mahendra, Malaya, Sahya, Mandara and Meru; and with the seas of salt water, milk, ghee and sugarcane-juice.

V-142. 'And with the vast quarters, and fast-running rivers; some of these sport high above (the earth); some descend and again fly upwards.

V-143-144(a). 'Hit ceaselessly by death, as though they are balls hit by the hands, these Jivas are ceaselessly struck down by death as balls are by the hand. Having undergone thousands of births, again, some unwise ones despite (a degree of) discrimination, fall into the turmoils of worldly life.


What do you understand by:
You must understand that both Prakriti and Purusha are without beginning.

Yes, both Prakriti and Purushas are without beginning as MAyA is beginningless. But it doesn't apply to Individual Jeeva. That is why it is said that MAyA is beginningless, but it has an end.

One question : I don't find @devotee a nice way to address. Am I wrong ? Can't we use our traditional way ?

OM

wundermonk
17 May 2012, 06:40 AM
One question : I don't find @devotee a nice way to address. Am I wrong ? Can't we use our traditional way ?

Namaste devotee:

Thanks for the quote. Whenever creation, birth, etc. are talked of, it is not ex-nihilo. All schools of Indian philosophy [including Advaita] were clear about ex nihilo nihil fit [from nothing, comes nothing]. So, birth of a Jiva, etc. should be interpreted in a secondary sense. It is not existence that is preceded by absolute non-existence [like a barren woman's son]. But rather, it is like the non-existence of a pot when it is preceded by only clay. Yet another analogy is that Brahman is a light that illuminates the various items in a dark room. Prior to the light, nothing is there. But, with Brahman's light, Brahman itself is revealed as well as other pre-existing entities.


Yes, both Prakriti and Purushas are without beginning as MAyA is beginningless. But it doesn't apply to Individual Jeeva. That is why it is said that MAyA is beginningless, but it has an end.

Individual Jiva is nothing but Brahman + Avidya. If Brahman is beginningless and Avidya is beginningless, so is the Jiva.

devotee
17 May 2012, 06:48 AM
Namaste WM,



Individual Jiva is nothing but Brahman + Avidya. If Brahman is beginningless and Avidya is beginningless, so is the Jiva.

Your understanding is incorrect. However, I am in no mood to argue. :)

OM

wundermonk
17 May 2012, 06:50 AM
Your understanding is incorrect. However, I am in no mood to argue. :)


Okie dokie...perhaps another day. :)

Jainarayan
17 May 2012, 08:41 AM
Namaste.

I may be showing a total lack of understanding, but isn't there a difference between jiva and atma?

This explanation
In Hinduism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism) and Jainism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism), a jiva (Sanskrit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanskrit_language): जीव, jīva alternate spelling, jiwa) is a living being,[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiva#cite_note-0) or more specifically, the immortal essence of a living organism (human, animal, fish or plant etc.) which survives physical death.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiva#cite_note-1)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiva#cite_note-2) It has a very similar usage to atma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atman_(Hinduism)), but whereas atma refers to "the cosmic self", jiva is used to denote an individual 'living entity' or 'living being' specifically.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiva#cite_note-3)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiva is how I reconcile this concept. In this case I can see how a jiva is "born", but the atma is eternal, never having been born. Maybe the explanation is wrong, coming from Wikipedia (one has to be discriminating in using Wikipedia).

devotee
17 May 2012, 10:52 PM
Namaste TBTL,



I may be showing a total lack of understanding, but isn't there a difference between jiva and atma?

This explanation is how I reconcile this concept. In this case I can see how a jiva is "born", but the atma is eternal, never having been born. Maybe the explanation is wrong, coming from Wikipedia (one has to be discriminating in using Wikipedia).

Jeeva and Atman are different. However, sometimes, Atman and Jeeva are used interchangeably which imho, is a wrong practice. Jeeva is also called JeevAtmA to differentiate from AtmA (or Atman). AtmA or the Self (used with a capital 'S') is the Only Reality. This Self though is one alone but due to its MAyic powers creates three different MAyic states where we perceive the multitude. The first two MAyic states are Waking (our this world) and Dreaming (Subtle World). The third is the Causal state, the controller and the omniscient, also called God.

Now, within these MAyic states, the Jeevas are apparently (from the point of the Absolute Reality) born and liberated just like the Dream Characters in our dreams. Similarly, sometimes we mistakenly use MAyA (the Cosmic illusion) and AvidyA (the individualised delusion applicable to a particular Jeeva) interchangeably which imho, is wrong. Avidya in an individual Jeeva is 'born' with the Jeeva and ends with the 'liberation' of Jeeva but the MAyA is beginningless. Now, again, though MAyA is beginningless, it ends for the Jeeva on liberation as on enlightenment, the individual AvidyA and Cosmic illusion are both destroyed root and branch.

OM

Jainarayan
18 May 2012, 08:38 AM
Namaste devotee.

Thanks for clarifying it, especially the difference between maya and avidya. Though I did think that atman and jiva were different, but the confusion is in the interchanging use, not to mention throwing "soul" into the mix.

I'm also beginning to get the concept of "I" as the ego or body in this world, that it is not the true Self, the atma.

sdevante
18 May 2012, 07:20 PM
Thanks all for the excellent discussion. I believe my thinking was correct but explaining it without all of the proper terminology was failing me

Kismet
19 May 2012, 04:08 PM
(1)The universe has been eternally existing. Thus, there is no creatio ex nihilo.
(2)Souls/Selves have also been eternally existing.
(3)Souls have beginningless [i.e. uncreated] Karma.
(4)You believe in multiple reincarnation - i.e. the self, with past/present tendencies, obtains a new body in the next life on this planet or elsewhere until all Karma is exhausted.

Thoughts on the definition?

Hi WM,

I heard not too long ago from a blog poster that Eastern religions (such as SD and Buddhism) are less focused on orthodoxy or right belief (which is of course the mainstay of dogmatic religions like Islam), that they are in essence founded primarily on orthopraxy or right practice. I would wonder what you make of that distinction.

I think belief is important but I no longer accord it the same level of relevance I used to. I think its more important now what you do on a day to day basis; how you live your life as it were. In that sense it is much easier to say of someone who practices Vedic ritual but doesn't subscribe to the Hindu tenet of beginningless karma - like you say - (or, I daresay, even reincarnation) that he is a bona-fide Hindu, than that Gandhi was really a "Christian".

Then again, everyone does have their cherished beliefs, but what I'm saying is that practice comes first, and on that basis beliefs exist, not the other way around. This seems to me a much more character-based, far less hypocritical path to take.

yajvan
19 May 2012, 04:47 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté



Who is a Hindu?
If I were locked in a room and ordered not to leave until I provided a defintion of a hindu (really one who practices sanātana dharma)
I would say the following...

It is s/he that appreciates, practices and applies puruṣārtha .
I would then get up and ask my leave.

Yet the person would say, you must explain !

I would offer the following...
Puruṣārtha is known as the 4 aims in life (puruṣa + ārtha = human + aim , purpose )

kāma desire and its fulfillment
artha acquirement of wealth
dharma discharge of duty to one's self, family, society
mokṣa final emancipationPending one's station in life, their advancement and their relative attainment, one's intent changes over time. Yet here is what I subscribe to.
Pending one's spiritual intent kāma becomes mumkṣutva - or the burning desire for libration not the acquisition of things.
Artha is wealth, yet the wealth of what? The wealth of knowledge is one venue, and one's financial wealth becomes a tool to acquire this wealth.
That is, provide food, shelter, time, i.e. a stable environment that one may pursue their spiritual practices.
Dharma is the approach for one to remain disciplined and stay on their path... this discipline is welcomed as it supports one's goals and activities.
Mokṣa is the level of Being that one wishes to attain , but it is no longer a philosophical construct or idea, but a level that one nutures.

I then would ask for my leave...

praṇām

Ganeshprasad
19 May 2012, 05:03 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


If I were locked in a room and ordered not to leave until I provided a defintion of a hindu (really one who practices sanātana dharma)
I would say the following...

It is s/he that appreciates, practices and applies puruṣārtha .
I would then get up ask ask my leave.

Yet the person would say, you must explain !

I would offer the following...
Puruṣārtha is known as the 4 aims in life (puruṣa + ārtha = human + aim , purpose )

praṇām

Precisely, i second that, one would get an idea , these are also emphasized also during the marriages.

Jai Shree Krishna

ZarryT
20 May 2012, 11:00 AM
I don't understand this.

It has always been my understanding that karma is the result of "action" (whether that "action" be thought, emotion, physical action, etc.).

Am I wrong in my understanding?

And if I am wrong in what I have thought up to now, what would beginningless karma actually [I]be?

I would greatly appreciate feedback.

Thank you. :)

Karma is the result of action, but not exclusively. Karma is also the cause of action, and the action itself. "uncreated" karma is what defines the character of the individual; their karma is their stage directions, script and final bow.

Mana
20 May 2012, 11:24 AM
हरिः ओम्


Namaste ZarryT,



... "uncreated" karma is what defines the character of the individual; their karma is their stage directions, script and final bow.

Might I enquire as to where you fit dharma into this model?

Do you not think that dharma important, whilst considering the direction of ones actions, and that which builds character; maybe more so than desire?


pranāma

mana


ॐ नमः शिवाय
Aum Namaḥ Śivāya

ZarryT
20 May 2012, 12:50 PM
Might I enquire as to where you fit dharma into this model?

Do you not think that dharma important, whilst considering the direction of ones actions, and that which builds character; maybe more so than desire?


The way in which a character is built over time is dependent on how the agent wills their progression to go. One cannot use dharma unless one wants to.

The idea is that all things are benefitial, but each to different ends. Dharma is beneficial to the ends of dharma.

Dharma is in a sense always considered; and individuals choose which path to go down. Some paths are light,some lighter. And some are dark, and some darker.

IcyCosmic
20 May 2012, 01:28 PM
...It's entirely simple for me. There is no long list of requirements or practices. We are all humans on this same plane of existence, and indirectly we all have the same purpose. I consider the majority of humanity under the umbrella of hinduism; whether they would liked to be called a 'Hindu' is a entirely different story. I can't recall the amount of times where I've seen islamic friends where hinduism fills in the 'gaps' in their life but they can't even think about practicing because of the huge pressure from, family, relatives, and the likes - they would find it difficult to live. Anywho, I digress.

Anyone who follows
Honesty
Integrity
Nobility
Dignity
Unity

within every facet of their life, to ME - is a Hindu. They can pray to Allah, Jesus or Buddah but at the end of the day, when the day is nigh and all is said and done everybody indirectly worships the supreme lord. Therefore I would like to remain thinking that hinduism is more a way of life, than a religion - because thats how it started. I get infuriated often because ignorance is at the forefront, but my intention is to walk in harmony.
Aum.

Eastern Mind
20 May 2012, 03:38 PM
Vannakkam Icy: Your idea that all are, at the core, Hindu is fine, provided you keep it to yourself. People who are adamant about what religion they are probably don't appreciate someone telling them they're Hindu. (I'm not suggesting you do this.)

That, to me, is a bit like you telling me you live in London, and me insisting to you that no you don't, you live in Paris. Pretty stupid, rude, and condescending of me. :)

The other problem with this approach that I've seen come up now and again is when a newcomer asks questions. A person claims to be a Hindu, but they are very one-sided about it, perhaps not realising the extent of their ethnocentricity personally, and answer on behalf of all Hindus.

For example, a newcomer might ask a hard-core Vaishnavite what they call God, and he may say "In Hinduism, we call God Krishna." Although this is accurate (from the answerer's perspective) , it doesn't tell the complete story, so the person goes away thinking all Hindus call God Krishna.

Another example is when a Universalist or syncretic Hindu is answering, and then the answer may get even more distorted answer from mainstream Hinduism.

"Is it okay to worship Abrahamic prophets along with Krishna?"
and the syncretic or Universalist guy says, "Sure, all Hindus have no problem with that."

To me, that goes over the line, because it simply isn't true. So I think a more balanced approach is necessary. That's why I like HDF, because we have most varieties of Hinduism represented here, and any newcomer usually gets a variety of answers to any given question, which is a more accurate portrayal of who we as Hindus are.

Aum Namasivaya

wundermonk
24 May 2012, 05:38 AM
I heard not too long ago from a blog poster that Eastern religions (such as SD and Buddhism) are less focused on orthodoxy or right belief (which is of course the mainstay of dogmatic religions like Islam), that they are in essence founded primarily on orthopraxy or right practice. I would wonder what you make of that distinction.

Hi Kismet:

I agree with you that right practice is important. In fact, as you point out, I would venture a guess that many Hindus in India just live life ordinarily without actually knowing Hindu beliefs and the reasons for such beliefs. For instance, there are very specific reasons why Karma is posited or reincarnation is posited in Hindu philosophy. It was not that some ancient Indian was feeling bored one day and decided to postulate the beginninglessness of these, for instance.

These Indians are more culturally Hindu rather than Hindu by choice [A Hindu by choice, per me, is someone who calls himself Hindu because he is an expert or is in love with Hindu philosophy/forms of worship/spiritual practices, etc.] They kind of activated the default mode, as it were, and are really not bothered about philosophy/beliefs but have imbibed Hindu culture.

Jainarayan
24 May 2012, 08:53 AM
Namaste.


...A Hindu by choice, per me, is someone who calls himself Hindu because he is an expert or is in love with Hindu philosophy/forms of worship/spiritual practices, etc.

Expanding on that a bit... because someone feels deep in their core it is right, after it hits like a lightning bolt. You can't explain it or put your finger on it, you can only feel it. :)

IcyCosmic
24 May 2012, 08:57 AM
Vannakkam Icy: Your idea that all are, at the core, Hindu is fine, provided you keep it to yourself. People who are adamant about what religion they are probably don't appreciate someone telling them they're Hindu. (I'm not suggesting you do this.)

That, to me, is a bit like you telling me you live in London, and me insisting to you that no you don't, you live in Paris. Pretty stuopid, rude, and condescending of me. :)

The other problem with this approach that I've seen come up now and again is when a newcomer asks questions. A person claims to be a Hindu, but they are very one-sided about it, perhaps not realising the extent of their ethnocentricity personally, and answer on behalf of all Hindus.

For example, a newcomer might ask a hard-core Vaishnavite what they call God, and he may say "In Hinduism, we call God Krishna." Although this is accurate (from the answerer's perspective) , it doesn't tell the complete story, so the person goes away thinking all Hindus call God Krishna.

Another example is when a Universalist or syncretic Hindu is answering, and then the answer may get even more distorted answer from mainstream Hinduism.

"Is it okay to worship Abrahamic prophets along with Krishna?"
and the syncretic or Universalist guy says, "Sure, all Hindus have no problem with that."

To me, that goes over the line, because it simply isn't true. So I think a more balanced approach is necessary. That's why I like HDF, because we have most varieties of Hinduism represented here, and any newcomer usually gets a variety of answers to any given question, which is a more accurate portrayal of who we as Hindus are.

Aum Namasivaya

Namaste EM,

yes I keep it to myself ofcourse - that is just how I see humanity, after all the social conditioning and classing we are all just the souls engaging on the same journey directly or indirectly. I only share it with people; who I feel are able to understand and not take it the wrong way and if asked. Yes I agree with you, although im very sensitive to people misunderstanding hinduism so even though my knowledge is not absolute I'm always sure that I leave a non-hindu with a very well rounded opinion/thought on the matter not just my perspective.

Seeker123
31 May 2012, 02:21 PM
Supreme court of India, back in 1950s or 60s, whilst dealing with a litigation, had to decide on a litigant’s claim to be a hindu. The trial couldn’t proceed without first determining the religion of the litigant. As aresult in this connection the judges sought the opinions of some hindu acharyas as to ‘who can claim oneself to be a hindu’. The consensus evolved was that, a hindu is one who BELIEVES and Follows vedas and Upanishads.

I am curious to know if there are Hindu philosophies/sects/groups that do not hold the Vedas as divine.

charitra
31 May 2012, 03:22 PM
I am curious to know if there are Hindu philosophies/sects/groups that do not hold the Vedas as divine.

are charvakas, nastiks and Tantriks hindus, I think none of them believe in vedas.Am i off the mark?

philosoraptor
31 May 2012, 03:23 PM
Pranams,

There is no scriptural term defining terms like "Hindu" and "Hinduism," and therefore what these terms mean must be based on historical usage. Given that:
1) the term "Hinduism" evolved from geographical references (Indus river) to describe the culture and religious practices of people within a specific area, and
2) the culture was based on/derived from ideas that have their roots in the Vedas and other scriptures claiming to derive authority from the Vedas,

...we can probably define Hinduism broadly as encompassing any religious practice or worldview which at least theoretically reveres the Vedas and which may have originated (by Earthly perception anyway) on the Indian subcontinent.

A Hindu is one who follows Hinduism in this sense, if even only on theoretical grounds. Thus, a non-practicing Hindu who identifies with Hinduism is still a Hindu, just as a Jew may culturally identify himself as such even though he may not be very religious.

Sikhism, Jainism, and Buddhism are not Hindus because these traditions dispense with the Vedas and their followers also do not self-identify as Hinduism (indeed, there are very pointed historical reasons why they wanted to distance themselves from what they saw as "Hinduism"). Note that there are Hindu traditions which also downplay study of the Vedas in practice, but they still at least theoretically revere the status of the Vedas. However, this is not the case with Jainism and Buddhism. Note that the same applies for Carvaka also, since his is a school of atheism. In fact, all of the nastika schools would basically be considered non-Hindu from this standpoint.

"Hinduism" is a term of convenience. Saying that someone is "Hindu" is useful for characterizing the basic nature of his belief system in contrast to those of the Abrahamic religions and other nastika religions. If I say that I am a Hindu, one can conclude that I at least theoretically accept the authority of the Vedas, that I believe in a concept of the Self that is distinct from the material body, that I accept the existence of a cycle of birth/death/rebirth in which karma plays a key role, and that I believe there is a path out of the aforementioned cycle. By this definition, anyone following the traditional shad-darshanas (nyAya, vaiseshika, sankhya, yoga, karma-mimAmsa, vedAnta) is Hindu. Those not strictly aligned with any of these schools, but who worship deities from the Vedas are also Hindu, as are (arguably) those who worship non-Vedic deities but with practices derived from Vedic scriptures.

Being Hindu should not be pegged on acceptance of the existence of the universe, since Advaitins believe everything they perceive to be illusion, and it is more sensible to include Advaita under the Hinduism umbrella than not to.

Just my 2 paise on the matter...

regards,

philosoraptor