Defining Hindu

[philosoraptor]

Namaste Phil Ji.

I have seen Harappan artifact pictures depicting Shiva in meditation.

So have I, but I still maintain that what we know about them is fragmentary at best.

[philosoraptor]

I would propose that Hinduism had a beginning at a time much later than IVC, and that this could be not prior to the spread of the vedic community over larger parts of the subcontinent.

That of course, is the typical indology view. Nothing original there.

Though i do not agree with Philo that to be Hindu means to be based prominently on vedic thought and culture, i think the community or sect in question must at least show some (and even if it is only a minor) impact of either vedic cultural and societal norms or of vedic religion or language.

That has been my position as previously stated. I never stated anything about being "based prominently on vedic thought." I was referring to an attitude of reverence for the authority of the veda, which includes even those who claim to revere the authority of the veda but follow clearly non-vedic practices. For example, a non-brahmin may not study the veda, but when he wants to get daughter married off, he will look for a purohit who can chant the appropriate mantras while presiding over the wedding. Such people would definitely be Hindus by my liberal definition.

Otherwise one must say that the term Hinduism is solely a geographical designation which would be absurd. I think it may make sense to exclude from the term Hinduism pure aboriginal tribal religions but also equally the pure early vedic shrauta dharma, because, in my opinion a specific hallmark of Hinduism, in contrast to earlier indian religions, is the admixture and unification of traditions that once were different.

I'm sure you realize that most people here aren't convinced of your opinion that "early vedic shrauta dharma" was something different in its philosophical outlook than "later" vedAntic tradition. Nor are they convinced by your subsequent exposition of indological paradigms regarding the allegedly later development of Upanishadic thought.

[Omkara]

You are a hindu if A or B is true. A requires both A1 and A2 to be true.

A) You were born into a Hindu family and
A1) You have not explicitly switched over to another religion
A2) You have not explicitly disconnected yourself from Hindu (like Prabhupada, for instance)
B) You were not born a Hindu, but consider yourself one due to one or more of your religious beliefs (whatever they may be)

This is circular. You cannot include the word Hindu in a definiton of the word Hindu.

[shiv.somashekhar]

None of the prominent, well known ancient Indian texts describes a common Hindu religion. None of the polemic texts of the Buddhists and Jains have them addressing their opponents as Hindus. Shankara, Ramanuja, Madhva and Vidyaranya never talk about such a group. With this, we are already at the 14th century CE, with no Indian calling himself or his affiliation as Hindu. So when did we begin to call ourselves Hindu and why? Obviously, this time would have to be the 14th Century CE or later.

A clue may be available with Al Beruni (foreigner visiting India), who discusses the Hindus. His definition of Hindu is anyone who holds an indigenous belief - or more precisely, a non-muslim. This may well be the cause of the usage of Hindu among Hindus. During the Mughal reign, when Muslim populations in India were on the rise, the usage of Hindu may have come in to simply mean nothing more than non-muslim and then later with British occupany came to include non-Christian as well. Eventually, as the name took more concrete shape, Jains and Sikhs would have chosen to break away from the label.

Not sure if specific details are available on when Indians started to use the label to describe themselves and what it may have meant to them (beyond non-muslim). Will try to dig up more information.

As it appears that no Indian may have called himself Hindu before the 14th century, should we label Indians from before this time as Hindus? Or should we be more specific? For instance, Bana (7th Century CE), the author of Harsha Charita talks about how king Harsha once went to the Vindhya mountains and found several religious people from various places holding discussions. The list may be the well known group of religious beliefs during this time. They are,

Arhata (Jain)
Maskarin
Svetapata (Jain)
Pandurabhikshu (ex-buddhist)
Bhagavata (devotee of Vishnu)
Varnin (vedic student)
Kesalunchaka (shorn headed ascetics)
Kapila (Sankhya)
Lokayatika
Jaina
Kanada (Vaisesika)
Aupanishada (Vedanta)
Aishvarakaranika
Karandhamin
Dharmashastrin
Pauranika
Saaptantava
Shaiva
Shabdika
Pancharatrika

[MahaHrada]

I'm sure you realize that most people here aren't convinced of your opinion that "early vedic shrauta dharma" was something different in its philosophical outlook than "later" vedAntic tradition. Nor are they convinced by your subsequent exposition of indological paradigms regarding the allegedly later development of Upanishadic thought.

Most people in this forum apparently are not convinced of your sectarian viewpoints either, and you are still posting here, so it seems to have the majority vote is not a necessary prerequiste to be allowed to voice an opinion, neither is originality.

[MahaHrada]

That has been my position as previously stated. I never stated anything about being "based prominently on vedic thought."

If that is your position i fully agree with it, it seemed to me that you expect prominence of vedic thought rather than merely loose alliance, while the majority of the practices and philosophy can be clearly of non vedic origin.

[jignyAsu]

1. Does a person born into a family of Hindus automatically become a Hindu?
2. When does a Hindu cease to be one?

3. Lingayats explicitly reject the Veda. Are they Hindu? If yes, the hypothesis of a central scripture becomes incorrect. If not, please justify with evidence that they are not Hindus.
4. Ancient Indians such as Ajita Keshakambalin, Jayarasi, etc. criticized religion and philosophy. Kapila and Ishwara Krishna posited the Nirishwara Sakhya (as criticized in the Padma Purana, etc). Were they Hindus are not? Recent politicians like Karunanidhi, etc., are outspoken atheists. Are they Hindus?
5. Can one be an agnost Hindu?

6. The constitution of India uses the label Hindu to include Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs (Christians and Muslims are held different). Is this incorrect?

This thread is only for collecting opinions. Agreeing or disagreeing is fine, but please refrain from arguing over right and wrong.

My opinion:

1. NO. Not if he dedicates his life to bashing the authority of Vedas or breaking idols.
2. Same as above: open dedicated rejection (as opposed to casual statements) of Vedic authority.
3. YES. Often, in such movements its only the founders or a few leaders that are radical. The followers end up following the practices just because of birth. Most of their time is spent in listening to stories of Lord Shiva from Puranas etc. So, to pronounce the same judgement on the entire group won't work.
4. NO. This is assuming all are like Karunanidhi
5. YES. If the person sticks to some traditions but is not convinced entirely about it and is open minded. Flickering faith and doubts are a part of every religion. But if he rejects the Vedas explicitly and says Agnostism is the only rational approach, then he is not.
6. I haven't heard about such a thing. Don't know.

One point -> The "1 or 0" attitude is absent in Hinduism. Since we uphold reincarnation, those who worship a Vedic deity like Lord Shiva but reject the Vedas out of ignorance, for e.g., are not entirely abandoned. Therefore Hinduism cannot be measured in the exact same scale used to measure other religions.

[MahaHrada]

None of the prominent, well known ancient Indian texts describes a common Hindu religion. None of the polemic texts of the Buddhists and Jains have them addressing their opponents as Hindus. Shankara, Ramanuja, Madhva and Vidyaranya never talk about such a group. With this, we are already at the 14th century CE, with no Indian calling himself or his affiliation as Hindu. So when did we begin to call ourselves Hindu and why? Obviously, this time would have to be the 14th Century CE or later.

A clue may be available with Al Beruni (foreigner visiting India), who discusses the Hindus. His definition of Hindu is anyone who holds an indigenous belief - or more precisely, a non-muslim. This may well be the cause of the usage of Hindu among Hindus. During the Mughal reign, when Muslim populations in India were on the rise, the usage of Hindu may have come in to simply mean nothing more than non-muslim and then later with British occupany came to include non-Christian as well. Eventually, as the name took more concrete shape, Jains and Sikhs would have chosen to break away from the label.

Not sure if specific details are available on when Indians started to use the label to describe themselves and what it may have meant to them (beyond non-muslim). Will try to dig up more information.

As it appears that no Indian may have called himself Hindu before the 14th century, should we label Indians from before this time as Hindus? Or should we be more specific? For instance, Bana (7th Century CE), the author of Harsha Charita talks about how king Harsha once went to the Vindhya mountains and found several religious people from various places holding discussions. The list may be the well known group of religious beliefs during this time. They are,

Arhata (Jain)
Maskarin
Svetapata (Jain)
Pandurabhikshu (ex-buddhist)
Bhagavata (devotee of Vishnu)
Varnin (vedic student)
Kesalunchaka (shorn headed ascetics)
Kapila (Sankhya)
Lokayatika
Jaina
Kanada (Vaisesika)
Aupanishada (Vedanta)
Aishvarakaranika
Karandhamin
Dharmashastrin
Pauranika
Saaptantava
Shaiva
Shabdika
Pancharatrika

Calling all non-muslim, indigenous religions by the name Hinduism might have been the use at an earlier time, nowadays i think the term implies some influence of the vedic community otherwise there would be no such thing as for instance the ongoing Hinduization of tribals. In cases such as when Hindus protest and outlaw cow sacrifices of indigenous tribals, like it happened in Andhra and other such efforts of conversion.

What in my opinion is important to understand is, like you wrote, that Hinduism is a term that can only be applied to a late medieval development of indian society and religion. Second thing is that Hinduism is always a syncretic religion, since even if the majority of practises deities and ceremonies are non vedic, like in shaktism it is still considered a Hindu sect if there are vedic elements, otherwise there would be no differnce between tribal indigenous religions and Hinduism,(since tribals may worship the same deities, but without sanskrit mantras and without shastras) but in the way the term is used today, people do usually differentiate between Hinduism, Buddhism, tribal Religions, Jainism and the Sikh religion.

There are of course several political motivated sectarian supremacist Hindus who indulge in revisionist fantasies of a Hinduism that has been existing eternally, is monolithic and not syncretic, and dates back to a time at least a few million years ago.

[philosoraptor]

Most people in this forum apparently are not convinced of your sectarian viewpoints either, and you are still posting here, so it seems to have the majority vote is not a necessary prerequiste to be allowed to voice an opinion, neither is originality.

Oh, by all means, please post your (by which I mean, the Western Indologist's) views. I'm just pointing out that you have tendency to repeat their theories as if they are obvious facts. Moreover, it's ironic that you object to Neo-Hindu thinkers because of their supposed financial support from Western institutions, yet you wholeheartedly endorse the paradigms of Western Indologists, whom everyone knows were funded by Western institutions.

If that is your position i fully agree with it, it seemed to me that you expect prominence of vedic thought rather than merely loose alliance, while the majority of the practices and philosophy can be clearly of non vedic origin.

No, this was always my position, as I stated very clearly. Allegiance to the vedas is an oft-quoted, though not always supported thing. I specifically gave the example of vAtsyAyana, who also tries to invoke the authority of the vedas. Why do that when he was writing a text for courtesans and princes about sensual pleasures? The answer is, there was an attitude at that time that basis in veda constituted some sort of moral legitimacy, even if it was only theoretical or claimed foundation without factual basis.

[MahaHrada]

I'm just pointing out that you have tendency to repeat their theories as if they are obvious facts.

Accuse me of whatever you wish, but it is first of all my viewpoint, if western indologists agree with it so much the better, i have no qualms with the academia.

At least it is consistent with my attitude, while to cherry pick, and recommend to study smear attacks on indologists, written by a close disciple and public defender of a notorious neo hindu and sex-offender, Swami Nithyananda, Rajiv Malhotra, in support of your so called traditionalist viewpoint feels somehow inconsistent.