Defining Hindu

[MahaHrada]

namaste,

Just for my curiosity, could you please be specific and mention some customs, norms and rituals you are thinking of?

You mean the custom and philosophy of early vedic community i.e. shrauta dharma? Rituals like Agnistoma, Somayagya, ashvamedha, Nirudhapashubandha, Nakshratreshti, Arunaketuka Yagya etc.

No Hanuman, No ganesha, No linga, No krishna, No murtis, No temple, No upacharas, Nothing of that is contained in the original vedic tradition.


somayagyam:

http://www.namboothiri.com/somayaagam/

http://www.namboothiri.com/articles/yaagam-photos.htm

http://www.namboothiri.com/articles/...nam-photos.htm

athiratham:

http://www.athirathram.org/home.html

http://www.athirathram.org/traditions.html

http://www.athirathram.org/scenes.html

Photos from athiratham 2012

http://www.flickr.com/photos/athirathram/

Veda

Around 550 BC, Vedic civilization began to decline. Still fragments of the original Vedic rituals continued. The original Vedic rituals survived to the present day in short domestic rites of Brahmanans and in their marriage rites. Several north Indian Vedic experts including the north Indian logician Udayana, in the 11th century AD, declared that the great and long Vedic ceremony was no longer performed. However, according to Frits Staal, "In a distant corner of South West India, Kerala, far away from the original home of Vedic civilization, a few families among the isolated and orthodox community of Namboothiri Brahmanans have maintained their Vedic tradition and continue to perform two Vedic rituals; Agnishthomam (Somayaagam), which lasts for five days and uses the sacred plant "Soma" (from which is derived, the name Somayaagam) and Agnichayanam (Agni or Athiraathram), which lasts for twelve days and continue through some nights (from which the name Athiraathram)."

http://www.namboothiri.com/articles/veda.htm

Vedic Ritual is not done in temples but in a yagasala, cannot even be done near temples because these are considered unclean.

http://www.namboothiri.com/articles/yaagasaala.htm

[shiv.somashekhar]

After 90 posts, I believe we have enough opinions to pick out the majority. The definition that would be agreeable to most people here -

1. Hinduism is consistent and is based on the Veda. Non-vedic essentially means non-Hindu.

2. Hindus are monotheistic. Any polytheism is only apparent as all Hindus (Gowdas, Gujjars, Nadars, etc) are familiar with the concept of the Vedic Brahman and when worshipping multiple deities, they are aware that they are worshipping this Brahman alone.

3. Hindus worship Murthis which is at once Vedic and not the same as idol worship - though idol is the english word for Murthi, which can and is a cause for confusion. Idol worship is for Egyptians, etc., who worshipped kings as Gods and not for Hindus though they worship idols of Sai Baba,etc., as God. It is different for the Hindus and not easy to understand (especially for Carvakas). Timur, Al Beruni and a bunch of other foreigners were wrong for not taking note of this subtle difference and referring to Hindus as idolators.

4. Any deviation from the above is not Hinduism - unless it can be reinterpreted to align with the above.

Corrections are welcome.

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam: After reading this thread over and getting confused a few too many times, I've decided I'm definitely not a Hindu. I think I'll go start a new forum called "People pretending to be Hindus."

Aum Namasivaya

[philosoraptor]

After 90 posts, I believe we have enough opinions to pick out the majority. The definition that would be agreeable to most people here -

1. Hinduism is consistent and is based on the Veda. Non-vedic essentially means non-Hindu.

Hinduism does not refer to one specific religion, but to a variety of doctrine and traditions whose followers at least in theory accept the authority of the Vedas.

3. Hindus worship Murthis which is at once Vedic and not the same as idol worship - though idol is the english word for Murthi, which can and is a cause for confusion. Idol worship is for Egyptians, etc., who worshipped kings as Gods and not for Hindus though they worship idols of Sai Baba,etc., as God. It is different for the Hindus and not easy to understand (especially for Carvakas). Timur, Al Beruni and a bunch of other foreigners were wrong for not taking note of this subtle difference and referring to Hindus as idolators.

Again, an "idol" when you get down to its historical usage, refers to an icon deliberately crafted based on a person's imagination, i.e. a "craven image." The example of the Hebrews and the golden calf was given by me previously. This is not the sense in which Hindus use icons for worship. Though it may not be apparent to followers of Abrahamic religions, we can surely maintain the correct language rather than become slaves to other people's interpretations of our religion, yes?

[philosoraptor]

Vannakkam: After reading this thread over and getting confused a few too many times, I've decided I'm definitely not a Hindu. I think I'll go start a new forum called "People pretending to be Hindus."

Aum Namasivaya

I'll join you there. :-)

[satay]

Namaste
I am not sure why the following straight forward definition of Hindu is being ignored.

namaskar,

Your questions for defining a Hindu are wrong. A Hindu is defined as a person who believes:
1. in one supreme deity (this is known as Vaidka Pursha in Rg),
2. a Soul, reincarnation of the soul,
3. Karma including the obligatory duties (Yagya, birth/death) as defined by Vedas
4. Ahimsa

In general if you are not a believer in any of these principles then you are not a Hindu.

[satay]

Vannakkam: After reading this thread over and getting confused a few too many times, I've decided I'm definitely not a Hindu. I think I'll go start a new forum called "People pretending to be Hindus."

Aum Namasivaya

Can I be a mod there? I will help you set up the forum software.

[Eastern Mind]

Can I be a mod there? I will help you set up the forum software.

Vannakkam: That would illustrate karma alright, but would it be your bad karma or your good karma? What about me, my good karma, or my bad karma?

Aum Namasivaya

[shiv.somashekhar]

Again, an "idol" when you get down to its historical usage, refers to an icon deliberately crafted based on a person's imagination, i.e. a "craven image." The example of the Hebrews and the golden calf was given by me previously. This is not the sense in which Hindus use icons for worship. Though it may not be apparent to followers of Abrahamic religions, we can surely maintain the correct language rather than become slaves to other people's interpretations of our religion, yes?

By attempting to distance ourselves (oops, myself) from the prevailing definition, I have already created a problem! If I was truly not bothered by other people's condescending views, why would I even care to split hairs? But I am splitting hairs with my refusal to use valid translations and therefore I am admitting I have a problem with the concept of idol worship and hence the attempt to distance myself from it.

Idol worship was practiced all over the world and we cannot narrow it down to a single instance as used by the Hebrews. Idolatory included worship of all anthropomorphic images, including images such as that of Ganesha and any other image in the world that was worshipped by anyone. It is natural that the Hindu is considered an idolator. This should not be a problem to the Hindu, but I believe it has become one due to Western influence. I do not see this attempt as very different from that of denying varnasharma due to the social issues surrounding it.

[shiv.somashekhar]

Vannakkam: After reading this thread over and getting confused a few too many times, I've decided I'm definitely not a Hindu. I think I'll go start a new forum called "People pretending to be Hindus."

Aum Namasivaya

Can you please a provide a definition for "People pretending to be Hindus."? After having been labeled Carvaka twice on this thread in less than 24 hours , I am trying to find my bearings :-)