Defining Hindu

[philosoraptor]

But it does apply - as per Charitra's post earlier. Idol worship was intended for Egyptians who worshipped their kings as Gods. How is it different from worshipping Sai Baba as a God?

This is a different issue from defining the term "idol." No doubt Christians would object to any form of icon-worship (although some sects practiced it, but that's another matter). What matters here I think is that while "icon" is a fairly neutral term, "idol" specifically invokes the sense of falseness, as in the case of the Hebrews who worshiped the golden calf near Mt. Sinai. Can you have an "idol" of a real person? Technically, according to the literal definition, no. But then again, the Judeo-Christian peoples probably blurred the distinction even as their "god" specifically commanded against the use of "craven images." This may also have something to do with the fact that the deification of Egyptian rulers involved turning them into half-animals and other embellishments.

[shiv.somashekhar]

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

Thanks for this site. It is fascinating to know that a small group has kept the tradition alive after it died out everywhere else a long time ago.

There have been several changes over time. Madhva's biography records an incident where orthodox Brahmins were about to perform a traditional ritual involving animal sacrifice. Madhva firmly opposed and had them switch real animals with flour animals - indicating a downward trend in the old ways of doing things.

Speaking of which, would you know the earliest historical date for Brahmin presence in South India? The Namboothiris, Madhvas, etc., are all agreed that they came down South from the North (due to persecution). Mayura Sharma the founder of the Kadamba dynasty lived during the 4th Century AD and he is the earliest South Indian Brahmin I have heard of. I am looking for information that may push these dates earlier.

[ShivaFan]

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.

Namaste Shiv.Somashekhar

Where’s the Guru Parampara part of this definition?

No, this isn’t going to work for me. I do not see a big exception to No. 2, but from my observation Vaidika Dharma is pretty much aligned with this but in 2013 with the various “Hindus” who fall under one of the three Tri-Murtis Brahman, Vishnu, Maheswara (Shiva), and those Devi or Shakta branches, my observation is that there ARE some Hindus who worship many Devas or Devis and do NOT consider them Brahman (they may use the word Brahman, but consider it like some sheath or vibration but not “God” … sort of like the water in the swimming pool is Brahman, and the Devas and Devi are swimming in the pool.

But that is neither here nor there, the reason this definition isn’t going to work for me is, it seems to be missing the entire concept and vital role of the “teacher” or authorized Guru, authorized Spiritual Master or Muni, etc. who revels, protects, and passes on "Hinduism" with authorization.

Yes, I understand the question will be "what is authorized". Give me one second on that ...

Yes, I understand that some say, “well ShivaFan, Guru concept came later”. But I don’t believe that – there are different “titles” for this, be it Guru, or Muni and such. But what I mean by this is, “Hinduism” was PASSED ON from one authorized "master" or teacher to the next. This is the “Guru Parampara” for some, and I know that “born in India” Hindus like to stereotype Westerners, and yes there are Westerners who really are not interested in Hinduism but actually interested in “New Age” agenda. But my observation is, Westerners don’t want to trust some “Hindu organization” unless they can see it has an “ancient tradition of teachers going way, way back to ancient seers in India”. What some Westerners think of as "giving it that magic touch" by having "roots", this is only the instinct of a seeker's soul and is a natural tendency.

In other words, they start off as layman, but their instinct tells them to ask, “Hey, wait a minute … who was the Spiritual Master of this one who claims to be a Guru?”

The instinct is there – they want to know the “lineage” and instinctively they know if the guy claiming to be a “master” doesn’t have “roots” going back to “ancient times in India”, then pretty much forget it. As I said, it is human nature of most seekers to ask “and where did you learn this from?” of any so-called “master”. If the so-called “master” doesn’t have any such “lineage”, then the only way they are going to be accepted is if they claim, and if someone believes them, that they got the “message” directly from a Divinity in person. But that is pretty dicey.

SO – the way I see it, a “Sampradaya” or school, there are different Sampradyas and "schools of darsanas" and such, they may have different ways they “reveal the knowledge”, there is diversity in Hinduism, BUT this Sampradaya needs a “Guru Parampara” or disciplic succession going back to the Vaidik Dharma roots, and specifically to one of the Devas or Devi is the best. For example, one school or sect of Hinduism has roots forward from one “Master” or “Guru” to the next into the future, each one is given a special initiation from the previous “Guru” that represents inheriting the authorization to continue the tradition and to teach Vaidika Dharma, and this lineage goes back in time not only to Vedias but to even a specific Deva or Devi, such as back to the Sun-God Vivashvan or Surya, or back to Brahma, or back to Lord Shiva Himself, or back to Vishnu or Indra or (so on and so forth, back to some Deva, Sura etc..).

Hinduism is diverse. But what is shared from what I understand and have been told is (1) Vedas, and (2) Authorized Guru Parampara that passes on the truth from one master to the next, and with roots of such lineage going back to at minimum the Vedic Age, or better yet back to some Divinity. So from my point of view, you cannot be a Hindu or believe in Vaidika Dharma unless:


* The “Hinduism” you are following has an authorized “Guru Parampara" going back to at minimum the Vedic Age, and back to a specific Deva or Devi or an ancient seer who is Vedic and who received the authorized teachings from the same such as from Shiva.

* Unless you are following the teachings or truth as presented by such lineage, then it is not authorized, and whatever you are “being taught”, well it isn’t “Hinduism”.

In other words, you cannot just read the Vedas and, even if you can quote them all day and all night long, you are not a "Hindu" unless you learn from an authorized denomination or school which has an authorized master which comes from a Guru Parampara.

Om Namah Sivaya

[MahaHrada]

Thanks for this site. It is fascinating to know that a small group has kept the tradition alive after it died out everywhere else a long time ago.

There have been several changes over time. Madhva's biography records an incident where orthodox Brahmins were about to perform a traditional ritual involving animal sacrifice. Madhva firmly opposed and had them switch real animals with flour animals - indicating a downward trend in the old ways of doing things.

Speaking of which, would you know the earliest historical date for Brahmin presence in South India? The Namboothiris, Madhvas, etc., are all agreed that they came down South from the North (due to persecution). Mayura Sharma the founder of the Kadamba dynasty lived during the 4th Century AD and he is the earliest South Indian Brahmin I have heard of. I am looking for information that may push these dates earlier.

I will try to look up some sources,spontaneously i don´t know any dates from memory. Yes it is absolutely fascinating, and truly amazing that these customs have been preserved for such a long time in an unbroken lineage. This is not widely noticed nor respected. Besides the appx. 150 Nambudiri there are also around 100 shrauta specialists in Tamil Nadu, also still about 50 in Karnataka and also some in Andhra, Maharasthra and a few in some other states.

[philosoraptor]

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/

So your contention is that Nabhoothiris do not have anything to do with the above, simply because they preserve the ancient tradition of fire-sacrifices?

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

"Nambudiri mythology associates their immigration to Kerala from the banks of Narmada, Krishna and Kaveri rivers with the legendary creation of Kerala by Parasurama, an avatar of Vishnu. In the Travancore State Manual, Nagam Ayya also says that they came from the region between Krishna and Godavari." (the source quoted is from Mathew, George (1989). Communal Road To A Secular Kerala. Concept Publishing Company. pp. 23–25. ISBN 978-81-7022-282-8)

If that's true, that seems a pretty clear evidence that the Nambhoothiris do indeed subscribe to the same purANic ideas. That's hardly consistent with a community that has, in your own words, "No Hanuman, No ganesha, No linga, No krishna, No murtis, No temple, No upacharas, Nothing of that is contained in the original vedic tradition."

[philosoraptor]

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


This link gives a list of Nambhoothiris, four of whom are identified as GuruvAyur Appan devotees (in other words, Vaishnavas), and includes the celebrated author of Narayaneeyam, a clearly Vaishnava work. Again, not exactly consistent with the idea of a non-theistic, Vedic tradition.

[MahaHrada]

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


This link gives a list of Nambhoothiris, four of whom are identified as GuruvAyur Appan devotees (in other words, Vaishnavas), and includes the celebrated author of Narayaneeyam, a clearly Vaishnava work. Again, not exactly consistent with the idea of a non-theistic, Vedic tradition.

They are also well versed in Siddhanta, Tantra and Mantravada, to be an expert in several branches of knowledge stemming from different periods of time where some aspects are contradictory, is not impossible, actually i think this is almost the rule.

[philosoraptor]

They are also well versed in Siddhanta, Tantra and Mantravada, to be an expert in several branches of knowledge stemming from different periods of time where some aspects are contradictory, is not impossible, actually i think this is almost the rule.

That's my point, Maha. Your claim was that there was no Krishna, Ganesha, etc in their culture. I showed you several evidences to the contrary. Just because they maintain a strict tradition of preserving Vedic sacrifices does not exclude them from participating in Krishna-worship or other practices and beliefs common to other Hindus.

[MahaHrada]

That's my point, Maha. Your claim was that there was no Krishna, Ganesha, etc in their culture. I showed you several evidences to the contrary. Just because they maintain a strict tradition of preserving Vedic sacrifices does not exclude them from participating in Krishna-worship or other practices and beliefs common to other Hindus.

No you got me wrong, what i meant is in the ancient time when shrauta dharma was the sole vedic culture, at that time, several elements of modern hinduism were missing, because of that my proposal is, that Hinduism, in contrast to early vedic dharma and pure non-vedic or non-sanscritized indian religions like the tribal religions , is always to a greater or lesser degree, syncretic. Please don´t get me wrong when i use the word syncretic i have absolutely no objection against this syncretism, in my opinion it was in many ways often, not always, a considerable mutual improvement.

[philosoraptor]

No you got me wrong, what i meant is in the ancient time when shrauta dharma was the sole vedic culture, at that time, several elements of modern hinduism were missing, because of that my proposal is, that Hinduism, in contrast to early vedic dharma and pure non-vedic or non-sanscritized indian religions like the tribal religions , is always to a greater or lesser degree, syncretic. Please don´t get me wrong when i use the word syncretic i have absolutely no objection against this syncretism, in my opinion it was in many ways often, not always, a considerable mutual improvement.

No, I got you right. You were trying to argue that there was no archana, no Krishna, Ganesha, Shiva, etc in the early Vedic tradition, and as evidence you gave the example of the Nambhoothiri community. But the Nambhoothiri community does participate in all of those things, which refutes your position. You can argue that their endorsement of these practices is a "later" adaptation, but you have no evidence. Once again, you are just stating your opinions as if they are obvious facts.