Defining Hindu

[shiv.somashekhar]

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.

[wundermonk]

Do you have an ax to grind against Hinduism/Vedas/traditional/neo Hinduism, etc?

[Omkara]

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. 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.

1.Yes, unless he/she converts to atheism/agnosticism or any other religion
2.See above
3.Only early Lingayats rejected the veda. Later lingayats accepted it. See Srikara Bhasya by Shripati Pandita, one of the most famous Lingayat Scholars. In it he accepts the authority of the Veda.If Hinduism is defined as people who accept the authority of the veda,then they are not hindus. But IMO Hindu should be defined as anyone who accepts the vedas/and or any set of agamas in which case veerashaivas are hindus since they accept tge shaiva agamas.
5.No in both cases
6.Incorrect, though I beleive Sikhs started out as Hindus because the guru granth sahib contains numerous verses in praise of the vedas and hindu gods. However they do not consider themselves Hindus any longer so they are not hindus.

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam: Personally, I think you have to practice it (what is generally considered to be a Hindu practice) to some degree, even if its small. In other words, if you are totally non-practising, non-believing, yet born as a Hindu, then you are no longer a Hindu. This might be rare.

But this will be another lively discussion. For some, I will never ever be a Hindu. But hey that's life.

Aum Namasivaya

[shiv.somashekhar]

1.Yes, unless he/she converts to atheism/agnosticism or any other religion
2.See above
3.Only early Lingayats rejected the veda. Later lingayats accepted it. See Srikara Bhasya by Shripati Pandita, one of the most famous Lingayat Scholars. In it he accepts the authority of the Veda.If Hinduism is defined as people who accept the authority of the veda,then they are not hindus. But IMO Hindu should be defined as anyone who accepts the vedas/and or any set of agamas in which case veerashaivas are hindus since they accept tge shaiva agamas.
5.No in both cases
6.Incorrect, though I beleive Sikhs started out as Hindus because the guru granth sahib contains numerous verses in praise of the vedas and hindu gods. However they do not cobsider themselves Hindus any longer so they are not hindus.

Thanks. Now can you construct a definition of Hindu that covers all these cases (and any other you can think of)?

My definition runs as follows -

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)

I am unclear about the agnost and atheist. If the atheist gets married, I believe the marriage is registered under the Hindu marriage act and so, it is tricky to find a clear definition for this case. More corner cases may show up on this thread too.

[philosoraptor]

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

It's like asking, "does a person born into a family of Jews automatically become a Jew?" The answer is yes, if you take terms like "Jew" or "Hindu" as being ethnic or cultural terms, as many people do. If you define "Hindu" along theological grounds, i.e. those who at least theoretically accept the authority of the Vedas, then obviously the answer is different.

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.

Interesting question and answer by Omkar. I will defer to him on that subject. But Omkar, correct me if I'm wrong, but don't even the Shaiva Agamas claim to be derived from Vedic authority? Because if they do, then I would be inclined to call even early Lingayats who accepted these Agamas as Hindu, based on the working definition I gave previously.

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?

I don't know enough about their views to say. I would think that if they explicitly objected to the authority of the Vedas, then it is not really useful to call them as Hindus.

Recent politicians like Karunanidhi, etc., are outspoken atheists. Are they Hindus?

I would tend to think not. Then again, I know Indians who were born as Hindus, but atheists by conviction, who still come to temples and teach languages to children. So, culturally they are Hindus, but not Hindus according to any meaningful, theological sense.

5. Can one be an agnost Hindu?

I don't see how, except as mentioned above. Again, this is assuming that "Hindu" is taken not merely as a cultural term but as an umbrella term encompassing all groups who at least theoretically respect the authority of Veda.

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

It is incorrect. Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs don't base their religion on Veda, and in some cases explicitly object to the authority of the Veda. More to the point, these groups generally don't identify themselves as Hindus, and I think we should respect that. There are historical reasons also why this is desireable, i.e. the astika/nAstika divide, for instance.

[Eastern Mind]

B) You were not born a Hindu, but consider yourself one due to one or more of your religious beliefs (whatever they may be)

Vannakkam: I have disagreed in the past with some people who claimed or considered themselves to be Hindus, when I thought they were better described as universalists. Anybody can say or consider themselves a Hindu. I can say I'm intelligent. Does that make me intelligent?

In particular, the various offshoots of Yogananda, amongst others, fit this category. But on a deeper scale, none of this matters.

Aum Namasivaya

[Omkara]

A hindu is any person who accepts the authority of the vedas and/or the agamas and worships deities described in these texts in the manber prescribed by them. Any hindu practise tribal, rural,urban etc. falls under this. From fasts to housewarming ceremonies to marriages to rules for the construction of temples, the agamas provide instructions for everything. Simply by going to a temple and praying to any deity you are following the instructions of the agamas.

[shiv.somashekhar]

If it helps, this is from britannica -

Lingayat, also called Virashaiva, member of a Hindu sect with a wide following in southern India that worships Shiva as the only deity

The Lingayats’ earlier overthrow of caste distinctions has been modified in modern times, but the sect continues to be strongly anti-Brahmanical and opposed to worship of any image other than the lingam. In their rejection of the authority of the Vedas, the doctrine of transmigration of souls, child marriage, and ill treatment of widows, they anticipated much of the viewpoint of the social reform movements of the 19th century.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...42355/Lingayat

[Sahasranama]

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?

Sankhya originally was not atheistic, nirishvara vada in sankhya is a later development. There is evidence for this in the Mahabharata, Srimad Bhagavatam and the Pancaratra Agamas. But even astika atheism cannot be compared to modern atheist scepticism, because belief in the efficacy of yajnas, devas, supernatural laws, yoga, atma, rebirth and other Vedic concepts were still held among astika nirishvaravadis. For these reasons I would classify even the later atheist sankhyas and mimamsakas as Hindu. Clearly, the lokayata or Charvakins who were complete skeptics about every religious matter cannot be considered Hindu.