Defining Hindu

[shiv.somashekhar]

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

Good point. This also makes it harder to find a definition that would work for people who adopt Hinduism. What would be the minimum criteria? For reasons stated earlier on this thread and elsewhere, I cannot accept that swearing allegiance to the Veda is the criteria. It is not as simple as that and I believe we will doing injustice to some Hindu groups by taking that position.

[Omkara]

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.

Yes, the shaiva agamas accept the authority of the vedas-
na vedaH praNavaM tyaktvA mantro vedasamanvitaH tasmAdvedaparo mantro vedA~NgashchAgamaH smR^itaH |

[shiv.somashekhar]

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.

Since you bring in scripture, can you extend this to cover the case of Arya samaj, etc., who accept part of the Veda and reject the rest?

[wundermonk]

It is not as simple as that and I believe we will doing injustice to some Hindu groups by taking that position.

Which are these "some Hindu groups", specifically, and what exactly is your purpose in wishing to take their side in this exchange?

I ask again, do you have an ax to grind against some Hindus/some aspects of Hinduism?

[philosoraptor]

Good point. This also makes it harder to find a definition that would work for people who adopt Hinduism. What would be the minimum criteria? For reasons stated earlier on this thread and elsewhere, I cannot accept that swearing allegiance to the Veda is the criteria. It is not as simple as that and I believe we will doing injustice to some Hindu groups by taking that position.

I think no matter what, it is going to be very difficult to find a definition of "Hinduism" that works well in all instances. Still, I would argue that having some good working definitions is useful when we have interreligious dialogue. Also, I don't think it's an issue of "swearing allegiance" so much as an attitude of reverence, however reasoned or unsubstantiated it may be, to the position and authority of the Veda. I say this because, in my opinion, most people who acknowledge the Veda's importance are really following smritis which themselves claim to be based on Vedic authority. But this is fine as far as I am concerned.

I think your question about the early Lingayats is a good one, though. I don't know enough to say - did they explicitly reject the authority of the Vedas, or is it more like the way Jiva Gosvami downplayed the study of the Vedas in favor of studying other scriptures based on the Vedas?

[philosoraptor]

Since you bring in scripture, can you extend this to cover the case of Arya samaj, etc., who accept part of the Veda and reject the rest?

Yes, I would call them Hindus, but Neo-Hindu Hindus :-)

[shiv.somashekhar]

Yes, the shaiva agamas accept the authority of the vedas-
na vedaH praNavaM tyaktvA mantro vedasamanvitaH tasmAdvedaparo mantro vedA~NgashchAgamaH smR^itaH |

It is my understanding that the Lingayats only accept Basavanna's vachanas as scripture.

Do they accept any other scripture?

[MahaHrada]

All these definitions do not really work, buddhism usually is excluded from being accepted as a valid darshana except that there are exceptions for instance in Shri Kula tantra one of the several heaps of darshanas that are worshipped around tripura in the yantra is the bauddha darshana. Similarly in Nath sampradaya Buddha is accepted as a Siddha and several important siddhas practised buddhist tantric deities, for instance people like Kanhapa and Virupa and many more. But both sects Sri kula tantra and Nath siddhas are certainly hindu. The same siddha Virupa appears in the list of gurus of the Hatha Yoga Pradipika and in the List of the buddhist Hevajra Tantras. Now is Virupa a Hindu or not?

[Omkara]

It is my understanding that the Lingayats only accept Basavanna's vachanas as scripture.

Do they accept any other scripture?

The Shaiva Agamas, which makes them hindu as per my definition.

Most of them have also accepted the vedas in the centuries after Basava's death.

And all of them accepted karma, reincarnation etc. in the centuries after the departure of the sect's founders.

[shiv.somashekhar]

I think no matter what, it is going to be very difficult to find a definition of "Hinduism" that works well in all instances. Still, I would argue that having some good working definitions is useful when we have interreligious dialogue. Also, I don't think it's an issue of "swearing allegiance" so much as an attitude of reverence, however reasoned or unsubstantiated it may be, to the position and authority of the Veda. I say this because, in my opinion, most people who acknowledge the Veda's importance are really following smritis which themselves claim to be based on Vedic authority. But this is fine as far as I am concerned.

The reason I hesitate to bring in scripture is because I do not want to define Hindu in a way that discounts some groups. As I am from KA, I am familiar with Lingayats. Similarly, there may be other groups across the country who have their own peculiar beliefs and I do not want to make assumptions about them. For instance, we have Naga Babas with their own beliefs and I do not know enough about them.

I think your question about the early Lingayats is a good one, though. I don't know enough to say - did they explicitly reject the authority of the Vedas, or is it more like the way Jiva Gosvami downplayed the study of the Vedas in favor of studying other scriptures based on the Vedas?

As I understand, Basava rebelled against the social order of his time, because shudras were being oppressed. Consequently, he created a new order without a hierarchy and with Shiva as the deity. He rejected varnashrama and his vachanas became their only scripture. I have attended a couple of their weddings and they have their own Lingayat priests.