Defining Hindu - Part 2

[Believer]

Namaste,

But if one takes a fundamentalist attitude to scriptures as many of the posters in this forum has taken, it is impossible to argue rationally.

There is room for all kinds of views, but by tagging labels on people with views different from yours, you help in effectively shutting down the debate, something that you so passionately are trying to blame others for.

People who believe in the scriptures = fundamentalists.
People who are rational and believe that the scriptures are outdated, want them totally revised or rewritten = fruitcakes.

And there ends the conversation, as battle lines are drawn between the (what you call others) fundamentalists and (what others think of you) fruitcake.

Where does that lead us? Let us move beyond labeling people who disagree with us on the value/validity/authority of scriptures!

Pranam.

[reort]

Namaste
No one thing makes you a Hindu, such as worship of Hanuman... but.. The Vedas and Agamas are a Great Cyclopedia of many specific subject matter expertise. How could it not be so? Could it be that being a Hindu is also, perhaps more so, defined by what is NOT a Hindu?
Om Namah Sivaya

Ram Ram ji
Interesting point.
What would you consider to be 'NOT' Hindu? As we all know, there are so many paths in Hinduism, it would be hard to arrive at a conclusion to this..
I think the Bhagavad Gita does say something about Dharma and Adharma, I'll have to see once.

[Seeker]

There seem to be multiply threads on the same topic - three since I joined.

It is tough to define Hindu - but I follow a simple guideline. Worship , dharma , karma , reincarnation & moksha. If one believes in these I would count them as Hindu.

Rest of the items are bells and whistles.

[shiv.somashekhar]

It is tough to define Hindu - but I follow a simple guideline. Worship , dharma , karma , reincarnation & moksha. If one believes in these I would count them as Hindu.

Just wish to point out that worship, dharma, karma, reincarnation and moksha is found among Buddhists and Jains as well. Not a problem, if you intend to include them under Hindu (the constitution of India does).

I myself concluded that anything other than the Supreme court's definition of Hindu is exclusive and hence, incorrect. That is, any other definition will leave some people out who consider themselves Hindu and that is not acceptable - regardless of my own views.

[shiv.somashekhar]

I want to express my opinion on an issue that was brought up in the old 'Defining Hindu' thread but which was not discussed adequately before the thread got derailed and locked, namely that many hindus are unaware of the theology set forth in the vedas and agamas and therefore these texts cannot be the barometer of who is a hindu.

Not to start another argument, but the claim (not by you) was that the Rig-Veda (or all of Veda) is somehow, central to Hinduism and my previous arguments were to show that is not the case. I started a thread to collect inputs on how the Veda influences day-to-day religion for a non-Brahmin Hindu and there was not a single point except for the engagement of Brahmin priests to perform ceremonies. Ceremonies are infrequent in one's life and are not the same as day-to-day activities such as visiting temples or worshipping photographs and idols at home. Festivals such as Naraka Chaturdashi and Sankranti occur a lot more frequently than ceremonies such as wedding and naming a child. Again, going deeper into the engagement of a priest, it is not because he is expected to quote Vedic mantras (not all mantras are Vedic including the classic wedding mantra of "mangalyam ..."), but simply out of tradition. It would not make the slightest difference in value to the Hindu if the priest only used non-Vedic mantras. Or to put it differently, a Vedic mantra and non-Vedic mantra are not different to the typical Hindu and he would not be interested in knowing the difference.

On temples, there is no evidence that all temples follow Vedic agamas nor that people visit temples with the prerequisite condition that the temple conforms to Agamas. In truth, that is not a factor at all. For example, do people visit the Siddi Vinayak temple because they verified that it follows agamas or because Ganapathi is a central Vedic God or simply because they believe this specific Vinakaya is powerful (more than the same Vinayaka in a much closer temple) and will grant their wishes of box-office success, etc?

This argument is disingenuous because what is being proposed as a definition is acceptance of these texts, not complete adherence to them.

What is the significance of that?

Mere acceptance or absence of rejection of scripture cannot be taken to mean that the scripture is authority or central one's religious beliefs. Many Hindus would not explicitly reject the Bible as scripture and that does not mean they are Christian. In fact, there is no shortage of Hindus who visit Dargas and Churches to pray. Salman Khan celebrates Ganesha Chaturthi every year.

If we adopt the logic that merely visiting a Hindu temple or engaging Brahmin priests for naming ceremonies of one's kids or recognition of scripture => acceptance that the Veda is central to a Hindu, then we are stretching it beyond limits. Also keep in mind that no such concept of collective Hinduism was recognized in India until just a couple of hundred years ago, which is yet another factor against the claim of a common, mandatory thread among all Hindus.

The theology pf a religion is based on the opinion of prominent saints/philosophers/theologians of that religion, not on the basis of what any random person belonging to that religion says.

This is the same position as that of Al Beruni. But he acknowledged the existence of such beliefs and that they were considerably different from that of the "educated" class. Here is the excerpt.

The beliefs of the educated and uneducated people differ in every nation. Educated Hindus believe there is one God (quotes Yoga and Sankhya). But among common Hindus, the beliefs are of a great variety. Some of them are simply abominable, but such mistakes occur in all religions.

The educated among Hindus abhor anthropomorphisms, but the common classes use them extensively. Nobody minds these classes and their theories, though they be many. The main and most essential point of the Hindu world is what the Brahmanas believe, for they are specially trained for preserving and maintaining their religion.

Besides which, if such criteria are applied, it will be impossible to classify more than a handful of people as belonging to a particular religion.

Not a problem with prophet based religions. One cannot belong to a prophet based religion without accepting him/her.

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam: I'm always curious to why non-Hindus would care about defining Hindus. Isn't that a bit like a French speaker trying to define Spanish words?

We have self-professed non-Hindus here, trying to define us. How perverse!

Sorry, I just don't get it.

Aum Namasivaya

[Believer]

Namaste,

I person born to Hindu parents is a Hindu.
A convert who believes in Hindu values and accepts the Hindu scriptures is a Hindu.
And that should be the end of it, except in some legal matters, the courts have to put down some verbiage on paper, which may or may not have any meaning, as far as practicing Hindus are concerned.

So, what was the question again?
And why are precious hours being spent on long winded posts and counter posts, when that time could be used to actually practice Hinduism?

Pranam.

[charitra]

.... person born to Hindu parents is a Hindu.
A convert who believes in Hindu values and accepts the Hindu scriptures is a Hindu. Pranam.

Agree.

"...read (hindu) scriptures and take what you want leave what you dont want........vedas and upanishads are our texts.....if you believe you are a hindu then you are a hindu......"

- Gouri Maheswari, an American hindu convert girl sums it up as to 'who is a hindu'. And that definition is what I developed for myself during my boyhood.

One has to ACCEPT the vedopanishads as one's texts of faith (along with other hindu scriptures out there) to call oneself a hindu. Watch this interesting video if time permits. Namaste.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KkZfM3aiGs

[Jodhaa]

Agree.

"...read (hindu) scriptures and take what you want leave what you dont want........vedas and upanishads are our texts.....if you believe you are a hindu then you are a hindu......"

- Gouri Maheswari, an American hindu convert girl sums it up as to 'who is a hindu'. And that definition is what I developed for myself during my boyhood.

One has to ACCEPT the vedopanishads as one's texts of faith (along with other hindu scriptures out there) to call oneself a hindu. Watch this interesting video if time permits. Namaste.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KkZfM3aiGs

Great Video, Charitra! Thank you for sharing.

[Believer]

Namaste Charitra,

Thanks for the link to the youtube video. She is an excellent spokesperson for Hinduism in US.

Pranam.