Defining Hindu - Part 2

[Omkara]

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.

This argument is disingenuous because what is being proposed as a definition is acceptance of these texts, not complete adherence to them. Just because, for example, Aiyyappa or Aiyyanar worship does not find place in the vedas or the agamas, does not mean that people following these practises would not be hindu if Hinduism is defined on the basis of these texts.

Many Christians do not beleive that non-Christians will go to hell, but this does not mean that it is not a tenet of the religion of Christianity. Many muslims worship sufi saints, but this does not change the fact that worship of humans is a sin as per Islam. 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. 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.

Everytime a Hindu goes to a temple and performs worship according to the procedures laid down in the agamas, every time a hindu performs a house warming ceremony, a wedding or a naming ceremony using mantras from the vedas and agamas, he/she is accepting the authority of those texts to regulate his behaviour.

[philosoraptor]

Precisely. And that is why I suggested theoretical acceptance of the authority of the Vedas, or acceptance of some smRiti which claims authority derived form the Vedas, rather than actual adherence to the Vedas.

Because, if we defined Hindu as those who actually understand and follow the Vedas, then only followers of Sri Ramanuja would be Hindus. ;-)

[Sahasranama]

There is not one sect that fully represents the totality of Veda. Parts of the Veda have been represented by different Hindus all over India and abroad. The mistake made by indologists is to look for a type of pristine and pure Vedic religion untouched by so called non-Vedic influences, be it shramanic, puranic or agamic. This is a fairy tale idealisation of the Veda that obsesses both indologists and reformists. This is Hinduism conceived in a laboratory, not real life Hinduism.

There are parts of the Vedas that are associated with Shiva worship. There are parts of the Veda that are associated with Vishnu worship. There are parts of the Veda dealing with the yajnas only patronised by a Chakravartin Samrat and parts that were associated with the rites for the average person. There are parts of Veda that deal with (black) magic. There are parts of Veda that deal with healing. There are parts that deal with warfare and material life. There are parts that deal with yoga, tapasya and jnana. There are also many parts of the Veda we do not know about, because they have been lost. We should recognise that Hinduism has preserved many of these aspects and that there is not one belief or practice we can pinpoint as the only true representation of Vedic Dharma.

[philosoraptor]

The gItA reconciles these apparent contradictions by stating "trai-guṇya-viṣayā vedā" (gItA 2.45). Much of its material has fruitive results as the apparent goal, but this does not deny the deeper purpose of understanding and attaining Brahman. Even rituals promising temporary, heavenly awards for their performance involve at least indirect worship of Brahman. Black-magic rituals may seem anathema to those situated in goodness, but they did serve the purpose of inducing faith in the veda among those who were too tamAsic to approach them otherwise. This could then transform into an interest in vedAnta with time and wisdom.

There is an underlying unity in purpose despite a diversity of interests which the veda caters to. The problem in academia is that indologists are not allowed to acknowledge that unity, since it represents a major paradigm shift from the more "politically-correct" theories upheld by veteran indologists.

[ShivaFan]

There is not one sect that fully represents the totality of Veda. Parts of the Veda have been represented by different Hindus all over India and abroad. The mistake made by indologists is to look for a type of pristine and pure Vedic religion untouched by so called non-Vedic influences, be it shramanic, puranic or agamic. This is a fairy tale idealisation of the Veda that obsesses both indologists and reformists. This is Hinduism conceived in a laboratory, not real life Hinduism.

There are parts of the Vedas that are associated with Shiva worship. There are parts of the Veda that are associated with Vishnu worship. There are parts of the Veda dealing with the yajnas only patronised by a Chakravartin Samrat and parts that were associated with the rites for the average person. There are parts of Veda that deal with (black) magic. There are parts of Veda that deal with healing. There are parts that deal with warfare and material life. There are parts that deal with yoga, tapasya and jnana. There are also many parts of the Veda we do not know about, because they have been lost. We should recognise that Hinduism has preserved many of these aspects and that there is not one belief or practice we can pinpoint as the only true representation of Vedic Dharma.

Namaste

This is a wise and inspiring point made by Sahas, especially for those such as myself who do not have the expertise of the Vedas such as himself, Omkara or others. I worship Hanuman inclusive of Others who are Standard Bearers of Vedic tradition. I believe in flying Monkey Divinities (as recorded in the Ramayana). But the Vedas do not mention Hanuman (albeit indirectly for those such as myself who have been taught that He is the 11th Rudra). The Agamas do not mention Flying Monkeys (albeit indirectly one can find a path via Agamas to the ability to fly). So would my belief, what I have been taught that there is Hanuman, and Flying Monkey Divinities make me a non-Hindu?

There are millions of Hindus who worship Hanuman.

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?

(excuse typos, sent from my cell phone)

Om Namah Sivaya

[Sahasranama]

So would my belief, what I have been taught that there is Hanuman, and Flying Monkey Divinities make me a non-Hindu?

No, of course not.

Hanuman is mentioned in the Itihasas, Puranas, Agamas and Tantras. Hanuman worship is definitely part of Hinduism.

[Twilightdance]

Aa sindhu sindhu paryanta, yasya bharat bhumika
pitrubhuh punyabhushchaiva sa vai hinduriti smritah

The definition provided by the great atheist Veer Savarkar stands most crisp and apt to me even now, more than when I first saw it.

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.

We can take relief that although myths of 'vedic' religion remains popular in some internet circles, it does not effect how hindus live in the present world and how they see themselves.

[savithru]

The one who lives thinking that he is Brahman and doesn't deviate is sense organs outwardly i.e. one who is antharmukh is a real Hindu.

[philosoraptor]

Going through school, I labored under the misconception that the authors of my history and science textbooks meant what they wrote. Does that make me a fundamentalist?

I guess it's a good thing we live in a society where most people don't interpret all those texbooks so literally. When Newton gives his three laws of motion, there should be room for other interpretations of what he meant.

[satay]

Namaste Singhi,
I think you have been reading too many osho books.

Stop your anti hindu propaganda on HDF.

Thanks

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.

We can take relief that although myths of 'vedic' religion remains popular in some internet circles, it does not effect how hindus live in the present world and how they see themselves.