Definition of a Hindu

[wundermonk]

Hello everyone:

I think many people come to HDF because they want to learn more about Hinduism, etc. We usually end up arguing whether their beliefs are part of Hinduism or not. Then to justify each of our positions, some of us post some verses from the Vedas/BG/Puranas. Then some others of us contest that translation, etc.

So, let us try to evolve a consensus whether we here on HDF can answer the question - Who is a Hindu?

In the tradition of Hindu philosophy, a definition should neither be too strict nor too under extensive. But I think it is a good idea if we are able begin with under extension, rather than strictness. It is easier to add than to subtract when working with definitions.

So, with that in mind, here is my definition of a Hindu.

You are a Hindu if you believe:

(1)The universe has been eternally existing. Thus, there is no creatio ex nihilo.
(2)Souls/Selves have also been eternally existing.
(3)Souls have beginningless [i.e. uncreated] Karma.
(4)You believe in multiple reincarnation - i.e. the self, with past/present tendencies, obtains a new body in the next life on this planet or elsewhere until all Karma is exhausted.

Thoughts on the definition?

[Aakriti]

(3)Souls have beginningless [i.e. uncreated] Karma.

I don't understand this.

It has always been my understanding that karma is the result of "action" (whether that "action" be thought, emotion, physical action, etc.).

Am I wrong in my understanding?

And if I am wrong in what I have thought up to now, what would beginningless [i.e. uncreated] karma actually be?

I would greatly appreciate feedback.

Thank you.

[wundermonk]

@Aakriti:

What I mean by beginningless is that at no point in time did our Karma NOT exist. [usage of double negative there but hope you can understand it.]

You are right. We are the makers of our Karma but it is more like a flow rather than creatio ex nihilo.

More importantly, it is also tied in with the fact that there is no first creation a Hindu believes in. It is only when a first creation is posited that one has to explain the "beginning" of Karma. Absent a first creation, Karma, universe, souls, God, etc. are beginningless.

[Seeker]

I operate by a simple definition.

If one believes in karma, reincarnation and moksha , then that person is a Hindu.

The effect & interplay among these three and the way to attain moksha can vary depending on the path you have chosen.

[devotee]

I operate by a simple definition.

If one believes in karma, reincarnation and moksha , then that person is a Hindu.

The effect & interplay among these three and the way to attain moksha can vary depending on the path you have chosen.

Why not a Buddhist, a Jain or a Sikh ?

OM

[wundermonk]

If one believes in karma, reincarnation and moksha , then that person is a Hindu.

It may require some additional clarification.

Firstly, you need to define the exact meanings of karma, reincarnation and moksha. Those terms are used within Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism also, I guess. Hindus are probably ok accepting Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism as a part of Hinduism, but Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs may protest.

Secondly, what is your definition of reincarnation and how does that exclude resurrection as thought of by Abrahamics?

Note to Abrahamics...Please leave this thread alone. This is a discussion amongst those who call themselves Hindus. Just because I mentioned resurrection, dont feel the urge to try some proselytization here. Take that stuff to the uneducated. Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

[Aakriti]

@Aakriti:

What I mean by beginningless is that at no point in time did our Karma NOT exist. [usage of double negative there but hope you can understand it.]

You are right. We are the makers of our Karma but it is more like a flow rather than creatio ex nihilo.

More importantly, it is also tied in with the fact that there is no first creation a Hindu believes in. It is only when a first creation is posited that one has to explain the "beginning" of Karma. Absent a first creation, Karma, universe, souls, God, etc. are beginningless.

Thank you for the thoughtful answer.

I'm going to have to think about this, because we're obviously in territory I've never considered before.

Your response is muchly appreciated.

[Seeker]

It may require some additional clarification.

Firstly, you need to define the exact meanings of karma, reincarnation and moksha. Those terms are used within Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism also, I guess. Hindus are probably ok accepting Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism as a part of Hinduism, but Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs may protest.

Secondly, what is your definition of reincarnation and how does that exclude resurrection as thought of by Abrahamics?

Note to Abrahamics...Please leave this thread alone. This is a discussion amongst those who call themselves Hindus. Just because I mentioned resurrection, dont feel the urge to try some proselytization here. Take that stuff to the uneducated. Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

I am trying to answer Devotee Ji also.

Frankly I dont know mush about Sikhism , though I have family members married to sikhs

My understanding of Buddhism is that they believe in nirvana as the end state , which roughly equates as 'nothingness'. Moksha is merging into the Infinite.there is considerable difference between these two.

Abrahamic resurrection is not the same deal as reincarnation. It is a one time deal , not a potential cyclical birth and death.

Again , if any of you can enlighten me by pointing my errors, I am willing to learn.

[wundermonk]

Abrahamic resurrection is not the same deal as reincarnation. It is a one time deal , not a potential cyclical birth and death.

Indeed! I agree.

[devotee]

Namaste Seeker,

My understanding of Buddhism is that they believe in nirvana as the end state , which roughly equates as 'nothingness'. Moksha is merging into the Infinite.there is considerable difference between these two.

Actually, "nothingness" is not really "nothingness" if you read the entire doctrine of MahAyAn Buddhism. But it is ok if you like to see it that way. What I want to say, that many Hindus, including me, don't find much difference except the difference in words used.

It is difficult to define Hinduism. Whatever WM has suggested applies only to the Astika part and not the Nastika part of Hinduism. NAstikas like ChArvAks don't believe in the authority of the VedAs and they don't believe in after-death reality.

Again, if we believe in MAdhava's eternal hell theory or the theory that some Jeevas won't ever be liberated, then Moksha theory and Karma theory also fails. Hindus have many contradicting paths and yet they are Hindus :

a) Some believe Vishnu is supreme, some say it is Shiva who is Supreme
b) Astika Hindus believe in the authority of the VedAs but NAstikas don't
c) Vaishnavas and Shaivas are vegetarians but the ShAktas are non-vegetarians except some sub-sects within ShAktas
d) Some worship God in form and name whereas some believe in formless indescribable Brahman
e) Some consider Jesus Christ an incarnation of God or at least an enlightened being but some deny it
f) Some Hindus have no issues with going to MazArs of Muslims and praying, offering ChAdars etc. but some won't do it
g) Many Hindus believe that all religions lead to the same destination and respect all religions but some deny it
h) Many sects believe that Sex and indulgence to other sensual acts should be avoided for higher spiritual aspirations but some sects like VAmMArga believe the Ultimate may be attained through a path which allows Sex, eating meat and drinking alcohol
i) Most Hindus avoid cremation ground and anything related with a dead body as impure for worship ... some do their sAdhanA only in cremation ground with a dead body in front of them

etc. etc. etc.

So, what is the definition of a Hindu ?

OM