Difference between Hinduism and Sanatan Dharma?

[ronki23]

I was told that Hinduism is a Persian word to describe the people of the Indus Valley and that Sanatan Dharma is a more accurate term. However, I see Arya Samaj, Radha Soamis, Radha Krishnas and Hare Krishna are not Sanatan Dharma but other schools of Hinduism.

I have also read that Hinduism is defined by the Vedas but wikipedia says this about other Dharmic religions

Schools that do not accept the authority of the Vedas are nāstika philosophies, of which four nāstika (heterodox) schools are prominent:[4]

1. Cārvāka, a materialism school that accepted free will exists[24][25]
2. Ājīvika, a materialism school that denied free will exists[26][27]
3. Buddhism, a philosophy that denies existence of ātman (soul, self)[28] and is based on the teachings and enlightenment of Gautama Buddha
4. Jainism, a philosophy that accepts the existence of the ātman (soul, self), and is based on the teachings and enlightenment of twenty-four teachers known astirthankaras, with Rishabha as the first and Mahavira as the twenty-fourth[29]

Sikhism and Zoroastrianism also do not consider themselves Hinduism but are considered to be a branch of it even though the Sikhs say

"One may read all the books of the Vedas, the Smritis and the Shaastras, but they alone will not bring liberation."

"Beings like Hanuman and Garuda, Indra and Brahma know not, O God Your attributes. The four Vedas, Simritis and Purans, Vishnu and Laksmi know them not. Says Kabir, whoever touches God's feet and seeks Divine shelter shall not wander in reincarnations."

Zoroastrians had/have Indra in their beliefs but are too considered in the Hindu family

So what is the difference between Sanatan Dharma and other Hindu schools of thoughts and if Hinduism is a term for Indo-Aryan/Indo-Persian religions then Sikhism, Jainism and Buddhism are technically Hindus no?

 

[Aupmanyav]

No, Zoroastrians, Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists are not technically Hindus, though the similarities are many. Zoroastrians changed to monotheism as against Aryan polytheism. IMHO, Jains and Buddhists forked out because of Brahmanism. Sikhs forked out with the influence of Islam. The rest, if they say they are Hindus, are Hindus. Making anyone an avatara of Vishnu, Shiva or Brahma, makes them heretics.

 

[ronki23]

No, Zoroastrians, Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists are not technically Hindus, though the similarities are many. Zoroastrians changed to monotheism as against Aryan polytheism. IMHO, Jains and Buddhists forked out because of Brahmanism. Sikhs forked out with the influence of Islam. The rest, if they say they are Hindus, are Hindus. Making anyone an avatara of Vishnu, Shiva or Brahma, makes them heretics.

But Buddha is considered by some to be an avatar of Vishnu, and many Jains visit Hindu Mandir. Not to mention you yourself said earlier that Sikhism is not a Nastika/ non Vedic school as Nastika means atheist.

I recall some saying Guru Gobind Singh is a descendant of Luv and Kush (Rama's sons)

Also, isn't Shirdi Sai Baba an avatar of Vishnu? Although he was a Muslim and partook in Namaz so do not know why Hindus revere him more than Muslims

 

[Kirran]

No, Zoroastrians, Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists are not technically Hindus, though the similarities are many. Zoroastrians changed to monotheism as against Aryan polytheism. IMHO, Jains and Buddhists forked out because of Brahmanism. Sikhs forked out with the influence of Islam. The rest, if they say they are Hindus, are Hindus. Making anyone an avatara of Vishnu, Shiva or Brahma, makes them heretics.

In the opinion of Aup. I would disagree, as would those worshipping such figures.

I know you object to the worship of the Sai Babas.

 

[kalyan]

But Buddha is considered by some to be an avatar of Vishnu, and many Jains visit Hindu Mandir. Not to mention you yourself said earlier that Sikhism is not a Nastika/ non Vedic school as Nastika means atheist.

I recall some saying Guru Gobind Singh is a descendant of Luv and Kush (Rama's sons)

Also, isn't Shirdi Sai Baba an avatar of Vishnu? Although he was a Muslim and partook in Namaz so do not know why Hindus revere him more than Muslims

Shirdi sai baba is a charlatan and he is NOT a god or even spiritual guide..He used yo eat non-veg food and used to curse people in urdu around him...He finally died of fever and was buried in a temple.

Vaidikas/ Vedics never worship a dead body as it is seat of pretas or evil forces..Those who pray to that baba dead body will reach that kind of lowly places only. Sai baba is a cult introduced by 3 marathis to milk money grom stoopid 'hindus'....Stoopid hindus forgetting the vedic gods are worshipping these recently created phenomenon.

 

[ronki23]

Shirdi sai baba is a charlatan and he is NOT a god or even spiritual guide..He used yo eat non-veg food and used to curse people in urdu around him...He finally died of fever and was buried in a temple.

Vaidikas/ Vedics never worship a dead body as it is seat of pretas or evil forces..Those who pray to that baba dead body will reach that kind of lowly places only. Sai baba is a cult introduced by 3 marathis to milk money grom stoopid 'hindus'....Stoopid hindus forgetting the vedic gods are worshipping these recently created phenomenon.

Rama ate meat, Buddha ate meat, some Sikh gurus ate meat and animal sacrifices in Hinduism still exist

 

[kalyan]

Rama ate meat, Buddha ate meat, some Sikh gurus ate meat and animal sacrifices in Hinduism still exist

i am not sure about your claims..... The Kshatriyas if am not wrong it is permissible for them, Gautama was a Kshatriya and later he became well Buddha and lets see what he preached after he was enlightened, which is absolute NON-Violence even to an insect...... Is Baba a Kshatriya ?

As for your OP, 'Hindu' is a derogatory term which is parsi as you said and as per Persian dictionary titled Lughet-e-Kishwari, published in Lucknow in 1964, gives the meaning of the word Hindu as “chore [thief], dakoo [dacoit], raahzan [waylayer], and ghulam [slave].” In another dictionary, Urdu-Feroze-ul-Laghat (Part One, p. 615) the Persian meaning of the word Hindu is further described as barda (obedient servant), sia faam (black color) and kaalaa (black). So these are all derogatory expressions for the translation of the term hindu in the Persian label of the people of India.

Many people of Bharat opine that 'hindu' came from 'sindhu' where s is replaced by h which is absurd... If people living near indus or sindhu are 'hindus' then what about people living in southern or eastern parts of the country ? and depending on the river they live close to they they should be called 'Gangites' , 'Krishnites' 'Narmadites' depending on the river closest to they live in...So the logic fast fails here.......
Also not to mention by bringing in 'Indus valley' thing they can say that 'hinduism' existed from around 1500 years ago and can on go on to say that vedas must be after 1500 BC when the sanatana dharma existed from millions and millions of years...'They' in my opinion are false british historians like 'max mueller' who has every reason to do this, just like he employed stooges to corrupt the 'Brahma vaivarta purana' and 'Bhavishya Purana'

So all in all for a vedantin perspective, no one uses this word 'hindu' or 'hinduism' instead they like to be referred as 'vaidika' and follower of Sanatana Dharma/Vaidika Dharma.
The gurus and acharyas even in 1 scripture have never used this term 'hindu', that says it all !

 

[Kirran]

Well, let's be clear - when you say vedantin perspective, you mean the perspective which you respect. This is not the same thing, there are many perspectives on this matter among Vedantins. There are a lot of us.

 

[Aupmanyav]

In the opinion of Aup. I would disagree, as would those worshiping such figures.

Well, personal views.

It is not that I do not respect babas. I respect Ramana, Nisargadatta Maharaj, Swmi Shivananda, Swami Chinmayananda, Swami Chidananda, Swami Avadheshananda, Swami Adgadananda and Kripalu Maharaj for various reasons. If he was alive, I would have taken Swami Adgadananda as my guru. But I do not find anything in the made-up story of Shirdi baba to command respect.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Rama ate meat, Buddha ate meat, some Sikh gurus ate meat and animal sacrifices in Hinduism still exist

Ronki, kindly remember, Hinduism is a blue DIR. There are other forums for discussions.

 

[Aupmanyav]

As for your OP, 'Hindu' is a derogatory term which is parsi as you said and as per Persian dictionary titled Lughet-e-Kishwari, published in Lucknow in 1964, gives the meaning of the word Hindu as “chore [thief], dakoo [dacoit], raahzan [waylayer], and ghulam [slave].” In another dictionary, Urdu-Feroze-ul-Laghat (Part One, p. 615) the Persian meaning of the word Hindu is further described as barda (obedient servant), sia faam (black color) and kaalaa (black). So these are all derogatory expressions for the translation of the term hindu in the Persian label of the people of India.

No, Hindu does not mean that in Persian. You are quoting a 1964 book published from Lucknow. The person must have been a Hindu-hating Muslim, just as there are Muslim-hating Hindus. Does it mean that there are no thieves, dacoits, raahjan, bardas (obedient servants), siah faam and kala among Muslims? I remember a subordinate of my father, Gafoor Mian, a very nice person, who always greeted us with the salutation 'Ram, Ram'. Gafoor remained with us for some seven years. It is foolish religious rivalry.

 

[Aupmanyav]

But Buddha is considered by some to be an avatar of Vishnu, and many Jains visit Hindu Mandir. Not to mention you yourself said earlier that Sikhism is not a Nastika/ non Vedic school as Nastika means atheist. I recall some saying Guru Gobind Singh is a descendant of Luv and Kush (Rama's sons)

Also, isn't Shirdi Sai Baba an avatar of Vishnu? Although he was a Muslim and partook in Namaz so do not know why Hindus revere him more than Muslims

I agree to the first paragraph, disagree with the second. No use of discussing it further, discussions in some other forum. If that person was an avatara of Lord Vishnu, to whom he was offering 'namaz'?

 

[ronki23]

i am not sure about your claims..... The Kshatriyas if am not wrong it is permissible for them, Gautama was a Kshatriya and later he became well Buddha and lets see what he preached after he was enlightened, which is absolute NON-Violence even to an insect...... Is Baba a Kshatriya ?

As for your OP, 'Hindu' is a derogatory term which is parsi as you said and as per Persian dictionary titled Lughet-e-Kishwari, published in Lucknow in 1964, gives the meaning of the word Hindu as “chore [thief], dakoo [dacoit], raahzan [waylayer], and ghulam [slave].” In another dictionary, Urdu-Feroze-ul-Laghat (Part One, p. 615) the Persian meaning of the word Hindu is further described as barda (obedient servant), sia faam (black color) and kaalaa (black). So these are all derogatory expressions for the translation of the term hindu in the Persian label of the people of India.

Many people of Bharat opine that 'hindu' came from 'sindhu' where s is replaced by h which is absurd... If people living near indus or sindhu are 'hindus' then what about people living in southern or eastern parts of the country ? and depending on the river they live close to they they should be called 'Gangites' , 'Krishnites' 'Narmadites' depending on the river closest to they live in...So the logic fast fails here.......
Also not to mention by bringing in 'Indus valley' thing they can say that 'hinduism' existed from around 1500 years ago and can on go on to say that vedas must be after 1500 BC when the sanatana dharma existed from millions and millions of years...'They' in my opinion are false british historians like 'max mueller' who has every reason to do this, just like he employed stooges to corrupt the 'Brahma vaivarta purana' and 'Bhavishya Purana'

So all in all for a vedantin perspective, no one uses this word 'hindu' or 'hinduism' instead they like to be referred as 'vaidika' and follower of Sanatana Dharma/Vaidika Dharma.
The gurus and acharyas even in 1 scripture have never used this term 'hindu', that says it all !

Well, personal views.

It is not that I do not respect babas. I respect Ramana, Nisargadatta Maharaj, Swmi Shivananda, Swami Chinmayananda, Swami Chidananda, Swami Avadheshananda, Swami Adgadananda and Kripalu Maharaj for various reasons. If he was alive, I would have taken Swami Adgadananda as my guru. But I do not find anything in the made-up story of Shirdi baba to command respect.

I do not know enough about Shirdi Sai Baba but I read that he was born as a Hindu and was adopted by a Muslim family where he was brought up to follow Islam. He never told Hindus to convert to Islam and he taught both religions' followers about the path they should choose.

Guru Nanak too was born in a Hindu family but refused to partake in Hindu rituals or wear the sacred thread. Hindu Punjabis still revere the Gurus even though they too like Shirdi Sai Baba rejected Hindu rituals

And Kalyan, how can the Vedas be '1500 years ago' because that would mean they were from 515AD. They also can not be millions of years old as humans did not exist at that time. They are roughly 3000 years BCE.

What is the difference between Sanatan Dharma and 'Hinduism' as Arya Samaj does not want to be a part of Sanatan Dharma but still follows the Vedas. If Hindu is a collective term then surely Buddhism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism and Sikhism are Hindus if Hinduism never existed before the term was coined/counts as different religions. Unless Hinduism is defined by what follows Vedas then the latter religions are rightly not Hindu

 

[Aupmanyav]

We know our path and do not need any advice. You could, however, request the topic to be transferred to Islam forum.
Anyone is at liberty to reject any ritual just as other people are at liberty to continue to pursue the rituals they value.
3,000 BC, and with what evidence you arrived at this conclusion? Why are they not from 5,000 BC?
Being a part of Hinduism or not is the choice of a person or a group. It is a free world and nobody forces people to do otherwise.
I do not hold the opinion that Hinduism is defined only by Vedas.

 

[Kirran]

In agreement with Aup. Also 'Hindu rituals' is such a broad term as to be nearly meaningless. Guru Nanak chose not to participate in certain rituals, yes. But that was the way of doing things he felt was appropriate to teach to the people of that time and place, and within that lineage. Different things are helpful and unhelpful along different paths.

 

[ronki23]

In agreement with Aup. Also 'Hindu rituals' is such a broad term as to be nearly meaningless. Guru Nanak chose not to participate in certain rituals, yes. But that was the way of doing things he felt was appropriate to teach to the people of that time and place, and within that lineage. Different things are helpful and unhelpful along different paths.

We know our path and do not need any advice. You could, however, request the topic to be transferred to Islam forum.
Anyone is at liberty to reject any ritual just as other people are at liberty to continue to pursue the rituals they value.
3,000 BC, and with what evidence you arrived at this conclusion? Why are they not from 5,000 BC?
Being a part of Hinduism or not is the choice of a person or a group. It is a free world and nobody forces people to do otherwise.
I do not hold the opinion that Hinduism is defined only by Vedas.

I was looking for these quotes from Sri Guru Granth Sahib

'We are neither Hindus nor Muslims' (p. 1136)

'Muslims and Hindus have different paths' (Bhai Gurdas)

so the Sikh community also coined the term Hindu to refer to the non Muslims of India

I also stumbled across this quote from Sri M

I am neither a Muslim nor a Hindu, I’m just a human being -

http://indianexpress.com/article/in...n-hindu-scriptures-this-yogi-is-going-places/

Hence I see little difference between Sri M and Shirdi Sai Baba's beliefs

Not to mention the Hare Krishnas reject the term Hindu so are they separate from Sanatan Dharma

 

[Kirran]

Sikhs did not coin the term Hindu, it was pre-existent. It is true, we are neither Hindu nor Muslim, just as Jesus said there is neither Jew nor Gentile. This is about the unity of all peoples, no problem, no contradiction. Muslims and Hindus are indeed travelling a different set of paths.

As for ISKCON, I believe opinions on that matter are currently rather mixed.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I am neither a Muslim nor a Hindu, I’m just a human being -

Did anyone say that they have problems with your belief? You have your beliefs, others may have their own.

It is true, we are neither Hindu nor Muslim, ..

Of course, not. I am a Hindu in Vyavaharika and a staunch one at that. 'I' do not exist in Paramarthika.

 

[ronki23]

Did anyone say that they have problems with your belief? You have your beliefs, others may have their own.Of course, not. I am a Hindu in Vyavaharika and a staunch one at that. 'I' do not exist in Paramarthika.

I did not say that, Sri M did so. And Shirdi Sai Baba's message was very similar; he taught the Geeta to Hindus and Qu'ran to Muslims. Why Hindus revere him as a holy man beats me though.

By the way, what are non-Sanatan branches of 'Hinduism'? Arya Samaj is one but others? What's your view on ISKCON as they don't like to be considered as 'mainstream' Hindus (at a Rath-Yatra in London they were pushing and shoving each other out of the way for Prasad and literally the prasad crumbled from their infighting; hence i'm not too keen on ISKCON)

 

[Chakra]

The question, in my opinion, is unanswerable. Just because Arya Samaj and ISKCON say they are not Hindus, does it mean that they really aren't Hindus? Besides the mindless universalism of ISKCON, how do they differ from traditional Hindu Vaishnava sects like Madhva and Sri Vaishnavism? Gaudiya Vaishnavism itself is a traditional Hindu sect. Arya Samaj follows Vedas, which is an authentic Hindu text. Whether ISKCON or Arya Samaj like it or not, they are Hindus.

If there is any distinction, then in my opinion it would be that Sanatana Dharma refers to the religion of the Vedas and ancillary texts like Upanishads, Brahmanas, Itihasas, Puranas, Pancharatra agamas, etc, whereas Hinduism refers to all the Indian religions and sects that is not Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, or any other organized religion. I don't know man, it's complicated.